My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/23/1999 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
9/23/1999 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2018 5:36:39 PM
Creation date
2/26/2018 2:55:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/23/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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 /> i <br /> 23 September 1999 <br /> Rage ' . <br /> The Chair asked, as fair as this legal documentation', is it necessary to review <br /> this? Mr. Rosenberg stated he could not go through this and give an answer <br /> tonight. <br /> Ms Boretos. asked if this spears to the jurisdictional issue of the activity of <br /> doing work in a dune or does it speak to an actual access issue? Mr. Himmel <br /> stated it is both issues. <br /> The -Chair asked Mr. tarot l e if he wished to ask for a continuance to allow <br /> the Commission to review. Mr. Grotzke suggested that the proper protocol is <br /> to proceed with the Commission's decision and if it ends up in a parallel legal <br /> course,. so be it. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg asked Mr. Himmel if the issue of the path was in any way <br /> included within the subject matter of this? The whole section of means Pond <br /> area is, all four section, <br /> Atty. Robert Mills representing New seabury properties stated he would <br /> object to the submission of that document at this juncture given the fact this <br /> is a continued heariing and they had not received any notice of that. <br /> Secondly, it does not pertain the lot 1379 and is not relevant to this hearing. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated it could be submitted if it is pertinent. There is no way <br /> he can tell this at this point. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated he sees numerous references to beach nourishment in <br /> here (the submitted document) and could not tell whether there are any <br /> relevant issues to be looped at or not. <br /> Atty. Mills stated it is up to the person submitting this to explain hove it is <br /> relevant to this hearing. <br /> Mr. Foley stated the reason document is germane to this hearing is ray <br /> request that the Commission stipulate where the displaced foot traffic should <br /> go. <br /> Atty. Mills stated the Commission has o a thorn to rant access over other <br /> � g <br /> peoples property. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated it would be no burden to continue for two creeks and he <br /> will ask Joe Reardon to summarize the document for him. <br />' r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.