My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/10/2003 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
4/10/2003 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2018 5:14:36 PM
Creation date
3/2/2018 1:42:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/10/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
Elliot said the regulations have been changed since those houses were built, so it's <br /> obvious that there was a feeling that there was a need for further protection. The <br /> location of those other houses has nothing to do with this issue. <br /> Bob said the impact here is not the impact of the house on the coastal bank. The focus <br /> for us under the By-law is the impact of hoer much of the naturally vegetated buffer strip <br /> ill be maintained, especially when vire have some plant assemblage there which has <br /> some value. He doesn't think the ease should be made on the basis of erosion or some <br /> other cause from the house on the bank. It's a matter of hover much buffer zone you get <br /> under the By-law. <br /> Mr. trot ke said this is not a natural habitat. Bob said it would be if someone hadn't <br /> mowed it. He said it was Bowed for some time, and thea not rowed for a while, then <br /> the natural grasses grew up, and we have to go by what's there novo. <br /> Bob said even if he did agree that their delineation was correct which he does not } he <br /> would agree that vire could pass it under the Wetlands Act. He doesn't agree it can <br /> pass under our By-law because of the buffer strip provisions. <br /> Ms. Turano-Flores said the buffer zone that exists noir does not provide any value for a <br /> wildlife habitat. Michael Talbot disagreed. <br /> Jack didn't see that to be the issue here. The issue is that the applicant's experts have <br /> provided a definition of the bank delineation which does not agree with the <br /> Commission's. He asked if thea is any outside group to whom we could refer it. <br /> Bob said we could deny it, the applicant could appeal, and the DEP would resolve it. <br /> Ms. Turano-Flores said she'd had a similar case in Welfleet where that commission <br /> called Jim ll ahala at the DEP, who went to the site and made suggestions as to what <br /> could be dome to better reflect where the coastal bank delineation was. Bob said if Jim <br /> lahala would give his blessing to their methodology, he would be interested. !Ills. <br /> Turano-Flores said he did not do so in the vlelfleet case, but at least it was resolved in <br /> that way. <br /> Bob said that since the applicants don't seem willing to retract the size of the building <br /> and bring it back closer to what it was originally} he recommended a denial and offered <br /> to read an outline of reasons for decrial. <br /> motion was made and agreed to by all to take a seven minute recess. The hearing <br /> resumed at 7:55 p.m. <br /> Dr. Paul Davis, representing IIIb. Rogers, said on receiving the new plan he was <br /> surprised that the stakes had been moved down gradient, and he came to the same <br /> observation that Bob Sherman did that the topography on the plan suggested that <br /> there were slopes immediately upgra lent of the stakes. He said It seems axiomatic <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.