Laserfiche WebLink
11 May 2000 <br /> Page 13. <br /> Mr. Gray stbLted this particular project shows very good setback from the <br /> wetland edge. The complicating factor is the fact that she. is calling this the <br /> to o coastal bank and airy, if you look t the proximity of this lot to the <br /> p g <br /> coastline.......Ms Boretos stated she is not calling this a coastal bank, that is <br /> a regulatory coastal bank and Land subject to Coastal storm Flowage. Mr. <br /> Gray agreed and did not think the argument dere is the technical definition <br /> of coastal bank, it is the fact that she is trying to take 50 feet off the top of the <br /> coastal bank and extend a `ono toucY jurisdiction into the lot. It will'Virtually <br /> make this lot an unb ildable lot. Ms Boretos did not think that is the case. <br /> Under Chapter 172, Regulation 29 which speaks to the naturally vegetated <br /> buffer strip, there is referenced in that a chart that spews to the amount o <br /> distance for protection of things like- prevention of pollution, erosion control <br /> and wildlife habitat. Under the regulation 20, it speaks to a minimum of a <br /> 0' setback from a resource area. Resource area is also defined as a coastal <br /> bank and Land subject To Coastal storm Flowage and what it talks about in <br /> the chart that is referenced there is 0' being minimal general wildlife and <br /> avian habitat value; this is based on good science, this chart. You have that <br /> minimum setback in that regulation and there is also a Town code that <br /> speaks to a 50' setback from a wetland resource area as defined in the <br /> Wetlands Protection Act. Banks are included in the Act so you have both in <br /> the regulations and in another separate Town code a 50' setback from a <br /> wetland resoiirce. Mr. Gray asked if that flood zone elevation shown on <br /> FEMA maps? Ms Boretos stated he needs to spew to the. gentleman that <br /> prepared these plans, she-did not prepare the plans. Mr. Gray staffed his <br /> question is, if that regulation quoted is the case, why wasn't the individual <br /> told that the Commission would be regulating 0' off the Flood Zone as a `ono <br /> touch" zone when he had preliminary contacts with the Commission months <br /> ago? Mr. Brabants stated that was February, two months before he bought <br /> the lot. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated he was the one that had several conversations, one with <br /> Michael and one with the owner. He indicated in both cases that these were <br /> preliminary conversations and that he had not been to the lot, nor done a site <br /> visit yet. He would talk about some of the issues but he did not indicate that <br /> these were the only issues. when IVIS Boretos did her evaluation and found <br /> some wildlife habitat evidence, that was brought into the hearing. He never <br /> said at a preliminary Bearing, to anyone, that if we sit down and look at <br /> plan that everything that we are going to talk about is everything that could <br /> come up at a hearing. He would not say that if he had not seen the site. <br /> 3 <br />