Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> accommodate the size increase. The Agent stated that-the bylaws allowed for no mitigation to offset size <br /> increases. He also felt that it would open the door to people creating larger platforms and thinking that <br /> planting a couple plants lila low bush blueberries would compensate. The Agent recommended that they <br /> do not approve the order and require the platform be scaled down to the -foot width. <br /> Nation. made, seconded and unanimously carried to not approve the Amended order of conditions and <br /> that the platform rust be scaled down to 4 feet in width. <br /> 7:18 p.m. Robert Stow, RDA—8 Pine midge Road <br /> (Maintain an after-the-fact block wall along the side and rear lot line with no proposed grade changes) <br /> John slavinsky of Cape and Islands Engineering stood to represent the applicant. He described the <br /> applicant's wlsh'to maintain an after-the-fact block retaining wall along the side and rear lot lines. Mr. <br /> Slavinsky explained that the property is 50 feet outside the flood zone. He stated that after researching he <br /> i could find no performance standards in-the.bylaw that the v alI was impacting the flood zone. The wall is <br /> approximately 14" at its highest elevation and "at the lowest point. Mr. Slavinsky stated Mrs. stow did <br /> consult his neighbors,the property abutters, anO presented a letter to the Commission from thea. The <br /> letter from Mr. Paul Boucher arnd Ids. Paula Funk was read for the record. In the letter they state that M r. <br /> Stow had approached them prier to installing the wall and explained that the wall was to control runoff <br /> onto their property and to create a level'entrance to his garage. Mr. Boucher and Ms. Funk also stated in <br /> the letter that they have no objections to the wail. The Agent agreed with IVIr. Slavinskr in that there are <br /> no performance standards for a wall of this size. He questioned whether even reasonable alternative had <br /> been explored before its construction. The Agent stated that from his onsite visit: runoff did not appear to <br /> be a Burge issue and that it did appear that vegetated berm or a rain garden could have been used in this <br /> instance instead of a wall. The Agent explained that this was the second time that a violation had been <br /> discovered on the property. Mr. Stover had taken upon himself to construct a mall and not go through the <br /> proper channels. The Commission was not given a chance to hear about the project beforehand and <br /> suggest alternatives to Mr. Stow. Mr. Slavinsky agreed but said that there were no grade changes as a <br /> result of the wall} and there is no impact from a conservation standpoint. He researched flood waters and <br /> could not find any history of therm reaching the point where the gall is.An abutter,Albert Lawton, stood to <br /> comment on the hearing. He stated that Mr. Stow's most recent project has created a runoff issue at his <br /> house, which sits at the foot of Pine Ridge Road. Mr. Lawton explained that he never had an issue with <br /> runoff prior and has been at the address since 1976. He described the trucks digging up the road to bring <br /> fill in for lir. Stow's garage and that the asphalt apron had been damaged as well. The Agent explained <br /> that comments should be kept to the hearing at Band about the wall and that he meant no disrespect for <br /> interrupting. The Agent went on to further explain that past history cannot be taken into consideration. <br /> second abutter, Diane Dineen stood to comment. Ms. Dineen lives directly across the street from Mr. <br /> Stow. She had contacted the Agent back when Mr. Stow began clearing his yard of trees and has been in <br /> touch regularly with issues regarding the property. Ids. Dineen contends that there were grade changes <br /> and because of those grade changes she now has a serious runoff~issue in her front yard. IVIS. Dineen <br /> estimates the grade changes to be approximately '. The runoff after a storm is so bad that her front yard <br /> is completly flooded. She stated that in a conversation with one of the dump truck driven he apologized <br /> to her for the water issues. He told her that he felt that the project should have been stopped in the <br /> engineering process. Ms. Dineen has-been corresponding not only with the Agent but also with Charlie <br /> Il aintanis,as well at the Town to try and help resolve the issues with Mr. Stow. She provided pictures to <br /> the Commission ion to show that the wall is bigger than described and to try and show the grade change. Ms. <br /> Dinneen also informed the Commission that Mr. Stow had also installed an underground pipe to drain <br /> water from his garage so he can use it as a wash down bay. The Commission did explain to Ills-. Dineen <br /> that the runoff issue is outside the conservation jurisdiction but that she should contact the Zoning Board <br /> of Appeals . .A regarding the matter. Cass Costa went on to exp lain that she had similar situation and <br /> that she went through Z.B.A to get it resolved. The Commission questioned Mr. sfavinsl y as to the grade <br /> changes Ms. Dineen mentioned. He stated that there were grade charges for the garage but not the wall <br /> per se. The Agent and the Commission pointed out that the filing states that there are no grade changes <br /> when clearly theme were. The Agent requested that the hearing be ruled a positive determination used <br /> on procedure and make lir. Stow remove the wall. The Agent and the Commission would like to see Mr. <br /> Stow refile and submit a plan with a different approach to control runoff. The plan for the new filing should <br /> 3 <br />