Laserfiche WebLink
{ <br /> M f <br /> all of the people responsible for the beaches on the list. It notified therm that the <br /> were being considered a bathing beach. <br /> FIs. warden stated that what had happened was that the new bathing regulations <br /> came into existence. They met with the assessor's o 'f ice and although it was very <br /> difficult they did the hest they could to find all ofthe beaches, They would come <br /> across, on occasion; in their travels whether it be septic repairs, whatever, they <br /> would come across a sign notifying them of a beach and an association. It would <br /> come to their attention that they missed one. That was exactly what happened to this <br /> particular one also. There was a bathing beach with-no signs posted. It was apretty <br /> open area where the association would hold an annual meeting during the summer at <br /> these locations. There was nothing prohibitive about entering the water at that <br /> location. It looped like a sandy, beach area, It fit the regulation's qualifications. She <br /> did agree with there that that particular side was pretty mucky. <br /> Mr. Petersen agreed with Ills. warden that that area vasr mucky.. But, y the had a <br /> lot of trespassers. That was the reason why they had a lot.of signs torn dwn. Until <br /> the point when the state built the dock at the landing. They used to get' a lot f <br /> people who would tie up and launch their boats from that area. They would also <br /> have some problems with the condominium associations that were farther up on the <br /> lower part of the Cape. They didn't have access to a beach and they won't send their <br /> people over t6 the Popponnessett. Apparently you reed a permit from <br /> Popponnessett. They have had people who have come down to their area. They <br /> questioned them and asked who they were and'what were they doing down there. <br /> They would say that their association seat them such as Cpewids. They have had <br /> some issues with that along with vandalism and trespassers. Stating that they had <br /> beach facilities was not something that they had actually promoted. Again, they <br /> don't even insure for that and they try to stay away from that whole liability. The <br /> permits for their dock limit the amount of boats haat can be moored. That was just <br /> part of the permitting for the dock. <br /> Ms. 'warden asked if that was part of the covenant. <br /> Mr. Petersen stated that that was separate. He did not have a copy of that with him. <br /> He did not have a copy of that with hire. when they applied for the building permit <br /> to construct the docks. They had to get a separate permit from the town for those. <br /> They limit how many buts could be tied at khat dock. leo swimming off of the dock. <br /> The beach area was not to be used for pulling buts up on to the shore. You would <br /> try and protect that area. <br /> Mr. Santos apologized for interrupting the flow of the conversation. But, he felt that <br /> they were getting sidetracked into the topics of eats and other associations, etc. The <br /> issue here was Haat the association had been notified back in March of 2004 that <br /> sampling was required. The reason why they unposed the $3,000.00 was Haat no one <br /> shoved up to the meeting. Certified mail was seat out a couple of times and no one <br /> showed up. It was his understanding that the board had to go down and post a sign <br /> r <br />