Laserfiche WebLink
of buffer zone expansion and proposed amendments to the regulations reflecting the buffer <br /> zone change. Agent clarified that the buffer zone has been expanded and that the reg <br /> amendments are a housekeeping measure. Additional discussion on the mitigation <br /> calculation chart and status thereof as it pertains to the current proposal. Attorney Wall <br /> acknowledged that they will have to continue the hearing in order to show the buffer zone <br /> delineations on the plan and they wish to work with the concom on mitigation required. <br /> Additional discussion on vertical walls in the AE flood zone. Agent offered clarification <br /> regarding what constitutes a vertical wall and impacts thereof. Mr. Borselli provided <br /> commentary on wave heights in the A/AE zone and the geographical location of this property <br /> in the AE zone. Mr. Cook had questions on the foundation walls and expansion of foundation <br /> walls. Attorney Wall expanded upon Section 4 of Regulation 25-vertical walls and the <br /> standards thereof relating to vertical walls that cause scour vs walls that are properly <br /> designed and won't exacerbate erosion. Mrs Zollo asked about the 121 sq ft of natural <br /> vegetation to be removed and if that can be avoided. Mr. Borselli stated it would be difficult <br /> to eliminate that but it could be mitigated for. They are trying to avoid having vegetation right <br /> up next to the new home. Mrs Copeland asked about the proposed footprint of home from <br /> the 2016 application and Mr. Borselli said he'd have to look into that. Consultants said they <br /> will look into reducing alteration of naturally vegetated areas. <br /> Mr. Colombo inquired about the ACEC boundary (Area of Critical Environmental Concern) <br /> and delineation thereof. Property owner spoke about wave action and the presence of <br /> extensive salt marsh as a buffer to waive action and that they are pulling the foundation <br /> further from the resource area and other supporting comments on his proposal. Mr. Colombo <br /> asked for any additional public comments. Mr. Colombo asked about the granite patio and <br /> its perviousness. Mr. Garulay clarified the patio is pervious. Agent offered comments relating <br /> to clearing of naturally vegetated areas as shown on the plan vs what's stated in the <br /> narrative, which states that no areas of natural vegetation are to be altered. Agent asked <br /> about any encroachment of new foundation closer to the wetland edge and has concerns <br /> about any expansion closer to the resource area than what's existing overall. Mr. Borselli <br /> mentioned that the new home will meet FEMA flood standards whereas the existing home <br /> does not. Agent clarified waiver standards and that this project, as proposed, does trigger a <br /> waiver requirement. Agent asked about driveway going into a private road layout. <br /> Consultants explained road rights and private ownership. Additional discussion ensued on <br /> the road layout and driveway. If the driveway does not impede passage from others, then it's <br /> legal. Additional discussion on driveway and road layout. Mrs Zollo asked for a list of what <br /> the concom would like to see in terms of additional information. Attorney Wall stated the list <br /> of concerns and additional information to be provided to the concom. Applicant requests a <br /> continuance to March 7th at 6:45 p.m. <br /> Motion to continue hearing: Steve Cook <br /> Motion seconded: Alex Zollo <br /> Discussion: none <br /> Roll Call Vote: <br /> Erin Copeland (Yes) <br /> Steve Cook (Yes) <br /> Alex Zollo (Yes) <br /> Sandra Godfrey (Yes) <br /> Paul Colombo (Yes) <br /> 5 —0 Unanimous. <br />