Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Cc: "John P. Woods" •
Our locations are well away from all legal mornings. There's been a guy who lives on his boat who has moved
over here occasionally when he gets ran off from in front of Ritz. Enforcement is constantly following him
around making him move.
Sent from my iPad
Amy Claire Dempsey
President
Bioimpact, Inc
M. Box 132
Kingshill, St. Croix VI 00851
On Dec 22, 2016, at 9:27 AM, jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.corn> wrote:
no mooring locatated there, no public access. it is a private dock. and the only deep water , that s the main
consideration
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:22 AM, John P. Woods <
> wrote:
I Amy,
Actually, I don't think he is questioning two dock locations; I think he preferred one to be where the existing one is
and the other across from LSJ. With the existing site being out of the way, Christmas Cove should be ok. All I am saying
is we will have to be tight on the design considerations and environmental factors. Consultation with the ACOE will
certainly help that. I recommend we collectively review the design package and discuss how these facilities,
particularly in Christmas Cove, will be managed. I feel we will be questioned heavily on whether the public will be able
to pull dinghies up to the dock in Christmas Cove. We have to also address whether there will be any displacement of
existing moorings because of that dock.
JPW
Cc: Jeffrey E.; Darren Indyke; John P. Woods; Erika Kellerhals
EFTA01058091
First:
The barge landing proposed has almost negligible impact and the federal agencies really liked it.
As to the Chrstmas Cove dock, it is the most protected of all the docks far more so than the LSJ site as far as
most common wave approach. It is protected by STT, Cow and Calf, the small off shore cay and all the other
rocks out there. JP has not taken a lot of time to look at it and probably was just shooting from hip. I have
attached a drawing showing the only wave approach that would directly effect the site. And we can pull the
HINDCAST buoy data and show how infrequently it occurs.
I should sit down with JP and go through all the proposed locations and the impacts and designs of each and
why they are the way they are to address impacts. The federal agencies liked all the locations chosen.
Theyre concern was as his, why two access docks.
Amy Claire Dempsey, M.
President, Bioimpact, Inc
Box 132 Kingshill
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 00851
344) 690-8445 Fax 340 718-3800
hioimpact@islands.vi,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:13 PM, John P. Woods
wrote:
Good Evening,
I met with J.P. Oriol yesterday to discuss the drawings that we will be submitting to in essence replace the
unexecuted permit that will ultimately serve as a "master plan" for the island. We discussed what needs to be
included in the drawings and I came away with the following points:
I. A helipad, by VI Code Title 29 Section 226, paragraph (h) requires a helipad to be approved by DPNR,
Public Works, VI Port Authority, and the VI Legislature. It is my understanding we are not asking for a
helipad, but a concrete pad/terrace that may be used as a landing site. J.P. feels we should apply for this site
separately as it could hold up the rest of the scope. What I feel we need to do is state clearly in the
description of the pad it is not a helipad. We should further state that in the future it may be used as a landing
site, at which time we will apply for all "necessary" permits. Of course we don't believe any other special
permit is required other than a determination that a rook is not within 1000 feet of the site. I strongly
recommend Amy do that study now to make that determination.
EFTA01058092
2. Access on to the island is important to define now. J.P. seems to feel the existing dock site should remain
and supplement it with the dock across from LSJ. He has concerns about the dock in Christmas Cove and the
temporary barge landing regarding their ability to withstand Winter swells on the Western side of the island.
He also feels the barge landing should be incorporated into one of the dock sites as it is on LSJ. Amy has
already said the ACOE does not like the existing dock site, so that is out. The marine facilities on the western
side will need to evaluate wave activity throughout the year to validate the western sites. We don't have to
show these access points at this stage, but they should be seriously considered as it relates to where we are
placing structures like storage and maintenance sheds.
3. DPNR will likely stand by their interpretation of the height of the flagpoles. We will need to apply for a
variance from BLUA to try and get the height waived. Erika, let's work on that. I think the basis should be
the inconsistency I referenced in my earlier correspondence to the Commissioner.
4. I have defined the work scope into two phases. The first phase deals with cleanup, stabilization of existing
driveways, landscaping, flagpoles, concrete pads, and new driveways. Phase 2 consists of structures such as
residential cottages, pools, and storage buildings. We are doing that separation because we don't have enough
definition on the buildings to get them fully permitted. We would also need complete plans, elevations, and
sections. We can, however, get them approved conceptually with special conditions that will require us to
submit more complete drawings when we are ready to construct those buildings.
5. We can request this new scope replace the scope of the unexecuted permit. This will save a lot of time, if
they accept it. The inclusion of new driveways will be the impetus to request modifying the limitations on
types of equipment that can be used.
I intend to make the submission over the next days, depending upon the VI Gov. holiday schedule. Once
approved, modifications and additions to the scope will be easier to receive and take less time than acquiring
multiple CZM permits.
JPW
Sent from my iPhone
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
Avast logo
please note
The information contained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
JEE
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
EFTA01058093
return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
EFTA01058094