Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Yes. >> Good afternoon. This is a hearing of the Chattam Conservation Commission being held on July 22nd, 2026 in accordance with the Massachusetts Wetland
Protection Act and the Town of Cadam Wetlands Protection bylaw and regulations. My name is Paul Johnson and I serve as the chair. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any
smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of the chap of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025
extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general law chapter 30A [snorts] section 20 until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Conservation
Commission is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in
progress may do so by calling the phone number 1508-9454410 conference ID number 1824724 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted
agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on Chadam TV Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as
possible. To all participants, whether attending by phone or online, please remain muted unless you have been recognized by the chair. When recognized, please identify yourself for the record. If you're attending by phone, you can mute and unmute using
star six. If you're online and you're not a commissioner, please keep your camera turned off unless you've been recognized. Indicate that you wish to speak by using the raise hand feature. So, we have a record of a quorum. I will now ask each commissioner to indicate
their presence. Vice Chair Bob Devakio, >> present. >> Karen Latton, >> present. >> Janet Williams, >> present. >> Elise Gordon, >> present. >> Eric Hilbert, >> present. >> And I am here. We've established that we have a quorum. Is there anyone who would like to make any announcements, comments, or future agenda items for
anything other than the properties on the agenda today? You may comment on those when the property is being heard. Before we begin the agenda, Bradford, are there any announcements about requests for continuances today?
>> Yes, we have two uh requests for continuances. Um 147D Queen Anne Road has requested a continuence to August 12th and uh 101 Oyster Pond Furlong has requested a continuence to August 26th.
>> Thank you Bradford. At this point Bradford Bower Chadam's conservation Chadam's assistant conservation agent will now lead us through the agenda. >> Uh first up is an order of conditions for 50 Chase Street. Homeowners are
Maria and James Anderson. Map 16 C, parcel C8, D number SE 10-3784. Uh this project proposes several land management activities including invasive species management, restoration of a
coastal bank, conversion of a [clears throat] portion of lawn into meadow, minor regrading following removal of a short timber retaining wall in disrepair, minimal expansion of an existing driveway conversion to permeable pavers, and installation of an osprey nesting platform. This was
continued from June 24th, 2026. Is there anyone here representing that property? >> Yeah. Hi. Um, for the record, Lauren Taylor with Crawford Land Management on behalf of the applicants. Um, yeah, we had a chance to review the draft order
of conditions and we didn't have any questions or concerns about it. Um, I think you received our letter. Uh, we just noted that the 21inch Norway maple to remain. Um, there was a limb on that that snapped off in a storm this winter. So, we were looking for, you know,
approval to remove that limb just to help the tree the wound heal cleanly. Um, but it looks like that was already reflected in the order. Um, so we didn't have any concerns on our end. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioners, anyone
Okay, I think we're ready for >> I'll make a motion that we close the hearing on 50 Chase Street and approve the order of conditions as amended. Second >> Karen >> I >> Elise
>> I >> Janet >> I >> Bob >> I >> and I say I Oh Eric >> hi. >> Sorry. >> Thank you very much Lauren. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next Bradford. >> Next is an order of conditions for 70 Hardings Beach Road. The owner is
Jonathan Welch. Map [clears throat] 9C parcel M4. D number SCE10-3777. Uh, this was for removal of an existing patio, retaining walls, parking expansion, and construction of a new patio. This was continued from May 13th
and June 10th, 2026. >> Good afternoon. David Clark, Clark Engineering. Uh, we looked at the order and there are no issues with it. >> Thank you very much. Commissioners, any anything to add? >> All right, we're ready. I'm sorry, Eric.
just wanted to note for the record a couple of um edits that were made I think after it was sent out. Um so um there was a finding and a couple of conditions added um with respect to the
u mowing that had taken place in the in the back [clears throat] that had gotten into the um salt marsh grasses. So there's a finding at some unspecified time in the past mowing of grass in the rear of the property had extended into the grasses growing in the salt marsh.
And so that finding led to um a little bit of beefing up of the u uh conditions um about um no mowing of the salt marsh is permitted and it will be delineated by a single fence. Um and yeah,
so those are the only changes that were made. >> Okay. Bob, I think we're ready for a motion. >> Okay. I'll make a motion that we close the hearing on 70 Harding Beach Road and approve the order of conditions as
amended. Second. >> Elise. >> I. >> Janet. >> I. >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Karen. >> I. >> And I say I. >> Next up, Bradford. >> Next up is an order of conditions for 1174 [clears throat]
Old Queen Anne Road. Home owners are Timothy and Judith Richie. Map 6H, parcel 2A-T8, DP number 10- 3783. [clears throat] Uh, this was a request to demo and
rebuild an existing cottage, install new basement entrance at the main house, install a septic upgrade with IIA technology, and install and installation of mitigation plantings with all associated grading utilities and landscaping. This was continued from
June 10th and June 24th, 2026. >> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, Katrine Higgins from Bartlett Tree Experts and also Mark Dibs is a available here as well. I just uh we recently submitted the vegetation management plan and I didn't know if there were any questions.
>> Yeah, we got that and and we also saw your email about uh adding that to the to the order and we made those adjustments. >> Okay, great. Anything else? Mark, do you have anything?
>> Uh, hi Mark D with Cape Island Engineering. No, just wanted to um check to see if you received the email about the one comment and the vegetation management plan. >> Yeah, I think we're all set with that. >> Okay,
>> commissioners, anything? All right, Robert. Okay. I'll make a motion that we close the hearing on 1174 Old Queen Anne Road and approve the order of conditions as amended. >> Second.
>> Karen. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Bob. >> I. >> Janet. >> Hi. >> Elise. >> I. >> And I say I. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next up, Bradford. >> All right. Next is an order of conditions for 7D Queen Anne Road. Uh
owners are Hajar Management Company, map 13E, parcel 15-14, uh D number SE 10-3781. Uh this was for construction of a new ADA ramp, drainage improvements in site
landscaping. Uh this was continued from May 13, 2026, and the applicant has requested a continuence to August 12th, 2026. Robert >> make a motion that we continue 70 Queen
Anne Road to the hearing on August 12th, 2026. >> Second. >> Karen >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Bob. >> I. >> Janet. >> I. >> Elise. >> I. >> And I say I. >> Next up, Bradford.
>> Next up is an order of conditions for 54 Rowland Drive. Owners are Timothy and Katherine White. Map 13J, parcel 19- AR4, D number SCE 10-3782. This was for demolition of a detached
garage and driveway and construction of a new driveway and garage with living space above within the buffer zone to a coastal bank and bordering vegetated wetland. Portion of the driveways within land subject to coastal storm flowage. This was continued from May 27th at May
27th and July 8th, 2026. >> Hi, >> good afternoon. David Clark, Clark Engineering. Uh, don't have any issues with the order condition. >> Thank you. >> Commissioners, anyone? >> No. Robert
>> make a motion that we um close the hearing on 54 Rowland Drive and approve the order of conditions as amended. >> Second. >> Biz >> I. >> Janet >> I. >> Bob >> I. >> Eric >> I >> Karen >> I.
>> And I say I. >> Next up Bradford. >> Moving right along. Next up is a request to amend an order of conditions for 504 Old Harbor Road. uh owners are Blue Heron Trust map 16H
parcel PB D number SCE 10-3752 uh this is was for relocation of an existing dwelling onto a new foundation including construction of additions and renovations construction of a swimming pool cabana and hardscaping and relocation of the existing driveway as
mitigation existing lawn will be restored with native plantings the amendment is to add a basement to the cool [clears throat] add a basement to the pool cabana to house pool equipment and storage and add subsurface drive wells to storm for storm water and
foundation drains. Uh this was continued from July 8th, 2026. >> Good afternoon, Peter. >> Good afternoon. Um my only comment uh was about uh special condition number three. Pool cabana basement shall be
used only for pool equipment. We were hoping for it to also say and storage as originally submitted. Um I think it's a pretty minor detail. When I say storage, we're thinking like pool toys and things. Um so if that's a non-issue, then uh we're happy with the conditions
as they are. >> Okay. Thank you. We also changed your change your correct name to the uh supporting documents. >> Perfect. Commissioners, anything? >> Okay, Robert,
>> are we just going to say storage or should we say for pool accessories? I don't know. You know, I'm just wondering whether it will ever be used for more than pool related. I was just The reason I wrote just for the
equipment >> was to prevent it from being a real seller. having pool equipment and then a lot of other things. I don't know. What do you think? >> What would you call it? >> I don't know. That's what I'm struggling.
>> Pool accessories. [laughter] Storage of pool. I don't know. >> Pool accessory storage. >> Yeah, I think. Is that okay with you, Peter? Pool accessory storage. >> I could imagine them putting a piece of furniture down there or something.
outdoor furniture. I mean, I I don't think anybody's going to go up there and and check on this. >> Do we care? >> Right. So, I think that's fine if if you'd like to say full accessories. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um you vote on it or something? I mean,
I don't care. It can be storage. >> I don't I don't care either. >> No. >> Okay. Let's just leave it as pool accessories then. >> I thought we were just Karina was going to be just storage. >> Okay. Just flat out storage. Okay. >> Makes it easier.
>> All right, Robert. >> Make a motion that we close the hearing on 504 Old Harbor Road and approve the amended order of conditions as read. >> Second. >> Elise. >> I >> Janet.
>> I >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> Hi, >> Karen. I >> and I say I >> thank you all very much. >> Thank you. >> Have a good day. >> You too. >> Bradford. Next. Next up is a request to
extend an order of conditions for 32 Old Salt Works Road. Owners are uh James and Jennifer Mock. Map 13L parcel C32. Uh D number SCE 10-3496.
Uh this was for reconstruction of a former dwelling with associated site modifications and shorefront protection as well as mitigation and a and coastal bank restoration. >> Yeah, good afternoon again. Um Lauren Taylor from Crawford Land Management. Um
this permit, yeah, it was issued in 2021. So it was set to expire in 2024 originally, but it was extended under the permit polling act. Um so now it's set to expire August 18th of this year. Um and at this point the applicant is just looking to extend it for a year um
to wrap up some loose ends. Um they need to install a demarcation along the upward upland end of the mitigation area. Um and they'd like to conduct maintenance throughout this growing season. Um so yeah, we're just looking for an extension of a year. Um but if there's any questions, I can help answer
those. >> Commissioners, anyone have a question on that? So the the new date would be August 19th, 2027, >> I believe. August 18th. >> August 18th. Okay.
>> Okay. If we could have a motion. I'll make a motion that we extend the uh order of conditions to August 18th, 2027 on 32 Old Salt Works Road. >> Second. >> Karen, >> I >> Eric
>> I >> Bob >> I >> Janet >> I >> Elise >> I >> and I say I >> Next up. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Lauren. >> All right. Next up is a notice of intent for 45 Old Harbor Lane. Uh, owner is
Holly Todd, map 16 I, parcel 6-1-mr1. Uh, DP number SE 10-3776. Uh, this was for proposed house and site improvements. It was continued from April 22nd, 2026.
>> Good afternoon. For the record, Sean Riley with Time Bond [snorts] representing the applicant. Uh we had continued as we needed to go to the zoning board of appeals for approval. We've received that approval. Uh there were some comments and requests from
commission members at our last meeting. I'll run through those quickly. One of those comments was um we were proposing a rinse area within the 50oot buffer and a trellis. The commission had requested that we relocate that outside of the uh
50ft buffer. uh after going back and speaking with the applicant um we've decided to just remove that completely from the application uh on the screen you can see uh highlighted is where we had it. We've removed it. Uh we are requesting a a simple closed drawing
line uh within that area along the stepping stones. One of the other comments was about the um short stocking fence that was within the 50-ft buffer as shown on the original plan here in red and
[clears throat] a request was made by the commissioners to try to remove that and replace it. So, we are going to remove uh that stockade fence and replace it with uh bayberry and basically create a a bayberry hedge
windbreak. Uh the last comment was on the [clears throat] >> Y last comment was on the uh mitigation. Uh we had requested to utilize the uh 30,000 square foot uh restoration
project as the mitigation for the 700 square ft of uh mitigation uh that's part of the computation for the increase in coverage within the the buffer zones. Uh the commission had commented that um
it's not typically the policy to utilize past projects for mitigation. So uh we provided an area of pollinator habitat within the 50oot buffer uh on the plan and that's highlighted um in purple. Uh we provided the
computation for those areas uh down in the lower left corner of the plan. um 7:10 is required and 7:30 has been provided. I believe those were the the comments that we needed to address. So
with that, I'll open it up to any questions you may have. >> Yeah, I just have one thing, Sean. Um could you provide us the material that's being used for the grill and patio area? >> It's just a paper material. Are you
asking if it's um it if it's pvious or um >> Yes, I am. >> That I don't know. Um >> you need to be
>> you if you want to say something, you have to come up to the mic and identify yourself. >> Yeah. Yeah. which >> Hi. >> Hello. I'm Holly Todd and I am the owner or I'm the general partner of the
partnership that owns the house, the property. Um, and I just met with the architects this morning. Um, and I live in Germany, so they caught me up. And it is I they noted that, Sean. Um, that that was unclear on the And it is um it's dry dry laid. Is that what you say?
I don't know. Anyway, it is permeable. It's not with uh mortar in between the stones. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, we we could add that. Thank you, Holly. We could add that to the the comments or you could add that as a condition. Um Okay. >> Your choice.
>> Thank you, Sean. Commissioners, anything? >> I got one thing, Paul, Sean. [clears throat] The uh the new mitigation area by the in the 50 uh that's like a meadow with wild flowers. Is that the story?
>> Yeah, it's a pollinator habitat uh with uh and we've called out all the different species. Um but it is a a wildflower meadow that uh increases the u the habitat for pollinator species which as we know are very important as part of this ecosystem.
>> Is that going to be uh >> is that going to be demarcated with anything like stone or something like that to you know to protect it so it's not mowed over in the future? Uh we can but she's got a a if you went to the property there is a lot of that
pollinator habitat and a lot of that restoration that they've just done and Holly spent a lot of time and money working with Wilkinson Ecological to get that to the where it is. The rest of the the property does not have any uh demarcation and the homeowner has um has
taken on um the responsibility of of taking on this project to restore those areas and those habitats. So, in this case, I don't see that it would be necessary. It's such a small area. Um, and it's not uh a significant space. It's behind a tree. Uh, but if you felt
that it was necessary, I'm sure that we could add some sort of demarcation, but it's such a small area within that whole broad spectrum of u restoration. >> It's contiguous with the the rest of the area. >> It really is. Okay. It really is. >> That's fine. Thank you,
>> commissioners. Anyone else? Eric. All right. I think uh we're ready to continue this for an order. >> Continue till when? >> Uh Sean, we're we're pretty wide open for our next hearing on August 12th.
Would that work for you? >> Absolutely. >> Done. >> Okay. Okay. I make a motion that we continue 45 Old Harbor Lane to August 12th, 2026 for an order of conditions. >> Second.
>> Karen. >> I. >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Janet. >> I. >> Elise. >> I. >> And I say I. >> Very good. Thank you all. >> Thank you, Sean. Next up, Bradford.
>> Next up is a notice of intent for 42 Old Harbor Lane. Winner is Peter Harris, map 16i, parcel 20-m2. Uh, DP number SE 10-3768. Uh, this is for a raisin reconstruct
guest house with patio and stairs and connect to existing septic system. Uh, this was continued from March 11th, 2026. >> Good afternoon. for the record that Aldridge G Southeast the Harris's are in the the back row this evening or this afternoon and Tabitha Kaggel from
Wilkinson is online just to refresh our memories because we did continue this a few times. Our proposal is simple. They're rebuilding a guest house that is mostly outside of the 100. Um the access is the
real important thing to be able to get into that site. There is a septic tank proposed within the 100 foot buffer with an existing lawn, but otherwise that was the simple part of the proposal and the commissioners all seem to be happy with it. When uh Bradford discovered the
patio that had been enlarged, um the client had been informed by the landscaper that landscaping was exempt. Uh then they built it. Uh the landscaper's gone. The company no longer does landscaping, so >> no one to go back to. Uh they brought
Tabitha in for uh mitigation and if she could take over. >> Sure. >> Oh, good. >> So, good afternoon everyone. Tabitha Kaggel, Wilkinson Ecological Design. Um, so the proposed 1,500 square foot plus
mitigation area for that patio expansion is largely located adjacent to the existing vegetated buffer to the isolated wetland that runs just south of the existing residence to the northeastern property line with 45 Harbor property.
Um the isolated wetland and the 50- foot buffer that is located across 42 and 45 Old Harbor underwent an extensive invasive plant removal and native plant restoration project several years ago. And this new proposed mitigation will
serve to increase the width of the previously restored vegetated buffer and to an average of 8 to 10 feet in width and will also extend approximately along 120 linear feet around the wetland. Um the northern extent of the proposed
mitigation also joins with that recent um 40 45 old harbor restoration that also took place around the wetland and which was just discussed in the previous hearing. Um so the proposed mitigation area will replace approximately 1500
square feet of lawn with a combination of native grasses, flowering species and shrubs over 168 in total. and that will really serve to enhance the overall buffer zone function to the isolated wetland. And one further thing I'd like to mention regarding the proposed
mitigation area is that the existing low split rail fence that currently defines the edge of the vegetated buffer will be relocated along the edge of the new proposed mitigation area. And then the mitigation area to the norththeast
property line that is not exactly adjacent to that wetland area will be delineated in a similar fashion or with another acceptable method and we'll take questions now. >> Thank you very much commissioners.
Anything Eric? Yeah, it's [clears throat] a good spot for your mitigation and moving the fence was excellent idea and hopefully you'll match the other side with the fence so it looks even but yeah, it
narrows the path. Looks good to me. Thanks, >> Commissioner Janet. >> Um, I'll just say that uh I really appreciate the approach taken to resolving um this matter. I know it was a surprise to the homeowners to find
out. Um, but I think they they they took the obligation to mitigate for that very seriously. And thank you, Tabitha, for laying that out because I was trying to get both plans up on my computer screen to see how the two mitigation areas related to each other. Um, so I really
struggled with that. So delighted to hear that they do relate and it becomes an entire um, ecosystem that makes a lot of sense. So, uh, thank you. Well done. [clears throat] Uh you if you come up to the mic you can. >> Hi, I'm Peter Harris, owner of property.
I just wanted to reiterate to everybody on the committee that we didn't know that no permit was pulled. We assumed we went to a contractor and they did a job and that's their job. Um, so we didn't do anything wrong that we thought of. We've also, if you check our records over the 30 years we've been in the
home, we spent a tremendous amount of money on revitalizing the the what we call the swamp, the old uh bog. But we just want you to know that we made a concerted effort. We always have and always will do. Um, that's really it.
Thank you. Uh, would you come to the mic please? >> I can show you photographs and we really didn't make that big a change for the extent that we have to go to now. It's I can just show you the photographs. Do you want to pass them around? Will it
make any difference or not? Uh >> it just it's really overtaking a good part of our garden now and we've lived the way it was. We we just added a little bit of patio. We just don't understand the extent we have to go to. That's all. I'll make peace
with it. But I'm just It just seems an awful lot that we have to do. >> I understand your concern, but >> we have grandchildren, dogs. Takes half the lawn away. It doesn't appear to be half the lawn, but
>> it's a lot. >> It's all about the square footage. It's just the everybody's we have to we have to treat everybody the same. It's otherwise you can't, you know, vary. So, it's an increase of square footage which
you have to >> I understand that >> mitigate for the square foot. >> We didn't harm the bug. It's teeming with wildlife. It's so vibrant, you can't believe it. Just food for thought. That's all. >> Well, we appreciate that you
have proposed mitigation for what was done. Um I think as everybody Paul and Eric have said and Janet I think too um we have we have regulations that we have to follow and that's all we're doing
right now is is following the regulations as we do for each um homeowner. It's not personal. >> It's a little bit. I mean, >> it's it's our regulations are our regulations. And if we make exceptions, we have to start making exceptions for
everybody. And I think that's what precipitated our asking for that mitigation is we can't let you know we we've had people who do 42 square feet of additional um coverage and we've
required mitigation. you know, it's, you know, if it's if there's new coverage, we need mitigation for it. So, but that's what Eric and Paul and Jen and everyone really have said. So, >> okay. All right. It's changed my environment, but Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you so much. So, Fed, we are ready to go to an order. What works for you? >> If the 12th works for you, that >> that's fine. >> For us, >> that's fine. Bob, >> I'll make a motion that we um continue
42 Old Harbor Lane to the hearing on August 12th, 2026 for an order of conditions. >> Second. >> Karen, >> I >> Eric. >> Hi, >> Bob. >> I >> Janet. >> I >> Elise. >> Hi. >> And I say I. >> Thank you much. Thanks. That next up,
>> thank you everyone. >> Thank you. Next up is a notice of intent for 48 Salt Marsh Way. Uh owners are Richard and Susan Connelly, map 15J, parcel W1A.
Uh D number SCE 10-3786. Uh this is for construction of a single family dwelling, swimming pool, and after the fact tree removal within the buffer zone to a coastal bank and bordering vegetated wetland. uh construction of a detached
garage within riverfront area. This is a new application. >> Good afternoon. David Clark, Clark Engineering, Teresa Sprag from Blue Flex Design. Um there's a lot of overlapping resource areas on this property. So, I'm going to
go over them individually. On the north side, um there is a small salt pond with a uh with a salt marsh around it. Associated with that is the 100-year flood and obviously associated
with associated with the 100red-year flood is the uh coastal bank. So on the north side we have a coastal bank um which is delineated using the the D policy uh for coastal banks. On the
south side of the property, there is an old drainage ditch that used to drain an extensive array of cranberry bogs all the way up to almost to uh Stony Hill Road. Um that ditch is considered a river under the rivers act
uh or perennial stream and that it shows up as a blue line on the USGS map. Um on both sides of that ditch are the remains of an old cranberry bog which now is considered a BVW. Um and so we show the 100 foot or the 50
and 100 ft in purple from uh from the edge of that wetland. Um and we also show the 100 and 200 foot setbacks from the ditch uh which is the limits uh of the inner and outer repairarian zones
under the rivers act. And the last resource area um is the uh Pleasant Bay ACE which is defined as 100 ft from the 10-ft contour um which is also shown on
the plan. Um this lot um is a very large lot for this zoning area. Uh so it is entitled under zoning uh because of the amount of area to have a house and a guest house.
So the the scope of the project is to convert the existing dwelling on the property to to be a guest house and construct a new single family dwelling on the property with a detached garage.
Um the renovations on the on the guest house are are pretty much done. Some things were done on that portion of the project without a conservation permit uh which Bradford brought to our attention uh this past winter and we've
included that in this application um as uh as new site coverage. Uh so the house is is positioned uh primarily within the buffer zone to the northerly coastal bank.
Um, we tried to keep it as far out of the resource area as possible, knowing that we kind of have pre-existing conditions where the existing guest house is, and we got to get a driveway in there. The detached garage uh is
outside the buffer zone from the BVW to the south. It's also outside the buffer zone to the coastal bank on the north, but it is within the 100 to 200 foot zone riverfront area. Um,
part of the project is to redesign the driveway um, which is shown on the plan as a as a new circular driveway. A new title five system is proposed for to serve all the buildings and that is entirely outside of any resource area.
Uh the project results in an increase um of 3148 square ft in the 50 foot to 100 foot buffers from the resource areas and then
independent of that uh there's a 1500 79 square foot increase in the riverfront area. um those two are treated differently under the regulations and that's why they're presented differently on the plan. So the increases in the riverfront
area increases results in an increase in site coverage from 3.6% to 4.9% within the entire riverfront area. And under the performance standards for the riverfront, uh you're allowed 5,000 or
square feet or 10% whichever is greater. We're well below the 10%. Um and so going back to the main dwelling construction, uh 3148 square ft is the increase.
Um there are some trees to come out and and and uh mitigation is proposed both for the removal of the trees and for the 3100 plus square feet of increase in the 50 to 100. Uh this is a project that's allowed by
right so no zoning relief is required on this one. So I'd be happy to answer any questions on the on the engineering plan. We want to hear from Teresa first and then we'll just Okay. >> Sure. >> Thanks Dave. >> Thank you. Good afternoon everyone.
Teresa Sprag with Blueflex Design. I'm just going to co quickly go over um the existing conditions starting from the north and working south. So similar to the way David presented the resource areas. So in the northern portion of the property we have a coastal bank and then the 50oot buffer to the coastal bank. Um
that area has been disturbed um through historically. The Connies are fairly new owners of the property. Um they did have an um an AR I believe or Bradford correct me if it was an AR and RDA apologize to do some Vista pruning and um their um landscaper went a little bit
above and beyond what was allowed in that Vista pruning permit. Um the area had has been historically managed. It's there's um a smattering of oak, some cherry trees, but it's mainly white popppler. So invasive white popppler in that area that's been um previously
topped. So part of our restoration plan is we're proposing to completely restore that area. Um we describe the trees in that area. They have um become um because of continual topping over decades. Um and we've included a picture
um on page four of our land management plan of what that looks like without any um without it being in leaf. So you can see they really have been topped. Um we've got an outer canopy um that's growing with very little inner canopy. They are in very poor condition. Most of
those trees are invasive white popppler trees. So we are proposing to remove all of the previously cut trees and restore that entire area within the historically managed vista corridor with native ground cover layer where there's currently non-existing due to the amount
of shading shrubs and trees um within that area. There are three um white popppler canopyized trees that are also within that area that we are proposing to remove as part of the plan. and we're proposing to plant um additional trees in that area including um red maple and
white oak um within that vista management area. So the it's a very clear vista corridor if you go out to the site and see that has been managed. We're proposing to maintain that view by planting native shrubs of varying size um and uh creating vegetative layers
where none currently exists in that area. So, that's part of the restoration project overall, but specifically part of restoring that previously managed Vista corridor. Um, as we move further south, we've got um significant amount
of invasive vegetation um on the eastern portion of the property and then down along the southern portion of the property and of course along the western property line. So um we are proposing in total the management areas just over 39,000 square feet of invasive species
management and restoration plantings. Um that also does incorporate the area on the north side of the lot within the 50-foot buffer zone. Our goal here was to make sure that most of the area remained in a naturally vegetated state. The 50-foot buffer zone within the BBW
and the 50 and the top of coastal bank will entirely be vegetated. So there'll be no no proposed um structure at all within the 50- foot buffer zone. Um as David pointed out, the overlapping resource areas on the site do get a little bit confusing. And we did include
a tree um management plan that includes the trees to be removed. I'm sorry, a a table. Um in that we included that there's one um white oak over 20inch diameter breast height. However, that oak tree is actually outside of jurisdiction. So there's only a small
triangle of an area um in the middle of the property and to the east that's outside of jurisdictional area. It's sort of sandwiched between the two 100 foot buffer zones and outside of the riverfront area and that is where that 20-in diameter oak is located. However,
we are mitigating for that. So we recognize the loss of such a large tree. It does have to come down for the construction of the house. So we are mitigating for that. So, we're following the mitigation regulations as if that were within jurisdictional area and
mitigating um the loss of those trees by planting 30 additional trees on the site. I do want to point out that within the 100 foot buffer zone on the east side and to the south, there is a significant amount of native canopy that will remain in place. Invasive
vegetation in those areas mainly consists of bittersweet, shrub, honeysuckle, autumn olive, privet, English ivy, periwinkle, and porcelain berry. So only the invasive vegetation will be removed from those restoration areas and the native vegetation including the canopy trees will remain
intact. Um in total as part of the restoration um we are proposing um 506 native shrubs to be planted along with the 30 trees. Um that's outside of the landscape schedule which we include um for the
areas around the house. There are some retaining walls for the swimming pool and we've included this which we've tried to keep mainly native. I don't believe there are any non-native species that we're proposing um in the in the planting beds. Um, we are showing some additional
native trees being planted again outside of that jurisdictional area along the northeastern property line, mainly eastern red cedar and white oak. And we're showing additional native shrubs that will be planted even though they're outside of jurisdictional area. The um
any of the proposed lawn around the house will be fescue clover lawn. Um and then we're proposing on the east side and to the south side a mix of meadow, so native grasses, wild flowers, and shrubs um interspersed um throughout
which then transitions into the heavily canopied area to the east and to the south um and throughout the riverfront area. on the western side of the property. We're proposing um to plant out eastern red cedars to provide some screening between this property and the
property directly to the west behind the proposed garage. We do want to note that there was one tree that was removed by the guest house. Um I submitted photos to Brad Bradford of that tree. It was severely leaning towards the gas utilities. Um we are also mitigating for
that tree after the fact. um it was removed as a hazard tree at the time and we are mitigating for that after the fact. Additionally, there's one small oak tree. Um again, it's outside of the 50 of the 100 foot buffer zone, excuse me, but it's within the 200t outer
riparian zone. It's a small oak tree that's close to the guest house that will need to be removed in order to um allow for the driveway to be um to be installed at the guest house itself. Um, again, part of the previous project um
that we're that we're um dealing with, I guess, under this um notice of intent filing, there was a patio located um in the L area at the front of the house. That patio was removed. We're proposing steppers just to get into um the house and out of the house to the driveway.
And then we are proposing a small patio area on the east side of the house. Um there is a lilac shrub there that will have to be removed or transplanted to allow for that patio installation. Um and that just allows for um the guests
to have their own um outdoor area in that spot. And I think David pointed out that there's that existing garage. It is located outside of jurisdictional area, but it will be removed um as part of the overall project. So there's a lot going on on this site. So, I think questions
um comments are appreciated. Thank you. >> All right, commissioners. Anyone want to start? >> Yeah. Um [clears throat] always everybody blames the poor landscaper. [laughter] >> I'm sure that that over 40 years. I
mean, you know, it's been so it was a mistake for probably 15 20 times. >> Yeah. >> Um I that's all I want to say. No, no. I No, no, not throwing landscapers under the bus. That was what they said to me. Our landscapers got a little
overzealous. That's all. But understood. The place has been They were managing it like it had been managed for, as you pointed out, probably 40 years at least. Thanks. >> Yeah. Uh, how many feet back is the bottom of the last wall? You know, how
many feet did you give to the 50 on the bank? >> I think there's like two feet there. It's tight. >> Construction will have to happen from the south. Come in from the south and work its way north. The limit of work is outside of the 50 foot buffer.
>> Yep. >> So, is the limit of work right at the 50 also? So, what are you pulling in? Is you got to So, the limit of work will have to be further down the hill, right? >> Well, the limit of work is right there at the 50. We didn't want to go beyond the 50. So there's just enough room to
dig a footing for that wall within the work limit. >> And the percentage in that what is your percentage at? I didn't get it. Uh you know when you're from your 50 to your uh from your 100 to 50 to the 100 here on the bank
it's only 12 12% of the whole section of pvious. So, >> so that's the >> that's not much. >> The 12.7% is is the site coverage within all the 0
to 50 I mean from 50 to 100 foot buffers on the property. So, it's a combination of >> well I mean >> buffer to the bank and the buffer to the BVW. Yeah, it's a it's a big piece of property. So, it's a you know, it's >> doesn't get so
>> so it's a little intimidating, but it's still you know you know we have a record of of what we allow and I mean if you're if you're at that percentage go ahead. >> Do we always combine the 50 to 100s for
all the 50? I thought normally we got it for each 50 to 100, for each NDZ, for each whatever the um area is. >> I've never done it that way. It could be >> overlapping. Um >> Okay. Um
>> these don't overlap. What overlaps is the riverfront, but the two the the buffer to the coastal bank and the buffer to the BBW are on different opposite sides of the property. So I don't know why they would be combined. Yeah. Well, one of the other
considerations was we felt that the the BVW is the most sensitive resource area on the property. >> Coastal Bank largely just provides a mechanical function as a vertical buffer to storms. >> Um if we were to most likely uh looking
at this, if we were to treat the 50 to 100 foot of buffer to the coastal bank independently, we'd be over the 35%. >> Right. Right. That's why I had trouble understanding how we were at 12. >> We'd ask be asking for a variance. Uh
otherwise, we'd be pushing the project into the 50 to 100 to the BBW. >> I Yeah, I think that the house was cited as as carefully as possible to be mainly located outside of the 100 foot buffer zone. There's just a small as there's that small triangle or pi kind of
pies-shaped piece oddly pies-shaped piece that's outside of jurisdictional area. So the structure that's within that 50 to foot 50 to 100 foot buffer zone is mainly patio swimming pool some retaining walls and then a small portion of the proposed um structure.
>> So we're that can be cut down at all to have less coverage in there. Um, >> so we tried to minimize the amount of patio. A lot of the area around the swimming pool is actually lawn. Um, we did try to to minimize the amount of patio around the swimming pool in order
to um minimize the amount of structure proposed within the 50 to 100 foot buffer zone. So we're proposing the patio only in the area between the house and the swimming pool directly to the north. And then the areas around that um will be will be Cape Cod or lawn or
fescue clover lawn around the area. We do need the retaining walls um for the site due to the slope. >> So So you've we in in history they they've always been added together. >> We've never se I don't remember where
we've separated them. >> I don't I don't know. >> Other applicant on other uh other engineers might have. I don't recall that we've ever done it. Well, I'll say that it's not it's not usual to have resource areas that don't
overlap that each have their own buffer zone >> that don't Robin Peter to pay Paul in a way but >> well yeah it's >> absolutely >> but but I would say if you had to you know protect one or the other I agree with you prot you know the coastal
bank's a coastal bank and you can put a wall up and it'll be you know for water to get that high would be a struggle. You never know, it might happen someday, but uh the mitigation is certainly a plus.
Um >> I mean there's uh you know, every expense is there's no expense held on on that. Is there is there going to have to be like a bank on the north east of the property because where the pool is going
there's a huge mound there. It's got to be dug out. >> Yeah. So when you go keep going east, east east, east east, is it eventually going to slope down >> or does it level out? >> There's there's a retaining wall on the east side. So they are proposing um a
greenhouse on the site um for gardening that's located outside of jurisdictional area, but there are um tiered retaining walls on the east side. >> Oh, I see. So that's how they're retaining the bank. Okay, got it. >> Yep. >> Teresa, where is the White Oak that's
going to come down? It's located um >> the little pointer here. >> I'm not going to speak, but I'll walk over and just point. Okay, >> I won't knock on the window for you. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Janet, you have anything? >> Yeah, I have a couple of things. Um you know, whenever we see 16 and 20 inch native trees, you know, we pay attention
and uh being in the buffer zone of the ECAC sort of puts us under a even a more um rigorous review process. So, um it was hard to to distinguish. Um so,
you called out the three white poppplers down on the bank itself. >> Yes. >> But there's 11 alto together. So what I was having a problem with was understanding of the ones that are slated for removal which ones are the invasive white poppplers and which ones are natives. I can't tell the
difference. >> Okay. >> And it becomes important in two places. One is that technically our regulations for tree removal allow tree removal only under certain specified conditions, disease, threat to safety, etc., etc.
and removal necessary from within the footprint of a proposed structure >> where the applicant has demonstrated there's no feasible alternative location for the structure. So the structure is largely outside of jurisdiction. Um, but
the 90% of the trees that are being slated for removal are within the the pool, the patio, and then a whole lot not within any structure or patio or hardscape. And I'm guessing those might be the the uh poppplers, but I can't
tell whether any of those native trees are out in these wooded areas along sort of the western side and a bit over the eastern side. So, I couldn't I couldn't tell whether uh what why those were being removed, what they are. So, if you could
>> we can definitely mark >> label the if you label I mean they're all either invasive or native, right? You have one non-native. So, if you can just call out the the poppplers, >> that would do um well enough um >> for that purpose.
So, um, and I know we haven't made a big deal before about removing trees for hardscape, but technically under the regulations, that is not one of the permitted, uh, um, situations. And the second thing is in the replacement
ratios. So, a couple years ago, we changed our regulations so that they they relate solely to the size of the tree, right? 20 inch and above is 3:1, 2:1, 1:1. with the very next line of the regulation says subject to the following adjustments. If it's an invasive, it's
always one to one, right? Regardless of the size. If it's a native, it adds an extra point to it. So natives over 20 in become four one >> and and 10 to 20 become 3 one. And so as I started counting based on the numbers
that you reported, um I got something closer to 50 trees. So, I think the um I think the confusion here is that the 20-in diameter oak is not in jurisdictional area. >> Yeah. So, I'm going to take that out of my calculation. >> And then there's also a large pine
that's um over 20in DBH that's also located next to that white oak that's just outside of jurisdictional area. So, again, we are mitigating for those trees, but we are um not we have not counted those trees and then we're mitigating it one to one for the 11
white poppplers. Okay, that's that's appropriate. >> Maybe maybe for the next time just omit that, you know. >> Yes, we should. Yes, >> just talk about the the trees that are in our jurisdiction. >> Agreed. Yes. >> Right. It's nice. Um yeah, we're we're we're grateful that you're mitigating for a tree.
>> Yep. We're we're also dismayed that a 20-in oak is coming down under any circumstances. >> Is Yeah. Um, but we know we can't we can't require mitigation for that. But I just want to make sure that what is being slated for removal is
properly identified for removal and is properly uh mitigated. >> Yes, we will show the um white poppplers in a different color so that they're easily >> that would work. That would be exactly work. >> Perfect. >> I I just wanted to add I I'm just
I'm all for what's what's right is right. So, we've always figured 35. Sometimes we play around 10% or what have you. Can you just also get a figure on what the coverage percentage is on the top of the bank there from the 50th
100 on it on its own? >> Um, also if if we have been on record that we allow the two to be the added, then I'm going to go with it until we change the rules. If you can find it.
>> I haven't seen it. Um otherwise I I think >> unaware of allowing it in the past. >> Yeah. >> Well, I don't know. I I've never seen >> it's very unusual to have two so separated that they don't overlap. >> I'm all for whatever what's right if hey if you got to do what you got to do if
it's 35% around that range. I mean we've even gone as high as high 30s. Um u but uh I just think you know a deal is a deal. You know >> it is right. And if and if and if a variance is required, a variance is is required. And you know, our standard is
that it makes sense under the totality of the circumstances. And if the if the coverage in that section is excessive because we're saving we're we're preferring the BVW, that's the kind of grounds that we could point to. So um we just need to make sure that the record
is clear about what we're doing here. I have a question for David. Is there what is the storm water management proposal for the patio and pool? >> It's pvious. It is. >> Um so we weren't
>> there is one Thank you for pointing that out. Uh so on the west side of the house we show a a uh leech pit. Yep. uh >> that will pick up uh the gutters and downspouts from the building and there's an opportunity to to to pipe uh a trench
drain for the patios into that also. So there's nothing along like the retaining wall that will have a drain on that side so that the >> No, but the the retaining wall will be built back filled with gravel as most retaining walls are provide >> so it will help provide so the runoff
anything that comes off that patio >> because you know under the rain like we got last night a pvious patio is only going to absorb >> the first rains here in the summer >> quarter of an inch. [laughter] I have a couple questions. >> Go ahead. >> Maybe I'm not seeing it, but is the view
corridor defined on any of these plans because you mentioned it, but yet I don't I can't tell where it is. >> We we did not specifically draw lines for a view corridor, but we can add that to the plan. Because yeah, if if if it's
been allowed and was passed, you know, approved previously, we need to have it. If it was approved previously, >> which if it been just topping, maybe they never got approval for a view corridor. >> Is that possible?
>> I'm good. It was our understanding that they did either got an ad administrative review permit to to maintain a view there is correct. Yes. >> So it was never a formal view core water
conditions. No. Uh we do show it's very faint but where you see the AE1 up >> north of the coastal top of the bank you'll see uh two lines. On one side, it's defined as uh trimmed vegetation
and then and then scaling it. It's 45 ft. To the west of that, there's another line. That's where we located in the field where basically the limits of tree cutting had
happened in the past uh on the east and the west sides of the property looking out towards the salt pond. So we can better define that on the plan so it stands out better. >> In my opinion, it's not gross at all the way it is the size of the view quarter considering the size of the property. I
mean, it's it's not terrible. I mean, I think it's pretty much the way it should be, >> right? I just wanted to see it on the plan because if we're saying there's a view corridor, it needs to be >> reflect and I do see what he's talking about, but it's not defined as a view
corridor. And I think we just need something that just says view corridor. >> Yep. >> Um >> if I may, um I from my understanding that administrative review was just for um tree removal was not for the
establishment of a view corridor. Um but there was a note within it that they would be coming back with a more substantial filing for um management [clears throat] of that area and establishment of the few corridor. So I think this would be that
>> tightening. >> So we're on to a whole new deal, but what happened before and doesn't matter. We're just make the plan to how we're going to do it. >> Right. >> My other question, the garden beds, are those considered part of the mitigation?
>> No, they are not. There's a separate there's a separate landscape plant schedule um on the right hand side of our plan and that's for the planting within the garden beds. But >> okay, that's the that's what I was asking was where No, we're not. >> So, the landscape plant schedule is the
garden beds. >> Those are the garden beds and they're located um within the retaining walls around the swimming pool. Um yes, correct. >> I just didn't know if anything had been defined for what was going in there and wanted to be sure. >> I still I you know I'm struggling with
the 50 to 100 and especially the one that has the pool and the patio and everything else. So, I mean, I know they're trying to keep it as small as possible. I mean, but I'm still struggling with that because it is
a rather large pool and they've got a spa and then they've got the patio. Um, >> so just I'm struggling with that that aspect of the plan. >> One last question better. Yeah. Um there
was mention of um installing ingground risers along the existing dire it says dire oh no it does say dirt dirt path when where necessary but I'm not seeing
and maybe I'm just missing it the dirt path marked and where the risers I mean obviously they're going to go in that dirt path but Does anybody else see the dirt path? Okay. So, I'm not totally nuts. Okay.
Just a smidgen nuts right now, but um I've looked and looked and I still don't see it. I I'm not exactly sure where he's seen the the note, but I'll look >> it. The note is under outcome two, further maintain the health and
stability of the coastal bank by installing ingground risers along the existing dirt path where necessary to eliminate the occurrence of erosion and siltation on the coastal bank and to the salt marsh below. >> There's no proposed path. So we there is no proposed access. We discussed with
the homeowners a if they were looking to get access down there and we decided it's basically would be a path to nowhere and so we were not proposing any path so I will correct >> that comment's not needed. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> Sorry about that.
>> No, it's fine. I just >> Yep. >> Yeah, that's >> very little caught by me lately. Um, I think that's pretty much it for my questions. >> So, we're going to need to continue
this, but what would work for you in terms of pulling together what you need to >> to show the vehicle color the white poppers? We can do that pretty quickly. >> Except for the coverage count.
Yes. Yeah. So that I can >> Okay. So we can we could continue to your When's your next hearing? >> August 12th. >> Could we continue to August 12th, please? >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> But first, Bob has a couple things. >> Oh, sorry. My apologies.
>> Oh, it's my fault. >> You can't go until you listen to me. So, [laughter] >> yeah, I wouldn't dream of it. Bob, >> we need that expert. >> Okay. I just got a couple of things. Uh the meadow um is that going to be demarcated at all?
>> We can demarcate the meadow area. Yes. And I I think it's necessary to demarcate between where the lawn transitions into the meadow. >> Okay. And what about the restoration area um on the west side uh closer to the house. Doesn't see doesn't seem like
you have any large shrubs there or anything like that. It's um it's mainly the trees and then the shrubs including um ink berry holly and um uh northern bayberry in that area. So it is mainly larger shrubs in that area.
>> Okay. >> Y >> terrific. >> Uh and what about David? The uh paved driveway uh into the site um is that asphalt right now? >> It it is. Uh it was probably paved a
long time ago due to the the steepness of it. Um [snorts] considering uh is it is it pretty steep? >> It it is. Um I can't remember. Uh I'm just I'm just wondering you know it's
close to the wetland. I'm wondering whether you can I mean this is an awful lot of money this project. wondering if you could uh remove that paved area, >> add a little more. We >> we are proposing to remove the pavement from the entrance to the driveway. Um
we're going to put a couple of granite pillars they would like there at the entrance where it splits off and goes to um the house directly to the west. So, the asphalt's going to be removed to that area where it's generally fairly level over the culvert that will be permeable, but then there'll be a drain
and a a small co I'm sorry, a a small cobble apron that transitions into that paved driveway over the steep portion where it will remain paved. And then as it transitions back up into the level parking area, it will go back to um permeable um gravel shell. So just to
just to try to [clears throat] prevent uh the uh the stone from moving that area is going to be >> we will add that to our site plan. >> Yeah, we did it here and then >> Yes. Yes. That's all to become
impervious. Yes. So that's on our plan. So we'll make sure that's on both. >> Yeah. I I agree that that would have to be paved. That would be a mess if it was stone. Especially if you had to plow in the >> winter. That road is bad enough as it is
when it gets plowed. >> And then I have one other thing. [clears throat] Closer to where the pool is. Um there's a large pine that's kind of leaning towards the pool on the northwest corner of the pool.
Um, [clears throat] and I'm wondering that's probably going to have to be removed because the debris from the the pine is going to be, you know, uh, blowing into the pool and you're going to have to mitigate for that if you do remove that pine.
>> I believe that pine is currently shown to be removed and mainly the pines that are being removed in that area are due to the grading that's required. Um, so that's why those pines on the west side of the swimming pool are coming out. Um, and uh, and then just on the west side
in general, there is some regrading that's required for this. And so those trees will have to be removed for the for the regrading. Um, and that's why we've um, mitigated for them. Obviously, >> this Are you sure it's not? Uh, I'm thinking that I I looked at the stakes
out in the field. I'm thinking that it's north of the pool and not direct north. Oh, okay. >> Like northwest of it. >> I'll take a look at that. >> Yeah. >> So, maybe one of these. [cough] I'm thinking that, you know, it's
probably going to be removed uh at some point and why don't we remove it now and mitigate it. Mitigate for it. >> Sure. Okay. We'll take a look. Thank you. It doesn't have any blue taper on it or anything like that. >> No, we weren't proposing to remove anything other than the white popppler
um within the 50oot buffer zone. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Uh that's all I had. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, August 12th works for you. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> All right, Robert, we're ready for a continuence motion.
I'll make a motion that we continue 48 Salt Marsh Way to the hearing on August 12th, 2026. >> Uh second >> Karen >> I >> Eric >> I >> Bob >> I >> Janet >> I >> Elise >> I >> and I say I
>> thank you. >> Thank you guys. >> All right, >> Bradford. [clears throat] >> Next is a notice of intent for 169 Woodland Way. Owners are Thomas and Kathleen Doherty uh as trustees for the
147 Woodland Way Realy Trust. Um map 11K, parcel HC42, D number SCE 10-3785. Uh this is for demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling and swimming pool within the
buffer zone to a postal bank. This is a new application. >> Good afternoon. Good afternoon. David Clark again, Clark Engineering and Tom McLe from MLK Design Group is a lands landscape architect for the project. So
this is a a property on Ryder's Cove. Uh the the resource areas associated with Ryder's Cove are the primarily the flood plane and then um a portion of the land form qualifies as a coastal bank. Um a small
portion of it where kind of looks like an old borrow pit. Um but it's a in a small area along uh the waterfront where the the slope exceeds uh 10 to one and we default to the flood plane contour as the limit of
the coastal bank. So we show the 50 and 100 foot buffers in purple. Uh the existing house on the property is is just touching the 100 foot line. Uh in designing this project, uh we we worked
to to put the new dwelling pretty much where the old dwelling was. Um so all the increases in the 50 to 100 foot buffer are really due to the heartscape, the pool, the patio, and whatnot. And that totals about a little over 2400
square ft. Um there are about 20 trees to be removed uh within the 50 to 100 to accommodate that. There's a lot of understory vegetation in that area too. Uh that but that is
primarily overgrown ornamentals. Uh the house was not maintained probably for at least 15 plus years. Um one of the original owners of the house in Harbor Cove. Uh they they were there a long time.
Um, so all the other development on the property, the driveways, uh, septic systems are all well outside the 100 foot buffer. It it's really just the, uh, the heartscape that that's within your jurisdiction. Um, the remainder of the buffer zone uh,
is if you've been out to the site, you can tell that the understory was maintained by the former owners to to maintain views. But there's a wellestablished tree canopy in the remainder of that that buffer zone that we intend to keep. Um I don't think
there's really need for view improvements. Um got a pretty good view of the of the the cove as it stands now. uh the removal of the 20 trees will certainly help that but uh but a lot of the canopy uh will
will remain and will be enhanced as as Tom will tell you about in a moment. Uh this property um is so large that this project does not need zoning relief. It meets all setback requirements, area requirements.
So uh it's just a conservation permit that we need to move forward. That's all I got to say. >> Good afternoon. Um, as David stated, uh, we're removing about 20 trees exactly, and we're proposing, uh, 40 trees to
mitigate for those removals. Um, existing trees out there are combination of pine and oak. And what we're proposing is a combination of red oak, eastern red cedar, river birch, and amalankier.
Um, as David stated, the property is very large. >> Excuse me for one second. Could you please identify yourself? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, Tom Mkehei Mke Design. Tom, >> um, we're we're hitting uh 12% coverage of
the 35% max. We have an increase of 2,433 square feet of hardscape. Um, our proposed mitigation exceeds that 1:1 requirement at 2,798 square ft. Um,
the existing understory in that resource area is pretty much denude of plant life. It's it's basically just rescue lawn. Um and our mitigation plan shows where we're going to um really restore
that whole area and kind of define a pathway to the existing shed and to the water by reestablishing uh a natural habitat. Um we meet the 75% requirement for native trees and shrubs.
Um, all other disturbed areas due to the proposed plantings will be restored with a native seed mix and all proposed lawn areas will be native drought tolerant fescue. Uh, if you have any questions, happy to go over it.
>> Commissioners, who wants to start? >> I'll tell you [clears throat] something. First of all, when when I went here and found the house behind all the existing foliage, if you will, it these just these situations just make me sad because that place was obviously
gorgeous in the day. >> At one time, it sure was. >> Dave, will the new house be built right on the existing um concrete basement, all that, all that, or is that going to be red? >> No, no, it >> you're going to dig it out and redo.
>> Dig out. Yes, it'll all be removed. You can see the outline of the existing house in green on on the site plan. >> Okay. >> Do we have an opportunity to use the land differently so that the pool and patio are not in our
jurisdiction seems to be land forward. I don't know if it could be would be, but if if wishes were for me, I'd move that pool out of I'm tired of approving pools in our in our 50 to 100 I'm sorry. [laughter]
>> I I just to add on to that, I was wondering the same thing. Can you move the building back more? I mean, I know it before it wasn't in our jurisdiction and now because it's been moved forward,
you everything else has to be more forward, the patio, the pool, which becomes our jurisdiction. I was wondering if there's any way to go back as well, similar to what Elise is asking. >> Um,
short answer is yes, it could. Uh, but we meet all your performance standards in that, um, we're well below the 35% as Tom just pointed out. We're mitigating for the trees that are being removed. The Doores own the property next door.
Uh, I think a couple of you were on the commission when that one went through. They bought this property because of every developer in the neighborhood was looking to buy this. Um, >> Oh, sure. >> and they wanted to control what happens.
As you can see the size of the lot, um, it can be divided. So instead of one 30,000 foot house, you could have two 3000 foot houses here with swimming pools and and all that. And that's what they didn't want to see for the
neighborhood. Um, and since they own the property next door and their house sits on a lot that is well above the area requirements for the neighborhood, uh, it was quite possible you can get a third lot out of
that. Um, and that's not what they want for the Navy. Uh, so they they did consider all that. Um, they knew what the potential was if somebody else came in and developed this lot. And uh, and they I think they've done their best to
to keep it within reason. And again, we're well below the 35% and comply with your regulations. Um, so like I said, the short answer was yeah, we could move it back. Um but um we think it's it's
the best location on the property for the house um and minimize the disturbance to the 5100T buffer. >> Eric, >> yeah, personally I I agree with that. I mean, I can't just talk about one plan
and and argue about the 35% and then you're half a little over what half the 35% and >> and now we're I mean we have to be consistent in my opinion and if you're well below the 35% and that's usually
what we allow. Now I mean the the the meadow was pretty much with the pine grove is staying intact. Uh the mitigation is an excellent idea. putting it off to the side a little bit and keeping the meadow the way it is um is
is certainly a wellthoughtout plan to me besides whether the you know it could be I you know certainly something to keep in mind it could have been developed into two houses uh so that's kind of a win-win
also as far as conservation goes um and the question I had is on the meadow how do you plan on maintaining Are you going to mow it a couple times a year? You just going to have a path going to the uh you know? >> Yeah. So, I think the idea was to follow
your direction on the on the mowing of the meadow. Um whether it's annual or or bianual um and then maintain that 5-ft corridor that's going to be defined by the mitigation planting so that we have foot traffic path from the main house to
the shed and then to the water. >> Right. So that would be a good plan as far as the metal >> and we can demark that other we can demark the path. >> Yeah, you the path would have to be you can't just mow that once or twice a year. So it has to be uh mowed.
>> Um so that's you know that's my two cents worth. Thanks. >> Anyone else? Janet. >> Okay. Thanks. So, um, I feel like I'm going to say the same thing I just said a few minutes ago, but I'll what the heck. I'll say it again because you've
got some incredibly large native trees that are slated for removal here. I mean, I see, you know, not one two 20in oak trees that at that size are easily a 100red years old, as well as a 16-in cherry tree, which is also about a
hundred years old. Um, and I wonder what could be done to save those. And I come back to what the regulations provide about when trees can be removed. That one 20-in oak is just sitting on the edge of the structure. And I don't
understand, you know, maybe that could structure could be moved back a little bit to save that. The other one is is in the way of a patio. Um as is the cherry as is. Um and then there's a bunch that
>> are just the the 10-in pine out beyond everything. the 12inch pines. There's a whole bunch to the southeast of all of this that are slated for removal. Don't know why um grading I assume, but um
you know that's just uh it's not none of them are in the structure in the footprint of the structure. So that's one thing. And the other thing is that again I don't think that I see that you've you're proposing 40. Um, I don't think you're taking into account uh the
native uh addition that comes into it because I got 50 56 when I added three natives over 3 in 13 natives between 10 and 20. Yeah, between 10 and 20. It's so I just would ask you
to take another look at your replacement ratios and what you're proposing because I I think you're missing some of the trees there. And you know, I'll just say for the record one more time, losing a 20-in oak tree and proposing a 2 and 1/2
in caliber red oak just feels like a really bad deal for the ecosystem and the environment. Even if it's four of them, it's going to take them a hundred years to be able to provide the services that these these trees have been providing for a century. Not to mention the carbon that's being
stored that's currently stored in them that's going to be lost as well. [snorts] So, um I I did catch the comment from the >> Okay, I figured [laughter] you were I was looking at you. >> Um so, um we did do some healthy
exploration on sighting the house and this wasn't the first location. We we did try and site it more towards the northeast. Um, but we were running into problems with the conservancy district and also it ended up being more tree
removal going into that like pine grove there. So that's why we kind of landed on the location of the existing building footprint because there's kind of a natural corridor. Unfortunately, there are those very old trees that are there which kind of brings the ratio back up,
right? Um and and the way we're interpreting the bylaw is that um it states the proposed structure where applicant has demonstrated there is no other feasible uh alternative
location. So there's basically a 10-ft offset roughly for our limit of work. That's for construction site access. So that's how we got to that disturbance area. And we're defining a pool and the
structural retaining walls as structures as defined by the planning board. Unfortunately, there's no structure definition and uh the conservation bylaw. So that's how we're defining the pool and the structural retaining
walls. And this is the offset needed for that construction. So that's how we came to that limit of work line and those trees are in that limit of work line. >> Okay. I mean that's you say what you say. I say what I say.
>> And we don't go by planning board definitions. Do >> we add a definition of structure? >> No, probably not. But >> in the in the coastal flood plane only we did. >> Yeah. Um because that's new. >> Um one other question, David. Same
thing. So what is happening on the water side of the pool that I see the at least on the landscape plan the hatching for the um pavers. I assume those are pvious pavers or dry set dry laid pavers.
>> Yes. And we're we're also on on the materials plan. You'll you'll note that I'm pointing out drainage. So, we'll be providing drainage structures for that. >> Okay. Are they on the plan or >> um I don't know if they have been located yet.
>> We show drainage for the the house itself. Y >> um there's there is an opportunity to put an additional structure to if if uh some direct uh conveyances from the patio is required to. Yeah, it's a lot
of patio open and and if it's dry set pavers, >> again, that's semi-pervious, it's not entirely pvious and under a heavy rainstorm, you're going to have runoff. So, I can't tell. I wasn't sure what was happening in that >> unhatched area just to the house side of
the retaining wall. Um the uh >> the drainage structure that is towards the water from that uh appendage to the house on the southwest corner. um that'll also pick up uh um
discharges from the pool equipment cuz the pool equipment will be placed in the basement of that of that portion of the structure. >> Okay. >> So, that's why that one was cited there because we'll be picking up uh um when they drain down the pool for the
winter. That will that will capture all of that. I wish all pool equipment was underground. >> Lar lately a lot of it is. [snorts] >> Um, so presumably when you say draining
down the pool for the winter, it's not chlorinated. >> Yeah, typically. I mean, nobody drains a pool in its entirety for the winter, but they do drain it down 8 in or so to account for those rainstorms that we had last night. Um, but that's really the only reason why it would be drained down
or to make a repair. But in the case of making a repair, that pit's not big enough and they would have to pump the water into a truck and not carry it off site. >> So, okay. Thank you. That's it for me. Thank you. >> Robert, you have anything?
>> Just got a couple of things. Uh, so the shed the shed is going to be re renovated. Is that the story? >> Uh, I believe the shed is remaining, not being touched. >> Not being touched. >> Yep. >> Little old Cape Cod left, huh? >> A little bit.
>> There's not much of a shed there. >> It's not much of one, but it's a Cohog dry for [laughter] >> Okay. Uh next to the shed there's a large oak tree [snorts] and it's looked like it looked like it was um hacked at.
Uh needs to be pruned. Can can that be added to the job? Uh >> there was a lot of damage from that uh coastal storm this past winter. In fact, we had a couple of trees that were completely uprooted that were removed
and I I believe that oak tree suffered a a a branch failure and uh it was trimmed and and taken away. >> Okay. So, got that >> or hacked as you >> Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. Uh okay. Um
there's a m large mitigation area in there. So, that area is going to be mowed. I think Eric had a mowing schedule for the for the meadow. I don't know what what dates you suggest, Eric. [clears throat] >> Yeah, they usually do it late late
summer uh to mow it. Um you just don't want to mow them too early because then you have to mow it twice and you could have critters nesting in meadows in the spring and early summer. >> [clears throat] >> Um,
and that's pretty pristine out there, you know, with the with the fescue, all the fescue, and it's beautiful out there. Um, and those trees aren't going to be touched uh out by the uh out by the marsh and so forth. You're going to leave those alone. >> There's no reason to take any trees or
prune any trees beyond the work limit. No. >> Okay. Um, okay. Some areas are going to be seated with fescue. >> That's just in anticipation of disturbance um
>> for the for the planting of the proposed trees. >> Okay, I think that's all I had right now. Thank you. Um, so I just wanted to kind of recap this where some of the members weren't happy. Uh, it would it be would it be a
adequate plan to have a monetary value on the trees? Uh, if it can't be uh I mean if the I mean obviously it's an old lot. It's the last of the Moheagans. It's a big lot. the house has to go in um to put it. So, do you want to put a
monetary value on the trees over what you can replace them with? And that there's not a lot of places you can plant the trees unless you're going to do the sides. You don't want to ruin the pine grove. Um would that satisfy some members to maybe donate the excess to
the Chattam Tree Fund or um what have you? uh or you or just no don't take don't build the house because we can't take any trees [laughter] down. I mean we have to kind of recap this to our target what our next meeting
>> the the the irony here is that you know we when we see um development projects on undisturbed areas we and they're wooded they're woodlands and we know that and you know 30 or 40 trees are going to come down but there's nothing you can do about that because the
project is being developed. So when you see one where there's an existing house and an existing driveway and you think great because they can just put it right where that is and nothing has to be lost except now you've got a you've got hardscape that's bigger than the actual house. So that's what's driving
everything. And I think the hardscape just feels it feels excessive even though I know it's only 12% because you know it's that's the that's the percentage in there. Um, so the tree loss just feels like it's going so that you know you can have the
outdoor kitchen and the fire pit and the conversation area and all the other things that are that are going in there. Um, I don't know that we have any authority to require, you know, a payment in Lou or something like that. Um,
>> or an area that needs to be mitigated like we've done in the past uh in different areas or something. Uh, >> yeah. I mean, in response to the whether they if they have to up the mitigation the number of replacement trees, it might be challenging on this, but there's plenty of there's plenty of area
outside of jurisdiction. I don't think we have any objection to putting replacement trees in other areas on the lot where they can provide ecosystem services and do all of the good things even though they're not in jurisdiction. So, there might be plenty adequate room
as you're coming in the driveway. >> That's a nice compromise. >> Yes. what what is happening uh u currently you know there's that wooded area off the street and then there's the house once you take the house down I know it's not in our jurisdiction but what's go
what's happening out there is it going to remain wooded and natural >> it's my preference and my direction to the homeowner to keep a wooded buffer between the house and the road Mhm. >> And not clearcut to the street.
>> But you don't know uh specifically what's going to occur. >> From what I understand with the meetings that I've had, that's the route we're going to go. What you see on my site plan, that's what's going to happen. >> Okay. Great. Well, that's that's that's
a benefit anyway. >> That's really a benefit. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else, commissioners? All right. So, we need to continue this. You're going to get us do replacement tree ratios. >> August 12th.
>> August 12th. Yeah. >> August 12th. Wow. Uh we have how soon do you want this? >> Uh since it doesn't have to go to zoning, we we can be back here for August 12th.
>> Okay, that works. >> All right, Robert, make a motion that we um >> continue. Yeah. >> Like to make a motion that we continue
169 Woodland Way to the uh hearing on August 12th, 2026. >> Second. >> Police. >> I. >> Janet. >> I. >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Karen. >> I. >> And I say I. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, gentlemen.
>> All right. Bradford. >> All right. Next up is a notice of intent for 10 Kingsbury Way. Uh, the owner is Colin Hines. Map [clears throat] 8. Oh my gosh. Map 14D, parcel 9B. Uh, DP
number SE 10-3787. Uh, this is for minor lateral additions, second floor editions. Uh, replace a hedge and plant a tree. This is a new application. >> Hello again. >> Good afternoon. Twice in one day. That
Eldridge Southeast. So, we have a little lot, a little flat lot. If we put in two inches of top soil over the whole thing, we'd be out of jurisdiction. Or if we took away 2 in from the rest of the property, we'd be
even more in jurisdiction. >> That's funny. >> This is a fully developed lot. There's no naturalized area within the flood plane. Um, in the back there is some not manicured area, but that's well outside
of jurisdiction. So, the um, Hines's are proposing to expand their modest home by a small amount. Uh, there's a bump out over the existing stone, the bike area. That's for a closet
that will be constructed to the flood plane standard. So, it's going to be a foot higher than than the rest of the house. Under the building code, the first floor needs to be 13. So, the closet just won't have a low
space in it. The porch, they're proposing to expand that. That's partially within the flood plane. And then the other two blobs, if you will, on the plan, those are second floor additions. So, they're able to keep within the footprint.
It is a challenge to see how the flood plane goes because it's right there. I mean, it's we have an 11 one in the middle of the property in the middle of the front yard with a 10 9 next to it. So, it's, you know, it does make it
interesting. Um, mitigation wise, it's pretty minimal what's needed, but what can we really provide that's meaningful? the private hedge that's there. We're proposing to take that out and put in a winterberry hedge and then um
>> for actual mitigation of flowering dogwood sort of incorporated into that. I'd like to say that that would be completely left to naturalize except the neighbor's driveway is right there and they're going to need to prune it over time. So,
it's um I'm not sure what other options we have for mitigation. >> If there are questions, I'm happy to answer them. >> Commissioner, is that anything? >> No. >> Bob, Eric,
>> Karen, >> no. >> No. Anytime you can get rid of a private hedge is a good thing. >> Yeah. >> Winterberry. >> Yay. [laughter] And I really like the winterberry hedge that Eastward planted on on Pawn Street. >> I love that. Every winter it it it I I
admire it. >> Mhm. >> Ones out here, too. Are superb. >> But I like it the way that it's cut and then all the berries are like >> straight. They're they're planer. >> Birds love it. So, it's a win-win.
>> Yeah. There's nowhere else to mitigate on this property. Yes. So, we we can continue this and I think we can squeeze that in for August 12th if that >> um we are going to zoning. I can't remember what date the zoning board will be meeting. So, >> we don't have to squeeze it in.
>> August 27th. >> All right. >> So, we want to do the first first meeting in September. >> That would be great. >> I don't have a calendar year. >> I do. It'll be 9th.
>> So >> 99. >> That works for you, Thad. >> Oh, yes. >> All right. So, continue to September 9th. >> Make a motion that we continue 10 Kingsbury Way to the hearing on
September 9th, 2026 for an order of conditions. >> Second. >> Karen, >> I. >> Eric, >> I >> Bob >> I >> Janet >> I >> Elise >> I. >> And I say I. Thank you. >> Next up, Bradford.
>> All right, moving along. Uh, we have a certificate of compliance request for 101 Oyster Pond Furlong, homeowner or previous homeowners, uh, Edward Scopas, uh, Cadam Oyster Pond Properties LLC. Map 13E, parcel 25-R24,
D number SE10-3586. This was for a fam uh single family dwelling remodel, front porch and entry edition, second floor edition, new walkway, new patio and basement bulkhead with native plantings. Uh the applicant has requested a continuence to August
26, 2026 uh to install some additional mitigation plantings. Am [clears throat] am I correct in understanding that we we've continued this a few times already? So, am I correct in understanding that this August 26th won't be continued again?
This will be the final one. >> It shouldn't. I met with them yesterday and I think we're all on the same page. This is their second uh continuence request. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Can I ask a question though? >> Yeah. >> So, they're continuing to install mitigation plants.
>> Yes. Aren't they going to need an extension for survival of those plants? Some >> it's a small number of them. Um their mitigation area is uh the square footage it should be. It's
just a little bit lighter than I would expect it to be. Um so I >> can we add their survival as a continuing condition to the certificate of compliance? >> I don't see why not. >> Okay, that that would solve that. >> Yeah. >> Okay, cool. And I I they're they understand that they'll need to care for
those new plantings >> in perpetuity. >> Yeah. Yeah. [laughter] >> All right, Robert. We're going to continue [clears throat] this to August 26th. >> Okay. Uh make a motion that we continue 101 oyster pond furlong to the uh
hearing on August 26, 2026. >> Second. Elise >> I >> Janet >> I >> Bob >> I >> Eric >> I >> Karen >> I >> and I say I >> Next up Bradford. >> All right. Next is a cert certificate of
compliance for 65 Sears Road. Uh owners are Sears Point Summer LLC map 11A parcel 2-J14 D number SE 10-3484. Uh the agenda says it's for a pure reconstruction. It's actually for a
revetment extension in fiber roll array. Not sure where that confusion happened. Um regardless though, um the revetment looks uh in good and substantial compliance as does the fiber roll array.
Um they do regular nourishment as needed. Um so I think this one's okay to approve. >> Hi Sean. >> Good afternoon. Sean Riley, Ty Bond here. Uh if there's any questions representing the applicant,
>> commissioners, anyone? >> No. No questions. >> Make a motion that we approve the certificate of compliance for 65 Sears Road. >> Aaron, >> I >> sorry. >> I, >> Eric, >> I. >> Bob,
>> I. >> Janet, >> I. And I say I. >> Next up, >> I'm going to read the next two in together. Um, certificate of compliance requests for uh 30 325 Foxhill Road, uh,
Eastward Hoe Country Club, map 10 M, parcel 2-1, uh, DP number SE 10-2412 uh, for coastal beach stabilization and nourishment as well as uh, D number SE
10-2149 uh, for proposed beach vegetation and bank protection. Um, both of these are fairly old uh orders um that are being closed out and as I've mentioned for the past couple of
hearings, they're working through their uh COC's to close out and are planning to file a u single comprehensive shorefront management plan uh sometime this fall. Um so again, I think these are both okay to approve. Okay, [clears throat]
Sean. >> Uh, no comments. Just here if you have any questions, >> commissioners. >> All right, we're good. I'll >> make a motion that we approve the certificates of compliance for 325
Foxhill Road, SC 102412, and SC 102149. >> Second. >> Elise. >> I, >> Janet. >> I, >> Bob. I >> Eric. >> I >> Karen. >> I >> And I say I. >> Next up, Bradford.
>> Next up is a COC request for 90 Honeysuckle Lane. Owners are Eric and Gina Augur, map 13B, parcel 17, DP number SE 10-3391. Uh this was for construction of a canal levered addition over an existing deck,
landscape improvements, construction of existing stairs, and replacement of a retaining wall and expanded driveway. Um there are some slight minor deviations from the existing plan. I think the driveway was shifted slightly a couple
feet to the left. Um but other than that, I think it's okay to to issue. Um the the resource area itself looks very dense which is uh fantastic. >> Anyone [clears throat] here from that property? >> I don't see anyone.
>> Commissioners, any comments or questions? >> No. >> All right. Robert, >> make a motion that we approve the certificate of compliance for 90 Honeysuckle Lane. >> Second. >> Karen. >> I. >> Eric. >> I.
>> Bob. >> I. >> Janet. I >> police >> I >> and I say I. >> Next up, Bradford. >> All right. Next up is a COC 485 Cole Drive. Uh owners are George and
Susan Foot. Map 5D, parcel 1- SM I15. Uh D number SE 10-3520. Uh this was for removal of existing house, construction of a new house, and removal of invasives and restoration of
natives. Um, [clears throat] again, this one, um, looks fine. There was one one minor, um, issue where the the rent station wasn't on the original plan, but it was listed specifically in
the order. Um, so I don't know what happened back in the day, but um, again, I I think it's okay to to issue and it was con the rinse station was conditioned, though it was not on the plan. >> Okay.
Commissioners, anything >> what he says? >> All right, Robert. >> Make a motion that we approve the certificate of compliance for 85 Cole Drive. >> Second. >> Karen, >> I >> Eric >> I >> Bob >> I >> Janet
>> I >> Elise >> I >> and I say I. >> All right. And >> next up, Bradford. >> Last COC request for the day. Uh COC 477 Squanto Drive owners Daniel and Anna I'm
going to pronounce your last name wrong. Shaosi. Uh map 10C parcel 14A. Uh D number SE 10-2181. Uh this was for construction of a 24x 24
detached garage. Um and again there were some minor deviations. They were outside of our jurisdiction. So, okay. To approve, >> right? >> Anyone? >> No. >> All right. Bob, >> I move that we approve the certificate
of compliance for seven quanto drive. >> Second. >> Elise. >> I. >> Janet. >> I. >> Bob. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Karen. >> I. >> And I say I. >> Next up, Bradford. >> All right. Next up is a uh violation for
uh 96 Tippy Run. Uh, the owner is Bruce Lavine. Map 14 A3, parcel 3-N3. This was for unauthorized clearing of trees and ve vegetation performed by uh
the owner of 211 Tisquantum Road. Um, so a little history. >> Yeah, that would be great. Be Yeah, thank you. >> Yeah. Uh, some history on this. We received a call in uh May of this year
about some trees that had been removed over the winter. Um [clears throat and cough] we went out and it's a little bit difficult to see the area. Um Oh, thank you. Sorry. I'm just going to share my screen
quickly. Um so we went out to see the area. It was rather difficult to see from the street. However, we do have aerial imagery taken from um December of 2025.
And let me see if I can make these photos larger. Uh hopefully. Oh, that's not that much bigger. [laughter] Um, but you can see here December 2025, there were uh trees and then a followup
in March of 2026 where you can clearly see that there's been some sort of disturbance. Um, we reached out to the homeowners of 96 Tippy and 211 to Squantum um asking for permission to get
out onto the property. um 96 Tippy uh did respond back to us and so we're able to get out there um earlier this month um where we could see that yes there were in fact quite a few trees that had
been cut um it's difficult to get a full view of the area um but we did notice um I counted uh somewhere around 50 tree stumps that
had been cut 50. Um, ranging from relatively small uh trees maybe 4 to 6 inch diameters up to uh some pretty large ones. This one
where my cursor is um is about 2 in in di or excuse me 2 feet in diameter. Um and so there's at least two very large trees of of that caliber. Um, and then quickly this morning I put together a
rough uh map of the area. Um, just so we can kind of see what we're looking at. Um, so 96 Tippy Run 211 here. Um, this reddish area is uh where the tree
clearing occurred. Um, while [clears throat] I was out there too, I also noticed this kind of purpley area where trees weren't flush cut to stumps like they were in the red area, but there was signs of uh tree topping that
had occurred in this purple area. Um, and then we had noticed some um didn't look like any trees were removed, but a lot of the debris was kind of placed on in this blue area. Is that northern
purple area on 211's property or 231's property? >> It might be a bit of both. Um without knowing exactly where property lines in this area are. Um I wasn't sure
definitively. Um but I I I want to say the property line maybe comes kind of here. So it may be a bit of both. Um hard to say. I think we need someone to survey the area so we we would know for sure.
>> So what's the brown? What's that mean? [clears throat] >> Uh this this reddish brownish area. >> That's where they actually cut the trees >> and the debris was left. >> And the debris >> So they didn't even they didn't even >> take the debris away. >> Yeah.
>> Um well I think you have to this is very difficult. Um I think um and and the property on the very south where there's purple, whose property is that? >> Fish and wildlife. >> US fish.
>> Um so let's start with the fish and wildlife because it's the smallest. How do you how do you deal with that? >> Uh we're currently we're not I mean it basically just if if you've been out there um there's a lot of erosion going
on just south of that. Um trees are down all over that area as a result of you know the revetment and the uh wave action that's taking place. It's been cutting back on the bank that so what they did is they just left a few trees sort of over on the US Fish and Wildlife
property that just sort of fallen over. There was no cutting there. Um we can certainly reach out to um Grace at US Fish and Wildlife and let them know about that. >> I'm sure they'll probably want the debris taken away. Well, >> so who's who's responsible for this?
>> Well, that's what we're trying to tell you. We we believe that the person who owns 211 to Squantum did the cutting. >> Mhm. >> Did the cutting on someone else's property. >> Did they notify 96?
>> Well, maybe this is a good time to break in and ask attorney Ford to to chime in. He represents Mr. Lavine, who is the owner of 96 Tilip. >> Good afternoon. Uh, good afternoon members of the commission. Uh, for the record, attorney Mike Ford, I've been
retained by the Lavine family, the owners of 96 Tippy Run, and um, they were alerted by uh, their neighbor at 231 to Squantum um, of the cutting. They're not there during the
winter and we believe the cutting occurred sometime between December and the end of March, but we're not positive. Um, the owner of 231 reported to my client, the Lavines on 96 that
the owner of 211 called the owner of uh 231 and said that he was going to do some um uh tree trimming and topping and did um 231 need any trees done while he was having it done? And um 231 said no, he
didn't want any trees cut on his property. Um, as you can see, there is a purple area that u has been identified to the north that u apparently a portion of it may be on 231's property, but um
my client came down, found the mess, um got in touch with u conservation agents, u invited Paul and Bradford out to the house and they've been out a couple of times. so that they've been able to to put
together this this map. Um we believe through um um emails that 211 231 got from 211 that 211 is responsible.
Um we're not suggesting that 211 did it personally but caused it to happen. Um we don't know who the landscaper or landscapers were who who did the cutting. Um my client has has lost um
significant privacy and he understands the um the entire ecosystem has changed and needs to be restored and um part of my job um and um other council who have also been retained in this matter who
I'll be working with will be making sure that Tulin um steps up to the plate to to get this done because it is 211 that did this cutting. So, uh we're here to encourage you to issue the enforcement order. We're obviously issued on the
enforcement order because um we're the land owner. We're kind of an indispensable party under the statute. You got to name the land owner, but um my understanding that the order that the staff has put together will be directed
um to the owner of 211. So, um, we're going to work very closely with, um, with your staff and and trying to get this restored and, um, making sure
that 211 um, steps up to the plate on this. >> Okay. So, that's our that's our first step then is to issue an enforcement order and come up with a restoration plan. >> I believe it is. >> Yep. Okay. >> And this is for 96. >> That's correct.
>> Yep. So, we're identifying the property owner as Mr. Ford alluded to. We have to identify him as uh you know the property that the trees were cut on. Uh the enforcement order basically is directed to his client, but it names the owner of
211 to Squantum as the person who did the cutting. Um so that we're in the preliminary stages here. I think this is if we issue the enforcement order, you know, we have the ability to change things if more information comes in down the line, but at this point, um, we'd
like to give them 60 days to file a restoration plan, uh, which Janet has pointed out many times, uh, must be done to the satisfaction of the commission and then we'll see where that goes. This is really a difficult violation because
those trees uh Eric are just sort of laying on top of each other and there's a lot of big trees out there. We couldn't even crawl around out there. It was that it was that bad. It's probably over half an acre somewhere in that neighborhood. >> So even after restoration plan 211 gets the view. Um well
>> so that all depends on what the restoration plan is. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Um but as far as the I would think the con It probably wouldn't help hurt to get do they have probably have legal counsel on this town legal counsel, right? >> Well, we haven't got to that stage yet,
but I mean we certainly can go down that route after. Yeah. Because as far as work with the way we would work it that 96 would be responsible for the rest whether if they have a you know I don't want to get into it but if they have a civil suit they can add on what the restoration cost would be on the silver
suit I would imagine but 96 probably would be responsible for their property not making 211 you know chase 211 down the road to pay for the restoration. That's that's the only thing I'm >> It's not all that different from the one we just talked about last time where
somebody cut on somebody else's. So, you can say that the 96 is is is being subjected to the order because they are the owner and they're going to have to give um permission for the work to happen on their property. But 211 is the responsible party and is responsible for
carrying for preparing a restoration plan approved by the commission and then you know implementing that plan. ultimately >> and I would hope that it would also be approved by 96 whatever restoration plan >> approved. Yeah, it's their land. They
have to >> I mean and by the commission obviously, >> right? Obviously. Okay. >> I just want to make sure that it meets your property owners. >> But the thing about it is if the some of the stumps are how how big? >> Two feet. >> 20 inch.
>> Yeah. You're not going to buy uh trees that I think there would be a monetary value of a fine of sort to to this. I mean, >> you're not going to >> I think in this instance where, you know, we have the benefit of a private council with a with the land owner
pursuing a civil action in that nature. Um there may be some order or the from the court down the line that requires that they pay the town or they pay his client. Uh, I mean it's going to be >> we have a long way to go before we get
it going to go and it's a difficult restoration project. You're exactly right. This it's it's massive. So, >> it's not something you can just go in and say, "Let's put a little plan together. We'll plant some plants and we'll restore it." It's it's more difficult than that. >> But if they want to start off with just
cleaning what was cut and take away, we can authorize we can file and do an order for that, right? So they don't and we we have made attempts twice to get a hold of uh the owners at 211 and first we were denied access. Um we went back to follow up and uh they basically told
us to leave. Um >> uh it wasn't the the individual who owns the property. It was his I believe she said it was his mother-in-law, but we were asked to leave. Um so we haven't had any cooperation at this point. Um so we'll see where it goes and obviously we'll get council involved if we have
to. >> Right. Because when it when it comes down to it's the homeowner and not we're not steering it to the land some landscaper that who knows who it is. It's the homeowners it ends up being the homeowner's responsibility. >> Well yeah because they paid >> if I can Mr. Chairman I just want to
make it clear that the owner of U 96 my client Lavine who is the property owner upon whose property the damage was done we intend to look for full restoration. >> Good. Good.
>> And so, um, that that's our goal is to put it back. He's they've lost all their privacy. You go out there and go into the rooms of their house. You can look right over at the other house now and look back. And so, um, uh, they're going to make sure that this
this property gets restored. And so, uh, we look forward to working with the commission to put the resource area back the way it was. >> Good. >> Okay. Well, we'll take step one today and make a motion to for a restoration order and for a an enforcement order.
>> All right. With that, >> I move that we uh issue an enforcement order uh for 96 Chilip Run. >> Second. >> Karen, >> I. >> Eric, I >> Robert, >> Janet, I
say I. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Ford. Next up, Bradford. >> Next up are minutes to be approved for May 27th, 2026 and June 10th, 2026. >> At least you you are not here for both
of those. Okay. >> Yeah, we can do them together. [snorts] Anyone have you have any >> I made some corrections online but other than that? No, not verbally. >> All right. Well, then Robert, we're
ready for a motion. >> Uh make I'll move that we approve the minutes uh for May 27th, 2026 and June 10th, 2026. >> Second. >> Karen, >> I. >> Eric, >> I. >> Robert, >> I. >> Janet,
>> I. And I say I. >> And one final motion. Robert, >> move. >> I move to adjourn. >> Second. >> Karen. >> I. >> Eric. >> I. >> Bob. >> Hi. >> Janet. >> Hi. >> Elise. >> Hi.
>> And I say I. >> The last time we'll see stuff like that nowadays.