Laserfiche WebLink
up for the larger footprint. Mr. Kent does add the area of increased footprint is primarily gravel <br />sand. <br /> Roll Call: Mr. Cook (Y), Ms. Godfrey (No), Ms. Clapprood (Yes), Ms. <br />Thornbrugh (No), Ms. Copeland (Yes), Mr. Colombo (No) <br /> <br />The motion does not pass. (3:3) <br /> <br /> The Commissioners begin deliberating on the available options for ruling. Mr. <br />Colombo suggests that the Commission either motion to close the hearing and deliberate over <br />the next 21 days and provide a final decision or accept the current ruling as failed. Mr. Dib <br />introduces an alternative option of a continuation, allowing him time to revise the project and <br />present the proposal again. He requests insight into the reasoning behind the “No” votes from the <br />Commissioners so to address their concerns in the revised plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Colombo initiates the discussion by stating his rational for denial, citing that the <br />proposal fails to meet the requirements of Regulation 25. Ms. Godfrey echoes Mr. Colombo’s <br />reasoning and emphasizes the necessity for a waiver. Ms. Thornbrugh concurs with the <br />Commissioners, emphasizing the significant of Regulation 25. She expresses additional concerns <br />regarding the project’s location within a highly sensitive area. Upon reviewing the plan, she <br />observes that the septic system appears to be situated in water impact zones, and she notes a lack <br />of consideration for cumulative impacts in the plans. Consequently, she questions the necessity <br />of the project altogether. <br /> <br /> Motion made by Mr. Cook for a continuation to May 9, 2024 at 6:48 pm. Motion <br />seconded by Ms. Clapprood. <br /> Roll Call: Mr. Cook (Yes), Ms. Godfrey (Yes), Ms. Clapprood (Yes), Ms. <br />Thornbrugh (Yes), Ms. Copeland (Yes), Mr. Colombo (Yes) <br /> <br />The motion passes unanimously. <br /> <br />6:42 <br />NOI 43-3281 <br /> 132 Shore Dr West, Jeremy S. Isenberg, Trustee, Amanda Isenberg, Trustee, <br />Amanda Isenberg Trust 2006. Proposed invasive species removal and restoration plantings. <br />Rep: Environmental Landscape Solutions, LLC. <br /> <br /> Resource Area: Coastal bank, buffer zone to top of coastal bank/NHESP <br />rare species habitat. <br /> <br />Mr. Gaudreau with Environmental Landscape Solutions, LLC, met with Mr. McManus last <br />fall for a site walkthrough. During this assessment, numerous invasive species were identified <br />along the coastal bank and within have been noted along the coastal bank and within 90% of the <br />buffer zone. Consequently, this proposal aims to address the removal of these invasive species, <br />with the intention of replacing them with native coastal dune grasses and pollinating perennials. <br />A specific area measuring 389sqft along the coastal bank will undergo no removal but will serve <br />solely as a mitigation area. Additionally, a section spanning 336sqft of phragmites australis, for <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />