Laserfiche WebLink
Jack reviewed that the request was to move the footprint 75 ft. closer to the buffer zone <br /> and now that has been lessened by 7 ft. <br /> Bob quoted section 7-A.(1) , which has been approved by the AG. <br /> Bob maintains, in part because of Diane's assessment, that this is an important <br /> consideration. He also maintains that the applicant has not yet made a serious attempt <br /> at mitigation. Bob quoted a letter from like Grc t ke to Nike Ball. <br /> `herefore, Bob believes vire could deny this project under ourBy-Law as a brand neer <br /> project. It doesn't matter ghat went on before, He would not recommend approval <br /> because he doesn't think there has been any reasonable effort made to compromise. <br /> Michael Talbot agreed. ' <br /> Regarding Mr. Ball's letter cited above, he said he was asked t see if there was an <br /> opportunityt provide some mitigation, based on the existing habitat . He told lir. <br /> Grtke and thea pliant that they believe there is no way to meaningfully enhance <br /> the coastal bank or the buffer zone between the work limits and the resource area <br /> based on the existing conditions, but he stated in the letter that from what he"s seen, <br /> this project appears to him to meet performance standards under the By-Laws for a <br /> coastal bank as well as the State performance standards for a coastal bank, The <br /> Commissioners agreed. <br /> Bob recommended giving the applicant the opportunity to consider an alternative <br /> design set back to the original footprint. <br /> Mr. Ball said that the footprints for the adjacent houses were approved in 1998 and that <br /> the Order of Conditions was extended for another three years, which would be to 2004. <br /> He said there must be a reason why the Commission found that the adjacent houses <br /> met theP erformance conditions for both the coastal bank and the naturally vegetated <br /> buffer zone. <br /> Elliot said thep licant may have proposed these things and proposed the line in this <br /> lot. There had to be a reason why the subject footprint was set back further than the <br /> adjacent houses and the applicant's representatives are evading or not talking about <br /> why there was a difference. Previously, the applicant agreed to a significantly different <br /> line, and now wants to ignore that and not say anything about it, with no reason given <br /> as to why the ignoring of it. If there was an argument about this being an unfair <br /> situation at that time, it would have been brought up at that time, and there is no <br /> evidence of that. So this was satisfactory to the applicant at that time. Noir there must <br /> be a reason for the change. <br /> Mr. Ball said i <br />