11/02/2000 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

November 2000 Page 3. The Chair advised the Commission does not really want to do that and repeat the sane information.again in two weeks'. After discussion,it was agreed that as they are only removing the enlargement of the pond it will not be necessary to readvertise the RDA. The Notice of Intent to be submitted at a later date. Public comment: none. VOTE: Motion made and seconded to continue the hearing to 16 November 2000 at 8:05 p.m. at the request of the applicant. Unanimous vote. HEARING NTINUED. 7:20 JOHN COLLINS to amend the Order of Conditions for SE 43-1894 to increase the house size by 232 s.f. at 101 Ieadowbrook Road. John Slavinsky was present for this hearing. He stated there is a vernal pool situation. As required by the bylaw, they got a variance from Board of Appeals. They cut down the size of the house and gained ' on the sideline,plan submitted. The Commission approved the project and issued an Order of Conditions. The ARC for Seabrook Meadows determined they would not allow a section of the house. Mr. Collins is asking to go back to the original house and he would be ' instead of-100'., Mr. Talbot pointed out the work limit and the house will now be within 100'. The 100' impingement is going into the certified vernal pool buffer. Mr.Johansen asked if the house was larger than previously? Mr. Slavinsky stated it is larger than in the Order of Conditions but not larger than originally. The Commission had requested they maintain ' as the lot on this side is 85 from the vernal pool. Across the vernal pool, another house is built. The Chair stated that has no significance. Atty. John Fitch, representing Mr. Collins, was present and advised they are looking for a compromise. He asked if the vernal pool was certified. Nis Boretos stated it was. Atty. Fitch stated,under the bylaw,it sloes not look like there is prohibition against activity within the buffer zone. Ms Boretos stated there is, under the bylaw. Atty. Fitch stated the buffer zone touching a vernal pool appears to be very similar to a buffer zone to a wetland. The Chair stated on the original drawing, it shows the 6' between the edge of the vernal pool and the work limit. On this drawing it shows 88". He asked how they differ? He asked if they moved the work limit further from the vernal pool? Mr. Slavinsky stated they did; they got a variance. Mr. Sherman had told there to extend the work limit out and put it on a plan to revegetate. Mr. Rosenberg stated now they will not be able to revegetate because they are putting a house there. They are moving the Douse back and now want to come out to where they were before. The Chair stated this was 100' to the edge of the house and now,they want to make it ' and asked if that is correct. Mr.Sanicki stated it is. Att . Fitch stated it is less than as originally proposed.