My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/23/2001 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
8/23/2001 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2018 5:13:09 PM
Creation date
2/28/2018 1:32:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/23/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 /> 23 August 2001 <br /> Page 4. <br /> 7:10 WILLIAM I VARACEI S for a Determination of Applicability on <br /> proposal to upgrade an eiisting failed septic system within the buffer <br /> zone to a coastal bank, By and salt marsh at 39 Little Neck Lane. <br /> Lynn Hamlyn was present for this hearing. This is an upgrade for a <br /> failed system. The delineation is conservative. Board of Health approval <br /> was received on August 2, 2001. {there are restrictions,on the site. <br /> Public comments: none. <br /> VOTE: Motion made and seconded to find Negative.e. n nim s Note. <br /> NEGATIVE DETERMINATION. <br /> 7:15 MARK WEISSMAN for a Determination of Applicability on a <br /> request to repair/reconstruct an existing ramp, pier and float With <br /> Chapter 91 License #8922 at 27 Pem Lane. <br /> Mr. Sherman advised he went to the site today. There are two problems. <br /> One is, m <br /> that the rap to the float shown on 'this simplified plan is not <br /> truly a ramp, it is a Boat on the marsh. However, in the narrative his <br /> plan was to concert it back to -a ramp which would be acceptable. <br /> Secondly, the float is twice as long, it is 6 x 20 instead of 8. x 10. It is <br /> stall Within the Commission's parameters but Mr. Sherman's suggested to <br /> Mr. Tei sman's attorney that they continue for two creeks to allow theta <br /> to get compliance,under Chapter 91. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated this shows the deficiencies in the Chapter 91 <br /> program. It would appear they never look at this structure before they <br /> issued the license. <br /> Ms Boretos stated they do not look at the simplified licenses. Mr. <br /> She an questioned why they bother With the process. He would like to <br /> send a letter asking why. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg suggested issuing a negative for the repair and <br /> reconstruction of a ramp, pier and float, in accordance with Chapter 91 <br /> License #8922 plan. Mr. Sherman had mentioned to them that they <br /> could do this also, but to keep the larger float he would have to go back <br /> to the State. <br /> TE: Motion rade and seconded to continue the hearing to <br /> September 2001 at 7:45 p.m. if the applicant assents, <br /> otherwise it is a positive determination. Unanimous Note. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.