Laserfiche WebLink
Assistant Agent read the letter from Mr. Colombo stating his concerns/stance on the <br /> project. Matt Costa addressed the comments in the letter. <br /> Mr. Sweet asked why the plan does not show the dock on 45 Little Neck Ln, Matt Costa <br /> said it's actually so far away there isn't enough room on the view of the plans to see it. <br /> Mr. O'Neill asked about the size of floats and docks, is there a regulation regarding the <br /> square footage of this type of tandem/2 float type of dock? Why wasn't the pier extended <br /> into a single float? Agent explained how floats are addressed under current regulations. <br /> Matt Costa explained the reasoning for this setup. <br /> Mr. Sweet motioned to close and issue. <br /> Mr. O'Neill seconded the motion. <br /> Vote: 6-0-0 <br /> Roll Call Vote: <br /> Mr. Sweet; yes <br /> Mr. Dalton; no <br /> Mr. O'Neill; yes <br /> Mr. Weeden; no <br /> Ms. Zollo; no <br /> Mr. Smith; yes <br /> In favor, 3; Opposed, 3; Abstentions, 0 <br /> Matt Costa asked for the reasons Commissioners voted no. Ms. Zollo stated she felt there <br /> wasn't enough draft area. Matt Costa clarified that if she's concerned about future <br /> dredging, it's not part of this proposal. He said he's not increasing the number of vessels <br /> on this existing dock, they are moving to deeper water and improving that situation. <br /> There's no future dredge or boats as part of this project. We've submitted that information <br /> and can again. This project is extremely consistent with other previously approved projects <br /> and seems to be arbitrarily looked upon as unfavorable. We want to help everyone <br /> understand and make sure you're getting all the information to make an informed decision. <br /> Mr. Smith encouraged other members to address their concerns on the project. <br /> Mr. Weeden said he doesn't feel it's appropriate to discuss anymore, a motion was made <br /> and voted on. Mr. Weeden stated: "The applicant can come back when we have a full <br /> board and reexamine it. It doesn't help the case that former Commissions have approved <br /> 'similar projects'that doesn't really help the case here. I've been here for a year and can <br /> only speak on myself and what I plan on doing in this position. Moving forward we need to <br /> be consistent. I share some of the same concerns as my Commissioners and I think we <br /> should move on". Matt Costa agreed that consistency is important and pointed out an <br /> approval from a month or so ago where a 400 square foot float was approved so there is a <br /> disconnect on consistency that is concerning. This is how the process should work, <br /> applicants come to you and make their case. If you don't feel that way you should state <br /> why so the applicant has an appropriate opportunity to address those concerns. Mr. <br /> Weeden said that's been done twice now, Matt Costa said this is the first they've heard <br /> these concerns, so it has not been twice. <br /> Mr. Smith asked if there are any other conditions or comments from Commissioners. Mr. <br /> Weeden said he doesn't feel comfortable without Commissioner Colombo here. Matt Costa <br /> requested a continuance. <br /> Mr. Sweet motioned to continue at the request of the applicant to 9/23/21 at 6:12pm. <br /> Mr. O'Neill seconded the motion. <br /> Vote: 5-1-0 <br /> Roll Call Vote: <br /> Mr. Sweet; yes <br /> Mr. Dalton; yes <br />