Laserfiche WebLink
14 December2000 <br /> Page 12. <br /> three feet which could cause scour, Mr. Grotzke stated he intentionally <br /> curved it so that any graves that do hit it will be distributed in all <br /> directions. Mr. Sherman stated if there was nothing on this lot and they <br /> wanted d this house, the Commission would not permit it. <br /> Mr. Grotzke asked even if it meets the performance standards? <br /> Mr. Ball thought that was the thing that had to be looked at. He asked <br /> to go step by step through each performance standard for the different <br /> resource areas. You can look t a property and say to look at the <br /> distance they are moving now, but have to go hack, it is a worthy <br /> discussion. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated he would look at performance standards, he will <br /> start and Mr. Ball can refute. Performance Standards for Coastal Bark, <br /> under the state there is no presumption of wildlife habitat significance, <br /> under the Town there is, MIs Bor tos has given him a memo that this <br /> site has significant wildlife habitat characteristics on that coastal bark, <br /> some 30, 401 50 trees. Under the Act the Coastal Bank performance <br /> standards would not tale into account wildlife habitat, but they would <br /> take into account stability of tie- bark, especially under a storm surge. <br /> He does not see any hard structures bin-g on the coastal bank as being <br /> conducive to the stability of that bank. <br /> Ms Boretos read from 10.30 re adverse effect on a coastal bank. <br /> Mr. Sherman an stated, Land subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, there is n <br /> performance standards under the Act, however, the Commission would <br /> still maintain that 10.24 1 to say that the Commission is making a <br /> finding that there is wildlife habitat significance and under the Bylaw, <br /> there is wildlife habitat significance attached to Land subject to Coastal <br /> Storm Flowage. He did not think there were any other relevant resource <br /> area performance standards to discuss because there are no effects t <br /> the marsh. He feels the performance standards ds indicate that this should <br /> be moved above the top ofthe coastal bark. It is a dangerous precedent i <br /> to go onto a harry with hard structures where there is no real reed to do <br /> so. It would not be a taking if not allowed as there is already a douse <br /> there and if the louse is allowed to go to the top of the coastal bank, <br /> from the original louse, it is Mill ' further to the resource area and <br /> that is a gift. <br /> Concerning Mr. l osenberg's concern for impervious coverage, Mr. <br /> trot l e stated they would have dry ells for runoff. <br />