Laserfiche WebLink
Conservation Commission <br /> March 1 , 1994 <br /> Page 10. <br /> Vow: Motion made and seconded to write a letter to DEP for George Benway <br /> withdrawing any objection the Commission may have had, provided it <br /> is stipulated in the permit that the boats tied up at the dock will <br /> be stern out to the float and when tiring them up, they will be stern snug <br /> to the float. <br /> Unanimous vote. <br /> Water District: Mr. Sherman felt they could not be Made to improve drainage, <br /> legally. Auer discussi n, <br /> Tom: Motion made and seconded that the Agent check with MACC legal counsel <br /> re requiring the Mashpee Nater District to improve drainage in project <br /> areas. Unanimous vote. <br /> Santuit Bog Maintenance Project: Proposal received from Mario - DiGregorio of <br /> Sabtia in the amount of $500. <br /> vow: Motion made and seconded to expend $500.00 to Mario DiCregorio out of <br /> the Conservation Fund. Unanimous Vote. <br /> East: Susana Lannik recommended giving the Vater District- the easement with <br /> few changes in wording. <br /> Mr. Homeyer stated he was opposed to giving any easement to the Water District <br /> at any time. <br /> Mr. Sherman sugge ted 'this, b discussed.'_.when usana Lannik is resent. <br /> Vim: Motion made and seconded to advise the Water District that their request for <br /> ars easement is not granted. Mr. Desrosiers abstained, <br /> Motion carried. <br /> CHAP. 112-1: If taxes are not paid, no permit shall be i s sued. Theg exit is <br /> checking the legality of this now with the Executive Secretary, <br /> rormn: Ms Cronan arrived at 9:40 p.m. <br /> Mr. Sherman reviewed the Cronan material. Application has been rade for Interim <br /> Amnesty approval with the dock in it. His position at this moment is that he would <br /> accept -stops, as suggested by Chapter 91, but would want the side float out o there; <br /> it bottoms out and i n impediment to shel,lfis�i' If the side float is rem.oved, <br /> they could be relieved of the fine. <br /> Ms Cronan Mated It was her yrs if there were stows on both structures shellfish <br /> would go along. They did exactly what he asked them, to do, They applied t 'ha Chapter <br /> p <br /> 91 and. waited. the 4 'days for� an t objections. ' 'The float did not 'goback in until then. <br /> Also, in a letter daCed October 8th of that sane gear,, Mr.'Sherman had stated that as <br /> long as they didn't rake any(changes in number, size or location of the pilings, <br /> g <br /> which they did not) required permitting under Chapter, 91- a.nd#Chapter 131 §40, as well <br /> as the Town of Mash ee. ;The- dock has been dere sfor years ,an i�the only change <br /> was the side float talon . <br /> g width off the front o the doe end. moving �t to the side. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the addition o - the float would 'come under the purview of the <br /> O=z ssiOn and, was, and still is, -a violation of Chapter 172 and the Wetlands Protection <br /> c t. The removal of that float is still required and would r'eco r.e-nd samer <br /> ux�de their <br /> nding Chapter 91. permit. He saw no reason to changeP osition on this. _ <br />