4/7/1994 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Conservation Commission April 7, 1994 Page 7. Motion made and seconded to close the hearing with the condition that the Agent do a drive-ley through the premises to determine the areas that will be problematical for erosion and that the subcontractors t read and sign a statement that they have read and understand the Order of Condition. A letter to be received from Attorney Henchy, before work starts, to all subcontractors, that the bonds will not be released until the Conservation Commission is satisfied with the work. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked the magnitude of the bonds' Mr. Stinson stated It is for full value of the contract. It is done through a Bonding Company. HEARING CLOSED 7:30 CERALD NEIN 3 Waterline Drive North, continued from 17 February 1994. Michael Grotzke presenting. Susana Lannik stepped down for this hearing. MrGrot e • tate at the last hearing, at issue was the encroachment into the 50 foot setback with the pool and the deck. ' He has since discussed with the Agent what the alternatives are. The center point was pivoted in order to have give and take -of the buffer zone and the whole structure was roved back five feet and the wetland line rotated. They are adding 450 s.f. to the buffer zone and only deducting 155 for the- pool/deck combination. He would like to continue vegetating the rest of the area with hemlocks.for ,priva.cy, • i t E F Mr. Sherman felt it is' a is' justifiable fable om omi e, even though it is a very large house. Mr. Grotzke advised, the house will be, two bedrooms- they would like to keep all 7 the landscaping. He will superimpose the landscaping on the plan. Mr. Sherman stated the Commission could close upon receipt of*that plan. R Mr. Fitzsimmons raised questions concerning the'distance between the pool and S the wetland. He asked' if the Commission normally averages the distance to the wetland? r. Sherman stated no, but the way the 50 foot vegetated buffer strip regulation is worded, this has less wildlife habitat and he did net feel the loss was great. The bylaw is written in such a way that if the applicant can prove it is not injurious, it can be allowed. If undisturbed-habitat, it would be unacceptable. Mr. Fitzsimmons felt this would be setting a precedent. Mr. Hom yer stated everything is on a case ' y case basis; it is Judgemental. Mr. Desrosiers questioned draining of the pool and runoff. Mr. Grotzke advised there is a dryell for the pool. Mr. Sherman stated nothing was staked when he was originally there. It can be conditioned that staking will be verified before building starts. Mr. ] esrosiers asked if an alternative system was proposed to satisfy health requirements? Mr. Grotzke had previously advised there would be a different pool filtration system which aces not use ozone. He will be coming in at some time in the future with an alternative add-ori system for the sanitary system. Public Comments were requested: none.