{"content":[{"text":"The proposal from the February 23rd meeting was for 220 feet. The original request was for 255 \n feet. The plan presented tonight is for a revetment that is 170 feet long.","bbox":{"left":0.147059,"top":0.054,"width":0.687888,"height":0.03557799999999999}},{"text":"Tara Marden told the members that the engineering analysis shows that a 255 ft long revetment is \n needed and that anything short of255 feet is not based on engineering analysis but on coming \n with something the Commission and the WHG is comfortable with. The Engineers did not rerun \n all the models to come up with 170 feet. They used wind, profile and grain size data and size of \n the toe stones to come up with the 255 feet. Anything short of that is based on professional \n opinion and working on a compromise with the Commission.","bbox":{"left":0.147057,"top":0.104645,"width":0.7018730000000001,"height":0.09841800000000002}},{"text":"Tara Marden stated that shortening the revetment any more (less than 170 feet) would require \n cutting a whole new path from the house to the stairs in the revetment. As she had proposed \n backfilling the structure so as not to remove any vegetation on the top of the bank, she did not \n understand how the Trustees would allow a whole new path to be created. Chris Egan clarified \n that a whole new path would not be needed; only the last 3 or 4 feet of the path would have to be \n redirected to meet a new stair system, not an entirely new path. Prudy reminded that the point of \n the conversation regarding the location of the path was that where the path existed now did not \n dictate where the end of the revetment had to be.","bbox":{"left":0.147057,"top":0.21813,"width":0.695963,"height":0.13038700000000003}},{"text":"Public Comment:","bbox":{"left":0.147057,"top":0.363659,"width":0.12629600000000002,"height":0.01849400000000001}},{"text":"Chris Egan/ TTOR: Concern is about the future of beach nourishment and the cumulative effect \n of the beach nourishment. Also, that monitoring is only proposed to be done on the Edens \n property. Tara responded that an escrow account could be set up. 38 cubic yards of sediment \n would be about $1,000. Tara Marden replied that there is between 400 and 500 feet from the end \n of the revetment to the cove. She would not propose monitoring profiles on the other side of the \n cove.","bbox":{"left":0.147057,"top":0.39722,"width":0.6955140000000001,"height":0.098418}},{"text":"Sarah Lund: The applicant would be happy to enter into an escrow agreement for future beach \n nourishment.","bbox":{"left":0.147057,"top":0.510705,"width":0.677323,"height":0.034555}},{"text":"Glenn Hearn: Fiber rolls have been used on Nantucket.","bbox":{"left":0.147057,"top":0.560402,"width":0.39604799999999996,"height":0.01849400000000001}},{"text":"Members who are eligible to vote are Judy, Prudy, Joanie and Hadden. Peter, Binnie and Tara \n will abstain from voting.","bbox":{"left":0.147057,"top":0.594038,"width":0.675464,"height":0.03447900000000004}},{"text":"Judy moved and Joanie seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor.","bbox":{"left":0.147057,"top":0.643659,"width":0.531236,"height":0.01849400000000001}},{"text":"A discussion on procedures followed.","bbox":{"left":0.147057,"top":0.677371,"width":0.27104700000000004,"height":0.01849400000000001}},{"text":"Hadden motioned to approve a 170 foot long revetment as shown on the plan with stairs and \n nourishment program with annual monitoring conditions, for a house 85 to 95 feet from the top of \n the bank and access over the top of the bank as described in the project narrative. Joanie \n seconded. The vote on the motion was Hadden - Aye, Joanie, Judy and Prudy - Nay. Peter, Binnie \n and Tara abstained. The motion failed.","bbox":{"left":0.147057,"top":0.710932,"width":0.704853,"height":0.08243299999999998}},{"text":"Discussion:","bbox":{"left":0.147057,"top":0.808507,"width":0.083821,"height":0.01849400000000001}},{"text":"Judy: This is more a proposal for a structure to protect a property than it is to protect a house at \n this time","bbox":{"left":0.147057,"top":0.842068,"width":0.6837080000000001,"height":0.034555}},{"text":"Prudy agreed and sited Section IX.C.3 of the bylaw regulations regarding no adverse effect. \n Additionally, no alternatives have been tried in the field per the state regulations 10.33(3) (b).","bbox":{"left":0.147057,"top":0.89169,"width":0.6732929999999999,"height":0.034555}},{"text":"2","bbox":{"left":0.961569,"top":0.936841,"width":0.008970999999999951,"height":0.01849400000000001}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}