My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/27/2019 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
06/27/2019 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/3/2019 5:07:35 PM
Creation date
8/30/2019 10:06:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/27/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Motion: Mr. Smith motioned to close and issue with conditions as recommended by the <br /> Agent, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous 5-0 <br /> 6:03 p.m.Paul & Cindy Jalbert, 43 Monahansett (RDA): Proposed landscaping and <br /> hardscaping. At request of homeowner, continued from 3/14, 3/28, 4/11 and 5/9/19 to June 27th, <br /> 2019. The applicant described the request to the commission. The Agent is concerned that <br /> much of this project is within 50 feet of the wetland and thus requires mitigation. Mitigation <br /> calculations were provided in the application; however, mitigation cannot be enforced through <br /> an RDA. The commission recommended that the applicant request to withdraw the RDA and <br /> file for a Notice of Intent. The applicant requested to withdraw the RDA <br /> Resource Areas: Buffer zone to freshwater wetland <br /> No comment from the public <br /> Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to accept the request of the applicant to withdraw the RDA <br /> application. seconded by Mr. Smith. Vote 5-0 Unanimous <br /> 6:06 p.m. Theodore Selame, 12 Liftle Neck Ln RDA(ATF). After the fact RDA for replacement <br /> of small retaining wall and hardscaping within previously existing footprint. The applicant <br /> described the project to the commission. The Agent provided some background information <br /> regarding the after the fact work that took place. The Agent noticed work taking place with no <br /> existing permit and temporarily stopped the work to inform homeowner&contractor that the area <br /> is jurisdictional. Agent allowed work to proceed with understanding that an after the fact permit <br /> is required. All work taking place within previously existing footprints with no impacts to the <br /> coastal bank. <br /> Resource Areas: Buffer zone to Top of Coastal Bank <br /> No comment from the public . <br /> Motion: Mr. Smith moved for a Negative Determination, seconded by Mr. Dalton. Vote 5- <br /> 0 unanimous. <br /> 6:09 p.m. New Seabury/Tidewatch Condominiums, 94 Shore Dr. West Proposed drainage <br /> scour protection area on existing armored coastal bank (revetment). Proposed mitigation <br /> plantings. The consultant described the project. Proposed riprap stone and native plantings to <br /> protect a portion of the vegetated coastal bank above the existing revetment. The consultant <br /> noted that other portions of the wall are approved to be repaired. All work to be done by hand <br /> and expected to be completed in a day. The Agent recommended native coastal shrubs in place <br /> of the proposed beach grass. Beach grass would not be suitable in this area of bank. Agent and <br /> consultant will work out details of plantings to be put in. <br /> Resource Areas: Coastal bank, LSCSF, buffer zone to Land Under Ocean <br /> No comment from the public <br /> Motion: Mr. Smith moved to Close &Issue, seconded by Mr. Dalton. Vote 5-0 unanimous. <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.