Laserfiche WebLink
The Shellfish Constable has expressed concern as this is <br /> prime shellfish area and has requested Applicant somehow prevent <br /> the float from disturbing the shellfish beds during low tide. <br /> Mr. Hayes noted "stops," have been provided for this purpose. <br /> At this point, lid'. Sherman asked for actual water depths <br /> located at the corners of the float. Mr. Hayes responded the <br /> depths to be approximately 2 . 1. Mr. Sherman suggested additional <br /> depths are required at the 20 inch mark, to which Mr. Hayes <br /> agreed this could be addressed prior to the zoning Board of <br /> Appeals Hearing. <br /> There was some discussion regarding conditioning based upon <br /> the size of the unit/water depth at mean low. <br /> George Green requested additional stops at the base of the <br /> pole be provided. lir. Hayes agreed to any conditions imposed by <br /> the Commission. Mr. Hayes stated the wiles would not be removed <br /> each year, but rather would remain in the water, which would <br /> prove to be less intrusive to the sensitive area. <br /> Diane Boretos suggested a particular type of runner be used <br /> "feet" which would disturb less area and which are deemed to be <br /> highly functional . Mr. Hayes suggested installing "feet" onto <br /> the runners, which he incorporate into the design. <br /> There being no pudic input or further Commission <br /> discussion, the chairman entertained a motion. <br /> MOTION.- George Green made a motion to continue this matter <br /> to March 30th at p.m. at the request of the Applicant� which <br /> motion was seconded by Carol Moore and so voted unanimously. <br /> Richard Sturm, 53 Godfrey Road,, continued from March <br /> 2nd. Notice of Intent. The Chairman recognized David. Sanicki, <br /> Cape and Island Engineering, who explained this ratter had been <br /> continued in order that the proposal be reduced by 10 feet at the <br /> request of the Harbormaster. The revisions to the plan having <br /> been made and filed with the Commission, <br /> Mr. Sanicki explained the Applicant is presently in <br /> possession of an existing on-site dock license. The proposal <br /> being made is to remove said dock. References were being Stade t <br /> the plan with regard to water depths, Applicant' s boat, and depth <br /> to water line calculations. <br /> The Board of Appeals Hearing is scheduled for April 12, <br /> 2000 . Mr. Sanicki agreed to provide the Commission with a letter <br /> making reference to the Moat requirements. <br /> There being no public comment or further Commission <br /> discussion, the Chairman entertained a motion. <br />