My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/17/1990 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Executive Session
>
05/17/1990 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Executive Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2018 5:20:30 PM
Creation date
1/30/2018 8:19:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Executive Session
Meeting Date
05/17/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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 /> May 17, 1990 <br /> Page 3 <br /> Executive Session <br /> Sherman : Town Counsel thirds he has ars excellent case because it is documented by <br /> DPE that he violated the provisions of the wetlands act, Town Counsel thanks he has <br /> good leverage. <br /> Simmons. our Counsel doesn't feel he even reeds witnesses at this point. He was <br /> going to have Arany, many, witnesses, he was going to go as far back as March Dupont. <br /> He gave me the impression what he would like to do is, he's like to settle out. <br /> Halpern: Where does the suit go after that'? Is he going to be forced to revegetate' <br /> Simmons : For remuneration for us. <br /> Halpern: He's ,just going for monetary,, <br /> B h man: That's what the settlement position is . The suit is to tell him to do what <br /> he was supposed to do and plus be fined. <br /> Halpern: Fined under the town bylaw, not the state because the state allowed i t. <br /> Behr an: Under the town bylaw and we do have a strong town bylaw and we have a <br /> strong case. <br /> Halpern: Do you think a judge is going to allow us to fine hi , if the state allowed <br /> it? <br /> Sherman: yes, -because the issue is that he broke the law by doing it all without a <br /> filing; that's what we're going after. <br /> Halpern : I understand what you're saying, but the question I asked.. e're not a <br /> judge and we're not attorneys, <br /> Dehrran : We also have a very strong bylaw Richard, it's not the state so this is a <br /> separate pigeonhole. <br /> Coffey: It seers to me his position that DEP has made his case is because under the <br /> Superior Court's appeal proceedings, they don't rethink the case, they don't rehear <br /> the case, it's tertiary proceedings; it's all on the paperwork and where DEP has <br /> already grade the case- for him, it's a done deal . <br /> Halpern: So. if it was settled out of court it would be between the lawyers, money <br /> would be paid the tern. and whatever. <br /> Des o ie s . Negotiations. <br /> Coffey: Frankly, I'm uncomfortable that it only be a fine; for a certain price, he <br /> 4 <br /> has gotten his lawn. If one of our positions is that that bank is in serious possibility <br /> of becoming unstable because it has become devegetated, I would rather see it revege ated. <br /> Simmons ,, I can shore ,you the vegetation plan. <br /> Coffey. I would hate to see it only be a financial settlement. I would I ike to see some <br /> conditions. <br /> Sherman : But doe doesn't think we are going to win that part of the case. A smart <br /> lawyer says to the judge, "Well DEP doesn't think it does any damage", and even though <br /> ,you 've got hone rule and a stricter bylaw, it doesn't work. Joe doesn't think we have <br /> a shot at winning that part of the case. He thinks if we pursue the fine we'd only <br /> get a minimal f i ne; he thinks the way to send a message to Mr. Nirenberg is to do <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.