My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/05/1996 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
12/05/1996 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2018 5:13:01 PM
Creation date
2/23/2018 2:21:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/05/1996
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
F <br /> 5 December 1996 <br /> Page 3. <br /> Mr. Locarno stated it would be a 25 foot 10. Mr. Sherman stated the <br /> Commission will reed information from the manufacturer n depths from the <br /> waterline to the bottom of the propulsion unit. He further stated no vote had <br /> been taken on the requirement for engineered plans. <br /> 4 ' <br /> Mr. Johansen stated the length shown on the drawing is 40 feet but it is <br /> actually 55 feet. Mr. Locarno stated there are 2 - 16 foot floats, an 8 foot float <br /> to put the ramp on and a 15 foot gangway. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated if the Commission does not need an engineered plan, it <br /> will need a revised plan showing the correct footage. <br /> Mr. Green asked if the water depths are accurate? Mr. York stated it is not a <br /> problem for she xsh as it is not a resource area. He stated depths are <br /> approximately correct; they look about right. Mr. Sherman asked if he would <br /> be willing to do an on-site examination of water depths, if an engineered plan <br /> is not required? Mr. York agreed to go out and get a preference point and check <br /> them. <br /> Public comments: <br /> Fain Gildea, Attorney for the I ares and Lipkins, provided written comments <br /> to the Commission. She stated she docs not believe the application <br /> submitted is complete. There is no approval from the Building Inspector or <br /> ZoningBoard r f Appeals. Any review by the Harbormaster was conducted <br /> prior to the preparation of the plans. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the only moray the Commission can state Board of Appeals <br /> is not required is if the Building Inspector provides a memo stating it is <br /> exempt. The Commission cannot take up navigational issues as a reason for <br /> denying but the Board of Appeals could deny it for this reason. <br /> Ms Gildea said the second concern is the lacy of an engineered plan. The plan <br /> shows a 40 foot length that is a tuaU feet. Also, the Darcy-Lip dock is <br /> larger than is depicted. She believes strongly that an engineered plan should <br /> be required; it is the only way, if the permit is approved, to enforce the <br /> statement of conditions that are attached. The more serious deficiency is that <br /> it is stated one single 25 foot boat will use the structure. There is an <br /> easement on record at Barnstable showing a dock access easement that <br /> entitles hot 146, the Powers lot, permanent access across the Locarno lot for <br /> access to the dock. Clearly, the dowers, or any future owners, have a <br /> permanent right to access to this dock. Part of the easement includes a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.