My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/05/2000 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
10/05/2000 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2018 5:04:19 PM
Creation date
2/28/2018 12:56:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/05/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
October 2000 <br /> Page 7. <br /> old footprint vs. the new footprint and a colon-coded plan. What is the A E ? How is it <br /> defined? Mr.Grotzke stated it is the 10'contour. The entire lot]*IS in the flood plain. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if the 100" flood plain the 10' contour? It is not. He asked'if all the work is <br /> within the AE It i . The first plan slid not show elevation changes for fill. A change in grade <br /> requires re-advertising and re-notifying abutters. Mr. Rosenberg agreed. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the original plan dict not have grade changes and asked how many feet of <br /> rise? MT. Grotzke stated it 29 to 13. Mr. Sherman stated the abutter has aright to know that. <br /> Mr. Grotzke advised he had met with the neighbor. <br /> Mr. Grotzke offered to reduce the work limit and retain the grade changes within the work limit. <br /> . Mr. Sherman felt the neighbor is going to appeal. He recommended re-advertising and re- <br /> notifying and coming back in two weeks. <br /> Mr. Grotzke stated they will go with this without the grade changes and then come back with an <br /> amended order for.those changes. Mr. Sherman stated it can be conditioned grade changes are <br /> not permitted by this firing and will be the subject of an amended order. Board of Health and <br /> Board of Appeal approval are required. <br /> Public comment:none. <br /> VOTE: Motion made and seconded to close with the provision that there shall be no grade <br /> Changes without the submission of an amended order request and subject to Board <br /> Of Appeals and Board of Health approval. Unanimous Vote. <br /> LEES PENDING. <br /> 8:10 FLORENCE WALL for a L eterrnination of Apph abiht-y on the after-the-fact replacement of <br /> an existing patia at 146 Ninigret Avenue. Jeff wall was present. <br /> �Y r <br /> Ms Boretos stated the project is replacement in the same footprint of a patio. She recommended <br /> negative 3. <br /> Publiccomment: none. <br /> VOTE: Motion made and seconded to find negative. Unanimous Vote. <br /> NEGATIVE DETERMINATION. <br /> N. <br /> ■■■■■i■■i■■■■■■■■■■■r■■■■■A■■■i■■■■A■■■■■i■■i■■■■i i■■■■■■i i■■i■■■■■■■i■■1 <br /> E 43-1878: A requests received for administrative review of a change in the shape of the house, <br /> garage addition and deck, all within the work limit. It will-be ' further away from the water <br /> with no environmental consequences. <br /> The Chair stated he would defer to the Agent on how to handle this. Mr. Sherman felt this <br /> should be an amended order to give the abutters a chance. The Commission agreed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.