FINAL
Present for the Conservation Commission and attending the meeting were: Sandy Broyard, Chairman, Candy Shweder, Vice Chairman, Maureen Eisner, Chris Murphy, Bob Hungerford, Pam Goff and Chuck Hodgkinson. Chris Alley, Michael Barclay, Mark Hurwitz, Lenny Jason and Charlie Green also attended. Joan Malkin was absent.
The meeting came to order at 12:30 PM following the site visit that took place at 12:00 noon.
DISCUSSION CHRISTINA LURIE SE 12 – 735; 2 Gosnold’s Way; AP 14-1: Ms. Broyard summarized the observations made at the site visit and opened the discussion to determine whether or not the degree of demolition of the original dwelling went beyond the scope of approval. Mr. Barclay said his intent is not to defend whether or not the house was completely razed -- versus a maintenance level of demolition. He pointed out that 2 sections of flooring and one section of wall are horizontally supported over the foundation space. They cannot be placed until the new foundations are poured. He added all of the conditions outlined in the Order were followed (erosion control, debris and excavation spoils handling). The old water tank and slab down the bank still need to be removed.
The Commission pointed out that on June 17 when Mr. Barclay inquired about the possibility of completely removing the original house he chose to abandon the request, not re-open the hearing and perform the work as originally permitted. The house is now not there. Mr. Barclay rebutted that he would save what he could from the original structure. Cleared space was needed to install the new crawl space foundation and the full basement foundation under the relocated bedroom.
Mr. Jason added that this is what all contractors do and if the house was elevated on cradles the footprint of work would be much larger than what was done and cause even more ground disturbance. The Commission pointed out the Town’s Wetland Protection Bylaws have different performance standards that Town zoning. After much discussion the Commission agreed that what was done is essentially what was envisioned. The more dramatic impact of seeing what was done on site is different than what was assumed.
The Commission discussed the possibility of issuing a cease and desist order and seek a legal opinion on the definition of “the maintenance of existing structures within 100 feet of a coastal bank” as outlined in the Regulations. It was ultimately decided the issue is more about the impact of what was actually done to the resource area—rather than if the work meets the definition of maintenance.
After further discussion a motion was made to allow the work to continue because the resource area disturbance reflects what’s needed to install the approved new foundations and does not reflect disturbance caused by the maintenance or demolition of the structure. The motion was seconded and passed with four in favor and two opposed (Ms. Eisner and Mr. Murphy).
The Commission discussed it needs to consider this in more detail on future applications such as this. They agreed that perhaps the amount of ground and resource disturbance should determine what might be allowed when “maintaining a pre-existing structure in a resource buffer zone”. The Kenney house renovation on AP 27.1-107; 26 Harbor Hill Road (SE 12 – 727) was sighted as an example. It was allowed because the existing foundation was used. If a new foundation was proposed it might not have been approved because the structure is only 5 feet from the top of the bank. The Lurie project with new foundations is 60 feet from the top of the bank and the footprint did not get larger. In this case the impact on the coastal bank’s stability is not as severe as would have been on the
Kenney property if a new foundation was excavated and built.
ADMINISTRATION:
The next meeting will be Wednesday, October 7, 2015 @ 12:30 PM.
With no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned at 1:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, C.A.S.
| 