My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/4/1997 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
12/4/1997 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2018 5:12:01 PM
Creation date
2/26/2018 2:03:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/04/1997
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
December 1997 <br /> Page 7. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the Board of.appeals issue applies to all three lots. The <br /> Building Inspector has advised that, in his opinion, you have to get variances. <br /> Secondly, it is Mr. Hayes' contention that they may not be subject to that <br /> Board of Appeals law. liar. Hayes stated he firmly believes that. Mr. <br /> Sherman stated that wfl have to be proved to the satisfaction of the d'own's <br /> attorney. No decision can be made on the lots until those natters are hashed <br /> out. Mr. Hayes understood that, <br /> Mr. Sherman suggested Mrs. Terrio read into the record Chapter 1+72-7A. Mr. <br /> Sherman read, "The Commission may require that the applicant maintain a <br /> continuous and naturally vegetated buffer strip within the 100 foot area for <br /> any resource area. Such naturally vegetated buffer strip to be a minimum of <br /> 0 feet in width (that's a 'nu' u of 50' in width), unless the applicant <br /> convinces the Commission, as per the provisions of section 12, that naturally <br /> vegetated buffer strip or part of it may be disturbed and/or diminished <br /> without harm to the values protected by this Chapter, or that reducing the <br /> scope of the work/alteration is not possible." If theywant to go into that 50 <br /> feet, and they are by 15, feet, they have to prove that it has no wildlife habitat <br /> value, which is foolish because it does, or to prove that it is not possible to Paull <br /> it back further. <br /> Ir. Hayes stated that is why they listed the issue of zoning, they are going for <br /> a variance because of the 30 foot setback. <br /> Mr. I. esrosiers asked lin to point out on the map where the 50 foot buffer <br /> strip would be Mr. Hayes did so. Mr. Desrosiers asked the approximate area <br /> of the deck that lies beyond that line and the area of the building that lies <br /> beyond that line and the size of the garage. <br /> Mr. Hayes stated the garage is 22 x 22. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated if going to the hoard of Appeals, whys not file for a <br /> variance to come back to that 50 foot line? Mr. Mayes stated they are so tight <br /> with the septic design that they have to mai.nta11'1 the setbacks that they have. <br /> Mr. Fitzsimmons stated make the house smaller or prove why it cannot be <br /> done. <br /> 1r. Hayes stated the other issue is to fend out what 's position is and if <br /> they can show no adverse or significant impact, Mr. Sherman stated the <br /> Commission has applied this when there was a resource area within that <br /> ACC. I t was not applied to the road because it is a resource area but has no <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.