6/27/1996 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

CONSERVATION COMMISSION PAGE l 9:10 PM: Alan L. Meltzer, 51 sunset Circle ont Michael Ball explained that he had put together this package ,just to be complete. You have probably already read delineation report; you probably have already seen the plan, so basically the only new material here is a follow-up letter. Bob Sherman* so, the proposed deck would be within what distance of the BVW 34 feet at the closest? Mr. Ball:- At the closest in that corner. Bob Sherman: I had asked you to come back, or the applicant that you represent to come back to discuss how this interfaces with our by-laws,, o we. want to enter your material in the .record. Mr. Ball; i received your materials and in reference to them, I thank what the issue is dere is the effect of human activity disturbance as a result/may have of construction on wetland resource areas on' th property. you can see n the plan, the area of vegetated wetland is appro =f atel.y three feet in width. There is a small area of upland between what is indicated as a landscaped timber border and wetland, basically a vegetation from that boundary line all the way down to the water. The rest of the property between that upland fringe is a pretty well landscaped area, basically an area where a lot of recreation occurs during the simmer-time. It should be noted that this is a saner house; the family is dere. for three months during the steer-time. The family is six members; they have a. n ber of extended family members on the cape. 1 think it is safe to say, the construc- tion activities' associated with the depth expansion do not appear to be the primary concern. There would be no clearing of any vegetation in- the buffer area, still intruding into that 50 foot buffer. I think the main concern i the potential impact the recreational activities developing from the conversation on the patio area would have on the wildlife and the wildlife habitat. This as a 10 foot expansion of the exi