7/15/1999 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

15 July 1999 Page 6. 2 Nemo received from the Building I epailment over an issue we don't have direct jurisdiction over. Gerald Keen of Monomos oy Island has a fishing chart r business he is running from his home which consists of docking a boat. There have been some neighborhood complaints. We do not have direct jurisdiction because there is no alteration that we are aware of-,however,the Building Department wants our comments. f propose that the cleaning of fish should not be performed there. flow about the traffic? This is a zoning matter technically. Should we issue a later saying that fish should not b cleaned at the site as a conservation issue? Chapter 90 aspects should be looked into by Bill and we should ask that no commercial cleaning of fish be done at the site. 8:00 FRED GLASS, 77 Tide Run, continuance from July 1, 1999 on a notice of intent. John Slavinsky from Cape and Island Engineering representing Mr. Glass. The original house was originally 53 feet from the resource but has now been moved back three feet. A permanent fence, 18"high, allowing for wildlife passage, should be installed to be sure them is no project creep. Public comment: Susanna Lannik with her husband Mark Gorstein carne forward. According to our information this was the original plan that the Conservation Commission approved at the last meeting. They came in at the last and they wanted to move this closer to the work limit. If you measure this using a 'A"equaling 5 ft.,it appears that the work limits is 5 t ftom the edge of where this house is. Now they want to move it back to three feet and furthermore they have enlarged the house on either side so instead of it being 17 ft and 16 and 1 ft, they have spread the house this way(indicating on neap). So,no matter how you slice it,it is within the ACEC(which is the entire lot),they are impacting either side and they're impacting forward. She sense is that they have done nothing under the regulations or by-lav to shover that there wouldn't be significant impacts and would like to see, aside from being amenable to the original plan approved by the Conservation Commission, is that they should do a report similar to an envirmnental impact report to shove that there would not be damage in teams of the runoff,etc. I'm not convinced that putting in a fence is going to be sufficient. They have gone from a 2,408 s . ft. house to a 29830 sq. ft. which is a significant increase. It appears they want to go back to the Board ofAppeals when they will tell them that they have the approval of the Conservation Conunission. I,therefore,wish to object. Mr. Wixsen commented that on the initial plan they didn't delineate 5 3 feet,but just gave at drawing and if you take a measurement it is fire feet back. Susanna Lannik: If you look through Regulation 29 it requires consideration of many different values which I don't see has been done. Question was raised whether this has to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals'MMr. Sherman stated the Commission can go back to Bill Hauck to see if this should go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Furthermore,,I thin that the fact that it is different from the first plan is not germane because they now meet our standards they are 50 ft back and if they have a fence to protect encroachment into the buffer zone,they meet our standards and I don't think we have any reason to deny it even though the house is large. I a .,therefore,going to recommend approval with the placement of a fence. Mark orstein : Looking at the regulations,it says that they have to show that there is no impact. Mr. Shernxan stated no,they say they have to show no impact if they want to get within the 50 ft. VOTE: Motion made and seconded to close and accept the amendment. [unanimous Vote. AMEENDMIENT ACCEP'T'ED. 8:05 GERALDINE MCC RM CI ,77 Tide Run,a continuance from May 6, 1999. This was continued because Board of Appeals approval was pending and Michael Grotzke and the Agent were