My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/12/1981 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
8/12/1981 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2018 5:29:16 PM
Creation date
1/30/2018 1:30:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/12/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
? o .- Goldberg,_ cont, <br /> Ser our oldber s What you say i partly true. There are few lots, for some <br /> reason un no"orn to me whether it has to do with drainage or the way these lots <br /> wsre constructed and graded, that there is water run-off from the top of the <br /> That t not true of my lot. As Mr. M_cSrath mentioned rl e o we main- <br /> tained the original veeta.tion that soap up the surface water., on my ar'ticu- <br /> tar lot, l don't have erosion from the top, but the erosion from the bottom is <br /> there, The lot next to mine does have a condition where it is going from the <br /> top. But that is not the problem that I fighting with. <br /> Pauline: The notice of intent that has been filed has to do with the rip rap, <br /> Li you have a lot of washing, you should take it up with New' seabu `y. One <br /> thing that we have on the plan is anything on a rip rap, the base stone should <br /> be 6 ton and not 4 ton. Does anyone else have any questions? <br /> Arnold Berger of-Fine Avenue; What is going to happen to the' banking on either <br /> side? <br /> Pauline: On wallslike this and what different engineers have recommended is <br /> that they either have one contiguous wall or that they bring 'it around into <br /> heir own property with their corners so that it does not wash out the abutters ' <br /> property. <br /> Mike McGrath: The plan does show returns. <br /> Dorothy`: The elevation of the stone part will be 11 feet. Is that correct? <br /> Mike McGrath: The top of the bank averages about 36 feet. <br /> Dorothy: Then it will be about one-third of the height? <br /> 'dike McGrath: Not even that. It will be about 6 f eet of rip rap and the actual <br /> difference would average about 30 feet. It would be about one-fifth of the height. <br /> Dorothy: There is a 5 foot minimum there, is that 5 feet of sand. that they are <br /> going to dig out? <br /> Mike McGrath: Yes, they are going to have to disturb some -of the sand. <br /> L aul .e: if there are no other questions, the Board will take this under advise- <br /> ment. If an Order of Conditions is issued, we request that you post your DEQ <br /> n1.L.mbe)r on a 2 x 2 piece of board. <br /> Mike McGrath: Would you like a revised set of plans showing the 6 ton minimum? <br /> aulineoa Absolutely. One More questions Do..-you have any future plains for put- <br /> ting stairs in there? You would have to re-file. <br /> Seymour Goldbe c 1 do not have any immediate plans for placing stairs in there. <br /> Could l come in at some future time? <br /> Pauline: You would have to re-file and have a neer hearing. Mr6 McGrath was asked <br /> to pay $2 additional charge due to the increase in advertising cost . <br /> Payment was recel ed, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.