Laserfiche WebLink
CONSULTANT <br /> 4 <br /> V4'1 <br /> o..BO X403 P. o. Bo 02631 <br /> �V 0 <br /> A. V 1 220 BT , MA. 0263 1 <br /> ---743-9286 617--896-3004 <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> TO: Lew Sayre Sc z, GBS <br /> FROM: Michael R. Shay <br /> R : Progress Report <br /> f <br /> TE: July 14, 1984 � <br /> On `ul.Y 1 , 1984, the conference with state and federal officials regarding <br /> iruproven-ents -to Popponesset took place in Boston, with Jean Thorras and <br /> waiter Geisenhainer in attendance. The following summarizes that meeting <br /> and suggests the direction the 'down and GBwA needs to take at this point. <br /> 1. The state and federal agencies involved are very well inforzTed as <br /> to- the physical Problems in the Bay; they are also well aware of the <br /> ,corrpeting interests" which have surfaced on the Bay. <br /> 2. it is clear that a full review of arty action by the Town on the Bay <br /> wi 11 be r4equired. It is also clear that.' although any iiiPr-ovement <br /> effort may be phased for financial reasons, the agencies will insist <br /> on reviewing the entire strategy for the Bay and barrier beach. This <br /> review process, resulting in the necessary perrrLits and certifications <br /> to begin work on the Bay, can be acccm fished in 120 to 180 days -- <br /> given full.devel.opr ent of the required.. information/data beforehand <br /> and strict coordination f submissions t the involved agencies, 'lie <br /> agencies encourage this approach for a nurber of reasons. <br /> 3. The stipulated agencies that the fewer the chances froml�existing channelg <br /> patterns proposed, the smoother the review process would probably be, and <br /> the disposal of _materials on the beach as opposed o sidecastin o <br /> upland disposal would 'raise the fewest obstacles- -- at least at this <br /> juncture. ongoing maintenance procedures would be a condition of an <br /> permit or certification; appropriate maintenance pe=i ts could b <br /> granted as a function of the initial permits. <br /> 4# strategies for submitting .permit applications were discussed, so a <br /> to allow for the most efficient review process; C2i was '#designated' <br /> lead/coordinating agency for' the matter. It was felt'that much Of the <br /> data needed to submit rrpiete permit applications i . already available, <br /> but that this data needs organizing to meet review agency needs. dd.i- <br /> tional data, particularly testing of materials to be"removed, needs <br /> to be obtained. <br /> Community Development • Urban-Revital ation • Historic Preservation • Resource Conservation <br />