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
Conservation Commission <br /> January 17, 1991 <br /> Page 4,. - <br /> calculations <br /> ,calculations seem to vary across that topo line would actually expand or shrink the <br /> buffer zone by 5 feet's <br /> Mr. Grotke stated it depends what the topo is inside the area. Since fit's fairly <br /> shallow, 6 inches could make a difference laterally of 100 feet. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated it does make a big difference. The establishment of the vernal <br /> pool outline with the 2. - 24 hour rainfall is crucial because it is 100 feet from <br /> that line for the habitat. If under the state law the area is still isolated land <br /> subject to flooding, when you compute isolated land subject to flooding you are <br /> computing on the 7 inch storm, is that correct, he asked Mr. rotke' Mr. Grotzke <br /> stated it was, exactly, Ir. Sherman continued, so it hasn't been determined yet and <br /> his perception of the ratter was it didn't need to be determined at the time with <br /> no project proposed on the site at that time. However, since the issue has come and <br /> gone, we have passed our own regulations for vernal pools which are different and <br /> which include a 100 foot boundary, whether or not it is from the lits of the vernal <br /> pool, 2.6 storm, whether or not it is a resource area under 310 CMR, . o it sloes make <br /> a big difference. iowever, in his opinion, the reqs are now in evidence and if a new <br /> filing comes through for this, we were never involved, or had to get involved, in <br /> defining the 11MO t. It would have to be defined under the new local regs, unless <br /> the Corission saw fit to do otherwise.' <br /> Mr. Coffey asked if they want a total determination of applicability and a definition <br /> f all resource areas' <br /> Mr. Grotzke stated that is the ultimate purpose of doing this entire exercise. Dore <br /> it may be a moot issue because this is land they have always intended to give to the <br /> town as part of the open space trail corridor system, including the 100 foot buffer. <br /> There was mention at' one time of a 200 foot buffer. They have no intent of developing <br /> or doing anything with this pond. It will be the town's ultimately, It is important <br /> that the process in defining resources for the benefit of the relationship between <br /> the developer and the town, that there be clear gui <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.