Laserfiche WebLink
Len said their cover letter mentions an underground storage tank on the property which <br /> is not mentioned in their NOI. Mr. Costa said it's an above ground storage tank, they <br /> did take a look at it and there's no sign of distressed vegetation or stained soils, and it <br /> will be properly disposed of. The tank is part of the cottage, so the reference in the <br /> NO[ to the removal of the cottage includes the tank. Bob said he didn't see any <br /> evidence of any leakage or any other problems. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the plan and issue an <br /> Order of Conditions requiring receipt of a revised plan showing the correct revision <br /> date, verification that all taxes have been paid, and receipt of an acceptable native <br /> revegetation plan for the buffer zone, which will have to be approved by the <br /> Commission before we sign off on the Building permit. <br /> 7:15 p.m., Fred Blythe, 228 Wading Place (move boulders closer together). Mr. <br /> Blythe said he had a septic system put in, and while the installer was there, he had him <br /> put some rocks together to deny access to the spit because he was tired of coming <br /> home and not being able to get into his own driveway -- cars would park in his driveway <br /> and on his lawn. This was a way to put an end to it. <br /> Bob said there have been stones there which had allowed some public access through <br /> them for the past 13 years that he's been here. Mr. Blythe moved those stones around, <br /> and they've been moved since by various parties, so it's hard to say who's involved in <br /> • what. <br /> Michael asked if among those stones there was some fill placed. Bob said some soil <br /> has been disturbed, but he can't say whether or not fill has been added. <br /> Elliot said if the plan he has is correct, all of the stones are upon the applicant's <br /> property. As far as this Commission is concerned, our only issue is permissible <br /> changes to an applicant's property. If there are any other issues, legal or otherwise, <br /> they are not to be taken up with this Commission. If there is any work being done <br /> either off the property of the applicant or that violates wetlands restrictions with respect <br /> to the property, we are prepared to hear it. This Commission has no jurisdiction over <br /> access to private property owned by the applicant. <br /> Bob said the subject comes down to a simple matter. The area affected is land subject <br /> to coastal storm flowage. He distributed to the members a chart which depicts the <br /> standards. Under the Wetlands Act, Chapter 131-40, there are no standards. Coastal <br /> storm flowage is the orphan child of the Wetlands Act. It's mentioned in the Act, but <br /> unlike all the other resource areas, it has no performance standards. So virtually you <br /> can do anything there which doesn't affect the resource area. <br /> The chart shows six elements of Chapter 172, and Bob said that moving the stones did <br /> not affect any of these standards. in his estimation, even though the applicant should <br /> • <br /> A <br />