Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutADE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 4-1-24ADE Response to Comments for 100 Waters Edge (4/1/24) The description should have stated to seek approval for an unpermitted boardwalk and sand path, with request to repair boardwalk. We have updated the project description in the narrative and the WPA Form 3 to reflect that the applicant is seeking approval for and the ability to repair an unpermitted existing boardwalkand deck structure. The narrative is lacking history on the sand path and the boardwalk.  I have attached an as built plan I found in SE3-1692.  I do not see the sand path or boardwalk.  SE3-1692 has a work limit line in the special conditions.  I can send you the complete file in a separate email link.  A COC was issued in 1992.  The history of the sand path and boardwalk is unclear due to a lack of record. We have reached out to the provided contact (John Slavinsky) asking if he has any information on the history but as of now have not gotten any word back. We have also reached out to a member of the Whistleberry Residents Association that has been in the association since 1982 and he informed us that the sand path and boardwalk were previously constructed prior to him buying his property in 1982. We have reviewed the as-built plan and NOI package that were attached in the email and both appear to only be regarding the children’s playground area located on Map 61 Lot 38 (Project Site) and do not have any mention of the sand path or boardwalk. I have a question on the sand path.  Did they fill wetlands with sand to create the path? Based on conversations with aWhistleberry Residents Association member, the sand path was there prior to them buying their property in 1982 and there is no record of how/ when the path was created. A new legal ad will have to go in with abutter notification.  Acknowledged. We will create a revised legal ad to go with the updated abutter list including the additional 100-foot certified abutter list for the lot we plan to remove the boardwalk. The revised narrative and project description should go to DEP and NHESP Acknowledged.We will send the revised narrative and project description to DEP and NHESP. I am not sure why the map and parcel where you are removing the section of boardwalk is not included on the front page of the NOI? Acknowledged. We have included the appropriate map and parcel (Map 62 Parcel 46) for the section of boardwalk we plan to be removing in the WPA Form 3 and the project narrative as well. We will look through what aerials we can find to see if we can see when the boardwalk appeared.  We have reviewed the historical aerials provided and, in our opinion, it is unclear when the boardwalk/ sand path were originally constructed due to the aerials being of poor quality. There was an issue with two commissioners already, not being able to find the boardwalk.  They followed the directions, and they did not see a stake or a description about going through a gate.  I have our Agent going out this morning to see the site and see if he has problems with the directions.  We have updated the directions to provide a more descriptive route to the proposed project area. Chapter 91, is it required? Our proposed project will not require a Chapter 91 Waterways Permit. This is due to the Project Site not being within or crossing over the mean high tide line of the riverway located adjacent to the Site. You will need to seek a continuance using WC form.  We have a completed and signed WC Form.