Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Ms. Zollo made a motion to close and issue with the condition to work with staff and a signed <br />three-year mitigation monitoring contract, which was seconded by Mr. Cook. <br /> <br />Roll Call Vote: <br /> <br />Alexandra Zollo (Yes) <br />Steven Cook (Yes) <br />Marjorie Clapprood (Yes) <br />Sandra Godfrey (Yes) <br />Paul Colombo (Yes) <br /> <br />5 – 0 (unanimous) <br /> <br />6:18 61 Shoestring Bay Road, 61 Shoestring Bay Road, LLC. Proposed final house footprint AOOC <br />43-3062 <br />with associated landscaping, hardscaping, appurtenances and utilities. Representative: <br /> <br />WRS Engineering, LLC (continued from 8/24/23) <br /> <br /> <br />The applicant noted the generic nature of the footprint requiring a detailed plan and planting <br />plan. The applicant noted the landform delineated was not coastal bank but was not <br />disputing the designation. The applicant noted it was maxed out on the landscaping and <br />would do more if it were possible. The applicant noted the native planting – river birch, <br />mountain laurel, et cetera. It was noted that the property is on a sewer system. Ms. Zollo <br />asked about the drawdown of the pool – the drainage structures will not be used just to catch <br />run off. Regarding the retaining wall construction, this will be anchor block wall allowing for <br />sections to be built sequentially. Mr. Cook asked if the wall was being constructed on the <br />inside – yes.. The haybales will be around the construction to prevent erosion. Mr. Cook <br />noted that the original submission has a building footprint – going beyond the footprint. The <br />applicant claimed that the footprint allowed appurtenances. Mr. Colombo noted there was <br />an envelope that could not be crossed. The applicant stated it had email documentation <br />regarding the footprint/envelope which would be provided. At this point the applicant asked <br />for a continuance to provide the email correspondence. Mr. Cook asked how the <br />construction of the wall would hold up given the columns. The applicant will provide more <br />details on the wall construction. Ms. Zollo noted the distance to the coastal bank – everything <br />is within the coastal bank. There was a back-and-forth regarding the envelope and <br />misinformation claimed. The applicant went on to argue that appurtenances could be outside <br />the building envelope. Ms. Zollo noted that mitigation should be sited closest to the resource <br />area. Mr. Colombo noted Regulation 16 performance standards were not met. Mr. Kent <br />noted the plan is fixed as-is including the coastal bank delineation. The applicant argued <br />that this was not a coastal bank. Mr. Colombo asked if the project from Willowbend (the <br />number of bedrooms allowed is disputed) would affect the project. Ms. Zollo asked about <br />the timing of the continuance. The applicant asked about the mitigation required. (2 to 1). <br />At this point there were questions of procedures and continuances – there can be no <br />continuance past the order’s expiration. Mr. Kent asked about an illegal structure he had <br />seen and whether a path was meant to access it – it was not. Mr. Kent went to note he would <br />be addressing the structure with Willowbend. At this point, the applicant again stated the <br />desire for a continuance. <br /> <br />th <br />October 19 @ 6;00 pm. <br /> <br />Mr. Cook made a motion for a continuance, which was seconded by Ms. Zollo. <br /> <br />Roll Call Vote: <br /> <br />