Laserfiche WebLink
26 August 1999 <br /> Page 1 . <br /> low height. They only do what they want to do and it is not fair. Someone is <br /> going to be seriously hurt. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated he will go out there in the morning and if they have not <br /> done as they were supposed t , they will be fined. <br /> Dave Foley advised there are six beach roses still planted there. He counted <br /> them just before he cane tot. he meeting. This is an ongoing violation <br /> reported to the Commission on August 9th. The regulations state that a <br /> violator shall be fined, not in excess of $300. Mr. Foley stated he is a <br /> professional engineer. He gave the Commission an information packet. Th <br /> burden ofproof this will not damage the dune remains ith the applicant. <br /> This is not the venue for access issues, he understands that. The practical <br /> point is that for over 50 years that path has been the way across that dune. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the Commission cannot touch-that issue. Mr. Foley <br /> continued that the regulations require that the Commission net allow <br /> anything that will create cumulative damage to the resource area. If this <br /> path is closed, access will have to be provided somewhere else. That will <br /> damage the dune as a consequence of this action of closing this path. That <br /> makes it the Commission's jurisdiction. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated if that were the case, someone would have to file a <br /> Notice of intent so those issues would have to be addressed then. Mr. Foley <br /> stated the best option is to just leave 1t alone. It used to be 30 feet wide, now <br /> it is only 3 feet wide. New Se bury has done a wonderful job of re- <br /> establishing that dune but this path is not damaging the dune any further. <br /> In order for the Commission to deny or act on this applications, they need <br /> reasons. #1 is the cumulative damage as a result of this action. #2 the <br /> application is incomplete. The property is not staked as required by <br /> regulations. There is an on-going violation on the property and that is <br /> reason, within the regulations, to deny this application. He suggested that <br /> under the regulations the Commission has the right to impose conditions, <br /> and that the condition he is suggesting be imposed that alternate access be <br /> provided before......The Chair stated he is getting into the property issue. <br /> Mr. Grtke stated, as far as alternate access, it has been offered in the ara <br /> where there are 2 2 ' wide paths to the beach so there is no cumulative <br /> damage that could be argued in that ease. There is continuing erosion, <br /> vandalism and a hazard to people to animals. New Seabury has gone to <br /> great effort to rebuild the dune. There are several other access points that <br /> will -remain open. <br />