HomeMy WebLinkAboutComment letter James ReddenNetter
Charlotte and James Redden own a home on No Bottom Pond.
I heard about the NOI a couple of days ago and have the following
comments, they are in no special order:
3.0 Proposed Activities, Proposed Extension of Pier:” The description is
confusing. From my observations, the existing grated decking goes to
an existing float connected to it. The float appears to be in deep
enough water to launch a kayak.
The 2013 NOI authorized a pier to be built and a float. However, the
pier was never built and the General Conditions of the order required
all work to be complete within three years. Therefore, I believe the
authorization is gone. Therefore, this would be a new project to install
a new pier, that was not permitted in SE3-5062. The wording should be
changed to reflex that.
The 2023 “Plan to Accompany A Notice of Intent” submitted seems to
have significant errors. For example, it shows the float in the wrong
position; it shows a float/pier that does not exist on an adjoining
property; it miss labels grass verse’s woodland, and others.
A note does say no site work was done.
There is very little description of the setting of the piles and how they
will impact the pond. Further description is needed.
The new pier will continuously casted shadows on the pond, therefore
reducing sunlight hitting the water. The pond already is losing clarity
and this will add to the problem.
The NOI repeatedly references the existing permit SE3-5062. The
description in this NOI seems to miss represent what the permit allows.
I hope the committee will review these concerns.
Additionally, in reviewing the original 2013 NOI for SE3-5062 there is a
major mistake in the Project Description, Section 2.0 Site Description.
The pond is described as owned by the property owner. My
understanding is the Town owns the water. Does that matter?
Also, did the home owner follow the conditions in the SE3-5062? The
order seems to say that the float must be taken in and out each year. It
is in the water now.