Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The applicant spoke to the issue of the revision, argued that the revision was very minor, <br />and explained the revision was in response to a DEP letter defining the coastal bank causing <br />the coastal bank delineation to be moved one foot landward resulting in additional mitigation <br />to be required. Regardless, Mr. Colombo visit to the site discovered the stakes had been <br />removed in violation of Regulation 3. In addition, in violation of Regulation 30 there is no <br />nitrogen calculation in the packet. Based on this, the applicant asked for a continuance. <br /> <br />st <br />September 21 @ 6:12 pm. <br /> <br />Ms. Zollo made a motion for a continuance which was seconded by Mr. Cook. <br /> <br />Roll Call Vote: <br />Alexandra Zollo (Yes) <br />Steven Cook (Yes) <br />Marjorie Clapprood (Yes) <br />Erin Copeland (Yes) <br />Sandra Godfrey (Yes) <br />Paul Colombo (Yes) <br /> <br />6 – 0 (unanimous) <br /> <br />6:09 31 Keel Way, Michael J. Tringale, Trustee and Maureen G. Tringale, Trustee. Proposed NOI <br /> <br />additions to existing single-family dwelling and hardscaping. Representative: BSS Design, <br /> <br />Inc. <br /> <br />In response to Ms. Clapprood, the applicant stated the existing wood deck is just above the <br />ground around the pool which is proposed to be replaced. Mr. Colombo, to help Ms. <br />Clapprood’s line of questioning, noted what was being asked for was the contour elevation. <br />The applicant noted the wood decking is to be converted to patio and is even with the contour <br />elevation. Mr. Cook referred to the Conservation Agent comments are his concern – <br />proposed artificial turf around the pool should be used for expanded mitigation plantings to <br />enhance the buffer zone. The applicant noted that artificial turf is pervious and does not take <br />nitrogen. Ms. Zollo noted that the current black cloth proposed to be replaced by artificial <br />turf was not a part of the footprint and expressed a preference for patio with offsetting <br />mitigation. In response to the applicant’s objection to mowing instead of artificial turf, Ms. <br />Godfrey suggested clover as an alternative. Mr. Colombo added that micro clover has very <br />little flowering not causing a concern with bees in response to the applicant potential for <br />bees’ objection. Mr. Colombo noted that there was a concern for runoff from the artificial turf <br />migrating. However, Mr. Colombo raised sue sponte the issue of an infestation of turpentine <br />beetles affecting a pine (part of hammock support) requiring treatment or removal. Ms. Zollo <br />returned to the artificial turf indicating there should be mitigation or micro clover in place <br />which could be worked out with staff. Mr. Kent confirmed the standard pool drawdown <br />conditions would apply in response to Mr. Colombo. Mr. Kent comments included: the Agent <br />does not recommend the use of artificial turf where proposed. This area should be used for <br />expanded mitigation plantings to enhance the buffer zone. More detail on pool equipment <br />location, drainage/overflow aspects. Most of the work is proposed within previously, legally <br />altered areas. Mr. Kent recommended to close and issue with condition of submittal of <br />revised plan with expanded mitigation in area currently proposed for artificial turf. Staff can <br />review said plan in lieu of a continuance. <br /> <br />Mr. Cook made a motion to close and issue with the following conditions: the standard pool <br />drawdown conditions, change the artificial turf to be changed to micro clover and/or <br /> <br />