My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/22/1996 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
02/22/1996 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2018 5:14:56 PM
Creation date
2/23/2018 2:03:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/22/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
4 <br /> 22 February 1996 <br /> Page 17. <br /> would gather and oefflow to the neighbor's yard and dug a ditch under his house with a <br /> shovel and backhoe, 1.20 feet of pipe, and drained it into the wetland. Not a weand when <br /> John Smith was using it as a dump. It was not a wetland when they asked lir. Sherman to <br /> rule on it. It was not a wetland when the building pert it was issued but now is a wetlmd <br /> according to your Commuission and they were found to be in violation for acts they did <br /> before it was ruled to be a wetland. <br /> rlr. Rosenberg stated the Comnussion does not male the ruling and establish it as a <br /> wetland; it was a wetland. Whether it was a wetland or nod they had no rift to ask the <br /> Commission to legifim a their putting anything on anyone else's property. <br /> l r, Green stated the pipe is illegal an ways if it is dumping onto somebody use's land, so <br /> that takes it out of the Commission's hands. <br /> Mr. L,aue Stated they are not asking the Commission to legitimate anything. They <br /> understood that this land was not under the Commission's Jurisdiction and they are noir <br /> told it is. <br /> fir'. Rosenberg stated their land is not; the Commission has no problem with wetlands, as <br /> far as their land is concerned but when they take material from their land and put it on the <br /> adjacent prop, which does contain a wetland, then they are affecting a wettan ; that is <br /> the problem. <br /> 1r. L,aue stated he understands what is being said. I l . Rosenberg stated there is no <br /> wetland problem on their land. A& L.aue stated they are being asked to Me a Notice of <br /> Intent. I r. Rosenberg stated that was for the work they did, fit in putting the pipe in to <br /> drain water over onto the other proper and the brush material which they put both on <br /> their property and the adjacent property. <br /> Mr. L,aue asked is it not the right of the owner of that property to make a complaint'? <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated unfortunately, if there was not a wetland and a kettle dole, as he <br /> described it, on the adjacent property, then it would be up to the owner of the adjacent <br /> property to make a cornphlint if he wanted to. When there is wetland property there, then <br /> it is a different situation. <br /> aue stated they consulted with everyone about this openly. They went to the building <br /> department and said there is no drainage easement, fl-�s grater draining in our front yard is a <br /> nuisance to there and a danger to the neighbors and Bill Hauck told them on two occasions <br /> to plug the pipe up and allow the street to flood. This is exactly what he was told. He told <br /> his neighbors and thou to himself that the was not a proper thing to do. I Ie took ghat <br /> steps he could. Vere was no help from Town Hall. He was being asked to do things that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.