Laserfiche WebLink
,s MASHPEE CONSERVATION COIMSSION <br /> �RE OF OCMBER 11.9 1990 <br /> AND PUMIC HEARING <br /> Commissioners Present: Patrick. Coffey, Gertrude Simons, Duncan York, Karry <br /> Desrosiers, Susana Lannik. <br /> The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. <br /> usana Lannik was designated voting member for this meeting. <br /> Proposed revisions: <br /> (8) The Chairman read the proposed revision. He advised Chapter 91 is not the <br /> concern of the Conservation Commission. The Chapter 91 Amnesty package is t <br /> assist the public and not part of the Commission's regulations. <br /> ANTHONY PICREM: Regarding size of the required sign, he felt the commission <br /> should designate an average size of 16 X 1 . He questioned what size the numbers <br /> should be and suggested the same as house numbers be used. <br /> Mr. Sherman advised the two to three square foot size i's the same as dictated by <br /> the regulations in the Wetlands Protection Act. Lettering should be -seen clearly <br /> from the water. He hesitated to dictate the size of the letters. <br /> BEN GORDON off` Bowsprit Point brought -a map of New Seabury. The shoreline is very <br /> irregular in shape; the Commission should be able to identify any given property <br /> accurately. He proposed a sign which he displayed; it is two-thirds of a square <br /> foot and readily obtainable. He further suggested a 3 inch min].rimm height for the <br /> letters. Materials were purchased at a m rine 'supply store. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the point is well taken. He tried to be consistent with what <br /> ` D.E.P. dictates, He felt the Concession should be flexible. <br /> Mr. Coffey stated that size sign could be placed vertically on a piling also. <br /> Mr. Desrosiers agreed with Nor. Gordon'ssuggestions and stated it would be acceptable <br /> to someone with a dock of 2 X 6 frame with X 4 posts. <br /> ?r. Cordon suggested anything larger would be acceptable; this would be 11urlimum <br /> Mr. Sherman did not want anyone who had gone through a filing to have to change <br /> their sign. <br /> BIM MMIROS asked how a float attached to shore would be affected by the regulations" <br /> Mr. Coffey stated it depends, if a harbormaster permitted 10A float, it is in a gray <br /> area; it is more Chapter 91 than Conservation. if ramped to the shore, it is double <br /> jurisdiction. It should be identified one way or the other. If a structure in a <br /> great pond or in coastal waters, it should have a number posted on it. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated if bottom anchored with no ramp on it, it does not have to go <br /> through Conservation. <br /> BILL GRAN , of Riverbend, stated he once read that photos should be taken and marc <br /> a scale drawing; that would be sufficient, He did not find this in the pamphlet. <br /> Mfr, Coffey advised that was a solution Chatham had worked out independent of <br /> Chapter 91. Dated photographs are what are required& <br /> ANTHONY FERRAGAIm spore in favor of the sign presented to the Commission tonight, <br />