Laserfiche WebLink
"Conservation Commssion <br /> April 1 , 1991 <br /> Page 4. <br /> Norman Hayes of BSC Group, representing Mr. Belkin, advised Mr. Bel.kin's main concern <br /> is the fact that the two plans certified by DEP in a final order of Conditions sent <br /> down on 1/3/89 specified that the BSC plan of record dawn by Roger McNevish would be <br /> the construction plan and that a plan by Ralph Rankin, also a part of the Order of <br /> Conditions set down that will permit construction of the Burke Belkin revetment, <br /> authorizes a coastal bank stabilization i.e. , erosion designation on the Rankin <br /> plan. A. third plan which is different is the Shaw plan. <br /> Mr. Rosen stated the Shag plan shows an existing structure which has been there from <br /> day one; no addition, and the plan has never been filed with DEP or recorded with DEP. <br /> Mr. Hayes stated, in the letter from Betsy Kimball, the only two plans that can be used <br /> are the approved plans in the DEP final order. If this plan is to be used, and there is <br /> o objection to that, in the construction of the revetment as approved under the final <br /> order, they want to be sure there isn't going to be a problem in the little upturn in <br /> this wall being in a position of where the permitted wall will tie into the Burke wall, <br /> There were also performance standards with far-reaching #npacts on all of the players. .,.. <br /> involved, Mr. Burke Mr. Belkin, and potentially Mr. Kolb. He listed then and referred <br /> to an existing escrow account and at this point Mr. Burke disagreed; he gage the history <br /> of his previous filing. <br /> The Chairman asked Mr. Hayes if he felt the project, completed as proposed, would <br /> affect the other property. Mr. Hayes felt the Commission had prefaced the performance <br /> standards with grain size compatibility. if no new stones are to be added and Mr. Burke <br /> is only repairing the wall and the stones existing on Mr._ Belkin's property remain, as <br /> Mr. Belkin's consultant he will not take issue. He did ask for a point of clarification <br /> from the Commission concerning an amendment to a DEP final order of Conditions with a <br /> signed escrow account, which he is not aware of. If an addendum or change, that would <br /> have a sIgnificant impact on what can go on with this property. <br /> Mr. Burke would prefer to refer this to legal counsel.. His understanding at this <br /> point in time is that there is no legal document, legal agreement, to going forward <br /> with the revetment on Bel.kin Burke. <br /> Mr. Hayes stated he has a copy of the signed legal agreement. Ms Behrman questioned <br /> whether this was germal.n to .this application. Mr. Hayes believes it is because it <br /> dictates the construction of the revetment itself. <br /> Mr. Rowell advised there were documents Mr. Hayes is not aware of which he will <br /> provide to him in the morning. They are asking for repair work on Mr. Burke's <br /> property and will not go onto Mfr. Belkin's. <br /> Mr. Coffey stated as the issues have been raised, he would like to be advised and <br /> have whatever information appropriate. <br /> Mr. Hayes stated the plan shows work on Mr. Belkin' property but in the spirit of <br /> neighborly cooperation it is his recommendation that he has no problem with the <br /> construction for the repair of the seawall but does feel additional information on <br /> that final order is critical and should be resolved before any decisions are made. <br /> _ y <br /> . Sherman stated the burden of resolving this issue should be the burden of the <br /> parties involved, not the Commission, . <br /> Mr. Rowell stated this is two separate issues and gave his word he would be working <br /> solely on Mr. Burke's property. <br />