My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/26/2013 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
9/26/2013 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/19/2025 2:07:58 PM
Creation date
11/21/2018 2:50:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/26/2013
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
<br />mechanism. He said he understands the Commissioners’ position that they want to be <br />able to oversee the project. <br /> <br />Public <br /> <br />Mr. Robert Roche, homeowner, was under the impression when he applied for this wall <br />in the late 90s that he would be allowed to maintain it let alone improve it so he was a <br />little bit confused. He agreed with Mr. Anderson regarding his opinion on looking at <br />projects on their own merit. He didn’t understand why he is not able to maintain this wall <br />and improve it without going through the NOI process. He said a lot of the (marsh) grass <br />is being created due to the fatigue of the wall. There was a beach there, they don’t like <br />the (marsh) grass. <br /> <br />Agent McManus said this project is replacing what is currently in place. If you want to <br />take a maintenance approach then you could come forward with that type of petition. Mr. <br />Burtis said the reason why they are building a wall is because there is a yearly history of <br />maintenance and because of the erosion here. Agent McManus explained there would be <br />a change in the application for an NOI with a minor inconvenience, which allows the <br />commission to have more oversight on the project. Mr. Roche said he understands. Mr. <br />McManus just wanted to make it clear that nothing is being changed in the regulatory <br />language. <br /> <br />Motion made by Mr. Sweet to issue a positive determination, seconded by Mr. <br />Gurnee. Vote was 4-1 with me Anderson voting in the negative. <br /> <br />6:18 Jeanne C. Mantel, Trustee, 8 Great River Road. Rebuild bulkhead wall within <br />the same footprint. RDA <br /> <br />Resource Area: Coastal Zone, Buffer Zone to Salt Marsh <br />Material Submitted: 8 Great River Road <br /> <br />Mr. Mark Burtis, Little River Dock Construction, was representing the Mantel family. <br />Mr. Burtis stated this project is similar to the one in the previous hearing. Agent <br />McManus recommended a positive determination (project should be conditioned). <br /> <br />No comments from the public <br /> <br />Motion made by Mr. Sweet to issue a positive determination, seconded by Mr. <br />Rogers. Vote was 4-1 with me Anderson voting in the negative. <br /> <br />6:21 Brian J. and Dawnmarie Jadul, 25 Ocean Bluff Drive. Proposed construction <br />of pool and deck as well as an elevated walkway to provide beach access. NOI <br /> <br />Resource Area: Coastal Bank, Coastal Dune, Coastal Beach LSCSF <br />Material Submitted: 25 Ocean Bluff Drive <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.