Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> Waiver of Requirements Ch* 172, 7A. 3 <br /> (1) waivers from Chapter 172 regulations and/or performance standards are only granted for <br /> "good cause shown". On a case-by-case basis, this means consideration of three factors: <br /> (A)How compelling is the need (for the request waiver) on the part of the person <br /> applying? The non-granting of a waiver that would make it impossible to build <br /> home on a legal parcel), would generally be considered compelling. So, too, might <br /> e (the need for a waiver) for(demonstrable) health and/or safety reasons. At the <br /> other "non-compelling" extreme,, would be (for example) the "need" for aswim- <br /> ming pool as an appurtenance to an already existing (and functional) house. <br /> (B)To what degree are normal standards being asked to be put aside? Is the request <br /> for relaxing of standards minor, moderate or major-, in both scope and impact`? <br /> (C)To what degree will c ompens ator y mitigatin g measures to off-set the impacts of <br /> the waived standards) result In a significant enhancement of the capacity of the <br /> (pre-existing) Resource Area (and/or adjacent buffer) to protect the wetland values <br /> of Chapter 172, section 1 <br /> protection of: public or private water supply, groundwater, surface water quality <br /> control of flooding, water pollution, erosion and sedimentation <br /> storm darnage prevention (including coastal storm flowage) <br /> f <br /> protection of fisheries, shellfish, wildlife habitat and biodiversity and rare species <br /> protection of recreation, agriculture .nd aquaculture <br /> On a case-by-case basis, A , and C above, must always be evaluated. obviously, <br /> i A is less than very compelling and the requested relaxation of standards are more <br /> than minor, then chances for a waiver diminish significantly. Similarly, the'larger P <br /> wetland value enhancement that can be achieved, the letter are chances for a waiver. <br /> (2) Mitigation must to the greatest degree possible): <br /> (A) e as close as possible to the closest resource areas, or, nearest to other pre-existing <br /> naturally-vegetated areas with significant wildlife habitat value. <br /> (B) be designed to augment the same wetland values (see , alcove) that has been <br /> compromised by alteration (for example, attenuation of nitrogen does not mitigate <br /> loss of wildlife habitat). <br /> P demonstrate, by a preponderance of credible evidence a.significant enhancement of <br /> the capacity of the (pre-existing) Resource Area(and/or adjacent buffer) to protect <br /> the wetland values inherent to said resource Area or adjacent buffer). <br /> (D)utilize best available tee hnolo i s lesign methodologie /products to make mitigative <br /> improvements as effective.(and significant) as possible. It is quite likely that the <br />