2/19/2009 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

backfilling. Commission members questioned how the work would be completed. Mr. Vaccaro asked to postpone discussion about the bulkhead so that the Commission could then speak with the individual who will complete the work. Mr. Vaccaro stated that the project impacts the coastal bank, is a larger home and possibly located closer to the wetland than the Commission would want, but very well balanced in terms of the mitigation which will offer tangible environmental benefits. Agent McManus agreed that the disturbed areas on the lot will be enhanced by the mitigation plans and also agrees with Mr. Vaccaro's assessment of the coastal bank performance standards. Agent McManus indicated that the coastal bank may offer storm damage protection but that the flood level likely would affect all in the area. The Chair read the performance standard for the coastal bank and stated that if the coastal bank is significant to storm damage prevention, and the bank is 14 feet high, the proposal will remove the bank subjecting the home to flooding. Agent McManus agreed about the importance of the coastal bank as well as the potential for erosion and runoff control and stability. As with all filings, the Commission must consider reasonable alternatives for driveways and other appurtenances and compelling need for a particular location and its applicability to the coastal bank. As a follow up to the site visit, Commissioners questioned if there was an alternative location for the driveway, if there is a compelling need for the proposed size of the driveway and is there a way to avoid encroaching on the coastal bank. Mr. Vaccaro responded that several alternatives were reviewed but the configuration of the house did not lend itself to many alternatives. Potentially, the lower driveway could be relocated to avoid the bank, but that was not the applicant's preference. Further, Mr. Vaccaro stated that it was their view that the coastal bank is not significant to storm damage control as it relates to the performance standard. Agent McManus concurs that it is a coastal bank only by way of slope definition but added that he felt the driveway was excessively large and further consideration should be given to other options, such as scaling the size back, or a compelling need to maintain the size should be shared with the Commission. Mr. Vaccaro agreed to look into it further. Mr. Cross questioned the existence of an old storm drain and remnants of an old bulkhead. Mr. Vaccaro stated that only a portion of the property has a bulkhead but he will investigate more about the broken barrier. Abutter William Cohen submitted a letter which was read to the Commission. Mr. Cohen's letter supported the project and requested that the new structure be located 5 feet further from his property in order to address runoff issues. Mr. Cohen requests a greater separation of the properties and intends to work with the applicant to add plantings. The Commission discussed the request which would move the project deeper into the coastal bank. Steve Bell, an abutter, spoke regarding the dredging and stated that he had photos depicting leakage under the wall before the dredging. The Chair indicated that the existing home was designed to stay away from the coastal bank: The larger size of the proposed home and the addition of the pool and patio will destroy the coastal bank. The Chair expressed concern about the destruction of the coastal bank and the possibility of flooding and encouraged the applicant to consider other alternatives to avoid impacting the coastal bank. Mr. Vaccaro disagreed about the coastal bank stating that it currently goes through the house. The plan indicates that the house was built on the coastal bank. Mr. Vaccaro clarified for the Commission that the coastal bank runs adjacent to the house. Mr. Vaccaro emphasized that the bank will not disappear, and will continue to function as a coastal bank, but may shift according to the DEP standards due to the retaining walls. Mr. Cross questioned the depth of the height of the garage to which Mr. Vaccaro responded that it was 7 feet and a minimum of 5.5 feet. The retaining wall will provide a defined edge that will also allow for additional mitigation plantings in the area. The Chair asked about the pool and patio in relation to the coastal bank. Mr. Vaccaro confirmed that they will be closer to the resource area by 10 feet. It was again suggested that a compelling need be expressed for the hardscaping or consider reducing the size because they are not necessary appurtenances. Mr. Cross asked about the maximum high ground water which Mr. Vacarro stated as 2.15. Mr. Vaccaro asked about the Mr. Cohen's request to shifting the project east 5 feet. Commissioners responded with concern about moving further into the coastal bank. The Commission expressed their interest in making it good for the environment and good for the homeowner and encourages further discussion with the Conservation 6