Laserfiche WebLink
h)We aren't setting a bad precedent here because there are two other carriage houses out there— <br /> the first two houses have them. <br /> i) This project only had a problem with the By-law, and that was they couldn't portray need, but <br /> they could portray the fact that there is going to be no loss of wildlife habitat with the carriage <br /> house specifically on the bank in front of the house, and we're going to enhance the eco tone <br /> between the coastal bank and the coastal beach and the secondary dune to the point where we <br /> might get an establishment stretching across the board. It's got to start somewhere, and Mr. <br /> Spencer is willing to put a lot of time, effort and money into this to establish a starting point that <br /> could easily stretch out to the rest of the area. So it's a definite plus. All the positives in this <br /> project completely outweigh any negative anyone can derive from the establishment of the <br /> carriage house that is in fact not on a coastal bank by definition. Some coastal banks do have <br /> value to wildlife habitat, and do provide sediment to coastal beaches and coastal dunes, but this <br /> one does not. He highly recommends approval. He wants to see how the mitigation works out <br /> and he thinks it's going to spread. <br /> Attorney Peter Lyons, representing Mr. and Mrs. William Casey, 5 Ocean Bluff Drive, abutters, <br /> said that three of the letters Jack read come from three very close neighbors—Mr. English, <br /> LaGrippe, and Mr. Garguilo. He said W. Sterling Wall, Senior Project Manager/Coastal <br /> Geologist, Daylor Consulting Group Inc., will address the concerns of Mrs. Casey,the abutters, <br /> and the other concerned citizens of the Town of Mashpee. He said that we have a fiduciary <br /> obligation to the citizens of the Town of Mashpee and anyone within the confines can make <br /> comments. Steve said they can make comments as long as the comments are concerns about the <br /> interests of the By-laws and the Wetlands Protection Act, and the majority of the concerns <br /> expressed in those letters are not interests of our Act or the By-laws. Attorney Lyons: "That's <br /> how you interpret it, but they believe there's going to be some adverse impact." <br /> Mr. Wall said this is the second review of this project that Daylor has done and it's the second <br /> time they have come to the conclusion that it's premature to issue an approval, and premature to <br /> review this as a complete filing because it's not complete. He then gave his critical comments on <br /> the project as stated in his letter of November 29, 2006 to John Fitzsimmons, copy attached to <br /> these minutes. <br /> Steve: How old is your National Heritage map? <br /> Mr. Wall: October 1st, 2006. <br /> Steve: That's the same one I have, and the area of concern is the only little block in New <br /> Seabury that is not located within the area of priority habitat. The line starts at mean high water <br /> and goes out." <br /> Mr. Wall: "That's your interpretation. I don't believe that's the appropriate interpretation. <br /> Regardless of what our individual opinions may be, the actual authority here is going to be the <br /> Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program." <br /> Steve: "I think it's something they are going to have to verify." <br /> 5 <br />