10/16/2008 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

e bank. Mr. Ryder explained with all of that they tried to be very careful with the size of the project and keep to a tight limit of work. Mr. Ryder explained that the applicants would life to construct a single family home, 2 car garage with an entry porch. Mr. Ryder explained that they have filed a variance request with the Board of health to push the septic out farther on the property. Mr. Ryder explained that they had received favorable comments from both M.E.B.A and the D.E.P. Mr. Ryder explained that the total property disturbance is 4750 square feet.The Assistant Agent explained that the comments rade by Conservation were not only listened to but carried out nicely in the revised plan.An abutter Mr. Jaime Meagan stood to address the Commission. Mr. Meagan explained that he was very displeased with how all of this was handled and puns on appealing with the D.E.P. Mr. Meagan stated that he feels that the applicants are trying to sneak in a four bedroom house and that the project is far too big for the lot. Commissioner Fitzsimmons questioned what the lot coverage was,, Mr. Ryder explained that the coverage ° is listed on the plan and totals 9.4%. Mr. Nyder explained that the project is relatively small;the house is only 1500 squame feet on lot that is 16,,663 square feet. Mr. Ryder explained that the owners have owned the property for 12 years and are only looking to match the rest of the neighborhood. 4 Commissioner Fitzsimmons questioned whether the lot coverage figures were accurate and what can b used or counted in it.The Agent started that the houses in the neighborhood have set a certain size precedent and that the project meets all the requirements necessary. Mr. l larsolais stood to represent himself and explained that he has attempted through his aftorn y, Mr. Kevin Kirrane,to contact the abutter, Mr. Reagan to no avail.The Agent recommended a close and issue. Motiori made, seconded and unanimously carried to close and issue. 7:06 p.m. Robert Labich, RDA—21 fiddler crab Lane (Remove pitch pine and white oak tis within close proximity of t1he house and garage) Mr. Robert ert Labich stood to represent himsetf on the application. Mr. Labich explained that he is looking.to get permission to remove some pitch pines as well as some white oaks on his property- 15 trees In all. The Agent explained that the trees are located very close to the house and garage with one actually growing through the deck.The Agent explained that the trees have very shallow root systems and in a storm could snap like twigs and damage the house. The Agent also explained that the property does possess a coastal bank but is only so in terms of slope definition. The Agent recommended a negative determination. Motion made, seconded and unanimously carved for a Negative Deteffnihadon. :00 p.m, charlotte Labitt,BDA—17 Wheelhouse Lane (Re-vegetate a ci ti -path with approximately 40 matt plants) (Cass costa stepped down on the appli ation Greg Bush stood to represent the applicant. Mr. Bush explained that his company was contacted by Mrs. Labitt to widen an existing pathway. Mr. Bush explained that he was told by Mrs. Labitt that she had permission to do so and that is why the project went forward. Mrs. Labift stood to address the Commission on her own behalf and explained that was sorry for the misunderstanding, Mrs. Labitt explained that she could not be present when the work was performed and that she thought she had permission from New Beabury Properties to do so. Mrs. Labitt stated that she did not understand why she had to go forth with the mitigation plantings when the foliage will grow back itself.The Agent explained that New Seabury may have granted permission in the past but that the new board did not approve it.The Agent explained to Mrs—Labitt that while som6 planting may grow back, natural revegatabon does not count towards mitigation according to the Town"s mitigation regulations. r.-Bush stated that he did want the Commission to know that he does not feel Mrs. Labitt widened the path maliciously.The Agent agreed that he did not feel it was done maliciously but that New Seabury does not want the path dine to liability reasons and that the planting plan should go forward as discussed. Mrs. Labitt restated that she did not feel that the replanting was necessary and it will not look natural.The Assistant Agent explained that it was more than just ground cover removed and that there were shrubs that needed to be replaced. Motion made,seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Detenminatlon. 7:12 p.m.Howard and Judith I ahalas, RDA—2 Bowsprit Point 2