09/10/2020 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

the construction that will need to happen. He thinks some sort of foundation will be required, which is different than hardscape. He doesn't think this RDA is adequate. Agent said the original plan reference was architectural plans, which we don't find acceptable unless there's really extenuating circumstances. So what they did was come up with a full delineated/surveyed wetland plan showing the setbacks to accompany this RDA. It was definitely a positive for this application. In regards to the Zoning hearing/permits, the Agent clarified the Chapter 172 bylaw language as it applies to obtaining other permits: it says all other permits must be "applied for" not "obtained" prior to commencement of a conservation hearing. The zoning board officer has received the required sign off form, and indicated on that form that this project will require Zoning Board review, which means 100% a zoning permit will be forthcoming. There's no ambiguity there. As far as impacts to performance standards, the project speaks for itself, which is why the Agent determined it should be an RDA. We can also condition, if need be, erosion control. The Agent does not see how this will adversely impact performance standards for the applicable wetland resource areas. No other comments. Homeowner (Terry) made a public comment that if you look on the plan regarding the setback, the dimension of 52.8ft of existing and proposed. Both those corners are beyond the 50ft. They do not impede on the 50ft setback, we're essentially seeking 2 more feet from the back of the house to the deck. Actually it only means 13sgft from what it is on the ground. Agent explained Michael Gain's statement is accurate. Although it should be shown on the plan, it doesn't change anything about the impact of this project to inland bank. Agent also showed photos from the abutters showing how their view could be impacted. He recommends a revised plan showing the 50ft setback from the top of the inland bank. Motion: Mr. Sweet moved for a negative determination with a condition that the top of the inland bank honor the 50ft setback, Mr. O'Neil seconded. Vote: 5-1 motion passed 6:15 Michael & Julia Rand, 58 Popponesset Island Road. Proposed construction of sports NOI court. At request of applicant continued from 8113 to submit Certificates of Compliance for open Orders of Conditions. Applicant requests a continuance. Mr. Sweet moved_towcontinue at the applicants request to 9/24/20 at,.6pm, Mr. O'Neil. seconded. Vote: 6-0 unanimous 6:18 James T. Morahan,Jr. & Nancy Morahan, 62 Cayuga Avenue.Proposed addition of ATF second story, decks and patio to existing dwelling and After-the-Fact permitting of shed and NOI seasonal pier. Dan gala from Down Cape Engineering presented plans. Agent said he met with the homeowner on site. Agent stated that the mitigation falls short of Mitigation standards under Regulation 12 of the wetland bylaw. Mitigation must be a minimum of 3 varieties of native species and should be focused on creating a naturally vegetated buffer in where none currently exist. The purpose of mitigation is to recapitulate wildlife habitat in a natural way. Mitigation is not landscaping. There are two sheds within the 50ft setback, one grandfathered, one built without a permit. The Agent recommended that the older shed be removed and mitigation put in its place. There's more opportunity to move the mitigation along the shoreline while still providing access to the dock. The Agent recommended removal of