Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Voting on motion for Negative Determination <br /> <br /> Mrs. Thornbrugh (NO) <br /> <br /> <br /> Ms. Godfrey (NO) <br /> <br /> Mr. Sahl (YES) <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. Colombo (NO), <br /> <br /> Mr. Cook (NO) <br /> <br /> <br /> Motion fails (4-1) <br /> <br /> Applicant requested a continuance to Aug. 21rst, 2025. Mrs Thornbrugh motioned for a <br /> <br /> <br /> continuance to Aug. 21rst, 2025. Mr Sahl seconded the motion <br /> <br />st <br /> Voting on motion to continue to Aug. 21 2025 <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 />NOI 45 Manitoba Road, Josephine Foster TR. Proposed addition over existing deck, remove and <br />43- <br />3349 <br /> rebuild deck in existing footprint and deck replacement/addition to back of dwelling. <br /> <br /> (Representative: Flaherty Environmental Services) <br /> <br /> <br /> RESOURCE AREAS: LSCSF-AE Zone (No other wetlands within 150 ft of subject lot). <br /> <br /> Mr. Cook recused himself from this hearing due to a conflict of interest. Mrs. Thornbrugh <br /> <br /> <br /> presided over. The hearing as Chair. Mr. David Flaherty (Representative/Surveyor) presented the project <br /> <br /> details. Mr. Colombo inquired about the anchoring of the proposed shed due to lot being in LSCSF <br /> <br /> <br /> Agent Kent recommended diamond pilings for the shed. Mr. Colombo mentioned the waiver <br /> <br /> request and asked about compelling need for expansion of home footprint. Mr. Flaherty stated <br /> <br /> <br /> his client stated he wants the home to be more comfortable. Mr. Colombo asked if Mr. Flaherty thought the <br /> <br /> mitigation proposed was adequate. Some additional conversation ensued. Ms. Godfrey asked <br /> <br /> <br /> about submission of a planting plan as a condition. Additional conversation ensued. Agent <br /> <br /> Kent said that mitigation is appropriate for this proposal to offset any impacts. The property <br /> <br /> <br /> owner expressed concerns about diamond pilings for the shed. Agent Kent recommended <br /> <br /> an alternative anchoring mechanism using rebar. This was acceptable to property owner. <br /> <br /> <br /> Mrs. Thornbrugh referenced performance standard #3 under Reg. 25 as reference for anchoring <br /> <br /> the shed and recommended more groundcover in lieu of some landscaped areas and a higher <br /> <br /> <br /> ratio of mitigation. Mrs. Thornbrugh referenced the waiver section of the bylaw and emphasized <br /> <br /> that waivers are discretionary and requests for waivers should be robust and in accordance with <br /> <br /> <br /> the stated waiver criterion. <br /> <br /> Mrs Thornbrugh listed the conditions of the proposal. Mr. Sahl motioned for a Close and Issue <br /> <br /> <br /> with conditions of submission of a planting plan showing 3:1 mitigation, anchoring of shed <br /> <br /> using rebar, submission of a three year mitigation maintenance contract and more <br /> <br /> <br /> groundcover. Ms Godfrey seconded the motion. Mr. Colombo asked about discussion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Colombo recommended rebar reinforcement on all four sides of the shed to anchor it to <br /> <br /> <br /> the skid. <br /> <br /> Voting on Motion to Close and Issue with stated conditions: <br /> <br /> <br /> Mrs. Thornbrugh (YES) <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br /> <br />