Laserfiche WebLink
Conservation Commission <br /> September 20,. 1990 <br /> Page 5. <br /> Mr. Zeppenfeld asked the Commission to close up to 1377 pending a definitive <br /> landscape plan. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if the definitive land plan is part of thisNotice of Innen <br /> and was told it is. He stated the Commission could not close but, in principle, <br /> could"give an opinion of the driveway layout. <br /> Mr. Grot ke stated a defin3 Live vote of the Commission that they agree with the <br /> positioning of the current proposed roadway and agreement to footprints as ire= <br /> dicated on the plan is requested to allow them with confidence to pursue the <br /> design in detail. <br /> Mrs. Simmons stated the footprints have not been discussed. <br /> Mr. Sherman advised they were addressed in a general sense at the ori-site Sunday. <br /> The Commission could accept it and condition that any change in the footprint <br /> would necessitate an amended order or now Notice of Intent on the part of the <br /> owner of the lot. <br /> Mr. Coffey stated for the scope of the project- there should be -some flexibility, <br /> There is less latitude, if any, with the northernmost two lots and the building <br /> in the coastal dune, bank on- Deans Pond, no footprint change is acceptable. He <br /> is comfortable with a finite maxu.q1m amount of square footage which'ray not change. <br /> He would like to flag the two northernmost los and the one in the coastal bank. <br /> He stated agreement-, with the project proposed to and including the new prop-- <br /> . - <br /> sed &iveway: <br /> Mrs. Simmons and lair. Sherman concurred with the Chairman's statements. <br /> Mr. Homeyer asked how the Commission would know if the size of the footprint is <br /> changed and was told each individual lot will have it's definitive footprint. <br /> The Chairman asked if they would be willing to write up a proposed Order of <br /> Conditions 'addressing construction sequence, etc. , on each individual lot and <br /> Mir. Crotke agreed. <br /> Ir. Sherman stated, as they are beyond the scope of an mended order, there <br /> should be a new filing, under the same DEP number, on the two northernmost <br /> lots. Mr. Humphries agreed and suggested a revised Notice f Intent with a <br /> new submission of fees. <br /> NOTICES CONTINUED TO OCTOBER , 1990 - 9:00 .m., IMM NOT CLOSED AT THAT <br /> EEARIM WILL BE C NTINUED.-. <br /> Noted:.ed:. Frank Homeyer was present at the August 9, 1990 hearing. His name was <br /> omitted incorrectly. <br /> 8:45 ROBERT B. CHAMBERS, 118 Old Brickyard load, to add ten yards of fill <br /> and sod and shrubs to correct land erosion; repair of steps from top of hill <br /> to beach; addition of deck to existing dwelling, A previous permit under <br /> S -262 expired after several extensions; this was. four a deep. <br /> Mr. Sherman advised there is an existing railroad tie wall in the water and <br /> an existing lawn. They propose to leave 2- " below the wall.. The plan shows <br /> 4-5' wide strip between the wall and lawn to be planted with blueberry, <br /> cotton easter and some 2-3' evergreen shrubs. He did not feel there would <br /> be runoff because of the wall, <br /> Mr, Chambers advised there is a hill 15 feet from the house and he proposes <br /> to put one railroad tie there. Blue stone or flagstone will be placed for <br />