Good Afternoon Karl,
This is the first of two complaints I intend to file against the above development on the Sea Island Spit. You and I spoke briefly a few days ago about the construction workers destroying salt marsh on the western most section of lot #8. Attached are several images with graphics explaining my concerns and reasons for this complain
Images #9116, #9117, #9118 and Image #9121 are historical salt marsh photos taken by me on 1-12-14. These images and others show that the marsh that was there is no longer as indicated by my aerial images taken on 12-26-15.
I am also going to provide you with a video dated 12-1-14 that will validate what these still photos show. The video for this complaint is video #1 and if you do not want to watch the entire video (Approximately 20 minutes) you may cut at at the 11 minutes and 30 seconds of video #1 and you will see the images being validated as stated above. Video #1 shows the majority of lot #8 and is the reason it is so long. I will hand deliver this video #1 and video #2 to you this afternoon. If you are not available to receive these two videos I will leave them with the receptionist down stairs.
Thank you and I need a response from you or staff indicating your findings of this complaint investigation.
James R. Holland
Sea Island Acquisition Complaint #2
Karl, this is SIA complaint number two. This complaint consists of two parts in which the first part pertains to the construction work on lot #8. My attached photos with graphics should be self explanatory like in complaint number one.
The attached images show where during the construction of the bulkhead around lot #8 the workers allowed dredge spoil material(s) (SEDIMENT) to enter the marsh in many places outside the bulkhead and silt fence surrounding lot #8. I am requesting with this e-mail that you assign staff to investigate my concerns and if my concerns are correct, please cause the SIA to remove these dredge spoils from the marsh.
Also, as in complaint #1 I am going to hand deliver to you at CRD this afternoon video #2 which is much shorter than video #1 but relates to and validates all the images in this complaint dated 1-12-14 (Historical site marsh photos).
The second concern in this complaint is I need to know, has all this bulkheading on this proposed development been permitted. Images #9, #10 and #11 show the amount of bulkheading also including imagery showing tide water on 7 of the 8 lots in this proposed development. There is extensive bulkheading including areas of the bridge and where the tide waters approach the bridge near the condos.
Once again, please reply to me whether or not this extensive bulkheading has been approved by the CMPC or anyone else.
Thank you very much,
James R. Holland