Laserfiche WebLink
will need to get together to come up with a compromised solution that will resolve the issues and most <br /> importantly; maintain the environmental interests that are at stake. The Commission will reed to <br /> determine whether an enforcement action is required. The Commission can issue an Enforcement <br /> Order as they deem necessary. Attorney Costello says that�this issue has been beaten around for so <br /> long and that the facts and issues have been presented in detail to the commission at various hearings � <br /> over the course of the summer. He is now requesting to give the parties that have an interest in this <br /> matter; one last opportunity to be heard before the Commission and have there present any information <br /> than is relevant than way the Commission can make a determination as to whether or not further action <br /> is required. chairman Fitzsimmons asks if the options in the Enforcement order would be to say if the <br /> project is in compliance or not. The attorney says that an Enforcement order would be issued if a <br /> project is not in compliance with the final order of conditions but if it is in compliance then the <br /> Commission would decline to issue an Enforcement order and suggest an Amended certificate of <br /> Compliance acknowledging the fact that the filter fabric 2 x 4'shave been removed and is now, in its <br /> current configuration, compliant with-the order of conditions. <br /> Chairman Fitzsimmons states that that was the fiat of two issues. The second issue is Tidewatch and <br /> their beach nourishment obligation. Attorney Costello states that any order of Conditions that was <br /> issued would forme a basis for potential enforcement action if it is determined that Tidewatch has not <br /> met its obligations under the Order previously issued, which is to be determined by the Commission. <br /> Chir. Gurnee states than his observation is than Bayswater did not construct according to design however <br /> it seers to meet the intent in that the sand that was placed earlier this year is gone; washed out <br /> through the pilings and distributed to the beach. Mr. Gurnee feels than this design meets the intent of <br /> what the Commission grants to happen in terms of protecting the waterway and the beach and it might <br /> be appropriate if a "temporary" certificate of Compliance can be issued that will include evaluating the <br /> project in one year to see if it is still behaving as it was intended to do. <br /> Attorney Barry Fogel states than Tidewatch has reviewed the plans and they feel than it was two rows, <br /> two feet on center on each row with the rows spaced four inches apart; not on center but with the front <br /> of one row's timber being "from the back of the other row. Attorney Fogel states that currently, the <br /> timbers are pretty close together but there is space and their recommendation was to put rubber <br /> spacers in between which Bayswater at one point had agreed to do that. The attorney feels that they <br /> should be required to install the spacers specifically near the top and near the bottom to keep the <br /> timbers from moving and becoming solid again. Chairman Fitzsimmons states that he thought it was <br /> previously agreed on to put the rubber spacers in. Bruce osterhoudt states that originally when all of <br /> thea had an agreement to work together and Tidewatch had agreed, they would put the spacers in but <br /> unfortunately Tidewatch decided to change their mind and not go forward with the agreement so they <br /> pulled bank. Mr. osterhoudt says shortly after than, he received an email from Agent McManus stating <br /> that as long as they removed the 2 x 4's and filter fabric; they would be in compliance so they felt that <br /> the spacers were unnecessary. Attorney Fogel states that in order for this to be in compliance with the <br /> approved plan, it should be required that Bayswater should remove every other timber and replace <br /> there so that there are four inches between the rows. To the extent than the Commission is willing to <br /> grant them an amended Certificate of compliance than leads the status quo where the timber rows have <br /> moved close together and essentially have a single row without great space as shown on the plan; <br /> there are two alternatives to consider. one is to either require it to be rebuilt in the manner that was <br /> approved or go with the rubber spacers which are an alternative that would be less intrusive than <br /> removing and re-installing the timbers. Mr. Fogel states the other thing is that the plan show a <br /> proposed sand ever which is a template that runs about halfway up the bank over the top of the <br /> timbers and down onto the beach. This is ghat is shown as a post construction design because this <br /> was not Intended to be where the timbers stand up and are in the open; this design was proposed to <br /> have the sand cover it down to the beach. <br /> Attorney Fogel states the last piece that they feel is a problem is than nowhere in the narrative of the <br /> NOE do they talk about existing boulders. The only place that boulders were discussed was on the plan <br /> and it says "existing boulders to be replaced". The attorney states that the pre-construction <br /> photographs show no boulders although there was a photo from Mr. Colasuonno that shows boulders <br /> 5 <br />