My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/16/1995 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
3/16/1995 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2018 1:37:42 PM
Creation date
2/23/2018 1:37:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/16/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
- 7 - <br /> Mrs. Wolk stated it would cost them $1000 for the report and <br /> Mrs. Glass would appeal it again. <br /> Mrs. Ferriday asked if this was anything that the Extension <br /> Service could provide? <br /> Mr. Sherman advised they would need someone with ornithology <br /> background such as someone from Manomet Bird Observatory. <br /> Atty. Hill asked if Robert Gray could speak to the <br /> Commission. <br /> Mr. Gray stated he would take issue with Mr. Shall that 10 .53 <br /> supersedes 10.55. It is purely discretionary whether to <br /> allow such a project to go forward. The Commission is <br /> justified in asking for additional information. Nothing <br /> presented this evening constitutes a biologists report. <br /> other routine projects in buffer zones are required to <br /> provide engineered plans. <br /> He recommended denying the project by reason of no more <br /> information was supplied. <br /> Mrs. Ferriday offered them the opportunity for a continuance <br /> for several months to allow the applicants to find a <br /> consultant that might do this pro bono but the Commission <br /> does not have enough information at this point to go forward. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg asked if the parties have sat down with an <br /> attempt to come up with a modification to the plan that would <br /> please everyone? <br /> Atty. Hill advised he spoke to Mr. Wolk on the phone and was <br /> treated to insults. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated there is not unalterable opposition, is <br /> that right? Atty. Hill stated yes. Mr. Rosenberg continued, <br /> there ought to be a way for the parties and their <br /> representatives to sit down and work this out. <br /> Atty. Hill agreed to discuss this with his clients. <br /> Mr. Gray stated he did bring this up when the first idea of <br /> this project moved forward. They would be glad to take a <br /> look at a professional report and professional plan. <br /> Atty. Hill stated they can respond to a proposal. <br /> Mrs. Ferriday asked if the applicant would like to continue? <br /> Mr. Wolk did not object. <br /> Atty. Hill asked if the postponement was for additional <br /> information and was told, it is. <br /> Mrs. Ferriday asked that the Commission be notified in <br /> writing if the applicant does not wish to continue with the <br /> project. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.