Laserfiche WebLink
happen. Chairman Fitzsimmons states that the order of Conditions specifically indicates that the <br /> beach nourishment was to protect the bottom of the revetment. Mr. Fogel states that the revetment ' <br /> includes properties of New Seabury, Tidewatch and Colony pillars. He continues to say that Tidewatch <br /> has the ability to put sand in front of a number of properties in front of the revetment. Mr. Fogel says <br /> that they were still talking to New Seabury about a global resolution over a number of matters; one of <br /> which was that they would accept sand on their property, past the revetment and if it requires an <br /> Amended Order then so be it but there was a provision in the order of Conditions, both in the recent <br /> one and the one from 15 years ago to use "every effort to coordinate each nourishment with New <br /> Seabury' Mr. Gurnee comments that beach nourishment In general recognizes that the point of it i <br /> not necessarily to protect the revetment or to male a beach in front of the property but to replace the <br /> sand that previously had washed away from the bluffs, which are now protected by the revetment, and <br /> to continue the appropriate flow of sand down the whole beach structure which is down to the Spit that <br /> was blocked off with this large wall. Mr. Fogel states that the nourishment has two purposes; one is to <br /> replace the quantity of sand that the bank used to supply through erosion and also to protect the toe of <br /> the revetment but their consultant says, because of the stability of the toe stones and beach, it is a <br /> perceived benefit of starting the sand in front of New Seabury to create the beach there. <br /> Mr. Fogel states that he spoke to Liz Kouloheras and Jim Mahala from DEP who said that in no <br /> uncertain terms that DEP did not approve the design of the timber boulder set up as is currently <br /> present. Mr. Fogel said than Mr. Mahal had-told him that he told Tara Marden from Woods Hole Group <br /> than a minimum of one foot of spacing between timbers is ghat they would expect which is the two feet <br /> on center so if Woods Hole Group came before the Commission and told them that they had received <br /> approval for what they installed, than that is false information. Mr. Fogel also says that M . toulohera <br /> told hire that she could write a1etter to the Commission stating that this project does not meet <br /> performance standards and she's not inclined to take enforcement action where a Certificate of <br /> Compliance has been issued. Mr. Fogel states that this is a regulatory decision that they may be <br /> making in their enforcement discretion but DEP told him that they did not approve this design and will <br /> not approve this design. The second thing is the boulders in front of the wall; DEP told Mr. Fogel that if <br /> it is on the o] plan and it was approved by the commission and approved in a Certificate of <br /> Compliance than they will not step in at this point and take enforcement ent but her. Fogel says to the <br /> extent that the boulders are installed go beyond what is shorn on the plan and is not approved work. <br /> Mr. Fogel states that to the extent that the Commission is issuing an Enforcement Order to Bayswater <br /> to remove the 2 x 4'sand fabri 'from behind, then the Commission needs to add a minimum, to bring <br /> this-project back to the order that was approved, than the boulders need to be removed to the point <br /> horn on the plan and the timbers changed to two feet on center. <br /> Mr. Fogel states that they were trying resolve this with New Seabury since before the summer but then <br /> the seaweed issue.arose and Tidewatch was willing to adept less if it happened quickly and New <br /> Seabury would not do it. Mr. Fogel now says the urgency to get something done that involves seaweed <br /> is long gone and so to the extent that this Board does not require New Seabury to correct the project t <br /> fit at a minimum of what the Notice of Intent shows; timbers 2 feet on center at a height above the <br /> beach than serves more as a drift fence than a gall then Tidewatch has asked him to evaluate what <br /> their options are if they were to go to court and look for a recourse if the Commission does not at least <br /> bring the project to the standards of the Notice of Intent. Mr. Gurnee asks Mr. Fogel what Tidewatch <br /> would achieve or ghat the benefits would there be to have New Seabury's plan match the original Nol. <br /> Mr. Fogel states that the idea behind the drift fence style or timber installation for toe protection was to <br /> stabilize the bottom of the envelopes without creating a solid barrier to the movement of water and sand <br /> and that is why DEP wanted two feet on center so that there would be a free movement of sand'and <br /> water to and from the coastal bank. Mr.. Fogel continues to say that Tidewatch has a beach easement <br /> for the people that own the condominiums at Tidewatch that allows them to go down those'steps to a <br /> beach and if the project is not built properly, it is accelerating the wave energy and they are losing the <br /> sand which is exposing the cble lager. Mr. Fogel states that there is a performance standard that says <br /> no coastal engineering structure shall have an adverse affect on the flooring or function of the beach <br /> and Tidewa.tch is entitled as a beach easement holder to have the regulations enforced properly. <br /> 6 <br />