Laserfiche WebLink
 Discussion about mitigation area configuration – commissioners prefer mitigation closer <br />to the resource area in a more square shape rather than a rectangular <br /> Concern about fire pit location approximately 1 ft from mitigation area – applicant agreed <br />to remove if required <br /> Tree protection within the limits of work emphasized – no trees proposed for removal, <br />protection measures recommended <br /> High-tide bush recommended as a resilient species for velocity zone planting <br /> <br />Regulatory Compliance <br /> 10% or less bluegrass species requirement for lawn restoration per regulation 31 <br /> Waiver requests from regulation 25 filed as part of the application packet <br /> Zoning board filing completed for special permit to maintain non-conforming setbacks <br /> <br />Climate Change Considerations <br /> Commissioner expressed concern about 2050 flood projections showing 50% exceedance <br />with 10 ft water depth, and 2030 projections showing 20% exceedance with 2.5-3 ft depth <br />in the septic area <br /> Building design accounts for sea level rise advancement, but septic system vulnerability <br />is noted <br /> <br />Motion <br /> Ms. Zollo made a motion to close and issue the following conditions: <br />o Applicant will work with staff to have mitigation closer to the resource area and <br />with the right species <br />o A signed 3-year monitoring and maintenance contract with a certified <br />horticulturalist <br />o No tree removal within the limit of work; if any damage due to construction, must <br />work with staff to rectify the issue <br />o Comply with regulation 31 lawn standards <br /> Ms. Godfrey seconded <br /> Vote: Ms. Zollo (Yes), Ms. Clapprood (Yes), Ms. Godfrey (Yes), Mr. Colombo (Yes) <br /> Motion passed unanimously <br /> <br />Agent <br /> Nitrogen loading calculations provided <br /> Proposed deck is further seaward than the existing home <br /> The area of the proposed deck is existing lawn <br /> Mitigation proposed to offset the impacts of an increase in footprint/alterations <br /> Recommendation <br />o Clarification for the status of trees within the proposed work limit (Are any trees <br />being removed or impacted by construction activities?) <br />o No impacts to BVW or salt marsh; proposed mitigation will enhance the buffer <br />zone <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br /> <br />