My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/2/1995 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
11/2/1995 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2018 5:08:38 PM
Creation date
2/23/2018 1:55:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/02/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
2 Koerber 1995 <br /> Page ` ,. <br /> As proposed originallyp the deck would originally have been <br /> 31 feet . Previous plans were approved showing a 6 foot deck . <br /> The stone wor in place beneath the deck is 8-1/2 feet from <br /> the foundation . <br /> Mr . Kr i f or i a n stated the gravel i s at least 9 feet . <br /> Mr . Sharpe as e he distance to the water . Mr . K i Cori a <br /> stated he never" say water core.n w�. �.n � �� �` o � <br /> property; e had never in �- 2 years seen any w ldlife <br /> whatsoever . <br /> Mr . Sherman stated r o Mean High Water it i s 18 feeto the <br /> edge of the marsh . <br /> Mr . Green stated they did a good job putting toge her the <br /> plan . He asked if the applicant would be willing to drop <br /> feet and go with 10 f ee .' <br /> Mr . Krikorian stated he talked with the Real Estate broken to <br /> ascertain what affect .he deck would be . The expressed <br /> intention of the deck is to enJoy the views . There is <br /> nothing here now to disturb . He 's adding tan s to <br /> r oo r l e o flock o he area; i does not <br /> currently exist . For the difference , the cost for the <br /> cantilevered de srar e nse . <br /> Mr .. i slmonons stated when he original Order of Conditions <br /> was considered , it was decided to pug i n a 6 foot deck . The <br /> house could have been moved back for a larger deo 'if wanted . <br /> Mr . Sheri an stated there are different performance standards <br /> and recommended the decision under- the Act and the bylaw by <br /> separated out; a motion under the Wetlands Protection Act and <br /> a motion under the bylaw . <br /> Mr .. Sharpe stated it is not different than any other but Mr . <br /> Sherman s a .e argued hat it was . <br /> Mr . Krr i or 1 an stated he regulations for anything below the <br /> 50 foot buffer i s centered around habitat and habitat values . <br /> Things proposed were never proposed by the previous owner . <br /> Mr . Sherman asked the Commission v the issue is i ru sic on � how <br /> much coo they wart to allow? <br /> Mr .. Derr os ier s 'stated no further than existing r ave l area . <br /> Mr . Fitzsimmons stated the issue is s *11 whether or not the <br /> Commission have a problem of extending fro#., 6 feed. to 14 <br /> feet . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.