Laserfiche WebLink
without harm to the values protected by this chapter. " Mr. <br /> Sherman explained that each case is individually reviewed, if <br /> the area has already been previously disturbed and if a net <br /> benefit is determined, the proposal would be accepted, <br /> Mr. Sherman stated a final revegetation plan has not yet <br /> been agreed upon. He suggested that if the scotch broom i <br /> removed and revegetation of certain sections, leaving other <br /> sections to remain in a natural, state would prove to be an <br /> improvement to the buffer strip. He further stated Applicant has <br /> met the standards of theCommission; and that here are no <br /> standards under the State Act . The project is allowable under <br /> both theBy-law and the Act . Upon agreement to a suitable <br /> revegetation plan, there would be no justifiable grounds for <br /> denial. <br /> with regard to the location of the house, 1r. Sherman <br /> acknowledged Applicant' s agreement to bring .it back by a few feet <br />{ in order to maintain the minimum standard (35-ft. ) . He also <br /> requested a revegetation plan based upon a site visit with the <br /> Assistant Agent. <br /> Diane Boretos commented on a non-wetland issue, noting said <br /> cottages are considered to be historic, and suggesting if <br /> possible they be moved to another location. Mr. Grotske <br /> responded the owner would be agreeable to donating thein. <br /> The Chairman suggested the matter be Closed with Conditions <br /> imposed. <br /> There being no further Commission or public comment, the <br /> chairman entertained a motion. <br /> MOTION: Mike a Talbot made a lotion to close and Issue with <br /> the Condition that a revised plan indicating further setback on <br /> the house, a revegetation plan based upon input of a site visit <br /> by the onserration/Assistant Agents, as well as the IP number <br /> be provided; which Motion was dui.y seconded and so voted <br /> unanimously. <br /> 7 : 55-Stephen c. Lang, for demol itiroh of existing cottage, <br /> reconstruction of new cottage and carriage house, septic system, <br /> landscape improvements and minor grade changes at 25 ocean Bluff <br /> Drive, Assessor' s Map 123, Block 205 . <br /> The Chairman recognized Michael Gro t s e, representing Mr. <br /> . <br /> Lang, who presented plans for review stating the cottage location <br /> to be immediately adjacent to the prior project. He made <br /> references to the existing cottage stating Applicant has agreed <br /> to move it back as far as possible (approximately two feet) ; the <br /> second cottage to be moved as well . <br /> References were being made to the revegetation plan, with <br /> -1 - <br />