Laserfiche WebLink
A letter to be sent. <br /> Public comments: none. <br /> This filing is pending Board of Appeals. <br /> VOTE: Motion made and seconded to close pending Board of <br /> Appeals decision* <br /> CLOSED PENDING. <br /> 7:40 MARK EFRO , 358 Monomoscoy Road, continued from October <br /> 1 1994, Jack Landers-Cawley presenting with Mr. Efron. The <br /> hearing was continued due to a modification to the septic <br /> based on where an acture well was found on the neighboring <br /> lot. Abutter notification was provided. As a benefit to the <br /> neighbors, notification was followed up to let them know the <br /> hearing was continued. The property was purchased one year <br /> ago. The owner would rather move the dock out an additional <br /> 15 feet and not go through an amnesty licence. The existing <br /> is a seasonal dock and the proposed is year-round except for <br /> the ramp and floats. They would like to rebuild the existing <br /> ramp. The dock will be raised with steps at the upland side. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if it is the .intent to keep bath docs <br /> Mr. Landers-Cauley advised it will be longer for more draft <br /> with an additional float on it. They will get rid of the <br /> existing. Where will be three floats at the end complying <br /> with the Zoo s.f. requirement. Decking can be changed upon <br /> reconstruction. The wetland has been flagged. The whole lot <br /> is within the flood zone as defined by FEMA. maps, Mean High <br /> Water strikes the marsh grass. The platform is not intended <br /> to be near the marsh grass but is near poorly conditioned <br /> lawn. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if the proposed deck is over beach grass <br /> and was told it is not, <br /> Mrs. Fertiday asked if the float will bottom out and was told <br /> it would not; the depth is -2.3 to -2,6 in the vicinity, <br /> which was done by actual shots. <br /> Mr. Homeyer stated he Cannot go out there in a pair of <br /> waders; it is muddy. <br /> Mrs. Ferriday reviewed the shellfish report dated October 7, <br /> The shellfish Commission is opposed to the ramp proposed <br /> because it would cover a shellfish resource area. It is one <br /> of the more productive areas, The pier would be acceptable. <br /> Mr. Iomeyer stated that does not make sense. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the Commission should not allow the ramp <br /> to be reconstructed. <br /> There is a 33 f . boat with 24 inch draft and 14 ft, boat <br /> with an 8 inch draft. <br />