Laserfiche WebLink
t <br /> s dune 2000 <br /> Page 12. <br /> Mr. Brabants stated that is exactly what Mr. Grotzke told him, <br /> Mr. Rosenberg would be willing, if Mr. trot ke were here, to have him say <br /> that he advised you that it was legal to go in closer than 3 ' to the top of the <br /> bank that he drew on his plan. Mr. tarot ke has been in here a hundred <br /> times. <br /> Mr. Brabants stated it is ars issue of wildlife habitat, he is not getting much <br /> consideration here. He has talked to the state and he cannot understand <br /> why he is being penalized for a red fox den. There is no doubt some animals <br /> live there; this is not endangered species. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated it has nothing to do with that. There is a coastal bank <br /> here and the regulations provide that nothing go closer than 35'. <br /> Mr. Sherman cited the statute. He read from the regulations. The naturally <br /> vegetated buffer strip shall be a minimum f ' in width, unless the <br /> applicant convinces the Commission, as per the provisions ofSection 12 of <br /> this Chapter, that, 1. The naturally vegetated buffer strip, or part of it, may <br /> be disturbed or diminished without harm t -the values protected by this <br /> Chapter, one of those values being wildlife habitat, or that reducing the scope <br /> of the work alterations is not possible. The 35' figure cones in when there i <br /> o alternative to doing it and would make it an unbuildable lot. It is not the <br /> Commission's desire to rake it an unbuildable lot, but it is normally 0'. For <br /> the Commission to say it would be willing to consider 35' is stretching the law <br /> to accommodate him. The statute is quite clear and the findings, <br /> unfortunately, from Mr. Brabants perspective, are that there is some <br /> significant wildlife habitat value to this area and wildlife habitat value is one <br /> of the values protected by both the State Act and the local Bylaw. There i <br /> the statute approved by the Attorney General and which has been upheld in <br /> other court cases, in other towns, which the Commission is trying t <br /> accommodate hien by considering the 35', which they do not have to do and <br /> reducing the scope of the work alteration not possible, the burden of proof is <br /> incumbent upon him for the Commission to say yes to his plan. He did <br /> believe the burden of proof has been met yet. He can understand everyone <br /> wants the house of their desire but the fact that it can't be reconfigured or <br /> redrawn in such a way to get that 35% that burden of proof has not been met <br /> by him to this point. <br /> Mr. Brabants stated the letter from his scientist, Sabatia, he would ask that <br /> this be read. <br />�4 <br />