Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br /> r <br /> L <br /> Meet .s o f :m" ua ir y 2 : '1 988 <br /> Coamissl hers Present: V. Louise Behrman, Gertrude Ferriday, Joseph <br /> Burns and Carol Jacobson . <br /> Patrick Coffey, Associate Member, and Lisa Hanscom, Conservation Agent <br /> were also present. <br /> The meeting was called to order at 7: 05 p.m* <br /> Kevin Kirrane came before the commission regarding two lots on Redwood <br /> Circle. The variance request was denied by the Board of Appeals for <br /> Mr. Sullivan to construct a dwelling on Lot 15 and to continue with <br /> dwelling-ori Lot 14. - As a result of that denial , a Superior Court <br /> appeal -has been filed and it is alleged in the complaint -that the <br /> denialof that richt -constitutes a taking of his property without ad- <br /> equate compensation. ' Towi Counsel has suggested all parties get to- <br /> e her to discuss whether there is some Nepha ism for accomodatinA the <br /> concerns 'Suo the Town and accomodating the development proposed by r. <br /> II ra - T e decision o the Board of Appeal was based larsely on , <br /> input from the- Commission and does relate to the condition at that end <br /> of the Mashpee River where it is contended that debris and sediment <br /> -... are.. resulting from a . drain located on a town road running through the <br /> property owned b Mr. Sullivan. . Bhrman stated, not on a town road, <br /> t 'd . r. �irrane corrected to a prI ate road. a #stated r. Sullivan <br /> r ' <br /> contends the drain is not there as a result of any action he hs , taen - <br /> To date, no one has been able to prove who put it there. We are try' <br /> ng to deal with what has been created as a result of it being there <br /> Concerning plans for the dwel l in-g o Lot I , Ms Behran stated the <br /> Commission had seen plans `and Mr. Sullivan was. told to go to the Board <br /> of Appeals first. While Mr . Sullivan was discussing the plans, a' one' <br /> railway i-e edging grew to a ret inn ng wall with - emplaced fill . - - She <br /> went on to review the case: There is an outstanding nforeevent Order <br /> n which the State i-s also involved. Mr. Su Divan was given a generous <br /> deadline by the State in which to rectify the situation of "the drain. <br /> and he s well beyond the deadline* Mr. �irran stated he believed <br /> Mr. Sullivan did take some action. Ms B hri n stated he wrote a let e <br /> to the State and OB considers this letter completely inadequate. r.- <br /> Kirrane stated the drain. or •the pipe that was an overflow, was closed <br /> off; he was unaware where closed. Ms ,Behrman stated the Commission <br /> would need documentation 10f that action was taken as at one point he <br /> alleged he closed -it off at the river and there is no indication that <br /> has occurred. <br /> Lisa stated in conversations with DEE it was agreed that removal of <br /> the pipe would be more damaging due to the growth over it but that it <br /> should be blocked off. <br /> Ms Be rman requested documentation , stamped by an engineer. During <br /> the flood period there was a ha ardouz-2 situation when the drain was <br /> plugged with debris and overflowing with some eros i on fro* Mr , Sullivan's <br /> land as a, result from the overflow from that drai-n . <br /> r <br />