My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/15/1994 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
12/15/1994 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2018 5:11:36 PM
Creation date
2/23/2018 1:31:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/15/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
- 1 - <br /> HOMEYE : Somebody else will have to make the motion. <br /> JOHANSEN: I will move for a positive determination. <br /> FIT SIM IS: Ifll second <br /> ABSTAINED: Harry Desrosiers and Frank Homeyer. <br /> FERRIDAY: That f s two abstentionsir that's two for and, (To Mr. <br /> Lopez Ifn sorry, that's richt, you're not voting. <br /> LE : No. <br /> FERRIDAY: So, that motion carries . <br /> DI LUNA: It was three (FERRIDAY: Two two in favor? <br /> FERRIDAY: And two abstained. <br /> DI LUNA: Pursuant to provisions of the law, I request the <br /> entire file be copied and delivered to my office; xny office <br /> will carry any casts with respect to the copies and service. <br /> SHEI MAN: It will take me a few days; I will have to have my <br /> clerk in the office. <br /> FERRIDAY: Thank you very much. <br /> Mr. DiLuna left the meeting.. <br /> FERRIDAY: I was following instructions of Town Counsel. <br /> HOMEYE : It just didn't make any sense; your instructions <br /> from Town Counsel did not make any sense. From what they <br /> had presented earlier, the presentation, I thought it was a <br /> negative determination. <br /> FITSIMMIS: I was fully prepared to support that. That was <br /> the motion that I made but Nonny, when I made the motion, had <br /> some reservations so I chanced my notion. I didn't realize <br /> that this letter existed. <br /> HMEYE * We have all read it two or three times. <br /> SHERMN: Can I say something to wrap this us I think the <br /> positive determination is still in order because, yes, they <br /> made the case that this type of activity is necessary for <br /> agricultural practices, but they never rade the case that <br /> this land in agriculture* Because, if you buy thein <br /> argument, thea land in agriculture extends from the whole <br /> water shed. <br /> We have a letter from Fish & Wildlife that this does damage <br /> to the herring and trout fisheries. They didn't male their <br /> case. <br /> HOMEYE : Why rediscuss it, it is going to be appealed to DEP; <br /> let it go and be dome that way. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.