2/27/2003 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

r 4 Mr. Grotzke gave copies of the new plan to the members which applies our by-law regarding the formula requiring mitigation enhancement. They did not move the house back, but they did move the fence back. Donald Schall described his revegetation plan. Jack asked if the plan Mr. Grotzke distributed to the members matched the one which Mr. -Grotzke had in hand and was referring to. Mr. Grotzke said net totally. Jack said it should have been pointed out that that plan wasn't up to date and it should not-be added to the files. Bob said he agrees with Mr. Schall that vire get more wildlife habitat value by relocating the grass area away from the house, so he thinks the plan makes sense. He would make the condition that Mr. Schall be involved in the actual overseeing of the work, since he has the wildlife credentials that some landscapers don't have. Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., 13 ocean Bluff Drive, stated 1 he is concerned that in spite of repeated discussions with Mr. Grotzke, they have net heard a word from him-about the changes. They came to the hearing last time and understood there was going to be ars issue of a variance problem because of the setback-issue -- they talked about 35 ft., 3 ft.1 50 ft. and a need for a variance. When they left the hearing room, Mr. Grotzke pointed out that if they have to come back that distance, it-would take there-right back to the porch. At the end of the hearing there appeared to be a need to move the house � back. There's been no contact, no suggestion from Mr. Grotzke as to how they are addressing these issues, and tonight he discussed a plan which says nothing about putting the house back. His question is: Is there a variance requirement? Bob said technically it's not a variance. We have a waiver of compliance under our by- laws. Mr. Rogers asked if that waiver was that.you basically had to prove that-it's impossible to produce the scope of the project. Bob said that's one of the factors. He said it's a balancing act, and he has become convinced that the changes and the mitigation that they are proposing provide for more wildlife habitat than adhering to the 35 ft. in a small grass area, and he thinks it's now a good plan. Michael Talbot pointed out that the adjoining property is actually closer or almost right at the top of the coastal bank, so unfortunately that loses some of the value of the buffer zone that was there initialler. He is glad that the plan -shows that those plants are being moved to an area that will have greater isolation from human activity. Michael Talbot said the work limit is about 12 ft. and it's about 30 ft. from the porch to the top of the coastal bank.