Laserfiche WebLink
actually reduced the size of the project. He recommended a <br /> solitary legative Determination which would allow work to be <br /> completed this year, along with a requirement to file for a <br /> Notice of Intent for perpetuity. Should the Conmission agree, <br /> revisions to the plan would be necessary such as inclusion of a <br /> Title Block and additional Dotes. <br /> Vere being no Commission or public input, the Chairman <br /> entertained a motion. <br /> OTION: Mike Talbot rade a Motion for Negative <br /> Determination according to specifications which are to be <br /> included on the Plan in the form of Notes and 'title Block; which <br /> motion was seconded by Caro. Moore and so voted unanimously. <br /> 7:40-New Seabury Properties water Hazard, continued from <br /> January 4, 2001 . NOI <br /> Mr. Sherman reminded the Commission the original application <br /> requested the elimination of some Bvw and wall expansion. The <br /> current proposal has been considerably reduced, the walls being <br /> located upland within the buffer zone, with no effect on the BVW. <br /> i, He acknowledged timely receipt of the revised plan, however they <br />! have been misplaced, for which he apologized. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated he has rade a site visit, the wall <br /> proposal has been marled, however a few questions remain <br /> regarding the plan. <br /> The Chairman recognized Larry Carr, Earth Tech, representing <br /> New Seabury Properties/New Seabury Development Corporation. He <br /> made reference to a plan pointing out location of the clubhouse, <br /> proposed improvements to the green golf course, andinor <br /> modifications to some holes on the blue golf course, including <br /> relocation of the 18th green and a reduction of the 9th hole <br /> blue course. <br /> Mr. Carr reported the architect has compromised the design <br /> to benefit both the golf course and the environment. He <br /> indicated location and height variation.s of the proposed <br /> retaining walls, resulting in the surrounding wetland being <br /> undisturbed. Approximately thirteen 1 trees will be removed <br /> within the one hundred (100 ft. ) foot buffer zone. New tree <br /> plantings will be provided in disturbed areas. <br /> Mr. Sherman requested revised plans showing wall details for <br /> Building Department review. He also suggested Applicant consider <br /> allowing the areas located between the walls and the wetland <br /> return to a natural state. Mr. Carr replied, "Yes" said area i <br /> considered to be a waste area intended to return to natural <br /> grass . <br /> Mr. Sherman suggested Closure contingent upon receipt of <br /> - - <br />