6/27/1996 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

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