1/8/2004 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

were at the site that day, they measured from one work-limit stake to the nearest wetland stake and it was 34 ft, not 35. Because of this and the fact that It is such a tight lot to begin with, Bob recommended that the Commission request a second opinion on the wetland line, 3 During the construction phase, the workers will be only two feet from the work limit, and the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that the work procedure will ensure the stability of the bank, The plan does not show containment of roof run-off, We would need engineering plans for any retaining wall over five ft. high, If we permitted the project, the plan would have to include double staked hay bales with silt screen and weekly ,monitoring of erosion control, the hay bales to have plywood backing by the 35 ft. zone and maybe by the steep slope, Depending on where this project-goes Bob recommended that the Commission require a WiIdIife H abitat Evaluation under the provisions of the Wetlands Act, section 10.2 .1. Michael said he thought it should be clearly understood that we have had a very consistent policy of treating coastal banks as significant resource areas, and actually have used the 50 ft buffer from the top of a coastal bank as the guideline by which we judge where there can be impacts. For us to even contemplate the idea of allowing an entire project on a coastal bank is a difficult precedent to consider. Bob said the Commission would select the consultant to do the independent evaluation and the applicant would have to pay for It, but Nor. Grotke would have access through the Commission to ask that consultant questions. Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to authorize the Agent to hire a consultant to do a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation of the property under the provisions of the Wetlands Act, Section 10.24.1. Motion made, second6d and unanimously carried to grant a continuance to 2/5/04 at 7:05 p.m., at the request of the applicant. 7:25 .m., James and Anne LaGrippe, 15 ocean Bluff Drive (retaining wall, landscaping grading, patio renovation.) Michael trot ke represented the applicant. Bob described the project and said 1 he's not sure if ,mitigation can be done on one side as planned and 2 the larger issue is that a violation on the site has not been corrected. Bob and (like Talbot will meet at the site with Nor. Grotke to discuss ,mitigation plantings. Regarding a proposed fieldstone wall, Mike Talbot said we will need a narrative giving construction details that will guarantee there will be no impact beyond the work limit, which is literally only 1" away from the proposed wall. Lotion made, seconded and unanimously carried to grant a continuance to 1/22/04 at 20 p.m., at the request of the applicant. 7:30 p.m, Gary Locar o, 51 Waterline Drive (vista pruning with maintenance in perpetuity etuity and mitigationplantings). Michael Grotle represented the applicant. Bob described the plan and recommended approval with the condition that 1 a final revegetation plan is agreed upon, and 2 any future violations of the applicant will result in an irrevocable withdrawal of any further vista pruning privileges.