6/19/2003 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

O'Connell. He said that by maintaining the flog in the creed , we will benefitrildlife habitat and shellfish. Michael said he has a sense that we get dropped on with all these big ticket items, studies that they did for someone else and we never got to see alternatives, and he grants to make sure we have time to review what's before us. Bob said that's why he recommends a continuance and he's asked Jim O'Connell, CZM geologist, to review whatever is put together. Also, this Commission could ask for an outside consultant to review it. Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to grant a continuance to August 21 at 7 p.m , at the request of the app Iicant. 7:30 p.m.,, Edmond English, 3 Ocean Bluff, (continued from 6/5/03). Michael Grotzke represented the applicant and presented the revised plan which he thinks addresses all the issues that the Commission has raised. Dan Foley, an engineer representing his family who vans a house across the pond, said the applicant has gone a long way towards addressing his concerns. He now has two concerns. 1 Putting a basement under the house Wil remove 52 of the sand that's in that bank ^-that sand will no longer be available to replenish the bank, barrier beach and the dunes. He asked if it would be possible to pint a craVA space under the part hat's on the tip to mitigate the loss of the sand. 2 The Notice of Intent says "new construction,n and our regulations permit only maintenance or renovation of existing structures within a buffer zone. Since this project is entirely within the buffer zone, he thinks it would set a very poor precedent to allover any new construction which would be entirely v thin the buffer zone. He would feel much more comfortable if it were considered a renovation or replacement of an existing structure, which is what it is. He asked that we have our legal counsel review if new construction is permitted within a buffer zone. His attorney is of the opinion that new construction is not allowed, whereas the applicant's attorney is of the opposite opinion. Sarah Turano-Torres, attorney for the applicant, said this Commission's jurisdiction i as broad as possible and pertains to any activity in a buffer zone, whether 'It's new construction or trimming a tree. Michael Talbot said if there was not an existing cottage on this site, it's certain that this Commission would find this to be an un uilda le lot* So Mr. Fole 's distinction that this is a replacement of an existing structure makes sense, becausewe're adamant about new construction meeting very specific guidelines regarding setbacks from resource areas, etc. This change would make it very clear that we did not allow a new structure to be built mere none had existed, but is a replacement of an existing structure.