Laserfiche WebLink
v July 2000 <br /> Page s. <br /> ' high mountain on the edge of the road. It is sitting on the edge ofthe road <br /> washing onto it. They also have already cut this plan that demonstrates <br /> retaining wails. The property has been built so high that there is a need for <br /> retaining walls, basically on three sides of the property and none.of that has <br /> been built yet. That is also washing away. The base for one of these <br /> retaining walls, those as individual are cutting through this land and the <br /> neighbor that is abutting that retaining wall excavation does not even know <br /> if it is on the property. There are concerns about every step of this. The <br /> problem has been with all of this that there are more restrictions in New <br /> Seabury than there would be on a standard piece of land, this is in .violation <br /> of everything ......The Chair stated this has no bearing on this hearing. Mr. <br /> Luconi stated he understood but their concern is What plan, when saying <br /> there is an existing order of Conditions, is on file that is being amended y <br /> any changes. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated that plan is in the file and they are welcome to look at it, <br /> the original plan approved. Mr. Luconi asked if that plan permitted a ' <br /> berm? Mr. Sherman stated no, that is why he is filing now because he was <br /> informed he had to because he was doing things not on the original plan. Nor. � <br /> Luconi stated that made-sense. Mr. Sherman stated the berm itself can be <br /> permitted, if done right, it is not illegal. <br /> The Chair called for a motion to continue and to issue an enforcement order <br /> to male it clear he has to cease work until all permits are in hand.. <br /> VOTE Motion made and seconded to issue an enforcement order with <br /> Language re a fine. Unanimous Vote. <br /> VOTE: Motion rade and seconded to continue the hearing to 20 July 2000 <br /> t 8:40 p.m. at the request of the applicant. Unanimou.s vote. <br /> Question was raised by an abutter if Mr. Sheehan could be forced to remove <br /> that berm Mr. Sherman stated only if it sloes not meet the performance <br /> standards. There are standards in the law. The state Act doesn't have any <br /> standards for the Flood. Zone, or the buffer to the Flood Zone, but the Bylaw <br /> does.. The only performance standard that could be relevant here would be if <br /> berm or some fill placed actually in the Flood Zone, not within 100' of it but <br /> within the Flood Zone is not supposed to have any effect of deflecting a storm <br /> surge in a way that would cause destruction to another resource area, if there <br /> even was a flood of that dimension. The burden of proof is on Mr. Sheehan to <br />