My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/23/1989 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
2/23/1989 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2018 5:05:23 PM
Creation date
2/21/2018 12:58:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/23/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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 /> February 23 , 1989 <br /> Page 2 . <br /> Mr , <br /> Rosenberg stated there are no heights or fill calculations shown . <br /> Ms Beh <br /> man quest i-oned the k i nd of foot i ng under the way l l and was to l d <br /> it is totally constructed of fieldstone . She asked for the elevation <br /> of the patio it is resting on <br /> Mr . <br /> Palmatier stated the Commission has the ground shots and did not <br /> feel the height of the patio is of any consequences <br /> Ms Behrman stated that ' s the level of the wall , the top of the wall <br /> isnIt at 42 . <br /> Rosenberg asked if they filled led to the top of the wall . r. Palmatier <br /> Mr . dos g <br /> did not believe it ways the top f the wall . He state the wall i <br /> above <br /> 421 along the back and then . slopes back down to the ground .. <br /> Ms <br /> ehrman requested profiles on the wall and the types of footings <br /> under the wall . <br /> Mr . Palmat ` er stated he called the landscaper who did the wall for <br /> � <br /> details and was told he didn ' t have a plan ; they just go out and do <br /> them . It is about a foot below surface . <br /> Ms Sehrran stated there is no certification that tells us how that <br /> was built <br /> and assurance it was built properly . She asked if he would <br /> put ars engineer ' s stamp on the wall and Ear . Palmatier stated they <br /> would not because they didn ' t design the gall . <br /> Mr . Burns stated the reason for the wall is the protection of the <br /> swimming pool or deck on top . <br /> Mr . <br /> Pal atier stated it is to prevent the slope from eroding and <br /> exposing the pool-, <br /> prof i le- of the wall how constructed with elevations was requested . <br /> r . Ro enb a sked i f they' wou l d be w i.l l i re to i re a statement there <br /> g , in wall certification as to <br /> will be no erosion coming out from under t <br /> the soundness of the wall ? The Commission is being asked to say this <br /> thin which was built without coring in , after extensive hearings on <br /> . . g <br /> Lot 520 , then they come in with no information as to what the structure <br /> is -and someone has told hire that it was built without plans , just put <br /> together ,, and request approval . <br /> .y <br /> Mr . Palmatier stated as-built . He is at a disadvantage because they <br /> had no part in it . Anyone who has looked at the wallcan see how it <br /> y <br /> was constructed and the sturdiness of the wall . <br /> Mr . Rosenberg stated there is nothing in the files to indicated that . <br /> yrA Simmons k [d m to put the profile of the wall on the plans . <br /> X <br /> . Palmatier stated they cannot do that without getting the inform- <br /> at 1 on <br /> ofat1on frog someone else and 1f that someone says they don ' t have that , <br /> the -may have a generic plan some here but that ' s not going to mean <br /> that ' s the way the wall is constructed . <br /> I <br /> Mr . Palmatier agreed toprovide a profile of the wall , mo,unt s of <br /> g and n erosion screen . <br /> fill put i n ; the height of the wall , footings i Ing s a , <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.