Laserfiche WebLink
28 December 1995 <br /> Page 9. <br /> Mcl ael McGrath presenting. Revised plats will be provided. It was continued to peffnit <br /> project to be referred to CZM, a permit to access New Seabury Beach, attestation of <br /> ownership, filter fabric moved and details f reVegetation above the wall shown on the <br /> plan. CZM has stated sheathing did not meet the performance standards and has been <br /> removed from the plan.. Abutter not cation receipts were provided. <br /> Approval of the project was issued in 1987 with beach nourishment required. He is now <br /> . . to do bead nourishment, if the tow stones are exposed in a stone,, but does not <br /> want o d an annual nourishment. In 1993 storm did expose the toe stones. The ��ne <br /> contractor applied to reset the toe stones and refused to do beach nourishment. <br /> Mr. McGrath stated the toe stones are really kickir�g out between 6 and 8 inches now. <br /> They would like to replace the riprap by re-exec. <br /> fir. Shernnan would not make any recommendation without beach nourishment. There i <br /> still the issue of access to the propaV, part is on New Se bur 's prop. �&. McGrath <br /> stated pennission was granted previously. 1W Sherman advised Michael Grote had <br /> refused. <br /> Fitzsimmons stated 1W. McGrath was made aware of this last hearing. <br /> McGra asked if the �o mssion could close tonight and fir. Sherman stated i could <br /> not. <br /> fr. Green stated he would not go along with this without beach nourishment . If dame <br /> without i he will be back in another&e years. <br /> idr. Sherman stated it could be closed at the next meeting ager receiving the DEP number <br /> and take it under advisement. <br /> Public comments: none. <br /> VO'C'E: Motion made and seconded to close the hearing at the next meeting after'receipt <br /> of revised plans and DEP number. Unanimous Vote. <br /> TO BE CLOSED, <br /> 8:30 MASH P VILLAGE CONDOMIN11UM TRUST, continued from 16 October <br /> 1995. Atty. Gordon Piper represented the trustees. He had not attended the previous <br /> hearing but questions arose about title of the applicants. The project is four of five condos, <br /> He had provided a letter addressing the role of the Maushop Trustees. The land court pians <br /> show that the four condominiums down on the water have a limit at the high water line. <br /> Tho Tit1c to the condominiums rests in the individual unit owners m undivided ownership <br />