05/23/2024 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Executive Session

Home Browse Search

all the same evidence as the Commission. Upon receipt of all the documents, the Court will establish a deadline for each party to provide a brief argument under the complaint and our position as a commission. Pat was contacted by Attorney Wall, the representative for 17 Monomoscoy Road, West, indicating he'd like to see the matter remanded to the Commission for further consideration and a request for a waiver under the regulation. o Procedure if pursuing an alternative route in lieu of litigation. This alternative route offers a significant degree of flexibility, stipulating a remand of the pending case to the Conservation Commission for further consideration. An additional note can be added stating in addition to a reconsideration of the merits of the prior ruling; there will be an additional request for a waiver included. Essentially, the process is being started all over for the applicant. The stipulated remand can be done at any point, suspending the record filing requirement. A new NOI may be submitted with all supporting documents or the original NOI may be used with revisions if applicable. It is recommended to send the applicant a list of the concerns for the denial to be addressed. o Should a remand occur, and the results remain unsatisfactory to the plaintiff, resulting in a whole new record of proceedings? The plaintiff would then have to amend the complaint and serve the Commission again, resulting in another 90 days. This amended complaint will allow the Court to review all information and documentation for both the original hearing and the remand. Clarification Request The Commission has encountered several properties located within the 100-year floodplain. In these cases, applicants have been asked to apply for a waiver for setbacks related to Regulation 25 section C-7-C, which deals with Setbacks and Critical Erosion/Critical Erosion Areas, as well as another provision (C4) that pertains to vertical walls in a coastal A zone within 150 feet of a coastal water body. The Commission has classified house foundations as a type of vertical wall within this category. Most of the lots in question have preexisting, non-conforming dwellings, and applicants have sought approval to raise and replace these dwellings. The Commission has requested that the proposed foundations comply with building codes in the 100-year floodplain. When applicants have declined to put the dwelling on piles as requested, the Commission wonders if it can deny the application and override building codes. o If there is a basis in the Wetland Protection Act or local bylaws for this denial, then the Commission may proceed. Furthermore, the Commission has the authority to reject any application if the reasoning is solely based on environmental concerns and efforts to mitigate potential environmental impacts. 2