Laserfiche WebLink
7:10 p.m., John Malloy, 196 Wading Place Road (continued from 2117/05). Steve said there are <br /> some shellfish and water depth issues. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to grant a continuance to March 17th at 7:15 <br /> p.m., at the request of the appli cant. . L <br /> 7:15 p.m., Robert Najarian, 8 Bowsprit Point (continued from 2/17105). Robert Gray <br /> represented the applicant and described the plan. He said his client would prefer to'not use <br /> Rodeo herbicide to control the phragrnite . Steve said he has been handling this application and <br /> he may have made a misjudgment on the vista corridor and the past precedents of the <br /> Commission. He'said he went by the rules, which don't specifically state in the vista pruning <br /> guidelines that if you have an existing view corridor, you are not allowed to have another one, so <br /> he went on that premise and approved the plan. Bob and he have discussed some possible <br /> changes to rectify the situation to the laws, and one is to replace the low growing shrubs with <br /> trees. <br /> r <br /> Cass cited the obtuse angle of the property. Hike said he recently saw the site and there is <br /> approximately a 75-100 ft. wide-open vista corridor, with the exception of the phrag ate . He <br /> said we have had a very clear policy that if there is an existing corridor; a view corridor that an <br /> applicant wishes to put on record would have to be within that existing corridor. The corridor' <br /> being shown on the plan happens to correspond with the only section of that buffer zone that has <br /> any canopy plants whatsoever. He would be very reluctant to accept another corridor without <br /> completely revegetating the rest of that buffer zone. That has been our precedent. <br /> Bob said Cass has a point, in that if you measure the vista corridor on a 100 f . scale, it should be <br /> 25,, and it's 32. <br /> Mike said the simplest remedy would be to redraw the corridor to correspond to the existing vista <br /> corridor. Another issue is the phragrnites. Even though they are considered an invasive species, <br /> they do now perforin a very important fanction. They stabilize the soil, provide a certain amount <br /> of storm protection, and provide habitat for some species. ft's not the Rodeo treatment that's <br /> important to this Conunissi n. ff the phragn tes are going to be removed, something else will <br /> have to be put in their place. If the applicant wants to mow it as a means of killing it and put <br /> something from the native plant conn unity in its place, that would be fine. But to simply mow <br /> it would mean leaving that area vulnerable. He said we have had experience with applying the <br /> Rodeo treatment by hand where there is very love impact, and it allows the native plant <br /> cornmumty to replace it. 'Faking the route of mowing, it probably would have to be moved a lot <br /> more than twice a year, and it would have to be replaced with plantings that would continue to <br /> perforin the functions of wildlife habitats and storm water protection, which are important issues <br /> of the buffer zone. We would entertain that roue. <br /> Mr. Gray said the plan was produced in good faith between the staff and.liar McManus, the <br /> landscape architect. He suggested that the Commission craft into the order of Conditions <br /> exactly what is permittable. They don't want to have to continue to revise the plan again, They <br /> could agree that the view corridor be shifted over and drawn to the right dimensions. Bob said <br />