Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> structure extends into the bank. Mr. Vaccaro responded that the existing home is located on the coastal <br /> bank and further stated that not knowing what the location looked like before the current house was built, <br /> it is not possible to know how much coastal bank was affected. Mr. Vaccaro stated that the entire length <br /> f the house occupies the coastal bank and that topographic surveys are limited for that area. Mr. Vaccaro <br /> distributed copies of a USGS topographic survey completed in 1939, and updated in 1949, indicating the <br /> isolated knoll and showing that the contours are consistent with the 1 lashpee GIS. Mr. Cross further <br /> questioned the steep area to which Mr. Vaccaro responded that it was the backside of the knoll on the <br /> landward facing side. The gradient of the site results in the coastal hank being located at the full height of <br /> the hill. Since it exceeds the 4 to 1 aspect, it defines a coastal bank in Haat particular situation, Mr. <br /> Vaccaro added that the area is a coastal bank based on IEP definition but that it does not provide flood <br /> protection other than possibly for this home only. This coastal bank also does not provide a sediment <br /> source because it is not eroding and is stable, Agent McManus agrees with Mr. Vac ar 's thoughts that <br /> the coastal bank does not provide flood protection or a sediment source. Agent McManus further stated <br /> Haat Mr. Vaccaro has provided a mitigation plan that will address any runoff issues at the location, which <br /> is currently sparsely vegetated, and enhance the coastal hank. The hone is not mapped in a velocity zone. <br /> Agent McManus agreed Haat the project will encroach on the coastal bank based on the performance <br /> standards and further stated that a waiver of requirements from Chapter 172 Bylaw require 1 how <br /> compelling the need, 2 to what degree are normal standards being asked to be put aside and 3 to what <br /> degree will compensatory mitigation measures offset the impact of the project. Agent McManus believes <br /> that the applicant's landscaping plan fits with the #3 criterion. As the Commission considers the project., <br /> the performance standards are limited to wildlife habitat value and lot stability only. Agent McManus <br /> believes that the landscaping plan addresses those issues and recommends a Close and Issue. <br /> Mr. Pinaud asked if there was a compelling need for the pool to which Agent McManus stated that the <br /> pool would be located on the existing footprint, where ha.rdscaping currently exists. Mr. Pinaud further <br /> stated that if the pool was not on the property, the hone could be shifted further off of the coastal bank. <br /> Mr. Allen asked if additional mitigation could be requested to which Agent McManus responded that <br /> more mitigation could always be requested, particularly by the resource area. Agent McManus wishes to <br /> see mitigation to create a buffer zone at the Bordering Vegetated wetland facing out to Poppnessett <br /> Creek, as well as using mitigation to stabilize the area along the bulkhead where there has leen slumping. <br /> Mr. Cross questioned the level of the 2-car garage in comparison with the home and noted a 7 foot drop. <br /> Mr. Vaccaro responded Haat architectural plans have not been submitted but Haat the 1 St floor has been <br /> designed as a walkout. Two levels will be apparent from the Chart Way Side as compared to the three <br /> levels viewed creekside. The entering floor is elevation 17 and the garage is 5 feet lower to blend in with <br /> the contours of the lard. The garage will stick out in the back corner but the slab elevation of the garage <br /> will-lie approximately 12 feet. Ms. Costa stated the standard as a 50 foot setback and expressed concern <br /> about the garage being placed within 26 feet of the BVW, an area that is presently undisturbed. Ms. Costa <br /> expressed concern about setting a precedent and stated that in extenuating circumstances the Cornrnission <br /> has allowed 35 feet. Mr. Vaccaro, responded that the garage will be located i a disturbed area, as noted <br /> in a photograph, to which Ms. Costa stated that the area was initially mulched, lawn and trees. Ms. Costa <br /> agreed that the mitigation plan was a positive addition to the property, Mr. Pinaud stated that a good <br /> reason would be needed to justify an adjusted setback. Mr. Luff addressed the Commission regarding the <br /> challenges present on the site. In addition to environmental issues, Mr. Luft is dealing with zoning issues <br /> and seeking relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals for 10 feet, The project has been designed to adhere <br /> to the 40 foot setback arc from the cul-de-sac which is affecting the location of the garage. Additionally, <br /> they are working closely with New Seabury and neighbors. Mr. Luft has designed a modest 2-car garage <br /> and has made every effort to design the space in such a way that the home does not look so large. Mr. <br /> Vaccaro calculated the mitigation requirement as 2800 square feet which will be located on the creek side <br /> f the house and clues not tale into consideration of the phragmites which will be replaced with bayberry. <br /> Mr. Vaccaro also submitted a photograph of the area that has been disturbed by dredging which was <br /> previously lawn and landscaped area., with the necessity to remove some trees and brush to allow the <br />