05/04/2023 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Colombo noted the DEP frowns on multiple orders on similar projects (Both properties 12 and 16 have open orders of condition). Mr. Colombo indicated that he did not feel comfortable continuing the proceedings because of this. The applicant noted that no work has been done on the raze and replace condition, but that the order for a boathouse is a valid condition. The applicant indicated the process would be to close the prior order of condition (COC request) after the new order of condition is approved. Basically, the applicant did not want to give up their rights prior to the new order being issued. Ms. Zollo noted that the areas were wooded currently. The applicant noted that the underbrush was not currently present. Also, in response to the lack on appeared lack of continuity between the two proposed mitigation areas, the applicant indicated that there was already existing vegetation connecting the two areas. In response to Mr. Cook, Mr. Colombo indicated that the DEP policy states that the preferred practice is to close existing orders prior to the issuance of a new order of condition. Mr. Colombo noted a prior hearing in which the Commissioners required the work on the existing order be done and closed prior to the commencement of any new work or order of condition. The applicant argued that the DEP policy actually encourages new filings, however, conceded that this application was different than his hypothetical. Ms. Clapprood noted that 10 taxpayers could file an objection requiring DEP review. In response, the applicant opined that Commission action would not harm the Commission in any way and that the applicant was merely trying to preserve their rights under a valid existing order of condition. In response to Ms. Zollo and Mr. Colombo, the applicant indicated that the proposed patio was outside the flood zone and the structures were a little farther away from the coastal bank. Mr. Colombo noted that the setback does not appear to meet regulation 25 setback. The applicant argued that Regulation 25 does not apply based on the legislative history of the regulation being copied from Rhode Island. In response to Mr. Cook, the applicant clarified the elevation grade as 14 and a different form of delineation for velocity zones. Mr. McManus noted that there were no alterations to existing armored coastal bank. Mr. McManus also noted Nitrogen Nitrate loading calculations from new development result in a net decrease from existing conditions and below the overall threshold of 19 mL/liter in Regulation 30. As such, Mr. McManus Agent recommended close and issue with conditions of submission of a signed three-year mitigation maintenance and monitoring contract between the homeowner and a qualified wetland consultant, horticulturalist or landscaper to the Conservation Department prior to any building permit sign off and conditions detailing pool water withdrawal protocols that are acceptable to the Commission. Mr. Cook made a motion to close and issue with conditions of submission of a signed three- year mitigation maintenance and monitoring contract between the homeowner and a qualified wetland consultant, horticulturalist or landscaper to the Conservation Department prior to any building permit close out any existing conditions prior to the start of any work and have the pool water pumped out for any drawdown which was seconded Ms. Clapprood. Mr. Colombo reiterated that he was still uncomfortable with the proposed interpretation regulation 25. There also was an issue with the order of condition regarding the rebuild of the boathouse needing to remain open. Upon further discussion: Mr. Cook made a motion to amend the motion to state that the order of condition related to lot 16 and not the boathouse which was seconded by Ms. Zollo. Vote on Amended Motion: Roll Call Vote Alexandra Zollo (Yes) Steve Cook (Yes)