My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/12/1997 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
6/12/1997 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2018 5:28:26 PM
Creation date
2/26/2018 1:52:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/12/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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 /> 12 June 1997 <br /> Page 7. <br /> asked why he had told the Commission he was going to leave it; he said they <br /> had to ma.int ; all that vegetation. Mr., Grotzke stated there are a few <br /> plants shown which will remain, landscape plantings, four plants. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg asked if they were going to take everything out and <br /> relandscape Mr. Grotzke stated yes. fir. Rosenberg stated that was the <br /> opposite of what Mr. Grotzke said when he started this evening. Mr. <br /> Rosenberg quoted lir. Grotzke as saying, "Because we must retain that <br /> vegetation", but now saying it will all be taken out and something put back <br /> the nature of which is unknown. <br /> Mr. Green stated, in his opm' ion, they could get five feet out of the turnaround <br /> and gain enough to get the 50 feet. The Commissioners were in agreement. <br /> Mr. Grotzke stated it is not a question of getting 5 feet, it is also that the <br /> building gets 5 feet narrower and would end up at loo s.f if they went back <br /> feet, they would have a width loss of 3-12 feet. Mr. Rosenberg stated that <br /> would mean they were over a 45 degree angle and can see that they don't have <br /> that. <br /> Public comments: <br /> Charles Krattenma er, Attorney, stated there is an absolute presumption <br /> that the 50 foot buffer strip is crucial. There have already been three <br /> continuances on this project and it has been very clear from the first <br /> continuance that the idea is they should put this house within the 50 foot <br /> buffer strip. They have come back with, "this is all we can do" and that seems <br /> to be a little much. What is here is that they purchased a light-{weight lot at a <br /> light-weight price and want to put a heavy-weight house on it. Mr. Grotzke <br /> objected; this is not a conservation issue. <br /> Albert Mullen asked is the house was one or two story? Mr. Grotzke stated it <br /> is 1-1/2 stories; one bedroom down and two bedrooms upstairs. Mr. Mullen <br /> stated it has happened before with representing they have a one-story, one <br /> s, floor abode, which suddenly becomes a two or three story affair. <br /> s <br /> Mr. Shaw made a motion to deny the application. Mr. Rosenberg seconded <br /> the motion. <br /> Mr. Green stated the 5 feet is the whole issue; Mrs. Glaser stated it clearly, it <br /> 0 <br /> iLs only 5 feet. People move in and things change. He did not feel everything <br /> has been done to accommodate the 50 foot buffer strip. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.