11/15/1990 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

7 Conservation Corission November 15, 1990 Page 2. pending a response from Mr. McNamara's attorney. He conversed with Mr. Wood, the attorney and resolution may be forthcoruing. He requested a continuance. NTDHO TO NDVEMBER29, 1990 - 9:00' .m. 7:00 NEW SFABM GO., DoE DRM - 13752 13772 1378, 1379: The septic has been referred to CM. Mr. Zeppenfeld suggested looking only at 1375; on 1377 there have been changes, the footprint has been reduced. Mr. Sherman advised at the last meeting when conditioning multiple landscape plans it was intended to include a condition prohibiting four inches of loam and fertil- izers as described in the narrative in the lower portion of the landscape plan. The commission has been advised that relates only to areas disturbed during construction for the septic. New seabury was asked to allow this condition to be added. Mr. eppenfeld agreed, there was no problem with that. They Will loam and plant only the disturbed areas. Mr. Coffey stated the concern is that areas beyond the picket fences, seaward towards the bluff, do not become putting greens for fixture owners. Mr. Abrahamson stated, on 1375, there was a concern to go back to the site to look at the prox ty between the top of bank and patio. They have not changed anything. Mrs, Simmons suggested they might bring it back. Mr. Abrahamson stated it is a lot with no vegetation. They have proposed abandon- ment of the pathway and are not taking anything out. Mr. Zeppenfeld advised they are going to put another beach access boardwalk on the lot line between 1377 and 1376; 1375 would exit onto that path. They will put in plantings in all pathways. To pull back might encourage thea, giving thea more room. 0n lot 1377, the footprint has been out back; it was at 1120 SF before, it is now 916. They have not moved the footprint at all; there is a smaller amount of driveway than any other lot, Mrs, Simmons asked what it was originally and was told 800 SF. she did not believe it was to be changed from the original. Mr, Zeppenfeld Felt that was on 1378, which has been cut back. Ms Behrman also felt it applied to 1377. It is a coverage issue; proportionately, they are covering a lot more space. Mr. Grotzke stated there is anu* mxn size for widths and dimensions to layout rooms comfortably; the shape that was there was long, there were two units. They have restricted through the purchase and sale agreement the maximum luring area that can be built. A slightly Larger area on the ground floor reduces the incentive for going up, Mrs. ,mons did not thinly there would be any reduction in incentive. The Cormdssion cannot take that into consideration and has to look at the footprint. Mr. Coffey felt the number is not as important as the location; the corner that has been bumped is bringing it closer to a sensitive area, but he did not feel strongly about it.