Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. on the air. >> Good afternoon. >> Afternoon. This is a here. >> Just a second. >> Okay. Good afternoon. This is a hearing
of the Cham Conservation Commission being held on March 11th, 2026 in accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Town of Chow Wetlands Protection bylaw and regulations. My name is Karen Latin and I serve as the chair. Please note the meeting is
being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including the use of AI note takingaking apps, ple uh
please notify the chair. Pursuant to Governor Harry's Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures op adopted during the state of emergency
suspending certain provisions of the OD open meeting law GLC 3A section 20 until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Conservation Commission is being conducted in person and via remote
participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone
number 1508-9454410 conference ID 9723 638430 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the list in the posted agenda while this is a live
broadcast and simal cast on chatam TV Exfinity channel 1072. Despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as
soon as possible. To all participants, whether attending by phone or online, please remain muted unless you've been recognized by the chair. When recognized, please identify yourself for the record. If you're attending by phone, you can mute and unmute by using
star six. If you are online and you are not a commissioner, please keep your camera turned off unless you have been recognized. Indicate that you wish to speak by using the raised hand feature so that we may so that we have a co a
quorum. I will now ask each commissioner to indicate their presence. Vice chair Paul Johnson >> present. >> Janet Williams >> present. >> Elise Gordon >> present. >> Eric Hilbert >> present. >> Bob Delveio >> present. and I'm here. So, we've established we have a quorum. Is there
anyone who would like to make any announcements, comments, or future agenda items for anything other than the properties on the agenda today? I am not seeing anything online nor here. Uh,
commissioners, anything? Nope. Okay. Before we begin the agenda, Bradford, are there any announcements for any continuences today? Yes, there's one uh continuence request for the discussion on uh irrigation systems.
>> Okay, great. >> Thank you. At this point, Bradford Bower, Chadam's assistant conservation agent, will now lead us through the agenda. >> Okay. Uh, first up we have a order of
conditions for 202 Lime Hill Road, Lime Hill 22 Trust, map 12E, parcel 4-B6, SC 10-3746. Uh, this project is for a proposed elevated catwalk maintenance of existing path and mitigation. It was continued
from October 8th, 2025 and December 3rd, 2025. >> How are you? >> Pretty good. How are you? >> Good. I did receive your comments. >> Um some of them I did not do.
>> Okay. Uh first the uh in the project and mitigation description I did not change that because that is what is submitted when you apply >> which was that >> you said there is a proposed path from
the bottom of the slope traversing land and uh of the I >> landward of the salt marsh. >> Oh landward of the salt marsh to reach the catwalk. I did not change that because or cross out anything that you
had because this is the original description >> oh >> that you had submitted. I did under the special conditions I did remove the shellfish abundance and location from special condition six which is the annual survey that you asked to have it
removed. The other things that you crossed off later in the order are all as applicable for the project. So I did not remove those because if they're not applicable, they don't pertain. >> Understand?
>> So okay. >> Um do you have anything else that you want to bring up? >> I don't think so. All the all the plan dates match every everything, right? >> Uh yeah. My question is uh is this
changing at all given that you have to redo things for ZBA? >> We shouldn't have to redo anything for ZBA. >> Oh, okay. >> Um just have to uh go finish that process. That's all. We don't intend on having be having to change anything at
this point. >> No. Okay. Can >> go ahead, Chant. >> I'm sorry. just the because this was drafted before the ZVA hearing. So it felt like things had changed on from our perspective after that hearing that they were not prepared to approve this plan
and that I thought the withdrawal which is what you did, right? >> I don't think so. No, we're back in front of MBA in April. >> Yeah, they did not withdraw. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes, >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Bill, this is Bill Riley, >> right?
the uh uh we continued it uh and because we wanted to get this order conditions and we're going to go back and uh review the comments that the members made uh along with
uh the contents of this order and hopefully they're going to approve uh the application as presented. So, can I just ask if you're not making any changes to
the what you've presented to us? >> Mhm. >> Nothing. And I believe at that meeting you they were told that we were going to an order and that partially was because
it was after ZBA. So, it usually can it is contingent on ZBA approving and we g we let them know that it was uh you know it was in process for an order if nothing's changing how
>> I wasn't there Bill can >> Okay, Bill, >> can I explain? Right. So, the uh one of the things that was happening at the uh zoning board of appeals
is that the uh some of the uh the board members felt that uh this, you know, the what we're talking about should be available to all the members of the subdivision, which is effectively a grant of a property right
uh which is something that the uh the zoning board of appeals like the conservation commission is unable to do. and the >> right >> so
um the so one of the things they said was well you know you you're not providing much of uh benefit but the uh the thing that I think we're going to be pointing out to them and you
know obviously they vote the way they want is the standard for approval for a special permit like this, you know, you know, is it is it substantially more detrimental? Is what we're seeking substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood
than what would already exist? And and so we're providing a lot of uh benefits which are highlighted in your order. And so uh our hope is that uh they'll
approve it. If they don't, our option is is to uh appeal the order to uh the court and get the court to review it because we think that uh the design we have
and the conditions which we're accepting with your order uh clearly does provide a significant benefit to uh this neighborhood. So um so we so we're
so I wouldn't be doing this unless I was an optimist. I believe that once we review all the changes uh all the conditions in your order of conditions that you know we'll be able to get four votes to support uh the application.
>> Right. >> Okay. Um there's also in the order I forgot to ask about this. We I think it says right now it says that there's 1217 square ft of increased
coverage in the NDZ and um we don't know in the outer aura we have we can we could not find any numbers anywhere that said how much increase decrease there was in the outer
aura. So, I mean, we were sort of, you know, I need to fill it in. Let me put it that way. >> Let's see. The mitigation is part of that number, right? >> And we only have 954
of down as mitigation. So, I'm not sure >> because that's not enough mitigation. The revised plan we sent you has, 1217 square feet of removal of invasives and restorative plantings >> in in the NDZ.
>> Um, yeah, right up to the top. >> I'm asking the outer aura. We don't have any numbers. Is there any change in the outer aura? >> There's nothing out. Okay. >> Yeah. >> No, all all work and mitigation is on
the coastal bank in the resource area. >> Okay. So nothing is happening in the 50 to 100 at all. >> All in the resource areas. >> Okay. >> Sort of confused by that. Um, >> we've we've been back and forth many
>> 954 of irrigation and if it's in the NDZ, this is why we were really uncertain and we had it highlighted when we sent it to you. >> Um, but there was nothing that came back
to us with any information. Um, it's supposed to be 2:1 mitigation. >> Well, the mitigation would only be for the square footage of the uh of the of the catwalk and then we started at 954, but then we
moved we increased it to extend to the property line. That's what why it went to 1217. The catwalk's only 160. So, it's more than adequate to cover to cover the catwalk. And then the rest of it was to help the bank and reduce uh
remove remove invasives and and replant the bank. >> Right. All right. We don't have that spelled out at all in the order right now. I think the order is not correct. I thought that the the revised plan showed
the note that with the inclusion of the side piece the total mitigation was 1217 which is exactly the same as the impact. Is that right? >> Um >> one to one it does say the restoration proposed removal of invasives and
restorative is 1217 but we have down 954. >> That was the original amount until we increased it to property limit. So 1217 should be that 954 should be 1217 I believe. >> Okay. Well, this is we highlighted all the 954s. The 127 looking for some
guidance, but we didn't receive it. >> I'm sorry. We didn't we thought >> we each thought the other was going to take care of that. >> That's okay. >> Sorry. >> Um >> Karen, the finding one uh proposed project will result in an overall
coverage increase of 127. That should be 160, right? Um, I guess you could add the stairs in there, too. So, the catwalk's 40 feet. Um,
there's steps to get up to it that are about 5 feet maybe. So, it could be 160. What? That's four feet. 180 ft. And then um you probably should include the access stairs over the bank which are another
about 18 or 20 ft. So and those are only they're not they're not four feet wide. They're three feet wide. So say 50 50 for the stairs that go over the bank and then um 160 for the catwalk and then
another 20 for the stairs that go up to the catwalk. So >> that's 230 I believe. >> Yeah. And four times that is four or five times that is 1217. So we're we're good. >> Yeah. So finding one should read
coverage increase of 230 square ft. >> Yep. I'm good with that. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Sorry that we didn't address it. Um I think before we
send this to a motion um I've heard rumblings in within commission nothing official I think I'd like to do a straw ballot to see as written whether it they support approving it because the
other option would be finding out when we send it to motion. Is that okay? >> I'm happy with that. I'd rather know sooner. >> Exactly. >> I appreciate that. Some commissions don't do that. I appreciate it. >> Okay. Um Bob,
>> I go along with it. >> Okay, Eric. >> Um yeah, I I'll I would go along with it. I just wish the uh there wasn't a uh the path was on the above bank, but unfortunately it cannot be. But other
than that, yeah, I'm fine with it. >> Elise, I'm a no. >> Janet, >> no. >> Paul, I'm I I tend to go along with it absent
of uh of an edict with about catwalks in general. >> Say again. Well, there's until there's a moratorum on catwalks, >> right, >> which we don't have right now. So, I I would tend to go along with it.
>> Thank you. >> I I'm not for it. So, now we're split. >> And I've I never supported I couldn't write this order because I wasn't for it. So, now we're three and three. And
what do you want us to do? Do you want us to >> Why don't we continue it till after ZBA? >> Okay. >> And you might have some more reinforcement for your decision. >> Okay. So, >> are you okay with that?
>> The uh you know the I guess without I mean you say you're a no. So, could I ask what the basis of the no vote is for the three people who voted no? >> Want me to go first? >> Absolutely.
>> Um, it's a Lee Gordon bill. I watched and paid close attention to the ZBA um meeting and I was I feel like we're in a a pickle ball game here. Um, but the thing that impressed me were was the the
one neighbor who I'm not going to remember his name, but he came up and his description of the neighborhood's willingness to share the catwalks that already exist were was what impressed me. It was a very little thing, but it hit me that have we really tried hard
enough to get this area to not have a catwalk for every house. So that that's what swayed me the other way. >> Uh I have similar objections. Um and I think I did articulate this at the last hearing that I find that the application
does it fails to meet the test of avoiding and minimizing the impacts. You know, I'm on board with not having people walking and dragging kayaks through the marsh and that an elevated properly designed catwalk is the right answer to some of that. But this takes
existing impacts and doubles the size of the impacts once you factor in the size of the path and the new length of the much longer catwalk than a catwalk installed in the location where people have already been accessing. And I'm not I know we can't we can't grant any kind
of property rights. That's not the issue for us. That's up to the applicant to figure out. I'll just point out as I did last time that there are shared catwalks all over town that people manage to to uh to to manage them uh wisely. So uh and my second objection is that I think
it's been a long time since we've approved a permanent catwalk. Um, I heard the uh descriptions about the impacts of taking it in and out. And the more I looked it into that issue, the impacts of of the permanent the shading from a permanent catwalk far outweighs
the temporary impacts of one day putting it in and one day taking it out. So, I'm I'm done. I'm not going to approve a permanent catwalk. >> And my issues are pretty similar. I I have a problem with the amount of
walkway um the pathway that's going to between walkways and I I also feel that a permanent catwalk is not what what we've in the past
approved. Um, it's always been seasonal and removed. And that really was the biggest point that bothered me besides people walking all over to get to the various parts.
>> So, if it was changed to seasonal, would that change of your answers? >> It would help. >> Okay. >> I still don't love the pathway. I know you have to get there somewhere, but and the path is in will be in
renewed vegetation, not the salt marsh. And we know that it's a landward landward of all of that. The um the regulations don't specify between seasonal or permanent, but I understand the preferences. And I've been since I've done most of the catwalks, I think um they've all been seasonal.
>> So, I appreciate that. Prof professionally and respectfully I disagree for the reasons I stated that properly designed permanent is a onceanddone as opposed to >> right >> you know but we've been through that argument before so if if you disagree I'm you know I'm fine with that.
>> Yeah. I just don't want to set a precedent of you know we've we've insisted on seasonal um for years that I've been on and I I'm not ready to >> give that up. >> Give that up. Well, I I I respect that.
That's that's an easy change for us. >> All right. >> Well, Madam Chair, Madam Chair, >> yes. >> So, the the greater likelihood is that the one change that we're going to make between now and the the next meeting we
have with you is it'll be designed as a seasonal catwalk. So the uh uh that's going to be our our change and that I would suggest that
the denial of this u design uh is in effect uh forcing a a grant of rights for the neighbors which uh is completely
inappropriate. So, just so you know, >> I understand. And I don't think we're forcing the that I I don't think that that was the impression we wanted to give. We cannot force somebody to allow their
neighbors to use some something that's their property. And we know that. >> Yeah. But you can deny it because it it's not in a location where the neighbors can use it. That's not what I said. >> No, it isn't. >> I don't think that's what anybody said
really. >> Yeah, >> I think it was stated that ZBA said that, but that was not >> Well, I think that's just what Elise and uh in some just said and uh seems to me that you you
also agreed with that. Sorry. No, I I what I said was that I agree that I'm not thrilled over the um the permanent catwalk and the pathway
that is being used to go from one area to the other. Um that was my opinion. Um, I it just seems I would rather see it straight down. Uh, you know, I think
it it's less Yes, you are um restoring that whole area and wouldn't it be nice if it all were restored and nobody had to walk through it? >> I get it. I think what Bill was saying, Elise, with all due respect, I think you were you you started out by saying by
watching the ZBA hearing that it was compelling to you that they didn't like the fact that the walkway wasn't wasn't shared. But but but neither board can vote based on that. And and what I what I should have added to that um I tend
not to do redundant comments and I knew what Janet I suspected that Janet and Karen were going to articulate what I had objected to previously which was the more um I'll use the word appropriate um comments that they made relative to the
to the catwalk and the permanence and the the lo the location the non-straight out. That was not my only my only ra reason. Okay. >> Um I was on the fence. So, >> but >> apologies for that. >> That Oh, that's okay. That's why we're
here. Um All right. So, if we make it seasonal, that seems to uh might be the nudge. That would work. So, Bill, when are we back to ZBA? >> April 9th. >> I don't know. And >> April 9th. >> Okay. So, should we continue to sometime
after that? Uh yes. Why don't we continue to April 22nd? >> Okay. >> If we could have a motion to continue it. >> I move that we continue 202 Lime Hill Road to the meeting on April 22nd, 2026.
>> Second. >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Paul. >> I. >> Janet. >> Hi. >> Elise. >> Hi. >> And I say I. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Next, please Bradford. >> Next up is an order of conditions for 55
Sears Point Road and Popkin Trustee Chatter Revocable Trust Map 11 A1 parcel X2 SC 10-3 3763. This project is uh to reconstruct an existing flatfaced revetment into a
roughfaced revetment design repositioning the northwest corner of the re existing revetment which has experienced significant erosion. This was continued from January 28, 2026. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> Me again. >> I didn't receive anything saying that >> Teresa is here too. Um we had we had one correction the and this is just because it's a standard condition it's mentioned which one is it mentions the fiber rolls are installed
at the base of the bank um sorry >> good afternoon everyone with blue flex design um D7 on the fiber roll array it just says that any um fiber roll array approved shall be placed at the existing toe of the coastal bank in this case it's going to be located above the um
rock revetment so just wanted to clarify that that that's the only change Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And then we had one other question. There's a there's a statement in here about reconfiguring the stairs, but the stairs would be we wouldn't touch the
stairs unless and until we did phase two, which is not authorized by this uh by this order. >> I'm trying to find it. It I'll just jump in. It was based in on the initial uh proposal that included phase two. Um,
and we we kept that in there just because if you don't ask, you don't have any chance of getting. And so, um, it was put in to see if they would consider that. >> Just moving the not reconfiguring the stairs, just moving the
paddle board rack so that it doesn't overhang the marsh, forcing people to walk into the marsh to walk around it, which is damaging the marsh. Um, put it on the side and you'd be good. But I understand that that's not associated any longer with the first phase.
>> Well, if you leave it in, I would ask that we that you just put at the applicant's option or required during phase two and that will carry forward when we come back. If they decide to do phase two, then that will carry forward into that.
But what if you don't do phase two? You still have a situation there with a structure that's causing damage to the marsh. >> Yeah. I mean, the structure itself isn't. It's people walking around it. >> It's the Well, because the structure that we have to hang the structure itself is fine. It's just
>> the stairs. >> You got to hang the paddle boards a different way. >> On the side of it rather than on the end of it >> or it could be under it >> or under it. Right. There's any kind many different kinds of ways you can attach paddle boards. >> All right. I don't I just didn't The stairs have to come out. If if phase two is done, the stairs come out. But I'm
but I think it's it's completely doable to say that the paddle board rack can be should be reconfigured so it doesn't extend beyond the end of the existing stairs. >> Yes. >> And then I fit back. >> Actually, it >> just a minute. >> Oh, >> have you considered the length of the
paddle boards, >> Bill? If >> so, if you have them so that Wait a minute. If you have them so that they're running perpendicular to the shoreline, then they're going to force people to walk out there anyway because they're that long.
>> Yeah. in my it's right now right now they're less intrusive than they would be if we hung them so that they're they're uh >> parallel >> well so that they're
uh on the side that is you know as I say perpendicular to the shoreline I right now you know they're an annoyance if you do it the other They're even more of annoyance because they stick out even
further because of their length. >> Bill, what I was talking about was to store them under under the stairs. >> But they're still going to stick out. >> No, no, no. But but put them parallel to the shoreline, parallel to the reventment. >> Yeah, that'll work.
>> Uh you got stairs that go down, Mark. >> Oh, >> I mean, it's not like it's a pier and you can stick them under. It's just, you know, a way to get the way to place stairs so they don't intrude out into the into the marsh,
you know. So, uh, I just don't see that we can accommodate Janet's concern, uh, by saying, "Oh, we'll hang them somewhere else because they're still going to be in the way."
>> I think we have a technical problem here that we're not all seeing. Can perhaps we can change this to say that uh >> the plan up. >> Yeah, I actually have the photograph. Probably better. >> Does anybody want the pointer?
>> I stole mine from my pointer. >> Oh, little closeup. Maybe >> that's >> that's what it is. And so people have to go out. >> We have the pointer if you want it. That's a good looking pointer.
>> Yeah, >> that works. >> Oh, there that works. >> So down the cross-section shows it as well. Although >> it's not shown on the cross-section. >> It doesn't have the second structure which is the paddle board rack.
If if you put the watercraft underneath, don't you have to hop over and step on the marsh in order to shove it in there and take it out? >> Well, you'd have to walk right in front of the stairway, but the marsh doesn't extend. There's enough room to walk in front of the stairway. So, we could
perhaps put them on the back side. >> Hey, Bradford, can I share? >> I have a photo. >> There's a photo. Makes it easier. >> Oh, I'm not on anymore. Yes, I am. >> You should be. Oh, >> no. I got dropped off. on purpose.
>> Never mind. >> Bradford, do you have the photos that were submitted with the application or I don't know if I took one of that area. >> Give us a second because these are continued hearings. But >> yeah, >> hang on. I can get back in.
>> Hang on. I'll get it back. I am in >> if you find it. >> I mean, to me, if they're off the ground, I mean, they're off the ground. Five. I think that's all we're looking. Here it is. Okay. There we Here it comes. There it is. >> Okay.
>> So, it's two structures really, right? >> Is there stare? >> Ah, there you go. Okay. >> Okay. So, I'm suggesting after looking at this, I totally get >> you have to be at the microphone. >> Okay. Try again. I'm thinking store them
here facing in and out. >> That's good. That's good. >> Right. Because they're already stored at that same direction. Uh with relation to the stereo, it's not going to change anything. Just puts them behind. >> And that's a long enough run, too. >> Yeah. Yeah. The other the only other way to do it
>> proposing them. Look, all I'm looking at is the picture. I have no idea what you're proposing. >> Oh, okay. Well, can you see the You can see the picture. Can you see the laser pointing here on the the shore, the landward side of the steps and tuck them under >> bottom steps? You can't see the laser.
It's not. But you can see where the cursor is there, too. >> To the right of the >> just under the stairs. >> You can see maybe put them here. >> They're going to knock at you. You're getting knocked. >> They're going to knock >> as soon as you walk away.
>> You can't be in two places at once. He's saying, Bill, either the landward side of the lower steps or were you saying the landward the side facing the in the picture facing us? Uh, as we look going down the first
steps, the longer steps. >> Yep. >> I'm sorry. Say that again. >> Okay. the longer steps. The first set he um he's saying it doesn't show on the
screen for him. >> Yeah, it does. >> Oh, it does. Oh, okay. >> Under here going in and out or under here going out. >> You're going to be knocked out again. There you go. >> It could only be silent, >> right?
I think it would also be possible to move that to the other side of the their structure, the western side. >> Then they would be this way. >> Yeah. >> Oh, deates stick out though. >> Maybe not like show. >> You're going to have to change the
screen because I can't see what you're talking about. >> Oh, I'm >> Yeah, because now it's got all of us there. >> Can you see that, Bill? >> No, all I can see is the picture. Oh well, >> well that's >> that's what we want you to see.
>> Do you have a very long stick? >> So, Bill, they're saying >> one of the longer >> parts of the steps going down or at the
landward side of the lower steps. See the problem I think with the landwood side of the lower step is that they uh >> they're not long enough >> extreme high in extreme high tide they'd be floating away. So >> okay >> or put it's be it'd be the same at the
same elevation they currently are just on the other side of that the of the railing on the far side there. So, you'd move it 90 degrees >> essentially. You can't put them >> What?
>> You can't put them here. >> You can't put them there because all you've got all you've got is the the the four steps down. >> So, >> they got to go under, which is low, he's saying. Or you could put them under here, but they which get the bottom of >> Yeah. You kill you're going to kill
yourself trying to climb over the rocks and pull a watercraft out. Either that side or the back side. I don't think we want them on the revetment. Standing on the revetment either. >> So there's there's one other there's one other option. You could leave them where they are.
>> Hang on, Bill. >> Please take the Would somebody please take the picture off the screen? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. So the uh now that I can see your smiling faces,
>> but we can't see you. Well, I can I can arrange that if you want. I mean, after all. >> So, there there's one other >> There are There he is. >> All right. >> Of course. >> Oh, never mind. Turn it off. >> No, no,
>> let me let me let me throw one other suggestion. Bill, >> I have a I have a thought. >> No, no, you hang on, Mark. So, I have a thought that that uh would accomplish Janet's goal here. the the uh
we could put them on the west side. Uh we would you know they they might have to put an additional support on the stairs coming down.
So that the leading edge of the boards would be uh would extend no further than the existing uh railing. Uh
so I mean the the uh because it looks like you know there'd be there's enough room uh so you could sort of you can use the stairs coming down the lower portion of
it anyway as additional support for the boards so that they wouldn't extend out past the uh southernmost railing. >> Okay, >> good idea. Janet's typing, so let's see. Do you want to read what you've put and
see? >> Yeah, it just now it says uh the existing structure across the reetment used for the storage of paddle boards protrudes into the salt marsh causing damage to the marsh grasses by forcing foot traffic to walk through the marsh. It must be reconfigured to attach to a
different portion of the stair so as not to extend beyond the southernmost railing of the stairway. However we do it then. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Not our place to tell you that. But anybody else have any modifications to this order.
>> Okay. Uh paragraph 15 on page 11F talks about shellfish abundance and location survey. >> Oh yeah. Same one as before. >> Okay. So you want the shellfish abundance and location out. >> We don't need that. >> Yep. We're taking Okay, we're taking it out.
>> Yes, please. >> Okay. Anything else? >> Um, uh, what is it? Number 13 >> in findings. >> E13. E is in Edward. 13. >> It just says all rocks should have a cover of sand. And that
>> Oh, well that's in the >> fiber rolls will be covered, but uh there's no nourishment proposed for this. >> Okay. Uh but that of course is as it pertains. not >> right
>> to the order. So, >> and I know that's a special that's that's a standard special condition as applicable. You know, we can >> Exactly. Go ahead and we even bold it ahead of time. So, you see that it says only if applicable. >> Yep. >> Um, this is really small, but page the
first page is labeled 11B. It probably should be A. >> That's that is nothing that we control. That's because something comes ahead of it. the header page comes in and that's 11A. It's not it's when it's filed, not
now. >> Oh, so it fixes itself. You're saying >> there's something that gets attached to the very beginning that's 11A. >> Oh, because there's two pages 11 C of what we read. But that's just pagionation. That's all >> that is.
>> But it is it does because when it gets folded into the state permit, there's already an A. So it follows that. But you're right, there's two C's and we'll see if we can figure out >> how to fix that. >> Just a word thing. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Yep. I've tried. >> All right. No worries.
>> All right. OB, anything? >> Okay. >> Not at this point. Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> We can have a motion. >> I move that we close the hearing on 55 Sears Point Road and approve the order of conditions as modified.
>> Second. >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. Paul >> I >> Janet >> I Elise >> I and I say I >> Okay, >> thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Hey, just remind you needs to file a revised plan to right basically on >> for what?
>> When do you need to file a revised plan >> for what? >> The existing plan doesn't show that structure. >> Oh, okay. >> So, it should be okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, Bradford. Up next is a field change request for
1557 Bridge Street, Eastward Companies, map 15B, parcel 1B, SC 10-3452. This project was for the demo of two existing dwellings in a pool, reconstruct both dwellings. The field
change request is to change the orientation from the pool and reconfigure the patio area. This was continued from February 11th, 2026. >> Okay. Hi Teresa. >> Hi. Good afternoon. I'll I'll let Susan start.
>> Okay. >> Good good afternoon. Susan Leoo from Eastward Companies. Uh we're just following up to answer the commission's question from the February 11th meeting. I believe I got the feeling from the commissioners that you were fine with
the pool orientation change uh and the reconfiguration of the patio as well as the decrease in the coverage in the 50 to 100. You did have a question about 75% native plants in the outer aura. So I took the question back to David Clark
and Teresa. I'm going to turn it over to Teresa now. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so as Susan wrote in her letter to the commission um and David Clark pointed out that the this is this is technically one property. So, I know there was a question similar to
what we had gone through with 47 and 53 Little Beach and 28 Stson Cove whether or not this needed to be separated, but it's actually one piece of land and there are two houses on one piece of land, so it's technically all one property. So, in total on the site, um we're planting um 1,717
native plants um as part of the overall restoration and um mitigation, which wasn't technically required because there was an overall reduction um in um coverage on the site. Um but of that, that's 1,137
shrubs and 34 trees. So, 25% of that in the outro would be 293 plants. Um my understanding is Andrew Geralt had proposed 41 non-native shrubs in the outer aura in the foundation planting. So I think we definitely meet that
requirement of greater than 75% native. >> And I appreciate the explanation because my I think I was the one first of all I had the concern of two properties. >> Yes. >> So I'll own that. And then um the other part was that the landscape plan and
your plan we needed to know between the two plans because they were both planting in the outer aura. Yes. >> That we were meeting that requirement. >> Understood entirely. >> I very much appreciate that explanation. >> Okay.
>> Um anybody have any questions, comments? I think that helped a lot. So, nothing. Then I think we can go to a motion. >> I move that we approve the field change request for 1557 Bridge Street as
written. >> Second, >> Bob. >> I >> Eric. >> Hi, >> Paul. >> Hi, >> Janet. >> I >> Elise, >> I say I. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good afternoon.
>> You too. Okay, next Bradford, please. Up next is a field change request for 504 Old Harbor Road, Blue Heron Trust, map 16H, parcel PB SC 10-3752.
Uh this is for the replace sorry this project is to replace the foundation additions pool cabana and relocate the driveway and mitigation. The field change request is to rotate the location of the pool by 90 degrees. the addition
of a small path connecting to the new door off the side of the house and widen the path leading leading to the pool cabana with mitigation adjustments. >> Okay, who do we have? Oh, there we go. >> Good afternoon. Uh my name is Pete Stevens. I'm with Dan Gordon Landscape
Architects. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Great. So, um I'm here representing the Sipsky family at 504 Old Harbor Road. Uh we came before you um last season uh with a pretty substantial plan to uh
adjust the location of existing house and create some additions. Um during the design process, we've uh developed the design a little further. We've added some planting, adjusted planting. We've also decided to rotate the pool. Um and so would you like me to share my screen
so that you can see the plan? >> Sure. Thank you. >> Great. Okay, give me one second. Okay. Um, so this is the, uh, original plan. I thought I'd show you that first with the pool in this orientation
running parallel with the back of the house. Uh, none of the buildings have changed, uh, as part of this field change request. simply orientation of the pool and uh minor paving adjustments at the um at the pool terrace. So, this is what
we're proposing to rotate the pool. Most of the pool is is still within the the proposed patio area. Um we've moved the spa from this location to this location here. Uh we've increased the paving in front of the pool cabana doors. The doors are now these big sliding doors
that open. We've added a walkway here and a little walkway here um within the outer aurora uh to connect to these doors. There have also been some minor changes to just the the shape of the stepping stones detra um very minor in
nature. I can show you the original plan again here um which show those stepping stones going down to the to the lower paved area. Um we are proposing to mitigate uh the added impervious the there was a a
resulting added impervious for the changes to this layout um and the added paving in these areas of about 600 a little over 600 square feet I believe. Let me just get over here. Sorry load. So we are proposing to increase uh uh
the mitigation from what was previously about 5200 square f feet to 5759 square ft which is just over what was required uh for work in the outer Aora. There are no changes to work um within the NDZ other than this mitigation planting
which now provides uh a vegetated buffer strip along the coastal bank as well as added over on this side above the coastal bank. Um and just in terms of planting revisions, uh you know, mainly it was
editing the planting throughout. Um and we've maintained the 100% native plantings within the NDZ and 75% native plantings in the outer aora. Uh and then there was one other thing that I noticed when going through these plans. Um when
we originally submitted there's a wash station at this uh door to the garage which we had shown on the plan but did not call out. Um so I wanted to identify that to you uh that we do have a rinse station there um which is where you'd come up
from the coastal bank uh from the from the beach rather and rinse off any sand etc. And that is pretty much it. Does anybody have any questions? >> Uh the rinse station, it's hard to see. Um
>> is that in the outer aura? >> Uh it is. Yes, it's just inside just in the outer aura. U pretty close to being outside the buffer zone, but >> Okay. >> Uh basically located where inside where the existing house was. Um >> Okay.
>> Yep. Just wanted to make sure it was hard to absolutely tell. >> Uh, anybody have any questions, comments? >> I do. Go ahead, Janet. >> Yeah. Hi. So, um, the original plan that
water this the water side edge of the pool ended with a retaining wall, right? >> Correct. >> So, the pool is now when you reorient it, it's sticking out beyond the retaining wall. So, what happens? What is out there beyond the wall? Does it
become part of the wall? And if so, what is the height of that? >> Yes, absolutely. So, it was originally, let me just go to the original plan uh for clarity. Um so, there was a retaining wall here originally. It's 2T tall.
>> Yep. >> Uh what's called an infinity edge spillway. So, it's about a twoft high spillway with a little trough at the bottom for the water to fall into. >> Yeah. It's going to be the same uh in the rotated plan. Um still a two-ft wall
on either side and then a two-ft drop in the spillway. Um and then planting in front of that of native grasses. >> So even though you're going about it looks like six or feet so beyond the the original wall, it doesn't change the
elevation. Doesn't change the height of that. It's still only two feet. >> Correct. And >> is that concrete? What is that? Is that a concrete wall? >> Uh the the wall would it would be a field stone wall like a natural stone. >> Okay. >> Field stone. The um yeah, we tried to maintain the two feet because uh
anything over a 30-in drop would have required guard rails. So we're trying to uh not not need the guardrails essentially. >> Okay. I had one other question. Um the two plans when you do the mitigation
calculation on the original it says uh mitigation required 60 provided 6516 and on the revised >> it says 5759
>> so that on the plans the mitigation is decreasing >> by I don't know 600. >> It's almost I'm sorry. So the proposed mitigation on the right here is I think you're looking at existing areas total
is 6895 and the right side there should be a column that says proposed mitigation which I have here on the screen and at the bottom it should say 5138 required. Okay. But on >> 5257 proposed. >> Okay. But on the original plan, it said
mitigation required 6315, mitigation provided 6516. >> So it still seems like it decreased. >> Um I'm going to have to look at the >> on the original plan. It's on the um
let's see to the right on all those boxes where all your your coverage calculations are in bold at the bottom. >> Oh, you know what it is? I'm sorry. You know what it was? We had a plan that we had submitted originally. Um and then we
revised it uh and we resubmitted it. So, I think um I just need to make sure which that you're looking at the right plan. So, let me just check. >> Okay. >> There were two plans that were submitted before we saw you. >> This one is >> not a revision. It's dated.
>> I keep losing it. It just jumps. Whatever that date. >> Yeah, there should have been uh was there. Let me just see what this one says. >> Okay. So, what is what do you have? There was a plan that came in and before we even heard it, they submitted a
revised plan. >> Okay. So that's 53. >> Yes, that's correct. So there was uh there was a plan that was submitted with an August 12th date. >> Yeah. >> Um but we resubmitted uh in September on September 2nd. So the plan I have that I'm showing you is a September 2nd date.
>> Okay. So this is Okay. >> Which is the approved plan. >> Okay. I withdraw. I was going to say >> Yeah. All right. You you kind of caught me because I I thought we had it right. >> Yeah. When plans get changed, we Yeah. I Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um >> had to refresh my memory. You know, it's
been a been a while. >> My question is, so this is a field change because the plan is changing. Do we need to also approve the plan change? I'm looking at Paul and Bradford. >> Yes, we do. Okay. So, the motion has to approve the plan change and then Yeah.
to this new date. Okay. So, we have to have a motion to approve the field change with the revised plan. >> I move that we approve the field change request for 504 Old Harbor Road with the
revised plans. >> Second. >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Paul. >> I >> Janet. >> Hi. >> Elise. >> Hi. >> And I say I. >> Thank you. Thank you. Uh, thank you for your time
and have have a good day. >> You too. Okay, next one. Bradford. >> Up next is a notice of intent for 42 Old Harbor Lane. Peter Peter Harris, map 16, parcel 20-m
SE 10- I don't have the full SE number. Um, this is for a raisin reconstruct guest house with patio and stairs. Um, and connecting to an existing septic system. >> Hey, >> good afternoon.
>> Good to see you. >> Good to see you. That Eldridge in the southeast. This started off a nice easy one. >> Yeah, >> we have a guest house that's right at the 100 foot and they want to replace it.
Nice and simple. Uh that would increase a little bit of patio. There's some wall work that happens within 100 ft. It's all behind the house, so there's no impact on the resource area, the nearest one. Just to start off with the property, this goes all the way down to
the water. So we have land under ocean, a little bit of salt marsh hanging out out there, land subject to coastal storm flowage, coastal bank, and then it's like a panhandle old road that comes up. The cranberry bog or the former cranberry bog in the middle of the
property is an isolated wetland. It does have an outlet that goes down to the south. We didn't go recover that because it seems to be doing okay in there. Um, so we're in the buffer to that isolated wetland.
The work that we do need to do within the 50 is access. There's no real way to get back there behind the house given the site configuration. So as we get into the process or got
into the process, we found that there were two open orders. one for the septic system that's being applied and then one for some ongoing maintenance mostly down by the shore. Um we've been working our way through that one and we'll be applying for the certificate of
compliance on that. And then in the middle of all this Bradford very diligently found that the patio is expanded in 2018. The Harrises had engaged a company that was supposed to obtain all permits and
they obviously didn't. So we now have about 600 square feet of patio, a little under 300 in the in the 0 to 50, a little more than 300 in the 50 to 100. I think I have that in the right order. Um we have simply proposed
or it's actually 315 square feet in the NDZ and 285 in the outer aura. We've proposed an additional 920 square feet of mitigation to remedy that. All the mitigation that we're proposing is within the 50 foot
and adjacent to the more naturalized area on the property. Then to make matters worse, there are cryptic view easements that exists over the property. So we are proposing the mitigation to work with those view easements.
So it it started out so simple. And then it um everything in the record came forward. Hopefully we can relieve the stone patio. It doesn't seem to be causing any issue. There's no signs of runoff. Even
when there was snow out there, there's no real sign of any scouring. And then from there, we can certainly discuss the proposed project because that's the easier part of the entire thing. There are any questions? I'm happy to answer them. Anybody
have any questions? Are these just questions as we on the on the patio or the project? >> Oh, the whole thing or however you'd like to move forward it. >> Okay. >> So, for the mitigation that's proposed, you
have them all listed. I don't see sizes of any of the mitigation that's going in. So on the list that we have. So the mountain laurel would be two gallon size 6 foot on center.
And that comes right off of the the county list. Sweet pepper bush one gallon, bay berry three, the rose bay rodendran 2 to 4 foot and the winter berry 2 to 4 foot. >> Okay. Can we just add that to that
somehow to the plan or somewhere? is >> Oh, it is. >> Oh, okay. >> I hit it in the northeast corner. >> Thanks. >> Shouldn't hide things on me.
>> Okay. Um, anybody have any questions, comments? >> I have a question about the access. >> Yes. So you just I saw the there's just a an arrow that points kind of to nowhere saying proposed access on the on the as on not that p yeah the next one
down the uh as proposed plan not the existing >> it'll make it a little bit further and >> um >> I mean it would be >> who's who's controlling the screen can
you scroll down a it to the next. No, the other way. Okay, there. So, right there. >> Proposed access. >> Proposed access. >> So, it' be coming in off the driveway. >> Okay. >> Removing a couple of the hedges that are here. >> Yep. >> And then coming through >> that way. Tight along the house. Okay.
>> Right along the house. Um, we do have a know they are going to reach out to their neighbors to see if there's any way to get through either of the adjacent properties. Um, there's no guarantee that they can get that access. with the septic tank that needs to be
added in for the second building. They are going to have to come down this way because there's not going to be any way to get there. >> You can't get there behind behind the house >> if they get approval from the neighbor. Maybe they could, but
>> is the green is the green shading all the their property? Is that >> everything? Yes. So you couldn't get access close behind the house on the green on their side of the property line? Yeah. Along there. >> So this is a private parcel that's owned
by Mr. Miller who has the house at the end of the house across the street. >> This is another private property. Their access comes in Old Harbor Lane >> and right to here. And they have that little bit of smidge in the frontage. >> Yeah. >> And then they have a shared parking area with their neighbor.
Then they come in. So really that's the way to get there. It's a terrible spot. It is in lawn. Some of the slopes are a little bit steep, but the machinery will be able to get through. It's um it's going to be a challenge.
>> Have they initiated any conversations? >> No. >> Okay. >> They wanted to get through this. They spent some time with the architect going back and forth with a number of details and >> Okay. Would it it would not be unreasonable then for us to put in an order that once access is decided it
will be added to the plan and submitted to the conservation agent. Okay. We'll put >> and I'd assume I mean access is one of the big issues with this whole thing and and at the kickoff meeting that should be discussed. >> Okay. I can say it is an existing lawn, so
it's not like we're ripping up, >> right? Yeah. >> Naturalized area to get there. >> Anybody anything else, Eric? >> Yeah, I would think it more logical to stay on the property the best you can um rather than going through neighbors
properties, liability, and all that, but >> um so I'm sure they can fix it all up like they were never there. Thanks. >> Anybody Janet more? >> I have what's what's bothering me about
this is that and I don't know what happened. I suspect nobody knows what happened back in 2018 and who said what and who did what. But the expansion of this imperous patio is in the no disturb
zone. And it's pretty likely that had they come with a plan for this, it would not have been wellreceived. I think it's fair to say um they've proposed or you've proposed mitigation in accordance with the existing ratios.
>> Mhm. >> So they're ending up with something approved as to the same level it would have been approved had it been approved back then, which I think was unlikely. So it just seems strikes me that once again it proves the old adage that it's
easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. And you know that the message that sends bothers me and it undermines the integrity of the program. And when I look at what strikes me as a small
mitigation, I think maybe the the better outcome be to expand that mitigation area up to that patio. Um, it's a sloped area. I don't, you know, it was snow covered when I was there, so I I assumed it was lawn under
there, but I couldn't really tell. Um, to turn that into native plants rather than lawn would end up leaving the environment in a better position because if we don't do that, the environment pays the the cost of
this. So, I would just ask that that be rethought and maybe come back with something a bit more on the mitigation side that that balances out the uh the equities here. >> I can certainly bring that back to the
client and review. >> I would feel a lot better if it were if it were not exactly to the the uh current ratio. that there's no incentive to comply with the process. >> Anything else? Anybody?
>> I was just going to say good for you, Janet. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Um, all right. So, I guess you'll need to come back to us. >> Yes, we will. We have zoning tomorrow. >> Yes, I saw that.
And I'd assume that there are no real issues with the the original proposal which is going to the zoning board of appeals tomorrow. >> Exactly. No, the only issue we have is I think that you know unfortunately the patio was done without coming before us
and as Janet said probably would not have passed being impervious. But um >> if they can I it's just mitigation I think is our issue at this point. >> So I can bring this back to the client
review some >> mitigation plans for in front of the patio. >> Um is there a target that we should shoot for for square footage? >> Should we do three to one? Um,
>> whatever it takes to reach that patio is what I >> I just had a small question. Um, is there lawn on both sides of the patio? >> There is. >> If you went all the way to the patio, how would you get the lawn mower to get
to the other side? >> Mr. Landscaper, >> that's a great point. >> You have to drive over the patio. So maybe you'd have to leave a little bit of room to get a lawn mower through there >> instead of mo strip.
>> Yeah, but they use they use four-footers uh commercial landscapers. >> So if we maintain a bit of lawn there but get the mitigation >> Yeah. >> to it. communication. >> Um,
do you need something from us to tell ZBA that we don't have an issue with other than >> I'm sure there's more than one ZBA member listening right now. >> I think there are. >> It could be a quick note that just says we're happy with that. >> You do that prep first
>> or Chris ask Crystal to let ZBA know that um we don't have a problem besides mitigation. >> Yep. Thank you. >> That would be greatly appreciated. >> Um, all right. This is a good time because I
forgot to announce it. Our next meeting, March 25th, is actually not taking place because we did not we do not have a quorum that day. >> So, it has been rescheduled to April 1st. So, you have an April April 1st,
8th, and 22nd. Get your pick. We're totally open at this point. Let's go for April 1st. And >> yeah, for April Fools. >> Yeah. See if I'm just joking with you. >> Okay. If we could have a motion to continue.
>> I move that we continue 42 Old Harbor Lane to the meeting on April 1st, 2026. >> Second. >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Paul. >> I. >> Janet. >> I. >> Elise. >> Hi. >> And I say I. >> Thanks. >> Have a great day.
>> You too. All right, Brad. For the next >> next up is a notice of intent for Zero Eastward Road Chattam Conservation Foundation map 13M parcel 21A-C42
SC 10-3764. Uh this is for invasive species management and native plant restoration within the 100 foot buffer to a salt marsh and coastal bank. >> Okay.
Do we have anybody here? >> I am Lindsay Cook from Parter Ecological. >> Hi, Lindsay. Okay, go ahead, >> Madam Chair. All right. >> Does she want to share her screen and we'll do >> Do you want to share your screen or do you want us to put up
>> Yeah, let's actually do it that way because that way we can flip through some more. Give me one second. Okay. Okay. How's that? >> Very good. >> All right. Great. So, we have this property at Zero
Eastward Road, which is owned and managed by the Chattam Conservation Foundation. It's slightly under a half an acre, and it's currently undeveloped except for an old concrete structure. It is bound by eastward road to the north, a salt marsh
to the south, a single family residence to the east, and an undeveloped lot to the west. The habitat type there is mostly shrubland with native and invasive species present. There are scattered native trees um present among the shrubs and the shrubland gives way
to a native salt marsh plant community to the south. The majority of the lot is located within the FEMA flood zone AE with a portion to the west located with FEMA flood zone VE. The resource areas on the site are land subject to coastal storm flowage, a salt marsh, and a
coastal bank. The site is also located within NHSB estimated and priority habitats of rare wildlife and it is in the Pleasant Bay ACEC. Our project entails removing invasive ve vegetation and replacing it with native vegetation. The invasive cover across
the site ranges from less than 10 to 20% on the northwestern, western, and southern sides of the property to almost 80% on the northeastward side. Square footage of invasive vegetation is approximately 5,724.
Invasive plant material is to be flush cut and treated with a wetland approved herbicide. There would be no soil disturbance at all. And after the invasive removal, the area will be seated with a salt tolerant native grass and forb mix. Native plants including um
bakaris, bberry, beach plum, and Virginia rose will be planted once we have 80% control of the invasive species. So on what you can see on the plan is our removal areas are in this pink. This is where it's only 10%. This is where it
gets higher, 40 to 60 I believe. And then right by the road, it's the highest of all. And that's where we'll be planting the most densely for the replant. Does anybody have any questions?
>> Um, I can't find where I saw it, but are you removing any trees? >> No. So, there's a there's a pretty substantial autumn olives on the property, and we are going to be taking those. So you are removing some trees.
>> Well, autumn olive is like it goes into a tree form. Yeah. >> And I mean, if you're calling them trees, a tree is a tree. Um, and I don't see that any trees are going in
to replace >> No, there's already some trees. Yeah, there's some trees there that we think once the invasive removal happens will be released from their current state. Like the big the biggest autumn olive is over here. I don't know if you can see my cursor, but there's a nice eastern
red cedar right here that I think will will benefit from from losing the autumn olive. So, we don't have any anything planned, just shrubs and perennials. >> Okay. So, no trees are being removed. >> Okay. Yeah,
>> because if they are, we need them replaced. Okay. Uh, anybody else have any questions? I mean, I'm happy to see that invasives are being dealt with and
replaced. So, anything? >> Um, quick question, Lindsay. So, um, it is treatment or removal of the invasives. Does it vary by species? Do you have different plans for what's in
there? And and >> almost everything is woody. So, it's all just going to be cut cutting them and then painting with the wetland approved herbicide. >> Swiped or painted? Yeah. What about the roots? Are they left in place? >> Everything will be left in place. Yes.
>> Okay. And is one >> there's also some poison. >> Go ahead. Sorry. >> I was going to say there's also some poison ivy on site. We were planning on leaving that. >> You Yeah. Yeah. Because there they had Yeah. Um is one is one treatment going to be sufficient or do you have to
repeat? >> I think it's normally best to just keep an eye on it. After the one treatment, we hope to knock it down significantly, but we will hold off on the planting until we feel like we have 80% control of it. >> Okay. We have some bittersweet on site. That's
that kind of stuff. >> Okay. So, that does require Right. That's what I was wondering because I'm looking to see what exactly what was there because some of them are harder than others. Okay. >> Um and it won't this new planted area is
not adjacent to any other invasive or do you do you need to protect it in some way? It's not a residential property. So, a morip doesn't make any sense. But is there any >> There's a residential property off to the um the east side, but it is it's
currently mulch and very heavily landscaped, so I don't think we'll have any encroachment. >> Okay. >> On that side. >> Okay, great. Thank you. So, I know you said um a time of year restriction will
be in place to avoid bird nesting and other disturbances. What is that time of year that you're thinking is the restriction? >> Typically, it's April 1st. >> Okay. >> To November. >> I just wanted to make sure if that's what you were thinking or because it
wasn't specified. >> That's what I was thinking. >> Okay, perfect. That's what I was thinking. So, um, great. Anybody else? Bob, >> I just had a question about long-term
maintenance. Lindsay, how long do you think you're going to be in there um monitoring the site and maintaining it? >> Well, at least 3 years for the order of conditions. And I think at that point, the plant community should be fairly well established and we shouldn't have
any resp sprouting invasives. So, do you think you'll be going in after that uh from time to time if need be? >> If need be. Definitely. We want to see this site really thrive. So, as needed,
but I I don't see it needing more than three years. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anything anybody? Um I think then we can go to an order.
So um given the time of year restriction of April 1st, we're going to be hitting that before our but at our next meeting. So to me that means there's not a big rush. But when would you like to receive this order?
>> We have April 1st, 8th and 22nd and then we go into May. Uh, April 1st is good. >> Okay. Um, then we will go to April 1st for an order.
>> I move that we continue zero Eastward Road to the meeting on April 1st, 2026 for an order of conditions. >> Second. >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Paul. >> I. >> Janet. >> I. >> And I say I. >> I.
>> Thank you. The next please. I say I too. >> Oh, and I say I. >> Oh, wait. At least I Oh, and did I say I? I don't know. I guess I'm just trying to move us along. >> Sorry. That's one of those days. Uh,
next, please. >> Next up is a notice of intent for 72 Semist Lane, uh, Bonaf Fortuna LLC, map 1A, parcel K, SC 10-3767.
Uh this is for proposed construction of a swimming pool and patio within the buffer zone to a coastal bank. Good afternoon. David Clark, Clark Engineering. Also online is Thomas Mkei who is preparer of the landscape plan
and and the mitigation. So as stated uh like to construct a swimming pool within the outer buffer zone to a coastal bank. Uh the the pool is located um as close to the house as
possible as little disturbance to uh undisturbed areas as possible. Um between the the swimming pool and the new walkways uh we're just under the 35%
maximum. So we we believe that the project along with the mitigation uh meets all your performance standards. Um this project does not require zoning relief. Um one comment that Bradford had when uh we started the application
process was that the retaining wall wasn't shown on any of the previous permitting plans. Although it dates back to when the house was built 20 plus about 20 years ago. um as far as compliance was issued for the house. Uh
nonetheless, we're treating it as a new structure in our mitigation and site coverage numbers. Um Tom should be here to answer any questions regarding the pool. >> I do see him on. Go ahead, Tom.
I don't know if you're talking. We're not hearing. >> I'm sorry about that. >> Uh Thomas Mkei with MLK Design Group, uh representing the clients at 72 Semist. Um as David said, uh we are under the
35% max coverage. Um we exceed the mitigation requirement and uh we have reduced the amount of lawn within the outer aurora and we are proposing to remove eight
existing trees and replace them at a 1:1 ratio. Um we're proposing 95% native species which exceeds the uh performance standard. Uh, and if you have any questions, I'd be
happy to uh go over them. >> You are also removing two dead trees. Is am I correct? >> Correct. >> Have you thought about leaving them as snags? >> I did, but
if you if you look at the plan, I don't know if I can share it the screen. Um, >> are they where you're putting the pool in? >> Yeah, I was trying to create a path uh
of, you know, within the limit of work that wasn't going to disturb um the resource area. So, you could see and it's it's adjacent to the to the private uh road there to the right.
That's where the the two existing trees are to the uh plan right that are that are dead. So the proposed um eastern red cedars are are going in in their place. >> Okay. But they're
I mean dead trees offer some benefit to the environment. So I view them and maybe others in our group won't but I view them as trees being
removed and should be replaced. >> Well they are they are topped um so they're not really providing too much of a canopy. >> I'm not talking about a canopy. I mean, there are benefits to dead trees, too, for
>> Okay. And I'm pretty sure they're riddled um with insects as well. My last site visit there. So, they're they're I don't think they're really doing too much for the uh the habitat in that in
that zone. Can we verify that they're not that they're insects or something so that we know that they truly have issues and are not just >> and I
I can provide some photos too if that would if that would help. I think more I I just need to know. I mean, if they're infested and need to be removed because of that, that's one thing. If they're >> just being taken out because they're
dead, that's another. >> Do you have a Madam >> Chair Bradford? Um, yeah, our regulations do say unless it's being um left as a snag, it does require the replacement. So unless they are replacing or leaving
them as snags, they should be replaced with the one. >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> Some some in insects are beneficial. So >> yeah, I just I think there are benefits to dead trees. U one one thing that wasn't mentioned in the narrative. Um
this this property just completed a restoration process uh project of the of the buffer zone. Uh so they the and it wasn't associated with any construction on the project on the pro on the property. So there's a lot of goodwill
by the applicant to improve the property and >> Oh no, I agree. I it's just our regulations, you know, I can't say, "Oh, I'm going to forgive two trees for you." And then somebody else comes and they go, "Well, you did this and they they
said they were dead and so you didn't ask that they be replaced." So, I'm just trying to be, you know, treat all properties equally. That's that's all I I do remember that they've been before us.
Speaking about the previous mitigation, I noticed that the uh the irrigation's still there. >> Yeah, I don't think this >> I believe we >> Yeah, I believe we had that removed recently. Um my if you look at my
conservation notes, it only calls for temporary irrigation for the uh initial growing seasons. >> Oh, so it's not that old yet. the the the restoration >> pretty recent if it's been when
>> Oh yeah. Oh no. I'm sorry. Yeah, you're allowed to have the temporary until the COC is I'm sorry. Yeah, didn't realize that. >> Anybody else? Anything? Bob, anything? No. Um, so I think we
could go to an order if you just would give us an updated planting plan with two more trees >> or not take the dead >> what? >> Or not take the dead ones down. >> Yeah. Or not take the dead ones out. >> One or two. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. I could I could I can uh update
the plan accordingly uh so that we're either not taking the dead ones out or or we're adding two more. >> Okay. So, you've heard David. We have April 1st, 8th, 22nd. >> April 1st, please.
>> I figured you'd say that. Boy, this is going to be a fun April Fools. >> All right. It's only our second. Um, if we can have a motion, please. >> I move that we continue 72 M see Miss
Lane to the meeting on April 1st, 2026 for an order of conditions. >> Second, >> Bob. Hi, >> Eric. >> Hi, >> Paul. >> Hi, >> Janet. >> Hi, >> Elise. >> I >> And I say I. >> Thank you. All right. On to >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. On to the next. >> Next up is a notice of intent for parcel 5, Crows Pond Road, Scott Butcher, Map 10L, Parcel 5, SC 10-3766. This is for construction of a dwelling
and swimming pool within the buffer zone to a coastal bank. >> Hello. >> Good afternoon. Uh David Clark, Clark, engineering, along with Phil Cheney, the landscape designer, and Ian Peach from Wilkinson Ecological that was working on
the restoration mitigation portion of the project. Uh this is a project that we've worked on literally for I think about 12 years. Uh there's been prospective buyers over the years. None of them move forward. Uh
we finally have the the owners have the property under agreement that that somebody's willing to go forward with permitting. Um this lot was created I think in 2004. um maybe 2006, I can't quite remember.
But since then, uh this particular property has been um affected severely by changes in the conservation regulations uh and also the changes in the FEMA
flood map. Uh when this lot was first created, uh there was no buffer zone. There were no mitigation standards or required mitigation. Uh certainly no tree removal standards. Um
all that in the 35% rule uh are now a part of your regulations. Um given that uh we have a project that comes right in just under the 35%. Uh given the size of the property, we feel
it's a modest house for the size of the property. It's unfortunately it's not modest in compared to the little area that's left after all the regulatory changes over the last 20 years but nonetheless we're under the 35% and and
uh we feel that as designed this project meets your performance standards. Um uh being a vacant lot um you can't build a house without taking out trees. Uh and so
uh most of the trees um once you take out the the setback requirements for a title 5 system, most of the trees are in the 50 to 100 foot buffer. Um we we really looked at trying to site this house as far back on the property as
possible, but there aren't really many trees there. Um uh and um there's no room to to move the house that far back. So unfortunately we're we're dealing with uh putting a
majority of the project uh within the zero I mean not sorry not zero 50 to 100. Um so I believe uh Ian's going to talk about the tree removal. I think we're somewhere around 30 trees. It's less
than that now. So, if you've been out to the site since uh the storm, uh there are a number of trees down uh and there's some significant snags um that would be down if uh there wasn't a pine tree next to the uh one that's coming
down. Um but that that's happened to this property over the last 20 years. Uh when we first went on the property 20 years ago, there were a lot of lot more trees. Um but they've all come down. Those backto-back storms in um was it
2017 um in March uh took out a lot of trees on this property. Uh and they just keep coming down once you get a hole in the canopy. Those northeast winds find a spot get in there and take more take more out. I'm I
was surprised that there weren't more trees down than than what's there now. So, um, we're going to update the tree inventory because two trees are down on the ground. We've got a couple of snags. Um, and some goodsized pine trees are
leaning quite a quite a bit that that only going to pose a problem anyways uh or will be down um in the near future. Um that being said, um the project does not need zoning relief.
We meet the setbacks from the coastal conservancy district and the property lines. It does not need border health relief. We comply with the minimum standards of the board of health of one bedroom per 10,000 square feet of lot area. Uh and we comply with zoning site
coverage. Uh being a vacant lot, we're required to comply. there's no opportunity to get a variance from the zoning board. Anyways, um so that being said, um Phil's here to talk about the landscape and um Ian's here to talk about the mitigation if
there's any questions on the engineered site plan. >> Why don't we hear everything and then we'll then we can deal with all questions. >> Thank you. >> Either Phil or Ian. Uh Ian, you want to
share your screen? >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'll share um share the restoration plan. >> You can let me know when that is showing. >> It is. >> All right. Thank you. Um so I'll try to
walk you through how we got to where we are. Appreciate David's introduction. For the record, Ian Peach representing the project from Wilkinson Ecological Design. Um, and really I need to begin by describing the existing conditions that David laid out. Um, and because
that's really where we needed to start to solve this problem to find the mitigation and the restoration um, and to really conserve and protect existing native species um, and resources on the site. Um, we have stateless invasive
species um, on site. So part of the project certainly are targeting those which I can speak to um and certainly are going to improve the native species diversity and almost most critically or working together with those. Um something this site is very much lacking
is any vertical layering. you hear me use the word stratification in the past, you basically have a an over canopy and a for the for the scale of the plant community in the residential lot, a real void of the shrub or mid layer habitat.
Um the site is undeveloped as you know it's predominantly wooded so canopy to canopy and it's primarily pitch pine. We also have black oak and some eastern red cedar. Um, I mentioned that lack of shrub layer in mid canopy and also
something to really note in understanding existing conditions because that's what we're working with here and we want to leverage this is that there's really a great regeneration of saplings and young trees throughout the property. So, you know, in this part
of our approach is definitely to limit the disturbance um and to conserve and protect and encourage that regeneration with droughts, with the need for watering young trees. You want to work with existing native species as much as
possible. So, every uh act of restoration should always be taking that into account. And we we very much so do here. the invasive species on site. We found shrub honeysuckle, vine honeysuckle, and Asiatic bittersweet being the primary players that we'll
target um removing. Um and then really, you know, what we how we broke it out. You can see up here on the coastal bank, this is approximately 6,500 square ft of invasive plant management and native
plant community restoration. Um, we're focusing on native shrub planting and grasses for the deep bank holding capacity of their roots. Um, and you can see them specified on our plan. Some species that'll be well matched, some
nice diversity. A few of these species we're seeing on site and many of them, um, will definitely be appropriate to colonize um, and make a robust mitigation area. We do have some existing arowwood, high bush blueberry,
some other species um uh like the high tide bush that we protected and conserved in this area while we work around them to do the invasive plant management um and the native plant restoration. So really to get to one of the primary things um although it's all
connected we needed to look at how to mitigate for um like David said we need to go back out there posttorm and get a exact count but really um 25 native trees in the 50 to 100 foot
buffer that would be lost um due the to the development of the property. So the first thing we needed to find and thought of was leveraging some more cedars and creating a dense cedar grove which really amplifies their planting is making a habitat structure. So you have
the individual plants but the cedars work as one to be a grove. So we've it's there's a lot of existing trees everywhere canopy sapling um regenerating um just a little larger than sapling trees. So it may
look like there are other areas where you could put trees, but we are really limited and and and so to work with that, this is an area where we really thought we could bring in a nice cedar grove um and an important area actually on the resource. So getting extra
benefits by putting it there um to kind of anchor and bring habitat there. The landscape plan also is offering three American holl and a dogwood. Um but but really what because of some of these constraints and one of them very
constraining as well is an existing viewment line. You can see here we are not by our understanding right now and I can let others speak more to this. We are not allowed to plant anything um above 28 ft um so elevation. So really
it limits, this is why you can see we had to kind of find an area. It limits some of our primary planting areas on the property to do any sort of mitigation for trees. So we're we're we're working with a really extensive over canopy, a lot of regeneration, a
lack of shrub layer, and we're just trying to find where we can get the most benefit and respect your bylaws because I understand that that is important. So, we also thought a smart way to do this would be to offer a really robust where there is lacking over here closer to the
coast um shrubland planting area where we could bring in 30 shrubs and and and ideally we'd be proposing like a 2:1 ratio for these arrowwood and bay berries again assigning them as mitigation. So, we'd we'd like you to
entertain and and have that conversation based on all the things I've laid out. um a shrub ratio that really can do a better job of I think meeting all the reasons behind your policy for tree mitigation on a very constrained site.
Um it's this vertical layering of habitat. It's just really critical and just to stuff trees in um with drought in the existing conditions I think actually is a detriment to the overall comprehensive uplift of the resources and the
ecological function of the site. Um so that's I just think a critical addition regardless is a robust shrub planting. Um so I hope I've I've walked you through this a little bit here. we have a full canopy Larry this very
challenging view easement constraint um and we want to make sure we're having a robust restoration or mitigation I could say to meet the development and and work as hard as we can and creative as we can ecologically to get trees and shrubs in
the right places where they make sense to have a cohesive sort of restoration of the site certainly willing to talk about we can look again even closer at trees we've lost on site since the storm. Talk about areas where we can leave habitat for a snag in certain
areas if they're already moving that way. We definitely want to work with you on the trees, but I just wanted to make sure today to kind of get that vertical habitat layering in your head, understand where we are and how constrained we are. Um, and that we're just, you know, willing to work with
you. So, appreciate you hearing me out and happy to speak to uh anything further on our plan. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Phil, do you w to >> Good afternoon, Phil Cheney, landscape designer. Uh just to speak briefly on
the landscape plan that you have. Uh really looking to have some simple uh fescue lawn in the front and back uh for a useful area uh areas around the pool and terraces in the back. uh some pretty straightforward foundation plantings and
doing my best to get a good mix where we've got uh the 75% native plantings using some areas around the pool so forth and back to create uh enough native plantings. So we've got the balance that we're looking for walkways, stepping stones, uh the rest
is pretty much um straightforward. >> Okay. Um, one thing I have is on your plan, Phil, we don't have a legend that shows what
each of the various like how you highlighted say where the eastern dogwood is going. you've got them all written at the bottom, but it's kind of nice when we have that little legend, you know, that
would say the circle with the the bigger circle or the small circle with the plus. So, I mean, I know you've got it all written, but it's a lot to follow. >> You're saying you'd like to have the symbol included on the schedule? >> Yeah, it would be nice. I I mean, you've got it, but I'm just saying for future.
Okay. >> I understand that sometimes it's really tough to fit it on. Well, yeah. And it's all, you know, I can read it. It's but it's very printed very little and and so it would be make it a little bit easier. >> Um, >> second between the two, the landscaping
and the restoration plans, I assume because you're both saying you're at 75% that we're at 75% total >> between the two because we have two plans. You know, this is just like what
I went through earlier >> with Teresa and we had that question for Bridge Street. So, it's harder when you've got two plans with two different planting schedules. >> Yeah. Right. Yeah. My my portion, this
plan, you see my plan, it's 25 and 75, >> right? And I think that's what Ian said. I just wanted >> Sure. to have you guys definitely tell me that between the two put together >> because it makes it a little harder when there's two plans.
>> Sure. >> Um and of course you've heard my little thing about dead trees and snags and all that. So, uh and I know you've got to update the trees after the storm. So, I think we
can have that discussion after it's updated. But I mean, if you're taking them out and they're dead, you're still taking them out. >> Even if they're lying on the ground. >> Well, if they're lying on the ground, they're out. >> So,
um, so some of those trees are at quite an angle. And the only reason why they're still standing is they're snagged and they'll be on the ground within a year or two. They still count as a tree to be replaced.
I I think so. >> Or is that something you want to go out and take a look at and >> Oh, we could go look, but um you're going to update the plan anyway, so we can have that discussion next time.
>> Okay. >> Um anybody have anything, Eric? >> Yeah. I mean, if they're heavily leaning, then you can put it under as maybe a like an admin review or something. to remove them and separate them from the
the master plan. You know, >> we were hoping D was going to declare an emergency. Why they didn't this time? I guess it all depends on how the South Shores hit more than the Cape Cod, but uh >> um I I don't have a problem. It's a
buildable lot. It's allowed to build and uh and you did a good job sticking in there. 35, you know, around 35% is awesome. I just want to go back to the uh the green the mitigation map that had the little green on it for if you don't mind.
>> Sure. Would you like me to call up the restoration plan or that? >> Yeah, the one you had. Yeah, >> sure. Happy to do it. >> Yeah, let me know. I just the mitigation notice it it loops up towards the pool.
Why? Why do you And so what's the the big white area to the south of the mitig is that a is that an easement for the view? >> Well, there is a view easement. >> Is that that big white area that's
that's uh south of your mitigation? >> This is the everything south of this line. >> Oh, okay. >> Is all of the easement. Yes. >> Oh, all right. Okay. One of the things it would be that I'd like to see is where is the other side of the view
easement? >> So there we only have one line. >> Oh, it goes right to the property line. >> It's property line as my understand. Yeah. >> South of that line. >> Oh, >> and actually that view that same view easement extends to the four lots to the
south. When they were developed, that same view easement continues onto all those. We had the same issues trying to permit houses on those lots and where to put the mitigation. Okay. So, it's >> this is the last lot in that uh development and uh it's the most
restricted by that view eastment because it's the one that's on the water that everybody has a view through. Um >> I think it's the last lot on the pond, isn't it? >> Um no, there's uh property to the south uh off of Sea Pine. There's four lots there
that one only one of them is developed. Uh >> not as nice as that one, >> but this might be the last one that's on the pond. >> Yeah. >> Interesting. All right. Anybody anything? >> Can I just follow up with that? So, how are you getting the eastern red cedars? This is Ian in there if that's within
the view ement. >> Exactly. So, what's not shown here is the elevation 28. I don't know if you can see my cursor >> which kind of wraps down in here >> um and comes up. So, we're just down slope of the restrictive elevation.
That's why you might think, gosh, why aren't you, you know, you doing it all in here? So, there is a limiting elevation. Um, so we're we're free of that of that elevation. So, it's not just area, it's also elevation is is our interpretation.
>> Okay. So while I have you, what is the difference in your view between the shad the mitigation area and the two restoration areas? Are we treating them the same? >> Are they all being offered in mitigation or >> Well, so I think um we wanted to break
them apart because we knew there would be a tree conversation. So outside the view easement what I introduced as mitigation wanted to meet your mitigation standards um and was the right area to focus that um and causes I
mean allows the most benefit and protection between the development and um the pond. Um so I wanted that 6,500 ft to be the mitigation. Really though, these restoration areas were supposed to show the tree and the shrub approach,
but we are specifying should there be any disturbance. Um, we have the native seed mix and also uh invasive plant management as needed in those areas to make sure for the health of the trees. But we wanted to make sure we could clearly say yes, mitigation is satisfied
with that and if we need to have a very detailed tree conversation, we kind of had the two parsed apart. Okay. Um certainly when we conceive the project, which doesn't come across perfectly here, there's a lot of canopy. There's this lacking mid layer. We're very
constrained. We see it all as one approach, but to address your bylaws and have a productive conversation. We were thinking of them uh somewhat separate. >> Yep. Get that. And um um we will have a detailed tree conversation, but this is premature until you update the
inventory. Um but I get that. So essentially that mitigation is mitigating for the impacts of the construction of the house and pool and what you're calling the restoration areas is really um being offered as replacement for the trees that are coming down. And I totally understand
the the the issue of the of the overanopied um problem that you have. Um and we will we'll talk about all of that at another time next time we meet. Um, and I will say that um, your colleague at Wilkinson um, has given us a lot of education
about the importance of maritime shrubland communities. Um, we've heard from Matt on that many times. So, um, we we do understand u why they're so valued and so it might be we may be more amanable to being flexible about tree
replacements when we're given everything we've got here. We'll see. >> I appreciate your openness. Thank you. >> All right. Anybody anything else? Bob, >> got a couple questions. Uh Ian, the Eastern Red Seeders, will they provide
some screening to uh from the neighbors >> on that side? Um we where where screening is a minor minor minor concern. It really was finding a space in the canopy um where the cedars could
thrive um and coming up with that concept of kind of a dense grove. So really screening is a is a much lesser concern. >> Okay. Is there enough sun for all your plantings in here because it's a pretty shaded spot? >> Totally. Yeah, it's a great question and
that's why you don't see me or us as a team kind of just peppering them everywhere unrealistically. Um we had to find existing gaps and we had to choose the right species in this location. There should be enough sun for for the eastern uh red cedars.
>> Okay. And uh is there going to be any uh tree pruning uh anywhere? Uh because I know you have that view easement uh >> I think. >> Yeah. So I resp Oh, sorry Bob. Excuse me. >> No, that's okay. Okay. And I I know I
know there's a pool and I know they're going to want to look at the ocean, look at the water, so that's a question I have. Uh will you be going in there to prune anything? >> Right now, we don't have um any specific
pruning. I think I want to look at this after the storm a little bit. That would be one important thing to keep into account just if there are things for safety or halfbroken um or just the kind of canopy structure has changed. But I I will note, yeah, we do not have uh an
aggressive removal approach between the water and the structure. I think that could have been almost glossed over, which I I think really should be recognized um as there could be a very different development approach that not only would
would look to remove trees to site the house, but but but would really aggressively go after that. Um so we are not we are trying to keep um existing uh what's there >> and to to that end um
the commission traditionally on a vacant lot would have a standard condition that talks about a view corridor. Um the last one we did um on uh Captain Nolles uh it was in your
conditions but we never talked about a view corridor during the permitting process. I I think it's would be wise to include that standard conditions that gives us the opportunity once the house is up to come back to the commission and talk about limited pruning if needed.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's all I had. Anybody else? >> I got something for Phil if that's >> please. Okay. Anybody? It's open time. >> Uh, will the pool have a pool cover, Phil? Or uh, >> yes, it's intended to be an auto cover.
>> Auto cover. No fence. Correct. Fencing. >> And what about the driveway? What's the material for the driveway? Uh we have I don't know if we've exactly discussed that yet. I assume we'd have to be pvious because most of it's within the the outer aura like we're assuming
it would be a gravel driveway. >> Okay. Uh I think that's all I had for now. Thanks. >> Anybody else? So you're going to do another tree inventory. Y
>> um so obviously we need to continue this. >> I just I'd like to add anything and Dave might have had a good idea. I mean if it's how many trees are heavily leaning because I don't want you to be penalized for these trees that are heavily damaged. But I I I I went out there on
the way here and so I didn't have time to really walk the whole >> I mean if you want we can take another quick look at them. I mean if they're really leaning hard and they're kind of getting uprooted I don't see why that >> you know you'd have to be >> almost all of them are leaning. Um
>> well let's not get carried away. >> But but >> I'm trying to throw a little something here. >> So they all are pointing southwest at this point. Um but uh >> do it on site >> but only a few of them are are really to the po point where they they will
probably come >> mean is in like three five or >> uh at least a half dozen all together would >> well maybe >> commission do want an on-site >> yeah I would be happy to look at them with you >> get Crystal to arrange an on-site for us >> um sure
>> okay >> can you can you mark the trees ahead of Okay. I mean with uh tape or something. >> We will. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So Crystal, if you would
um send out something asking about good times for people, I'd appreciate it. And maybe you all can. David, you guys can reach out to Crystal with some options. Um
but we have to continue it. So given that we're trying to get an on-site as well, uh when would you like to continue this too? >> So um the second meeting in April is what? The 15th.
>> Eth yeah. So you don't load up the first too much. The eth I guess will will work. >> Okay. That'll give us all plenty of time to get back out there. Okay. And >> inventory.
>> Then if we have a motion to continue to the 8th of April 5, Crows Pond Road to the meeting on April 8th, 2026. >> Second. >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Paul. >> I. >> Janet. >> I. >> Elise. >> Hi.
>> And I say I. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Do we need a Does anybody need a break? >> Yeah, why not? Like five minutes. >> Five minute break. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I've had doctor's office call me three
times. Elise. >> Oops. >> Okay, Bradford, we can do the next property. >> All righty. Up next is a notice of intent for 357 Stony Hill Road. John
Hernandez, map 14I, parcel 2B 25-25B, SC 10-3765. Uh, this is for proposed swimming pool. >> Okay. Okay, >> ready to go?
>> Yeah, we're we're waiting for you. >> Yep. Thank you. Thanks for waiting. My name is Jack Olri. I'm with Strong Tree Engineering and I'm here on behalf of the owner, John Hernandez, who's in the audience. and we prepared a notice of intent along with a site plan to add a
swimming pool tool to an existing house at three 357 Stony Hill Road. Um the existing house was permitted by this commission in the early 2000s we we did find after looking
a little bit we found a um certificate of compliance. The um you can scroll down a little bit. Okay, >> I got one. Yep, >> I am ready. >> The the existing lot is sort of a
hatchet shape with a long skinny access here. Widens out into this roughly triangular shape. Existing driveways here. The existing house is here with the driveway accessing the garage up front. And the right about in the middle of the lot, there's an isolated
vegetated wetland right there. Um our our wetland scientist evaluated the isolated vegetated wetland and confirmed that it is indeed isolated. It's in a topographic low point in the middle of the lot. Um it definitely qualifies as a
vegetated wetland under nearby lot. Um we also evalu um it is presumed to be a vernal pool. We no specific evaluation was done for that. Um but it's it's understood that it the same rules would apply. We also at per the bylaw
evaluated it to see if it was an isolated land subject to flooding and found that it it was not it doesn't receive enough runoff to meet the criteria. So the existing house was constructed with a fence and a gra
backyard here. Um the 50 foot no disturb zone is located there and the 100 foot buffer zone the outside edge of that is located there. so that that that existing disturbance was already present within the aura. Um the proposed
swimming pool is being kept hugged close to the house minimize its disturbance located right there. There is also an ex a proposed addition in some additional rework being done at the house outside of the buffer zone located here. Um,
when we designed the site for the swimming pool, we found that the grade changes across the site required us to put in some some walls. So, we have two we like to call garden walls, walls less than 30 in high to ensure that we have a a reasonable slope and we don't grade
into the inner buffer zone. So, the as part as part of this project, the inner buffer zone, the no disturb will have no disturbance at all. Um, there is some disturbance to the outer buffer zone. the existing fence is here and be relocated along the uh outside by the
foot of the wall and that resulted in a certain amount of disturbance. Um we appreciate your staff for taking a look at the initial plan. We've added mitigating mitigation areas to account in offset that disturbed area. One is
located here. The existing fence comes along here and this area had been more or less there's an area that was a a gravel bottom play area is placed and it's been subject to a little bit of wear and tear so it doesn't really function as a uh a naturalized area with
this plan. The fence will be relocated to block it off from the rear yard. And this would be planted with shrubs and herbaceous layer, low bush blueberry meadow plantings, um, which we thought was appropriate. There's a few small saplings that are stressed that would
come out, very small, you know, borderline bushes, not really trees, and the existing tree line along the property line would be maintained. So, you'd get a little bit of a forest transition zone with these plantings. um somewhat different situation down
here. There was an area on the other side of a wall and over the years it it just got frankly abused by the landscapers. So there's a lot of grass cutings and things like that. Um again existing trees get occur further out. We
we propose similar plantings to again mitigate provide a somewhat of a a buffer a transition zone to the trees here and that would be protected again by the wall and and the relocated fence. Um by doing so we provide
uh 20 the the already disturbed area will result um in a total of 27.9% disturbance and the amount of new disturbance from this swimming pool work would be fully mitigated by these two
mitigation areas. Um as far as construction goes access would be from the front of the house via the existing driveway through the existing lawn area. So there'd be no real new disturbance in the aura from the construction activity.
Um we are proposing a pvious paver pool surround. So that would be a pvious surface and not an imperous surface. Um and of course we propose the usual uh erosion control stiltation barriers
around the entire area being disturbed along this line. So, uh, I'd be happy to answer any questions on the application that the commission may have. >> Anybody want to start? Go ahead. >> Um,
there there's a few things that uh, for instance, um, if they're pavers, they're still pretty uh, impervious um, for for rain and any water would just run off. So what is the percentage
of uh of pvious do you have in the 50 to the 100? >> Um well the u depending on whether you count the pool's water surface as impervious. >> No you don't. >> That's the only it really doesn't
function as imperous but in in some storm water calculations that's what you use for it since it can't take any more water. But it's it's with the pvious pavers and we're open to other pvious surfaces if it's something you'd prefer to see. Um we'd have and the water and the pool being a basically a reservoir
for water. There'd be no no impervious. There' be no significant new runoff from the area being worked on. Um my my feeling is on this I I'm usually not like this, but it's
it's quite an encroachment to me. Um there's a there's you you're bringing you're actually your your wall is going right to the 50 and that you said it's the first one's a 30 inch then there's a a level area and then you're raising again. Is that what you're doing? Two walls.
>> Exactly. A stepped wall make it make it blend in a little better. >> And and the as far as the mitigation goes, I mean you got you know you got your mitigation north and south. Um it's not really
connected or contiguous with the wetlands. In a way it's kind of is but um to me it's there's a there's a lot of footprint in this area. Um I mean 18 by 36 that's that's for 8 to
10 people. Uh six if you're having a volleyball game. Um, is there maybe, you know, I was maybe hoping that you could make it a smaller footprint, maybe a little smaller pool. Um,
have less less of an impact on this this area. Um, it's, you know, I'm sorry, that's my opinion on this. It's little little much to me on on this project. Thanks.
>> I actually agree with Eric. Um, and I think you've got a lot of patio, >> you've got a large pool. Um, and so that was a concern, but I'm going to
let others ask questions, comments before I I agree with that also. And there's a hot tub besides so pool plus hot tub. I think it's a lot. I think squishing it down might make a a lot of sense.
>> Anybody else want any bring up anything? >> Bob, >> I was going to suggest uh you bring some of the mitigation uh between the walls. In other words, it's kind of like a terrace situation. Uh >> good suggestion. We we we actually do
propose it as mitigation plantings, some meadow plantings, but we we didn't count it as mitigation because it's between walls and it seems more like landscaping, but um I love it. >> I mean, >> so what's going where you call it garden
beds? What that was one of my questions is you've got the garden walls >> going to be maintained >> this area here. >> Yeah. But what's going in it? that that's proposed to be um the um meadow planting similar to what we're proposing along the edges of the lawn here
>> and a little bit here. But we we we didn't count those towards the ratio just because we thought that it was >> between two walls. It's more it's as as you mentioned earlier, it's not connected. >> No, it's going to function as a you know pollinator garden, things like that, but
it's it's not connected to anything. >> But we need to know what's going in it because it is within our jurisdiction. That's why I was asking. >> Okay. Uh we were proposing meadow plantings >> and they're they're called out on the plan. >> Are they okay?
>> Y >> um anybody else? Bob, do you have anything else? uh when you when you uh when you you're propose you're proposing to uh change that area uh in the uh between the 50
and 100 uh where those walls are going in and um adding fill. Correct. You'd have to add some fill in that area. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Uh and there are some trees in that area too. Uh existing trees. Uh they're not a
lot, but there are some. Uh >> correct. Yep. And uh are you thinking of uh replacing those trees anywhere after the project is done? >> We don't show that on the plan. No.
>> So I'd like to see some some trees go in. Um again it may be it may be it may be reduced this whole uh the the project may be reduced in size but uh if you're going to be removing
any trees I'd like to see some trees uh replaced uh as well. >> Yeah. If you're removing trees, we need to know how many and and what you're replacing them with. >> Anybody else? Go ahead, Janet.
>> There's a note on the plan that says vegetation to be removed between limit of work and existing fence. Right. Can you >> That is just the area we were speaking of just now with the tree. >> Yeah. >> Right in there. That little wedge.
So, what else is in there? Just >> we haven't done any kind of inventory of what's there. It looks like it's the area generally speaking outside the fence and the existing walls out around here where we're proposing the mitigation looks like it was the fringe of where the construction was
>> years ago and it just has been allowed to become, you know, no formal plantings but some >> naturalized >> naturalized weeds but also landscape debris too. >> Okay. Um, >> well, I just would like to know, you
know, whether there's any native vegetation in there that would be removed. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And I think placing I don't know if you're replace putting it into the new place or
if the other fence after the removal is a brand new fence. What does it look like? >> It it's a it's a vinyl fence. White vinyl. It would be the same. Right now it runs straight through here. >> Yeah.
like so. And we'd replace it where it needs replacing right here and along that. And then meet up over here. >> It's a post and rail fence though, correct? >> Post and rail style vinyl fence. Yes. It's just a Yeah, just a barrier to keep people from so people know it's the edge
of the the yard. Um >> I I would would think in my mind that that maybe a restoration would be more valuable than mitigation planting north and south of the project. Um
I mean how are you going to you have to m you know this this mitigation it's going to be with a lot of uh invasives you know you got to keep it separated and so it's obviously will have to be
kind of maintained almost formally in order to keep the vases from encroaching in on your mitigation planting. It's so far in. >> Um >> I think we were planning on it being subject to the three-year rule that applies to
>> both. But >> no, I I understand. The other big issue also is is um one of the biggest things in our criteria is is filling. >> Filling is is like uh you know is a big
red flag with us. uh any and when you're filling up to the 50 like that, it's uh it's one of our biggest concerns is filling. Anything else? Sounds like there's quite a few things that we
>> Does they need zoning? >> Uh, >> well, it's >> No, >> I I we did we did we did I did jot down your your comments and questions. My my only my my question is just for my benefit in in revising the plan is we we've the the bylaw is very helpful in
that it provides pretty specific quantitative descriptions of what is and isn't allowed. We thought we were meeting it with this. Is there a a say a setback to the 50 foot um no disturb zone that you're looking for us to observe or a quantity of fill that that
uh might be uh acceptable? >> Wait, you're asking about fill? >> Well, I'm also asking about the we talked about there was some discussion about the pool dimensions. Um >> that's just because you're taking away
an area that right now is, you know, um, open and you're making it all into da patio and and pool and it's a very large
pool. And so very often we do question pool sizes and deck sizes and because you know even a pool's not pvious obviously
and the pavers are pvious but there's a huge we've lost a lot of open area and so we're a that's why we're asking I think I don't want to speak for everybody Um >> my and my also what is my main concern
is is is one of the concerns is the area of the mitigations. I mean is really you're running out of places to put the mitigation. So your north and south which really I'd like I would personally like to see more with the wet with the with the vernal pool or
>> some type of a restoration to the vernal pool you know to benefit the vernal pool putting some plants in the north and the south. I mean, it's you are you're you're you're putting the right numbers in, but it's the the two mitigation areas are far apart from each other. They're not connected and they're not
intiguous with what we're trying to protect. So, that's why I'm saying maybe part uh partial mitigation with a restoration would be more beneficial to the vernal pool than sticking some plants on the south and the north side of the project, you know.
>> Oh, well, okay. These these are buffer zone mitigation. So they're not >> they're not continuous with the pool, >> but they're separated versus you're you're not separating the impact you're putting in, right? It's all one piece, pool, patio, but you're
separating the mitigation on both sides of the project versus connection. connecting the mitigation would be you know so the mitigation would be together and to the vernal pool is what you're
protecting you're not the outskirts of the north and south of the project you know what I mean >> right given given that the the area generally slopes down to the pool as it as it would from the from from the swimming pool down to the vernal pool >> I think what Eric's saying and I agree
it would be better to plant along that top part of that to create such a a buffer strip between the impacts of the pool patio and the vernal pool as opposed to north and south. >> Put it there so that it helps to protect that vernal pool from runoff coming from
that patio. >> Okay, we can look at that. We bear in mind too, we're we're constrained in that the lot is lot lines here and here. So, we don't have a lot of room to uh >> show that again the lot lines. >> Lot This is the northern lot line here.
Yep. >> And this is the southern lot. >> Yeah, that's that's fine. >> This this is all all the 50 foot no touch, >> but that's still in the lot. >> Don't disturb. You can put plantings you can put plantings in the >> We actually appreciate if you put wouldn't mind.
>> Absolutely. That's what we're looking for because it's with the vernal pool. >> They wouldn't come towards the the 35% in the outer. >> Exactly. No, the 35% is the pool, the patio that the hardcape type things.
>> Okay. >> The plantings are to combat that that >> impact. Were we to make them more contiguous, we could go into the no touch zone with the >> absolutely >> restoration and make tie together.
>> Thank you. That's that's good guidance. >> You're welcome. So obviously you need to come back. Um we have April 1st, April 8th, April 22nd, then we're into May. Uh I don't
know how much time you need or what you're thinking. >> Um we'll shoot for April 1st and if we can make it, we can. If not, we'll continue. >> We're rehearing it. It's not an order. >> Okay. >> Are there any new orders for April 1?
No, just well two today. >> Um, so you'd like April 1st. >> Okay. If we have a motion to >> I move that we continue 357 Stony Hill Road to the meeting on April 1st, 2026. >> Second. >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric.
>> I. >> Paul. >> I. >> Janet. >> I. >> Elise. >> I. >> And I say I. >> Okay. The next please. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Next up is a notice of intent application for 41 Katy Ford Road,
Virginia Don and John Donovan, map AE, parcel 24. Uh this is local OMI CWP-26-8. Uh this is for construction of an addition within the buffer zone to a vegetated wetland.
>> Good afternoon, David Clark. Clark Engineering on behalf of Jenny Don who's in the audience. Um so this is uh a small addition to a dwelling uh adjacent to an old cranberry bog that's reverted to a
vegetated wetland. Um the addition is over an existing deck and uh the net square footage increase on the property is 38 square feet. We show a small mitigation area uh with
some plantings that will get us to the 38 square ft of required mitigation. Um it all may seem insignificant. Um but given the size of the property, it's it's over 80,000 square feet. I'm sorry.
Yeah, 82,000 square feet. um that 3 38 square feet is 4/10en 4100ths of a percent increase in sight coverage. So it really is at the end of the day a dimminimous uh change to the property. Nonetheless, it's within your
jurisdiction. You require mitigation and it's why we filed a notice of intent. >> So on your plan, >> this is just I it said C planting chart. >> Yep.
I can't find a planting chart. I've tried. >> It is over on the right column right above my stamp. >> Oh. >> Oh my gosh. Yes. >> It's a planting schedule.
>> Oh, sorry. Planting chart. >> Thanks. Okay. And nine backs. I don't know what those are. >> Oh, nine bark. Oh. >> Oh. It says nine back.
>> Okay. I want to make sure I didn't even read it wrong. I Are they native? >> I'm bark. Yes, it's on the It's on the list. >> Okay. >> Um, anybody have anything comments, questions?
>> It's too bad this couldn't be done under request for determination, something like that. You know, it's >> it's unbelievable. Anybody? No. Bob. >> Okay. Well, then I think we can go to an
order. That was fast and easy. >> Um, how about April 8th? >> That's fine. >> Okay. So, we'll do the 8th for an order. >> I move that we continue 41 Katy Ford Road to the meeting on April 8th, 2026
for an order of conditions. >> Second. >> Okay. Bob >> I >> Eric >> I >> Paul >> I >> Janet >> I >> Elise >> I >> and I say I >> thanks
>> we save the easier for the end hopefully. Okay, >> next one. Bradford. >> Next is a notice of intent for 10 Meadow View Road. Kevin and Stephanie Sarnney,
map 10 9D, parcel S1, SE 10- I don't think I have the SE number for this. I don't have an SE number yet. Uh, construction of an addition within the buffer zone to a coastal bank. >> David Clark again, Clark Engineering. uh
almost the exact same project except the resource area is different. We're dealing with a coastal bank here. Um putting an addition over an existing deck and uh again 38 square feet. Um my office manager said I was cutting and pasting and I need to check my numbers,
but they wound up being exactly the same increase as the other project. Um so uh we show a work limit to protect uh the coastal bank uh from any runoff during construction. This one's a little different. Then we got to move a foot
path as well. Um we have the plan from Joyce Williams uh showing um how the area is going to be restored after construction. Um does not require zoning leave relief. This is a conforming lot with a conforming house on it and the addition
will also conform to setback in uh area requirements. Bradford, you had a question about the coastal bank definition. >> Yeah, >> I did. I was just wondering if the >> how could it possibly >> um when I was out there, the it looked
like where you have to slope looked like the top of the bank to me. I just wasn't sure if that was >> Well, the slope is calculated where the flood plane intercepts the landform. So way down at the bottom where the where the flood plane is the slope is less
than 4:1. So at that point the coastal bank the limit of coastal bank is one and the same as the as the flood plane contour. As you move north, the slope decreases to less than 10 to one. And under um uh
guidance document 91 or 90 or other, if if it's less than 10 to one, there is no coastal bank. >> Okay? >> And that's that's specifically where the flood plane line intercepts the land form. So yes, the slope above that, a
little ways above that transitions to something that's much steeper than 4 to one, but that we're looking at the delineation is done where the flood plane intercepts the landform. >> Gotcha. Thank you. >> Can I just follow up on that just for my
own continuing confusion after all these years? So it it's a coastal bank because of the location of the flood plane essentially because even though the nearest beach and water body is a half mile away, it still
>> um for decades the town of Barnstable would not consider this a coastal bank because they look at the state regulations and it it says that uh um the seawward face or side of an
elevated landform one and uh and when you have a flood plane that encroaches so far inland, it's no longer the seawward side or face. Um, but traditionally in Chadam as well as Brewster and Orleans and the other
neighboring towns, >> it's always a coastal bank, which doesn't follow the state definition because it if if it was always a coastal bank, they wouldn't have put the language >> uh seawward side or face, right? It
would be always a coastal bank. So, >> something to discuss in the future. You um Yeah. Um, yeah, >> but you know, >> I look at the aerial and I say, my, you know, it's not only a half a mile, but it's a there's 10 other properties in between it and how can that possibly be?
And then I looked at where the flood plane was and said that must be what's triggering this. Yeah, there's a couple of houses on Bridge Street um that have all of Horn's cottages in front of them, but right there are coastal bank facet
or something up there. We had the same thing where it was really far away. Yeah. >> But it's still okay. Every time I see this, I scratch my head. >> Any other questions, comments? Thank you for having two easy ones at
the end. See? So, anyway, we can do this one on the first since it's an easy one. Um, we just >> Yes. >> like to get >> done started on this this spring and uh run out of time. >> I'll get it done first. Yeah.
>> Um, >> all right. If we have a motion for the first for an order. I move that we continue 10 Meadow View Road to the meeting on April 1st, 2026 for an order of conditions. >> Second. >> Uh Bob >> I >> Eric
>> I >> Paul >> I >> Janet >> I and I say I >> thank you. >> Thank you. Okay Bradford the next please. >> The next is a discussion for possible irrigation requirement changes. We just need to vote to continue this to a date
certain. >> Yes. And what was the date that Teresa asked for? >> She said midappril, but she didn't provide an exact date. >> Why don't we put her on the 22nd? >> Okay, that works. >> Um because 48 isn't mid. >> Yeah. >> So,
who's Okay. So, if we could have a motion to continue the irrigation discussion to April 22nd. Paul, >> I move that we continue the irrigation discussion to April 22nd, 2026.
>> Second. >> Bob, >> I >> Eric. >> I >> Paul. >> I >> Janet. >> I. >> And I say I. >> And I say I too. >> Oh, and Elise. >> I did it again. Darn it. >> You down here. >> I'm wanting to get out of here. >> Am I? >> Okay. Next, please.
>> Next is a discussion for Twine Fields Conservation Area. >> Okay. Do we have anybody here? I don't not in the audience but online but I will I have a response and if anybody
has some questions after that. The question was about twine field and its usage because of I believe because of um the project at um that Penrose is um
is about to well is trying to put on meeting house. So uh here it is. It was requested that Twine Field be added to an agenda for comment from the commission. Twin field is a 7.5 acre
protected meadow on Morton Road managed under the conservation restriction held by the CHAM Conservation Foundation. The town of Cham Conservation Foundation Commission retains care and custody of
the area under chapter 40 section 8C, a designation made at the time of the acquisition. It is to be retained in its natural, scenic, and undeveloped condition, allowing only passive recreation per the conservation
restriction. At this time, the commission has not received any applications pertaining to Twine Field. If the commission does receive an application pertaining to the use of Twine Field, it will then be able to consider the application as it pertains
to the use at that time and can entertain public comments. Um, I don't know if anybody is on that has questions. I'm trying to get to see
I don't see any raised hands. Um everything is on the town website so you can find everything you want to know there for as far as the restriction. Paul, do you have something to add? >> Yeah, I just wanted to add that um the
uh Chattam Conservation Foundation uh is the grantee uh for the restriction uh and they do interpret uh and give us written notice and so forth and so on. they'd be very involved with any uh activities that
might occur out there that weren't aligned with u the conservation restriction which is on this website up uh you can find it on our town uh website for conservation areas and the restrictions there all the information about twine fields there the meadow
management plans there um even a historical document on uh the acquisition um back in 2014 I think it was it was the largest uh piece of land left in the town. 7.5 acres roughly um when the town acquired it and there's
another additional acre for our parking off of Morton Road. But um I'm surprised no one's here because I think it was Mrs. Hicks that was Yeah. >> requested nobody's on >> and the question was how are we going to protect it? >> Right. And right now that's how we
protect it with the restriction. >> It's it's uh didn't get any more protection than it has. What are they after? Not another housing. >> Well, they want to >> There was mention I believe that in
order when you put in affordable housing, you must have open space with like a playground and such. Uh, and from what I know when they presented to the preservation commission committee,
they I think they were hoping to put in a playground or use it for that that requirement. >> This town's got more playgrounds in Boston, >> right? But it's a requirement in when you put in any affordable housing, it
must have its own play own area. >> Yeah. So that's why and um that's why I think she came to us to find out how we would protect it. >> Uh yeah, I did um want to clarify that with Sarah and uh there's two paths that
sort of lead from the development right up to the edge of Twine Fields. Um I did ask Sarah about that requirement, which I thought there was. There is nothing in the 40B statute that requires it, but uh I guess they saw it as an amenity. um to
the proposed development. So, >> okay, >> I it's that's how it kind of came to us. Um again, I'm surprised no one's here because they asked us to put it on and >> and we let them know. >> Yeah. >> So, hopefully they'll watch this. >> Yeah. >> And if they have further questions, they
can ask put on a future agenda as well. >> All right. Thank you, ma'am. >> Having done that, we have one more motion. >> I have I while we're on the record, I just I wanted to bring up the pools. Um h how are they people have the pool owners have a pump on the pool. I mean
the pump the cover collects water and then you got to pump the water off. So >> they have a pool equipment area. >> No people have a pool. You have a pump that sits on it >> and then they have a hose and sticks out and they dump the water out of it. by truck, don't they?
>> No, the the the water that collects on the cover when it rains, >> there's a they have pumps on top and it just shoots the water out. So, how are they not how are they how are they not pvious? >> Yeah, that's a good point. >> I mean, it's it's it's impossible. The
people don't leave their pool covers open when it rains. They they close them and then the water sits and then those things those pumps when the rain's heavy they sag down the covers and you have to pump it off. >> We've had this conversation so many times. The pools are impervious. You
know the the fact that it can collect an inch or so of rain if it were open which is not generally is irrelevant because it's impervious is is the ability to get down into reach the groundwater and ultimately and pools uh ain't doing that.
But I don't I They pump it, I guess, and disperse it. >> Yeah, you just pump it off to the side. >> Isn't that the same as a patio then? Exactly the same. >> Yeah, still water has to go somewhere. >> Well, I think somewhere I think what I'm hearing is maybe we need to look at our
regulations pertaining to pools to be really carefully ordered. >> That's another thing to look at. >> So, I will put that on the list. >> Pools are random. >> They are. and we will um add it and maybe have a discussion and people can
come we'll add it to an agenda and people can come and give us their opinion. >> Okay, one more motion. >> I move that we adjourn the hearing. >> Second >> Bob >> I >> Eric >> I >> Paul >> I >> Janet >> I >> Elise
>> I >> and I say I