Laserfiche WebLink
This also brings up the point of setting a precedent. We cannot put ourselves in the <br /> position that we are going to require microtopography with each case, nor are we <br /> vir <br /> surveyors, nor can e go out and verify everything. Usually it's not a crucial case like <br /> this, so vire usually go to the site and if it looks-reasonable, we don't second guess. <br /> This time he and Cass costa went out and measured a fever spots with a line level, and <br /> it still didn't add up, so he does not 'concur with their methodology. If you do it the old- <br /> fashioned, plain way, it doesn't coincide with their numerous, individual plots. Until we <br /> agree on the bank, we cannot make an informed judgment as to whether or not this <br /> project meets the requirements of our By-law, especially because we're dealing with the <br /> naturally vegetated buffer strip which is measured from the top of the coastal bank. <br /> Michael Talbot was surprised that in this plan, the coastal bank has been roved further <br /> seaward than the first plan. <br /> Mr. trot ke said their method goes by the average measurement. Bob said their <br /> measurement has to be a lot closer to the measurement using the Commission's <br /> methodology. He said that Policy 91-1 leaves a lot of latitude for the local issuing <br /> authority, and unless he sees an overlay of all their multitudinous points to see how <br /> they coincide with their contours, he can't be convinced that they have presented an <br /> accurate delineation: and he will not endorse it. <br /> Elliot said the standard is 50 ft. from the coastal bank, and in order to core down from <br /> between that to 35 ft., we have to be convinced of the necessity and the lack of any <br /> adverse impact. We are not talking about a by-laver or a statute that sags the <br /> delineation line is 35 ft. The delineation line is 50 ft., but we have the discretion to go <br /> below that in extraordinary circumstances. Michael Talbot added that the 50 ft. goes to <br /> the work area, not the house. <br /> Bob said that we have gone down to 35 ft. in the past on a lot that had no house on it, <br /> because to not do that would prevent antibody from building a hone on the lot. <br /> However, this case is different because this lot has had previous development on it. <br /> Michael Talbot said if they were to remain within that portion of the footprint that's <br /> closest to the coastal bank, we wouldn't have much of a discussion, because that would <br /> be maintaining the footprint of an existing residence. <br /> Bob said the maim issue is that we have a coastal bank disagreement, and he's <br /> prepared to offer a summary of his reasons to deny the project. <br /> Ms. Turan -Flores said she thinks there is at most a 10 ft. differential, and the majority <br /> of the house is 39 ft. away, where the differential is between -6 ft. she asked for <br /> evidence of a negative impact on lots where previous houses have been built close to <br /> the coastal bank. <br /> i <br />