Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> can be maintained under a Ch.91 license without any additional permitting. <br /> <br /> Mr Cook asked for a motion. Mr. Sahl motioned for a negative determination. Motion <br /> <br /> <br /> seconded by Ms. Godfrey. Mr. Colombo noted there was no discussion. Mr. Colombo amended the motion to <br /> <br /> clarify that the dock is still subject to wetlands jurisdiction and the negative determination is only in the <br /> <br /> <br /> interest of recognizing the existing dock footprint (the RDA is not in perpetuity). Amended <br /> <br /> motion was seconded by Ms Godfrey <br /> <br /> <br /> Mrs. Thornbrugh asked about discussion on the amended motion. Mr. Sahl asked if the <br /> <br /> owner can still maintain the dock as described by staff (all above water) and it was agreed <br /> <br /> <br /> upon the applicant can perform such maintenance with notice to staff. Mrs Thornbrugh <br /> <br /> added a condition that a Ch. 91 license must be applied for and a recorded copy of a <br /> <br /> <br /> Ch.91 license must be provided. Mr. Cook stated these conditions of the amended motion. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Voting on Amended Motion: <br /> <br /> Mrs. Thornbrugh (YES) <br /> <br /> <br /> Ms. Godfrey (YES) <br /> <br /> Mr. Sahl (YES) <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. Colombo (YES), <br /> <br /> Mr. Cook (YES) <br /> <br /> <br /> Amended motion passes (Unanimous 5-0) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Voting on the original motion for Negative Determination (Motion was made by Mr. <br /> <br /> Sahl and seconded by Ms. Godfrey): <br /> <br /> <br /> Mrs. Thornbrugh (YES) <br /> <br /> Ms. Godfrey (YES) <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. Sahl (YES) <br /> <br /> Mr. Colombo (YES), <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. Cook (YES) <br /> <br /> Motion passes (Unanimous 5-0) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 9 Tuspaquin Road, Mario & Gina Recupero. Proposed installation of sunroom over existing <br /> <br /> <br />RDA deck.(Representative: Mike Cannata) <br /> <br /> RESOURCE AREAS: Buffer zone to Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways and Bordering <br /> <br /> <br /> Land Subject to Flooding (beach areas associated with Johns Pond) <br /> <br /> Mr. Cannata described the proposal for construction of a 3 season sunroom over an existing deck. <br /> <br /> <br /> Mrs Thornbrugh expressed concerns about a RDA for a project within 75ft of Johns Pond and roof <br /> <br /> runoff concerns and recommended a Notice of Intent application. Mr. Cannata stated that roof <br /> <br /> <br /> runoff would be captured by drywells. Additional conversation ensued. Mr. Colombo asked about <br /> <br /> a proposed patio on the plan. Mr. Cannata explained that the patio already exists, it’s not part of <br /> <br /> <br /> this proposal. This was a leftover plan note from a previous application. Additional conversation <br /> <br /> about construction methodology ensued. Mr. Cook asked questions about lower deck area. Mr. <br /> <br /> <br /> Cannata stated that deck will be removed and replaced with grass. Agent McManus explained <br /> <br /> rationale for recommendation of a RDA permit for this project and why it’s considered minor in <br /> <br /> <br /> scope..no change in footprint, no encroachment towards pond. All proposed work in <br /> <br /> previously developed areas. <br /> <br /> <br /> Agent Kent recommended that homeowners in this area understand their property lines vs <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />