My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/7/2002 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
11/7/2002 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2018 5:05:54 PM
Creation date
3/2/2018 1:26:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/07/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
2. Requests for Administrative Approval <br /> 43-1861) 19 Waterway.r. Bob reported that the house is being pulled back and <br /> is smaller than the original footprint, and the deck is the same. He recommended <br /> approval. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for administrative approval of 3- <br /> 1861. <br /> 43-2005, Pequot Avenue. Bob said this project now includes a garage, whereas <br /> in the initial application it did not. He sees no problem with the proposed garage, and <br /> Bob recommended approval subject to the owner filing an application for an Amended <br /> Order. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the project with the <br /> requirement that the owner apply for an Amended order and readvertise. <br /> 43-204Q 130 Shore Drive West. Bob said this is a stairway going down to the <br /> beach for which we asked that they have a removable section at the bottom. The <br /> owner asked that we make the removable section smaller, and Bob thought this was <br /> reasonable request and he recommended approval. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the owner's request. <br /> 3. Request for courternanche COC. Bob said this involves a dock that is 2 ft. longer <br /> and has an extra bent, i.e., one extra set of pilings than what was called for. The <br /> question is whether or not these differences are significant enough to deny the COC. <br /> He said if that lower section coven salt marsh, he doesn't believe it has any <br /> demonstrable ecological effect, and he recommended approval. <br /> Diane said there is a large fetch in this area, and when the dock is really low and you <br /> get a large storm surge, the dock itself can be lifted up and thea become water borne <br /> and end up destroying other properties. she has seen this in action. She doesn't want <br /> the owner to spend $3,000 to have an as-built plan, but she wondered if we could <br /> compromise by having him stretch a new plan. She said this doesn't really help him if <br /> he has to rebuild it after a major storm. <br /> Bob recommended that he and Diane meet with the owner and request a more finite <br /> construction plan. Bob said he would send a cover letter with the COC saying the dock <br /> may not comply with Chapter 91, and it is Cllr. courtemanch's obligation to find out if it <br /> does. <br /> Diane said this permit has a condition that the dock has to be 5 ft. between mean high <br /> and mean low. Bob had told the owner earlier that this stipulation could probably be <br /> waived because we have permitted it in many other circumstances. It was agreed that <br /> the owner had generally complied. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.