Laserfiche WebLink
' Conservation Commission <br /> August 23, 1990 <br /> Page 3. <br /> Due to the steepness, they are proposing paving an area with cobblestones for <br /> gripping purposes. All the other paving will be crushed stone or shell. They <br /> are trying to get a roadway in without looking like a roadway. Stripes shown on <br /> the plan will be cobblestone for a decorative element. There is no problem getting <br /> the roadway in for the first five lots; from the center to the northerly end presents <br /> problem. Hence, they do have to build a wall on the bank fronting Shore Drive, <br /> Mrs. Simmons asked if there were four walls and was told it is one continuous gall. <br /> It will be driven down and filled, but not cut in. It will require vegetation <br /> removal to accomplish. <br /> Mr. Coffer asked if where the middle cottage has the tightest constriction to the <br /> back and is being extensively rebuilt, would the site design allow them to pull <br /> back from the inward bank and reconstruct the footprint further seaward? <br /> Mr. Abrahamson agreed that It could. <br /> Mrs. Simmons asked to be provided With extensive overlays showing the existing <br /> footprint and asked where the extended footprints are located? Mr. Abrahamson <br /> advised they have not been designed yet. she asked what area they are proposing <br /> that the om fission consider as a footprint. <br /> Mr. Grotzke had in mind that a building could expand to a certain square footage <br /> but be held back 6 feet from the fence line and not further back than the back <br /> hedge, <br /> Mrs. Sons stated., with the extensive reconstruction, it would help to see the top <br /> of the coastal bank with regard to the existing footprint and existing driveway in <br /> glass sheet that can be removed with'the existing septics and where septics are <br /> going to 'go in order to see how each one is going to be altered* <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if the top of the bank on Dean ts Pond side was shown and was told <br /> it was not specifically shown. He stated he would be more comfortable with the top <br /> of the bank shown. Mr. Zeppenfel.d will provide a plan with the coastal bank shown <br /> in relation to alterations. <br /> Mr. Coffey stated conceptually more information is needed to show what is proposed. <br /> If the middle cottage is the nearest point, he suggested some sequence that the <br /> parking go in afterwards and on the other side of the road; other alternatives <br /> should be considered before coming back before the Commission. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated whether overlays, col.ori ation, or whatever, is it not necessary <br /> to have a plan that shows the top of the bank in relation to the retaining walls <br /> and other changes? This was agreed. <br /> Mrs. Sons stated she would like to see why the existing road cannot be used and <br /> why it is necessary to brew into the bank, even if only going in one direction <br /> down Shore Drive; she asked for this to be addressed. <br /> Mr. Homeyer pointed out they are going to fill in 42 feet to the wall and was told <br /> it is 30 feet, the road is 12 feet wide, <br /> Mr Sherman asked if when showing the top of the bank they will be using the new <br /> formula? Mr. Himphries stated fires, they are looking at a slope better than 4 to 1. <br /> Mr. Abrahamson advised the area towards Shore Drive will be revegetated, existing <br /> driveways wi11 be removed and the areas revegetated with .indigenous species, <br /> Thirty seven trees, mostly pines, will be removed from behind the cottages and will <br /> be replaced within the new parking area with all native materials. The only <br /> exception would be the privet hedges, <br />