Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> r <br /> April 1998 <br /> Page 11. <br /> 8:10 TRITON REALTY TRUST for reconstruction, rep air and maintenance <br /> of the remaining ' long portion of the em*sting stone riprap not previously <br /> authorized under DEP file SE 43-1445 at 64 Triton way. Michael McGrath <br /> presented abutter notification receipts. <br /> Mr. Mc Grath advised there is a substantial house on the lot. There was an <br /> order on the property not accepted which was appealed by the applicant, <br /> superseding Order was issued to repair a certain portion of the existing <br /> riprap. The beach has eroded 3' due to the storms this winter. The toe <br /> stones have become exposed and the wall is slumping. They asked IEP to <br /> allow then, under a modified order, to reconstruct this portion and were told <br /> no so they are asking for an Order of Conditions to do this repair. The toe <br /> stones should be increased in size. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated he was there at low tide. He asked how they will get in <br /> there? Mr. McGrath stated either by barge or they will lower thew from Lot <br /> 519; the house has never been completed on that lot, They can lower <br /> materials over the side of the bank. It is ' over the bank, Mr. Sherman <br /> stated they would have to repair the access. It was agreed they would have <br /> to restore it, Mr. Sherman stated they will need Chapter 91 and MEA. <br /> Mr. Mc Grath stated they already have DAEPA. Mr. Sherman asked does this <br /> apply? Mr. McGrath has not asked. Mr. Sherman asked for a letter to that <br /> effect. He stated beach nourishment was in the order, the applicant appealed <br /> and DEP upheld hien as it was not in the first order. Mr. McGrath stated it <br /> is not a sediment source. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg asked, if there is a 3' drop of that whole wall, what good is <br /> putting in only 55'9. Mr. McGrath stated those stones are buried deeper; they <br /> may end up replacing the whole thing. <br /> The Chair asked the Agent if he was comfortable with the wording on this; <br /> Mr. McGrath stated they already have a valid Order of Conditions. Mr. <br /> Sherman stated they can repair it until the order expires, <br /> Mr. Rosenberg asked ff nourishment was planned on the 55'9. Mr. McGrath <br /> stated no, he has already gone through the appeal process to prove a point <br /> and it would be inappropriate for the Commission to impose a condition that <br /> they lost two years ago on. Mr. McGrath stated it may be appropriate to <br /> allow him to do it, his client may instead of "shall). <br />