Paul, Please Karen. Yeah. [Music] Heat. [Music]
Hey, Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]
Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music]
Good afternoon. This is a hearing of the Cadam Conservation Commission being held on September 24th, 2025 in accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Town of Chadam Wetlands Protection bylaw and regulations. My name is Karen Latton and
I serve as the chair. Today's hearing is being broadcast live on Exfinity Channel 1072 and is being recorded for the on demand archives available on the town's website. It's being conducted in person, by phone, and by video conference. The agenda, instructions on how to attend,
and copies of documents for review are posted on the town's website. 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're online and you are not a commissioner, please keep your camera turned off unless you've been recognized. and indicate that you wish to speak by using the raise hand feature. So that we have
a record of a quorum, I will now ask each commissioner to indicate their presence. Vice Chair Paul Johnson present. Elise Gordon present. Janet Williams present. Eric Hilbert present. And Bob Delveio is not here. I am here
and we have established we have a quorum. Uh at this point, are there any announcements uh from the public or from commissioners or future agenda items? I have one thing. Well, actually I have two. Um
I think you know we have when we ask for additional materials, they usually you have until really the day before the meeting to get them in. And we're finding that this is an issue for those of us who use paper. And so we are going
to now ask that um any additional materials arrive to the office by 11 on Friday so that uh we can get them into the packets and that way we hopefully avoid continuences because people
haven't had time to review the materials before the meeting because I've just handed out materials to people today uh which was the first time we've seen each other since they arrived. My second announcement is, and maybe
Janet can do it better than I, but we have a conference tomorrow afternoon from 4 to 6 in the community center uh for climate change and coastal resilience. And so hopefully if anybody's interested, they will come and attend.
It should be very interesting. We have a couple of our employees uh speaking and then some others from other areas in Cape Cod. Do you want to say anything further about it, Jan? Okay, good. Four o'clock. Four to six o'clock. Four to six. Yep.
Tomorrow. All right. Before we begin the agenda, Paul, are there any announcements for any continuences today? Good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. Yes, there's one request for continuence. It is 784 Orleans Road, town of Chadam. Um, I'll read the whole
legal announcement when we get to it. Thank you. So, at this point, Paul Whiteitman, Chadam's conservation agent, will now lead us through the agenda, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. First on the agenda is a request for an order conditions. The address is 42 Harborview
Lane, Keith S. Sharon to 12 qualified trust. Map 16 I parcel 22-m2 D number SC10 3743. The project is proposed beach nourishment. It was continued from August 13, 2025.
Hi, I did receive your email. Say again. I did receive your email as as just like last time. So I'm Mark Burgess from Consulting just the consultant for these this and the next and the next project. And I'll remain silent. So Okay. Well, we're going to go through
them. So Mark sent an email this morning after reviewing the order um for 42. He did ask that we include the letters from Katherine and from NHSP which had been left off from the
supporting documents. So I added those. Thank you for catching that. No worries. Um and then I added in findings um the purpose of this project is to
provide beach nourishment in the form of compatible sand cover to be placed over the existing revetment. The amount of the nourishment for this property is 66 cubic yards based on the recommendation of Katherine Ricks coastal resilience
director of Chadam. This amount offsets a three-year calculated loss of sand. I also added, you asked that I add the trigger point and the um placement of
sand from that's also in 54. I did add those. I do you want me to read those in full? Okay. Because they just copied them. So, not nothing um big on that one. In special conditions number two, I
did modify it. I said um it looks like Janet just added more. Nourishment cell shall consist of 22 cubic yards per year is triggered each year by the exposure of the stone step at the base of the a
access steps for a total of 66 cubic yards over the full three-year period. Is that okay? Yeah. I mean the idea is they're going to do it once and do 66 yards. Right. Oh, wait. Say that again.
Um, Katherine Rick's her letter suggested that the erosion rate was for 22 cubic yards a year, but then suggested to avoid increased disturbance and multiple disturbances that we would place a three-year amount. That's where the 66 yards comes from. Okay, so it's all going in at one time.
66. Okay, let me change that then. I thought we were sticking with the uh 22 per year. Thank you. This isn't something you want to do every year. It's just too much uh not enough bang for your buck and too much just going over the lawn and disturbance and all that.
Okay. Then I added um uh number five, trigger points on uh on the stairs and existing revetment shall be marked with stakes as so as to monitor over a three-year period.
Um also photographs of the beach and entire project area shall be taken you know before the beginning of the project immediately upon completion of work and then annually for a three-year period. Um I also added the uh verbiage about
the NHSP that had come we also have in 54. I did take out the written annual monitoring report um because we already that dealt with mitigation plans.
Then you also asked that in section D which is installation of fiber roll arrays which you said doesn't pertain and I and I get that. Um, I think maybe
we want to change the title from installation of I didn't want to put all of these into that are being kept into the special conditions. So, I hadn't come up with a a good name for
what we could call this. Um, so maybe so question. Go ahead. So the this this section's in here as well as the revetment. But if if what we're talking about is nourishment over an existing revetment, I take it
that the point of having these in here is their conditions that pertain to nourishment requirements. Is that correct? Yeah. And we can take out the other things and put and call it. Well, he also asked that um you're
right. And he did ask that number E, the installation of rock prevent totally come out. I just didn't remove it. Um, so because I we I wanted to hear commissioner's opinions. And what we're
doing here is also going to be has been done or is going to be done in 54, so we won't have to go over this twice. Um, I just thought some of the conditions that were in the fiber roll do apply to the project. You add them as special
conditions on the So maybe we could title it as uh nourishment uh revetment nourishment maybe nourishment protocol nourishment of existing revetment.
Yeah, that works. Okay. Um so the equipment stays in salt marsh stays in. Yeah, I access all that stays in beach nourishment number five that stays. I I kept the ones he asked to have stay. I
did read the other ones and felt that it was appropriate to remove them. Okay. Um probably the storm damage one can go because that has to do with the fiber rolls being uh dislodged, right?
Um shorefront protection. Uh well, this is a form. It's it's it's a modification to a form of existing shorefront protection. So we can leave that in in case anything goes wrong with that. Right. Which number is that one? That was seven. I just changed the
the approved shorefront protection system may not be appropriate. Yeah. And then it was 15. Failure to follow maintenance blah blah blah. Okay. So we also asked that we remove totally the rock rebentment. Let me just make sure there's nothing in there that
exactly there's a nourishment, but I suspect it's the same as the as the fiber roll nourishment and it deals with machinery, but we've already dealt with machinery. Yeah. Installation of the rocks that can go.
So, annual monitoring report, we said, "Okay, no, I just didn't want to cross it all out before the meeting." Um, yeah. Okay. Um, I have a question though. Go ahead. And then So, that's all gone. That whole reetment section is gone. Thank you. And just the applicable ones of the uh
prior one. But back up to the references to triggers. So if all the nourishments being applied at one time at the beginning of the project, what's the point of having triggers if there's no renourishment? Well, there is there is a renourishment.
That's the purpose of the trigger. So you're putting 66 cubic yards in now all at once, right? And then you wait for that trigger point to be exposed and then you could put another 66 yards that way. Even though under Katherine's calculation, she was calculating 22
yards a year, right? You're putting in three times that. Is there any Okay. Re rational chance that you're going to reach that trigger point with that much sand going in. Don't know. Mother nature's driving that bus. All right. We'll leave the trigger there. Thank you.
And deal with it at Yep. if and when if and when it gets reached and and the applicant would have to contact you, right, to notify you, the office, of course. Yep. Uhhuh. Okay. So, the question I had flagged in the project description, I know we take this
right from what's proposed. Originally, you had proposed 187 cubic yards and that was what with the back and forth with Katherine. That's still in there. The sentence says the proposed amount is 187 cubic yards. I just wanted to think about whether leaving that in
I created an I didn't remove it because that was their description, but we could update it. That was one of our discussion items once we went through his list. Mhm. Yeah. I mean, we could say the original
proposed amount was 187 cubic yards um which was subsequently later agreed to be 66 for the uh this is in your project and mitigation
description which you had actually asked that it be updated. Yeah. Yeah. that just to I wanted to talk to the commissioners about that since it's the description that came in for the project and I
try hard not to modify descriptions that have been provided to us. I don't have a problem if you want to state the 8 the 187 so that there's a record that the commission reduced that amount we are stating no worries read this to you in one second that's fine to 66
cubic yards. So it says the the original proposed amount of nourishment was 187 cubic yards for a 2 to three foot cover of sand. Due to concerns expressed by the coastal resilience director the applicant agreed to reduce the volume to 66 cubic yards. Perfect. Right. That work?
Yeah. Get over. All right. Commissioners, does anybody have anything else? I just I just wanted to get So, if there's a storm next spring and wipes out the 66 yards, you don't have to go through all this again, do you? To put a No, that that's No, no, no. They contact the agent.
Yeah. Okay, good. I like you guys. We don't want to do this any more than we have to. I love it. Um, anything else? All right, then. Could we have a motion, please?
I move that we close the hearing on 42 Harborview Lane and approve the order of conditions as modified. Second. Okay. Elise, I. Janet, I. Paul, I. Eric, hi. And I say I. Okay. The next one, Paul, please.
Next one, Madam Chair, is uh 54 Harborview Lane. Um Dun A. Foster 212 revocable trust map 16 I partial 21-m number SC10 3744 again this is proposed beach nourishment
and continued from August 13 to25 I assume you don't have to go through a whole discussion no we're not going to there are a couple things um we will need to change the uh description of the project what's the uh remind me what's it agreed
upon um uh it isund 2 and then we will have to remove the uh reetment and rename. I'm leaving the other one open for the moment. Exactly.
Exactly. So um any commissioners have any questions or comments on this one? Since we've already talked about sort of we probably should have opened both at the same time.
Yep. very much more of the same. Um, so while Janet's doing that, um, we have a motion, please. I move that we close the hearing on 54 Harborview Lane and approve the order of conditions as written.
Second. Okay. Eric I, Paul, I, Janet, I, Elise, I. And I say I. Thank you. Thank you very much. And next one please Paul. Next on the agenda is another order of
conditions of 149 Cotch Pinikut Road Christopher Rinmith Trustee map 16K parcel one DP number SC 10 3748 demolition of a portion of an existing dwelling relocation of an extort excuse me historic portion of the dwelling and
construction of a new dwelling in a buffer zone to a coastal bank. was continued from August 13, 2025. Good afternoon. Uh David Clark, Clark Engineering on behalf of the applicants. Um just a couple of points. Um
somewhere in either the property description or the findings, we would like you to just add that uh it's a pre uh 1978 house. Just to put that into the record. Um, in the
property description, it talks about the house being there in 1938, but we can have the language that expressly says that it's a pre78 house just because that's the term used in the wetlands protection act.
So, Janet just added um to the description, the house therefore is a pre-1978 house. Keep it simple. Yep. Yep. Anything else? Uh and then to that point, um in section
E, uh conditions 11 and 12 talk about no revetment. And I know it says if applicable, but that just adds ambiguity to the to the order. So if it's not applicable, it's just it should Okay. Which which number? any
uh 11 and 12 I I believe in section E uh page 11 if applicable uh yeah so 11 and 112 about the okayments and then
I think that's it did you get that okay oh um what section is that it's page 11. H conditions 13 and 14
appear to be repetitive. Unless I'm missing something, you know, I'm noticing that we have some repetition. 11. They're under special conditions and they're 11 and
no no 13 and 14. 13 and 14. Oh yeah. Yeah. I'm not sure why that is happening. Usually I catch that. Mr. Devakio would have caught it.
He would have. He would have. We see. Okay. Do commissioners have anything that they'd like to say? Okay, then we can have a motion. I move that we close the hearing on 149 Cotch Penñuket Road and approve the
order of conditions as written. Second. Okay. Elise I. Janet I. Paul. I. Eric. I. And I say I. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Paul. The next next on the agenda is a uh order of conditions review for 560 Orleans Road.
560 Orleans Road LLC is the owner. Map 13J, parcel 7- G20, D number SCE10 3749 preconstruction. It was continued from August 13, 2025. I said pre-reconstruction. I meant peer
reconstruction. I'm sorry. How are you? Good. Steve Goldstein for 560 Orleans Road LLC. Okay. Um you received the changes to the drawings that you requested in the last
Yeah. Um meeting probably. Um so we replaced the throughflow deck with e pay right. Did you get the order that we wrote? Yes. Okay. Did you read the order?
I have. Okay. Were there any issues? Yes. Oh, okay. what what issues with the order did you have because we you know we're hopefully we've incorporated what you submitted.
So um just if you could go over what you would like sure what you saw. So on the first page um first paragraph the seasonal ramp is being extended by two feet. It's no longer being extended
by the two feet. Okay. Uh on which page? It's not on project 11B. Oh, okay. Okay. So you will take out the seasonal ramp that we you know this is came directly
from your application. That's so it it is reflected further down the size of the ramp. So, um, but we can take that out. We just did or say that it was changed, right? Either way, we took it out.
Okay. What else? Um, 11 C. Yeah. Uh, you have the, uh, current plank decking will be replaced by inind lumber. Um, is EP considered inind lumber?
I'm not even seeing that. What is how does do you see this is under project and mitigation description there is second paragraph the current plan is what's there now
wood okay yeah but it's still a timber decking and timber decking okay that's and is it possible ble to reconsider the throughflow? Not at this time. Well, thank well commissioners, how do you feel?
Can I explain my reasoning? Sure. Um, none of the decking materials are great. Right. The through flow is a fiberglass reinforced plastic, if you will. I know your concern is the plastic, but the
fiberglass is going to hold it in better than anything. there is no evidence of degradation of the throughflow. And then the big advantage is any of the deckings that you put on as boards um whether you even go to the 3/4 in which is was you
know as big as I could possibly make it you're only getting about 12% of sunlight going through with the through flow we're getting 43%. And that's huge for the vegetation down below. So I think that the benefit of
putting through float outweighs any risk that there might be from the plastic. Commissioners, how do you feel when you when you say the fiberglass holds off on the erosion of the plastic uh full sun? What what is the what is
the prediction? What is the proof of it? There is no proof, but there's no evidence of degragation either. Um the company came out and said in the 25 years they've been making it, they've never had a complaint. And in fact, the Army Corps of Engineers in Florida is recommending the use of this in those
pathways. Yeah, Florida. I don't know, man. We'll have Florida mad at us. Now, it is it is treated with a UV protectant that does also help prevent the degradation. They probably do help the sugar cane grow, I guess. Anybody else?
Well, I'll just note we we've been having this conversation for several years now um with different commissioners expressing different views. Exactly. Um I understand what you mean that that it's an extruded poly um
PVC uh material. Um there are no peer-reviewed studies on the imp on the rate of degradation in the in the sunlight environment. that is not subject to to to marine environment. There's no water reaching the decking of
this. Um so I always come out with saying a a a theoretical possible risk sometime in the future unknown um is loses to the known risk of shadowing on salt marsh beneath it. But um I have only been you know no one else
I'm the only voice saying that um there is and that's not without real reasons that we just don't know how this plastic material is going to break down in that salt marsh and whether microplastics will end up um migrating off of it and
into the salt marsh is the concern. So um I mean I get both sides. I always but that's just me. Um, and Elise, I'll give the opposite view because 25 years of whatever research is there is the blink of an eye. You could end up
not having a salt marsh in a hundred years because of it. We don't know what the effects of that that plastic is going to be. So that's why the unknown seems more be more conservative than then use the new stuff.
This is not a new opinion as Janet said of the commission. because we have visited this many a time and have come on the side of this actually let me just throw out there that where we have landed that everybody
can support is using aluminum yes really yes because are you aware that micropl the sorry the micro crystals of aluminum cause cellular degradation again haven't seen any studies about how that happens there are studies um again
not it's not subject to uh the marine environment. So there's no none of that happening. Um but plastic verse I plastic is just a bigger problem in the marine environment. Then I think if you look there are studies that show that the aluminum oxidizes
instead of rusts and that gets right into the water and when it breaks down into microparticles it does cause cellular degradation of the aquatic life timber. Yeah. Uh so unfortunately also this was a discussion that should have happened
before we went to an order because at the point when we said that it was ready to go to an order, we I thought we had all agreed on the um composition of the decking and wrote the
order based off of what had been agreed upon. And obviously this is a discussion that is larger than what should be taking place right now. So, um, and as it is right now, I know you still have to go to zoning. And what we had been
ready to propose was, uh, that we would, uh, approve the order today, but not close the hearing. So that in case anything when you go to zoning gets modified, you don't have to reapply for
an amendment or whatever. Um if you want and you want to have a further discussion of this point we can just continue it. Yes Paul I I just want to add that um
you know the information around the studies is definitely inconclusive. Um, but to be not to be arbitrary and capricious as the agent, I've been telling homeowners they can no longer use flu throw flow. Right. That's what we've been say
because that's our our it's been your your policy now for a while brought up by vice chair few years back. Um, so I think it's unfair to say to one applicant, you can go ahead and do it and then I've already just recently told somebody that they couldn't do it based on what you guys
have. It would be such a change in practice that we would probably have to issue some sort of policy document. Exactly. And as I said, it's a bigger discussion than here. So Okay. Okay. But I'd ask. All right. Any uh commissioners,
anything else that in the order that I have more in the order. What? I have more comments for Oh, okay. on that same page. Um, you have the existing again the existing ramp will be changed. That's not correct. The longer ramp,
right? And and then we'll fix it, but we don't change the description that came in. It's dealt with in our findings. We do say that it is a a 14 by 6 foot seasonal ramp.
So you know we say that in the findings the 9 foot by 10 foot seasonal float and the 14 by3 uh seasonal ramp there our seasonal I know it's a replace you know it's continuing that seasonal
word three places but it gives you the point so and we've done that in this conditions as well so it is covered in the part where you know the description is what you submitted originally and then the last line says uh that the
plan calls for float clamps that was removed prior to the meeting. Exactly. If it's not on the plan, it can't happen. So you know these your plans and everything that we've put
what we put in the findings and these special conditions are what you and all the other condition general conditions are what should be dealt with. Okay. So on the next page, um again you have
the seasonal ramp being replaced but number 11 um Miss Rick's opinion ladder versus walkound. Um we did talk to D. We do not have the 5- foot clearance and
being that the pier is located basically on on the property line even extending into our neighbors property it's not possible to do a walkound. So the only solution is to put ladders on either side. Okay.
And we received that from D or it it um I don't recall seeing anything. It just came in this morning because we're only it was only raised. Okay. As of this morning. Um if I could show you this. Yeah, we can take it. And this is again
unfortunately it only came in this morning. But again, why this was not even an email to the commission. You can't talk unless you're at the mic. So, I'll get knocked on the window. So, here you go. Janet, that was an email that was just forwarded to me from my engine.
And you forwarded it to I didn't forward it to anyone because I didn't Would you please to uh Crystal so that it can be included in the file? Of course. Um Okay. Anything else? Um, under special conditions, lumber will be cut on site and installed on
site. Is it possible to be cut off site? Does it say? Yeah, it says Yeah, it does. It says lumber will be cut on site and installed on sites. Oh, okay. We had a mistake. It's off. Okay, we'll fix that.
Do you want me to fix that? Yeah. Okay. What else? Page 11 K number five. Under which section? Um this is uh specific conditions
installation of access stairs. Uh number five says uh there'll be a minimum of 3/4 in spacing between the decks. That probably should be a maximum. Anything more probably is a violation of code and probably prevents
Yeah, I know you're still typing. Okay. What else? I think that's it. All right. Um any commissioners? Anything? Nothing, Tad. Okay. We um because you
are not meeting with ZBA until tomorrow uh tomorrow. What we're going to do is we're going to approve the order or have a motion to approve the order right now, but we are not closing the hearing in case, as I
said, ZBA changes anything. It will alleviate you having to um refile for an amendment. But on October 8th, we will uh close the hearing. Very good. Barring anything, you know, happening at
ZBA. Okay. I move that we approve the order of conditions on 560 Orleans Road as modified. Second. Eric. I. Paul. I. Elise. I. I. Janet. I.
And I say I. Okay. Paul. Next, please. Uh thank you madam chair. Uh next on the agenda is an order of conditions for zero aka 240 Cedar Street. This is town project Cedar Street pump station design
of Chadam. Map 12B parcel 11 DP number SC 103751. Project is construction of a new wastewater pump station and it was continued from August 27th and September 10th of 2025. And I notified these gentlemen to be
here today so they could speak to the order. Hello. Did you get the order? Yes. And we have we have a few comments. I figured nothing nothing major. Nothing major. Just a couple a couple of things. One's a clarification. So on on
page 11 G number 12, some of that language is repeated in on page uh previously, but 1700 feet of wetlands are affected by the project. It also says another location will be determined for replacement of the wetlands in
conjunction. But further down in that same paragraph, it also says the applicant must propose at least 1,700 square ft of restoration of existing wetlands. So like a little clarification, are we looking for restoration of existing wetlands to mitigate or we looking for a completely
new wetland mitigation site? I I think we had agreed that it would be restoration of an existing degra existing degraded system. We're not going to require replication for creation of a wetland, but there's plenty of degraded wetlands on town
property that would be very suitable candidates for restoration. So, I'll change this replacement to restoration of existing. We are very very agreeable to that change. I figured and that that would also be on the under the under the findings number nine.
Okay. We figured that number nine and number 12 should probably read exactly the same. Yep. Yep. Okay. Okay. Anything else? U there's a typo on um just in spirit.
Yeah. Boy, did Bob call you just just under the prop property description on the second page of the property description though. Well, then you guys had that that typo. So, yeah. So, duct bank. Yeah. Okay. What is it? What what what what do
you uh it says associate electrical duct and then it says NAK parenthesis on the property description. What page is it? It's project 11 C 11 C C
11. Oh, what? What? Like the fifth bullet. Yeah, duck. What is bullet? It should say duct banks. Oh, as opposed to Yeah. No, we should have caught it on our way out, I guess. So, okay. Unfortunately, we caught it here. At least it wasn't our typo.
Well, there you go. So, there's a typo. There's a typo. It was our typo since I did this one. I'm glad it wasn't me. Um, also the five remaining trees, I mean, we would like to use our existing
uh uh mitigation area, the conservation restriction area between Ellis and Smith Street to replant those five trees if that's allowable. We could put it in the record now. Or do we want to I No, they need to submit a plan. Yeah, I think put that in the record.
Submit, you know, talk to Paul and Paul. Sure. will go through the right channels. Okay. Okay. Anything else? I think that was it, right? Yeah. I don't um just take one last look, but I don't believe so. No, that was it. Thank you.
Okay, commissioners, anything changes? Okay, a motion, please. I move that we close the hearing on zero Cedar Street and approve the order of conditions as modified. Second. Okay. Elise. I. Janet.
I. Paul. I. Eric. Hi. And I say I. Thank you. Okay. Paul. Next, please. Uh, next on the agenda is our last review for order of conditions 552 Shaw Road. Francesco Scaton. I hope I
pronounced that right. and Judith Gibbons. Map 16G, parcel 16-T3, D number I SC 103750. Project is residential additions and mitigation plantings. It was continued from August 27th, 2025.
Okay, anybody? Yes. Good evening. Um, can you all hear me? Hi, R. For the Raldi, sorry. Hi. Um, we did receive the draft order condition. We reviewed it with the team. Um, we had no
actually no concerns with the conditions listed. Um, I do think there may be uh an extra heading in one of the pages at the very bottom of page 11L. Um, it seems that there's a heading
there, project specific conditions, and then it follows up on the next page with section D, general conditions. Um, so I wonder if if just one of those headings um the one at the bottom of page 11L um
doesn't belong. Did you cover it? I've seen No, that was that has I wrote this one. So um okay that stays in when there are sub sections for various types of projects which none of it none of them were relevant to this. So we just I missed taking that heading out. So now it's
gone. Okay. Anything else? That was all. Okay. Um, any uh commissioners have anything that they want to add or change? Great. Okay. Good. We have a motion, please.
I move that we close the hearing on 552 Shore Road and approve the order of conditions as written. Second. Eric I. Paul. I. Police. I. Janet. I. And I say I. Okay. Thank you, Paul. Next, please. Next on the agenda
is a submitted field change request. The address is 19 Forest Bluffs Road, Stephanie and Morin Hadad, map 3A, parcel D1, DP number SC 103401. Implement a land stewardship program.
This was a field change request to change the demarcation of a single rail fence to a steel edging. We did reach out to uh Stephanie. Oh, there she is. Okay. Yep. Hi. I will for the record. Uh my name is Stephanie
Greaves from Crawford Land Management on behalf of the applicants Stephen and Moren Hadad. Um the homeowner would like to change the requirement from a single rail fence to steel edging. Um it's required to run along the mitigation
area and the lawn. And just for their personal preference and their aesthetic goals, they'd like to change the requirement from the fence to the steel edging. Um, the homeowner mentioned they may be here, but I don't see them.
Okay. Um, commissioners, any questions, comments? We've just one minute. First, the commissioners. We've just we we normally just say either stones or a small split
rail or steel edging as long as it's visible. The whole point is that it's a visual uh sign to landscapers that you don't run your machinery over this. Uh don't cross this line. So your pictures show it looking u appropriately obvious.
As long as that's an example maintain No, I know because there's no driveway or anything on this one. As long as it's um appropriately visible, I don't have a problem with it. Anybody else? No problem. The only thing is I would like to make sure that it truly is visible be and
because my concern is that um something can grow over it and then they don't see it. They might see it when they run over it with the lawn mower, but so okay. And if you want to speak, you're welcome to come up to the microphone and introduce yourself, please.
Uh thank you. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm Stephen Hadad, owner of 19 Forest Bluffs Road. So this began as a voluntary project uh with good intent to to rid the invasives um and to you know install plant material that's
favorable to the environment to the coastal bank. Um and before the project um there of course there was there was no demarcation of of any type. Um and I just wanted to point out a few things. I think you know steel edging would be
safe and easily seen. Uh the gardeners have been mowing all summer uh even without any demarcation and they're they're right on. There's an above ground irrigation system there that's sort of right at the border and um
that's sort of been stopping them from going any further. So on one side is the conservation area on the other side is a flat lawn so it's easily seen uh or the demarcation is I in my opinion is easily noticed.
Um, and I think honestly digging holes for fences is more detrimental to the to the to the land than than putting in a steel edge. There are no other homes on Forest Bluff along the whole Bluff that have fences on the
coastal bank. And I just think that it would be, you know, uh, reasonable to allow this uh, as opposed to a fence. I just aesthetically really didn't want a fence there to be honest. And you do understand that it's not
really a fence. It's very low to the ground. I just cuz every you know we use the word fence but I just wanted to make sure that you understand what what is meant by that. It's not a a large fence. It's you know in off the ground. Yes.
I just wanted to make sure. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Um, and so I just think that there's really it would be reasonable to approve, you know, such a request. I just I know it's not a tall fence. It's just something we would prefer not to
have. No, I understand. Thank you. Um, anybody else any response or anything? Okay, then I think we can have a motion. I move that we approve the field change
request for 19 Forest plus roads as modified. Second. Uh Elise I. Janet I. Paul I. Eric I. And I say I. Next call please. Uh next on the agenda, Madam Chair, is another field change request. The
address is 311 C Pine Road, Richard Davis. Map 12K, parcel 7-HC22. D number SC 103662. The project is proposed addition to a dwelling in a new septic system. Uh the system was not built. The field change request is to
remove the septic replacement and a portion of the mitigation that was required for the septic uh from the project uh as it was not necessary. And I did have a chance to meet with the um owner, actually one of the construction
people, not you, um on the site. Um so I'll chime in when I have to. The plan is up there. Okay. Very good. Um Phil Cheney, the landscape designer that did the uh mitigation plan uh that you've had from back in the uh
what was all approved. Just want to Yeah. clarify and make sure it's clear that there were two areas of planting that were proposed. One shaded in green was the mitigation which met what was required. Uh and the second section which I've now outlined in red on the
plan was an area that was simply to reveate the area that would be disturbed when the septic tank was removed. It was determined eventually that the septic tank did not need to be removed and was kept in place. So that area was not disturbed. uh there's no need to reveate
it. In fact, it would be pretty impractical to try to be replanting now on what is currently the septic tank. So, simply we're looking to uh eliminate that portion of the planting because it's just not necessary. Commissioners,
anything? Um, just making sure it it it's unusual to have a a a plan and have specified vegetation, oaks and things on it that is not part of
mitigation. So, this was just to restore the area that was thought that would be disturbed. Correct. Yep. In the original plans that you had, only the green shaded area was shown as shaded green as mitigation marked as mitigation and the other area
was just simply as a a reveation area. Okay. Yeah, we met the we met the requirements for the mitigation with the green area out beyond the deck. Okay. I do not have a problem with that part of it. Then can you just speak to the whole and I
know it's a very small area. That's about 100 square feet of the sod, not seed. And what kind of sod is it? It uh I assume not I assume not. I wasn't involved in that there. I just wanted to separate the two things there. Yes. But during this
during pre uh prior I believe during the summer, the sod lawn uh was replaced from all the construction out in front and they extended it around the wing of the house. And so, uh, the one of the other requests that we would have is that rather than tearing that up and receding
it with fescue, you know, it's a very small area, you know, makes sense to me to just leave that there as it was done. Wasn't really intentionally there. It was just the contractor just didn't wasn't looking at the mit. He wasn't doing mitigation at the time. He was just re uh finishing the lawn.
Okay. Hopefully in the future they wouldn't do something like that. Um, okay. Anybody else? Oh, Eric, on the on the saw, do you Well, you
weren't involved, but right always want to, you know, recommend in that type of area would be the black beauty. Sure. Would be the best instead of the I know there are some there are some good alternatives and I I have no idea what they used. Yeah. For other than just blueg grass, you know.
Thanks. Thank you. Okay. I'm just curious to hear from Paul about what you observed when you went on site with exactly what was discussed. There was about a 100 square ft of sod extended into uh an area just off to the well to
the right of the green area. Um it looks like they just carried the sod into that area. Um I don't know, Eric, what kind of grass it was. It almost looked like a blue grass to me, but I wasn't sure. Um the originally the order coiled for a fescue mix, so it's not a big area. Um,
and I think it was just done inadvertently by the uh uh homeowner and the uh person who put the saw in. So, right, it's not not a huge issue, I think. No, I agree. Okay. All right. Can we have a motion, please? I move that we approve the field change
request for 311 C Pine Road as modified. Second. Eric, I. Paul, I. Janet, I and I say I. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Paul, the next please. Now, thank you, man. Now, we're moving
on to uh notices of intent that were submitted. The first one on the agenda is 504 Old Harbor Road. The applicant is Scott H. Wallace, Trustee Blue Heron Trust, map 16H, parcel PB, EP number SC 10752. The project was
relocation of an existing dwelling onto a new foundation, including construction of an additions, renovations, construction of a swimming pool, cabana, and hardscaping, and relocation of an existing driveway. Thank you.
Hi, good afternoon. Stephanie Sequin with Roger Wilcox representing Blue Heron Trust, aka Adam and Laura Sipsky, who are the owners of the property. Um, online is hopefully Peter Stevens from Dan
Gordon Landscape Architects. Um, here in the in the uh in the room is uh Francesca Gordini who's an architect with Patrick Ahern Architects. Uh, this property is at 504 Old Harbor Road. It's
a 2.9 acre total u piece of property. Approximately 83,000 square feet of that is buildable upland. It abuts Chattam Harbor to the east. Um there are several um areas designated as land subject to
coastal storm flowage. It's a little complicated here. Um to the east it's a velocity zone elevation um 15 and to the north and south of the property there are a zones. The flood contour is 14. uh
we've shown the um the boundaries of the velocity zone and the two a zones. I would say in general the topography at the flood zone is between 4:1 and 10:1. So by um policy the flood zone boundary
is the top of the coastal bank. There are a few areas where the topography is steeper than 4:1 at the flood zones and in those areas we've gone um to the point above the flood zone where the slope becomes less than 4:1 and and
delineated that is the top of the coastal bank. So we've basically got coastal bank that wraps around uh and covers three sides of the property. We're showing the 15 and 100 foot buffers. Um there's just a a um strip
down the middle uh running from the road toward the harbor that's outside of the 100 foot buffer. There is an existing dwelling. Um according to assessor's records, it was constructed in 1940. So it is an
historic uh building. It's partially within the 100 foot buffer. There's a um rather extensive curved paved driveway that extends to a uh driveunder garage on the water side of the property. Um
the entire uh driveway is paved and a portion of the existing driveway extends into the 50-foot buffer. The existing septic system is a title 5 system. It was constructed in uh it was upgraded in 1996.
Um it was inspected in 2024 as part of the preparation for um selling the property and it it passed inspection is in in good condition. Uh and there is an extensive Cape Cod lawn surrounding the building that extends um very close to
and actually in some spots over the coastal bank. What's being proposed here is to uh pick up and relocate the existing structure, moving it closer to the road, further from the um resource
area. Uh constructing additions and renovations going up in some areas um to create more of a second floor. uh by moving the building forward that uh opens up provides some space where they can construct a a inground swimming
pool, patio and cabana. Uh there's various retaining walls um as part of the the hardscaping. The existing driveway will be um relocated slightly but still maintaining that same general
layout of having the the um large curved circular driveway and then also the access to the drive under garage in the back. The pavement will be replaced with a peace and shell uh surface with
cobblestone edges. So, we're going to be eliminating a lot of imperous surface and replacing it with pvious. All the new structures and heartscaping are outside of the um 50-foot no disturb zone with the exception of a portion of
the relocated driveway. Um the existing and proposed coverage calculations uh were provided in the narrative and are also shown on the site plan. Uh within the zero to 50 foot buffer, we have a um reduction in
coverage of 102 square feet. And in the 50 to 100 foot buffer, there is an increase in coverage of 5,138 square ft. And the total coverage uh within the 50 to 100 foot buffer is at
29%. So it's under the 30 foot uh maximum that you um allow. um as mitigation for that additional coverage within uh your jurisdiction. Uh Dan Gordon's office has provided a very um
extensive detailed uh mitigation plan and they are showing 5,257 square feet of existing lawn uh to be restored with native plants. Um the main focus of uh designating that mitigation
area was um first restoring the area of the coastal bank that is currently maintained as lawn and then from there working back um out out of the toward the building. Um we've included our
pretty typical um construction notes um in in the project construction protocol in the project narrative. We're showing a silk fence to be installed around the and to serve as the limit of work for construction and demolition. Um the uh
any uh stockpiling of material or construction material uh will be outside of the 100 foot buffer. We've got plenty of room there for uh that stockpiling. Um and we're specifying um gutters and downspouts to dry wells to contain roof
runoff. Um, I'll hand it over unless you have any questions. I can hand it over to um, Peter and he can go over the details of the mitigation plan. I think that would be preferable. Okay. So then we can deal with all questions
at one time. Great. Hello. Uh, Peter Stevens here. Can everybody hear me? Yeah, you're a little light, but so Okay, I can speak a little louder if necessary. How's that? Perfect. Okay, great. Um, so as Stephanie uh
indicated, um we are showing proposed mitigation in the uh coastal bank as our first area to mitigate. Um that's in this location here. Can you see my cursor? Uh so the coastal bank runs uh it's not there. It is. Are you
sharing or I am sharing. Okay, now it's showing. Okay. Okay. The coastal bank is identified here with this line running through an existing maintained lawn space. This is the existing edge of vegetation along the coastal bank. So, there's a fair
amount about 5,000 square ft of lawn here that's existing and maintained which we're proposing to replace with uh all native um reveated plantings uh for mitigating all of the proposed uh impervious on site. Uh and it's made up
of a combination of perennial uh grasses as well as uh shrubs. We have um beach plum, we have uh bayberry, uh we have Carolina rose, um we have uh quite a bit
of uh American beach grass along the edges. So, we're kind of building that planting up towards the existing vegetation line, which is here. Um the additional planting a small amount of mitigation planting on this edge over
here. Also, this is a small section that uh encroaches into the coastal bank. So, we're mitigating that piece as well. Um and then the uh remaining planting on site um meets all of the requirements of uh 100% native plantings within the
50-foot and uh 75% native plantings within the outer 50ft uh buffer zones. Um and we are proposing a a fair amount of vegetated plantings along this edge of the driveway um up here towards this
resource area down uh along this bank and around the edges of the property on this side. As you can see, the coastal bank does wrap around three sides of this property. Um and we have buffer zones extending inward on all three sides. Uh I think all of this will uh
you know be um should be seen as an improvement to the current condition of the site as all of these planting areas are currently all maintained lawn uh which slopes down to uh the resource area. Uh does anybody have any questions or would you like me
to dive deeper? Uh I have one. You talked about 75% native in the outer aura. Um, in the document you provide or the plan you provided, you broke it out by what percentage trees, what
percentage shrubs and vines, and what percentage perennial ground cover bulb bulbs and grasses were native versus non-native. Overall, all of that put together, what percentage of native
versus non-native is it? Um, we're used to seeing it as a as a total not broken out this way. So, I just would like because yeah, we weren't really sure. I mean, we had talked a bit with the administrator
on how they they wanted like how was that to be calculated? Was it calc 75% of native plantings um 75% of all combined or was it 75% trees and 75% shrubs? If it weren't all combined, then
your shrubs and vines are not at 75%. And you're at 63% according to what you provided. And so that's why I'm asking for the grand total because that's usually what we see is what percentage.
Matter of fact, I don't think I've ever noticed anybody providing it in this manner before. Okay. So, can you give us that number? All three. I can I would have to do the math but it it doesn't shouldn't really matter because all three categories are over 75%. So
well no because shrubs and vines you show it as 63% and 30% non-native 37% non-native. So that's not over 75%. Why are you saying 63? How are you getting un unfortunately I think the plan you're referencing is
number the plan you're referencing he lists shrubs and vines and then he has total number of plants and then it says percent mine says 75 oh it does yes unfort unfortunately the plan is the it's the previous plan that was
submitted I don't know where so this is oh I obviously don't have the most recent because I have a total of 168 tribes and vines And you have 187. So I'm sorry I don't plan the latest
current one is on the screen. Right. I I'm looking at what I was provided to us on paper. Understood. And it does not match. Just so you're aware. You gave us an old plan. There somebody did
there. There wasn't an earlier set of material that was submitted and then an updated set of everything was submitted. Right. And this is from the updated packet. That's what I'm saying. So,
you might want to submit the correct Okay. All right. Thank you. I I'm incorrect then. No, thank you. You're reading what you were given. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry for the confusion. So, the original plan did have uh have it broken
down a little differently and we had a different planting list. Um so this has been a revi this is a revised plan that was submitted um okay by writer Wilcox and so uh we all all categories are over the 75% so I can do the math to figure out when you combine
them but it will be north of 75 it's going to be somewhere in the 80s I would assume right based on okay okay all right does anybody have questions or do you want him to deep dive Eric
when you say deep dive How how deep are we going? I mean, I play by shrub when I was a kid. I I played in that house with a son that lived there. Uh I didn't get that. And the had little secret passages in
the house. Um from room to room. It was quite a unique house. Um yeah, I don't the the first thing that I noticed I I really don't have a lot of pro uh the only problem I have with the mitigation is um when I looked I didn't
I wasn't concerned about anything that other than that moving the house back. Great. Uh your coverage uh moving the asphalt even though I like that asphalt driveway. That's pretty uh I mean that's like a piece of art. I mean that's really cool. you know, shell and stone,
you know, it's a pain in the neck really because you got to spray it with herbicide to keep the weeds down after a couple years and that's going to be about a hundred gallons. Um, so, uh, as far as plants around the foundation, personally, I don't really because after
a while the indigenous dies off. People plant what they're going to plant anyway. But for the mitigation, I was surprised that you didn't, you know, that corner that's the path to the water. Yes. Yeah. To me, the first thing that I noticed would have been a slam dunk on
on mitigation would if you if you kind of spread the wealth on the mitigation along the east side rather than um you know highlighting the corner which really that corner area didn't didn't really look too bad to me. It's just that the lawn was way into the on the
east side there uh you know um uh at the end of the lawn. I thought for sure that the mitigation would be more spread spread on the from uh you know north to south uh to mitigate that lawn area uh would have been to me would have
been more logical but other than that I mean you know you're it's you know it's a big piece of property and uh it's a wonderful piece of property. It's one of the last of the Moheagans. Um that's the only concern I had was in the
placement of the mitigation. Thanks. Okay. Anybody else? Sure. I'll I'll I agree with Eric that the um the mitigation was what caught my eye. And I have to say that when I was standing there looking at what was
probably the top of the bank as the bank slopes down and is covered with this lawn. Um the top of the bank wasn't staked, so it wasn't possible to see exactly where it was. I was looking at the plan. Um but e either way it it
makes sense to restore the bank where the bank is now lawn and get that lawn out of there. Um and I think that it goes up to uh the clearing where the the native vegetation comes in, but it's not I
can't tell from the mitigation plan. You have um I guess this is for Peter. So you have um shrubs I assume um identified and then there's the straight line hatching and
is the straight line hatching is that for the grasses there's a mix. So uh yes that's correct. So anything that's a any type of hatching is going to be um either a perennial forb or a grass. Um, so the
along the leading edge and along the path, um, we have American beach grass. Inside of that, we have, uh, a few different perennials with some seaside golden rod, um, some upupuri, some job
pieed, um, there's a few others in there, and I can find out exactly what they are, but they, you know, that's what those are indicating is a series of different pollinator plants um, for habitat value. Right. I could see the the the letters denoting that and then then go to the
chart and try to figure out what they are. And I thought that's where the grasses and all were. And the concern I have about that is that you have this extraneous little mitigation area um up on the north side, but doing what you have proposed here um
there's no vegetated buffer strip at the top of the coastal bank and you have a lawn that slopes down to the coastal bank. Now, I assume that there's no this is all Cape Cod lawn. It's staying Cape Cod lawn, although there's a there's a reference somewhere to residing, and I
don't know what that is. Um, but when you have a sloping lawn down to the top of a coastal bank, there's always the question about runoff and either carrying contaminants or causing erosion. So, we'd like to see some shrubbery or some deep rooted vegetation
at the top of the bank to protect that bank from anything. And so I would suggest that rather than have that second uh mitigation planting area that you extend this um to create a vegetated buffer strip to protect that top.
Okay. Yeah. So we have um this very small amount of mitigation up here. Uh so it turns out that you know uh the amount of mitigation that is required more or less equals the amount of area that we're mitigating here which
is the coastal bank itself. Um so to add a buffer strip would be additional mitigation which is not required. Uh I just want to identify that and obviously we we really felt that you know restoring the resource area itself was
the most important. Yeah. So this is the co the top of coastal bank and the which is you know it's the it's the flood zone um and the flood zone uh uh sets the top of coastal bank because this is very flat. So, as
Stephanie noted, that's how they delineated this um which is all currently lawn space. So, we're really restoring. It's not only mitigation, but it's a restoration of uh you know, valuable resource area. Um but I do appreciate the your sense of of adding
some planting up here um to try to slow down some of that uh runoff. Um we just don't I you know I know my client's a little sensitive to uh the amount of area we're we're giving up based on what's required. Well except that so um this is all in
the all of the it's in the outer aura. Yeah. So it is one to one in the outer aura. Yeah. There's a small amount that's in the 0 to 50 I think. No, because it's 0 to 50 is is reduced. Although I had a question
about that you Stephanie. So it's saying that the reduction is coming out of the the uh expans the driveway but when I look at the existing and I look at the proposed the proposed driveway looks larger
than the existing. So how does how does how do you end up with a it's just some of it is pulled out of the 50oot buffer. and moved so into the into the outer aura. Yes. Okay.
This I'm just outlining the existing driveway. Yep. Uh I think that's for your kind of use. And is that circular? Is that circular at the end of where you start by the garage? Is that actually a circular area for this? Here is a circular area
currently. No, it's No, it's not now. But is that what you're proposing? A circular area for getting in and out of the garage. Okay. Huh. They're um so that's the existing driveway just for reference increase in square footage does it 1358 because
they have existing hardcape is 2270 and the proposed is 2949 but then no but the numbers down we're looking at different numbers I are you looking I think you might have
the older submitt I don't know why this one goes from existing at 2267 down to 2165 for a reduction of 102 which in the narrative apparently is coming out of the drive right area
can I just add um Janet the where the the bank is is an actual bank a steep inclined bank versus just I don't want to say just the flood zone but um there is uh roughly anywhere from 30 to
35 foot wide um strip of buff buffer plantings that the lawn does not go all the way down to the bank there on which down on the on the south side. Yes, I've noticed I did see that. And so that that's fine because you weren't
talking about extending the mitigation down that far because that does have a that does have a good vegetative buffer. I'm just concerned about this. You're putting all these plants on here without a buffer strip to protect them. That was my concern about that.
I agree. Something needs to protect it. If we did like a if if we did um if we were to offer a couple of feet of additional planting beyond that line, would that be sufficient? Well, it it it
maybe it it depends on whether it makes sense and whether it's it's protection, you know. I mean, the grasses can do some good, but you've got them starting at the bank edge. So, extend them up and
over, add some other shrubs in there, and and Bob's your uncle. You've got some protection. Anything else? Uh, no. Um, I have a question about the coverage calculation. So, in the in the
narrative, you're accounting for the pool, the patio, the gates, and the retaining walls, but there's also a portion of the structure of the house and the porch that extend into the outer aura. Are they accounted for in those
coverage calculations because they're not mentioned? Yes, because we do have uh I'm looking at the the numbers on the site plan and we do have the propos the existing square footage of building in the 50 to
100 is 471 square feet and the proposed building within the building. So it is it is broken down. That's the expansion of the building on the is that the expansion of the building because the building is moving back a little bit out of. So how does it
Well, for it includes the cabana and the portions of the new building footprint southside is the expanded area. Yeah. Um or also to the to the north is we've got one wing of the proposed
building in the outer aura. Right. Right. But I think that's Oh, I see. It does extend beyond what's existing. So, okay, I've got that then. Um, okay. And what is Can you tell me that the square footage of the patio and the
pool, they're not called out? Do you know what the areas of those two are? I do not. The patio is huge. Patio is a And what is the material for the patio? It'll be a tri set stone like a natural
stone. All right. So, it's semi-pervious, correct? Do you know what the pool is or the dimensions of the pool? what the dimensions are. Yeah, the pool is uh the dimensions are
18 ft by 36 feet in length. So, pool kind of moderately sized. There's also a small uh hot tub at one end as well. And is there is is was and I don't I apologize I didn't write down where I
saw it but at some point I I did come across the word resoding. Do you know where that I think that there's going to be a certain level of disturbance for construction moving the structure. Um so we have I believe there's a limited work
shown on the plan. Uh we are proposing to reveate any disturbed lawn areas with fescue sod uh or seed but it'll be a fescue. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We would prefer uh we
don't usually approve sad in jurisdictional areas. Yep. Okay. I think that's all I have. Thank you. Anyone else? Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Stephanie. You've got a view easement
depicted, but it's a single line. There's no second right line to be the size of it toward the the the remainder of the property to the east. So, from the from that line to the east
is the view. All of it. I believe so. And does that benefit the property the adjacent property or is that a view corridor or an easement? Uh it was listed as view easement. So it must okay benefit the pro. Okay.
Wow. Wow. Oh, but you don't have any structure in there anyway. So Okay, that's a big easement. Sure. That's all. Thank you. Anyone else?
Um yeah. Um, go ahead on on this seed, this fescue seed versus saw, sometimes if when I was I've been doing it a long time and when you're seeding um depending on the time of year when the construction is ready, I mean
you get you can get runoff the seed doesn't take um you requires a tons and tons of water to try to get get it going, especially if you're trying to do it in the summer. Um
I I would just like to have you know my partners here reconsider and think about uh the black beauty that's sad. Um it works wonderful. Uh it stops any future erosion runoff immediately. It
requires less water. Um uh even fertilizer um is basically what it is is the same thing as seeding except you you cover it and you don't have uh again you don't have the use so much water and you don't have the chance of
runoff sand when nothing but weeds grow in the summer in these areas you try to seed I don't know it just seems to me that does that make even does that make sense on a property like this one that's so sloped it works even better especially when it's sloped because otherwise if it's
sloped and you got to put seed down then you got to put uh you know seed covering or juke twine or or curlex over the seated area so that doesn't run off and you know there's a lot of benefit to black beauty um saw uh it's the same as
as a Cape Cod lawn basically. Good. Well, that's good to know. All right. Well, so you've heard that Stephanie. Um, so we
Yep. Black Beauty is what we typically spec. Okay. Uh, it would be specified in the findings anyway. Um, perfect. Anybody have anything else? Anything else, Eric? No. Okay. Um,
anybody All right. I don't I'm not hearing that we're really asking for changes. So, I think we can go to an order. So, now we have to figure out when
Fun job. Um, how soon do you want this order? Is there um what's your next available? I guess we have a meeting October 8th. We have a meeting October 22nd.
We also have November 5th, November 12th. Do they need ZBA? Uh, this does not it it's not anything with ZBA is based off the height of the structure. So, it's not ZBA. It wouldn't be our thing.
Um, if it could go on the 8th, great. If if that's putting too much pressure on you, the following one, what did you say? The 22nd
uh 22nd would be the next one. Um, I know that they uh just to chime in a little bit on that, I know that they're uh attempting to try to get their foundations in this season. Um, and the season's uh,
you know, very quickly winding down. Um, so the sooner we can get it, the better. Uh, we certainly appreciate anything you can do. We'll do it the eth. Okay. Thank you. Um, a motion to send this to an order for the eth. I move that we continue 504 Old Harbor
Road to the meeting on October 8th for an order of conditions. Second. Eric, I Paul. Hi, Janet. I Elise I and I say I. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. The next poll, please.
Next on the agenda, Madam Chairman, is the notice of intent. 91 Gillis Road is the address. Katherine and Billy um Kyle. Okay. Uh parcel 3- CG4 D number 10 3738.
The applicants propose to remove and relocate an existing single family dwelling off the property and rebuild a new single family dwelling, install a new title 5 innovative AI system and all associated landscaping, mitigation, restoration plannings, grading and impertinance as there are two continued
from August 13, 2025. Okay. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, members of the commission. Zachary Basinski, Bracken Engineering, here this this afternoon on behalf of Gate and Billy Kajil. At this time, I'd like to share my screen. Okay.
So, as discussed at the last hearing, um the applicants are looking to um take the existing single family structure, a historic 1924 structure, relo relocated across the property onto or across the street onto an abuing property and build a new single family three-bedroom house
uh on the lot. Um at the last hearing, we will continue to answer some questions. A letter was submitted. Um we've confirmed the ORE area is 6,476 square ft. Uh we're proposing to cover 45.4%
or an additional 10.4% over the 35% uh maximum allowed without a variance. Uh this is a request of 675 square ft of additional coverage within the ORE. Uh we're proposing to offset
that by installing additional 950 square ft of mitigation plantings um outside of the coastal bank on the property. Um as we discussed last time, we're also looking to restore 1957
square ft of his historic lawn area um that's on the coastal bank itself. Uh we believe uh that this is a 2.8% uh or 2.8 times uh mitigation over the request for the increase. So, we believe it's a vast
improvement to the area. Uh also, as reviewed last time, um the retaining wall off the back of the lot. Uh we have added a detail onto the proposed site plan. This will be a poured concrete wall. Um again, cited outside the 50
foot buffer. All structures are in the out of ore on the lot. nothing will be within the inner 0 to 50 foot ore on the property. Um and as reviewed at the last hearing, we have added the quantities of proposed plants to the mitigation side
of the detail project results in a increase or in installation of 78 shrubs uh within both the mitigation and restoration areas on the lot and an additional 19 trees are proposed. And as discussed at
the last hearing, there are no proposed trees removed within the 100 foot buffer. All tree removal is outside the 100 foot buffer on the lot. Um with this we believe that the proposed project is a vast improvement will protect all the resource areas. Uh the downgradient salt
marsh will provide increased on-site storm water management and also the clients are voluntarily installing an IIA septic system uh which will enhance and reduce the nitrogen loading in the area and protect the sensitive resource areas. And with that I will turn it back
over for questions. Okay. Um, I'd like to before we get into lots of questions, just go over a few of the notes I had that we you were going to deal with after the last time it was heard. Um, we had down that we had asked
that possibly the garage be uh shrunken and did that happen? I couldn't Yep. the garage size was shrunk down to 17 and a half. Okay. Um, also this percentage that you give
us for the outer aura of 45.4, I don't know. I I just it sure doesn't look like 45.4%. Um, I'd like an explanation of how you're coming up with that because it sure looks like way more to us or at
least to me. Well, it's the in between. I'm going to share my screen again. So the area was taken between the 50 and the 45 foot buffer zones through that calculated and then it's the coverage of the house and the decks and the stairs
on the back. So we calculate that to be 45.4%. Is that 45.4% more than the 20.7 that exists? Maybe that's why a to that's a that's a total um structure coverage within the
out I don't know it looks like way more coverage than that to me um and to a few people that I talked to um okay and we had down that you were going
to we asked you to consider having more plants and less mix in your uh mitigation Yeah, we have say additional plantings have been added. I just
Yep, we have the additional additional planting that was installed and we reduced the mix uh in the back. As I mentioned, the resultant is 78 uh tree shrubs and then 19 trees uh within the uh uh ore or or
restoration and mitigation areas. Okay. Um, any commissioners have anything? I have a couple more things, but I'd love to have others go first. Go ahead. Yeah, the only thing I want to say positive, I I think the mitigation plan is excellent. It's an ideal place for
mitigation. Uh, there might be a little incre uh some increase in the size, but I can't help but over I can't help but look at the mitigation and I looked at the property and to me it's a it's a huge benefit.
Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else? Janet just want to throw in a a well done for the IIA system and proposing that especially in this location where you are ups slope of a very vulnerable uh body of of water in a marsh.
Very good. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. I have a couple questions about your mitigation and restoration planting notes. Number four, you say any revisions to the approved final planting plan shall be coordinated with Chattam
conservation staff. You do know that if it's revised after the order, you'd have to come back to us for approval. It doesn't just go to the agent to approve it. Um, so I just want to make sure I know you it say it
requires an amendment. It may require if if you change the plan, it's a field change, an amendment, it's something and you'd have to come back to us. So, it behooves you to have it sort of set now. We'd rather you not
have to come back to us. So, that's just just saying that. And then number nine, you say the final layout, quantity, and design shall be coordinated with conservation staff prior to implementation.
We do consider this to be the plan so we don't put that on our agent to have to then deal with this after the fact. Um, so I just want to make sure that you actually consider this to be the final
plan. Yes. Okay. So maybe you could you just modify those notes and get us a plan so that we it reflects that. I because I don't want anybody coming
back to us saying that they can go just to the agent. Um we try and not have him have to deal with things like that. Um we're glad glad we update the employer. Okay. and just get it back to us as soon
as possible. Um, I don't think that should take much to take those out. Um, anybody have anything else? I think they've met the things that we needed.
So, um, I think we can go to an order. In which case, uh, how soon do you need this? Uh, we're in front of the ZBA tomorrow night. So, if we could do the next available meeting, the meeting on the 8th, that would be greatly appreciated.
I I I'd like to do the 22nd. If that's the next available, we'll If that's the next available, we'll take it. What? If that's the next available meeting, we'll take it. Yep. All right. Remember, I'm
I only have another week before I leave. Well, we have a few. So, all right. We're going to put it on the ETH. I It's just I'm away uh starting next week and don't want to put too much on
all the commissioners. So, that was my hesitation. Um so, go ahead, Paul. I'm going to go to an order on the 8th. I move that we continue 91 Gillis Road to the meeting on October 8th for an order of conditions. Second.
Okay. Elise I. Janet I. Paul I. Eric I. And I say I. All right. Thank you Paul. Next one please. Next on the agenda madam chair is notice of intent 70 point road Susan and Greg
Shorton. Map 11A1 parcel 7-5 DP number SC 10 3735. Project is demolish and renovate a portion of the existing dwelling, addition of two decks, viewing deck, a rinse station and mitigation and must continue from August 27, 2025.
Okay. Good evening or good afternoon. Tim Santos from Maryland Engineer representing the applicant also made just one second. Dylan L, is your hand raised for this? Yes, it is. Yes.
Okay. if you could just wait until after everything's presented. Okay, go ahead. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't for the last one. No, no, Dylan's with me. So, for the recording, Tim Santos from Merill Engineers representing the applicant. Uh, also with me this afternoon is Dylan Lance
from Crawford Land Management. This project was before you uh a few weeks ago, at which time it was continued requesting additional information. So, I'll kind of run through that quick. Um, turn it over to Dylan and then we'll
answer any questions you might have. Again, the property is located at 70 Sears Point Road, sorry, Sar Point Lane. So, we've addressed that and fix that on the plans at Sears Point Lane. Um, there was a discussion about a proposed fence
that has been eliminated from the project altogether. Uh, there was also discussion about some vista pruning along the bank. We've eliminated that from the project at this time. The board requested a variance and alternative
analysis letter. We have submitted that. There were questions in regard to the timber groins along the seawward side of the property. Um, I've submitted the D license that was issued for these groins as well as the pier and the the
boardwalk. That's all been approved by D and there is a license for that. So, I know there was some discussions about potentially requesting an applicant to remove them, but they are licensed and we'd like to leave them at this time. Um, there was also an additional
question in regard to the percentage of the coverage in the outer aura. So, we've added that calculation to the table right here. This 26 11 square footage of coverage. The outer aura is 7676
and that comes out to a 34% coverage in that outer aura. Um I'll turn it over to Dylan so he can review his revised planting plan and then we can address any questions you might have.
Uh good afternoon Dylan Lance with Crawford Land Management. Um I will share my screen to show the plan. Um so the changes that were already addressed that fence was removed and there's no more vista management proposed anywhere. Um other than that
the major changes are talking with the client they would like to remove this small existing picket fence as well along with the landscape beds that are directly adjacent to it. Um and also pruning on trees overhanging the roof up
in this corner especially. They have some solar panels on the roof. Um, and there are squirrels starting to nest in them and it's starting to become a bit of an issue. Okay. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions? I do appreciate that um
you've listened about removing the fence and the vista pruning and thank you for the license on the groins. Yeah, the license of the groins. So, thank you for addressing everything. Um, Janet, anybody?
I have a little question. When you mentioned the Vista pruning being eliminated, you said at this time, does that mean you may come back to us at some point? If I can let Dylan answer that, but if
the applicant, I guess, wish to um do some vista pruning along that bank, then you might see this application in the future. So, that's why it was stated at this time. Okay. Terrific. Thank you. Okay. Anybody? Anything else?
All right, then I think we can go to an order. Uh, could we do the 22nd of October? Yeah, that that's fine. I believe our zoning hearing is October 26th,
right? But we could have it ready, go over it, and then at the f unless you don't care and then you know that we do it on the 22nd and we could put it off until the 5th of November. I would you vote it on the 22nd? I'm assuming you would just kind of continue.
We could go over it and have it all ready and then, you know, it would just be a matter on the 5th of November or we can just have it ready for the 5th and only deal with this once. Whatever's more convenient for you because let's do the fifth
because it sounds to me like we'd have to go twice anyways. So, I'm fine with that. Yeah. Um Okay, then if we could have a motion to go to an order on 115. I move that we continue
70 Sears Point Road to the meeting on November 5th for an order of conditions. Second, Eric. Hi Paul. Hi Janet. Hi Elise. Hi and I say I. And the next please Paul. Uh next agenda. Have a great day.
Sorry. Sorry. Thank you. Have a good evening. Thank you. You too. Next on the agenda is a notice of intent for 784 Orleans Road. Did I just read that one? No, it's we have a continuence. That's
why. Okay. Uh this is for the town of Chattam 11J parcel 6-6 SC 10 3729 project is enlargement of a bolt and trailer parking lot for safety reasons within land sub coastal storm flowage relocated story communication towers at the MCI
facility buffer zone to a coastal bank. It was continued from continued from April 23rd 2025 and the town is asking for a continuence to December 17th. They still have to work out some zoning issues. Oh I thought it said December 3rd. It's the 17th.
December 17th. Okay. And December 17th it is. I had it wrong. I move that we continue 784 Orleans Road to the meeting on December 17th, 2025.
Oh, Crystal. Yeah. Did I get the wrong date? Um, Katherine's email that she sent said December 3rd. That's what I thought. Okay. Thank you. My mistake. Sorry. Okay. 123. Okay. I move that we continue 784
Orleans Road to the meeting on December 3rd, 2025. Second, Eric. Hi. Paul, I uh Janet I and I say I. Okay. The I think we're doing the next two together, right? Yes, I'll read them both together.
Notice of intent for 22 Tales Pond Road. Dean Ryback, trustee, map 5C, parcel J5, D number SC 10 3741. Project is demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling and driveway within land subject coasttorm flowage and a coastal bank.
Additionally, construction of a sewage disposal system within the buffer zone to a coastal bank. It was continued from July 23rd and August 27, 2025. It is combined with lot 4, Cal Cove Road, Dean Rybeck, map 5C, parcel J4, DP number SC
103740, construction of a single family dwelling and driveway within the buffer zone to a coastal bank and removal of a driveway within land subject to cold storm flow. It was continued from August 13, 2025. I read these so fast I think I knocked an hour off of the agenda.
Excellent boy. Okay. Okay, David Clark, Clark Engineering on behalf of the Rybeck family. Um, sorry for the the late submitt. Um, we just wanted the the
purpose of that was really to to have the the record um match lot 4 to 22. I don't I don't uh Bill Sean's here from the landscape architect firm. I don't believe there were any substantial
changes to lot 4. Um, we had already gone through the changes for 22 last time. Um, and so I think it was just because 22 is shown on lot four. We we wanted to make sure that the plans were consistent
between the two projects. Um, Bill's here to talk about the landscaping if you have any questions. Great. Thank you. Go ahead. Uh good good afternoon Mike Sean. Oh Mike
with Richtor and Sean. That's all right. Um Bill Wcman's uh on to as well as well as Rachel Meyer. Um we just had one change. We had incorporated all numerous items based on input from the commission
at the last meeting. So uh this revision is just adding on 22 Taylor. We're adding actually one on uh lot four as well, but uh post light uh to light up the entryway uh uh as you go into the uh main
entrance from the house from the garage. So, we want to light that area. Um, and we'll talk on the lot four. We'll talk about uh we're adding another post light to try try to help light again that darker corridor should come through the
um the town owned land uh with the winding driveway that comes down. Um the so so that that light will be a um a uh really uh full cut off and cast cast
downward. Um, the other thing we wanted to talk about is there was some comment at the last meeting about uh our our pavers and that cobble pavers weren't uh pvious um especially ones that have
mortar joints and that that's a correct statement. Um so what what we wanted to show you is that is the papers that we had in mind that we've used on numerous other projects. Um this is uh a
residence in actually in the village of Irvington, New York. But it shows the paper on the left and you can see the joints uh that are gravel joints. Uh and I can assure you water just pours through these. They're very pvious. Um
this is the type of paver. It may be a different color we'll use, but uh the type of paper we'll be using on um on this project. Next, um this shows the cross-section. You can
see uh that you you control the the size of the joints as well as the the the stone material in the joints that allows a free flow of water. And then the different layers, the base course uh as well as a subbase course that uh water
just moves through very quickly. And we're fortunate here, not not on all our sites, but uh the existing subgrade is just a uh sand and and gravel. So it's almost optimum conditions for infiltration.
Next, and this is just a manufacturers's cut that uh shows uh the amount of water that would be uh moving through the infiltration rate. It's actually um let's see here. Yeah, if you can zero in
there, uh 896 inches per hour. And I think if my math is correct, that's 15 in uh per minute. So water moves through this and we've seen demonstrations. We've actually seen it on our projects
that uh it it's very pvious and and water moves are very very well and and is going to do an excellent job on on this site given the subgrade conditions. Next. So that's a uh uh just an overview of um
the one change to the plan and just wanted to address uh the the issue on the pvious material. So that that concludes my end of it. Thank you. Uh anybody want to start?
I just have a a comment. Um thank you for all that material on those papers. It was actually very educational to understand better what differentiates pavius pervers from pavius pervers in terms of there and it really comes down
to the infiltration rate. So I think we'll be adopting some of those specifications as standard conditions for these kinds of projects. um saying that I assume that you'll go with that that infiltration rate is based on a 9/16th joint width the widest that they
which I think that that would also end up being a uh a standard condition. So um yeah 8 8 96 in is is fantastic. So I guess that means that the the the stone substance itself is also pvious to some
pretty significant degree. So um thank you for that. Oh, question for David. So, all of this material is now all on these plans that are mitigation and planting plans. Is there a final site
plan that contains all of this or are these the plans of record now? Well, they're both the plans of record and we don't specify the exact move things around and move the stairs. So, does your site plan match? Yes, our that our site plan reflects the the the
change in the retaining walls and the stairs. Okay. I just couldn't find one in the site plan. It doesn't it doesn't show the lamp post, but No, it wouldn't. That's that would be on the landscape, but um I just didn't see I couldn't find in the file a site plan that that matched the final
site. was definitely submitted. Uh cuz we reviewed it at the last meeting cuz we didn't we the the changes to the wall and the stairs. Uh oh. So nothing's changed in the site plan from the last meeting to now. So it would be in that folder.
We file things by date, not by So it's you have to know when when changes were made to find it. We'll add that. Thank you. One of my things um we had talked about possibly moving the rinse station
further out of the NDZ and that's not happening. It's not correct because it it because the whole site's developed to a certain extent moving it doesn't change its impact to the resource area because the real resource area is the pond and we're just talking about the buffer zone
to a possibly man-made coastal bank. Okay. And our coverage is still 60.7 for Taylor. Yes. Um we were hoping that there was going to be some reduction in in in revising the
driveway on 22. Uh but it for the maneuvering to get in and out of the garage, all that area is really required. Yeah. Okay. Um, and I believe you were someone I think Bill was going to put together a
document or something dealing with the mitigation that's for lot 4 that's on Taylor Pond. Um, and and and I know he's been away. He has been away and uh and I tried to get a hold of him this morning and his
office being right next to mine. I didn't see his car all day today. So, uh um not to chastise him, he's entitled at 80 years old to take a day off. Uh oh. I don't know. Um, so but in regards
to the mitigation of of of lot 4 being being on lot 22, no matter what happens to that mitigation, the owners of lot of 22 um ultimately are responsible
to making sure that that mitigation is maintained. So, if it's incorporated into the order conditions that uh lot 20 uh 22 Taylor's Pond Road is responsible for all the mitigation, the Ryback's they
they they got to do it either way because they own both properties. So, I don't if it's if it's 22 Taylor's Pond is responsible for all that mitigation, they're fine with it. But then you're getting no, you know, you it's lot four's right
mitigation. And let's say something happens and lot four and 22 are not owned by the same people. You know, we've lost that control. You need you need a license agreement of some sort. Yeah. Well, that access maintain the
mitigation. That would be one solution. And that was what Bill was thinking and uh we actually discussed it last week and and so long as there is a mechanism to ensure that the mitigation at 22 Taylor's Pawn Road is in place doesn't
matter really who does it as long as somebody's on the hook for it. And that's why I was saying if you put it in the order of conditions right and it would be but I we need something. So, how soon do you think Bill could get us a license agreement is
really where I'm going with this? Yeah. Um, if you say to him it's going to hold up, you know, let's say we say it can go these can go to an order and we say October 22nd, but if we don't have that license agreement, we're not going to be
able to approve it then. So, if this is the only thing that that's going to hold up issuing an order between now and October 22nd, I think there are five or six individuals on the team that are going to Yeah. Well, that's my point is what I'm
trying to get Yeah. What I'm trying to get to is I don't want to delay this. Oh, I understand. Because of one document. And so I'm I'm just saying, you know, if we did that, I I we need it
sooner than sooner than later. Yeah. I mean, I don't want it arriving on October 21st, right? Um, you know, so I it's not He should have no problem. He's done these before. Exactly. Examples where we've had
mitigation or something on a on an abuing property, but I don't want it. But we just need it cuz these, you know, 3 years minimally and some of these conditions are perpetual. So, Yep. Understood. Yep. Okay. Um, do you have something?
Yeah, a couple things. Um, number one, the feather in the cap is moving the house back towards the road. Um, they're not take they're even though it's not in our area, it's pretty close to our area. They're not having a driveway coming off the road to go to the uh well, I call it what is it? the
guest house or the it's just someone else's house. So anyway, the lot um which you are saving a lot of trees and wooded area. So it is kind of connected. Um the driveway is great. Uh the only other question I have is what about roof
runoff? What how do you what are you going to do with that? That just it'll go in the driveway. I guess it'll suck it up. Well, that's what's kind of killing us on the uh site coverage numbers. um rather than gutter rather than having gutters and downspouts, we have a
perimeter um drain so to speak around the entire foundation. That's gravel. Oh, that's good. Yeah, that's great. And and so we're counting that towards our site coverage and it's it's Well, you see the dotted line on on the plan. That's the roof overhang and the
gravel extends beyond that. That roof overhang I think is two and a half feet or Yeah, that works. That works fine. And that's what's hurting our numbers on the site coverage. Okay. Um, anybody else any questions,
comments? Then I think we can move both of these properties to an order for October 22nd and Bill will be getting that license agreement to us. Lickety split.
Okay. Paul, I move that we continue 22 Taylor's Pond Road and lot four cocoa cove road to the meeting on October 22nd for an order of conditions. Second. Okay. Eric, I Paul. Hi. Janet. Hi. Elise. Hi. And I say I.
Thanks. Thank you. Okay, Paul. Next. Next, we move on to uh finally certificates of compliance. Um believe Bradford's on the line. I gave him um all but the 17 bog one way. So let me
read the first one. It's 105 Main Street. Theodore uh Striber maps 12F 13J and 13-I parcels 4252 and 51. DP number C 10 3340.
Wetland restoration was the project. And Bradford, are you there? Yeah. Can you hear me? Okay. Um, so this was an order of conditions that was issued in 2019. Um, for judging
Can Bradford, can you speak up a little, please? Yeah, for sure. Is this better? Turn the volume up. Yeah, I guess. Sure. In essence, are we supposed to approve? Do you think we should approve this?
Yes, there were no issues. Oh, we can hear you now. So, okay, go. You can go into some detail if you want. Okay. So, this uh was an order from 2019 for dredging of filation buildup within their pond. Um, there was also some
invasive species control and uh wetland restoration. Um, and as I mentioned, there were no issues. The vegetation looks great. So, okay. Perfect. All right. Thank you. All right. We can have a motion, please. Paul,
I move that we approve the certificate of compliance for 105 Main Street. Second. Eric, I. Paul, I. Janet. I love this project. I'm so happy how it turned out. So, I'm delighted to say I. Elise. I.
And I say I. Okay. The next one, please. Next on the agenda is certificate of compliance 149 Cotch Pinikut road galaxy nominee trust map 16K parcel 1 DP number SC 102663 project was demolition and reconstruction of a guest house
Bradford. Yep. So this was an order of condition from 2010. Um we do have photos from 2011 um where the mitigation plantings were in place. Um in the last 10 15
years or so um those uh plantings have changed. However, in uh under the order of conditions for this property that you just approved earlier today, um they have a note to um replant
this area with appropriate selected shrubs and herbaceous material. Um so again, I think this one uh okay to approve. So just so everybody in case you didn't catch it um the mitigation was changed and so as a result they are incorporated
this that part of the project from here into the new application that we're hearing so that this can be closed and then we can have everything all in one. So okay Paul I move that we approve the certificate
of compliance for 149 cuts pinnut road. Second Elise I Janet I Paul I Eric I and I say I okay one more one more is uh seven certificate compliance 17 Bway Bruce and Terresa
Reed map 6 C parcel 22-G10 DP number SC10 3116 these were additions and hardscape um briefly uh Molly who used to be the agent here um did a field change request almost all the construction that was proposed in the
original motor was removed in that field change request. The only thing that was built was a deck. Um, and they have provided adequate mitigation for the deck. I think he even went out and did a few extra plants just recently just to satisfy himself. But I'm fine with recommending approval of this uh COC.
Okay. I move that we approve the certificate of compliance for 17 buggy. Second. Okay. Eric. Hi. Paul. Hi. Janet. I police. I and I say I. Okay, Paul. Next. Next on the agenda is a violation update
address 124 Moon Custous Lane, Elizabeth A. Sorenson, 219 Trust is the owner. Map 10A, parcel 4-H2, DP number SC 102905. Construction of a swimming pool in an approved unapproved area. This has been
resolved. There is no violation. Um, correct. That's don't need to say anymore. So we don't need to do anything, do we? We didn't do anything. It just got put on the agenda before we knew it was resolved. Met with everybody and resolved it and it's been it's been resolved. Okay, great. Okay, the next thing
please. Next on agenda is the last thing before you adjourn. Minutes should be approved from July 23rd, 2025. Okay. Does anybody have any changes? This will go this will go smooth because Bob's not here. So,
I did read it pretty carefully for for spelling, just so you know. Um, but not realizing Bob wasn't here, but anyway, or forgetting that Bob wasn't here. Um, anybody have any changes or anything? Okay, we can have a motion, please.
I move that we approve the minutes from July 23rd, 2025. Second. Okay. Elise, I. Janet, I. Uh, Paul, I. Eric I. And I say I. Okay. And now we need one more motion.
I move that we adjourn the hearing. Second. Okay. Eric I. Paul. I. Janet. Hi. Elise. I. And I say I chair. And we are done. Yep.
[Music]