05/03/1990 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

` F 1 Conservation Commission May 3, 1990 Page 5. Mr. Grotzke asked if the commission would prefer a track vehicle over rubber tired.? 1r. Coffey asked him to get back to the commission on that. Question ofcompaction was raised,, Ms Behrman asked if footprints of all existing structures will remain the sane and was told they will . I . Burns asked if there will be porches on the front and Mr, Grotzke stated that was not decided. Ms. Behrman stated she would be hesitant, especially with some on top of the sound. It was noted #1366 with two systems and #1368 with one system are two bedroom units. s .Behrn suggested siltation screens should be used behind the haybals. not trenched, on the shore Drive side, as well as the n antuket sound side. Mr, Sherman suggested the Commission view #1377 and #1378 due to the sensitive nature. CONTINUED To MAY 31 , .1990 - 7:00 - 7:30 p x. 7:30 BRADATE CO, , Lot 80 Noisy Hole Road, Continued hearing. WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE AT THE REQUEST of THE APPLICANT. 7:45 BRAD ATE CO., - LOT 1 Noisy Hole Road, Continued hearing. WITHDRAWNWITHOUT PREJUDICE AT THE REQUEST of THE APPLICANT. oo ALFRED BAFARO, Lot 64 samoset Road, Continued hearing. Patrick Coffey and Louise Behrman stood -down for this hearing. William Hendry cave the abutter notification receipts. Gary Nichols, an attorney for Dir. Cushner, an abutter, advised Boasrd of Appeals approval is in the process of being appealed. The Commission Cannot act on this until resolved with the Board of Appeals. It is the position of the abutter that it is premature to hold this hearing. Mrs. Simmons advised the Commission can hold the hearing but would be unable to Close the hearing. 1r•. HenChy advised this is a new filing with a different set of pians from those previously approved by the Board of Appeals and there is a letter on file from the building inspector indiCatin that the only thing required for this applic- ation pp1i - ation is an order of conditions , treating it as though no special permit is necessary. A letter dated 1/9/89 was read into the record ruEling to that effect from the building inspector to Mr. Bafar . 4 Dr. Cushner and lir. G1 ick, abutters, stated they- had not been notified of this and did not have a chance to oppose in the 30 day time limit. Dr. Cushner stated he feels there is subterfuge going on here; they never heard about the Board of Appeals not having to gear this or of the pier being changed. M r. Henchy stated he had 30 days to respond, he nearer knew about it.