Laserfiche WebLink
J <br /> 7a.12 p.m. C rist her Peacock, N01—7 crow Fid <br /> (Cont. from o f go Install seasonal dock, a retaining wall and vista pruning <br /> Jack Vaccaro of Vaccaro Environmental consulting stood to represent the applicant. Mr. Vaccaro <br /> explained the applicant originally wished to install a seasonal dock, retaining wall and do some tree <br /> removal and vista pruning. Mr. Vaccaro explained that due to concerns raised by Natural Heritage for the <br /> freshwater mussels in the area the dock portion of the application was being removed entirely. Mr. <br /> Vaccaro explained that the applicant wishes to have the other pieces approved and many be back to <br /> amend at later tim 'to include the,dock. The Agent explained to the Commission that the vista corridor <br /> already a cists'on the property but needs some trimming. The Agent also explained that a retaining wall <br /> already exists on the property as well and that the applicant only wishes to extend it. The Commission <br /> questioned the letter sent by Natural Heritage regarding the applica#ion. The Agent explained that their <br /> only concern and that raised by the Division of Fish and Wildlife was the seasonal dock. The agencies <br /> noted that they saw no adverse impact to the area if the seasonal dock was net installed. Mr. Vaccaro <br /> explained that the property owner also wished to plant three white pines to be used a screening on the <br /> property. He asked that the Order of conditions be written to include the pines as optional and not <br /> included in the mitigative plantings. He also stated that there will be no tree removal, previously the <br /> applicant sought to remove a reed Maple from the property as part ofthe application.The Agent explained <br /> that he would be looking for mitigative plantings with a 0 survival rate over the three years. <br /> Commissioner cress questioned who monitored the plantings and whose responsibility survival is. The <br /> Agent explained that Conservation was responsible for insuring compliance but that it was up to the <br /> property owner to ensure survival or replant to keep ratio accurate. The Agent also explained that the <br /> crista pruning lad closed for the year' and no cutting will take place until November when the season <br /> reopens. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to close and Issue. <br /> 7:16 p.m. Kathleen and Brown Lingamfelter, NON—65 S c nsett Point Road <br /> (Demolish and rebuild garage with slight increase in footprint) <br /> The Agent explained that the Commission would be requesting a continuance due to a printing problem at <br /> the Enterprise. The Agent went on to explain that the hearing notice/public notices were not panted in, <br /> time thus creating the creed for the continuance until the notice can be properly advertised. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 0512912008 @ 7:18 p.m. <br /> 7:18 p.m. Ivan and.Jean Partridge, RDA A—20 Mutiny Way <br /> (Remove juniper along driveway and replace with native v g tation <br /> Baan Casey of Casey Landscape and Arboriculture Inc. stood to represent the applicant.The hearing had <br /> been previously continued so that a plan with proper delineations on it and a methodology on how the <br /> trees were to be removed could be obtained. Mr. Casey explained that the applicant wishes to remove <br /> the oversize junipers that are impinging on the driveway be removed and replaced with indigenious <br /> species. The Agent confirmed with Mr. Casey that all of the heavy machinery would be kept'on the <br /> driveway and lir. Casey did confirm that, The Agent explained that the project will call for no grade <br /> changes and that Mr. Casey would be grinding the stumps in place as to not disturb the bank anymore <br /> than necessary. Mr. Casey stated that the replacement plantings would be good for erosion control, <br /> plants as noted on the plan like 1Jinterberry and inkberr . He did explain that there would be erosion } <br /> controls put in place prior to work commencing and that they may require a hair bale line as well for this <br /> purpose. The Commission questioned the grinding of the stump versus removal. The Agent and Mr. <br /> Casey explained that the removal would be far more detrimental to the bank than grinding in place. The <br /> Agent recommended a negative determination. <br /> 11 <br /> ion crude,,seconded and unanimously carved for a Negative Determination. <br /> 5 <br /> I <br />