Laserfiche WebLink
I r• <br /> Steve said his last c mment.was that-the Comnu'ssion can always waive a regulation or make <br /> changes to it based on their ruling, He thought it in the Coxnrnision's best interest to wait on <br /> this issue and maybe look again at the numbers. <br /> Lloyd and Jeff were in favor of allowing the two corridors, since no one else vill ever have such <br /> a large frontage. The regulations allow 20% of frontage for corridors, but not to exceed 50 ft. <br /> Mr. Vaccaro-said their request was for each corridor to be 100 ft. It was proposed.that we allow <br /> two wnndows 50 f l. vide at the top, to which the applicants agreed. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve this NOI VAth the stipulation that <br /> the two windows are 5 o i . wide at the-top. <br /> 7:40 p. . Robert Spencer, 7 ocean fluff Drive(remove wall and ,onstruct and maintain a <br /> carnage house with landscaping). Cass stepped down for this hearing. John Slavinsky <br /> represented the applicant. Jack said that the Board ofHealth has insufficient inf"onnation on the <br /> plan. Mr. Slavinsly said there is no living space in the project, so no filing was needed with the <br /> Board of Health, and he described the project. Steve said he is concerned about the adverse <br /> affect on the bank. Jack read a letter from Barbara Casey, 5 ocean Bluff Drive, stating her <br /> objections to the prof ect. <br /> Attorney Peter Lyons, representing Barbara Casey, said their first concern was what the project <br /> vll do to the coastal bank and the effect it will have on the flow down from that area into the <br /> i <br /> pond. This is a very limited area, and if the start building on it;the densis will become quite <br /> l � g y <br /> thick there, and they won't have much to help vith erosion. <br /> Dr. Greg Moore, wetland ecologist and scientist, pointed,out that there are at least four, if not <br /> five, resource areas on the site, so we're not talking about buffer zones, but impacts of resource <br /> areas. He left copies of his presentation with the members. <br /> Jack explained that we have sometimes had contentious issues in.the past where people have <br /> I <br /> cone in with-lengthy arguments against there, and we've said we really don't have enough time <br /> to digest the arguments at the time of the meeting in order to make an intelligent udgrnent. He <br /> invited anyone to make comments,, but said we'll probably have to have a continuation. <br /> William Duffey,, 125 Shore give Nest, echoed most of the comments made this evening and <br /> presented a list of 12 people who are opposed to this proposed construction. Two of the twelve <br /> are direct'abutters, and ten are not within an abutter's range. Jack noted that the list did not <br /> state their objections to the project. Mr. Duffey said he can have each of these people write a <br /> letter to the Board to state their ovum objection. <br /> Dr. Moore showed photos of the site to the members. Steve said the bank meets the definition of <br /> a coastal bank by both the Wetlands Protection Act and the fly-law. one of the provisions in the <br /> performance standards under the wetlands Protection Act is that any structure shall not <br /> jeopardize the stabilization of the bank. He clearly thinks that any structure, especially of this <br /> size, will have a severe impact on the stabilization of that.bank. <br /> 5 <br />