My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/3/1994 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
11/3/1994 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2018 5:08:22 PM
Creation date
2/23/2018 1:28:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/03/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
4 <br /> The pier does not begin at the top of the deck but at grade. <br /> The float was re uiLred by the Harbormaster to be moved in. <br /> Everything remains essentially the same as ,what was proposed, <br /> other than moving the float and dock in and the revised <br /> elevation of the deck. It is part of Chapter 91 Waterway's <br /> plan to improve and license what is existing. The Commission <br /> required ed the float reduced to 200 s.f. Also, Zoning Board of <br /> Appeals was needed. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if this plan is the sane one provided t <br /> Board of Appeals? Mr. Madden advised they revised the <br /> elevation of the pier at the deck. <br /> Mrs. Ferriday ream a letter dated October 26 , 1994 from Ron. <br /> `rancoeurF into the record, <br /> Mr. Sherman again questioned the plan date. Mr. Madder <br /> stated pages one, three and four have the revised date c <br /> 10/25/94, page two is the original date, no revision. The <br /> changes involved decreasing the float from 300 s.f, to 200 <br /> s. f. , moving it in four feet and changing the elevation of <br /> the landward only portion of the dock. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked for Rick York's comments. <br /> Mr. Madden stated the project has been opened up to re- <br /> review he would have appreciated notice in advance that <br /> topics and issues that have changed are being discussed. <br /> Mr, Home 'er stated water depths are different and comments <br /> may change. <br /> Mr. Sherman questioned whether the skids are going to do very <br /> much. <br /> Mr* Madden stated they will have a role in how this sits on <br /> the bottom; the stops will provide some degree of protection <br /> Mr. York stated he would prefer the previous plan as moving <br /> the float puts it in shallow water. He would like to see the <br /> floats in two feet of water. <br /> Mr. Homeyer asked if growth or harvesting is his concern? <br /> Mr. York stated harvesting; it will negatively impact <br /> shellf fishing and crush larvae on the bottom and the float <br /> will slow growth of adult larvae. <br /> Mr, Fadden stated they could put a physical stop on the <br /> pilings. The size of the float being proposed is different <br /> than existing and is an improvement. That should be taken <br /> into consideration. It is within the same footprint <br /> originally involved; it is not a major change. <br /> Mrs. Ferriday asked if it would satisfy Mr. York if stops <br /> were installed? It would. <br /> Mr. Francoeur advised there is a letter to Army Corps o <br /> Engineers that they would put steps r* <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.