Laserfiche WebLink
are not proposing to put any dinghies outer sides of the docks. Can we have a condition that <br /> says no dinghies have to be inboard of the outermost line of the outermost float? <br /> Agent said the association has widened the initial float and added two additional floats, so <br /> boats coming to dock on the seaboard side of this, that's where the mooring locations come in <br /> and have to be shown as well. It's not just about the dinghies. <br /> Mr. Smith said we can only speak to what the Harbormaster wrote, he'd like to see the two <br /> parties speak to each other and try to come up with something that works better for both. <br /> Mr. Sweet said he'd like to hear more from the harbormaster directly. His observation is that it <br /> is overcrowded compared to other docks. <br /> Mr. Colombo would like to see the data on the moorings that they don't have. <br /> Barry Fogel said it looks like the best bet is to request a continuance. <br /> Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to continue at the request of the applicant to 10/8/20 at <br /> 6:OOpm, Mr. O'Neil seconded. <br /> Vote: 6-0 unanimous <br /> 6:06 SCCA, Inc., 112 Whippoorwill Circle. Permit existing pier, ramp and float structure. At NOI <br /> request of applicant, continued from 8113 due to scheduling conflict. <br /> Barry Fogel and Donald Munroe from Coastal Engineering presented plans. <br /> Agent said this is very similar to the previous NOI, the Harbormaster has the same concerns <br /> as the other application. Perhaps it's best to also request a continuance. Nothing to really <br /> add to this one. <br /> Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to continue at the request of the applicant to 10/8/20 at <br /> 6:03pm, Mr. O'Neil seconded. <br /> Vote: 6-0 unanimous <br /> 6:09 Steven F. & Donna M. McDonald, 126 Wading Place Road. Proposed Amendment of Order AOOC <br /> of Conditions 43-2971 to allow for coastal bank restoration and associated hardscaping. This <br /> includes previously approved demolition/reconstruction of single-family dwelling, swimming <br /> pool, spa, septic system and landscaping. At request of applicant, continued from 5128 for <br /> revised plans delineating wetlands. <br /> Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to accept the request to withdraw without prejudice, Mr. <br /> O'Neil seconded. _ u . <br /> Vote: 6-0 <br /> 6:12 Ralph J. & Susan R. Cook, 8 Annawon Road. Proposed deck replacement. At request of RDA <br /> applicant, continued from 8113 for engineered plans. <br /> Ralph and Susan Cook, the homeowner, presented plans. <br /> Agent said there is some preexisting non-conforming structure here. No part of the application <br /> is going beyond the footprint of the patio. Not much else to say, performance standards are <br /> met. <br /> Mr. Colombo asked about some pipes he saw onsite, and wanted to know what they are <br /> connected to. Ralph Cook said when the wall was built the landscaper put those there for the <br /> water to runoff. I don't ever have puddles, the water just leached down. <br /> Mr. Colombo said he didn't see any signs of erosion when he was onsite. <br /> Agent suggested some sort of plantings or aggregate to stabilize that stretch of exposed <br /> sandy soil. <br /> Michael Gain, an attorney representing abutters John and Janice Cook of 2 Annawon Road, <br /> said their concern is that the expansion of the deck will diminish their enjoyment of their own <br /> property. The relationship with the applicants has soured, what they are asking is that the <br /> Wetland Protection Act, Mashpee by-laws, and regulations be carefully implemented. There <br /> are 2 points: they think the application is incomplete and the inland bank is less than 50ft from <br />