Laserfiche WebLink
7:35 p.m. Donald B Ian eman, 56 Wakeby Road (continued from 10/17). I Ir. <br /> Blakeman was present. Bob said we pulled the work limit back about 4 ft., the <br /> applicant has submitted an acceptable revised plan, and he recommended approval. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to issue a Negative Determination. <br /> 7:40 p#r . shoestring Bay Realty Trust, 23 Shoestring Bay Road (continued from <br /> 10/17). Michael Grotzke represented the applicant, who is requesting permission to <br /> move the previously approved footprint 75 ft. closer to the resource area. Mike Ball, <br /> wetland scientist, will be inspecting the site. Diane stated she saw a den field on the <br /> property. The site is providing significant wildlife habitat. Michael said the footprints on <br /> either side of the property would clearly not typically meet our present performance <br /> standards. Jack said the Commission spent a lot of time when the original plan was <br /> submitted, and he expressed annoyance that now applicant is looking to make a <br /> change. We don't know why this footprint was set back from the others. <br /> Bob said he hes a letter from the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife asking us to Bold u <br /> our review until they have had a chance to comment. He said this is the fiat time that <br /> this group has interceded at this stage, and he has no idea why they grant to Qomment <br /> now. He doesn't think they have any legal authority over us, but they can make <br /> recommendations. He doesn't think they will find any impact, since it's not a good <br /> shellfish habitat and it's some distance away from the wetlands. <br /> Mr. Grotzke explained the probable reason for the letter from this Division was that <br /> when DEP reviewed this, Dorothy Glickens saw a dock had been indicated, but a dock <br /> was not part of this application. Therefore, she sent thea a notification saying <br /> applicant should be aware that if they do a dock, it needs to go to U.S. Army corps of <br /> Engineers. she sent copies of her letter to the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Mr. <br /> Grotzke will get a copy of this notification and send it to Bob. <br /> Jack said the above discussion is extraneous, that the main issue here is whether or <br /> not we will allow this footprint to be moved closer to the wetlands than was shown in <br /> the originally approved plan for all of the lots. <br /> Mr. Grotzke suggested that he review with.Bob the basis for previous decisions. Bob <br /> said Alli. Grotzke is going to offer a plan to see if meaningful mitigation can be dono to <br /> meet our flexibility clause. Jack said that there must be a compelling reason to change <br /> the footprint, and no compelling reason has been given. Diane said before his client <br /> spends more money pursuing this, she does not see how he can mitigate that kind of <br /> habitat because dens are very site specific. <br /> Jack asked Mr. Grotzke to let the Commission know what is happening with the lots <br /> other than the four shown on his table. <br /> 7 <br />