Laserfiche WebLink
Conservation Commission <br /> December 18, 1991 <br /> Page 3. <br /> ti r. SherIlan stated it cannot be put back in without a Notice of Intent. <br /> Mr. Cameron stated it will be filed, or it will not be put back in. When the <br /> tide went out, the floats would rest on the bottom. <br /> Mr. esrosiers asked If a double layer of stones would be a consideration? <br /> -Mr. Sherman advised they are using filter cloth and bedding stones; it should be <br /> adequate. <br /> Mr. Cameron stated double layers would be more intensive with construction activity. <br /> Mr. Homeyer asked what is being requested for maintenance? Mr. Cameron stated when <br /> the need arise the will come back to the Conessi <br /> � � on. <br />' . r, Sheman stated it would be possible to give maintenance the <br /> y not need a new <br /> Notice of intent if they stay with the same plan. They would have to come back to <br /> let us know when it is dome. <br /> Mr, Sherman suggested the plantings be verified with the Arborist, he questioned <br /> the choice of Eunon nous, it is not a salt tolerant plant. The hearing can be <br /> closed and a different planting scheme conditioned. Mr. Cameron agreed. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> VOU: Motion made and seconded to close pending the Agent checking with Ellis <br /> Alien for his origa.na1 report on plantings. : <br /> BERING CLC USM. <br /> 7:30 ROSE, TR. SH R Nominee Trust for the construction ofro sed r <br /> P � <br /> cock, rampand float to replace existing and; to permit existing rip-rap wall t <br /> r <br /> 50 Spoondrift Way. Dare Sanicki presenting, Two plays were reviewed. The top <br /> plan i�s supplemental; shown are existing conditions as found on the ground. <br /> float is licensed on the property. The float in the pier system is not licensed. <br /> Across the way is a float system and bulkhead and he pointed out the floats are <br /> not exactly opposite with this property; there is 45 feet between then. <br /> It is a light structure, 4 x 4, elevation 5. From low water to the deck there is <br /> less than 5 feet distance. They are proposing a different dock system and raising <br /> the pier. They will have heavier t i� be r andi 1 ing s. The existing i notpernaitted <br /> although it could go through the Amnesty program. From Mean High Water it goes out <br /> 36 Feet to the enol of the existing float. Water depth is 4 feet at the edge of the <br /> Float. original poles were metal, The State notified him re the required 5 foot <br /> clearance, but Sue Ann Richardson stated they may not require this to protect the <br /> marsh. Deck spacing is 1 inch. <br /> Mrs. Simons asked how much surge this property received? The Comission has tried <br /> to recommend timber pilings so they do not float off. <br /> Mr. Sanicki did not know; elevation is approximately 9 feet. They are going to <br /> 10 inch pilings as an anchor to the float; theme would have to be a 7 foot over <br /> high water tide before it would float off these piles. <br /> Mr. Homeyer asked if there was a problem with the structure pitching or yawing <br /> when walking down the ramp? Mr. Sanicki stated they have not had this problem. <br /> 4 foot float on a ramp has more of a tendency to draw, an 8 foot does not do that. <br /> It is a little over a 2 foot tide in this location. <br />