My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/28/2018 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
6/28/2018 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/2/2019 10:34:56 AM
Creation date
1/2/2019 10:34:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/28/2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Marlene Susienka, owner, stated she filed an RDA to repair an existing ramp and float. The Agent <br />referred to the plan of record and stated this is on the original plan that was part of the approval for <br />the dock and because of water depth issues it was built out in another location. The float differs <br />from the original plan. They do have a Chapter 91 license and this hearing is to get the change in <br />footprint on record. The harbormaster and shellfish constable signed off on the change. <br /> <br />No comment from the public <br /> <br />Motion: Mr. Smith moved a Negative Determination, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote <br />unanimous 4-0 <br /> <br />6:09 Scott M. & Tracey Diggins, 56 Canonchet Avenue. Proposed installation of detached <br />garage and construction of driveway RDA <br /> <br />Resource Area: Buffer Zone to Freshwater Isolated Wetland <br /> <br />Tracey and Scott Higgins, homeowners, were present. They stated they would like to construct a <br />detached garage in the Northwest corner of the property. The Zoning Board has approved their <br />variance contingent on approval from the Conservation Commission. The site plan confirms that <br />they are 73’ from the wetlands. The Agent stated this was isolated land subject to flooding. He <br />referred to the plans and photos with delineated wetland. He recommended a Negative <br />Determination. <br /> <br />Motion: Mr. Sweet moved a Negative Determination, seconded by Mr. Smith. Vote <br />unanimous 4-0 <br /> <br />Mr. O’Neill recused himself. <br /> <br />6:12 Robert S. & Martha Johnson, 6 Jehu Pond Road. Proposed additions to existing <br />dwellings, installation of swimming pool, extensive hardscape and landscape modifications, <br />mitigation plantings, septic system upgrade, removal of an outhouse and construction of a <br />connecting driveway to structures on property. (continued from 6/14, lack of quorum) NOI <br /> <br />Resource Area: ACEC, LSCSF, Buffer Zone to ACEC, Salt Marsh, Land Under Ocean, <br />Coastal Bank, Land Under Ocean, Land Containing Shellfish <br /> <br />Matt Costa, Cape and Island Engineering, represented the applicants. He explained the project in <br />great length using the plans and photos provided. The project consists of constructing and <br />maintaining an addition to the front of the existing house, addition to the garage, installation of an <br />in-ground pool with a patio and retaining walls, move existing stairs and add mitigation plantings. <br />Also proposed is the removal or abandonment of all existing septic systems and install a new title 5 <br />system. The project also includes the construction of two new patios for the existing cottages and <br />the removal of the outhouse and brick barbeque and the construction of a connecting driveway <br />between the existing driveway on the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Costa explained they were requesting a waiver for the pool with patio and retaining walls and <br />patio for the cottage within 50 feet of the resource area. The proposed structures are not moving <br />any closer to the wetlands than the existing edge of clearing. He noted the Agent wasn’t in <br />agreement of where the proposed pool is to be located. He said another concern the Agent had <br />was the overseeing of the mitigation so they would be offering the plantings would be planted right <br />away and they would submit an as built plan to take the burden off of the staff. They wouldn’t be <br />opposed to installing a fence and no future trees would be taken down. The applicant understands <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.