Laserfiche WebLink
r - <br /> on' ser ton om ks'sion <br /> .February, 5, . 1988 <br /> Page 5. <br /> Mrs. Ferriday pointed- o-utf this ' i s not a coastal bank <br /> Hs Behrman recalled this particular Order ofCondition's was provided <br /> 4 for some very -minor alterations up by the mouse and removal of storm <br /> damage. The Commission was specifically addressinS those areas* <br /> Hr* Howland stated it was his understanding . the original order of <br /> conditions was for a patio; his Board would not consider that -minor <br /> alterations. Ms Behiman stated that was right up by the house, we were <br /> not dealing with the area down by the lake. <br /> Hr. Howland stated anytime any type of alteration is done around the <br /> house such as a deck or patio, it is going to impact the wetlands and <br /> is never to be considered minor. The order of conditions should nearer <br /> have been minor because you would have put in something to say you <br /> needed a vegetative cover. FIs Behrman stated only in the areas specif- <br /> ically <br /> pecif- <br /> ically disturbed by the construction. if the Commission started to so <br /> beyond the areas disturbed by the construction, unless there was a <br /> previously ongoing violations it would be exceeding the authority o <br /> the commission. <br /> Mr. Howland stated it is the authority of the commission to protect <br /> the wetlands. The wetlands are not up by the house, they are Johns <br /> Ponds i <br /> Mrs. Jacobson asked khat he felt would happen to the abutting lots. He <br /> stated that anytime erosion control is put on a property it has to <br /> impact Neighboring properties* You cannot put erosion control on one <br /> property wi thout ' i t being necessary 'to put erosion control on the <br /> neighboring property* Mr. Burns added, to protect the neighbors. Mr. <br /> Howland stated , right, part of the wetland act means that you cannot <br /> do any activity on your property that affects your neighbors and also, <br /> you should do whatever you can to protect the wetlands and prevent <br /> erosion. This is' not a class action suit where everyone who lives on <br /> Johns Pond is coming in to say they need a wall , but the action of . <br /> this partis someone who stepped forward and said they want to do what <br /> is right environmentally and neighboring properties should be coning <br /> forth to say it meds to be done on their property. <br /> Mrs. Ferriday suggested it might be able to be done in another way <br /> with more vegetation. Mr. Howland stated the soil base is already <br /> eroded, if vegetation is past there it will go; that' s why they have <br /> retaining walls and screening. <br /> Mrs. Jacobson point-ed out there will be an even greater impact on Mr. <br /> . <br /> Pearson' s -lot so he will be looking to do a similar thing and then <br /> over there is the state ramp which will also be impacted . <br /> Hs Behrman advised, for the record, as far as the preyious filing is <br /> -concerned as you referenced , there were two very, small areas of re eg- <br /> etation and a very minimal site disturbance . Any reference to possible <br /> dereliction of the Com ission in regard to this site is out of line. <br /> We were discussing two areas that the applicant wanted to revegetate <br /> due to storm damage during a hurricane and a very minor relocation of <br /> a well . <br /> 4 <br />