My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/21/1995 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
9/21/1995 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2018 5:26:36 PM
Creation date
2/23/2018 1:52:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/21/1995
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
21 September 1995 <br /> Page 5 <br /> might e- w l 1 n o consider �. y would r o e th <br /> existing deck half way down the steep slope . Vegetation is <br /> absent under the deck . He would 'Ike to see this deck <br /> removed . hie read r o he Washington State Report .. There is <br /> n overhanging V with a number of water fowl using it for <br /> nesting and shelter . Human use of the deck would be <br /> detrimental to wildlife . <br /> Mr . Sherman asked if they will be using some of the same <br /> foundation? Mr . Le l i o stated they will ba using al l of the <br /> existing; a portion of thedeck will be c n i. e Bred . <br /> Mr . Rosenberg asked if they were building out 20 feet closer <br /> o the water , p lus the deck? <br /> Mr . Green stated it might do more damage taking the deck out . <br /> Mr . Fitzsimmons stated is not that large nd they have to <br /> have a connected path , a walkway . <br /> Mr . Leli o stated there are valid points . The people <br /> activity is there and is not going to change; that is the <br /> biggest factor that will impact the intent of the <br /> Commission 's o foot buffer . Wildlife habitat value is much <br /> smaller in the area of expansion . The existing deck <br /> structure h as vegetation coming up through 'It . has been <br /> there in excess of 25 years - and there is no erosion problem , <br /> no change to habitat characteristics since its installation . <br /> They are not proposing work on the steep embankment but on <br /> the flat area . <br /> Mr . Green asked what condition the deck is in now Mr . <br /> Reymond stated it is in hazardous rdous shape now . <br /> Mr . Sherman stated if they want o keep this , they should <br /> stay within the original footprint . They have chosen to move <br /> forward . <br /> Public comments: Stun Hutchins ,, abutter on the north side , <br /> advised when they got the initial permit and work was <br /> started , while he was away , a backhoe had driven over h i s <br /> property and dug e hole big enough for an elephant. . They <br /> went on the ow.rhyor side of the property line . He does not <br /> want any machinery finery or building equipment on his property . <br /> Mr . Sherman stated .i he deck were not an 'issue i n itself , <br /> he would still object to moving forward into the 50 foot <br /> bUffer zone . If they cannot get the 50 feet , they should try <br /> to get the maximum possible . That effort has not been made . <br /> Mr . Nash advised- his home was destroyed by water two years <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.