5/14/2009 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

w r- future construction in the area. IVIS. Spurling questioned the purpose of the dog cage-like structure to which Agent McManus responded that it was owned by a state agency to monitor the herring and the fencing is required to keep children out. Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination. 7:36 Shane Cai zzo,NOI—8 Chart Way (Demo/construct house, bulkh ad repair) (Continued from 4130109) .Tack Vaccaro of Vaccaro Consulting represented the applicant. Mr. Vaccaro stated that he was present to report on the progress made to address changes recommended by the Commission. Since the April 30 Public Hearing,the proposal has been reviewed by-the Zoning Board of Appeals. A revised set of puns have been submitted and Mr. Vaccaro asked that Commissioners take a look at the buffer strip restoration plan dated May 8. Additionally,the revised site plan should be dated April 15. On the revised site plan, minor architectural modifications have been made to the west fagade, altering the footprint slightly with 2 foot bump out and a small cantilever section. An equivalent reduction in the building footprint was made elsewhere in order to maintain the square footage as previously submitted. In response to the Commission's request to increase mitigation of native plantings, an additional 1000 square feet has been added below the garage, restoring the 50 foot buffer zone to its full extent mitigation will extend out to the 50 foot offset line for the bordering vegetated wetland. Mitigation now totals 5600 square feet which is double the amount required by the guidelines. Regarding the Zoning Board of Appeals,the house has received relief from the front yard setback of 30 feet, instead of the 40 foot requirement. A detached garage was also discussed at the ZBA meeting to which it was indicated that the Board would not accept the project. Mr. Vaccaro stated that Mr. Caiazzo has made even effort to make the project work at this challenging site. Agent McManus agreed that it was challenging project. The Agent concurs with lir. Vaccaro about the performance standards of the coastal bank. Agent McManus addressed the Commission's concerns about the waiver of requirements as it relates to the garage encroaching closer to the coastal bank. Agent McManus clarified the three components of the waiver of requirements a is there a compelling need, to what degree are normal standards being asked to be put aside and Q to what degree will compensatory mitigation measures offset the impact of the waiver of standards resulting in significant enhancement to protect wetland values. In Agent McManus' op* *on,the mitig at being offered is a substantial upgrade to what is currently present, Regarding A and B5 Agent McManus has not heard a compelling reason to add the garage and feels that the normal standards being put aside are key for evaluating the project,with consideration of the performance standards for the coastal bark and its ability to provide storm damage protection. Agent McManus stated that the project is not an easy one for rendering a decision but recommended that the Commission adhere to consideration of the performance standards. Mr. Cross agreed that the mitigation offered is very generous but expressed concern about the location of theara a and the construction of the home. Mr. Cross questioned why the deteriorating g g bulkhead is not being addressed before building the house and what measures are to be taken should the bulkhead fail. He further expressed concern about the ability to move heavy equipment in the area without destroying the bank. Agent McManus confirmed that bullhead plans are stated as limited repairs and backfilling ith plantings, Agent McManus agrees that the intended repairs are only a short tern solution and suggested that it may be appropriate to have the bulkhead inspected by an engineer and determine its stability. Mr. Vaccaro indicated that Mark Burns had reviewed the bulkhead and presented his findings at the last hearing and no concerns were expressed at that time. Agent McManus suggested that a certified engineer review the bulkhead. Mr. Cross questioned the type of tiebacks to be used. The Chair recommended that a plan be submitted by a registered engineer with a methodology on how the repair will be completed and the timing to ensure that the work is completed prior to the construction of the home, and include it within the Order of Conditions. Mr. Vaccaro suggested the possibility of the 6