Laserfiche WebLink
Michael Talbot stated the concern had been the distance. <br /> Nuking reference to the plan Mr. Grotske pointed out the <br /> existing distance has been maintained with one exception, that <br /> being a corner clip. <br /> Mr. Sherman rade reference to the Chart incorporated into <br /> the Naturally Vegetated Buffer Strip Regulation (Study URI) , <br /> which clearly shows comparative wildlife habitat value at thirty <br /> five feet and fifteen feet. The Conservation Commission has <br /> never approved anything below thirty five feet (due to negligible <br /> wildlife habitat value-temporary) . <br /> Mr. Grotske admitted the original plans had been su' britted <br /> prior to his knowledge of said proposed guidelines. He made <br /> reference to the area of 1, 000 square feet of mitigation, being <br /> three times the required coverage for wetland resource areas. <br /> Addressing a question asked by Carole Moore, the Assistant <br /> Conservation Agent stated the slope in question is currently non- <br /> functional for wildlife; proposed mitigation would be an <br /> enhancement . <br /> Nor. Grotske clarified the current pathway is to be blocked <br /> off eliminating access to the back. <br /> Mr. Sherman agreed the earlier reference to Regulation had <br /> been a policy at the time of application; however, request is <br /> being made to go below the thirty five feet which has never been <br /> granted. The burden of proof lies with the Applicant who should <br /> apply to the spirit and intent of the Regulation. <br /> If the waiver Clause is disregarded, the provision exploring <br /> the extent of compelling need would have to be applied. There is <br /> no denial. of land use in this matter. <br /> In response, Mr. Grotske raised the issue of balance, the <br /> wildlife benefits the proposal offers. The developed area would <br /> be isolated.; the area in back will prose to provide an effective <br /> acoustic buffer, substantial and much improved habitat. <br /> Mr. Sherman suggested Mr. Grotske calculate the various <br /> incursion and ratio mitigation according the Chart. The <br /> Commission agreed it would be beneficial to then to review the <br /> results. a offered his assistance to Mr. Grotske. ) <br /> Michael Talbot suggested Mr. Grotske reconsider the planting <br /> of mountain Laurel as they do not survive very well on the Cape, <br /> and they tend to have low wildlife value. <br /> Mr. Sherman suggested. Applicant agree to a two-week <br /> continuance in order to work through the analysis according to <br /> the Regulation which will prove beneficial to both the Applicant <br /> and the Come.s s ion. <br />