Papenfuse: Research Notes and Documents for
Barron v Baltimore, 32 U. S. 243

barron-0170   Enlarge and print image (660K)            << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>

clear space clear space clear space white space


 

Papenfuse: Research Notes and Documents for
Barron v Baltimore, 32 U. S. 243

barron-0170   Enlarge and print image (660K)            << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>

Wetlands Case No. 87-WL-0163 Page 2 foot wide walkway was deleted from the project and replaced with an 8-foot wide elevated and cantilevered walkway. IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The following is a description of the applicant's proposal as presented in the revised application of June 1988. The Recommendations of the Department of Natural Resources are presented in Section X of this report. 1. Construct and backfill a 550-foot long replacement bulkhead on an alignment approximating the mean high water line, and within a maximum of 18 inches channelward of the existing bulkhead and to place 550 linear feet of stone riprap within a maximum of 12 feet channelward of the bulkhead; 2. Remove two deteriorated piers, and various relieving platforms totaling 17,421 square feet. (of this total, 4950 square feet were removed prior to 1985 and 4500 square feet were removed between 1985 and the present); 3. Rebuild a 12,000 square foot pier by placing new pilings and structural supports, and a new deck, all within the original 200-foot long by 60-foot wide pier foot print, and construct a 62-foot long by 60-foot wide extension (3,720 square feet) to the pier in order to create a 15,720 square foot pier; 4. Construct a multi-story residential condominium building on the resulting 262-foot long by 60-foot wide pier; 5. Construct an 812-foot long by 8-foot wide, elevated cantilevered walkway for public access along the waterfront; 6. Construct a 74 slip floating marina. The proposed works are located on the Patapsco River in the Baltimore Harbor at Boston Street in the Fells Point area of Baltimore City. V. PURPOSE: Construction of a multi-unit residential development, of which part would be on existing fastland and part on a large pier over State tidal waters. The scope of this review however is limited to the portion of work proposed over State waters.