Laserfiche WebLink
the performance standards under the By-Laws and under the State regulations), the <br /> ■ r <br /> reason someone wants to move something is irrelevant. He said he understands that <br /> there is some question as to why this was approved and why the previous applicant <br /> didn't push for something closer, but he doesn't know what that reason was. <br /> Michael Talbot said when you have a project which is significantly within the 50 ft. <br /> buffer of a resource area, under ourBy-Laws there's a presumption that that wild <br /> habitat will be protected in that zone, and vire don't allow people to invade that 50 ft. <br /> unless they can show significant cause, and there isn't significant cause. There's a <br /> space <br /> to put a nice house in there and that's what it comes down to. Where there is <br /> significant wildiife in an area, that's part of our job to protect that. <br /> Mr. Grotzle cited the position of the adjacent house and the footprint for the subject <br /> house# and Elliot said the people who came in at that knew that was going to happen. <br /> Mr. Grtz# e said typically a developer takes the path of least resistance because he's <br /> not responsible for the ultimate completion of the work. <br /> Bob said that"s still a moot point, that under our current regulations he doesn't thinly we <br /> can defend this project because he doesn't think the applicant has met the standards of <br /> our -Lavas which says e can't approve someone's request to go less than 50 ft., and <br /> who has offered us no alternative or an improvement unless someone in the hearing <br /> roves that the property has no significant wildlife habitat,, which is definitely not the <br /> case■ He thinks vire should give h*1m the opportunity to continue the-hearing and rethink <br /> if, or if he chooses not to continue it and rethink it, he recommends a denial. <br /> Elliot said he <br /> thinks this is of the nature of an amendment to the previous action} and <br /> vire have not been given a good reason why vire should amend that previous action. <br /> There was a reason for it. <br /> IIIb. Grotzka said at the original hearing the Commission said the project certainly had <br /> merit. Michael Talbot said we thought one slice had merit. Jack said we didn't agree at <br /> all and read his comments recorded in the November 7th minutes. Mr. Grotz a hada#t <br /> received those minutes. Mr. Gr tz a mentioned having made a change in the pool. <br /> Michael Talbot said he sees the pool as part of the problem because it's in a naturally <br /> vegetated buffer strip and it will create a lot of disturbance to wildlife when there are <br /> pool parties. He said in general we're reluctant to allow pools in that sensitive an area. <br /> Jack asked about the input of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife regarding shellfish. <br /> Bob said IIIb. Grote is going to check on that. <br /> .hack read the November 7th minutes re his request to Mr. Grotz a about what is <br /> happening with the lots other than the four shown on his table. Mr. Grote said he <br /> thought it was deemed to be irrelevant. Mr. Grotz a said most of the other ten lots are <br /> beyond the Commission's jurisdiction, <br /> 9 <br /> f <br /> L <br />