Laserfiche WebLink
Zollo expressed concerns on the proposed appurtenances (garage)within the 50 ft buffer to <br /> coastal bank and recently observed flooding conditions on Monomoscoy Rd. Mrs Clapprood <br /> (remote participant) commented that she had no additional comments at this time. Additional <br /> deliberation ensued between commissioners and applicant/consultants on concerns about <br /> potential impacts to the flood zone based on what is being proposed. Mr. Colombo asked <br /> about waiver request as it relates to Regulation 12. Applicant's consultant reiterated the <br /> waiver criterion and how they are addressing them. Additional deliberation ensued on the <br /> waiver request. Agent clarified that the waiver request is based on the waiver criterion under <br /> the bylaw (section 172-7(A)(3) and a waiver from Section 7 setbacks in LSCSF (Reg. 25). <br /> Mr. Colombo mentioned the expanded buffer zone and the 75 ft setback vs the previous 50 <br /> ft setback as it relates to this proposal. Mr. Colombo asked for a motion on the waiver <br /> request. Agent asked a procedural question about having a motion on the waiver request <br /> and recommended that the waiver request be factored into the final decision without a <br /> separate motion. Mr. Colombo concurred. Additional deliberation ensued on project details <br /> including concerns on vertical walls in the flood zone (raised patio and building foundations) <br /> and future storm events. Mr. Colombo reiterated concerns about the merits of the project <br /> and how they match up to applicable regulatory standards. Additional commentary ensued. <br /> Commissioners discussed what information they would like to see on a revised plan, <br /> including 75 ft and 150 ft buffer zone setback delineations, the exact elevation of the flood <br /> vents and the specific waiver requests. Mr. Colombo asked about a proposed well and the <br /> reason for it. Applicant explained reason and offered to remove it from the proposal. <br /> Applicant affirmed property is on town water. Additional discussion on seawall <br /> encroachment onto town property. Applicant stated the wall will ultimately need to be <br /> replaced and the encroachment issue would be addressed at that time. Applicant intends to <br /> replace the old seawall. Mrs Zollo recommended that house and garage should be shifted <br /> outside the 50' buffer to the bank. Additional conversation ensued. Mrs. Clapprood asked <br /> about the waivers and what they're for. Additional discussion ensued. Mrs Zollo asked how <br /> long the applicants would need for a continuance date in order to provide additional <br /> requested information. Additional discussion ensued on building code and vertical walls in <br /> the flood zone between the applicant and commissioners. Applicants offered to change <br /> raised patio to at grade patio. Mr. Colombo reviewed the additional information requested in <br /> preparation for a continuance. <br /> Mr. Colombo asked for public comment. Comments were made from neighbors in <br /> attendance in support of the proposal. Letters from neighbors and abutters who could not <br /> attend the meeting were read into the record in support of the proposal. Public comment <br /> provided by Richard Saul of 351 Monomoscoy Rd and Thomas Norton of 314 Monomoscoy <br /> Rd. Letters read by Mr. Colombo from Steven and Joyce Hynds of Monomoscoy Rd, Carl <br /> Cavossa of Monomoscoy Rd, and Jacque Morin of 11 Hamblin Rd..all in support of the <br /> proposal. Applicant requested a continuance to March 7th at 6:33 p.m. <br /> Motion to continue hearing: Steve Cook <br /> Motion seconded: Alex Zollo <br /> Roll Call Vote: <br /> Steve Cook (Yes) <br /> Alex Zollo (Yes) <br /> Marjorie Clapprood (Yes) <br /> Sandra Godfrey (Yes) <br /> Paul Colombo (Yes) <br /> 5—0 Unanimous. <br />