Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Good afternoon. This is a hearing of the Chadam Conservation Commission being held on November 12th, 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 on live on Expinity channel 1072 and is being recorded on the on demand archives available on the town's
website. It is being conducted in person, by phone, and by video conference. The agenda, instructions on how to attend, and copies of documents for the 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 are online and you are not a commissioner,
please keep your camera turned off unless you've been recognized. Indicate that you wish to speak by using the raised hand feature. So, we have a record record of a quorum. I will now ask each commissioner to indicate their presence. Vice Chair Paul Johnson is not
here. Janet Williams >> present. >> Elise Gordon, >> present. >> Eric Hilbert, >> present. >> Bob Delveio, >> present. >> And I'm here. So, we've established we have a quorum. Is there anyone who would like to make announcements, comments, or
future agenda items for anything other than the properties on the agenda today? I'm not seeing anybody having anything. I will say that at the next meeting, we will be discussing the regulation
changes that uh need to be done uh for the new applications that we're discussing today. Um, just so that you all are aware. Okay, before we begin the agenda,
Bradford, are there any announcements or any requests for continuences today? >> None that I'm aware of today. >> Thank you. At this point, Bradford Bower, Chadam's assistant conservation agent, will now lead us through the agenda.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, first up is an order of conditions for 170 Vineyard Avenue, David Briggs, map 10D, parcel 4-114, SE10-3703, proposed raise and replacement of single
family dwelling. Uh, this was continued from October 23rd, 2024. >> Thank you. >> Hi Hannah, I see that you're on. Um, >> good morning. I actually asked that you be able to attend because I know you
asked for a continuence till the end of February and I also understand that the application with ZBA has been withdrawn and needs to be refiled. Correct. That's correct. Um so the information that I have in front of me right now is
that the ZBA requested further alterations. Um and what the applicant is intending to do is to stay roughly with the same design but to reduce the square footage. So in all there won't be significant changes from my
understanding to the design just reductions overall um which we had submitted additional revisions back in July which I believe we didn't present to the conservation commission because at that point we still didn't have ZBA
approval um but we had submitted physical copies of the revised plan. Um, >> so are these changes something that affects our area? >> The reductions overall, so what was included in the last plan revision was a
reduction in the dimensions of the garage, both length and width. Um, so a reduction in square footage. Um, though it was largely outside, completely outside of buffer zone. There was some minor changes to grade also outside of
buffer zone adjacent to the house that were associated with the AC units. Um so they had some grading around that but still outside of buffer zone. Um and and finally they had some changes to the walkway that were also um at within
FEMA flood zone but with outside of the 100 foot buffer to BBW. >> Okay. And I I understand that you wanted us to be reminded that um this continuence is because we don't finalize orders until after they've been approved
by ZBA. And you also have said that there are very minor changes anticipated. Uh if the reason we usually do not approve orders until after ZBA has approved them is so that nobody has to
come back for an amended order if anything changes within our jurisdiction. But given that you really want this order, if you would like us to approve it today, we can do that.
>> Yes. So my my request is um is twofold um or could take two different parts. Um, I understand that the commission has limits to the continuences they'll allow. Um, my understanding as of right now is that they intend, the applicant
intends to refile with ZBA within the next few weeks. U, but given the obviously the backlog, they likely won't be heard until January. So, part one of my request was to be continued until the end of February to hopefully get that approval. But if that's not possible,
then what I would request of the commission is that they uh vote on the order of conditions and issue it with the understanding um that BSC will refile an amended order of conditions or a minor mod to the plan if it's even more insignificant
um before if there are any changes um that are significant to the interests of the conservation commission >> following ZBA approval. If you want it approved today and you're aware that any changes that affect our area would have
to come through as an amended order or a field change or whatever, we will approve it. It's just usually we're trying to save the homeowner the expense of having to refile in the future if ZBA changed something. So, it is up to you.
You can ask that we continue it till February, but that will be the last time or you can ask that we approve the order as it's been written. And we I believe reviewed it quite a
while ago. So, >> understood. Um, I I do respect the commission's procedure in this and I I think it would be best for the commission to uh vote on the order of conditions today with the understanding that once ZBA approval is occurred um if
there's any changes, we'll have to return for an amended order. >> That's fine. Then commissioners, do you have anything that you um would like I we've reviewed this quite a while ago, but anything else that um you might want
to see added, changed in the order. Okay, then Janet, could we have an >> Yep. I move that we close the hearing and approve the order of conditions for 170 Vineyard Avenue. >> Second. Bob, >> hi. >> Eric, >> hi.
>> Janet, >> I >> and I say I. Okay, you've got it. >> I thank you all for your patience. I do appreciate it. >> Thank you, Hannah. All right, the next Bradford, please. >> Next up is a request for an amendment to
an order of conditions for 70 Meadow View Road South, Kyle and Patricia Lasac. App 10D parcel 16-s15 SE 10-3668 proposed addition attached garage and
reconstruction of deck with mitigation. Amendment is to add invasive management and restoration. Rearrange approved mitigation, redesign the driveway, add a retaining wall, redesign the front entryway, and retain uh approved rinse station. Uh, this was
continued from November 5th, 2025. >> Thank you. How are you? >> Hi, great. How are you? >> Good. >> Caitlyn Cameilleri with Blue Flax Design. Thanks for having us back so quickly. Um, so we had the chance to do a more thorough coverage calculations on
what we're proposing and what the previously approved plan proposed and we actually found an overall reduction by 99 square feet of proposed landscape structure in jurisdiction. Um, we also spoke with the homeowner and he has
agreed to remove that lower rinse station completely. Um, and we will restore that area with native vegetation. And um, I think I also graphically edited the driveway to show the line
depicting that there's driveway shell gravel permeable driveway and then it would be a micro clover fescue on the other side. Um, and I'm happy to go through the coverage calculations table provided.
They seem off to me. >> Okay. Um, so within the resource area, the lower resource area, uh, what was originally proposed by THAAD, um,
was to remove a portion of lawn and restore it. And we're proposing to do lawn removal and restoration as well, but our numbers are a little different there. Um, so we're proposing less
mitigation in this area. What is the difference off the top of my head? We're proposing 1,447 square feet less of lawn removal within the resource area because we've decided
to change its orientation and create a vegetated buffer strip instead of it being on the west side. Um, and so that's the difference there. But we're also proposing over 11,000 square feet of mitigation throughout the entire
property. Um and then in the 50 foot buffer in the inner aura, we are proposing to increase the hardscape in the form of that retaining wall below the deck by six square ft and then have pvious inground timber steppers which
adds an increase of 20 square ft. Uh, which we'd also like to note, the homeowner would like those to be inground granite steppers instead of timber risers um in that space.
Um and then within the 100 foot buffer the pvious hardscape is reduced by 40 square feet and impervious is reduced by 85 square ft which is 128 square ft of um landscape structure reduction in the
100 which is how we come to the overall 99 square feet of reduction of landscape structure in jurisdiction. And then we have something highlighted here. >> I did that. Sorry about that. I pro I didn't realize
I was highlighting the one that everybody was going to >> everybody was going to look at. My I was I was looking at the percentage figures and u comparing them to the original and um it seems that there's a math error somewhere.
>> Well, Teresa Sprag with Bluefax Design. I will say that THAAD's coverage tables are incredibly complicated. >> Yes, they're very >> and we were doing our best to try and match THAAD's coverage tables so that you could kind of compare apples to apples. Um I did not go through the
percentages. I do know the square foot numbers are accurate because I think we were at that question of I believe you were previously at 34.9% coverage and we didn't want to go over the 35% allowed. So, we did confirm that we've got a 99 square foot reduction
over what was previously approved. Now, I did not go through all of THAAD's percentage coverages. We've made no changes to the building. We're also trying to um sort out what THAAD is calling natural area versus landscape
lawn. So, we we were doing our best um without any >> Exactly. So um so what we were really trying to do is just look at what was approved previously, what we were proposing and where the differences were. So we have um less mitigation in
the resource area because we narrowed so we could create that vegetated buffer and still allow for winter dock storage and summer trailer storage. Um and then increased the overall mitigation with the invasive species management and restoration throughout the rest of the site. Um, and then from there, um, the
the addition of that wall underneath the deck adds some additional square feet within the inner aura, but the change in the driveway layout and that large um, circular um, driveway that was previously approved, we're able to shrink that. Um, even though we've sort
of moved and allowed for some extra space so that they can actually use both bays of their garage, we still were able to shrink the amount of driveway within the outer or overall. So, we know that we are under the 34.9% coverage, but I I can't um compare the
apples to apples on the percentages that are shown on the conservation areas because we just weren't sure what what was what. But I think what I'm struggling with is our 35%. It should be the building,
the driveway. >> Mhm. >> Um the mitigation isn't part of the 35%. And when I'm looking at this, >> it in the outer aura, it certainly looks
like you're you're over 35. So do we have anywhere that number that with the hardscape part the driveway the you know so right so that's what we're saying the
total hardscape is being reduced by 99 square feet we're not making any changes to the building the only change we're really making is to the driveway >> in the outer aura you're going from 900 square ft to 2280
square ft in buildings. You're going in hardscape from 450 to 852 and then you do have a reduction in hardscape hardscape of from 310 to 70.
To me that's not a reduction that's an increase. >> So we're not making any change to buildings. So honestly I'm not >> that number is from >> Yeah. Can you can you can you move to the other table that was part of this
because this is where um there should have been yeah this one I think so in this one exactly the same under buildings in the outer or 900 to 2280 coming to 26.7%. And in yours those same figures come to
31.5. >> Okay. >> We didn't make any changes. That's why I think it's a math. >> We basically look like it was in this original table that we approved. >> Yeah. It looks like we >> Yeah. >> An oops earlier, >> right? I wonder if the percentages are
including mitigation, which is not something we knew to explain. >> Well, and we we literally just took the numbers from Thaad's table and created an Excel spreadsheet and tried to connect the same numbers in. I get it. >> And split it. Yes. >> And it's not easy. >> No.
>> Yes. Hence why we ask you guys because it's not easy. >> Understood. Yes. I mean if we I think if we were able to do a much you know the table for instance that you have in your checklist and give we could have made a much easier comparison in that regard and I'm not at all that is very
thorough. So I am not at all not >> Oh no no no incredibly thorough. So and we appreciate it. It's just hard to decipher at times. >> Correct. So, um, anybody have any
questions, comments? I love that they removed the other rinse station. Thank you so much because that really >> was doing me in. >> Yep. Um, anybody
comments, questions? The only >> I got I got a comment, please. >> I just like the uh invasive species management. Uh it's uh definitely a positive uh >> um since uh since the first design was
uh proposed I think um the restoration it's wonderful u so I commend uh that part of the project. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I think overall it's it's a wonderful improvement.
>> So we appreciate it. All right. If we could have a motion please. We have to continue for order. Oh, true. Yes. So, we could do it December 3rd. We only
have right now an RDA, two NOIs, and a COC for December 3rd. So, would that work? >> That would work. I know the builder has been very anxious about getting this retaining wall settled underneath the deck so that he can put the heat pumps
in. um because he needs to put that retaining wall in to get that grade. So, yes, as soon as possible. >> Okay, great. >> So, we'll put it on for December 3rd. >> We appreciate it. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. >> Then I will move that we continue 70 Meadow Brook Road South to December 5th
for an order of conditions. >> Third. >> Third. Sorry. Third. >> Second. >> Fourth. No. >> Uh Elise. >> Hi, >> Janet. Hi, >> Eric. >> Hi, >> Bob. Hi. >> And I say I.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. The next Bradford, please. >> Next up is a notice of intent for 20 L Street uh for Karen Los Koko map 10F parcel R9 SC 10-3730.
Remove and replace pond access stairs. This was continued from May 7th. >> Good afternoon. Stephanie Sequin with Roder and Wilcox representing um Karen and Ellanar Lasco and >> Mike Tannis Blue Flex Design.
>> Um so this is a um an application to replace an existing set of stairs that provide access to um White Pond. You're hopefully looking at a revised site plan dated October 31st, 2025
as well as the blue flax um restoration and um planting plan with I think the same date. Um the revised plan incorporates um hopefully all the comments that you had at the uh the first meeting. Um, we've revised the
proposed stair profile to um, elevate it a little bit further off the face of the of the slope. We've got, I think, at the closest point uh, uh, one foot clearance between the ground surface and the bottom of the stair framing. Um, we've
added at the at the top of the stairs where the existing path is uh, showing some signs of erosion. We're proposing a uh a series of dug in timber steps that will um absorb some uh allow some of
that runoff to infiltrate and hopefully um prevent it from continuing to erode. Uh and also noted an existing retaining wall that's uh next to the the deck uh is um in need of replacing. So that's
been noted. And in replacing it, it will incorporate some a set of stairs uh rather than having just foot traffic on on that embankment. Um uh we also had blue flax delineated the
uh the bordering vegetated wetland that is down on the beach beach area. So uh we've shown that edge of wetland and the 50 and 100 foot buffers to the BBW. Um and unnoted uh the final change in the um construction notes for the stairs
made reference to the blue flax restoration and planting plan which um will serve to um they've included specifications and I'll let um Matt >> Mike sorry um get into more detail on
that on how to stabilize the removal of the existing stairs and and replacement with the new stairs. So, um, unless you have any questions on the site plan, um, I can hand it over.
>> Anybody >> on the site plan? >> Quick question. Just a quick question, Stephanie. So, you're saying I heard you because I was looking at at the um um detail trying to understand the the elevation of how far elevated the steps
will be above the ground and what your and this will go to Mike what the planting options will be for planting underneath the stairway. So you said it's a foot >> at the at So at the um the beginning of each landing, that's where you get the
the the closest contact because as as the landing goes out level and the grade drops below it, you're obviously increasing that separation. So um we're at the uh at the middle landing. That's where there's just
one foot of clearance between existing grade and the bottom of the structure. >> So, what's the what is the lowest elevation? >> One foot. >> You ready? >> Could somebody please mute?
>> Could you please mute? >> Hello. >> Okay. Sorry. So there's at no point in the in the whole set of stairs going down is it less than a foot between >> except at the very at the very beginning where I mean you've got to step from
grade up to the the platform and then again at >> the rest of it's a foot. Okay, that gives you lots of options. So okay, that's what I want from you. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any other site questions? All right, we'll move on to blue flax.
>> All right. Mike Tannis, Bluefax Design. For our part of the plan, the two main goals are to restore the areas within the buffer zone disturbed from the removal of existing ingground wooden steps in the installation of the stairs. So, after the removal of the steps, we
are going to bring in fill to fill in the the areas to match the surrounding grades. The area will then be seated with a mix of shade tolerant native grasses and wild flowers and covered with biodegradable erosion control blanketing to hold it all in place.
After the construction of the stairs, the area will also be planted with low bush blueberry shrubs and plugs of native shade tolerant ferns and sedges, uh, Pennsylvania sedge and marginal shield fern, which do well in in deep shade, so they should
be able to grow under the stairs and establish. Okay. >> Uh to mitigate for this, we're going to add plantings at the bottom of the stairs along the cleared beach. So, we're going to seed that with the same grass and wildflower
mix and add shrubs of arrowwood viburnum and clea. Uh there's an existing wood pile there from a fallen pine tree. So, we're going to disassemble that and place it strategically in unveetated areas throughout the forested area down there.
basically mim mimicking a fallen tree just in pieces. >> Okay, that explains. >> And we're also designating a location for a proposed kayak rack to limit the damage done to the vegetation from boats being stored on the beach.
And that is it. And and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Anybody want to start? >> Yeah. >> Go ahead, Eric. >> Yeah, this all looks fine. I from the first meeting I just mentioned that they're they're trimming the Leland Cypresses on the uh I think the south
side of the property and they were throwing some of the branches over the banking that those are to be removed. >> Okay. >> Go ahead, Bob. >> Okay. Hi, Mike. How are you? Uh I know I
also um noticed some furniture uh down below too. I believe some chairs and so forth. Will they be removed as well by the wood pile? I believe they were. >> They certainly can be for I mean hopefully they'd be allowed to keep them
there in se in the summer and just not store them over the winter. Is that what you're looking for? >> Right. Uh, and uh, I like the idea of the uh, the the uh, woody shrubs down below there. Uh, that's an improvement cuz
that area was pretty pretty huge, that cleared area. Um, and that's going to be uh, seated as well after the shrubs are put in. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. It's I think it's an improvement. the uh the the inground
steps above on the top that that will be that will suffice for erosion control for the water running down the slope. >> Yes, we and along the outsides too. If there's any signs of erosion, we could put more of the erosion control blanketing and seed just to address it
if it should happen. But >> yeah. Okay. >> That should slow the water down and allow it to filter infiltrate. >> Okay. Thank you. And one thing real quick that I forgot to mention is we're showing a proposed location for winter storage of a
swimming dock, but >> they're removing that dock. So they're >> that's location. >> That's not happening. >> That's not happening. Correct. >> Yeah, me. >> That was my big sticking point. >> Yeah. Sorry. We did get word from the property owner, Teresa Braflex Design.
Sorry. We did get word from the property owner after we filed this that because it's a group, it's a bunch of family members who own this home together. Um and they have one point person that we've been working with that um the family has decided to just disassemble and remove that entirely. It's not being
used and nothing will be replaced. >> Um so that will I think be a large improvement here. >> Huge. because I I actually was going to ask why they're storing it there and not up be and I understand that it's you
know hard to get it up the hill but >> yes >> at the same time it's not doing any >> great environmental >> yes and so they have no plans to put a float back and they'll just be removing that entirely from the area. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Perfect. So, so if that is going to be removed, that's going to open up an area that could be planted as well. Is is there any thought about planting that area? I know that's a huge area. That's a whole beach area. >> We could certainly do some more planting in that area or or alternatively, we
could shift the kayak rack um into that area um because it's already open. So, um it would give them a little bit more room without being concerned about them. The kayak rack is in a little bit of a tight position, but it was the only place we could put it with the float needing storage. So, we put it there. If
we're able to shift the kayak rack um down to that area, and they just stopped disturbing the area to the north where we're show currently showing the kayak rack because there's a be beautiful native vegetation. It's really a well canopied site. Um the vegetation at the edge of the pond is in really good
condition and even with the low water levels, I'm sure they're up now after all this rain. the um rose coropsis and some of the rushes um at the edge of the pond were all healthy. Um you know, this is definitely the families using this beach, but I don't think it's used as
frequently as some of the other beaches around this pond. Um and I don't think it's used as intensely as some of the other beaches. So, it's it's in a much more natural state than some of the other beaches around the pond. So, we could either plant that area where the proposed um location for the winter
storage of the swim dock or we could move the kayak rack into that area and then reveate a little bit more on the north. That would be entirely >> That's my vote. >> Okay. >> Only because it's already disturbed. >> Exactly. >> And so why disturb a different area? I
think that's a great idea. >> Okay. >> Um >> that would be our recommendation as well. So, >> perfect. >> Okay. Anybody else? Anything? >> Just a quick question for Mike. Um, thank you for adding the uh wetland
delineation sheets. It's always educational to look at those, but I was looking on the on the plans to see where your two test sections were. So, I assume one is within the wetland and the other is somewhere outside of it.
>> Somewhere in the up upland of that. in the upland because you got up. >> I don't have the exact. So, I didn't do it. Uh, our Ke Keith Johnson. >> Okay. >> At our company did it, but yeah, it would have been out. >> They're very helpful to to see when there's a question of where it is. Okay.
>> But in the future, I would just ask that you mark on the plan where those test borings were, especially on like the the soils. Um, that would be good confirmation, but thank you for including it because I do enjoy that.
Anybody have any other questions, concerns? Well, it sounds like we could go to an order. So, >> we have uh board of appeals is um right
>> December 18th. I saw. So that would could we continue it to January 14th which is the first meeting after ZBA? >> Fine with us. Yes. >> Okay. >> All right.
>> So January 14th, 2026. >> All right. I move that we continue 20 L Street to the hearing on January 14th, 2026 for an order of conditions. >> Second. >> Bob, >> I. >> Eric, >> I >> Janet.
>> I Elise. >> Hi. >> And I say I. You're all set. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Brad, for the next, please. >> Moving right along. Um, we have requests for certificates of compliance. Um, I'll
read the next two in since they're both the same property. >> Great. >> Uh, first up is 325 Foxhill Road, Eastward Hoe Country Club, map 10M, parcel 2-1, SC 10-2603
for a raise and replace of two existing buildings, install a new sewage disposal disposal system and storm water drainage system. um and to make utility upgrades. The other is uh for 325 Foxhill Road
Eastward Ho Country Club SC 10-2804. Uh this was for demolition of the Yach Club building and construction of a new building outside the uh velocity zone, new sewage disposal system and restoration plantings.
Uh it looks like we have Sean online. >> Yes. Hi Sean. Good afternoon. >> Do you have anything you want to bring to us before if anybody has questions?
>> Uh, no. I think uh Bradford did a thorough job of uh reviewing and he has some comments on one of them and I'll just let him uh make any comments that he has. >> Great. Thank you. Okay, Bradford. Um, so no issues with the yach club, um, with
the, uh, maintenance building. Um, I did see, um, behind the sand storage area, there was a fence, um, that the sand has gone over and has
kind of broken through the fence. Um, I have some photos Sure. >> He was changed changed hands >> fatigue and bond. >> So kind of tough to see but the >> um
>> yeah it's kind of pushing out this um this fence and there's a little sand congregating. Um I would just ask that it be fixed. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So um we uh the superintendent
isn't Sean Riley with Ty and Bond representing the applicant. Um the superintendent is on vacation this week. Uh, I've reached out and intend on um a getting it cleaned up, getting the fence put back in, and b either adding another
row of blocks on the back of that or uh he needs to have a discussion with his equipment operator to try to keep the cereal within the cereal bowl. Um, this is probably a five, six foot high uh storage bin that uh someone decided to
uh uh just carry it over the top. So, uh, that there's some sort of a fix there that, uh, to prevent this from happening again. >> So, Bradford, could we approve, if everybody agrees, approve these with the
stipulation that the one isn't issued until that's fixed? >> Yeah, I think that could be the same u >> like we'veing >> for other things. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Anybody have any questions or comments about either of the
325 Foxhill. >> Okay. Then a motion, please. >> Okay. I move that we approve the certificates of compliance for 325 Foxhill Road, the uh maintenance building, and the Yach Club building rebuilds.
>> Second. >> Uh Bob, >> I. >> Eric, >> I >> Janet I. >> Elise, >> I. >> And I say I. Okay. Thank you, Sean. >> Thank you. >> Next, please. Bradford.
>> Next is a certificate of compliance request for 124 Mooncusser's Lane, William and Elizabeth Surren Sorenson, map 10A, parcel H2, SE10-2905. This was site improvements including a
driveway, footpath, and invasive species management. Um, I did have some concerns about the footpath and whether or not the mitigation was done um with that foot path.
>> Uh, >> yeah. So, I think >> Go ahead. >> Sean Riley with Ty Bond again representing the applicant. Um, I think this is one that will probably continue to the next hearing so that I can um meet with Bradford on site and do a deeper dive into this. the uh the buffer
zones have changed since this project um was approved. There used to be a buffer to land subject to coastal storm plowage that was uh removed. So the buffer zone moved uh much closer to um actually it's
off of the beach now rather than um land subject. The work is still within land subject coastal storm flowage. So, I think we just need to go out there and take a look at where the buffers are, the work that was done, and then come back to you um to discuss this uh in a
couple of weeks. >> Great. Okay. So, we could continue it to December 17th that because otherwise or December 3rd, >> either one would work. Why don't we do
December 3rd? >> Um because it's still a couple weeks away. >> Good job, Bradford. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. If we have a motion. >> Yep. I move that we continue the request for a certificate of compliance for 124
Moon Custousers Lane to December the 3rd. >> Second. >> Uh Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Janet. >> I. And I say I. >> Okay. The next Bradford, please. Next is a certificate of compliance for
94 Sea Shells Drive, Joel Schwarz, Shwarts LLC, map 1A, parcel S2, SE 10-3443, uh for Nourishment, snow fence, and sturdy drift fencing. Um, this looked
fine to Paul and I. >> You did, according to Paul, there was one deviation. um they didn't want to install the access mats and I know Paul reached out to Katherine. Did she respond at all? Um
>> I don't know the answer to that one. >> Paul sent it to us yesterday afternoon and I don't see any response from Katherine. I didn't know if maybe verbally she had done it.
>> I have not heard I don't know if she is online. Paul on >> Paul is out sick today. >> Okay. Would Chris Crystal, do you know anything? >> She's >> I don't I'm not >> Okay. Um
You don't think there's an issue? >> I don't think there's an issue with uh the design and uh the nourishment all looked set. Yeah. um the pathways clearly marked on either side with uh symbolic fencing to keep people go
>> down towards the water. Um so I don't think that access math mat would necessarily um make a huge difference in this case. >> Okay. >> I almost had the wrong house. I didn't see any snow fence or anything. I just saw beach nourishment with beach grass,
but maybe I had the >> Nope. >> There was this one. >> Go ahead. So, no, actually he's he's correct that you couldn't see the sand fencing because it is buried uh underneath the um >> That's what I figured. >> Yeah. And if you look at through the
pictures, the photos that we provided, I think we provided an aerial view that showed it before it was covered up >> um within that package. >> Okay. >> Um then I think we can have a motion to >> notice that the waves are already eating
away at it. Well, they will. >> They will. Yeah. >> And I believe some of that was uh intentional that there would be some um sacrificial sand. >> Okay, then we can have a motion. >> All right. I move that we approve the
request for uh certificate of compliance for 94 Sea Shells Drive. >> Second. >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Janet. >> I. And I say I. >> Okay. The next one, please.
Next is a certificate of compliance for uh 127 Old Salt Works Road, Kevin and Hope, Foley, map 13M, parcel 18- C37 SC 10-3167,
raise and replace of an existing dwelling and garage, replace the septic, construction of a swimming pool, and landscape improvements. Um Paul reviewed this one and he said it he did not have any concerns. >> Right. Yeah. He didn't send any concerns
to me. Um anybody have questions, comments? >> Okay, then we can have a motion. >> Ok. I move that we approve the request for certificate of compliance for 127 Old Salt Works Road. >> Second. >> Elise. >> I.
>> Janet. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Bob. >> I. >> And I say I. >> Okay. Say the next please. >> Next is a certificate of compliance for 58 Oyster Bluff Oyster Buff Oyster
Bluffs Limited Partnership Map 13E parcel 66-H9 SE 10- 129 uh for an elevated timber walkway. Um this one is an old order of
conditions. Um, and there were a few issues with the dock design. Um, Sean, I think, uh, Paul had reached out to have you clarify some things for us. >> Yes. So, there was there was some questions about the stair being
replaced. It was replaced. Um, and I do, if I could share my screen, let's see here. Uh, there was some debris that needed to be picked up uh adjacent. and I think it's stuff just uh came a drift and ended up in the area to be cleaned
up. There was also some questions about the uh the pruning uh of the vegetation. Uh you were nice enough to find the old order of conditions that has an ongoing condition uh for the the current homeowner to um to have the ability to
to prune that. Um this is under agreement. So, we may see you in the future to a continue that um pruning condition and b probably to uh replace the the stair and the in the pier. Um but either way, um we'd be back before
you for any of that work. >> Okay. Because also that same old order said annual pruning is permitted subject to prior notice to the commission, which probably never happened, >> but uh I >> Yeah, I don't know. I just came onto the job so
>> Oh, no. Oh, I get it. Um, so you believe, Bradford, for this is approvable since they're closing, >> I think. So, yes. Uh, there's also a sale pending and right, as mentioned, any major changes would have to come
back for approval. >> So, I think we can approve it. Okay. If we could have a motion, please. I move that we approve the request for a certificate of compliance for 58 Oyster Bluff. >> Second. Elise, >> I >> Janet I. Eric,
>> hi. >> Bob, >> I >> and I say I >> Okay, next. Bradford. Thank you, Sean. >> Thank you. Have a great day. >> You too. >> That concludes time and bonds distributive compliance day.
>> Yes, exactly. Go ahead, Bradford. >> Uh, moving on to a discussion for uh changes to the notice of intent. >> Oh, is that before the minutes? >> Yep. I don't have the Okay, >> good. Okay, so um last week and I think
Bob, did you get a copy of the new applications? >> I did. However, I didn't see it on the the agenda. So, >> well, because it got I asked Crystal to add it on Monday. >> Um and she gave us these on Friday. Um
did anyone see anything that was of concern? Uh the purpose of this changing these and and you know um sort of tightening everything up a bit is that we are
hoping by requiring as Crystal's been very good about doing lately um making sure people submit it a complete application and defining what's complete and making sure that they don't notify
of Butters before the application has been viewed as complete. And it also gives the abutters better instructions on what they can do to see what's coming before us because she gets a lot of
questions and people just show up saying, "I don't know what I'm supposed to do, but I got this and I don't know how I, you know, what I do to deal with it." So, we sort of we didn't um create this on our
own. Uh Lincoln, Massachusetts, thank you very much, has done this. And so, we sort of used their template and modified it to match our needs. It, as I said last week, it did go before, you know,
Greg and Paul and Bradford and Crystal and the other Paul and I reviewed it and came up with what was then presented, you know, with Greg. We modified things a bit per his desires and then Greg did
take it to the town attorney who made a few modifications to make sure that we um are in compliance legally and then we are now bringing it to you guys. The
goal is that if you don't see anything um and if you do we can uh discuss it and modify it but if you don't the goal is that this will go into effect in January. The reason I say that is let's
start with a new year and also at that time we will hopefully have been approved the minor changes that need to happen to the regulations to match this procedure which is primarily changing
the word minimum requirements minim minimum requirements for an application to a complete application. Um, this hopefully as we've been trying will mean that we don't have to continue
as many properties because we will have a complete application, you know, mitigation or whatever they're supposed to give us will all come in before it comes to us so that we can review the entire project and hopefully not have to
have things continued for five, six, seven, 10 times. s and take our time, you know, valuable time. So, that's the background. Um, did anybody have any comments, questions?
>> I have a couple of really little >> Okay. >> changes. But first, I wanted to compliment those of you who worked on it because >> mostly Crystal did the actual paper. >> Very clear. I love the color coding. I love the process visual. I think that it
really enhances and and makes makes it a lot more clear. Um I'm putting on my Bob RS hat. Um in the applicant's right to an open hearing. I think uh the third line under there um we should um take
out the um punctuation after open it and put it after the parenthetical. That would risk constructive approval because it's actually part of the same sentence. Um, and then the other one is kind of the same, a period on incomplete applications, point two. Third bullet
needs a period after the word incomplete. >> Okay. >> And then alignment um on the on the checklist for filing an NOI. Um, item B, project narrative. It's just an alignment thing for the bullet. >> Oh, yeah.
>> Really teeny tiny stuff >> that that I can't remember what they issued that made that difficult, but anyway. >> Beautiful. Beautiful job, Crystal. >> She did amazingly and it's a lot. >> Anything? >> Thank you, I'm gonna add on, Crystal.
Well done. This is great. I just I'm I'm enthralled with the Abutters Guide to the Conservation Commission permitting process. I think we should give that to everybody. Um, but certainly it's great for Abutters and that begins the process of getting this information out there every time there's an application so it
continues continually educates the public about what's going on. So that's really really great. The only two things I had were on the um the checklist thing. What's it called? The Yeah,
checklist for filing on under item D the email part. If I I would urge us to on to do in capital letters and bold do not include copies of checks in a butter lists. Every time we post things in
public that have checks and Butters names and addresses, the alarm bells go off in my head. And that's every week because we do that because they submit it all as a package and it becomes it's very hard uh electronically to extract pages. So um I think we need to really
make sure that people know don't put the ab butter list the checks and also the uh the green cards also have a butter's names and addresses. None of that should be in the electronic. It can be in a hard copy. >> The the green cards will be coming later because
>> they won't be part of that. >> That's that's part of the whole thing. I mean, um, in Lincoln, they're handed in at the time of the hearing, >> right? So, I mean, they can hand them in prior to that, but at least they won't
be a part of their original packet. Yep. >> Um, but I agree. Yes. >> Yeah. just to emphasize the point so people begin to think about >> about making sure they're not putting that stuff out there on in the public domain doesn't belong there. >> Definitely bolding that would be great. Yep. And the only other thing is there's
a sentence that doesn't make any sense to me um in the procedure for the acceptance. The second paragraph under purpose starts with our goal is to ensure that the regulations are consistent with the bylaw and not more restrictive. It doesn't really have to
do with what is being discussed in these paragraphs. It feels like it was taken from somewhere else. Um because this is really about making sure that the application forms are complete and to avoid constructive approvals. Doesn't have to do with the relationship with the regulations and the bylaw. So I
would just take that out. >> Okay. >> I think it'll confuse people to see that there. Um, do we want, >> unless the lawyers told us to put that there, in which case, you know, whatever. >> Leave it. >> Um, do we want Crystal to make these
modifications and bring them back to us or can we tell her, you know, she'll she knows what needs to be done and that we trust their M? >> Yeah. Yeah. When we come back to to publish the whole thing and >> Right. Okay. write it all. Then we'll
make a last I think we need a motion to approve these modifications to our application process with the um modifications or changes recommended today. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> Bob. >> I >> Eric. >> Hi. >> Janet. >> Hi. >> Elise. >> Hi. >> And I say I. Thank you so much. Oh, thank you Crystal. >> That was amazing. Okay, Brad, for next
>> is approval of minutes from September 10th, 2025. >> Yep. So, does anybody have any modifications? I made a couple small. >> Yep, I did too. >> Um, >> tiny,
>> but mine were very small. >> Nothing substantive. Okay. Then if we could have a motion, please. >> I move that we approve the minutes for September 10th, 2025. >> Second. >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Janet. >> I. >> Elise. >> Hi.
>> And I say I. Okay. One more motion. >> I move we adjourn. >> Second. >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Janet. I. >> Elise. >> Hi. And I say I