My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/27/1995 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
4/27/1995 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2018 5:18:26 PM
Creation date
2/23/2018 1:39:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/27/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Pond. The problem is the there would be 1.4 feet of wall � <br /> i <br /> showing. It was amended once for landscaping. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked. ghat is the original plan that lays out the <br /> footprint o f the house <br /> Mr. sl.avinsky stated nothing was addressed. He went out and <br /> staked it out and cut down trees. There would be 14 feet of <br /> concrete exposed on the back of the house. The house was too <br /> high by 3 feet. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if this amendment deals with grade changes? <br /> No, it is a tiered proposal; this is for plantings and <br /> retaining walls. Mr. Sherman asked how big? They were <br /> originally 12 feet, now 14 feet. The original plan did not <br /> have a deck. <br /> Mr, slavinsky stated if this plan is not approved, they will <br /> stick with the original. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated they do not have anywhere near the 50 foot <br /> BS, not even from the pond and they should he talking about <br /> from the BVW. If this was a new house, it would have been <br /> denied. They should not do the deck and should enhance the <br /> vegetation. <br /> Mr. ] esrosiers requested a footprint imposed an a grade plan. <br /> Mr6 sl.avinsky pointed out it is legal to build what is on the <br /> Amended order. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the Commission can condition this any way <br /> that they want or bo stuck with the one approved. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated if the amendment ent is denied, it goes back <br /> to the previous plan. He questioned what was the lesser of <br /> two evilst <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the commission could deny this deck <br /> totally, hien they would withdraw and go back to the deck <br /> previously approved. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg asked if they would accept approval of the plan <br /> without a deck. Mr. Slavinsky would not agree to that. <br /> Mr , Sherman asked if they could put the deck over on the <br /> end; they could get a variance? He suggested approving the <br /> plan with the deck moved to the side. It is possible to show <br /> that they have gone over the work limit and give then an <br /> enforcement order. <br /> Mr. Slavinsky stated there would still be retaining galls but <br /> they could he mored closer. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated a reprised plan is needed moving the deck <br /> to an end, put in retaining walls weed on grading problems <br /> and maximize plantings . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.