My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/11/1990 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
10/11/1990 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2018 5:02:02 PM
Creation date
1/29/2018 1:03:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/11/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 /> October 1 , 1990 <br /> Page 4. <br /> Mr. Sherman suggested he research the issue. <br /> Ms Lannik stated, if no one has objected previously, perhaps it is not that much <br /> of a hardship. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked, if not a recorded plan, does that lessen the Commission's ability <br /> to hold the applicant to standards? <br /> 14s Lamik stated it gust lessens that documentation that they deviated from the <br /> standards; tha v i s the i s sue. <br /> I9C - Threshold levels: Freshwater wetlands - Performance Standards. <br /> Mainta-fining the 500 S.F. or changing the number was discussed. <br /> Mr.. Sherman advised Bob Gray suggested it be left open and judged on a case by case <br /> basis. He felt something smaller than 500 S.F. could be declared a vernal pool. He <br /> would not want to see it any more than 500, that should be the maxi urs. once a <br /> wetland is gone, i t is hard to- restorewith wildlife habitat lost for years. He <br /> asked if the Commission wants z standard and if so, how large. He felt 500 S.F. <br /> should trigger the performance standards. <br /> Ms Lanni.k stated there is difficulty with case by case, in the real world there <br /> has to be stnadards. <br /> Mr. -Sherman pointed-out the small wetlands are those most being lost. <br /> Mr. York agreed, some small wetlands are very Important wildlife habitat for <br /> endangered species and species of special concern, <br /> Mr, Coffey asked if a no nuoulimum threshold, with a possible waiving in-certain <br /> cases, was possible. <br /> Mr. Sherrlan felt there are real dangers in variances and waivers; standards must <br /> not be arbitrary for waivers. <br /> Mr. Coffey stated it is not the same as the bylaw, the Commission can waive in <br /> some cases under the regulations. <br /> Ms Lannik asked if Mr. Sherman felt 500 S,F, is too large and he stated he would <br /> set a figure smaller than 500. <br /> r. Coffey asked for input from other commissioners, <br /> Anthony Fiorentini suggested if a figure is in common usage in adjacent communities <br /> it should be used in Mashpee. <br /> Mr. Sherman will draft something for the next meeting concerning No. 8. <br /> : Motion made and seconded to incorporate revisions to No. 4, paragraphs <br /> three and four, No. 20 and No. 1 into the Mashpee Regulations. <br /> UnanimousVote* <br /> Motion made and seconded to defer No. 8, No. 11 and N60 1 C to the <br /> next meeting to allow the agent to draft a revision for No. 8, research <br /> . 11 and check with adjacent locales for N64 19. Unanimous Vote. <br /> �: Motion made and seconded to continue for administrative business. <br /> Unanimous o to. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.