Laserfiche WebLink
January 1997 <br /> Page 8. <br /> fir. Grotzke advised he discussed with his client some dense planting up <br /> against the house to prevent traffic. Mr. Sherman would be agreeable to <br /> condition plantings. He asked how far above ground the foundation is It is <br /> one foot. Mr. Sherman pointed out they will have lushes up against the <br /> shingles. Thorny plants would be conditioned. Mr. Grotzke had no objections. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated it this was moved forward, details concerning the <br /> vegetation would he very explicit. He asked if there would be objections to not <br /> starting construction until a plan is received detailing those plantings' There <br /> was none. <br /> Mr. Johansen stated the attestation of ownership was missing. <br /> Concerning the septic, plans were approved for a three bedroom dweRing with <br /> the Fast system. <br /> Pubhc comments: none. <br /> VOTE: Motion made and seconded to close pending verification of wetland <br /> flags, receipt of attestation of ownership, DEP number, Board of <br /> Health variance and a condition for no construction until receipt of <br /> approved plan detailing plantings. Unanimous Vote. <br /> CLOSED PENDING. <br /> Lawn gs: The Agent advised there have been concerns raised about the <br /> lawn policy. He met with a gentleman from the Lawn Company for a <br /> discussion. They would like the Commission to consider a little more <br /> flexibility on new lawns in using a higher dose to get new lawns established <br /> which literature seems to show is valid., write-ups and language will be <br /> provided for the Commissions review. <br /> A letter was received from Tom Colombo, the surf supervisor for New <br /> Sealury, who had expressed concern but after reading the policy stated it <br /> would not present a problem and that a reasonably good lawn could be <br /> established with that level of fertilizer. <br /> There is std a to-do with Chemlaw . <br />