10/31/1996 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

31 October 1996 Page 3. 1r. Sherman stated it is a pre-existing small, low, timber wall. which- is rotting. He recommended a negative determination contingent upon an annotation that this is river front. Mr. Grotzke asked if this would mean -agreeing that he is subject to the iverfront Act? 'Mr. Sherman statedif it is found that he is not, a revision could be made. Mx. Grotzke stated since it would have significant consequences, he should speak with the owner. VOTE: Motion made and seconded to find negative pending Michael Grotzke conferring with his client and annotation on the plan that it is river front and if it is found it is not, a revised plan would be accepted. Unanimous Vote. EGATIENDING. 7:30 STEPHEN BERISH, 37 Keel Way, continued from 19 September 1996. Michael Grotzke presenting. Mr. Sherman stated this is a case where vista pruning is being asked for in the 50 foot buffer strap. This will be river front area. In his opinion, the Commission would be remiss to issue something until they get guidance from DEP. Also, this is not designated on the plan. He recommended continuance. Mr. Grotzke submitted a revised plan. - The only issues brought up at the previous hearing were that he and the Agent were supposed to go to the site. There were only two outstanding factors at that point. Mr. Berish stated the project was started and the permit issued before the Rivers Act; therefore, it is exempt. i Mr. Sherman asked for a two week continuance to get guidance from DEP and if it is not received within that time frame, the Commission could make a decision. Revised plans were presented. It was agreed an on-site would be held prior to the vista pruning. Public comments: none. VO'C'E: Motion made and seconded to continue the hearing to 14 November 1996 at :20 p.m. Unanimous Vote.