My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/17/1991 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
1/17/1991 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2018 5:03:03 PM
Creation date
1/26/2018 11:45:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/17/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
o Conservation Commission <br /> January 17, 1991 <br /> 'age 10. <br /> Mr. Homcyer stated Mr. trot ke had presented enough evidence tonight to prove that it <br /> was -inaccurate. <br /> Mr. Grotzke stated it was done in a conservative fashion and identifies a larger area <br /> as the resource than if it was done more accurately. It is a question of how accurate <br /> you want to get. <br /> Mr. Desrosiers suggested maybe the cow. sion should start with an accurate survey. <br /> Mr. Grotzke stated that would b self-defeating because to do an accurate Ivey o <br /> all of BuffleheadBay. . . . .1 xt De Srosiers stated if trying to ,determine the boundary <br /> of just that particular vernal pool or Isolated Land Subject to Flooding and trying <br /> to do it accurately and it is going to be determined by something less than a foot <br /> in elevation from your calculation . . . . . , irGrof zke stated that is if everyone can <br /> agree to the delineations here. Mr. Desrosier stated it is probably more like agreeing <br /> to an elevation that will be determined in the field by a surveyor and staked accord- <br /> ingly. If his calculations are right that the line is indeed 5.9 for an elevation <br /> rather than 6.3, if the commission determines that that line is the boundary at the <br /> time of the flagging and see where it cane, that is the boundary he is talking about. <br /> Mr. Grotzke agreed. Mr. Desrosiers continued, so the commission is not really looking <br /> t a line on a drawing because that is an inaccurate thing. He could not attest to <br /> whether or not that line is accurate on the drawing but the commission. could rule on <br /> n elevation being the determining factor, <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if he meant as part of this determination <br /> . Desrosiers stated now it is back to having a disinterested party as an engineer <br /> check the calculations before we make an agreement. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if it would be acceptable if the commission were to add, instead <br /> of just coastal bank, Isolated Land subject to Flooding as one and the same. <br /> Mr. tarot ke believed every resource., except for the flagging of the wetland,' would <br /> fall under the same category. <br /> Mr. Sherman suggested agreeing to this as a preliminary accurate determination <br /> subject to more precise determination with a plan of a different scale. <br /> Mr. Grotzke stated this was not done with the intent of a vernal pool. <br /> 1 . Sherman stated the superseding determination did not address boundaries except <br /> for the coastal bank. It is asking for a lot for the commission to do that when <br /> the state did not. He felt he should check with DEP and Town Counsel. He asked <br /> if Mr. tarot ke is requesting the conmAssion to state this is the finite boundary <br /> of the isolated land subject to flooding. Mr. Grotzke stated he was, until they <br /> o a hi <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.