4/6/2006 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

} 7:35 p,m,, David Edlin, 5 Bowspn*t Point (demolish and rebuild neve single faraily hone with associated appurtenances). Jack Vaccaro and Tony Ferragamo represented the applicant. lr. Vaccaro described the project and pointed out that the existing structure is within 50 i . of the buffer. The proposed house includes an elevated deck supported by posts and sonar tubes which reach a little closer to the wetland. The existing house is 37 i . from the wetland, and the proposed house is 29 ft. off the bordered vegetated wetland. Their plan is to reduce the area of i the lawn and construct an elevated berm 9ft. vide and 3 ft. high to prevent the eater from runningoff into the Popp onesset Creek. Steve said he likes the project. He understands there is further encroachment into the wetland, but he thinks the berm v 11 do a great job, the part of the proposed house which encroaches further into the wetland is not solid, but decks, and a lot of lawn is eliminated. As far as he's concerned, it meets all the performance standards except for being at least. 35 ft. off the resource area but we are getting a good deal regarding the wetland lines associated with the phragmites, and he r connnended approval. Michael said the first section of the mitigation regulation says to permit encroachments beyond the 3 5 i . line, there has to be a compelling need, i.e., what is the reason that the client feels they have to extend this house. Mr. Ferragamo said it's the elevated deck that creates the encroachment into that area and a portion of the site sits within the flood plain, and they want to be sure the new house conforms to flood plain regulations. This means the basement slab elevation has to be accessed in a flood event, so they would want to sculpt out that area anyway to allow that to happen. The real benefit is that there is a significant reduction in lawn. Michael said what we're looking;for is reduction of lawn, but also increase in wildlife habitat, which means mixed plantings. Mr. Ferragamo said they have no problem with submitting a mitigation plan following our revised Regulation 8. Motion made seconded and unanimous) cried to ant a continuation to April 27b at 7:15 y �` p.m., at the request of the applicant. 7:40 p.m., Joy Hik er, 29 Pond Circle(continued from 3116106). John Sla insky represented the applicant. He said the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife'has advised that the plan presents no adverse effect on wildlife and Natural Heritage has no objection. The plan had been previously approved pending these two approvals. Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve this NOL 7:45 .m.,Robert Stove, 25 Monomoscoy Road'west (continued from 3116106). John Slavinsky represented the applicant. Steve talked to ACC on this project. The area in question is wetland, at the top of the salt marsh. That means there's a moratorium on anything going past the salt marsh. Chapter 91 wHI not issue permits below mean high eater in these areas. They typically will not issue permits in ACEC areas, so it appears to him that this project will.have to stop at the ACC fine.