Laserfiche WebLink
F <br /> 7:35 p.m., Mark .o er$, 87 Hooppole Road (continued from 2/2106). Jack Vaccaro <br /> represented the applicant and described the plan. This is a four-acre property which runs about <br /> 150000 ft. along John's Pond. The original house will be demolished and the new one set further <br /> back from the wetlands, keeping the work its a nm`murn of 50 ft. back from the pond. The <br /> applicants are requesting two vista windows. Natural Heritage expressed concern about the tide <br /> water nucket and the insect species habitat close to the pond, and they felt that a Conservation <br /> restriction would be necessary for this project to be approved. The applicants would like to <br /> convert-what""s now a lawn to a meadow that would provide a variety of habitat. <br /> Steve said we're going to get a lot of midlife habitat out of this project not due to our By-law. <br /> The one question he has is the vista corridors. we allow 50 f . in this case because there's over <br /> 1,000 f . of frontage. One quarter of where the house now is will be wide open, and the <br /> precedent of the Commission has been that if there is a view already, we're not going to give <br /> another one. The view that is going to be established by the removal of the existing residence is <br /> going to be above and beyond what is allowed now by the y-law. There will be nothing in that <br /> area for more than 50 ft. He therefore asked for the deletion of the other corridor. <br /> Mr. Vaccaro asked if there night be some compromise on the second corridor. Steve said no, <br /> and reiterated that once the existing house is gone, there will be a good 65 to 70 f . swath that has <br /> only one or two trees in it. <br /> Mrs. Rogers said when they bought the property, it had a house that was not up to code. They <br /> wih be demolishing.it and building a new hone much farther rack from the water than it needs <br /> to be. They are bettering the property, and she feels they should not be penalized for that. <br /> Steve said the only compromise he can even begin to think about is.after the existing house is <br /> demolished, to fifl in that area with larger trees, and then opening up the other corridor. Mr. <br /> Vaccaro saidthe two proposed corridors represent less there 20%of the frontage. They total <br /> about 200 f . with a little over l,000 t. of frontage. <br /> Mr. Vaccaro pointed out a split raA fence on the plan that the applicants may want to put in at a <br /> later elate, and they wanted it to have it built into this plan. Steve said this would be no problem. <br /> Mrs. Rogers asked if it would be possible that rather than having a second corridor, to do a little <br /> selective cutting -- a little hole here, a little hole there since the lot is exceptionally large. <br /> Steve said that the Commission understands her position and that this i's a tough situation for the <br /> Commission, because we're here to enforce the regulations that were promulgated. He said that <br /> area is buffer zone, but he thinks this is the type of situation where we night have to look at our <br /> regulations again, and where the owners have an extreme amount of frontage, they would have <br /> the ability tci prune the 20%. If we changed the regulations, they could come back and request <br /> the vista pruning. <br /> Cass suggested that since the lot is so large, they could spiry off a parcel, put it in a trust, and <br /> have it considered as another lot. Ins. Rogers feels that the property is not sub-dividable. <br /> 4 <br />