My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/29/1984 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
11/29/1984 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2018 11:23:46 AM
Creation date
2/10/2018 11:23:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/29/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
k <br /> Mashpee Conservation ori s s i on <br /> Meeting of November 29 , 1984 <br /> Page Eight <br /> Mrs . Thomas suggested that Mr. Jeff Benoit be contacted to see if <br /> he would have any ideas or comments as he is the Coastal ZoneManage- <br /> ment representative . <br /> s . Dardano suggested that the Notice of Intent be. withdrawn as <br /> being incomplete noting that DQE has not issued a number at this <br /> time anyway. Another Notice of Intent should be submitted with <br /> complete plans should Mrs , Kolb decide to pursue the matter. <br /> As Mr. Clark was still present, a discussion ensued about the proposed <br /> project of Murray Hack which was oridinally presented at the meeting <br /> of November 8, 19849 <br /> . Mr. Clark stated that the Commission had received a. letter describing <br /> several charges in the original proposal . He said that he had asked <br /> the architect to pull, the posts back from the edge of the bank. <br /> Mrs . Thomas asked about the drainage off the house . Mr.. Clark said <br /> he did not know as he didn' t have any plans for gutters or dry wells . <br /> He said the house probably would be guttered; however, there is nothing <br /> in the praposal which dead.s with that question. He suggested that it <br /> be conditioned into the project that it be guttered toward the front <br /> of the property and that a dry well be installed. Mrs . Thomas noted <br /> that there is nothing showing any drainage patterns . <br /> Mr. Rosenberg objected to the way the house and especially the garage <br /> was positioned on the lot . Mfr. .ark said that there had beep, quite <br /> a discussion between the architect and New Seabury on the day before <br /> the original hearing that `ewe had the house upside down." He said <br /> that they had changed their minds several times but that finally, New <br /> s e abury said, "No, we don' t want the garage on that side , we want it <br /> on this side , "' Mr, Clark said that "We finally re-drew the plan the <br /> way you see it. They wanted some space between it the garage and <br /> the house ) . r chit'e c t have their* own aesthetic reasons for doing <br /> things . of course , they don' t want to have the garage two feet away <br /> from a kitchen window. They want to have some space there , They <br /> wanted the house further away. This was the area of compromise . " <br /> Mrs Clark stated that he did not think that it would be possible to <br /> get 'a revision on that situation. <br /> Ir. Rosenberg said, "1 am absolutely opposed to the way this is laid <br /> out . Mrs . Thomas concurred. Mr, Rosenberg continued, "I t m not going <br /> to vote for it because that deck is going to open up right on the bank. <br /> What you are going to find is people jumping off right on the bank. <br /> they're going to have to get off that deck and onto the bark somehow and <br /> there is no space to get down there . " Mr. Clark' s position is that <br /> the deck is not necessarily for jumping off of but in all probability <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.