Laserfiche WebLink
<br />commented that the property would be limited to 4 bedrooms. (An additional bedroom(s) <br />would require an A/I system) Mr. McManus recommended close and issue with conditions <br />of submission of a 3-year signed contract between the homeowner and a qualified <br />professional to monitor and maintain all mitigation planting with any drawdown of pool water <br />be done by pump truck and no emptying of pool water anywhere within wetlands jurisdiction. <br />Also, that any and all restored lawn areas must meet standards under Regulation 31 and <br />documentation thereof must be provided to staff. He also recommended weekly construction <br />monitoring for the pool and patio construction. <br /> <br />Mr. Cook made a motion to close and issue with the conditions of submission of a 3-year <br />signed contract between the homeowner and a qualified professional to monitor and <br />maintain all mitigation plantings, pool water drawdown be done by pump truck and no <br />emptying of pool water anywhere within wetlands jurisdiction, any and all restored lawn areas <br />must meet standards under Regulation 31 and weekly monitoring reports for pool and patio <br />construction seconded by Ms. Clapprood. <br /> <br />Roll Call Vote: <br />Steve Cook (Yes) <br />Marjorie Clapprood (Yes) <br />Sandra Godfrey (Yes) <br />Erin Copeland (Yes) <br />Paul Colombo (Yes) <br />5 – 0 Unanimous <br /> <br />6:15 Timothy Leedham, Trustee, Osprey Island Nominee Trust, 71 Monomoscoy Road. NOI <br /> <br />Proposed raze and replace single family dwelling, landscaping, hardscaping & mitigation <br /> <br />plantings. Representative: Cape & Islands Engineering, Inc. <br /> <br />Mr. Cook recused himself due to a personal relationship with the Leedham’s. <br /> <br />The applicant emphasized it is an improvement with removal of vertical walls. Ms. Clapprood <br />asked about the accessory building. (This will be removed unlike the previous proposed <br />project and the applicant asserted an improvement to pre-existing plan). <br /> <br />Mr. Colombo asked about a pre-existing open order for a detached garage being <br />constructed. Mr. Colombo sought clarification of the garage now being attached – (House <br />on piles with some new decking but up to current code. The garage walls will allow for water <br />flow designed with living space above on piles – Flood compliant). Mr. Colombo was <br />concerned with structure having no required setback in a velocity zone. Mr. Leedham spoke <br />to the house having currently half a basement with the other half a crawl space and a pre- <br />existing approval for a garage. In response to Mr. Colombo, Mr. McManus stated that the <br />existing order needed to be closed out prior to a new order of condition. Mr. McManus <br />suggested to make a condition no construction commence until that order complete and <br />closed out with certificate of compliance. Mr. Leedham was concerned about “being caught <br />in the middle” since garage is not being built on the existing order. Ms. Clapprood suggested <br />that the existing order be completed and run concurrently with new proposed order. This <br />was deemed problematic since one order of condition needed to be satisfied prior to a new <br />order. <br /> <br />Mr. Colombo cited regulation 25 and referred to vertical walls in velocity zone as an <br />impediment to approval. The applicant noted that under the new proposal there were almost <br />zero vertical walls and the walls proposed were designed to allow flow. Mr. Colombo agreed <br />it was an improvement, but Mr. Colombo came back to regulation 25’s setback requirement. <br /> <br />