Laserfiche WebLink
x <br /> r <br /> that there would be a large decrease in the wildlife value of the area if the project were allowed to stay as <br /> large as proposed. Mr. Webster ter closed by explaining that while the project is not as big as some in the <br /> area it is 7 feet closer to the grater than the others. Mr. Bob Sampson, another abutter carne forward to <br /> question the accuracy of the % as well and stated that he did not feel Mr. Cohen needed boat storage* <br /> as he does not have a place for it on his property. Mr. Sampson also questioned whether the property <br /> fells in the Diver Front Act; the Agent explained that it does not fell under the act. Mr. Michael Talbot of <br /> Michael Talbot Associates stood to address the Commission and explained that some of the'abutters <br /> both present and not to represent their concerns on the application had retained him. Mr. Talbot passed <br /> around photos to demonstrate the area and that there would be no trees left once the project was <br /> completed. Mr. Talbot explained that on one photo where the red Cine existed that from there landward no <br /> trees would remain after construction. Mr. Talbot explained that the lot is currently naturally vegetated and <br /> also questioned how the alteration calculation is figured. Mr. Talbot questioned the delineations, lack <br /> thereof on the plan. Mr. Talbot explained that he felt that a significant ridge was not represented on the <br /> plan and that it needs to be studied, as he believes there is a coastal bank present as well. Mr. Talbot <br /> explained that if the coastal bank is found to be there that it would push the50-foot buffer back. Mr. <br /> Talbot explained that the Cast concern was the size of the driveway and location of utilities. Mr. Talbot <br /> stated that he felt the utilities could be located.in the driveway area. Mr. Talbot explained that the size of <br /> the project would call for the destruction of the Cast large wildlife corridor that exists in the area. Mr. Talbot <br /> explained that they are looking for a larger landscape plan with more mitigation and better flood controls. <br /> Mr. Borselli asked the Commission if he could reread the notes he had taken to restate the concerns he <br /> felt were expressed. The Commission stated that they would restate their concerns, Mr. Borselli thanked <br /> there. Commissioner Costa recapped the Commission's concerns. Commissioner costa reiterated the <br /> need for the bank to be studied further to see if it is indeed coastal or not, the need for the plan to be <br /> scaled Crack, reconfigured to sage more of the existing landscape/trees. Commissioner Costa also <br /> explained that the calculation and whether the BVW can be used as part of it needs to be clarified. <br /> Commissioner Fitzsimmons added that he would like to see as Commissioner Allen stated a reduced size <br /> to show some regard for the-environment. The Agent explained that he would clarify the calculation figure <br /> specs and that the commission also had to take into consideration the dock filing (fixed pier . The Agent <br /> explained that the pier would have to be worked into the calculation because it will alter the property and <br /> factor into the 3%. The Commission questioned the vista pruning noted on the plan. The Agent <br /> explained that he had,spoken to Mr. Borselli about the noted vista pruning; the Agent started that he told <br /> Mr. Borsell that the notes indicating the vista corridor did not represent an acceptable vista-pruning plan <br /> and would need to be redone. Mr. Borselli Mated that he understood and would either correct the plan <br /> and state the vista pruning to guidelines or remove it from the project all-together. Mr. Borselli thanked the <br /> Commission for allowing for the input to be received and asked if he could be provided a copy of the <br /> pictures from Mr. Talbot. Mr. Talbot agreed to let Mr. Borselli take a copy of the photos. Mr. Borselli asked <br /> for a two-week continuance so that the concerns raised could be addressed. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 09118108 @ 7:27 p.m. <br /> 7:24 p.m. Marie MarshalII RDA— 11 crow Road <br /> (Replace block wall) <br /> Mrs. Marie Marshall stood to address the commission. Mrs. Marshall described her wish to replace a <br /> deteriorated block wall on the property. Mrs. Marshall explained that the wall is falling down and that her <br /> husband had dug out the sand to prepare to replace it. The Agent explained that work had begun on the <br /> area, which is located on .John's Pond and he had issued a stop work order until they could come before <br /> the Commission.. The Agent explained that the wall poses a safety hazard and is bompletely necessary to <br /> shore up the area. The Agent further explained that the area will be backfilled and vegetated as part of <br /> the project. Mrs. Marshall apologized for the work being started; she stated that they did not know they <br /> had to come before the Commission. The Commission asked the height of the wall; Mrs. (Marshall stated <br /> that it i5-foot tall. The Commission asked if the building department had been contacted, the Agent and <br /> Mrs. (Marshall stated that they had been contacted. The Agent recommended a negative determination. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination. <br /> 7:27 p.m. Edward Govonii, AOC— 12 Quinapen Road <br />