My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/23/1997 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
1/23/1997 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2018 5:02:54 PM
Creation date
2/26/2018 1:43:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/23/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
23 January 1997 <br /> Page 3. <br /> He luted the issues: Plan detail, a technical problem in that there was an <br /> error in the resource areas checked off on the Notice of Intent which will have <br /> to be revised, and further information is needed on the boats. He advised a <br /> consultant was hired who did send a memo; this was distributed for review. <br /> Mr. Sharpe asked if pressure treated decking is permitted? Mr. Sherman <br /> advised it could be if the styrofoam is encapsulated and the spacing of the <br /> boards is correct. He asked if this is a shared dock being discussed <br /> Mr. Locarno stated he does not know what he would have for a boat and the <br /> other owner does not have a boat. H a stated whatever is approved, they <br /> would have to Ileal with the limitations. IIIb. Sherman stated the depth of the <br /> water would limit the boat size. <br /> Public comment: Pain Gilder Attorney for the arcys and Lip ins, carne <br /> before the Commission. She has not had the opportunity to review the plans. <br /> They are concerned about the special permit originally granted six years ago. <br /> There is a letter from the Sheth Constable approving this only for dinghies. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated note has been heard from the Building Inspector or <br /> Board. of Appeals. He asked if it has been determined whether approval i <br /> needed? Atty. Gildea. stated she believes it wil be required here. The burden <br /> should be on the proponent to show that there will be no impact. The original <br /> Notice of Intent was incomplete and inaccurate and she had expected when <br /> the plan was revised that the Notice would be revised. Her clients intend to <br /> be closely involved to make sure aU issues are addressed. If the hearing i <br /> continued to a later date, she will nerve comments unto then. <br /> fir. slavins y stated about six years ago, fir. Silver wanted to do a clod with <br /> a 220 foot walkway. They met out here with the Chairman of the Board and <br /> Paul Somerville, the Sheth Warden at that time, who said he was going to <br /> be against this and they gave up the project. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated it is not the only parameter that has to be looked at. <br /> Ms Gildea advised her dents intend to keep the consultant to review the <br /> work but the expense to respond to the burden of proof should be borne by Ir. <br /> Locarno. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated whatever person, whoever does the inventory, should not <br /> forget Land Under The Ocean. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.