Laserfiche WebLink
October 1999 <br /> Page 4. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated it is 27' from the edge of the BVW to the house itself, <br /> forgetting the deck. Even if they took off the deck, it is still only 2 ' from the <br /> VW. The work limit is 9'. <br /> Dan Bulger, applicant, stated the plan with the house layout is the same as <br /> others in the neighborhood. They are willing to do any mitigating they need <br /> to in order to build it. They understand the restrictions are getting tighter. <br /> They are asking for as much consideration as much as can be given. <br /> The Chair stated the house has to be dramatically changed. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated if it is possible to get a true 35' to the work limit they <br /> could continue. <br /> Mr. Slavinsky suggested cantilevering the deck into the 3 . <br /> Mr. Bulger stated it should be relative to the building rotation. The opposite <br /> side abuts the wetland and is low. This land is sloped, sunlight still would <br /> get under the deck. Noise caused by a deck would be negligible. <br /> Mr. Sherman read from regulation 29. <br /> Mr. Bulger requested a continuance. Michele hele Bulger stated they realize the <br /> plan will not work. She stated if the get rid of that run-off and cantilevered <br /> deck into the 35' buffer it would net effect habitat in that spot.- It is a steep <br /> slope. <br /> The Chair stated it is not the Commission's practice to negotiate. <br /> VOTE: Motion made and seconded to continue the hearing to 21 October <br /> 1999 at the request ofthe applicant. Unanimous Vote. <br /> HEARING CONTINUED. <br /> 7:20 CARL MAC DONALD for a Determination of .applicability on a <br /> request for a of x 24' addition to ars existing dwelling at 199 Uncle er y's <br /> Road. Ms Boretos recommended negative 3. <br /> Public comment: none. <br /> VOTE: Motion made and seconded to find negative. Unanimous Vote. <br />