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
23 September 1393 <br /> Page 1' . <br /> they normally allow on Conservation land. There will be -no cost to the <br /> Commission. To be discussed next agenda. <br /> Town Counsel: Mr. Sherman stated an article was submitted for Town <br /> Meeting that would mimic the article already on the books concerning denial <br /> of permits for owing back taxes. He had written something similar for <br /> someone that had not responded to an enforcement order. Opinion was <br /> received from Town Counsel. The Agent react from the letter. Town Counsel <br /> stated there is no state authority for extending the right to deny or revoke <br /> permits In instances of non-compliance with Conservation Commission <br /> orders. Mr. Sherman stated he does not believe this is contrary to any state <br /> law. He suggested taking the matter to MAC legal attorneys . <br /> VOTE: Motion made' and seconded to direct the Agent to bring this matter <br /> to the attorneys at MACC. Unanimous vote. <br /> Policy on Denials: List distributed for those who' receive mailings. The <br /> Agent stated although a policy was discussed, none was formally adopted, to <br /> deny project for failure to follow submittal requirements. The Commission <br /> can deny for incomplete information. He would like to send out a policy but <br /> keep it flexible. He suggested the staff be given the authority that if any of <br /> these areas are deficient and they are of the opinion the deficiencies are such <br /> that impacts cannot be determined, a denlal be recommended. <br /> Mr. wirsen stated the 5 day rule should be in there. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated this ties in with the proposal he gave the Agent this <br /> week. The other side of this should be considered. Mr. Sherman stated his <br /> would like to take this up separately. Mr. Rosenberg asked if Mr. Sherman <br /> was suggesting to adopt a policy wherein these cases there would be a denial? <br /> He does not like to get into a "will deny'', sometimes the Commission asks for <br /> information. He would like to make it a policy that these various categories <br /> be grounds for denial and if the deems that we have not been able to judge <br /> impacts correctly because of these deficiencies, a recommendation for denial <br /> is appropriate. <br /> The Chair asked, if you have a denial, sloes that ultimately make more paper <br /> work. Mr. Sherman stated it takes more time to write a denial. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg felt it is necessary to tape both things together. If, an <br /> application is incomplete, either deny or continue and in talking about this, <br /> the Commission should look at both sides. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.