Laserfiche WebLink
2 App 199 <br /> Page 13. <br /> Mr, Sherman recommended negative with language added for mitigative <br /> plantings. <br /> u lac comments-. none. <br /> VOTE: Motion made and seconded to find negative subject to the addition <br /> of language to the application to provide a satisfactory description <br /> of compensatory plantings. Unanimous vote. <br /> NEGATE PENDING, <br /> 8:35 ROBERT MOORS to construct a single Y house, driveway, well, <br /> septic system, gazebo, lawn and landscaping at 65 Amy Brown Road, Steve <br /> Wilson presenting. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated they will need a Board. of Appeals perm for the setback <br /> from the ACEC line. Unless a letter from the lawyer disputes that, the <br /> hearing must be continued. The Moores have worked diligently to find a <br /> plan for this odd-shaped lot. He would recommend, except for the gazebo, <br /> that they grant the variance, He asked, if the gazebo goes in, are they <br /> planning to do vista pruning: He stated the gazebo could not be permitted <br /> with wholesale vista pruning also. If the work limit were tightened, it would <br /> be acceptable to permit the gazebo. Mr. Wilson agreed it could be and stated <br /> they had not applied for vista pruning. <br /> Pubic comments: Louis Santos, representing his father, an abutter, stated <br /> their lot, at the same elevation, is unbuild ble and asked how this is <br /> buildable now; The Chair asked, declared unbuildable by whom:? 11r. <br /> Santos stated by the assessors and conservation. Mr. Sherman stated they <br /> were never told that by Conservation, buildability is not an issue here. Mr. <br /> Santos compla ned there were no ha bales, no delineation of the 100' <br /> wetland line and the lot has been grubbed out. He came forward and pointed <br /> o a horseshoe adjacent to the property. Mr. Wilson stated that work was <br /> not clone by the applicant, he does not have the right to use the cul de sac. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg asked if part of the cul de sac is on the applicant's land? It is. <br /> There was a mess-up in the legal language when the easement was put M* for <br /> the Cul de sae. i <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the horseshoe should not have been put in without <br /> coning to us. He has not checked the staking because he knew it would not <br /> o further tonight. <br />