My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/12/2013 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
9/12/2013 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/21/2018 5:06:44 PM
Creation date
11/21/2018 2:49:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/12/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
Joe Colauno from New Seabury felt their progress has been a success and will do <br /> anything in order to support the access. <br /> Agent McManus said DEP cited their regulations to coastal beaches and coastal banks <br /> and read therm again. He said ultimately it is the Commissioners' decision. It can be <br /> appealed and IEP can overturn the decision. DEP is allowing the Commissioners to <br /> make the decision based on what the applicants presented. <br /> Peter Browning commented he is a resident and has a vested interest in the beach being <br /> pro eeted. He questioned the objections of Tidewatch. <br /> Chairman Fitzsimmons canvassed the Commissioners. <br /> Mark Gurnee said they should proceed with the project and be more flexible in the Order <br /> of Conditions in two areas. One, they should require more beach profiles and secondly, <br /> concerning the beach nourishment: rather than a fixed number, suggest a number in the <br /> initial Order of Conditions and make it specifically clear that the project is subject to <br /> review.annually in perpetuity as the Commission monitors the project. Robert Anderson <br /> said these were good suggestions and recommended to close and issue. Mr. Sweet felt it <br /> was a good project and noted DEP has had an opportunity to comment. He also <br /> questioned the objection from Tidewatch. Mr. Rogers agreed to proceed. Mr. <br /> Fitzsimmons stated he was concerned that the Commission does not have a direct feeling <br /> on DEP's part but if the project is approved, it can be appealed and DEP could still <br /> comm on it. He said-that he personally thinks the performance of the project at New <br /> Scabury has been very successful and this proposal should be given a chance. <br /> Motion made and seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue on the <br /> application of Kenneth and Gloria Liatso . <br /> 6:24 David and Glenys Pinchln, 124 Shore Drive Nest. Proposed coastal bank <br /> stabilization and beach nourishment N01 <br /> Notion made and seconded and unanimously carried to dose and Issue on the <br /> application of David and Glenys Plnchin. <br /> 6:27 Michael J. and Daum M. Southwick, 126 Shore Drive west. Proposed coastal <br /> bank stabilization and beach nourishment. N01 <br /> Motion arae and seconded and unanimously carried to close and Issue on the <br /> application of Michael J. and Dawn M. Southwick <br /> Mr. Fitzsimmons thanked everyone for corning this evening. . <br /> Mr. Fogel asked that_the comments in the first hearing also carries over to the 6:24 and <br /> 6:27 hearings. Chairman Fitzsimmons stated this was agreed to before the hearings <br /> started. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.