Laserfiche WebLink
John Slavinsky from Cape and Islands Engineering represented the applicant and stated that he has n <br /> knowledge regarding the origin of the cabana, but he proposed mitigation plantings to compensatefor its <br /> existence, which is located in a steep bank. The Agent sited Regulation 18 from theBy-Laws regarding <br /> inland banks and the necessity of ffie applicant to prove that work will not impair the physical stability of <br /> the bank, water carrier capacity,, groundwater/surface water quality, and the ability to provide breeding <br /> habitat and cover. No narrative was provided to show that the criteria were not impacted. Photos show <br /> the retaining wall that was built into the bank. The Agent recommends that the After-the-Fact not be <br /> allowed unless evidence is provided indicating the cabana meets the performance standards. Commission <br /> members clarified that if the request is denied, the cabana will require removal. The presence of the <br /> cabana was discovered through research and site visit for a previous filing. The applicant was compliant <br /> in removing other non-permitted activities such as a trampoline, a platform and a float. Commissioners <br /> discussed the necessity to return the bank to its pre-existing condition but expressed concern that removal <br /> f the retaining .11 will further un in the steep hank. The possibility of maintaining ening the cinder <br /> bl k retaining wall and removing the structure was discussed. The Agent recommended closer <br /> inspection ofthe wall to determine wh th r or not it can be removed.1. Th homeowners will be required <br /> file to another application for removal. The Agent wants the methodology submitted to describe removal <br /> plans. <br /> Motion made, and seconded to deny the application for the installation of the cabana reserving the <br /> right to review the condition of the wail and requesting that mitigation pians be subrrrittd. <br /> The motion was not accepted or carried by the Chair. The Agent suggested that the application was t <br /> approve or disapprove ofthe existence of the cabana. Mitigation and the removal process will be the <br /> subject of another filing. The Agent does not feel that the issue requires a Continuance. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to disapprove the existence of the cabana and the <br /> retaining wall. <br /> 7:27 Jan et and Barry Frock, AOC—4 Cross Street)(Continued from 11/6/18) <br /> (Increase the house dimensions by 10 feet which also moves the stone patio by 10 feet <br /> John Slavinsky from Cape and Islands Engineering represented the applicant regarding the Order of <br /> Conditions. Following approval of their application, the client noticed the plans were incorrect featuring <br /> a 40 foot house when the house should have been 5 0 feet. Mr. Slavinsl y inserted 10 feet into the center <br /> f the house making the house 30x50 instead of 30x40. In making the adjustment, the lot coverage <br /> becomes %. The request has also been filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals due to lot coverage <br /> issues and the need to take dawn the existing home. The Agent recommends approving the amended <br /> order pending the outcome of the Zoning Board. The Asssistant Agent suggested that the Z A outcome <br /> r vote be placed in the Orders. Mr. Anderson questioned Mr. Slavinsky regarding the slide depicting <br /> increased housing dimensions moving 10 feet closer to the coastal bank. Mr. Slavinsky stated that the <br /> original plan shoved the house 37 feet to the bank and now it is 27 feet and the original plan featured a <br /> neer patio. Mr. Anderson inquired as to the justification to move closer to the coastal bank. The original <br /> approval was based on a guarantee of substantial mitigation considered to be a positive exchange that <br /> would improve existing conditions. Mr. Anderson further inquired if, with the addition ofsquare footage, <br /> does the applicant intend to also increase the mitigation plantings` The patio is now being pushed closer <br /> to the coastal bank. Mr. Cross also questioned the reasoning for moving closer to the hank and Agent <br /> McManus stated that there is no narrative available to provide the reasoning. Mr. Slavinsky stated that <br /> the owner wants his house to line up with the other houses. The Commissioners discussed the location of <br /> the hone on the property in an effort to move it further from the coastal bank. Mr. Slavinsky asked for a <br /> continuance and will consider moving the home closer to the road. <br /> 5 <br /> r <br />