My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/20/1997 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
3/20/1997 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2018 5:16:56 PM
Creation date
2/26/2018 1:48:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/20/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
20 March 1997 <br /> Page 9. <br /> W. Grotzke stated he could move the house forward, 6 feet, deme the lawn <br /> area, and put roof drains on the side where the leaching is. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if he would move the work limit .up 6 feet? Mr. Grotzke <br /> stated he would have to ask his client. <br /> Public comments: <br /> Don Richard stated the reason it was set on that spot was that it was within <br /> the restrictions set by the Commission and it is the highest point on that piece <br /> of land, as well as to get the maximum frontage that would be aesthetically <br /> pleasing and still leave room for the septic system. The angle is for sunlight. <br /> To move 6 feet closer is not really what they had intended to do. The lot drops <br /> down steeply. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated that is afl the more reason to have a larger buffer <br /> because it is more susceptible to erosion. He entered into the record material <br /> from the University of Rhode Island regarding Naturally vegetated Buffer <br /> Strips and a compilation of issues on buffers from the Washington Mate <br /> University study. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated the 6 foot Terence would stiff keep the house entirely <br /> within the 30 foot contour. <br /> Nir. Richard stated he would negotiate to trade off what would be considered <br /> area for developable land to keep as much frontage from the road as possible. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated it is the work limit that is the key. He would Ike to see a <br /> little more distance between the work limit and the wetland. <br /> Mrs. Richard advised the backyard is dense with thorns and she cannot wall <br /> on that area at all. It would be unsafe if they could not clear as much as <br /> possible. They are expecting their first child and would life a lawn area to <br /> place swings. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated they are not being asked to maintain that vegetation up <br /> there but are being asked to push the work limit up. They could not put in a <br /> lawn of more than 10% of the area within the Commission's jurisdiction, that <br /> does not mean they could not use good chips or other cover. Mr. Rosenberg <br /> asked if they could clear the rest of the area? Mr. Sherman stated not beyond <br /> the work limit, that must remain naturally vegetated except for paths. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.