Laserfiche WebLink
30 May 1996 <br /> Page 10 <br /> significant or cumulative effect upon the wetland values protected by this Chapter. Failure <br /> to provide evidence to the Commission supporting this Burden shall be sufficient cause for <br /> the Commission to deny a permit or grant a permit with conditions." <br /> That language has not changed since the bylaw was enacted. This was added though. <br /> Next paragraph: <br /> "In the particular situation concerning the maintenance of naturally vegetated buffer strips, <br /> Section 7 of Chapter 172 requires the continuously naturally vegetated buffer strip NUBS <br /> within the 100 foot area from the resource area. Further, it requires that "said naturally <br /> vegetated buffer strip shall be a minimum of 50 feet in width unless the applicant convinces <br /> the Commission, as per the provisions of Section 12 of this chapter, that the naturally <br /> vegetated buffer strip or part of it may be disturbed or diminished without harm to the <br /> values protected by this Chapter and that reducing the scope of work/alteration is not <br /> possible." <br /> So, both of those Burdens of Proof have to be met for us to permit something within the <br /> 50 feet. <br /> NASH: Can I ask a question? In the construction of the house, this area, this small little <br /> area, whether we had cantilevered the deck or not, was disturbed in putting in the <br /> foundation and all of it, by the way, is on the inside of the bales of hay. But this whole <br /> area along the back was disturbed. None of this has been tended to yet because I am <br /> waiting to see how you want me to go forward. It would be our intention in any case to <br /> revegetate and correct and stabilize all of this back of the house and this section here. This <br /> section here, because the house......(SHERMAN: Well, it would be required by us that <br /> you would establish ground cover again, anyway.) I know that. The house goes to that <br /> point anyway and the only thing that is different here, in terms of being in the ground, are <br /> just these four posts. From a construction standpoint, this ground was disturbed so if I if I <br /> heard what you said correctly, from your fine or the citation, it would increase the scope <br /> of the work when that deck part was put in. As to whether it has a cumulative effect upon <br /> the wetland, I'm not a botanist. Buy again, I don't want to represent something to you that <br /> is not accurate. <br /> SHERMAN: Well, we had some discussion before by, I believe you had Paul Lelito as a <br /> consultant and this is like, it happened so formally you have to ask again. So, it is your <br /> second chance to make the Burden of Proof. If you wish to bring in additional information <br /> from a qualified source, you could ask that and the Commission could honor that request <br /> for a continuance, but I think that is the option you have now. You have to address the <br /> specific language. <br /> ROSENBERG: Bob, is there an existing lawn within the 50 feet now? <br />