Laserfiche WebLink
pond. Mr. Grotzke had mentioned that idea. However, he was sure that <br /> the homeowner did not want that to happen. <br /> Mr. Grotzke confirmed that they had had that conversation and the <br /> homeowner didn't want it to be moved to far away. They did move it a <br /> little bit. <br /> Mr. Harrington continued by stating that what the conservation agent had <br /> explained to him about the deck is that if they maintain the 50' from the <br /> reserve area they don't have to do the nitrogen removal. If they are within <br /> they are less than the 50' they have to do the nitrogen removal. The new <br /> plan shows the back patio is more than 501. It also does not have the <br /> denitrification in it. <br /> Mr. Grotzke had originally offered in the previous version denitrification <br /> since they were encroaching to 25' within the wetlands. That was one of <br /> the items, which they offered in exchange for allowing, that close an <br /> encroachment. But now that they pulled the house back and they are <br /> maintaining the full 50' setback from the wetlands. The owner didn't feel <br /> that they should offer the denitrification system if they didn't have too. It <br /> is a tight lot in any case. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that there are property line variances on this <br /> newest plan. Ultimately the board can set,conditions on the variances <br /> requested or allow as presented. He felt that what would happen right <br /> now and what he had discussed with conservation is that the 501setback <br /> that they are talking about is going to be requested from the top of the <br /> back rather than the BVW because that is their resource area. Their by- <br /> law reads on the resource area not just border of vegetative wetland. He <br /> suggested that Mr. Grotzke take that up with conservation. If that were <br /> true they would be looking for the denitrification at that point. <br /> Mr. Grotzke agreed if that was true too, then it would be a relatively <br /> unbuildable lot. <br /> Mr. Harrington agreed with Mr. Grotzke. It was his opinion that the <br /> previous plan was more in compliance with the issues at hand. <br /> Mr. Santos asked for the previous plan. Mr. Harrington provided him with <br /> the plan. There were fewer variances requested with that plan. <br /> Mr. Ball asked if the leaching was about the same from the previous plan <br /> to this current plan. <br /> Mr. Harrington agreed. But, it was 10' from the waterline and has a <br /> 3 <br />