7/6/2006 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Hearing Agenda 7:00 .m.,Francis Reavey,42 Cayuga Avenue(continued from 6/8/06). This film* g is awaiting comment from Natural Heritage. Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to grant a continuance to August. 17 at 7:00 p.m., at the request of the applicant. 7:05 p.m.,Ellen Walsh,4 Sagamore Road (construct new screen porch vAth the conversion of existing-porch to habitable space and the instaation of mitigation plantings). The Board o Health has insufficient information on this project, so it.was continued. Motion made, seconded and unanimously cried to grant.a continuance to July 20 at 7:25 p.m., t the request of the applicant-. 7:10 p.m.,Betty Fulton, 5 Point-Road(single family residence with associated appurtenances). Ian Johnson represented the applicant. Stere described the.plan and said he thinks that all our perfortnance standards have been met,but there is a concern that the project is on the bank. Nfichael said that for hire to consider building on the coastal bank we would have to have landscape pian that would be a plant community restoration on that site. He asked whatis presently growing them. Mr. Johnson said some decent size pines, sweet.pepperbush, etc, fir. Johnson said there is no coastal bank involved by the Mashpee demotion. Robert I elory Jr., representing Robert f elor , Sr., an abutter, 3 Bay Road, questioned ifthe lot is buildable, originafly, it was one lot, and thea they made it into to lots. Steve said that is a Building Board issue. Notion made, seconded and unanimously died to grant a continuance to July 2e at 730 p.m., at the request of the applicant. 7:15 p.m.,Michael and Beth Moskowitz, 146 Popponesse.Island Road(replace M'sting ramp with a 300 f . ramp, reposition two existing piles, rotate second float and install four new piles). Moto made, seconded and unanimously carfied to grant.a continuance to July 20 at.7:20 p.m., at.the request of the applicant. 7:20 p,m.,Robert Stow,25 Monomoscoy Road(continued from.6/22/06). John Slayinsky represented the applicant. Steve read for the record the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, Regulation 10.245 Section A_ He then said that.under the Nashpee Bylaw and the State, we don't have grounds to deny this project because this structure meets the performance standards for land over a salt marsh. It's a typical cookie-utter walkway, and this Conum'ssion will order that this structure will have no vessels on it, tethered or otherwise, or any vessels associated with it m any other way runless they are contained upland of the structure itself outside the ACEC. Also, it is to be removed upland of the.ACEC or an enforcement order gill be issued. 2