My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/27/1989 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
7/27/1989 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2018 5:09:16 PM
Creation date
2/21/2018 1:50:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/27/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
I <br /> i <br /> I <br /> July 27, 1989Face 11. <br /> upon and will show where the road .layouts happen to he in i <br /> relation to those boundaries and perhaps, in many cases, <br /> footprints of houses, condominiums, layouts of coif course <br /> greens, whatever it happens to be. At this point, the <br /> ommission knows no more than you In terms of what anyone may <br /> he deciding or planning to do out there. <br /> SIMMONS: Are there any more comments from the public that <br /> would address this particular subject:' <br /> O REN: 1 have been connected with New Seabury engineering <br /> since 1963. This r-esource map was done pursuant to ou <br /> discussion with the Town on coming up with a new development <br /> plan. It is true we submitted a definitive pla-n but we <br /> agreed to come up with a resource map prior to reviewing a <br /> new development plan; this pian is precedent to a new plan. <br /> As 'far as the actual issues on the resource areas <br /> themselves, . . . . . . <br /> SIMMONS: Please sir, we really don' t have time for any more <br /> discussion. <br /> O ECD: This is a discussion on the procedure and I've asked <br /> to speak once and I've had about 30 seconds. We've been some <br /> time since .last February reviewi-ng the resource areas on this <br /> lana when it was submitted and I agree there are complex <br /> issues here. From our standpointo T thank if we' re down to <br /> two issues, whether or not we have bordering vegetated <br /> wetlands or an -isolated area subject to flooding in one bag <br /> area which is number- one and number two, we now recognize <br /> coastal bank; we've had plenty of discussion on that and now <br /> we' re only talking about it's limlt and extent. If the <br /> Commission could male a decision on the resource map but <br /> leaving those two open fot- fUrther determination, then either <br /> we'd have an opportunity to appeal it or come back and work <br /> it out with the Commission but it would allow us to move <br /> forward with a goad deal of the rest of the planning process <br /> so we can make some progress and I think in light of the time <br /> that's been spent, it would be a reasonable approach. <br /> SIMMONS: To the Board) : is it your consensus you want to <br /> make a decision or are we doing to be able to go through the <br /> material? I don' t think we ' re in a position to spilt <br /> anything because we don ' t even know what's in that package. <br /> O P B R ; We haven' t even seen it. <br /> HAYES: You have me at a disadvantage here. I think there`s <br /> real met-it fol- what you ask. <br /> GRAY: People can' t hear you in the back. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.