Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> 1 <br /> 6:15 David and Glenys Pinchin 124 Shore Drive west, Proposed coastal bank <br /> stabilization (soft solution) and coastal beach mitigation replenishment. Attorney <br /> Marl G-lldea requests a continuance to August 14, 2014 at 6:06 to allow for DEP <br /> review. NOI <br /> Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to continue the hearing at the request of the attorney to <br /> August 14,2014 at 6:06, seconded by Mr. Shaw. vote unanimous. "o <br /> 6:18 Michael I and Dawn M. Southwick,, 126 Share Drive west. Proposed coastal <br /> bank stabilization (soft solution) and coastal beach mitigation replenishment. <br /> Attorney Mark Gilda requests a continuance to August 1 , 2014 at 6:09 to alloy <br /> for DEP review. Nol _ <br /> Motion: Mr. Shaw proved to continue the hearing at the request of the attorney to <br /> August 14 20 .4, seconded by Mr. Sweet vote unanimous 5- <br /> 76 'Triton ''may Request uest `or beach nourishment abatement SE 43-1214 <br /> Mr. Ken Mackin and Mr. (Tony Caruso were present. Mr. Mackin said their request is to <br /> get an abatement for future beach nourishment requirements. The basis for their requests <br /> is the initial order of conditions in 1993) SE 43-1214, sti'pulated there had to be beach <br /> nourishment on the beach. The beach 's no longer here. They have two owners next to <br /> them that no longer have to do beach nourishment. Mr. Mackin said they would like t <br /> request a waiver for any future obligations. He said since they are surrounded by houses <br /> on both sides that have been granted relief, they should also be granted the same relief. <br /> The Agent said he had discussions in regards to what the purpose is of beach <br /> nourishment when it comes to riveting and coastal bank. It is putting sand into the <br /> system that has been denied because of armoring of the coastal bark. It's about sediment <br /> into the overall system. The Agent,explained the process is to apply for an amendment to <br /> a cern care of compliance if they ant to be relieved of the obligation. s far as the <br /> other properties, they didn't have access across their property to get the sand down to the <br /> beach, at the time the New Seabury ownership would not allow there to use New <br /> Seabury's access and also mari <br />