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
i <br /> 22 Febmary 1996 <br /> Page 1 . <br /> �&. Rosenberg stated, fortunately, they dict because in their building pe nii he has <br /> looked at the plan which was sent to the Conmiission and there is nothing in that plan and. <br /> that is the essentW issue, here is nothing to show that pipe going behind their house to the <br /> neighboring property. There is nothing on the pian to show the placement of brush and <br /> other material on the bank behind the house and on the neighbor's property. Those are the <br /> only two issues which are before the Conservation Commission, nothing else. <br /> A& Laue stated Mr. Rosenberg is saying that if they remove the pipe so it is no longer <br /> functional as he made it and remove the bthen the Conservation Com i <br /> ib, n will not <br /> exercise jurisdiction over the property. Mr. Desrosiers stated dis is not what is being said. <br /> That land is subject to wetland consideration. } <br /> 1&. Green stated he saw the plan and went to the site with Bob when he made his initial <br /> visit. The plan did not show any hole of any kind; that part of the plan was left blank and <br /> omitted. <br /> Rosenberg stated, for example, the plan that was sent to the Commission is radically <br /> different from what A4r. Laue stated a moment ago. He pointed out one respect, fir. Laue <br /> stated to the Comndssion, and it has been said before, that the bank is 20 feet behind the <br /> house, the adjacent proper is 20 feet behind the house. The initial plan given to the <br /> Commission shows either 39 or 40 feet to the property line, not 20 feet. <br /> �. <br /> Laue stated there is no error here thep�ro litre is o feet away. I Ir. Green stated <br /> p <br /> it is 17 feet to the toga of the bank. l r. Laue stated that is correct. <br /> W. Rosenberg sued if they want to work with Bob and perhaps George, they will go out <br /> here and they can show what has to be done and it will not be too much to solve this <br /> problem, aside from the removal of the pipe, this will not have anything to do with the pipe <br /> from the street. <br /> A& Sherman stated the Laues have had conversations with the pmon he has too, Esther <br /> Schneider, and he told her that he would be willirg to bring the County Extension Service <br /> in at no cost to them to gee free advice how to stabilize that bank. <br /> Laue stated they dict ev town officials of all agencies told thein to do; they <br /> crossed every "T" and cloned every 'T'. They knew they could not afford to buy a <br /> r'operly that was under Conservation jurisdiction, that is why they were sure to get Bob <br /> Shern an out three days before they closed on the sale. They would not have bought the <br /> property knowing there were addition costs. They followed all the rules, did exactly as <br /> they were told, here were no stakes and they were issued a valid budding perit which <br /> guarantees, according to every single person in town hall., that the Conservation <br /> Commission had signed off`. They were told by everyone it is not possible to obtain <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.