My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/9/2001 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
8/9/2001 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2018 5:14:37 PM
Creation date
2/28/2018 1:31:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/09/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
The Chairman inquired as to why two piers are necessary. <br /> Mr. sanicki responded, "Hers got two licensed facilities" . <br /> (There was some discission as to tho number of boats being <br /> used at the facility. <br /> Mr. Sherman raised his concern regarding successful <br /> conditioning of dock use. He suggested that should the proposal <br /> be approved, It be rade quite clear to the Applicant that if the <br /> boat is moored at any time other than picking up passengers) , a <br /> one Hundred Dollar fine will be imposed for the first violation, <br /> and up to Three Hundred Dollars thereafter. If approved by the <br /> Commission, there should be a special provision within the order <br /> of Conditions that utilization,, other than picking up passengers, <br /> is prohibited and subject to fine. The language for which would <br /> be very specific. <br /> The Chairman made the point that the regulation one hundred <br /> fifty 15 0 sq. ft. ) square feet dock limit is not a cumulative <br /> total for one property. <br /> Mr. Sherman explained the regulation has never been applied <br /> to pre-existing Ch. 1 Licences. The limits were designed to <br /> accommodate shellfish purposes shading and access) . <br /> Elliot Rosenberg raised question ,regarding proper DEP <br /> licensing on the existing and proposed projects. <br /> Mr. Sanicki explained the proposal is to existing licensing <br /> which is being modified. The existing older float structure is <br /> to be dismantled, a new structure is to be constructed in a <br /> different location. A modified license re-license) to the <br /> existing pier will be required for reconfiguration. <br /> Mr. Sherman clarified Conservation Commission approval is <br /> required for license request from the State. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked where the smaller boat (Boston Whaler) is <br /> intended to be moored. Mr. Sanicki had not specifically <br /> addressed this issue. ) <br /> The Chairman recognized Penny Sampson, a neighbor, who <br /> stated, "It ' s next door; the big boat is next door" . <br /> Mr. Sherman noted it will be necessary to know where the <br /> other vessels owned by Applicant will be berthed in order to <br /> determine impacts. <br /> References were made to the plan indicating the location for <br /> use of canoes and kayak. Mr. Sherman suggested this area be <br /> conditioned as use for un-motorized crafts only (again, any <br /> misuse would be subject to fine) . <br /> -5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.