Laserfiche WebLink
November 1997 <br /> Page 5. <br /> appears on the town records. The owner of lot 44 appearing on the town <br /> records is neither named as an applicant, nor I's there a consent. He has been <br /> given to understand that not only does not that appear but that the owner i <br /> not willing to give consent. <br /> Plans were reviewed. The Tek location was not shown. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg-stated no matter what direction you go, there is no way a dock <br /> can go from 38B to the water without going over lot 44. <br /> Mr, Sherman stated the N I does not reference the parcel that the clock has <br /> to traverse. <br /> Aft. Fitzsimmons agreed but added there is no plan that shows the location of <br /> the dock. <br /> Mr. Johansen stated the applicant came in with all the information provided <br /> to the State, for an existing dock that was used years ago, and that is why <br /> they are proceeding on that type of plan, <br /> 11r. Rosenberg stated the Commission cannot entertain the application <br /> unless...State laver and our regulations require that we get ars attestation o <br /> ownership from the town. There is no attestation of ownership with respect to <br /> the area over which the dock mut go and therefore, cannot consider an <br /> application, <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated it is up to the Town Treasurer, who must submit to the <br /> Commission attestation of ownership and, with respect to the project, it i <br /> his understanding there is no attestation of ownership from the Treasurer <br /> with respect to property over which....Mrs. Lund advised that was received <br /> today, <br /> Mr. Sherman advised the attestation form indicates it is owned by someone <br /> else, other than Mrs. Fulton. <br /> Atty. Brown stated, as to the issue of title, the Town sloes not determine the <br /> owner of the property, Land Court is the proper form. This dock has been on <br /> this property for many years and was destroyed. in Hurricane Bob. The <br /> applicant has been trying, rather than to just replace it, she warted to go <br /> through the proper process. There is an issue on ownership; they do not agree <br /> that it does not belong to the <br /> The.ap licantThprevious dock that was there <br /> p <br /> belonged to the applicant's predecessor and was used by the predecessor's <br /> family. All they are asking is to look at the clod and the impacts it would <br />