Laserfiche WebLink
Conservation Commission <br /> June 1 , 1989 <br /> Page 7 . <br /> Atty . Fox asked if he would go in with the existing configuration. <br /> Mr . Sa n i c i stated no one could attest to the physical dimensions of <br /> what preceded what is there . <br /> Mr , Rosenberg stated there is a 1972 photo which shows one thing and <br /> a 1981 photo which shows another . <br /> Atty . Fox insisted it is the exact same thing . <br /> Mr, Burns asked the size of the floats and was told ' x 20 ' . That ' s <br /> 40 ' and there was only 2 ' there s ince he care there . <br /> Jonathan Burtis stated here were two pilings when he got there . <br /> Mr . Rosenberg stated there could not have been four pilings there in <br /> 1981 , fir . Burtis stated they are there to hold and maintain the float . <br /> Irs . a to asked i r . Moskowitzwould have a problem with changing <br /> to ars L-shaped float and Mr . Moskowitz stated he had no problem with <br /> that . <br /> Mr. Saniki stated everyone here will agree that it was an L-shaped <br /> form . <br /> Mr . Rosenberg agreed there is no question that in 1981 it was an L-shaped <br /> dock . <br /> 1r . Sandi stated Mr. Moskowitz can tale the L type float and turn it <br /> into the configuration in the photo . If requested to remove the pilings <br /> y the Commission , it can be done , or if allowed to regain , it can be <br /> used to anchor the boat . Most Commissions are requesting perpendicular <br /> floats to the shore line so that the engines stay out in deeper water . <br /> With an L-shaped float , everyone tries to come shoreward . and put another <br /> boat i n , This configuration , although different than the photos , if <br /> acceptable to the Commission is preferable . <br /> Mr . Rosenberg stated , if the present configuration of the dock became <br /> part of the Notice of Intent , the Commission could dead with the dock ; <br /> it might be left the way it is or it night be Changed . However ,, an <br /> application which only deals with something else and doesn ' t address <br /> the dock cannot be dealt with . DEQE and ACOF have no knowledge that <br /> this is going to be dealt with in your application . <br /> Atty . Fox asked if he was saying if one was preferable they ' d go right <br /> to that and do it now without further adieu . <br /> Mr . Rosenberg stated they are still in the situation where they are wide <br /> open at the end of the time . once they get a new Notice of Intent which <br /> is recorded , then it is done . <br /> Mrs . Marsters asked if they would have to go before the Board of Appeals <br /> to get a variance? To get a 91 license .? They would have to do all of <br /> that if they submit a Notice of Intent . <br /> Mr . Sani ki stated , as the project was submitted , he was provided <br /> documentation through A OE that what was there in existence was <br /> permuted and grandfathered . Their project as submitted was from <br /> above the Mean High Water landward . The Commission requested doc- <br /> umentation of the structure and they have attempted to address the <br /> question . <br />