Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> CONSERVATION COMMI I N <br /> JUNE 27, 1996 <br /> PAGE 6 <br /> Bob Sherman: well., I think reducing the scope of the work alteration is possible <br /> because that's what was permitted the first time around. I'd 13.ke to ask Mr.. Lelito <br /> if he was sitting on a conservation commission, what kind of a precedent was set <br /> when you deny something, the applicant does not appeal that denial and then suddenly, <br /> a mistake is made and the thing is built, and then we are asked to permit it. what <br /> kind of a precedent would that be setting if you were sitting on a conservation <br /> commission, Mr. Lelito? <br /> Lelito: Quite frankly, the main point here is, it is not a naturally vegetated <br /> buffer strip. The vegetation was removed from that area. <br /> Sherman: And it was supposed to be replaced. <br /> Lelito: No. Prior tid any work being done on the site, the passageway, people <br /> treaded through that area, the grass may have been degenerate, but I was there <br /> before the construction began; 1 did not see the vegetation in the area other <br /> than degenerate grass. Now, it had been laid fallow for some years and the grass <br /> was degenerate for that reason. I think the main point here is, it was altered <br /> before the wetlands protection act, before their by-law, came in to place. <br /> Chuck: But he didn't have that much of a structure there. we went to the wall <br /> with him, trying to give him, we gave him everything that he wanted except for <br /> a couple of feet of deck. He did have ars existing deck out there that he built; <br /> he stayed within the footprint. Fine. Alright, what did he want to extend out <br /> unto We gage hien his second deck that was already existing that was well within <br /> the 50 foot buffer zone which could have been, under the by-law, taken out and <br /> re-vegetated and such. We went as far as the commission can go in the initial <br /> phases of the hearing. And then, he comes back and says, 'loops, my builder made <br /> a mistake. Okay, his builder made a mistake, and his builder is responsible <br /> for that mistake. But for us to permit it, we are 27 feet from the wetland! <br /> Lelito: For- example, the stairway that is existing; it is going right to the <br /> water. It's been there. I don't disagree with ',protecting the naturally <br /> vegetated buffer strip. I thank it's very important, but I think the commission <br /> has to realize that this is not a naturally vegetated area. <br /> Sherman: It is not only the naturally vegetated area, it's the proximity, The <br /> closer you get, the more noise there ',s to wildlife that use that edge. <br /> Lelito: But, it has been in existence and it predates the wetland protection <br /> act. <br /> Sherman: But there was no structure in existence that close in the past. <br /> Rosenberg: You have a structure going 11 feet closer than the old structure. <br /> That is s substantial incursion. <br /> Sherman: 1 don't think we should beat this to death. My recommendation to the <br /> commission is: If fir. Lelito and Mr. Nash felt so strongly about it, the first <br /> time, they had the right to appeal. They have that night now. recommend we <br /> deny it and order them to make those decks and the structure to conform to <br /> the original approved plan. <br />