My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/13/2002 COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT COMMITTEE Minutes
>
6/13/2002 COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT COMMITTEE Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2018 5:10:38 PM
Creation date
2/28/2018 2:36:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT COMMITTEE
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/13/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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 Conservation Agent who felt the original was too aggressive <br /> i <br /> and expressed concern that the standards of review for <br /> encroachment into the fifty foot setback could not be met. <br /> The property is a single-family residence, small lot, <br /> located on Fells Pond. <br /> laking reference to the plan Mr. Grotske explained the <br /> proposed project. He requested approval to create a patio area <br /> behind the house, in exchange for which a series of plantings to <br /> enhance the existing buffer zone was being proposed. <br /> installation of a denitrifying system was also being proposed. <br /> Diane Boretos commented that the size of the house should be <br /> appropriate for the size of the lot. Regulations speak to a <br /> setback of fifty feet, and that a significant reason is required <br /> for any incursion into said setback. Applicant is proposing a <br /> large house with outside access to the back. she suggested the <br /> house be reduced in Size and the garage be deleted in order to <br /> provide more outdoor space for this summer home. <br /> Ms. Bor'etos grade the point that the size and constrictions <br /> of a lot be taken into -consideration rather than expecting the <br /> regulations to accommodate a proposed plan. She feels there is <br /> no overwhelming reason to compromise the standard fifty foot <br /> setback. <br /> It was the consensus of the Commission that the project be <br /> reconfigured to better~ acc n nodate the size of the lot. The <br /> major concern being the diose proximity of the project to the <br /> coastal bank. <br /> There being no further Commission or public comment, the <br /> Chairman entertained a motion. <br /> MOTION: Ralph Shaw made a motion to continue the Hearing in <br /> this matter to June 27, 2002 at 7 :25 p.m. , at Applicant ' s <br /> request; which lotion was seconded by Leonard Pinaud and so voted <br /> unanimously. <br /> 7 :55 Frederic R. and Lois Glass, 133 Tide Run, continued <br /> from May 30,, 2002 . <br /> f <br /> The Chairman recognized Michael Grotske, representing <br /> Applicant, who requested a section 10A walkway to existing float <br /> at Jehu Pond. <br /> There had been a question as to whether or not this matter <br /> fell under Chapter~ 91 jurisdiction, Additional survey work has <br /> proven that any/all permanent structures are above and beyond <br /> Chapter 91 jurisdiction as determined by the mean high water line <br /> as defined by the Department of Commerce. <br /> -7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.