Laserfiche WebLink
Conservation Comission <br /> March 7. 1991 <br /> Page 5. <br /> Mr. McGrath advised the client has a similar walkway and stairway further down <br /> and sand is now over the second riser. There are two abutting seawalls that <br /> have been constructed and there will be more erosion on the unprotected portion. <br /> He is being affected by actions that have taken place in the past. It may be <br /> more effective to have him perform a survey every year to see if the beach <br /> profile changes. <br /> Mr. Coffey asked if he was stating that he is protecting because the other <br /> properties are eroding but he has accumulated sand in the meantime? <br /> Mr. McGrath stated that was correct, the erosion has been eascerbated by the <br /> other riprap on 518. He may have accretion at the moment but he is trying to <br /> prevent erosion from a greater than normal storm. <br /> Mr, Sherman felt the revetment is a good idea. Concerning beach nourishment, <br /> he suggested DEP can be consulted during an upcoming on-site in the area. <br /> Mr, McGrath agreed. <br /> It was noted a heavily dotted line on the plan is a contour lime. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if stakes, lines and strings on the upper portion of the lot <br /> were for a structure? Mr. McGrath advised the activity asked for is down at <br /> the beach edge, anything else would have to come back to the Commission. It <br /> is a. completely separate activity and he is within his rights to file. There <br /> ray be another permit to obtain with two different time periods. <br /> Mr. Gr t ke pointed out they will meed explicit approval. from New seabury to <br /> do construction on New Seabury property. <br /> Mr. Coffey summarized: results of the DEP on-site will be awaited; what is on <br /> the top of the bank should be defined; and whether single or double wall con <br /> struction should be addressed in a narrative. If single, why is that sufficient? <br /> Mr. McCrath' e . <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if access to the property with IEP people would be allowed <br /> by Mr. Card ia' <br /> Mr. McGrath stated the Commission has a letter faxed to the Comission by <br /> Mr. Cariglia giving permission. There would be no problem. <br /> It was noted the DEP on-site is scheduled for March 1 , <br /> Mr. Homeyer advised Chapter 91, section 937., re sedimentation issue, under <br /> Chapter 91 they have no choice but to nourish the beach. <br /> Mr. McGrath stated they are not subject to Waterways, that only goes to <br /> Mean High water, Chapter 91 applies only to structures seaward of Mean High <br /> Water. <br /> Vim: Motion made and seconded to continue the hearing. <br /> CO TINUIM TO APRIEL 4. x.991 - 8:30 p.m. <br /> 9:00 NEW SE BUR CO,/poppoNESSET BEACH ASSOCIATION: Virginia Landry, Treasurer <br /> of the association attended for Jay Finkle, President, who was unable to attend. <br /> Mr. Finkle hasg reed to include the issue in the association newsletter and <br /> make it a public issue. Mrs. Landry has agreed to put up the violation signs. <br />