1/22/1998 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

1 22 January 1998 Page 10. VT : lotion made and seconded to continue the hearing to 19 February 1998 at 7:50 p.m.. Unani mo s Vote. HEARING CONTINU TO 19 FEBRUARY Al 1998 AT 7:50 I ,Me : o JOHN COSTA to reopen a hearing to discuss a revised footprint for the proposed residence at 105 waterline Drive South. Michael Grotke presenting. This project was reviewed in the past. There is a large reserve area further along with a wetland line that has been flagged and agreed to by the Agent. previously, the house proposed was 3,000 s.f.; this buyer has designed a house of 1845 s.f, They are asking for a 35' setback from the wetland and are going before Board of Appeals for a 2 ' setback from the street. A three bedroom house is proposed with the septic approved by the Board of Health. The work limit is slightly inside the 35' setback with any occurring damage revegetated. They could plant some very restrictive plants along the wetland side of the house. It i .compromise. Mr. Sharpe asked how far they would be intruding into the buffer? Mr. Croke stated 15 feet. Mr. Sherman referred to the Washington State Dept. of Ecology wetland Buffer Use and Effectiveness, which Mr. Grot ke has received in the past. On page 12 of the document it talks about human impact deterrents researched by a gentleman named Cook. The conclusion reached was that on almost all lots buffer functions were found to be reduced most often as a result of decreasing the effective size of the buffer. Dearly all of the buffers less than o feet gide at the time they are established demonstrated a significant decrease in effective size within a few years. In some instances, degradation was so great that the buffers were effectively eliminated. He stated the clear trend is to lose buffers, no matter what width. People are going to want to go around the front of the building for maintenance or other purposes and paths will be established. This lot is very valuable wildlife habitat-wise. He cited a ' problem with the concept. People have been allowed to vegetate before, inside the 50 foot buffer, but never to 3 . If the work limit is not at 35, it will be setting a precedent. Other issues listed were wetland flags missing, house stakings were the old stakings, not the new. Secondly, he will have to get a legal op ion from DEP but in the interim since this was fed, because there were problems on the lot it was agreed to reopen by read ertising and rnotifying, the Rivers Act has come into play. The embayrnent that comes in off the Rivers Act has been determined, in his conversations with DEP,, to be -portion of the River from which the Zoo' n erfront area would exist. He does not know whether because the original fang came in before the Rivers Ace it would be grandfathered.