Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE CONSERVATION C SSI N <br /> F JANUARY 24, 1991 � <br /> in) <br /> M 141991 <br /> Ccami aioner~ Present: Patrick Coffey, Gertrude Simmons, Frank m yer, Duncan York, <br /> Harry Derosiers. .. .� <br /> SP SELECTMEN S <br /> The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. <br /> A portion of the Commission's post hearing agenda was discussed prior to the start <br /> of hearings. See details following minutes of hearings. <br /> 7:30 SOUIH CAPE CIVIC ASSOC,, Continued hearing from January 24, 1991. Dave Sanicki <br /> advised he first addressed the Commission in July 1990 With a proposal for a dock. <br /> On January , the Board of Appeals voted permit. mess the Commission had some <br /> other~ questions, his presentation is complete. <br /> Mr. Coffey fey ated the biggest issues were the shellfish habitat to be affected and <br /> the use f the dock, being n Association dock and not co�3.ty dock. <br /> Mr. Sanicki advised shellfish considerations were brought up to the Board of Appeals <br /> who requested documentation of those who would be able to use this facility. It will <br /> be owners of those lots with paid up membershipin the association listed. <br /> Mr. Coffey asked if the association was happy with the condition there will only be <br /> four dinghies and was told they were. He asked the location of L t 168? <br /> Mr. Sanicki stated Mr. Coffman is on Lot 167. Access i's over association property <br /> over a gravel road along the property line. This is the access that has been used <br /> continually, It is within and on association property. Application is for Lot 168 <br /> which is unbuildable; an association recreational lot. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if all the waterfront lots in the association are in the numbers <br /> listed in Mr. LoFchie' letter? <br /> Mr. Sanicki advised the letter designates everyone who can use this facility, if a <br /> paid up member. <br /> Mr. Coffey stated past issues discussed were the number of dinghies and how to be <br /> stored; potential encroachment on eel grass; shellfish habitat displaced by the <br /> dock and float; impacts on shellfish on the edge of the marsh. Some are nuitigable, <br /> some are not. To give it the broadest interpretation possible, he would like to <br /> know that anything mitigable is mitigated. In his mind, the association use of <br /> this that approaches a commmity dock is a strong plus, however, a community dock <br /> precludes additional approximate development and an association dock does not. It <br /> is important that all the waterfront lots, as well as the community, have use of <br /> the dock for sure. <br /> Mr. Sanicki stated they do, and will have; that has been addressed. <br /> Mr. Coffey stated it is a ria jor consideration for any potential loss of shellfish <br /> or loss of habitat from further structures nearby. If the association dock would <br /> preclude future development, he would be more inclined to go along with it. <br /> Mr. Sanicki could not answer that it will preclude requests for future clocks in <br /> the area, when asked how many lots would be in question he replied a possibility <br /> of three more lots could request individual docks. One individual did apply and <br /> was denied, returned and was denied again. The Association does not wish to re- <br /> strain anyone's rights within the commonwealth. It is before the commission as <br /> n association facility. If those parties would want a dock for the individual <br /> properties, the onus would be upon them to prove need if this facility were <br /> constructed. <br />