My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/3/1999 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
6/3/1999 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2018 5:29:25 PM
Creation date
2/26/2018 2:49:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/03/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
3 June 1999 <br /> Page 7. <br /> mean high water lire, and the Commission should make a Positive <br /> Determination. <br /> Ms Wilson stated what she is hearing is that the resource area itself would <br /> either the back edge of the beach or historic High water, which happens t <br /> coincide. Mr. Sherman stated Historic High water is Chapter 91 and asked <br /> her to speak to Chapter 131-40 and go to the upper boundary ofthe bank. <br /> She stated Historic High Water is going to be above. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the Mean Annual Flood level is not clearly established <br /> n this plan. It seems to shove going below that point putting it into a <br /> resource area which would mean a positive determination. If they stop it <br /> there, they would still be in the buffer zone. with a revised plan showing i <br /> stopping them, a negative determination for the fence could be issued. I <br /> they need to go further, they would have to file as they would be in a resource <br /> area. <br /> Mr, Sherman stated, for the record, the Commission's permit does not provide <br /> any property rights, either way. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg asked if both fences were with the property area? They are. <br /> He asked if there is a right-of-way between the two fences? Mr. Sherman <br /> stated that is contested. <br /> Atty. Sundelin stated there is a private right of way for access for the <br /> neighboring subdivision. It is limited to 27 owners. One of the problems is <br /> that strangers have been using it and it is spilling over onto the rest of the <br /> property. This is a crowd control thing. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg asked if the easement path as it is shown on this plan shown <br /> n any prior plan? if shown on a previous plan, then it is cut off by the fence. <br /> IVIS Wilson stated the path itself clow net show on a plan. Atty. Sundelin <br /> stated this is the first plan that the path shows on. The right-of-way was <br /> created in 1993. Unfortunately the fence was placed incorrectly and as <br /> people walked down they were forced onto the neighbor's property, the prior <br /> owner, Mr. Bornstein. The dotted line is the existing location. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated Atty. Sundelin acknowledged that our permit does not <br /> convey property rights. 'There is a standard boiler-plate condition in the <br /> Order of Conditions that states that. He asked if there would be any problem <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.