11/02/2000 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

November 2000 { Page 7. Publiccomment: none. VOTE: Motion n made and seconded to find negative. Unanimous vote. NEGATIVE DETERMINATION. 5:00 GARY CROWELL for a Determination f Applicability on the proposed replacement of an existing fence at 25 Jeep Place. John Slavinsky presenting. Photographs bf the fence were shown. They are not going any closer to the embankment. Everything will be on the Crowell property. Public comment: none. VOTE; Motion made and seconded to find negative. Unanimous vote. NEGATIVE DETERMINATION. 8:05 GARY M. LOCARNO for an After-the-fact Determination of Applicability on a pool confined by a concrete retaining wall, proposed plantings for mitigation and a path to the dock at 1 Waterline Drive South. Michael Grotzke was present for Mr. L care . This is in response t an enforcement letter. The original design was for an in-ground pool. There was concern this would be i npacted with flooding conditions and was changed to above ground. The specified plants are around the seaward edge of the pool. Also, a path to the dock was mentioned in the original filing. Ms Boretos advised the site was brought to the Commission's attention by a neighbor. Mr. Lcarno was asked to file after-the-fact for this constructed pool and deck. The Commission's concern is that during a flood even it would disperse water and has asked for mitigation plantings. In addition to that, Mr. Locarno has asked for a change in pathway construction. It was specified ' instead of 4 . The Chair stated shrubs will be on the other side of the work limit. Mr. Grotzke stated he was sure his client would be willing to put in the plants as shown. Ms Soret s stated she spent a lot of time at the site. Mr. Locarno is an attorney and should know not to proceed with this. She would recommend the mitigation planting already in but to issue an enforcement order requiring restoration where he went beyond the ' on the pathway. Mr. Talbot advised viburnum is not salt tolerant. Mr.Grotzke suggested making all of this ilex. Ir. Rosenberg stated there are substantial changes to the plan and description. He did not feel this could be approved under an RDA. He recommended denying this and that they cone back g with a Notice of Intent completely shoving the work to be done,restoration and all the rest of it. Mr.Grotzke stated they were asked to come in with an RDA for those issues. Mr.Shea stated they should clear up the enforcement before anything else. Publiccomment: none.