Laserfiche WebLink
o November Zoo <br /> Page 3. <br /> Ms Boretos asked homer they would access the area? Mr Casey advised Mr. Luconi spoke <br /> to Eli Florence and they can get access through his property. <br /> Public comment: none. <br /> VOTE: Motion made and seconded to continue the hearing to. 14 December 2000 <br /> At 8-00 p.m. at'the request of the applicant. Unanimous vote. <br /> HEARING CONTINUED. <br /> 7:20 THOMAS AS SMITH to re-open the blearing for reconsideration of the Notice of Intent <br /> for S 43-1914 for 266 Monomoscoy Road. lid Pesce was present with Mr. Smith. Mr. <br /> Pesce.stated in the beginning of the document is the background and purpose. The <br /> Notice of Intent had been previously filed for a three bedroom dwelling. In order to do <br /> the pert test, a small portion ofthe lot was cleared., approximately seven oak trees and <br /> pines. Mr. Smith was asked to cease work and he did so. They have put together a <br /> document for restoration of thdt site should the overall project not get approved. A <br /> request for continuance was made via fax but was not received by the Commission. <br /> They are requesting reconsideration to reactivate the project to conduct the pere test, <br /> with the .Commission's consent, if the perc test is unsuccessful, the project will be <br /> withdrai n; if successful, they will be back to discuss the merits ofthe case. If the perk <br /> test itself is possible, it has already been perced with the Board of Health. However, <br /> they did not provide the four feet of naturally occurring pervious soil. They have allowed <br /> then to look at dewatering the hole to show that. They did shover four feet but the hole <br /> kept caving in. The project would be re-perced with the requisite ruling. if it clues <br /> pass, it is his understanding that they would endorse re-approval. They would pert it <br /> First, go back to Board of Health and then come to the Commission. After- obtaining the <br /> Commission's approval, they would go to.ZA for the setback issue. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated there was originally a conventional pert, there were trees removed <br /> which were not typical for a conventional pere and no one notified the Commission. He <br /> felt the concept of a denatured pert is absurd, but that is the law. He has no objection <br /> to reconsidering this but they should have a revegetation plan reach before any <br /> approval could be issued, rather than saying we would take it afterwards, if it fails. Mr. <br /> Pesce stated they have that. The table was prepared by Mario liregorio. Mr. <br /> Sherman stated that is what they would go to if the pert does not work. Mr. Pesce <br /> stated it made sense, there would be something to enforce to restore the site, if the pert <br /> test does not fly. <br /> Mr. Johansen advised he has been made aware that a lot of the abutters in the area are <br /> concerned that Mr. Smith presents his projects when everyone is away and they drag <br /> on. <br /> Mr. Smith stated it is not his intention to carry things on because every time something <br /> is brought to the Commission, it costs hien money. The reason it has been this way is <br /> because of one problem or another. <br /> Public comment- Jim Hanks advised he sent a letter regarding this extremely lover-lying <br /> area that is not suitable for building anything. It is a bad idea and should not be <br /> allowed. <br />