My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/19/2002 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
09/19/2002 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2018 5:20:15 PM
Creation date
3/2/2018 1:18:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/19/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
(Bob stated he thinks this would be a waste of their money) the DEP will comia out and <br /> investigate any aspect they grant and they'll start the case all over again. If they appeal <br /> under the BY-Law, then the By-Law appeal is based upon the record and that goes to <br /> Superior court. Bob recommended this project for approval, as it meets all of our <br /> standards. He said if the Board were to vote for a positive determination and Mr. Lowe <br /> came hack to us with a Notice of Intent, we would end up with the same result of an <br /> approvable project. <br /> Gregory Hung Harbor Midge Road, said the plan on file indicates significant trees <br /> around the house towards the water but does not indicate all the significant.trees. He <br /> asked if some of the trees will be taken down. Michael said there are no trees <br /> permitted to be taken down under this application. Elliot replied they can't answer his <br /> question because it's not a matter of this application. Bob said if there are any trees on <br /> the work side of the work limit that were approved for removal in the,original <br /> application, they can be taken down. There are no trees to be taken dowry from this <br /> current application. Bob said in the original application, any tree which is on the work <br /> side of the work limit can be removed. <br /> Margaret McConnell brought up subject of the septic system. Elliot repeated that that <br /> was not part of the plan wider consideration tonight, so the commission has no <br /> jurisdiction-over it. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously curried to Issue a Negative Determination. <br /> 8:05 1p,m, John and Marion Martin, 67 Redwood circle (remove sun deck and <br /> rebuild). Charles Paltsios: the builder, represented the applicant. Bob said Diane <br /> recommended approval of the project. <br /> Lotion made: seconded and unanimously carried to issue a Negative 3 Determination. <br /> 8:10 p.m. Michael Napollitano, 66 Frog Pond close reveg tate cleared area). <br /> Mr. Napolitano was present. Bob said Diane not only recommended approval, but <br /> wants to commend the applicants in the job they did in restoring the buffer zone. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to issue a Negative 3 Determination. <br /> 8:15 p.m. Karen Curran, 4 Westwood Road (construct house, driveway, walkway and <br /> septic system) Stephanie reported that the applicant requested in a letter a <br /> continuance. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to issue a continuance to October 3 <br /> at :15 p.m. <br /> 8:20 p.m. Stephen Powers, 41 East Road (build house, driveway, utilities, grading, <br /> septic, and vista pruning) Robin Wilcox represented the applicant. Bob said the <br /> Board of Appeals may have to approve a roadway before application to this <br /> Commission can be filed. Bob described some wetlands issues which need to be <br /> addressed. He summarized the information that needs to be included in the plan as <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.