04/27/2000 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

i I I Ms. Borets stated her opinion that the size house being proposed is inappropriate on the subject lot In the subject area. She recommended the commission request the Applicant to consider scaling down the size of the proposed project for the purpose of wildlife protection. There was brief discussion regarding the possible repositioning of the house, additional extensive planting. She strongly suggested the human disturbance impacts be offset by plantings; if this is not taken into consideration, the value of the subject area will be negated in terms of wildlife, especially for the large animals moving through or yarding exp (to which there i sufficient evidence) . . Boretos recommended the Commission and Applicant join forces to outline long-term planning for the subject property and those properties that will appear before the Commission in the future. She stressed the very significant impacts in this regard. Mr. Grot ] e suggested the buffer be extended in an attempt to confine residential use from the wildlife use. lis. Boretos responded by stating this would not be considered a meaningful mitigation in her estimation. The Applicant stated the property to be a 52, 000 square foot buildable lot; that he has been a resident of New Seabury for 1 years; and that the project has been reduced to less than 2 of the lot land area) . He stated the entire work area consists of 16, 000 feet. i Applicant informed the Commission that he has seven children and that the purpose for purchasing said property was to construct a summer home. He expressed his shock at the suggestion to further reduce the size of the proposed project. He objected to the implications of any further restrictions, stating he feed.s doing so would be "extremely unreasonable" . He made a plea for the rights of a landowner. He also expressed regard for nature and wildlife. I Applicant made reference to surrounding houses in the subject area; to which the chairman pointed out the very specific wetland implications involved with Applicant' s property. The Chairman ascertained Applicants knowledge/understandin f the vast amount of wetlands associated with the purchase of the property. At this point Nor. Sherman determined the matter be continued as he has not had the opportunity to make an inspection of the property in comparison to the revised plans. The original plans do not show the required staking. _1 _