Laserfiche WebLink
soil evaluation logs on the plan and associated data used to assess <br /> groundwater levels in this area is from 1999, which seems outdated based on <br /> current climate conditions. Mr. Colombo stated that the requirements <br /> of Ch. 172 Regulation 25-Section C7C-Setbacks/Critical Erosion Areas have <br /> not been met for this proposal. Mr. Cook commented that the entire property <br /> is within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage is considered a wetland and <br /> there is no upland. Both Mr. Cook and Mr. Colombo stated they cannot support <br /> this project as presented. Mr Lizardi clarified that this lot is buildable despite the <br /> a claim from one of the abutters that the lot is not buildable. The property owner <br /> has been paying taxes on a buildable lot. Mr. Lizardi went on to clarify other <br /> claims made in the letters from the abutters in regard to groundwater levels and <br /> other impacts. <br /> Mr. Lizardi expressed concerns about a potential regulatory taking if the <br /> commission believes this lot is undevelopable and subsequently mentioned <br /> the possibility of a continuance to allow for his client to seek legal counsel. <br /> Mr. Colombo clarified that that any comments from abutters <br /> regarding the buildability of a lot are not to be misconstrued as comments from <br /> the commissioners. Mr. Colombo went on to explain and clarify what would <br /> constitute a regulatory taking. A regulatory taking could only be claimed <br /> if the project was denied by the commission and any subsequent appeals were <br /> unsuccessful. Mr. Lizardi apologized for any misunderstandings <br /> and inquired about a potential continuance to allow him to advise his client <br /> regarding a potential issue of a regulatory taking. <br /> The Agent commented that this NOI application was submitted after the approval <br /> and promulgation of an amendment to the Town's Chapter 172 Wetland bylaw to <br /> expand the buffer zone of wetland jurisdiction from 100 feet to 150 feet. This <br /> expansion also changed the requirement of the preservation of a 50 ft wide <br /> naturally vegetated buffer strip (NVBS) to 75 feet in width on any undeveloped lots <br /> within wetlands jurisdiction. This amendment was officially promulgated on <br /> October 20th, 2023. As such, the proposed project is subject to this bylaw <br /> amendment and any requirements thereof. Agent stated there was no request <br /> submitted for a waiver from the requirement of a 75 ft wide NVBS nor any other <br /> waiver requests of applicable regulatory standards. Agent recommended <br /> a denial with prejudice because the preservation of a 75 <br /> ft NVBS is not achievable on this lot. No waivers of applicable <br /> regulatory provisions were requested in the project narrative. Agent <br /> also did not recommend the granting of a continuance and recommends <br /> the commission render a decision based on the information presented. <br /> No public comment <br /> Motion for a denial of an order of conditions with prejudice: Steve Cook. <br /> Motion seconded: Sandi Godfrey. No discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Cook (Yes), <br /> Ms. Copeland (Yes), Ms. Godfrey (Yes), Mr. Colombo (Yes) Motion carries for <br /> a denial of an order of conditions with prejudice (4-0 Unanimous) <br /> Discussion on Certificate of Compliance requests: Mr. Colombo stated that <br /> all The COC inspections passed with the exception of 40 Polaris Drive <br /> (DEP file#43-1457). Agent provided an explanation that the project was a septic <br /> upgrade and it was installed as proposed, but he observed a perimeter fence <br /> had been installed within wetlands jurisdiction without any permitting history. As <br /> 5 <br />