My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/4/2003 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
9/4/2003 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2018 2:16:20 PM
Creation date
3/2/2018 2:16:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/04/2003
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
Hearing Agenda <br /> 7:00 p.m., Mike Nadzeika, 12 Gia Lane (continued from 8/7/03). Bob said they have <br /> requested a continuance because they have not yet staked the project. He <br /> recommended granting a continuance but assess them a continuance fee. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously approved to grant a continuance to <br /> September 18th at 7:30 p.m. at the request of the applicant, and they will be assessed <br /> the standard continuance fee. <br /> 7:05 p.m., Malcolm Portnoy, 65 Sunset Circle (continued from 8/7/03). Bob said we <br /> had requested that they not mow a certain wetland area, but this message was not <br /> conveyed to their lawn mower, so it has been mowed again. They will refrain from <br /> mowing this area until it is assessed. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously approved to grant a continuance to <br /> September 18th at 7:35 p.m., at the request of the applicant <br /> 7:10 p.m., Timothy Carmichael, 55 Amy Brown Road (continued from 8/7/03). Matt <br /> Costa represented the applicant. Bob said he verified that the BVW line is correct and <br /> the ACEC line has been corrected. The plan meets the standards of the By-law and <br /> the Act, and he recommends approval. <br /> . Amy Ball, ecologist for Horsley & Witten representing an abutter, requested that the <br /> Commission consider requiring at least a 50 ft. naturally vegetated buffer strip at this <br /> site because other homes in the area are set back considerably further than 50 ft. <br /> Bob said the State Act for ACEC's has no BVW alterations, but they are not altering the <br /> BVW. Also, there is a previously existing legal cottage and legal lawn there. We have <br /> always maintained that our ACEC standard which we recommend to the Board of <br /> Appeals has a 25 ft. setback for buildings. They meet that. Normally we have a 50 ft. <br /> setback, but our standard over the years for BVW's and ACEC's has been to not go to <br /> 35 ft. like we do in cases of hardship, but to maintain a 50 ft. setback from the BVW, <br /> not the coastal bank. They have maintained a 50 ft. setback from BVW and they are <br /> augmenting the vegetation. If they were to do nothing, they could keep it that way. If <br /> they do this, we will have an enhanced buffer strip and an improved situation of what <br /> exists, and he still recommends approval. <br /> Michael said he'd like to know what the plant species will be, and Mr. Costa said they <br /> will supply that. Bob said in the past we have required submission of a plan for <br /> approval before the project starts and we always require in an Order of Conditions a <br /> minimum of three different species. <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.