My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/6/1997 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
11/6/1997 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2018 5:09:06 PM
Creation date
2/26/2018 2:00:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/06/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 /> 6 November 1997 <br /> Page 7. <br /> the applicant owns to the water or.....Mr. Sherman stated It actually has to do <br /> with a town bylaw that has to do with back taxes. If back taxes are owed, the <br /> Commission cannot issue. <br /> Atty. Brown asked if there are any letters from Town Counsel dealing with <br /> these issues that could be furnished to her? Mr. Sherman stated he could <br /> furnish tomorrow case law which is in the Audubon Guide for administration <br /> of the Wetlands Protection Act where the advice is for not to issue. He asked <br /> if it made sense to continue for a period of time to resolve this? This was <br /> greed. <br /> Mr. Tesrosiers stated they-should also be aware, to avoid another request for <br /> continuance, that the plan as submitted would probably be inadequate, that <br /> there should be some grater depths, if there are going to be any boats tied to <br /> the dock the Commission would have to have the propulsion depth, to conform <br /> to the regulations of the'T'own of Mashpee. <br /> Mr. Sherman advised the' Commission can ask for any level of plan. Chapter <br /> 1 i al�.o�g non-engineered plazas but the Comniission�s policy has been to <br /> require engineered plans showing water depths, locations of eel grass beds, <br /> etc., which require an engineered plan. <br /> Atty. Brown stated this is an application under the interim, not to the <br /> Commission, but it was their understanding they could ask to have <br /> consideration of waiving the requirement for engineered plans. The purpose <br /> of the Amnesty program is to enable people who have long had dads to put <br /> them hank in without onerous expenses and an engineered plan is expensive. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the Commission must have an accurate plan rendering to <br /> judge impacts to Land Under the Ocean and Land Conta'=* g Shellfish. <br /> plan that gives water depths, locations of submerged aquatic vegetation and <br /> so forth. <br /> Atty. Brown asked if anything less than an engineered plan would be <br /> acceptable? <br /> The Chairman stated the Commission would at least have to have a plan <br /> showing where the dock is. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated there should be a lot more discussion if the Commission <br /> is going to set a precedent. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.