[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[2:05] Again, so all here, we have some public as well, and we're moving right into an executive session for discussion of real property 1 and RSA 4056C. That is a motion, second.
[2:21] All those in favor to move into executive session. Thank you. Public, please leave the room.
[11:08] Distrages, TLM, enterprises and ink, and we have abatement FY27-1, account 3067, FY2702, account 3043, and FY2703, account 3043, all signature abatement.
[11:34] Thank you.
[11:35] Did it say that probably?
[11:36] That is the motion.
[11:37] Second.
[11:38] All those in favor signing off.
[11:42] Thank you.
[11:43] We'll do that at the end.
[11:44] Okay?
[11:44] Good.
[11:46] Okay.
[11:47] Moving on.
[11:48] Have a two.
[11:48] Sub the date for the special town meeting.
[11:50] Evan, please.
[11:51] We have from Tammy.
[11:54] Two days.
[11:55] September.
[11:59] There's days in September.
[12:03] We looked at the 17th of the 24th.
[12:07] whatever your pleasure.
[12:09] Nothing, Bill.
[12:10] I know.
[12:11] No, fine.
[12:12] We end up in the month of the week on.
[12:14] The first week of the month.
[12:17] Yes, September the October.
[12:19] So, Monday or the year?
[12:20] Yeah, the next month.
[12:21] Yeah, the next month.
[12:22] Let's do the 17.
[12:23] Okay.
[12:24] Works for me.
[12:25] Okay.
[12:26] Special town meeting is now dated for September 17.
[12:30] All right.
[12:31] Sixth of all.
[12:32] At the school.
[12:33] Yep.
[12:34] Cross the street.
[12:36] Welcome.
[12:37] And okay, I'll set on that one.
[12:39] We'll play it on the more either next week or the week after.
[12:44] Perfect.
[12:46] Okay.
[12:46] Moving on to unfinished business, seeing none, moving on to Department and Committee reports.
[12:52] Elis Reed is currently available Tuesday and Thursdays from 2 to 5 for plumbing and
[12:56] septic permits, and John Bean is available on Fridays except for this week for a
[13:02] enforcement such building permits. And if you have anything else to do then please drop him an email
[13:08] or leave him a voice mail and at least you'll get in the queue. That way. That's all I have.
[13:15] And they're both doing well getting caught up. So that's a nice thing.
[13:19] Okay. Guys, you all set? No.
[13:23] For respondents being none, of course it's meeting in seminar. Back to you Evan.
[13:27] The Fibsburg Resilience Tour is August 22nd, which is this Saturday.
[13:35] Spinney's Restaurant from 9 to 10 30 AM, and the Community Garden from 1 to 230 PM.
[13:41] It's the Climate Resilience Committee, I'm all with Gulf of Maine Research Institute.
[13:45] And, Tyler, I'm at Consulting, and we'll be delivering a talk and talking about the grant project
[13:50] that the Climate Resilience Committee has been working on.
[13:53] Nice.
[13:55] Okay, moving on to administrator and select board comments and announcements.
[14:00] Seasonal tax payers meeting will be tonight 6pm at the fire department, so we'll see you shortly.
[14:07] And the short land zoning map update and ordinance amendment public hearing will be August 25th at 6pm at the 5th forgive memory school.
[14:15] And as scheduled tonight, September 17th will be the special town meeting for the zoning map update and other orders.
[14:30] I just want to say that Charlotte zoning map update and ordinance amendments, please don't be scared of it.
[14:38] The announcement came in the mail, those that didn't understand it, it caused the little anxiety, please don't be scared of it, it will be explained and why it's even being done at all.
[14:50] I'll try not to be too anxious about it, it will be explained.
[14:55] And moving on to review and sign, payroll, and accounts, payable warrants.
[15:00] Payroll order number 16 for 21,239 dollars, 20 cents, accounts payable more than 17, 73,371 dollars in 27 cents, and the select board meeting minutes from August the 12, 2020.
[15:16] 6. Make a motion that we signed, cost payable, or payroll, or it's just like board
[15:22] meeting minutes, as per second. All those in favor? Thank you. Let's get sign in.
[15:28] I'm
[15:47] going to send you a book for me.
[15:52] I'm going to send you a book.
[15:53] I'm going to send you a book.
[15:53] You only need a book.
[15:55] I won't bother that.
[15:57] You could be sad.
[16:03] But you don't know how to look at your contract.
[16:04] It's kind of a sad story.
[18:13] Do you?
[18:13] So we're looking for some funding to just help us.
[18:25] So what we had received for the time being,
[18:27] we're going to be talking about that in a previous meeting.
[18:30] It's either 110,000, 120,000 for those two sites.
[18:35] And I think we're going to be asking for somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 from the
[18:41] outer area of Chumd.
[18:44] I will, yeah,
[18:48] hoping to just get some more funding to help advance some of those road crossing
[18:52] projects.
[18:56] You know, yeah, the letter of support is just expressing, and I guess for this grant, it's a
[19:08] Cal, it doesn't pull them down roads there, so it's important that we're
[19:13] that any work that happens there is done in partnership with town to make sure
[19:16] that it's getting the town's needs in the city.
[19:19] I'm just expressing that.
[19:21] We'll continue working with others in town to help focus on those sites.
[19:27] What do you need from us?
[19:29] I think just...
[19:30] Just the letters.
[19:31] Just the letters.
[19:34] And I think you haven't been doing.
[19:37] So I'm going to make a motion on that.
[19:40] You're going to approve off-rise and meet
[19:41] a sign of winner support, if you'd like me.
[19:44] I'll make a motion that we
[19:49] send a letter
[19:49] to another school letter of support for the count
[19:52] for the same day he'll rebuild.
[19:55] I'll start doing that.
[19:56] All those in favour?
[20:00] Thank you.
[20:01] And possible.
[20:03] I need your student asking for a second letter of support
[20:05] for a selectly different project.
[20:07] We with a grant proposal to you on August 31.
[20:10] have a chance to talk to have it about this one yet. This is for currently a staff member
[20:18] in summer team. The staff members have been working for the last few years in our summer team
[20:22] summer. We've been doing prioritization and assessment of all of the title processing sites
[20:28] in the ten towns where kelp cleveries with. And so, Kyler's assessment is really detailed GIS assessment
[20:38] the 314 sites of the 10 towns where there are road crossings that are, or road or railroad
[20:46] crossing, some of the tidal flow with a lot of information about like detour routes, houses
[20:53] cut off, while like benefits or impacts in other characteristics.
[20:59] This summer we have a team that's doing some surfing, at some of the 30 sites across the region
[21:05] to get some additional information to help push some other projects forward.
[21:11] At the end of that, there will be two page fact sheets about a simple fact sheet,
[21:18] summarizing the key information for the sites.
[21:23] And so that project wraps up end of this year.
[21:26] We won't have a chance to really summarize the field data.
[21:30] And so we're applying to an ecosystem program to support kind of the next stage, which will be figuring out how to make all of the features that we now have data about for all of those crossings, more accessible for everyone to see, and making that data more available, so it can be used with people who are looking at sites, also processing that field work data that we have.
[21:55] So again, that could be really readily available for user processing sites.
[22:01] And then sharing the data we have with state programs like the Minko Superb Program and
[22:04] others and the techniques that we've developed over the last couple years to other groups
[22:10] that want to do this sort of prioritization.
[22:14] So we are hoping
[22:19] to submit that application, and I think just to let our support from the
[22:24] expressing that the information is helpful in that you think that.
[22:30] Work is has some value of immigration and be appreciated. But in fitting with the emergency plan for our town, wouldn't it?
[22:40] All of those crossings?
[22:43] Well, we won't cross tonight. Is that just town roads, private roads, or state roads?
[22:49] Data is on time and savings, we have, I guess the data is...
[22:53] Data is for all the roads, we haven't done any field surveys at private roads.
[22:58] Other than, um, rather snack we did do just as fast.
[23:03] Yeah, there's a lot of habitat upstream from that we're interested in, and that does cut folks off.
[23:09] So that kind of grows up relatively high on our list of potential sites.
[23:13] I'll do that with most, any of our fieldwork I think has been on tell me about the
[23:19] town roads, yeah.
[23:21] And state roads, I mean, and see this.
[23:22] We did a little bit on like, oh, I guess.
[23:26] What down at small point?
[23:27] What down at small point?
[23:28] Yeah, that's the same road that.
[23:32] They actually have been doing some studies on that, they believe across the
[23:36] causeway down there.
[23:38] Yeah.
[23:39] I was just wondering if that was part of the study that you guys were looking into.
[23:43] because I know the state is-
[23:44] They did get some data.
[23:45] I didn't know.
[23:46] I don't know.
[23:46] If you heard, if the last I heard it was sore, then there were a band that put it in a
[23:50] two foot.
[23:51] I don't know.
[23:51] Yeah.
[23:52] There was something in the works.
[23:54] Okay.
[23:54] And I don't know what it is exactly.
[23:57] And then the other one, the other state, the other project that they had proposed about was
[24:03] down the problemarge.
[24:05] Yeah.
[24:05] You know, they could be it.
[24:07] Said that they actually wrote us and asked about using
[24:13] Park a head road as a detour during the time in which when they were.
[24:18] They might have been right before I got here.
[24:19] It was something.
[24:21] We're constructing that.
[24:23] And we had heard nothing else from them.
[24:24] It's a lot of time.
[24:25] I don't have anything on it.
[24:26] I don't have anything on it.
[24:27] I don't have anything on it.
[24:27] I don't have anything on it.
[24:28] Because that road does flood with you.
[24:30] There's an extreme high tide or.
[24:34] There's.
[24:35] And that makes it very difficult for anybody from pop them to get out because.
[24:39] It's not going to solve it.
[24:41] No, no.
[24:42] But when they were doing the rebuild on it,
[24:45] they had asked for an alternate route.
[24:47] And they would help us maintain our guide road
[24:50] for the extra traffic that we've caused.
[24:54] That's a part of it.
[24:54] But we hadn't heard anything back from that one.
[24:57] That's why I didn't know if this was part of that study or not.
[25:00] You know, just kind of getting more information.
[25:03] More information for the towns and others to have.
[25:07] But less, not focused on design yet.
[25:11] Sort of the sort of data can go into design.
[25:15] So is there any reason for us to not support?
[25:18] No, you're not allowed to.
[25:20] Mm-hmm.
[25:21] OK.
[25:23] Motion for a letter of support for grant proposal number two,
[25:27] as presented by the milk cow.
[25:28] There's no match.
[25:30] No, I don't.
[25:32] Perfect, we're two words.
[25:34] But that's not what I, you know, I'll second that.
[25:38] Oh, discussion done?
[25:40] Yeah.
[25:40] No, those are favorite.
[25:43] Thank you.
[25:43] And good luck.
[25:44] Thank you very much.
[25:45] You'll send me something.
[25:47] I thought about that.
[25:48] What about you?
[25:49] Cool.
[25:50] Thanks.
[25:50] Thank you.
[25:52] Okay, Jen.
[25:53] So, once you go next.
[25:55] Call the phone.
[25:57] Nothing.
[25:59] Peter, you're up?
[26:00] Oh.
[26:00] No, we have to wait for Peter.
[26:02] Oh, yeah.
[26:03] He's under the open.
[26:04] He's under the other head.
[26:05] Okay.
[26:05] Anyone else the public form?
[26:11] Motion.
[26:11] We go to executive session.
[26:12] Part of one MRSA 406A.
[26:15] The personnel matter.
[26:17] Sorry.
[26:18] All those in favor of moving on to executive session.
[26:21] Will we be making any decisions?
[26:23] Possibly.
[26:24] Okay.
[26:25] We will be coming back out of executive session.
[26:28] It's actually going back on camera.
[26:31] Stay tuned.
[26:33] Good night.
[26:34] Thank you.
[45:58] Folks, we're not going to make any other decisions tonight, so we are entertaining a motion for adjournment.
[46:04] Make a motion to adjourn.
[46:07] Sorry.
[46:07] All those of the paper.
[46:09] Good night.
[46:10] See you next door.
[1:02:01] A quorum, one member, abstain, but a quorum, is three.
[1:02:07] Considering the number of people we have, we will take the minutes of the last two, three meetings and put them at the end instead of going to a mail.
[1:02:16] So we're interpreting the new item number three, which is in person, I can't excuse
[1:02:23] me, Devon.
[1:02:24] 36 Park ahead row, map 7, 1, 12, represented by Mike Mars, of La Ficcola Yoke 12, and this
[1:02:33] is continuation from July 14 and 8, 11, side row, construction of equipment here with the
[1:02:46] What if I didn't spend the design from application 2024-10, it was committed on April 9, 2024?
[1:02:58] And we had just come back from the site walk, so I think we can dive right in and go right to Mr. Moss and he can lead us off.
[1:03:10] There you go. Very good. Thank you Madam Chair. Madam, this is the board. I'm
[1:03:18] like more here on behalf of Rick and Chris Adam. Property owner is a 36-part
[1:03:22] or head row of your Pittsburgh year to on their behalf regarding their specifically their
[1:03:30] peer application.
[1:03:33] And I'll just run through, there are a few changes since the last meeting.
[1:03:37] And I'd just like to wrap through a few of those points
[1:03:40] for the director for the planning boards benefit.
[1:03:45] As you mentioned, Marie, the planning board issued a permit
[1:03:49] for peer project on its property on April 9th, 2024.
[1:03:54] That was for a peer that had a three foot light input
[1:03:59] upland access ramp, but 245 foot line peer,
[1:04:04] 200 feet of which was 3 feet in width and 45 feet in which the outboard will call it
[1:04:11] 45 feet was 3.5 feet in width. Also included in that approval by the board was a
[1:04:19] 3-foot-like 45-foot season of ramp leading to an 8-by-12 and 10-by-20 season of float configuration.
[1:04:27] The project was also being reviewed at that time by the main DEP, and typical main DEP fashion,
[1:04:35] not the knock for the DEP too badly, but with respect to timing, they took absolutely
[1:04:40] private review of this, like they're doing pretty much every project.
[1:04:44] They issued their approval on October 20, and October 20, 25, included a copy of their approval
[1:04:51] order and a packet that we recently sent to the board members.
[1:04:55] The problem is the Plainy Board permit, one of the problems is Plainy Board permits expired in April of 2025, so months prior to the EDU confirm.
[1:05:10] On May 20, 26, this year we submitted an application for the guidance to for a peer for a peer on their property.
[1:05:22] And there are several changes from the original gear that was approved by the Plain Award in 2024.
[1:05:29] One of the changes was the location.
[1:05:32] The location shifted from more centrally located on the line in front of the house
[1:05:37] to a suddenly direction approximately 52 feet from the property of the suddenly property line.
[1:05:45] The reason for that is the main DEP, main department of inland fisheries,
[1:05:50] wildlife during D.P.'s review, determine that that would be less impactful to the salt
[1:05:58] marsh habitat for several reasons that I'd be happy to discuss.
[1:06:03] We talked about some of these at the site market as well.
[1:06:10] So in our May 20th application to the board, it was considered a June the new project, new
[1:06:17] application of the board, included not up three, four or three and a half foot wide
[1:06:22] peer, but we widen that to five feet.
[1:06:26] And it's in this new location as described by D.P. or established by D.P.
[1:06:31] Inficional Wildlife.
[1:06:33] The purpose was to accommodate some family members that were confined to either a wheelchair
[1:06:39] or a similar mobility device.
[1:06:42] And it was deemed to be necessary, imagine trying to turn a wheelchair around on a three-foot
[1:06:49] gear, or even a three-and-a-half-foot life gear.
[1:06:53] It's just, it's not possible.
[1:06:55] So we propose a five-foot gear.
[1:06:59] And one of the other changes in that application was to widen the vents, the pure vents, in order
[1:07:07] to widen the spacing, the lateral spacing between the helical angles that support the
[1:07:12] piles coming down from the pier. The same number of pier events, the same number of helical
[1:07:17] angles, all the same, it's just a couple feet wider, a two feet wider, effectively, to
[1:07:23] get better spacing and spacing that would satisfy the manufacturer's specimen.
[1:07:30] Thank you for these types of soils.
[1:07:34] The there have been several changes we've discussed with the applicants several times since the last meeting.
[1:07:46] How to move forward with the application, particularly given some changes in their family situation with some of the folks of mobility issues, unfortunately.
[1:07:56] And some other comments, you know, we've heard the boards be back, we heard feedback from some of the neighbors, and so we've
[1:08:05] submitted a revised application, some revised application material. There was all sent to the individual board members, including full-size scale drawings.
[1:08:17] And essentially what that revision includes is a scaling back at the project, back to what was effectively, mostly what was originally proposed or approved by the planning board back in 2024.
[1:08:37] The two exceptions, two obvious exceptions include the different location.
[1:08:43] It's now at the location, the DP, and the main fish and wildlife.
[1:08:46] The two leading, two of the leading environmental expert agencies here in the state.
[1:08:54] It's determined to be the best location for the peer, the least impact to the salt marsh, etc.
[1:08:59] So it's the new location, and then the second change is the old original approval included
[1:09:06] a narrower, the narrower vents, and we're going to continue to keep those at the with previously
[1:09:13] proposed.
[1:09:14] So a couple feet wider, you know, a comedy, the structural issue that was, it came off with
[1:09:21] the closed spacing of the helical anchors and the original design.
[1:09:26] So that's the proposal before you're now and with that there's a discussion at the last meeting about the height of the structure.
[1:09:37] The state recommends or effectively requires a peer-be-elevated lease at a one and a half-the-one ratio with height to allow for better sunlight penetration and reduce straining.
[1:09:52] better sunlight penetration beneath the peer to allow for vegetation that continue to grow grow well.
[1:10:02] And so the original proposal with a five-foot wide peer surface was going to obviously be elevated at 7.5 feet at the lowest point.
[1:10:14] And then at the far end of the peer, the peer head, it was going to be about 12 feet,
[1:10:21] nice above the substrate.
[1:10:24] At this point, with the reduction in the width of the peer, we're also able to lower that.
[1:10:30] So now we're essentially lowered by three feet on both ends.
[1:10:35] So the peer height will be approximately seven and a half feet on the landward end.
[1:10:40] Yeah, no, I'm sorry, four to half feet on the landlord hand and it will equate to about
[1:10:49] nine feet of the gear head. So it's drawn quite a bit on account of that.
[1:10:56] The talk about this stability issue with the heel of the anchors, heel of the piles,
[1:11:05] rather, contractor was unwilling to construct that for live the linear reasons to tell
[1:11:10] is what's prone to failure,
[1:11:15] and the spacing that's
[1:11:16] stopped the post with a helicole anchor or helicopiles is
[1:11:20] split in the manufacturer's specifications.
[1:11:23] So five post spacing, helicopiles, helicopiles.
[1:11:28] The peer decking will also now be solid planks
[1:11:31] as originally approved by the planning board and DEP
[1:11:34] with one quarter inch spacing between the boards.
[1:11:38] You may recall, we previously proposed with a wider peer to have a perforated deafening
[1:11:47] surface to help with sunlight penetration.
[1:11:51] Frankly, in conversation I had with a DP manager, she indicated that she didn't feel
[1:11:57] like that was going to make any difference.
[1:11:59] Why not just go back to the regular planning.
[1:12:03] down a hardware master approved the location of the peer and a letter dated June and second
[1:12:09] 2026.
[1:12:13] And so essentially we're seeking approval from the planning work for something very close
[1:12:20] to the original approval that was issued by the board in a different location and with
[1:12:25] that are slightly lighter.
[1:12:29] So that said, we feel that we've provided sufficient information and evidence to the board
[1:12:34] to make positive findings into approval project.
[1:12:39] We respectfully request that the board consider that.
[1:12:44] And if it agrees, then we request that the board approve the project.
[1:12:48] Here are for any questions if you happen to have any.
[1:12:51] Thank you.
[1:12:53] Questions?
[1:12:53] That's
[1:12:57] what this was so much that we thought about the real impact analysis to the state.
[1:13:06] And you also hear the documentation, the official outline, which we had time to write previously.
[1:13:13] So think about it, would you put that to the table at this time?
[1:13:16] Yeah, yeah. I agree basically.
[1:13:20] Yeah.
[1:13:36] Thank
[1:13:40] you all for your time.
[1:13:41] My name is Joshua B. I'm the applicant's advisor to the North.
[1:13:45] I have lived in what was my grandmother with Dex home on Cranberry Point Road for 31 years.
[1:13:51] I have my life and has to love her summers enjoyed here.
[1:13:55] I will be ex-Suzmerics to be freely and honestly about the background of this history of this land and the Southlications process today.
[1:14:03] I will readjust this for development actions today, and specify these applicant shortfalls and satisfying your requirements to build such a structure to begin with in Fibsburg.
[1:14:12] And keep it from ever coming back again.
[1:14:14] This proposed project would have been put to rest by the start of 2024 at the board of the 400 cities, please bear with me.
[1:14:23] For a brief background, I was appointed to this planning award in the late 90s and served
[1:14:28] of the full member and alternate until a few years ago when I voluntarily vacated the
[1:14:33] position for reasons I have to have no reason to explain here.
[1:14:38] My family and family friends, the Hankinson, has defined this parcel map seven locked
[1:14:43] well, not to purchase any of the CVs in the early 1980s.
[1:14:48] The Hankinson family took the incredible views, and the level and billable, large open field acreage, and pond, the body, their property, and parker bedroom.
[1:14:58] Our family took the deep waterfront.
[1:15:04] We both ended up with a lot of march. Since the course of my family ended up with was nearly entirely march, and had it almost not existing building in a boat with the 250 foot setbacks of the era. Another laylock parcel was cut from a lot 12, which is now the richest home at 37 Cranberry Fundra.
[1:15:25] The waterfront portion of this parcel was specifically and thoughtfully divided to give
[1:15:30] the result of the locked well, the gorgeous level field landscape, pond, and the views
[1:15:36] of putting the hangings in the land.
[1:15:38] The locked 1.01, the long existing river access view button.
[1:15:42] That is how these two waterfront bonds came to be.
[1:15:47] I have a few issues regarding this process today for me to be addressed on the record.
[1:15:51] The April 2024 permit issued the act in spot this board was approved in ten minutes with little scrutiny or due diligence and a lot of knowledge
[1:15:59] if anyone did not follow closely with planning boards to pretend this.
[1:16:05] I had to view that 2024 planning board meetings, recording a line as part of my due diligence on this matter, and it was a irony.
[1:16:13] When asked by the board, if there should be concern in the ice and carry the structure down and stringing the act,
[1:16:18] I certainly hope not.
[1:16:20] That is one risk with all dogs that you put out there.
[1:16:23] The board was assured that if anything were to happen,
[1:16:25] his guess was, quote, that you might see some damage
[1:16:29] to the end section, and it was snap off sectional.
[1:16:32] So something were to happen, you might lose the last section.
[1:16:37] Without the appropriate soil required by our shoreland zoning
[1:16:41] ordinance, the solution such as the proposed
[1:16:43] heatable anchors might be acceptable elsewhere.
[1:16:47] But not fixed for it. We require appropriate soil. That alone should have been the end of the discussion on this matter in 2024, done in Bustle.
[1:16:57] Basically, if the fuel tanker does not hit bedrock, the entire structure is both held up and anchored down by the vegetation that mud and maybe compact it or can't come out of it.
[1:17:08] Even if it does hit bedrock, the structure will remain anchored down, open by the marsh grass and the mud.
[1:17:14] The applicant's engine here having obtained two docked approvals in this first ten minutes before the board enabled 2024.
[1:17:21] It was done presenting this applicant's proposed project in another five and a half minutes.
[1:17:26] The skill of this project was exponentially larger than its previous applications.
[1:17:31] At that point, the chair asks if there are any questions, silence, a minute later the chair asks again,
[1:17:37] Remember, replied, after this past winter, I hope you've gotten out of elevation there.
[1:17:43] With all this stuff that comes down on the river, I realized this all March, but
[1:17:48] running down the checklist for that 2024 application, planning board apparently proved the application based on the information presented verbally only.
[1:17:57] The board found for us proposed use, would for example protect the known historic research sources,
[1:18:03] designated in the comprehensive plan.
[1:18:06] None known was the official finding, nothing to protect you.
[1:18:12] This project was in a calm, no-mind house.
[1:18:15] The historic 1774 in, as it is called,
[1:18:19] on the very list of the largest submitted.
[1:18:22] This is the most prominent home of a national register
[1:18:24] of historic places in Fibsburg.
[1:18:28] The main part of the environmental protection
[1:18:29] approved the AFP is 2023 National Resource Protection Act application.
[1:18:36] This board note is specifically boxed off CIME-20 section.
[1:18:40] It states based on the information submitted.
[1:18:44] I have concluded that there will be no historic properties affected by the proposed entertainment
[1:18:50] as defined by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
[1:18:57] Section 1 of six dictates, I'm going to read twice once without parentheses and once with part of the parentheses.
[1:19:06] Love parentheses, debates, review must consider the action's potential direct and indirect effects to restore properties in the area of potential effects.
[1:19:17] What they define as indirect effects are introduction of modern intrusions to the view shed of the resource,
[1:19:26] such as the modern, such as the addition of modern facility and historic districts,
[1:19:32] or other impacts to the sea and the values of the resource.
[1:19:38] The lack of due diligence is not a malady that they also only are playing more.
[1:19:42] The historic impact could have been represented by the applicant,
[1:19:44] but the list of the funders never saw eyes.
[1:19:47] The first listed resolution by federal standards for handling such potential effects upon
[1:19:53] historically significant assets is denied a request.
[1:19:58] The R4 engineers also approved the app in 2023 application for this proposal.
[1:20:03] Prior to that approval starts, based on the information you provided, be verified
[1:20:08] in the activity law firm on the government.
[1:20:11] These agencies can only make determination based on the information that the applicant provides.
[1:20:17] The obligation to protect the actor and the information was not respected by the applicant.
[1:20:23] The sport has been protected to avoid it to protect this town and shoreline.
[1:20:29] For larger agencies, Mr. Rooka Malice, the board should possess and utilize.
[1:20:33] We should be able to rely on this local board to scrutinize materials presented by applicants
[1:20:38] and apply the basic powers to the board possesses.
[1:20:42] The United World Law and the Board for those things in 2024, moreover, later.
[1:20:47] The Shualan Zoning, the board and its top requirement, that quote of access from Shualar
[1:20:52] shall be developed on the soil's appropriate for such use, is there to protect our mortality
[1:20:58] Shualan from exactly this kind of development?
[1:21:01] This basic requirement was mystery ignored by the board of 2024.
[1:21:04] The applicant's current submission and the two products nearly addressed the rest of the
[1:21:09] ordinance after an hand regarding construction damage and erosion control. Nobody missed
[1:21:16] this sneaky omission that they didn't address the first part of the ordinance only after the
[1:21:22] hand. The soil profile assault marsh can't in no way be classified as appropriate soils
[1:21:29] ability anything. The heal of Lancers proposed here are an alternative for structures where
[1:21:35] there exists no appropriate sort of.
[1:21:39] All full of an April 2024, the applicant's engineer had approval vote for the board of
[1:21:43] this proposed project in 10 minutes. 20 minutes for three approval is passed. It's too fast.
[1:21:50] The due diligence requires more detail review and the dearest present by applicants in the
[1:21:54] board mustard in 2024.
[1:21:57] Curiously, at that age of 2020, I was a blatant breach of Title 30 named by statute
[1:22:02] section 26 of Bob, which requires a member of the board to frame the mother laws attempting
[1:22:07] to influence the decision in which that official has interest.
[1:22:12] At that meeting, his casualty can know for a sitting board member to openly represent another
[1:22:16] applicant for this board on a different application.
[1:22:20] But application was proved or never paid cash.
[1:22:24] As the main municipal association manuals local training boards puts it,
[1:22:28] while it would not be a reason.
[1:22:30] And we'll turn this law out as prohibiting a board member from staying and stepping down as a board member to present his or her own application to the board. It probably does prohibit a board member, including all the members, representing another applicant who is seeking board approval for some other parties to proceed.
[1:22:48] A board member has represented other parties before the board as well. That form, again and again. The video record of the 2020 for meeting was valuable.
[1:22:56] demonstrating how routine deviations from the normal two-delage processes on applications
[1:23:02] can develop a culture and pattern of mistakes and long-term, resulting in damage being forced
[1:23:08] through very short timeframes by such an attribute.
[1:23:13] That's unacceptable as it is an appropriate representation of applicants by the board.
[1:23:19] By any reasonable measure, this Board of Health probably prepared for this application of 2024
[1:23:24] here and thereby failed to protect our historic resources in rural character and
[1:23:28] redirected by our ordinances.
[1:23:31] The community's portion of this product, this proposed project, was kicked back to the
[1:23:36] board for reconsideration this year, and that someone happened to see it and carry on to
[1:23:42] speed out.
[1:23:43] It would literally be on the construction right now on our lives.
[1:23:48] No update on the status of the June meeting minutes, which were based on the St.
[1:23:51] in the 40 minutes, which we received by the Board's Assistant.
[1:23:56] The Board's parent refusal to consider my request to correct that
[1:23:59] for a test-in-day record clearly based on the St. in the 40 minutes,
[1:24:04] the only reflect poorly on the support of my son.
[1:24:08] But anyone watching the June meeting of the obvious
[1:24:10] this application may likely have improved about being nearly as fast and loosely as
[1:24:15] had 2024, have I not attended? I applied for a building permit in late May and found
[1:24:22] out this major project that had been previously mistakenly improved was being considered
[1:24:27] the next two days. Early in the June discussion, the applicant commented that the
[1:24:33] the way he looked on anchor spacing previously proved that I've been at 36 inches, but that
[1:24:40] for quote, soft soil like that, in quote, experienced professional set 36 inches was too close.
[1:24:48] After the applicant was finished presenting their information at the June meeting, one board
[1:24:54] member stated, I just sort of assumed it was just another warf that was within our warden's
[1:25:02] The board chair decided what she said were reasons the application could be approved.
[1:25:06] She stated that the other agencies didn't respond in time for the permit issued in 2024 not the last.
[1:25:13] She stated the change was made for the result of a patient and it's another patient.
[1:25:18] The DP and Army Corps approvals were not in hand.
[1:25:22] So the board chair said they could issue approval with other agencies blessings.
[1:25:26] and it would be the applicant's burden to obtain all approval to be for a building permit
[1:25:30] commission. Whoever says no stops at the shares to me, I'm sure they can get them
[1:25:36] approval. We approve these all the time. It looks great straightforward to me, but I would defer
[1:25:40] it mark Mr. Hawks. He has this stuff better than I, I remember said. Mr. Hawks
[1:25:47] became the usual way of repair and greatly considered reusable. A member of what's concerned
[1:25:54] of the amount of grant and peer that was proposed to go across the launch.
[1:25:59] Another member stated that you looked at the highest annual tides, we came back there.
[1:26:04] A member of WISC concerns about peer and tides, was interrupted when she was saying,
[1:26:10] that kind of concerns me, that much, and chinardar up didn't say, yeah, there's an explanation
[1:26:16] in there in the written part of the application package.
[1:26:20] So my participation, my participation in the June meeting minutes, comes after a bold
[1:26:27] notice.
[1:26:29] Bold notice says no.
[1:26:30] At 55 to 58, a technical issue accounts reporting twice occurred, ending the video
[1:26:35] recording of this meeting and the timestamps that are remainder of these minutes.
[1:26:41] Immediately following that note, the conclusion of this matter on June minutes stay.
[1:26:46] Joshua Bate and a butter spoken opposition in the application provided colored photographs of the shoreline involved.
[1:26:54] The board schedule was site-wall, which was July 14th.
[1:26:59] So, the record states that I was there, I injected and I provided some colored pictures
[1:27:03] and the board schedule was site-wall.
[1:27:06] I pointed out that the damn recording didn't end at 55th or 58th,
[1:27:10] but was intermittent to the rest of the media.
[1:27:12] We requested the Board more accurately record the details of my participation in line of the recording about ending.
[1:27:20] The Board would rather allow a record to stand, also indicating to all of them they would use this case in the future that there is nothing to see beyond the incorrect recording that it is stated.
[1:27:30] There is no worse the reason the record could not be corrected other than the Board's bias against my contribution.
[1:27:37] Here's what really happened.
[1:27:40] This is a high insight now.
[1:27:42] Let's go through it.
[1:27:44] At 5745, a recording machine.
[1:27:47] I was granted permission from the board to speak.
[1:27:50] Much of what I had to say was important.
[1:27:53] I don't believe I ever did even object actually.
[1:27:57] At that, you meeting.
[1:27:58] I shared that no-abunders were notified of any stage of this process.
[1:28:03] I provided pictures and pointed out the shoreline
[1:28:06] proposed project. I sent a few of you on stable, and I'm sure that I'm receiving it
[1:28:11] unpredictable. I suggest the site wall. I pointed out the proposed project and refused
[1:28:16] the designated VISTA in this task comprehensive plan. I referenced historic sites affected by
[1:28:22] the proposed project. I questioned how a permanent grant would remain across the designated
[1:28:27] senior VISTA even if no float were installed in the future. I questioned the height of the
[1:28:32] at seven and a half feet, minimum.
[1:28:35] I stated I knew little about the screwing anchors, but was curious as to how they might
[1:28:39] handle the volume of ice that can form on the surface of the marsh.
[1:28:44] I pointed out that the E.P. or I'm poor, and here's the proofless we had granted.
[1:28:49] I stated I wasn't trying to keep anyone from the water, but this proposal was inappropriate
[1:28:54] and an approval shouldn't be rushed.
[1:28:58] Now, should record reflect that I only objective and provide it in public photographs.
[1:29:08] That's what happened and it stands recorded.
[1:29:11] I believe the minutes the sport refuses to lend or grossly, but firstly, we protestly
[1:29:16] vague record of what transpired.
[1:29:20] Two, any reasonable person, for anyone's participation in your junior meeting,
[1:29:24] be vaguely characterized, is throwing a big fit.
[1:29:31] When a reasonable person characterizes anyone's conduct or the force,
[1:29:36] the resultant action that you're doing meeting,
[1:29:38] as someone making such a state that forced this board
[1:29:42] to schedule the July site walk.
[1:29:46] Do the board advise any person that you're meeting
[1:29:49] with the scheduled July 14th site walk
[1:29:51] anything but how to proceed, and that. Therefore, I'd like to reflect the reports.
[1:30:00] Statements made by the applicant at the July sidewalk, stating I was advised that you two meeting, not to attend that sidewalk, would have been false and falsely attributed to this board.
[1:30:10] As for any statement, under by the applicant's mischaracterizing, anyone's participation or conduct during your due meeting is anything other than curiously said.
[1:30:22] In fact, quite ironically, it's now the applicant who is typically front of the fit and made such a statement of the board was forced to escape into a second-site law today.
[1:30:33] The applicant repeated their refusal to allow peaceful butter to attend today as well.
[1:30:39] Before the intermediate intermitancy, due in the court in length again, the applicant stated about the peer's height.
[1:30:47] So that's seven and a half feet.
[1:30:49] That's a DEP requirement to minimize the impact of shading.
[1:30:53] Ideally, I'd like to have it closer to the ground,
[1:30:55] but that's to meet their requirements.
[1:30:58] As if the DEP was making them build at five feet wide.
[1:31:01] There were a month away from admitting this was going to be
[1:31:03] 11 feet high minimum at the river.
[1:31:06] By the way, it's been now limited and imaginary
[1:31:09] five foot width need.
[1:31:12] The applicant's engineer recently rebuked my gene comments.
[1:31:15] Among his comments,
[1:31:18] We got to get a stable shoreline, you said, that doesn't have anything to do with this application.
[1:31:23] And so far as we are not proposing a shoreline, shoreline stabilization project, we are proposing a Peter Rand float.
[1:31:32] I would roll up one of the two images from the zoom in, this is the same.
[1:31:42] More than one piece.
[1:31:44] No worries.
[1:31:56] Here's one of the two things.
[1:31:57] Okay.
[1:32:07] Two images right before, and the app page has been to the site.
[1:32:10] And I believe there is this sort of erosion on the location where the pier is.
[1:32:16] It's pretty well suited for peer-laptation, while some included a picture.
[1:32:22] So here, there's a flag, this is taking yesterday, this is a flag, this is a short line.
[1:32:29] There's the last flag on that, right?
[1:32:31] This is a pretty short line.
[1:32:33] Very well suited for peer-laptation.
[1:32:38] After dismissing ice damage concerns more delicately than in 2024,
[1:32:42] and engineer was finished.
[1:32:46] A board member expressed that, with that long and rampant concerns about
[1:32:51] its wetlands and aquatic light and marine light and biologist-like,
[1:32:55] would be used to flood-playing management, but also with concern,
[1:33:00] Mr. Officer believed that one of the items on their mind
[1:33:02] even in fact checklist were addressed to any of this.
[1:33:06] The conference of plan and what happened.
[1:33:09] Nothing of that checklist is addressed to seeming to this.
[1:33:12] It's the only historical consideration of the problems of plan, directly.
[1:33:26] I have the agenda that you need
[1:33:30] to discuss rescheduled dates for a post-colonial
[1:33:32] public hearing for the 1774, and it took well over ten minutes of which several minutes
[1:33:39] of discussion were about details, and board members opinion about fences and plantings
[1:33:44] and headlights on this person's application before a date was chosen.
[1:33:49] The agenda said, pick a date, that's all the board should have been discussing without the
[1:33:53] afternoon.
[1:33:54] It was like a discussion from meeting after the meeting.
[1:33:58] When it was suggested that Rachel, the administrative assistant, set up this hearing
[1:34:02] date via email and other members replied, yeah, then we have to respond to the emails and
[1:34:07] others do.
[1:34:10] Another member stated, fadingly while being shushed by the chair, Rachel needs to learn
[1:34:15] to be a little more efficient on her email and not send us 15.
[1:34:24] And the thing is the tones, but mostly ought to be equal to the chair then whispered, I'll call somebody.
[1:34:32] Spokes replied, yes, I know.
[1:34:34] And the chair continues in their whisperer, and we can talk tomorrow.
[1:34:38] Pokes said, okay.
[1:34:39] What goes on at these meetings?
[1:34:41] Who is the chair whispering about calling?
[1:34:44] Any future conversation that requires whispering in public,
[1:34:46] doesn't necessarily sound like it's going to be on the record.
[1:34:50] As for the applicant's hosting site law,
[1:34:52] the applicant said at the junior meeting the more American.
[1:34:58] I was removed from the July site,
[1:35:00] off by law enforcement under a few false pretenses,
[1:35:03] just as it got underway.
[1:35:06] The applicant said both attorneys,
[1:35:09] the risk of law enforcement that she is a deputy attorney
[1:35:11] general for the state of South Carolina.
[1:35:14] She should be familiar with the workings of public processes.
[1:35:17] This couple act with an intent and often can pulse it in.
[1:35:21] The board chair and I had a brief discussion between the site walk and start of the July meeting.
[1:35:25] I was advised the issue of being forcefully removed from the site walk, which was supposed to be a public perceiving,
[1:35:31] wouldn't be addressed at the meeting.
[1:35:33] I collated by it.
[1:35:36] At your July meeting, the African stating that utilizing either of letters offered river access
[1:35:41] was an insufficient alternative water access per the DEP,
[1:35:45] what he said. Well, playing boards now at every time for a view of the applicant's
[1:35:51] rules submitted and I hope they easily see it wasn't too deep as they can find
[1:35:54] the rules provided and rely upon suspect information provided by the applicant. Obviously
[1:36:01] intentional mischaracterations, mischaracterizations, and omissions were submitted.
[1:36:07] The board misdeeds were enormous. In the section of one of the applicant's filing
[1:36:12] and staying potential alternatives to this project.
[1:36:15] One might reasonably presume,
[1:36:17] mentioned was the name of both of the applicants
[1:36:20] of buyers offers to access the box.
[1:36:23] As the applicants have stayed the DEP found in ad,
[1:36:25] but they do July meeting, no such fact was ever presented in the DEP.
[1:36:31] The applicants was the only fact that one alternative,
[1:36:34] the proposed project had, was next door,
[1:36:36] to which they had newly direct access from the second
[1:36:39] on Cranberry Point Road was mentioned forthcoming of this license business next to our
[1:36:45] with a natural book grant and pointed access, which the applicants had used once freely
[1:36:51] of the twice I've seen in the news about the surpass six years not submitted. The applicants
[1:36:57] list the new Meto's book grant is a boat access under four miles away, now. The applicant's
[1:37:03] This picture is reach boat ramps, a potential point of boat access, four miles from
[1:37:07] your home.
[1:37:09] Did the applicant slip back south and boat ramp, odd point, odd miles away?
[1:37:15] The applicant slip back north and boat ramp is flat point.
[1:37:18] This potential accessible boat launching access, 8.3 miles throughout the way.
[1:37:23] Nope.
[1:37:24] So where's points?
[1:37:25] 9.5 miles away.
[1:37:28] 11 miles.
[1:37:29] 11 miles.
[1:37:30] Models was the application of state and hardship distance to access vote once in facilities.
[1:37:35] It's sheer portion. The application is stated with a close screen, it was nine and a half miles distance.
[1:37:42] It's under six miles to prove it to the center.
[1:37:46] Facts of our fabrications. The scenic value and historic impact sections of the applicant's submittal to other agencies are also missing in crucial information.
[1:37:55] At the board reviewed this information and applied any due diligence, combined with local knowledge.
[1:38:01] It would have also found another mention of this process,
[1:38:04] processing designated as seen in VISTA, and the enhanced comprehensive plan.
[1:38:08] Norths, a body of building on the National Historic Register of the Historic Places,
[1:38:17] omitted information hindered these other agencies,
[1:38:19] ability to consider and evaluate the seen it in a historic impact of this project,
[1:38:23] which is an integral part of their evaluation process.
[1:38:26] You've seen their reports for yourself.
[1:38:30] In the absence of a part of our notification, this force due diligence and all of the
[1:38:33] textbooks for a group character, surely at hand in rich history, one such a major project
[1:38:38] is proposed and it's such a portion of being proper to other agencies by afternoon.
[1:38:43] Questionable credibility can be found so easily by reviewing these submissions.
[1:38:49] I can't finally have a board missed every clue in black and white.
[1:38:52] The main municipal association manual for local planning boards specifically guides the boards to evaluate whether each application is relevant.
[1:39:01] Whether these were intentional or random omissions and misrepresentations properly by the applicants to mislead these other agencies, regarding both their access to such alternative facilities,
[1:39:12] and the historical and scenic value of the area is irrelevant.
[1:39:15] The applicant's misled these agencies to obtain approval, mission enrollment, request an information and provide a false information instead to make their case more likely to be approved.
[1:39:27] The applicant was obligated to provide accurate information regarding access alternatives, store the references of the scene factors in this process, only facts should have been disclosed in the following steps to every agency.
[1:39:39] In July, how the dense statements reported while the site law was in session, this represented
[1:39:45] to law enforcement prior actions of this board, and those statements were used to
[1:39:51] excelate the implication of an innocent and a broader or false criminal trespassment
[1:39:56] for us, just to intimidate and keep them to the site law, yet obviously if these attorney
[1:40:05] applicants wanted to all the public proceeding on a private property. They must have been aware
[1:40:09] of the public must have been allowed to participate.
[1:40:14] Having witnessed both these applicants
[1:40:16] live in here nearly every branch of law enforcement and the courts and this very board,
[1:40:22] it comes to no surprise they made intentional willful omissions and misrepresentations to this
[1:40:27] and these other agencies regarding site conditions, historically significant money properties
[1:40:33] distance to access as well. The planning boards disregard all submitted approvals of
[1:40:38] other agencies based on these obvious untruths and omissions.
[1:40:43] Yeah, it's letter data, July 27, specifies a new minimum height of four and a half to five and a quarter feet above the mark.
[1:40:51] The increase is explained by the wider ramp in the end.
[1:40:56] Raking and driving previously repeated seven and a half foot height was finally confessed to a seven and a half feet,
[1:41:12] The applicant's once more only disclosed the impact of this proposed structure at its lowest minimum height on the plant.
[1:41:19] Another intentional little mission.
[1:41:22] The applicant's later dated 20 July 27th also states once again.
[1:41:28] The proposed 204-45 foot-related access grant, and 45 foot-not grant,
[1:41:35] What will be consistent with other similar peers and post-proximity to propose the peer?
[1:41:41] In the quote, please let us review the following documentation of the active docs, the fifth spur,
[1:41:47] the candidate river from North to South, all the one being raised at residential.
[1:41:52] Hey, what do you might be in my point of view?
[1:41:55] Well, this is going to have you two more.
[1:42:04] Good afternoon.
[1:42:08] One question.
[1:42:11] You can give us a big history here.
[1:42:14] How far, how much more time do you think you need?
[1:42:17] I need some office.
[1:42:18] What's that?
[1:42:19] In some office.
[1:42:20] When?
[1:42:22] I have going to have to cut you off in one way, but I don't see any reason to cycle my...
[1:42:34] I am not trying to decipher what you're saying.
[1:42:38] The main content is no reason to go over many, many things that have been presented before.
[1:42:46] We have a new application on the object for tonight.
[1:42:49] But you know, some of the things that you are saying
[1:42:53] are reflecting back on by your times.
[1:42:57] As they did, in the presentation.
[1:42:59] Right, understood. This is where we're at now.
[1:43:03] We have this.
[1:43:04] These are what we call photographs.
[1:43:06] Can they let me continue?
[1:43:08] They what?
[1:43:08] These are what we call photographs.
[1:43:10] There's a lot of people that are trying to get their work.
[1:43:14] I don't think so.
[1:43:16] It's a very question to ask you how much longer we've been.
[1:43:19] It's not a fair question. It's a try to interrupt some of your speech. There's other people in us how to do it
[1:43:25] You're not the only first year. There's other people that have to get on the internet
[1:43:29] So would you like to pretend my first speech? Would you like to sit down? Or do I need to tell anyone to tell?
[1:43:33] I'd ask you to do as how much longer will you?
[1:43:35] I have no idea. I've done an untied list. I have to tell this together.
[1:43:41] What do you want to say? Did you just want to be for a break or is this?
[1:43:43] I don't know. I'm going to tell you to try to out.
[1:43:53] This is not a public hearing, so you do not have the right to just talk and talk. This is actually an application. We allow you to talk at our discretion.
[1:44:03] but there's a lot of speed at these hands, so yeah, not from our hands, either, but everyone, right?
[1:44:12] No, we're going to let these.
[1:44:14] I think that, I think you should, right now, if he has all this stuff, I think he should submit it in writing.
[1:44:20] I think we've heard enough from Josh, my personal opinion, and I think we should continue on, but others offer up their opinions, which may differ from Josh's,
[1:44:31] and without the history back to 99 years.
[1:44:35] I'm just getting to the present here, you know, come on.
[1:44:39] I think you know what I think.
[1:44:40] If you'd like, I'll just leave.
[1:44:42] I don't think if you're not going to let me continue with my process, I'll just leave.
[1:44:48] You guys can.
[1:44:48] Josh, we are not trying to kick you out.
[1:44:51] Look at this.
[1:44:53] We also know that you haven't given a good presentation.
[1:44:58] Oh, have you?
[1:44:59] Thank you.
[1:45:00] I know you're not done. However, you can give in the history from the beginning up until tonight,
[1:45:07] practically, and many of the items that were brought up have already been either a change,
[1:45:16] off-the-home, completely out. So what we're going on tonight is this application,
[1:45:23] the site walk of today, and I want to reshoot something that you had said.
[1:45:28] I'm not not speaking for your review.
[1:45:30] No, we're going to pay for a while.
[1:45:35] The first sight walk had troubles in the driveway with people.
[1:45:41] We gathered.
[1:45:43] I announced what this was.
[1:45:47] This was a sight walk to do, what we were there for.
[1:45:51] I never had an album in the driveway.
[1:45:54] Can nothing to do with the planning going.
[1:45:57] I was pulled from your group because you wanted to the woods. What are you talking about?
[1:46:02] No, not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is what happens to that point forward.
[1:46:10] We also have legal opinions on the area of things.
[1:46:15] It's great, and look, this guy is the guy on the other side.
[1:46:19] The second side wall was so that this could be all brought out.
[1:46:23] We had made a mistake because you could lock talk.
[1:46:27] And you can walk out of here.
[1:46:29] Remember, you're walking out of here on your own.
[1:46:32] Good boy.
[1:46:33] And good luck to you.
[1:46:34] Good boy.
[1:46:38] Okay, it's closed as far as I can soon.
[1:46:40] But I totally expect you to continue on.
[1:46:42] And some fashion.
[1:46:43] Are you speaking to me?
[1:46:45] Yes, I am.
[1:46:45] I don't know, that's quite all right.
[1:46:48] And I also think that if you wouldn't like to hear anything else,
[1:46:54] we can certainly let you know that as well.
[1:46:57] All the people I know are not about what about gender events
[1:47:00] and what BS, they're pushing on that, right?
[1:47:03] That's a good advice.
[1:47:04] Josh, the public needs to know why the second
[1:47:08] safe walk was done.
[1:47:09] It was certainly because we thought if we had made a mistake
[1:47:13] And you were not walking on the land. We wanted to be sure, but we found out that that doesn't matter
[1:47:20] We can do a site walk with the other. Oh, not. Oh, a butter. Oh, not. See you later
[1:47:29] Sorry, folks
[1:47:30] But it all honesty if you do need to break after that. I understand
[1:47:36] If you do need a break, I do understand. It's just that we're sure to do certain chances for things get very
[1:47:45] You know, you see it quite often and just unfortunate.
[1:47:51] And unfortunately, puning the word, you know, we do our best here and it's unfortunate
[1:48:00] that had to critique four members, critique neighbors, critique it's just using, using
[1:48:08] profanity, it's just not appropriate, you know, I get it one day through Sunday.
[1:48:16] Well, I'm not going to apologize for anything. I have the tendency to let somebody get it off
[1:48:23] just if they are agitated or hit a problem. Everybody knows that, and I hear it from you.
[1:48:31] all the time. I don't think in this particular case there are any facts that are going to
[1:48:39] help the situation as far as these concern and all we can do is move on with what we know
[1:48:47] and I appreciate your patience. And there's an appeal process which is decided for that.
[1:48:53] That's right.
[1:48:56] I think Maria was right. There's no basis for most of his presentation
[1:49:01] because it was all dealt with previously.
[1:49:04] That does a totally different action.
[1:49:05] It's in front of the board right now.
[1:49:08] That's the topic.
[1:49:11] Well, look at that too.
[1:49:13] I think you want to do this.
[1:49:19] You get the classes on.
[1:49:25] Well, before we get what I was trying to say is,
[1:49:29] I tables this last time because of fish and wildlife.
[1:49:33] Because I didn't see any application relative to this review, which I read now, and you
[1:49:43] provided to us.
[1:49:44] And they did quite an exhaustive study of the fish and wildlife in all the weapons, which
[1:49:50] they said presented in their movement, down to the cat-tells, which they thought, mitigated
[1:49:55] to some degree.
[1:49:56] They also said that they wanted the spacing, so leg would move through and on the seeing
[1:50:04] aspect, they actually did a scenic matrix and went through their procedure to determine
[1:50:11] whether it meant there, a scenic method, probably used the word words, but it has their
[1:50:18] matrix too.
[1:50:20] So, when you're playing board and you have to take expertise from somewhere,
[1:50:27] unless the butter or something comes up with an expert piece from another place which is great.
[1:50:36] But in this case, we rely on the side of the line, on the statements from the state.
[1:50:43] And they're there report on the structure.
[1:50:50] So that's where we left off that thing last time.
[1:50:51] Right.
[1:50:59] Well, first of all, before we go into much about it,
[1:51:01] this everybody else has anything to do with it.
[1:51:05] I have a question.
[1:51:07] I'm Marty Mars, I'm a partner at Vogue.
[1:51:10] And I'm curious about how the planning board will report the results
[1:51:14] for their opinions on today's day.
[1:51:18] How will we report?
[1:51:19] Yeah.
[1:51:21] As a member of the community, I'm just curious.
[1:51:24] What the planning board procedure is.
[1:51:25] after the end of the site visit to a published area of adults that they can use.
[1:51:32] Usually what we do is there will be the same as a regular meeting.
[1:51:41] A right up of what we saw, we said what, if it was necessary, all it really is,
[1:51:50] is a fact finding job.
[1:51:53] Many towns don't even bother with minutes from the sidewalk.
[1:51:57] Because all you do is looking around the information.
[1:52:01] And if, on our side, if you do make this thought,
[1:52:07] then it is, like that, and if they do go,
[1:52:15] do we go approval board or not or correct if it's something wrong.
[1:52:19] And it's available, then next month, to vote on.
[1:52:26] So we have those online.
[1:52:28] Never.
[1:52:29] Here's somebody to vote.
[1:52:30] In just minutes, we don't do reports of censor. Here's our findings, we're going to say that. I mean, it's just part of that gathering information, just like the presentation, but for the expert is. So we don't list, we saw this, we saw that.
[1:52:46] It's just close to that moment.
[1:52:51] There's some of the drafts on it.
[1:52:52] Our minutes from Site Rockstar, close to that moment.
[1:52:55] Go there for the idea.
[1:52:56] Approved it.
[1:52:57] That's what I need.
[1:52:58] Yeah.
[1:52:59] So the next month was solved.
[1:53:02] Anything would be on there in the city.
[1:53:04] Thank you.
[1:53:05] But we don't publish anything.
[1:53:07] I'm going to just come back to the world to handle ice and gold on it.
[1:53:11] Everything is wide open.
[1:53:14] I was just curious because it's the same walk.
[1:53:17] I mean, I didn't know that they were going to be reviewed.
[1:53:22] It makes sense that that's the procedure.
[1:53:25] I understand.
[1:53:25] I don't think I was like correctly told in a minute.
[1:53:28] It's more or less what we saw.
[1:53:31] What happened?
[1:53:31] Who said something?
[1:53:33] We saw it and heard the explanation from the presenter.
[1:53:38] We went down to every little thing that was said
[1:53:43] because all the well looking for is,
[1:53:46] does this agree with what, does it mean water is?
[1:53:50] It's okay, it's okay, it's okay.
[1:53:51] Sometimes we'll measure something.
[1:53:53] Oh, yeah, yeah, that's just the get-up.
[1:53:55] Yeah, just getting, I just was curious about access here.
[1:53:59] You're doing this.
[1:54:00] Oh, yeah.
[1:54:01] Everything is available.
[1:54:03] Right, we don't publish anything until after it has come back
[1:54:06] and voted on.
[1:54:08] Right, so we have to do that.
[1:54:09] And it ended up on her workload
[1:54:11] When she gets to it, to take it out, like I can guarantee you,
[1:54:17] today's actions are not going to be all tight up.
[1:54:23] But everything is open.
[1:54:26] Everything can be had, but if you don't have to worry about that,
[1:54:29] thank you.
[1:54:31] Okay.
[1:54:32] Back to
[1:54:36] we were finished on that.
[1:54:39] It's a department.
[1:54:40] Yes.
[1:54:41] Okay.
[1:54:41] Yeah,
[1:54:45] I'd like to speak.
[1:54:46] Oh, OK.
[1:54:48] Listen, paying attention to President here at Pittsburgh.
[1:54:51] I'm Judy Mullins, who is the President of the Pittsburgh
[1:54:55] of the Pittsburgh Society.
[1:54:58] I'm really, she's not able to be here tonight.
[1:55:00] I'm really a letter from her into the Venezuelan
[1:55:03] space between her.
[1:55:05] The Pittsburgh Historical Society, which is
[1:55:08] to express its opposition, to propose a little 200 foot long,
[1:55:12] just, I know, actually, 240 foot long.
[1:55:14] and three-foot light pier, previous dimensions to 40 by 50 light, to be constructed at 36 Park ahead row.
[1:55:21] The size of the pier is difficult, large, and anything on the peninsula.
[1:55:26] The design and silver collar, as presented up in July, fighting for a meeting,
[1:55:30] will greatly disturb the leadership and this section of Central Village.
[1:55:33] adjacent to the proposed pier are several significant cultural sites, including the Macauve Hill,
[1:55:39] line of house, 1776M, and also localizing infant, and so it's the same building, but two
[1:55:46] different iterations.
[1:55:50] And the Swirl Point Lighthouse, both listed on the National Register of Historic
[1:55:54] Places.
[1:55:55] They're also applied additional properties, designated significant from the FITSFRIAN Historical
[1:56:00] Preservation Commission Survey, once by Health Lane, 15th by Health Lane, 60 Park ahead
[1:56:05] row, 42 Park ahead row.
[1:56:07] and fits for a Congational Church.
[1:56:10] The Center Village was a high connectivity during the shipbuilding era as identified by the historic plaque near Santa Cone.
[1:56:16] The first goal in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan is to quote,
[1:56:20] maintain the rural character of Pittsburgh and quote.
[1:56:24] This particular view was identified in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan as a scenic vista.
[1:56:30] quote, the Lewis undecline from his work center village and from the bridge to carries the
[1:56:35] parking head road over the out of the stream, as well as if you bore it from the bridge over
[1:56:39] the marsh and bore it both to go byland, the Keneveck River and Scarlet Point Blight and
[1:56:44] Poe.
[1:56:45] In addition, the rural character goal was identified as important as a current draft comprehensive
[1:56:50] plan document as well as a seated beast of.
[1:56:53] We ask you to take the city consideration when you evaluate the downing application.
[1:56:58] Branding this permit sets a procedure for future requests in this type from large dogs along the kind of river.
[1:57:04] The shoreline is a shared resource, and the youth on the coast of the hood will be interrupted.
[1:57:09] Remind the selfish will be disturbed by the installation of the dog framework.
[1:57:13] This is the only dream of the president of this purpose.
[1:57:18] I also, um, switching hats.
[1:57:21] So somewhat I'm also President of Citizenship School of Hawaii and so we also objected the same reasons that we are also on the National Regester.
[1:57:32] And we are, Mrs. Rlooking, and you looking right at this structure.
[1:57:40] If you look at the picture here on the top right, that's actually the bridge that's the same aluminum structure.
[1:57:51] with a win-pliking that the Davens have proposing that is the bridge on the trail out to
[1:57:58] squirrel point. That bridge is 115 feet long. The proposed peer is going to be twice that length.
[1:58:06] In addition, with the new dimensions that they're applied for, the top of the aluminum part
[1:58:17] It's going to be over 12 feet above the Mars, so it's going to be very, very prominent, very long, very prominent, and very permanent.
[1:58:26] And I haven't lived a cross river from that bridge, which I sort of always do a silent, I'm sorry to my neighbors, and I look out the cross river because it catches the sunlight.
[1:58:38] like the thing looks like we in cross do that we don't want to show you and get enough
[1:58:42] trouble raising the money to build it and we do not in cross do times but it catches
[1:58:47] the sun and just sparkles and listens and so I am, you know, when it comes for a point
[1:58:57] we're going to have that same listening view of 243 of Sparkle over what is now in Christine
[1:59:06] And this is maintaining the world character and preserving the historic character, particularly
[1:59:13] in the center of religion, has been a stated goal of the townspeople for 20 years.
[1:59:22] And I just really would like the board to be in the center as with the distrust signing.
[1:59:29] And then I have, I'm sort of switching hats again, I live upstream of ways, I pack, I can just
[1:59:35] go to Island, which this bridge is directly shooting out toward.
[1:59:41] Go to Island is going to be about 700 feet or so off shore from the end of the structure.
[1:59:52] As if that's an active eagle's nest.
[1:59:54] I was on the sidewalk today.
[1:59:55] We actually watched a needle fishing.
[1:59:58] And I do have...
[2:00:00] I just would like Mr. Daven to come in, in fact, that I know that Versa is a C-plane pilot and I know that they
[2:00:09] don't actually have a history of voting. And so I do have concerns that this dot could also be used
[2:00:17] for anger, for tying up a C-plane. And that is that whole area, your dog is completely within 1,000 mile
[2:00:28] That doesn't matter, excuse me, a thousand foot radius, the state of main lock, attacks,
[2:00:37] eagle nesting habitat from sea plane activity, it happens to be, sea planes happen to
[2:00:44] be peculiarly disruptive to eagles, both in OIS and in the elevation I fly out for my husband's
[2:00:55] So I just would like it, it's perfectly possible.
[2:01:03] I'm not saying this is what the doubt is doing.
[2:01:05] But it's perfectly possible to put in a proposal to the EPA,
[2:01:10] which was assumed that a boat was going to be docked at this dock.
[2:01:15] And then after the fact that I applied the FFA to permit to have a sea plane there.
[2:01:21] And the FFA permit, they have no criteria within their process of environment and capital
[2:01:32] throughout, is solely based on radiation safety, and so essentially scoop through the environmental
[2:01:41] concerns about Bolera and about the seagulls there.
[2:01:45] And I also as a co-actor, there's a law selection in there, and I believe that it may well
[2:01:51] also be a sealed grocery.
[2:01:53] So I have environmental concerns about those items as well.
[2:01:59] So I am interested in hearing of.
[2:02:03] I would like to know that disaster is not used
[2:02:06] to be used for anti-seqling at the world.
[2:02:09] Well, the application, as it stands,
[2:02:12] does not mean to see plenty at all.
[2:02:17] And we do have the alert.
[2:02:19] It did come in, and somewhere along in our action we would have read it.
[2:02:27] So, thank you.
[2:02:28] I did want to write it to the record.
[2:02:30] What was that?
[2:02:31] I wanted it to write it to the record.
[2:02:34] I didn't want to have it.
[2:02:34] I didn't want to have it.
[2:02:35] It would have been.
[2:02:37] But thank you.
[2:02:40] Is there anyone else who would like to speak?
[2:02:42] Yeah, I shared her concern about the Eagles and the Seagulls and my blog blog, and I'm
[2:02:51] sure you all know that Eagles are protected in some way and also you have to sort of keep
[2:03:01] up on what the Eagles are protected from and where they are.
[2:03:07] We have had two cases, family recently, and eagles on the maps, you'll see a big circle for their nesting area.
[2:03:19] And we have checked with the power of the feed to find out is this cell, is this outdated, is anything wrong.
[2:03:28] And so we are up on the eagles, and the same thing would happen.
[2:03:34] Also, if anybody is myself, if you're watching it, and you happen to see anything, you could get right on the phone and say something to somebody.
[2:03:44] But there was several masks all over the room.
[2:03:48] Actually, like, I mean, the state of Maine actually has an individual that is the Raptor Expert for Maine.
[2:03:55] So we've done in contact with her.
[2:03:57] So the Nestor talking about is a designated nest that's nest 7, 7, 6, 8, they've been very productive for decades.
[2:04:07] However, unfortunately, with January storm in 2024, they lost their nest on the side of the island at face, which that was bad for us because we'd like to be with them.
[2:04:18] But they moved the nest over to the other side of the island.
[2:04:21] And as addressing noise, there is supposed to be no significant noise activity within a half-mile radius of the nest.
[2:04:32] Now, in other occasions, there's fireworks, things like that nature, but, you know, for folks that are doing the fireworks,
[2:04:39] just consider the fact as it was explained to me is they get disoriented, they leave the nest,
[2:04:45] and unlike other birds, they have a tendency to fly towards the bright flash in the noise,
[2:04:52] so that's how we get armed.
[2:04:56] As the comment regarding the seaplane, yes, my wife is a licensed seaplane pilot,
[2:05:03] but do you know how much a seaplane costs? So I don't think any time unless she remarries
[2:05:08] and find somebody a lot more wealthier, there will be a seaplane in our future.
[2:05:15] could be when you're talking about what can be, what can be, what can be, what can be a list
[2:05:22] of what can't be.
[2:05:27] Anything else? I'm not laughing at you. Anybody else?
[2:05:30] That's fine. It's comical in a way.
[2:05:36] Related to the project we're talking about, is there any provision for boat slips or morons on the
[2:05:48] that we're talking about because that turns into traffic and noise, which would disinvantage the
[2:06:00] egoary also.
[2:06:04] There are no proposed morons.
[2:06:07] We do have one moron that is currently licensed.
[2:06:12] That moron is set in place.
[2:06:13] feet as our father to the north was placing more in something that would have gone down through
[2:06:18] the location for the proposed docks and we reserved an area just so a we wouldn't be impacted
[2:06:25] by the time that we went to build a dock and be to have a more for when we do have the dock
[2:06:32] in place. Anymore residential or not commercial? Is that a satisfactory answer? I didn't hear
[2:06:40] anything helpful on the subject of tying up votes.
[2:06:45] Both slips, because there's no slips that's one, one dog.
[2:06:51] But is there anything that keeps it there?
[2:06:56] It starts out being a dog, but does it become a base of slips and votes more in there and traffic?
[2:07:05] No, I mean, I'd have to submit a different application for that.
[2:07:11] There's nothing in the proposed application for that.
[2:07:13] Thank you.
[2:07:20] All right. Let's get back.
[2:07:22] I'm sure you should.
[2:07:23] I do.
[2:07:23] I'm just letting others stop.
[2:07:26] All right.
[2:07:26] It's an interesting college.
[2:07:28] Yeah.
[2:07:28] Yeah.
[2:07:30] Now, Christine Collins and I represent the 1774 in. So I just want to focus on the ordinance standards, because that's all it matters.
[2:07:38] But first I have a question for the applicant through the chair, if that's okay.
[2:07:42] And I was just wondering, what are the differences between this iteration of the project that's in front of the planning board and the one last approved by DEP?
[2:07:49] Are they now identical or is there something else that's changed?
[2:07:54] No, it will change and that will the DEP and that way we're going to be widening the peer
[2:08:00] of that.
[2:08:02] That's a bit of a minor amendment to DEP.
[2:08:07] And then just going through the ordinance, the applicant I noticed just focused on the
[2:08:14] 15D standards, both the first time around in this time around, the ordinance of course has
[2:08:18] more standards than that that are applicable generally, so I don't want you to lose sight
[2:08:23] of those.
[2:08:23] But looking at the doc standards first, still, the facility should be no larger intervention than necessary to carry on the activity and consistent with the surrounding character and uses of the area.
[2:08:38] So ISNW pointed out that the doc is much larger than what they typically see from peer systems.
[2:08:47] That's evident, there's not a single dock or pure on that wall that is even close to what's being proposed here.
[2:08:55] So this is not consistent with the surrounding character and uses of the area.
[2:09:00] There was a comment last meeting from the planning board that, to the effect that all waterfront owners should have the right to a dock.
[2:09:08] And I think that is not the case.
[2:09:10] Otherwise, we would not even ordinance that provides standards, and the standards very clearly
[2:09:15] envisions that there could be a peer that is just too big and out of character for the area, and that
[2:09:21] peer would have to be denied.
[2:09:24] Moving on to section 15, S.
[2:09:26] This is a biggie. This prevents you from acting tonight.
[2:09:30] It says that any proposed land use activity involving structural development,
[2:09:35] More soil disturbance on or adjacent to sites listed on the National Register shall be submitted by the applicant to the Main Historic Preservation Commission for Review and Comment,
[2:09:46] at least 20 days prior to action being taken by the Planning Board, and the Planning Board shall consider those comments prior to rendering and decision on the application.
[2:09:54] So, I know that there is a letter from way back in 2023 from Historic Preservation Commission but that was not on this version of the project in this location.
[2:10:06] So, that needs to be revisited. The applicant needs to go back to the Historic Preservation Commission on this version of the application in this location,
[2:10:15] which is much more adjacent and has much more impact on the Historic Structures before you all are able to take a vote.
[2:10:24] Going on to the general approval standards, 17 D3D, that's one of the ones that have
[2:10:30] the applicant in really address, that the project would not have an adverse impact on
[2:10:35] spawning ground-specific product life, further or other wildlife habitat.
[2:10:40] Yeah, I know that I think W concluded at the end of their review in this location, it would
[2:10:45] be possible, but that doesn't prevent the board from looking at all of their findings that
[2:10:49] may insane. We take different view. This is too much impact in this location, especially
[2:10:56] when coupled with these other standards that it should be no larger than necessary.
[2:10:59] That's to be consistent with the character of the area. Just to pick a few, IFNW says it's
[2:11:05] in a tidal water-weighting bird habitat that in the other location it would effectively
[2:11:11] bisect a large intact coastal wetland. It's still a little bit less so. They call it a
[2:11:18] for short birds. They mentioned 12 birds species that they identified during their site walk.
[2:11:25] We have evidence here that it's a seal nursery.
[2:11:31] The IFNW says long pears negatively impact special with salt marsh birds.
[2:11:37] Helps out the seagulls, but nobody really wants to help out seagulls.
[2:11:43] So, to the extent the boards inclined to just say, well, DEP approved this, so we feel
[2:11:47] like it's okay.
[2:11:49] I think that the points that Mr. Bay brought up about the fact that DEP was misled when it
[2:11:56] was told that the closest alternative access was 9 plus miles away.
[2:12:02] They make a determination based on this weighing of the burdens on the property owner,
[2:12:08] versus the burdens on the wildlife, and that is a significant factor that they were misled on about
[2:12:15] their being, you know, no practical alternative. So I think DEP would be going back to the drawing
[2:12:21] board on that point when that information is brought to life.
[2:12:27] Finally, 17 D3F, that is the one that requires
[2:12:33] archeological and historic resources to be protected as designated in the comprehensive plan.
[2:12:38] As we've been over, the 1774 in is designated as a historic resource in the comprehensive plan.
[2:12:46] The historic committee of the town saying this is a problem.
[2:12:51] You've got swirl point saying this is a problem for their historic structure.
[2:12:56] When you're considering impacts on historic properties,
[2:12:59] obviously it's not just for the application involving historic property, you have to
[2:13:06] consider the impacts on properties in the neighborhood. So if we are not on the
[2:13:11] water, if we were in a village and somebody were proposing a you know modern
[2:13:16] angular metal structure, a block down the road from historic structure, you would
[2:13:22] saying this is minimizing the historic scenery and feeling of this historic area and just the
[2:13:32] same thing here only it's on the water.
[2:13:37] I think frankly between those two historic provisions
[2:13:40] and any of the people you would give could be easily overturned. So at the very least you need to
[2:13:47] get that feedback from the HPC on before you can receive.
[2:13:51] Thank you.
[2:13:54] I'd like to also explain another little thing.
[2:13:58] When a person needs multiple parents, they have to go to each one
[2:14:05] of those departments and abide by the rules of each one of those
[2:14:10] departments and they're saying here.
[2:14:13] This is not all sure, and there's ladies and gentlemen here as well, but we could read our own
[2:14:24] audience and see how the application fits what does it mean, whereas if you went to one
[2:14:33] of the state of silence to find out what they want, if they have nothing to do with some
[2:14:40] So that person has to jump through all of those rules before they get final approval, and I think you know that.
[2:14:49] And the fact that somebody in there who lives and lives has something that we don't have in hours doesn't need.
[2:15:00] That doesn't have to be addressed. We, in our show, and it's only not. It's trying to keep up with state law and make sure that we have it in here. Other things, other agents in these functions, we don't try to talk about every little thing that everybody has in mind.
[2:15:20] I completely agree with that, Mr. Clark mentioned, you know, DEP is good with it, and I just wanted to be clear that DEP might not be good with it, knowing what they know now.
[2:15:31] I understand they were very on the fence and improving this in the first place.
[2:15:35] Well, that's one of the things, as I said, the applicant has to do all of that, and it may take several months.
[2:15:43] Or two now.
[2:15:45] All we can do is speak for ourselves, and if you want my personal opinion, I would say
[2:15:50] that it will be easier, on this board, if somebody had all of their guesses from all
[2:15:58] of the other departments before they even come into the town, but that's not the way everything
[2:16:04] is set up at all.
[2:16:06] Well, the HBC one is set up that way.
[2:16:08] It does require them to have that in the one.
[2:16:10] The one requiring the Historic Preservation Commission report that one they do have to have in hand before you guys can act.
[2:16:18] And do that?
[2:16:21] Do you?
[2:16:22] If I could refer to what she said, I would answer for that.
[2:16:26] Yeah, it's a great way to do you have whatever approval you need from the Historic Preservation Act.
[2:16:33] They're supposed to get that, I don't know whether it's you or the applicant.
[2:16:36] This is us, Fabio.
[2:16:38] We have a date, there's a date one as I recall.
[2:16:42] So you do know here.
[2:16:44] Can we?
[2:16:44] Yeah, exactly.
[2:16:45] That's what we do.
[2:16:46] Okay, so, but it's from two and a half years ago.
[2:16:52] So it doesn't fulfill the requirements of Section X,
[2:16:58] because it says 20 days.
[2:17:00] That's true.
[2:17:01] If I could just jump in.
[2:17:03] Sure.
[2:17:03] When you're ready.
[2:17:05] As part of our application for this project, to the Army Corps of Engineers, we're required
[2:17:12] to submit the copy of the material to the Army Corps of Engineers, and also the five tribes
[2:17:20] in the state, not that that's part of this program.
[2:17:24] And we submitted a letter on May 20, 2026, the same day.
[2:17:28] we bailed our application to the town planning board and I have a copy of their response.
[2:17:36] Excuse me, so it's the cover letter and their rubber stamp, if you will, response from the State
[2:17:43] of Historic Preservation Officer at the Municipal Historic Preservation Commission dated June 2,
[2:17:49] 2026 and it says, based on the information submitted, I have concluded that there will be
[2:17:54] of historic properties affected by the proposed undertaking as defined by section the 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
[2:18:04] Consequently, pursuant to 36 CFR 8800.4D1, no further section the 106 consultation is required, unless additional resources are discovered during project implementation.
[2:18:18] So, I do 36 of our 813 sign, Kurt Money, State of Historic Preservation Officer.
[2:18:28] So, we have that.
[2:18:30] One copy, I'm happy that we can make photocopies.
[2:18:34] Yeah, just to give it to the playing board.
[2:18:38] I'm happy to have a copy.
[2:18:41] And also how about this distance to distance issue that keeps coming up?
[2:18:49] I've heard there's never touched you, Chris, not also.
[2:18:52] Distance to the, through the,
[2:18:54] this is a lot of alternatives, start with whatever you need.
[2:18:56] How do you address it?
[2:19:00] Before I go on to that topic.
[2:19:04] I'll also acknowledge that either Christian Collins or flying,
[2:19:09] I'm not exactly sure who submitted comments to the main
[2:19:13] historic preservation commission as I understand it,
[2:19:17] regarding the view from the historic structure
[2:19:20] and prompted the main, since this date of this letter.
[2:19:26] And it caused the main of historic preservation
[2:19:28] provision to contact us as the applicant
[2:19:31] to let them know a provider response related to that.
[2:19:37] And we provided that response
[2:19:38] So we've not got any vital work back from the maintenance of our preservation commission regarding that.
[2:19:45] So that means that the issue of this letter then from some other impetus thing.
[2:19:51] So have they, will the issue of new approval?
[2:19:54] It's unclear to us, we would assume so.
[2:19:57] Okay, but it's the same or not really sure.
[2:20:01] So this approval has been superseded by another request.
[2:20:05] They have requested additional information.
[2:20:08] So I think it could be viewed as possibly superseded,
[2:20:12] but through this, there's still delivery.
[2:20:19] Yeah, people.
[2:20:21] Now, if this isn't, I've earned this one full touch out
[2:20:25] at the interest of your work.
[2:20:27] Sure.
[2:20:28] So with respect to the, you know, we'll call it an alternative analysis.
[2:20:33] As part of the DEP application process,
[2:20:36] Under their regulations, we have to provide all applicants have to provide an alternative analysis, which is a section of the application that addresses simply that.
[2:20:46] Do you have alternatives that you've considered, and if so, what is, you know, why can't you do that?
[2:20:54] And that is specific to the BP application, it's not a talent standard, but just for the sake of this conversation tonight.
[2:21:03] We have provided an alternative analysis to the town for this project.
[2:21:09] And the alternative analysis does consider other bolt launches.
[2:21:13] Could you do this as a arena nearby that you can tie up that?
[2:21:20] If you do this, if you do that, I mean, for a year it's pretty limited in what your options are.
[2:21:26] So we consider the various launches that could accommodate the applicant's boat, the applicant's objectives,
[2:21:34] will appear, and it's been our determination much as a list of the DP approval back in 2025,
[2:21:43] October 2025 that there is no reasonable alternative.
[2:21:47] When that's the threshold, is it a reasonable alternative?
[2:21:53] And that's, again, that's part of the DDP process.
[2:21:58] A lot of distances to various voltages has been considered.
[2:22:02] It's not as practical.
[2:22:03] There are certain voltages, small voltages, and fifths,
[2:22:06] where they cannot accommodate certain size boats, larger boats,
[2:22:11] might take my boat, but it might not take his boat or your boat.
[2:22:14] All those things have been way as part of the DEP application.
[2:22:20] There's under the town ordinance, there are no standards related to
[2:22:25] that alternatives analysis.
[2:22:26] How do you react to this data that you misrepresent?
[2:22:30] I'd like to hear what you're response to that, because that's been leveled several times today.
[2:22:37] Yeah, there are, yes, and that's a little frustrating to hear, you know, for our purposes, I don't live in FIPSburg.
[2:22:48] I understand there are some bolt launches that are either on private property, that folks are a public is allowed to use,
[2:22:58] are, there are some town launches that are smaller in the commercial fishermen can use,
[2:23:04] but maybe closed off to others, or maybe it's open to all, but there's one parking space.
[2:23:10] And these are launches, so when we prepare an application, that all terms analysis to DP,
[2:23:16] we look at any of the available data that's available in GIS, or the Dwarmalis,
[2:23:22] people still use that out on occasion.
[2:23:26] And we'll look at the data that tells us where the public
[2:23:31] bowl lunches are located.
[2:23:33] So that will tell you that, and only public, not private
[2:23:38] bowl lunches, around here, would be the Fettlers reach at
[2:23:44] Morse Goaf, yes, ancestors, and then force the bath lunches
[2:23:49] Well, there are no other bowl lunches around this area that are at least widely published
[2:23:57] for public.
[2:23:59] And what are the fillet's reaches where the nine miles would have that could have just
[2:24:05] come from?
[2:24:06] I don't know.
[2:24:07] I have to look back at the application, that may have been about this time.
[2:24:13] Yeah, about this time.
[2:24:13] Filters like forging.
[2:24:15] Yeah, yeah.
[2:24:16] Yeah.
[2:24:17] Yeah.
[2:24:17] Wouldn't be in some of the coaching.
[2:24:18] I'm just trying to reach the accolade and try to understand, okay, I appreciate that.
[2:24:32] I just wanted to comment on that historic preservation commission information, I could.
[2:24:42] First off, with this material not having been submitted before today's, I think you all have a seven day advanced requirement for submissions.
[2:24:50] So it would be nice if we could have seen that so we knew to contact the commission and ask
[2:24:56] what was going on and be able to be prepared and comment on that but it does sound like
[2:25:02] it's subject to review and can't be relied on and I just wanted to say because I've seen
[2:25:07] boards do this before to the extent you might be inclined to say well they submitted something
[2:25:12] let's just as a condition of approval say that as long as they submitted after the fact
[2:25:17] we're good, that can't be a condition.
[2:25:20] I mean, this is something that you've got to find
[2:25:22] as part of your review at the time.
[2:25:24] So thanks.
[2:25:26] We're just going to discuss that, or we're worried.
[2:25:29] What do you think we can actually talk to?
[2:25:36] I don't know, I didn't put to that section,
[2:25:40] but you said, how you read it, too?
[2:25:42] Yes.
[2:25:43] Oh, what?
[2:25:44] Yeah.
[2:25:49] So
[2:25:52] I
[2:25:57] say again, anything that we have is public, as far as do we, if we got a commutational
[2:26:06] saying from this person, and it would have to do with this particular application, we
[2:26:13] would have it, would we notify anybody out there, you know, we would voice into the meeting
[2:26:21] And then presented at that point, we wouldn't tell them.
[2:26:26] We can't eat air for it to publicize anything.
[2:26:30] You mean, that, uh, it's a misunderstanding.
[2:26:32] Somebody wrote in, something kind of a letter.
[2:26:35] Oh, I mean, but we asked for copies, you know,
[2:26:37] so we're preparing a master copy, we had, yes.
[2:26:41] Yes, and I think that's been done.
[2:26:44] Yeah, no.
[2:26:44] I'd say, well, let's say we did, we did, we did,
[2:26:49] Yeah, that's why you have your seven-day events requirements so that people can see what's being going to be talked about.
[2:26:56] By the way, I appreciate you focusing on the ordinances.
[2:27:01] Thank you.
[2:27:08] That's okay.
[2:27:10] I'll say something.
[2:27:11] I just think that as a resident who lives on the water should be able to have access to that water from his property.
[2:27:22] You shouldn't have to go to a neighbors if he has a funds to build to access that water.
[2:27:30] I mean, all the neighbors do, why should he be, why should that be taken from him?
[2:27:40] No one owns a view.
[2:27:42] So if you don't like the looks of it, then I'm sorry.
[2:27:49] They have the right, if they need all three environments to be able to do that, rather it upsets and they don't want to.
[2:28:01] Right, that's what we do. We view more distance.
[2:28:05] Yeah, that's all this more.
[2:28:07] So we're a lot of times.
[2:28:13] There's a lot of times.
[2:28:15] So yeah.
[2:28:16] Right.
[2:28:16] And that's it.
[2:28:19] Hi, Christian.
[2:28:20] Hi, Christian.
[2:28:20] Yeah, I think it is.
[2:28:21] You can just, no history visit.
[2:28:24] But what I talked, Mr. Beings talked about a lot of history in London.
[2:28:27] But it doesn't this time, we've been here long time.
[2:28:29] No, this.
[2:28:29] We used to have an ex-touch at Monterey on November, 2020.
[2:28:32] We talked away from it.
[2:28:34] It's a bit less.
[2:28:34] Just get back.
[2:28:35] You can do it.
[2:28:36] Yeah, we can do it.
[2:28:38] We have many times.
[2:28:39] Yep.
[2:28:39] You should be saying that.
[2:28:43] You're saying that.
[2:28:45] carried from going on. So, to the back of my little body, all the stuff he says and bad
[2:28:50] lost his town. But 31 years, why he's still here, I know I did. He said, if it's that bad,
[2:28:56] he needs to believe.
[2:29:00] Anyway, back to the, thank you for your feelings, by the way, it's back
[2:29:04] to Warden's land. What are we doing here? Yeah, but the, and I appreciate those comments, but I don't
[2:29:12] to make life what you said. Because I've heard your words. And it's a number of times here, and I appreciate it.
[2:29:18] Now, it's just that a lot of people don't realize that we had it both meaning make it.
[2:29:21] Yeah, I used it when I was a kid. And we all got to take them away from us.
[2:29:27] I didn't use it. I was at a lot. I didn't use that. I was kind of talking about it.
[2:29:31] So we'd say, find that.
[2:29:33] So, we have to know what you guys think.
[2:29:38] Is that part of the approval process, we'll have to have a letter from the school office.
[2:29:45] Is that a way to interpret that word?
[2:29:47] I have to read it.
[2:29:49] It's a language package.
[2:29:54] What's that?
[2:29:54] The question is that we have to wait for the...
[2:29:58] Because there's an approval pending.
[2:30:00] With the historical commission, in this pressure.
[2:30:09] They may not see another approval, it may be they're just trying to answer the plan.
[2:30:16] By asking questions and doing it all, I think this.
[2:30:20] So, we can wait and then manage the approval, another approval.
[2:30:24] Well, with the new application or the revised application to DEP, will they send out? I haven't done anything again.
[2:30:33] I would be quite certain they would.
[2:30:38] I can't imagine they would not.
[2:30:42] Although, they may not, because we've scaled the project back, so we'll already want to increase it in the back.
[2:30:47] I'm just going to say that because it's changed.
[2:30:49] It's a waste of resources.
[2:30:50] It has a different report from them to change my thinking.
[2:30:57] Once I've seen you on, is that I vote?
[2:31:00] Yes.
[2:31:01] What's up?
[2:31:01] 15.
[2:31:14] 15.
[2:31:15] 15.
[2:31:18] 15.
[2:31:18] 15.
[2:31:18] 15.
[2:31:18] 15.
[2:31:19] 15.
[2:31:19] I have a speech right now, but I think we're from Honduras.
[2:31:23] That's the reference to the secret, right?
[2:31:53] Try to find the standard here for a second.
[2:31:55] You can just be here with me.
[2:31:57] I might.
[2:32:07] I don't think I have a question.
[2:32:11] I mean, do you mean you're reading whatever you're reading?
[2:32:14] Can you speak up with me?
[2:32:16] I don't understand what you're trying to read right now.
[2:32:21] So it should-
[2:32:23] Section in our ordinance.
[2:32:26] That says back.
[2:32:28] What's represented the 174 team says that there is, there is a necessary,
[2:32:36] that it's a critical, that's the, that's the.
[2:32:39] That's what we mean before we can render a approval,
[2:32:41] it's a implementation.
[2:32:42] But I think my question is,
[2:32:43] I know there's a bunch of other people who wanted to get.
[2:32:47] There's stuff done in the,
[2:32:48] So, are you actually planning to vote on the seven applications tonight where all these questions about approvals?
[2:33:00] I mean, do you have a discussion?
[2:33:04] We said don't you need D.D.
[2:33:06] I mean, there are other things that we still need.
[2:33:09] You still need D.D.D.D.D.D approval in front of us.
[2:33:16] There's a lot of...
[2:33:19] So you have all the DGP documentation in front of us, and that's what we request in last time, and this is the third year in the last time.
[2:33:31] That's correct.
[2:33:34] So you have a few months that you need.
[2:33:36] Well, that's the question.
[2:33:38] There's a DDP approval.
[2:33:40] But the team brought up a point that he had a historical clue in hand, this was a rank
[2:33:48] of the shukuya.
[2:33:49] But it was somehow a challenge, so that's the issue that we're talking about.
[2:33:56] So that was my question.
[2:34:00] Marie, if I may ask, did I apologize that I even have to ask this question, but what's the
[2:34:05] date of the ordinance you're referencing?
[2:34:08] I have a land use of ordinance from your website.
[2:34:10] This would be your land shoreline.
[2:34:12] This is shoreline.
[2:34:13] The dated June 11th, 2025.
[2:34:16] Yeah.
[2:34:17] Page 45.
[2:34:18] Or five.
[2:34:19] What page on the ordinance?
[2:34:21] 45.
[2:34:24] Okay.
[2:34:49] The last section I have is section 13 definitions.
[2:34:54] That's land use.
[2:34:55] That's land use.
[2:34:56] This is shoreline.
[2:34:58] 13 ashes.
[2:35:01] 15.
[2:35:02] Yeah.
[2:35:02] I don't have to have that with me unfortunately.
[2:35:06] Roger is a possible head and is just near your coffee.
[2:35:10] Sir, do you think you can read a book where you're going to show it?
[2:35:13] I'm very appreciate that.
[2:35:14] You want to talk about it now?
[2:35:16] We're not.
[2:35:17] How do you get it?
[2:35:18] I think you just don't have it whether you came in.
[2:35:21] So, 50 packs.
[2:35:23] I don't know.
[2:35:25] I don't know.
[2:35:25] It's really done with the glass.
[2:35:27] All right.
[2:35:28] It's not a lot of the color.
[2:35:30] Do I copy that?
[2:35:33] No, I think that's a good answer.
[2:35:40] Okay, let's be honest.
[2:35:41] Yeah, I think that's a pretty clear question.
[2:35:43] Oh, we have this one.
[2:35:45] Thank you.
[2:35:53] I would say that we can't render a movement that I faced on this.
[2:35:58] Hang on there.
[2:36:01] It's funny.
[2:36:01] We don't have to get, we don't have to wait for DQ.
[2:36:04] We don't have to wait for this.
[2:36:06] Well, then we submit it to the meeting.
[2:36:09] Yeah.
[2:36:09] Hold that.
[2:36:11] Right.
[2:36:12] I was only maybe in the state of the state of the state of the state.
[2:36:15] There was this almost a deadline for all right,
[2:36:20] then we modified it and now we're going back.
[2:36:23] But there's a short slightly.
[2:36:25] So we've got to wait for the need to report to them again.
[2:36:29] All right.
[2:36:29] Yes, some might have noticed.
[2:36:31] Some might have noticed.
[2:36:32] No worries.
[2:36:32] We don't need the need to be prepared.
[2:36:34] No need.
[2:36:35] I'd like this which our judge says.
[2:36:37] There's no right.
[2:36:41] That's what I mean.
[2:36:46] Which is interesting.
[2:36:47] Because it goes through the Army Corps approval process,
[2:36:57] easily omissioned.
[2:36:59] Well, we'll work with the HPC and the final determination to get it sent to you.
[2:37:06] But it would be possible to do a vote for a potentially conditional approval that we have to provide that for the government factor,
[2:37:14] So that we could just admit it once that's obtained and it fits except assuming that it's
[2:37:20] Acceptable and then
[2:37:23] Stairs from having to take up half year even again.
[2:37:27] It's not that it will enjoy seeing you folks both satisfied
[2:37:56] So many things have already been spoken to.
[2:37:59] we'll call it okay, and we all know that we need to update
[2:38:07] other proofs from everywhere, but now that this has come out
[2:38:13] of this challenge, so we should, right, I'm sorry, we didn't even...
[2:38:17] Yeah, I think there's a lot of it frankly.
[2:38:21] Could we, in the alternative, like, and I appreciate your response
[2:38:25] but with the planning board, be amenable to beginning walking through
[2:38:29] the findings and the fact except for section 50X so that at the next meeting it could be as
[2:38:36] simple as a way for all of it.
[2:38:40] Unfortunately I think because I would submit that we should table and move on to the
[2:38:51] regard of vacation.
[2:38:52] Yeah, I mean, I agree and the interest of time I would like to make a portion that we
[2:38:57] able this
[2:39:01] until I don't know how it's fulfilled.
[2:39:04] Until the next meeting.
[2:39:05] Until the next meeting.
[2:39:06] Until the next time it says to produce.
[2:39:08] Or if they don't have the documentation.
[2:39:11] It's stable until the next meeting.
[2:39:13] Next meeting.
[2:39:15] And if it turns out not ready.
[2:39:17] It's stable for the rest.
[2:39:19] Yeah.
[2:39:19] So we're trying to get it for September.
[2:39:21] Yes.
[2:39:22] Dependent upon receiving the document.
[2:39:25] I think that's the need to go on.
[2:39:26] That's really good.
[2:39:27] Unfortunately.
[2:39:28] That way, appreciate it because of it.
[2:39:30] Any second?
[2:39:31] Second?
[2:39:33] Any other discussion on promotion?
[2:39:36] No.
[2:39:37] All in favor of promotion.
[2:39:40] All right.
[2:39:41] Thank you.
[2:39:42] Thank you.
[2:39:44] Thank you.
[2:39:44] Thank you for your patience.
[2:39:46] So I'm sorry.
[2:39:46] I have to do that.
[2:39:49] I'm sorry.
[2:40:15] I'm sorry.
[2:40:15] I'm sorry.
[2:40:16] I'm sorry.
[2:40:17] I'm sorry.
[2:40:20] How do you feel?
[2:40:24] I feel good.
[2:40:25] I feel good.
[2:40:26] When do you work in the middle of the field?
[2:40:32] Yeah, I feel good.
[2:40:36] You're really, really good.
[2:40:37] You're really good.
[2:40:39] You're really good.
[2:40:42] I feel good.
[2:40:43] Yeah.
[2:40:51] I feel good.
[2:40:58] I think you're never going to take it as if there was a mouth on it.
[2:41:03] I'm close, right?
[2:41:04] I think it has to be close, right?
[2:41:06] Yeah.
[2:41:06] Because it's been like schedule since then.
[2:41:09] I'm close.
[2:41:10] Right.
[2:41:11] I've got everything.
[2:41:13] I don't know.
[2:41:14] I've got a great shirt there.
[2:41:15] I've got it.
[2:41:15] I think so.
[2:41:16] I think it's a live string right now.
[2:41:26] Next slide, the agenda.
[2:41:28] What do you know?
[2:41:31] The following minutes on.
[2:41:32] The next
[2:41:37] slide.
[2:41:40] This is George and I need to slide.
[2:41:43] This is George and I need to slide.
[2:41:43] Sixty-one managers go in about 17 months, 16 representatives,
[2:41:48] but no, over three, over three, over six,
[2:41:52] few of them.
[2:41:52] Excuse me.
[2:41:53] I'll play catch on LLC Miameth.
[2:41:56] These are amendments to an application for season.
[2:41:59] recreational dog, and the application was approved on April 26th.
[2:42:06] It's been a way for
[2:42:10] how we call a full-boy community.
[2:42:44] Okay.
[2:42:47] Thank you very much.
[2:42:51] Yeah, I have wasn't here today.
[2:43:02] We've had you before and if you wouldn't want to sit up closer.
[2:43:06] I just think because we want to do it.
[2:43:09] Thank you.
[2:43:10] What's up?
[2:43:11] What's up?
[2:43:12] What's up?
[2:43:13] What's up?
[2:43:14] What's up?
[2:43:16] What's up?
[2:43:17] What's up?
[2:43:18] What's up?
[2:43:19] What's up?
[2:43:20] Hey.
[2:43:22] Thank you for the introduction.
[2:43:24] And I'm very interested in speaking this short.
[2:43:28] This is a provision of an application that was reviewed at last pending board meeting.
[2:43:35] The provision that is being proposed is that the, well,
[2:43:41] very small bit of a review.
[2:43:44] It is a completely seasonal dock that they are proposing
[2:43:48] it's one bay ledges. There's a miscommunication with the measurements and the proposed
[2:43:55] peer that they will officially open to install will be three and a half or part of me three
[2:44:02] feet wide.
[2:44:07] Let's say 42 and just like you know about that translates to 42 inches wide by
[2:44:14] feet long, as opposed to six feet wide, 42 feet long, as was originally proposed.
[2:44:25] So to have
[2:44:26] smaller, the peer is narrower and smaller, but it was originally proposed. And we've
[2:44:33] updated the plan as to show that otherwise it's all completely penalized in the same location.
[2:44:38] If anything else is identical, they're going to go over it, which makes fun of us?
[2:44:43] Yeah, yeah.
[2:44:43] Thanks a lot.
[2:44:44] It sure does.
[2:44:46] Cool.
[2:44:50] I make a motion that we need to...
[2:44:53] And then after we've done one more minutes,
[2:44:55] oh no, we need to do this.
[2:44:56] I'm not sure.
[2:44:58] Come on.
[2:45:01] I think it's a matter of information, I think it's a matter of food and the smaller dog. Okay. So, when we gave the permit last month, we had listed all of the measurements.
[2:45:30] Now, the only change, the only reason for this is the change in a measurement.
[2:45:38] Okay,
[2:45:48] it would help if it were written here.
[2:45:51] Also, because that's really what you're asking for, and not following tonight.
[2:46:01] I would now tell me again what the measurement is.
[2:46:06] It was we have the six by six foot, my 42 foot, it's what we have.
[2:46:13] Yes, it is, it will be a 601 and 42 inch wide.
[2:46:23] And the ramp is the same as it was?
[2:46:25] Yes.
[2:46:26] Three by 40.
[2:46:27] Yes.
[2:46:28] All right.
[2:46:28] We'll be through my 40.
[2:46:32] We float.
[2:46:34] This is my 20.
[2:46:38] So really the premise tonight is just correct.
[2:46:42] Yes.
[2:46:42] The premise is going to be our part.
[2:46:45] I'll just be here.
[2:46:46] Okay.
[2:46:49] Anyway, I make a motion that we accept the smaller grant of 42 inches wide to 6 feet long.
[2:47:01] Is that good?
[2:47:01] And it was seconded.
[2:47:02] Sure.
[2:47:03] Any other discussion on this?
[2:47:06] All of them.
[2:47:07] Okay.
[2:47:08] We
[2:47:12] have
[2:47:54] a temporary one on Fridays, I don't know what time you're all there on Friday.
[2:48:02] All there's John B.
[2:48:08] He's also managing the code email.
[2:48:10] Okay, thank you so
[2:48:25] much.
[2:48:26] I have a name.
[2:48:33] This time it's probably just what I'm going to say.
[2:48:37] This isn't this the point there where the car would be almost that little can't, like,
[2:48:46] or just how long it used to be in the 7 or 6 months.
[2:48:49] Is that correct?
[2:48:50] Can't breathe in the water.
[2:48:52] Where does that happen?
[2:48:54] No.
[2:48:55] Let's just pitch it all up and down the canning back of different dots.
[2:49:00] That's all I need.
[2:49:02] That's all I need.
[2:49:04] That's all I need.
[2:49:04] That's all I need.
[2:49:12] This is what it has to do.
[2:49:36] That's what I need.
[2:49:36] That's what we need to do.
[2:49:37] Can you tell me to find these children?
[2:49:39] Yeah.
[2:49:39] This is the only children.
[2:49:40] That's the only children.
[2:49:42] That's what I
[2:49:59] need.
[2:49:59] I just measure what they're doing with this.
[2:50:01] Or, you know, I'm not heard of them.
[2:50:04] So, are we even challenging for this?
[2:50:07] I would take no.
[2:50:10] Yes.
[2:50:11] I don't really feel like we need to handle it.
[2:50:17] That's right.
[2:50:18] That's right.
[2:50:19] It has.
[2:50:22] I think so.
[2:50:23] Yes, I agree.
[2:50:40] What?
[2:50:41] Coach?
[2:52:19] Coach?
[2:52:19] Coach?
[2:52:20] Coach?
[2:52:20] Coach?
[2:52:27] Coach?
[2:52:27] to put P.F.A.3.
[2:52:30] For what? For what? Into this by 36 foot gainway and a 14 foot by 12 foot flood in the village district of the shoreline zone.
[2:52:41] That's the proof.
[2:52:42] Thank you, sir.
[2:52:43] Through the timeframe, sir.
[2:52:45] We're representing William S. Parker.
[2:52:47] You know, I have a lot of total rule as you mentioned.
[2:52:49] I was here in February.
[2:52:50] And if you remember on that application, the existing dog that was in this section here,
[2:52:58] That was the previous document that was the story of the January 24 source.
[2:53:03] We, by a matter of 10 days or two weeks or so, just missed the two year window, you
[2:53:08] were placing a time to be being, we just missed out by it's long, long, long, long.
[2:53:13] And so, we were even overseed that playing with our nation with a new, with that job in a
[2:53:19] remaining capital place, but DB did not give us, we did not give it up to us, we did not
[2:53:30] Let's look at what we improve the location.
[2:53:33] Let's just come back for a while.
[2:53:34] Because it wasn't a sort of investigation.
[2:53:36] It's not easy to look at the property line.
[2:53:39] It's very close to the neighbors.
[2:53:43] We start to look at opportunities for improving it.
[2:53:48] While also having eye for one of the levels.
[2:53:50] We don't have eyes.
[2:53:51] We don't have eyes.
[2:53:52] We don't have eyes.
[2:53:53] This is a new application, but it's related to the past.
[2:54:05] So as I mentioned, the left side is a proper year on the property line.
[2:54:08] That's what the existing one was, and it is very close to the defaulter and in their flow.
[2:54:14] So in your application, you can see it probably close to the end here.
[2:54:17] But this is a high piece of literature.
[2:54:19] And so it's been offered a good approach to, essentially, how to pass the list of
[2:54:24] to have a peer out to the value permit and the grade here and that you will utilize the same
[2:54:30] seasonal game-wide seasonal flow that they had previously. So it's very similar in scope where
[2:54:36] it's the same tier of the seasonal aspects, and you get into the rough of the same depth of water.
[2:54:43] So the proposed aspects that are permanent are this grade year section here, which you call the
[2:54:51] On the highest, the astronomical tide, there's a, we call it a crocheting way, because this
[2:54:57] is pretty rocky and pretty, so it would be a better situation if you walked from the
[2:55:02] next grass area on a wooden, like a crocheting way, two to pretty bubble-led, it's a non-blid
[2:55:07] metal, but it's a smooth, first and big and fun thing, unstable.
[2:55:12] So, the grass walk, the here, the walk to the, the job structure,
[2:55:20] we also have angers change,
[2:55:21] specifically, I'm giving the currents, when we designed this, on the site of the lung
[2:55:30] near, this is a structural engineer that helped me use the design of this because that
[2:55:36] will be using the majority of that, we given the intertitled nature of the, and the
[2:55:43] impact within the intertitled zone here, and frankly, the cost of construction. What we did is
[2:55:50] maximize the, we need to stay longer to minimize the amount of ground impact. So we only have four
[2:55:56] bets, which are Australia on the next stage. You only have four points of ground impact
[2:56:02] for this tier because you're up on the ledge, I'm above the highest highest level without a
[2:56:07] here, and then you have a miss, miss fan here, and then you have a end of that here. And so you only
[2:56:11] have to get four points, so you're in fact a very small minimize that, and then you do have more
[2:56:17] points as well, but that's the possibility that's almost, that's because of the old dark
[2:56:21] kind of well.
[2:56:30] There's different uses in there, which you can see in the middle of it, you can see it
[2:56:33] in the middle of it.
[2:56:35] It's a real lot of area of the children, again, who wouldn't get in my approach, and then it shows
[2:56:39] that the kind of don't highlight things, and then it shows you the connection to me wouldn't
[2:56:44] be here, and in plan to do it.
[2:56:46] And then it shows us in a profile that you can see, again, how it makes the approach and the
[2:56:52] down to your boat a lot more smooth than just better for your access.
[2:56:57] This is a detail of the current two when it comes to the piles.
[2:57:01] We call it a bed, but the piles with the header is only four piles that touch the ground
[2:57:08] here.
[2:57:09] Again, I've been scrubbed in my syntax.
[2:57:11] There we go.
[2:57:12] And again, just, they all felt a bit of a cost, as well, and they all, we,
[2:57:20] some, they will clear.
[2:57:24] But, in terms of the length, we had established just like the area on the T's, the gangway
[2:57:29] and the flow of the order to get, that's known as the T's.
[2:57:32] But, what about that, what do we need to get to?
[2:57:34] So, I want to make sure that it was usable during the whole time.
[2:57:36] So, you had to extend that up far and get to that point.
[2:57:42] Rachel did pass around A, U.S. to the hard pass to the approval case of this, or at least didn't have any negative improvement.
[2:57:51] Approvalment of the right term.
[2:57:52] You didn't have any negative take of it.
[2:57:56] So that's that.
[2:57:58] Any, any questions?
[2:58:00] Well, the application.
[2:58:05] We'll just, yeah.
[2:58:07] We have submitted the D, D permit and you want to go for a permit.
[2:58:10] So those are kind of recently.
[2:58:11] Yes, we submitted all of them on
[2:58:28] We're gonna do
[2:58:34] Do
[2:58:41] we have to do that if you destroy all here
[2:58:47] It's a little bit more difficult having over rock, but it looked from a pretty tight to the neighbors.
[2:59:04] I know it was tight.
[2:59:07] That's where the number of the neighbors was?
[2:59:09] Yes.
[2:59:10] That was their dark.
[2:59:13] Okay.
[2:59:14] So I'm not there a lot.
[2:59:16] I'm not sure.
[2:59:17] And I can't think of anything.
[2:59:18] You don't think through the condition that's sinking through or the approval checklist.
[2:59:24] I can't think of the application.
[2:59:27] Fish and wildlife everywhere.
[2:59:29] That's stuff here.
[2:59:30] Actually, some of it is a tougher spot actually.
[2:59:34] There's that ledge out in front of it.
[2:59:36] It wasn't the best place to put a boat in there.
[2:59:40] I'll put it that way.
[2:59:41] Looks like you're a few rocks to navigate around here.
[2:59:44] Yes, yeah.
[2:59:45] There are.
[2:59:45] Try to do a lot of scenes in there.
[2:59:51] I think you're doable.
[2:59:52] That is doable.
[2:59:54] And you have a large up top here in the one down here.
[2:59:56] So you can see maybe you can see four of you right here.
[2:59:59] See you're able to.
[3:00:00] The name of the neighbor, and I think he walked around the room and he went, yeah. He contacted me and he might be a little bit deeper, and that's all.
[3:00:05] But he just, the bank is a bit of a road in there that the federal really is uneven.
[3:00:11] It really went great for most of the walk-on.
[3:00:14] Especially when you let this is a much better approach.
[3:00:16] I'm saying it's tough to get to the other spot.
[3:00:19] I'm sure.
[3:00:19] I can't get to the other
[3:00:31] spot.
[3:00:31] Is this still just a recreational?
[3:00:33] Just for a
[3:00:42] few stages, straightforward, then.
[3:00:44] Oh, I'm sorry.
[3:00:46] I'm sure everything we say.
[3:00:51] Go
[3:00:56] ahead.
[3:00:57] Go ahead.
[3:00:57] Go ahead and change.
[3:00:58] Questions?
[3:00:59] Let's talk about the fine deal.
[3:01:02] We did them before, but this is needed.
[3:01:05] Yes.
[3:01:08] We'll maintain safe and helpful conditions.
[3:01:11] I agree.
[3:01:13] We'll not result in a lot of pollution, a erosion, a sedimentation,
[3:01:17] to surface waters.
[3:01:19] Well, adequately provide for the disposal of all the waste water.
[3:01:26] Well,
[3:01:32] not having any adverse impact on spawning ground, spish aquatic life, birds, or other wildlife habitat.
[3:01:38] Yeah, well, they're in the area.
[3:01:40] It's great.
[3:01:43] We'll observe shore cover invisible as well as actual points of access to inland and coastal waters.
[3:01:50] I'm here to update you.
[3:01:53] We'll protect our theological and historic resources
[3:01:56] that's the beginning of the town's comprehensive plan.