My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/25/1995 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
5/25/1995 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2018 5:01:29 PM
Creation date
2/23/2018 1:41:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/25/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
Mr. Gray advised there is an existing septic system that must <br /> be built around, He has not seen a house that does not go <br /> beyond the limit, it is unavoidable., <br /> Mr. Sherman stated they could rove the septic, <br /> Mr. Gray stated there is only a two foot intrusion. If <br /> talking about keeping off the coastal bank, the whole <br /> property is unbuildahl.e. <br /> tty. Kirrane stated there is, and has been, a cut going down <br /> to that area on the site. There was an old pathway out to <br /> that area for fishing and hunting which is still currently <br /> there* <br /> They can reduce the size of the deck but would suggest that <br /> the detail of planting is more than adequate for mitigation. <br /> It is not a 20 foot wide thoroughfare but a 10 foot wide <br /> drive with gravel surface. <br /> Mr. Sherman an stated he recognizes the applicant cues not want <br /> to move the septic but it could be moved. There is a pocket <br /> along the road where it could fit. <br /> Mr. Gray did not think it would make breakout if moved there. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated there would be trouble making breakout Up <br /> here pointing . <br /> tty. Kirrane stated there has been significant change in the <br /> Title v requirements. It may be unreasonable to suggest a <br /> total redesign of the system, <br /> Mr. Sherman asked of lair. Gray, on page 5 in the report re no <br /> adverse effects and the applicants conclusion, is that Mr. <br /> Gray's that there is no adverse affect on wildlife habitat <br /> with this project? <br /> Mr. Gray stated he would have to conclude that this is <br /> probably, given the constraints of the site, the best design <br /> that one could cone up with if going to allow building on <br /> this parcel.. Looking at the wildlife interests here <br /> pointing and the wildlife interests here (pointing) , he did <br /> not think be could conclude otherwise that 2 foot intrusion <br /> below that red lime is doing to adversely impact what is <br /> taking place here. It started out with the driveway <br /> creating 1800 s. . of impact which is down to 57 s,f. of <br /> impact at one location where reveetation is proposed. The <br /> vegetation in this buffer strip if- much sparser than existing <br /> off the BVW, If the wanted to widen that strip to provide <br /> even greater density of species, that might be a trade--off. <br /> He would not feel comfortable saying that a 2 font intrusion <br /> at this particular point is a difference between wildlife not <br /> being affected or being affected but recognizing that the <br /> Commission has been very consistent about 50 foot setbacks, <br /> even the language in the bylaw emphasizes that this a case by <br /> case review and he would not recommend building a house here <br /> (pointing) for the reasons that I stated, There will be more <br /> potential impact to either of these wetland systems if <br /> something is allowed up in this location, If talking about <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.