Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> J <br /> i <br /> i <br /> i <br /> : by the Sectal Condition 21: Special Conditions 19, g# 22 and 23 Oall b <br /> observed in perpetuity and referenced in all deeds to the property and Special Condition <br /> 3: a naturally vegetated buffer strip of 50 feet from the top of the coastal bank shall b <br /> maintained in perpetuity. <br /> Mr. Wall n t in stated the coastal bark remains unstable and it doesn't rake sense to <br /> allow construction of pools, decks, garages and very large houses as close. 28 feet <br /> from the edge of the coastal bank. He cited the Conservation Comma ion' regulation <br /> section 172-7(l) which is very protective of wetlands and coastal resources. He <br /> suggested severe conditions put in the Order of Conditions for 42, 50, 60 and 66 coastal <br /> drive which included: <br /> Requiring all decks, pools, garages and house be set back 100 feet from the edge <br /> f the coastal bank. <br /> • <br /> Maintain 25 foot wide beach maintenance easernent so the hom wn �rs can <br /> perform beach nourishment. <br /> ent. <br /> Maintain a 50 foot wide continuous naturally vegetated buffer strip from the edge <br /> of the bea0h maintenance easement and a no build zone landward for,25 feet. <br /> i Mr. ll allen t in stated he doesn't oppose the construction of the houses but he requested <br /> that the project be constructed in accordance with applicable torn wetlands ordinances <br /> and the Commission should impose the Conditions he suggested for the protection of the <br /> coastal environment and abutting properties. <br /> There was a discussion on whether the lots were previously disturbed. The Agent said it <br /> cares down to the timeline when the disturbance took place. He explained the <br /> regulations provide a waiver section with a mitigation chart which requires a certain <br /> amount of mitigation tion based on encroachment towards a resource area on top of a coastal <br /> bank. <br /> Attorney Barry Fogel was present on behalf of the individual unit owners who are <br /> represented by Mr. 1l allenstein. He asked about a document for a waiver requirement. <br /> He said the Commission has no filing from the Applicant for this lot to demonstrate that <br /> they are seeking a waiver. He said there has never been ar filing for the disturbance of <br /> this property. He said that this lot should be treated as if there is undistu-rbed vegetation <br /> n it. The original filing slows the proposed future maintenance easement which the <br /> Applicant is trying to use by planting beach grass for mitigation which is inconsistent for <br /> f <br /> the beach maintenance. H referred to the memorandum from Briggs where there is some <br /> discussion about footings on undisturbed sand. Attorney Fogel claimed that the Applicant <br /> has not rade a dem-onstration of where the excavation will take place and there should � <br /> be an engineer plan on how fair and how wide the excavation will go. He questioned why <br /> the Applicant was "piece mealing" the lots. He requested the Commission get answers to <br /> their questions and urged theca to ask for that infrraition. <br /> Tara Marden, Woods Hole Group, said it is a pre-disturbed area and referred to the chart <br /> which wasn't available. The Agent suggested continuing the Nearing based on the chart <br /> not being available. The question of why the Applicant is encroaching into the 100-foot. <br /> buffer should be addressed. <br /> IVIS. Marden explained the nourishment can be done by proceeding down the beach from <br /> the golf course. <br /> .e <br /> J <br />