Laserfiche WebLink
16 November 2000 <br /> Page 2. <br /> Mr. Pence asked for the Commission's help to finish this, There is a slider <br /> entering onto the deck. They are asking for a partial deck or cantilevering of <br /> another means ofaccess. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated the architectural plan submitted to the Building <br /> Department was different. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated any Plan of record should have shorn that deck. <br /> Ms Moore asked hove close this is to the wetland? Mr. Pence stated it is 24' <br /> from the wetland. The deck is elevated 8-9'. <br /> Nor. Sherman recommended men denying-the deck and demanding the applicant put <br /> it back to the original plan. <br /> Mr. Pesce asked to leave 5' of deck for egress. <br /> Mr. Talbot asked if they could cantilever out a portion of the deck? Mr. <br /> Sherman stated one of the reasons for the setback is disturbance and noise. <br /> This is very close. He would not be averse to a small platform and stairs for <br /> egress.. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg proposed a small platform at the door with a staircase coming <br /> down,. <br /> Mr. Pence advised revegetati n under- the deck is proposed. He asked what is <br /> the harm in ' next to. the louse. Mr. Sherman stated it would be setting a <br /> precedent. He recommended men they come back in two weeks with a proposal and <br /> that they incorporate landscaping into the RDA. If a mutual agreement could <br /> be arrived at, they could Proceed under a negative determination n and when <br /> work is done, ask for a C C. <br /> Mr'. Rosenberg stated . the Commission cannot issue negative because the <br /> application calls for a elevated deck. They would have to withdraw this and <br /> submit a new one. <br /> Mr. Pesce thanked the Commission. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated the Commission is not singling Mr. Gardner out but the <br /> regulations call fora 50' setback.. The Commission has on occasion gone as far <br /> as 3 ' and on no account would they exceed that. <br />