Well, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Good afternoon. This is a hearing of the CHAM Conservation Commission being held on May 14th, 2025 in accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act
and the Town of Cadam Wetlands Protection bylaw and Regulations. My name is Karen Latner and I serve as the chair. Today's hearing is being broadcast live on Exfinity channel 1072 and is being recorded for the ondemand archives available on the town's
website. It's being conducted in person, by phone, and by video conference. The agenda, instructions on how to attend, and copies of documents for review are posted on the town's website. To all participants, whether attending by phone
or online, please remain muted unless you've been recognized by the chair. When recognized, please identify yourself for the record. If you're attending by phone, you can mute and unmute by using star six. If you're online and you are not a commissioner,
please keep your camera turned off unless you've been recognized. Indicate that you wish to speak by using the raised hand feature. So that we have a record of a quorum, I will now ask each commissioner to indicate their presence. Vice Chair Elise Gordon, present. Janet
Williams, present. Cheryl Missouri is not here. Eric Hilbert present. Abd Delvakio present. Paul Johnson present. And I'm here. So we've established we have a quorum. Is there anyone who has any announcements, comments, or future
agenda items on anything other than the properties on the agenda today? You may comment on those properties when they're being heard. I am not seeing any raised hands there. I'm not seeing anything here. There any
commissioners? I will say I'd love to thank the properties this week that are on the agenda because they all have applied to ZBA. So, finally, we have are able to easily move forward with
properties. Before we begin the agenda, Paul, are there any announcements of any continuences today? Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good afternoon, commissioners. We have uh two announcements for uh continued hearings. The first is 186 Strong Island Road and that will be
continued to July 23rd, 2025. And the second is 44 Waterview Circle and that will be continued to December 4th. No, that's when it was continued. Oh no, I'm sorry. I This is a new way we're having to do the agenda.
So, it does get confusing. Uh that's what Crystal put on here. So, let's see. Yeah, that's when it got we now have to reflect when the property was continued the which meeting it was continued from
and that was December 4th, 2024. Okay, Crystal, I don't think they asked for a continuence. They didn't. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Did 44 water circle get continued again or I know they have their ZBA
approved but are we good? No, they didn't. Okay. All right. Apologize. So, at this point, Paul Whiteman, yep, that's it. Adams is a conservation agent, will lead us through the agenda. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, first on the agenda is a submitted field change
request. The address is for Harborview Road. The applicants are Roger and Elaine Morell, Trustees, Math, Parcel H49, DP number SE 10 3665. project is demolition of an existing swimming pool patio retaining walls and construction of a new swimming pool
patio retaining walls and expanded parking area. The field change request is to replace a portion of the existing stockade fence around the pool exlosure with a metal rail fence and replace four existing timber steps and replace 20 ft of the retaining wall.
Good afternoon, David Clark, Clark Engineering on behalf of the Merrills who are uh in attendance. Um, so this is an ongoing project. Uh, we were back before you uh last year or earlier this year for uh invasive
species work. That's still going on. Um, but they at this point they would like to replace the fence uh along the seawward facing portion of the the property. Uh, it was a comment by one of the commissioners back when we were getting the pool uh permitted uh whether
we were going to do anything with the fence. thought about it and it was a good idea. So, we're going to be switching we're asking to switch that fence from the six-foot plastic stockade to the uh to the steel uh painted uh fence along that
whole frontage. The southwest corner of the elevated area where the pool is, uh there's some timber um timbers there that support uh the landscape area that's within that's inside the fence. those are are rotted and they'd like to
replace those while they're at it. And then uh the last part of the request are there's some old timber uh steps they'd like to replace. That's their their access to the uh to the neighborhood access down to Harding's Beach. So that's where they frequently
use uh portion of the property they frequently use to access the beach. And that's the extent of the changes we're requesting. Thank you. Okay, commissioners, any questions, comments? Anybody? Quick one.
Just to confirm, the the retaining wall and the steps will be in the same material, timber and the same dimensions in the same either timber or stone for the steps and and most likely timbers for the the wall. Okay. And uh looking at the at the new fence is a is a is a
great improvement. Love it. Thanks. Anybody else? Bob, go ahead. David, after these are installed, uh, anything going to be planted around these just to um, number one, stabilize the soil and
also prevent any, uh, invasive weeds that come up uh, after uh, the fencing is put in and the and the wall and the steps. Uh, what what happens is if you have barren soil, you're going to get a lot of weed seeds germinating in that.
So, it' be nice to understood. Um, Blue Flax is still doing the uh mitigation work and restoration work and it's such a small area. I'm sure they they'll advise the moral morals uh on what should go there uh for ground cover to
stabilize it. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? I only have one question. Is the entire stockade fence being replaced or just what is facing the water? Just facing
the water. The fence to the west protects them, gives them the privacy because there's 40 houses in the subdivision that access and the house to the east. Uh I've just was told tonight this afternoon that it just sold and it might be coming down. So a stockade
fence on that is a good buffer for Okay. I I just wanted to make sure because that wasn't clear on the plan how much of it was being replaced. All right. Um any other questions, comments? Just one one quick question. I
forgot the uh is that Astro Turiff that's next to the pool? That that is uh somebody else's property where the the steel fence the picture. Oh, that's that's someone else. That's that's just Okay. That's a sample of what the fence
will look like because I see I asked yesterday. Okay, good enough. Thank you. Will there be any space at the bottom of the fence? I I had mentioned that in my email uh or or and
uh I don't think it's needed given the spacing of the the steel uh vertical. True. I think any critter that's going to be able to get under it can certainly fit through the spacing of the true. Okay. Uh, anybody else?
Then I think we can have a motion, please. I move that we approve the field change request for four harbor view road cir uh for harbor view road. Second. Okay.
Paul, hi. Janet, I Eric, I. Bob, hi. And I say I. So, you're all set. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Paul. The next Next on the agenda is a submitted notice of intent. The address is 186 Strong
Island Road, David and Judith Dino, map 13m, parcel 48 48, SE number 10372. The project is construction of an 8 by8 swimming pool and expansion of an existing patio, seasonal rollout
boardwalk, seasonal access steps, installation of mitigation plantings, invasive plant management, and native plant restoration. This was continued from April 2nd, and the applicants requested a continuence to July 23rd, 2025.
So I move that we continue 186 Strong Island Road to July 23rd, 2025. Second. Okay. Bob, I Eric. I Elise. Hi. Janet. Hi. Paul. I. And I say I. Okay. Paul. The next next
on the agenda is another notice of intent. The address is 44 Waterview Circle. Grace. Delanaros. I'm terrible with names. Map 3C, parcel 64E-J9, DE P number SCE10 3705.
The project is proposed construction of a deck and sun room within the existing footprint of the deck at the rear of the house. This was continued from December 4th, 2024 and the ZBA approval was given on 58.
Great. Thank you. Welcome. Do we have anybody for Waterview? Okay, Cameron. Good. Go ahead. Yes. Uh good afternoon commission. Cameron Larson with ECR representing the applicant for 44 Waterview Circle. Um
here to give the commission an update and uh hopefully seek an approval today for this. Actually Cameron because it's been since December. Could you kind of go over everything as though you haven't come before us because I mean I had trouble
even remembering the property and had to go back out. Yeah. Not a problem at all. Um, so we've been in front of the commission um two times at this point. Um, to give you guys a refresher on the project, um, it's a it's a residential property.
There's an existing home on the site. There's a an existing deck off the second floor to the rear of that home and then the home is surrounded by typical lawn and landscape areas. Um, it's on Taylor's Pond. ECR delineated the limit of a um bordering vegetative
wetland to the salt marsh associated with Taylor's Pond. That's all more than 100 feet from the work area. Um but to the rear of the home, there is a steep slope that um down to Taylor's Pond. Uh based on the definition or the D policy,
there's an established coastal bank to the rear of the home. So that's what set uh sets our buffers for this project. Um the the 50 foot and 100 foot buffer extend over the back of the the site here. Um what we're proposing is to
convert that back deck into a sun room and as well as uh a small deck as well. So it'll be converted to a second floor sun room and deck um all within the same footprint. Um right now there's currently gravel underneath that deck.
Uh we are proposing that to be concrete just to make it a little more usable for the property owner. Um we've calculated that square footage and included it um in your uh table that's on our plan. So
we have a 340 square ft increase in that hardscape based on the the footprint there. Um so we're providing mitigation to offset that. Um at our first meeting there were some questions and and a request for additional information that
came up. Um there was the commission requested some more details on performance standards, variance request. Um the the table on the mitigation plan etc. Um we met again to present that material. Uh at that point things were
satisfied but we still hadn't had the ZBA approval. Um at this point we finally do have the ZVA approval. Um, and we are now back here seeking your approval for this project. Um, I'm happy to share the screen, the plan on the
screen if you need to. Uh, otherwise, you know, happy to address any questions the commission may have. Yeah, I would like it if you share the screen. That's fine. Okay. No problem. All right. So, the plan should be coming up now. It is.
Excellent. Um, so Waterview Circle here off to the left, our existing home kind of centered here on the page. Um, we're showing the proposed sun room and proposed deck off the back. Again, that's all within the footprint of the existing deck. Um, this
purple dash line here indicates the top of the coastal bank. Uh, and then our mitigation plantings all along the top of that coastal bank. So that'll essentially uh restore existing lawn back to natively vegetated buffer zone.
Okay. Thank you. Um I do see that you also added the 50 foot and 100 foot lines which is very helpful that we had asked for. Um, and I want to make sure yes, you've
put where the erosion control will be. So, you have done that that I had a note about and the width of the path which we asked for. Um, we also, it had been mentioned,
um, the wind surfers on the beach. And what are you doing about that? Uh, yes. So, they're I believe they're just kind of storing those wind surfers in that area along the water. Obviously, they're, you know, that's where they're
being used. Um, I think there was some discussion about possibly, you know, putting a some type of kayak rack or or something down by the water. Um, we're not proposing that at this point. Um, you know, we could c certainly acceptable to a condition requiring all
that equipment be stored, you know, in the upland um and avoid any, you know, storage in that wetland salt marsh area. Okay. I'm going to open this to other commissioners first and then I'll
continue. Anybody? Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. I'll stay I'll stay on that topic that we were just on. I would prefer a a rack for those rather than relying on them being moved up land. So, if that's possible, that would be terrific.
Um, yeah, I I kind of mentioned that last time. It would be great. I mean, technically you provided the mitigation necessary. I would have rather seen a little less mitigation in the rack instead. I think it would have been more beneficial than than that. But,
um, now I'm kind of in the air about it because the mitigation has been provided. Um, it would be they also have to provide mitigation for putting cement in the NDZ, which I'm not real keen on
hearing that, which I think is a new development at least. Well, that would be a good trade then would be the I I really don't love that you are taking something that's right now gravel and making
it impervious and it's in the ND NDZ. I'd be happy to uh what I could do is I can share a photo real quick of that area. Uh it is not it's not a new development. So, that was part of our initial
proposal. See here, I'm going to show you a photograph of uh the deck in that gravel area here. Um All right. Right. So, here's uh here's the work area, obviously, the existing deck. So, everything's within
that footprint. Um, so the property owner would like to convert that gravel that'll be underneath underneath the deck, underneath the sun room to uh a concrete patio. Um, right. So again,
it's not a Right. Now, gravel lets water if it's there, if it gets there, seep into the ground. A cement slab doesn't. Certainly, I understand. Um the so obviously you know where the sun room is
there's not going to be any water exactly in that footprint. Um the deck will have blank spacing so some water will get through that similar to how it is right now. Um it'll it'll you know it's a minimal amount of water. It'll be you know flow right off to the lawn area where it'll infiltrate in the lawn. It's
not a it's a very flat lawn back there. It's not a slope until you get out back to that bank. Um, so I don't I don't see there being any, you know, infiltration issues or any erosion, you know, potential for erosion or or any type of
sedimentation problems here with that. But you have provided the mitigation for for that. You've figured that square footage in, right? Correct. So we've we've that's exactly what we've provided. So we've used the calculations based on the the hardcape in that buffer
zone and provided that appropriate mitigation. So, what was the second option? It would bring the the the watercraft up to the property. Yeah, I'd simply I would simply recommend that the commission, you know,
include a condition that Well, I don't know how it's getting forced. I mean, we're not going to drive over there and look at the end of the season to see if it's gone. But anyway, is that just that's just for the off season? Yeah. I mean the concern is well when in the offseason I you know I would expect they
could be pulled completely out of there and put on the concrete you know. Yeah. I think they would be stored away in the offseason. It would be during the season where you know here's your wetland line down here your path. That's just that's kind of contrary to our
experience with human nature to to drag those all the way up that path every time they use them. That's one project that's easy to forget to do. I'm sorry. I didn't mean I meant just during the off season they would be dragged away. Oh, that's what I thought.
But when it's not off season, the keeping them out of the salt marsh and off the bank is the is the important thing we tell everybody. Yes. Correct. Right. So, is that a yes or what is it? You've agreed to the for
the condition for the rack. It have to go to the zoning. that No, I'm not saying we I I I haven't spoken to the applicant about installing a kayak rack or anything like that. I'm I'm suggesting that, you know, they they be stored in the upland area, landward of the salt marsh and landward of the
boarding vegetated wetland. Offse. No, I'm sorry. So off season, they'll be completely removed from the waterfront and they'll be removed up to the house in the offse. During the season, they'll be stored down here at the bottom of the
bank landward of the wetland. So, they'd be in this upland area along the path there. There is room, you know, to store the small uh whatever they are, the stand up paddle boards or or wind surfers, whatever they are in that upland right there.
Yeah. Two or three times dragging them things up there in low tide and that'll that'll change their minds. Um, I don't know. I I I'll What is What do you want to do? Look at me. It's up to everybody. Um,
I think we'll wait for other comments, Bob. Yeah. I'd like to see the rack myself. Yeah. Uh, also, there was a there's that shed. Uh, you're going to find out if that was permitted. Um, we talked about that before as well. I have a note saying they have a burnt building
permit. Oh, they do. Okay. I think as we asked about the shower, the timber steps, I don't have anything further on whether those were permitted or not.
Oh, and I'm glad you brought that up. I I should have mentioned that. So, you're right. The shed did have a building permit. Um, obviously we have the path that exists with those steps to traverse down to the pond. Um, what we have done since the last meeting, we did bump up the mitigation area. So, we're actually
beyond the 2:1 to account for the the um pavement. Um, we we've added some additional to account for that, you know, the shed and the path. So, we've gone from 680 square feet up to 850 square feet. So, you know, we're going,
you know, above to to account for those those items to account for the shower and the timber steps or because the shed was already permitted. Well, the shed was one of the discussions was the shed, we weren't ever sure if it was permitted through
conservation or not. So, it was, you know, the shed's about 140 square feet, I think. Um, you know, you have the four foot wide pathway and then, um, you know, the shower's small. It's, you know, I don't. So you're asking us to after the fact
approve those because you've increased the the mitigation, but is that reflected in the net change those buildings that the shed, the
shower, the steps? Uh currently on the plan, let's see, it shows the 340 net change. So that accounts for that that concrete. So we've so the shed's about 140 square feet I think we calculated
that and then the shower can't be much more than you know 30 40 feet at most. Um so what we've we've kind of estimated 140 plus that we're at 170 square feet is what we're providing for additional mitigation.
So the shed is at the top of the bank. You're talking 180. So that's 520 and then you don't have enough mitigation because you're at
850. The sha the shower is within the 50 I believe. It's not on the plan, so I can't say for certain. Oh, yes, it is. It's just not marked. Believe the shower is right over in that
area. Yeah, it's in the 50. So, you don't have enough mitigation. Then, if you're saying you're including the shower, the shed, and I don't know, we didn't even you didn't discuss the square footage or the timber steps. It
can't be much. But already you're you're not two for one. I I guess that the Yeah, I mean the fact we we tried to include as much. We're kind of maxed out for mitigation out back there to be totally honest. You know, there's not a lot. You can put the boat rack in. Sure. I suppose that would
be, you know, to go to ZBA. The only thing is it has to go to ZBA. I understand. I would hope it wouldn't have to go back to ZBA and put this off any longer for a boat rack, kayak. Have to go back either.
So what um I mean we're the sorry unbelievable. So I I just you know we can't like say oh okay you don't have enough mitigation and that's okay. So yeah, you're trying
to say you have greater than two for one and according to what you've just said and my math, you don't have enough. So something's got to give here. And you
could not do the cement underneath, which I'm not keen on because this is NDZ, no disturb. Um, and it's gravel now. I mean, obviously they've been using it that way before. And I
understand you say the sun room rain can't get through, but it can come. If it were coming at the house, it would go underneath. You know, it's I don't know. I'm going to let everybody else chime in. I'll chime in. I think that's a
actually a a good solution for everybody if you leave it as as gravel, as pvious. Um, and I I I'm struggling to think about why you would do that, why you would put concrete in where it is gravel, but whatever. If you left it, then you wouldn't have to mitigate for
that. You wouldn't have to um take the risk of having to go to zoning to get a rack. So, um, your your numbers would all be fine as they are. I agree. It's anybody depends on how badly they want the concrete there. There's also a Well, never mind. I'm not going to talk
about the purpose. Go ahead. Anybody I agree with the leaving the gravel as the as a solution for the short mitigation. Anybody else have a comment comment thought?
Yes, I agree. Uh leave the gravel as is. All right. So now you've heard I I don't think I even have to ask the other two, but you've heard at least four people who have said the same thing. Okay. I I think that I I see where the
commission's coming from. Um is the commit are we in a position where we can, you know, approve this with the condition we'll get you a revised plan that states it'll remain as gravel. Sure. Um, you'll need to update, make sure
when you give a revised plan that you update your net change so that it reflects the shed, the rent station, and call them out as this is what is the mitigation and the change is
for the timber steps. Um, anything else, you know, and what else? Just make sure you call it out so that it's in the record. Otherwise, it won't necessarily be
recognized as having been approved this time around. And I think you want to do that. And I'll call out the sun room, but I'll exclude the proposed deck. Is that correct? Um, well,
yeah. Well, change the deck's there. You're not change. It's the same deck, correct? I mean, maybe you're putting new wood, but a new deck within the same footprint, but I'm not going to include that. What is the material for
the deck? That's I believe it's just a wooden deck, maybe AAC, but there'll be spacing between the planks because we usually specify what it is. Is that wood? No, it's plastic. right now. We need you to specify what
the deck will be. Uh let me see if we called that out. Um what was new deck sun room within the existing footprint pile supported? Um I don't have an answer on um what it's going to be. It's either I
mean would or when you submit the new plan if you could put that as a note what it will be. Okay. But the commission's satisfied with either correct what the the commission's okay with
whether it's wood or ASAC, right? Yeah. I Okay, we'll make sure it's specified. We're okay with either. Um Okay. All right. So later in the meeting, probably we should have done this first so we would know if it's official or not. We're talking about
only having two meetings in June. And I think we never got further as far as what which two, but I I I had suggested June 11th and June 25th.
So which one would you like if it going to an order? Uh the sooner the better I suppose for us we can we can make these small changes very quickly. So June 11th.
Excellent. Because May 28th is is out as a date. So June 11th would be the next um Okay. And you'll get us a plan as soon as possible to give us time to write the order.
Absolutely. Okay. Um, if we could have a motion. Okie do. I move that we continue 44 Waterview Circle for an order of conditions June 11th, 2025. Second. Okay. Paul I
uh Janet I Elise I Eric I Bob I and I say I. All right. So we'll see you June 11th for an order. And if you could just get us that plan as soon as possible. Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Okay, Paul. Thank you, Madam Chair. Next on the agenda is a notice of intent. The address is 734 Foxhill Road. The applicant is Willis Barton Row, Map 12M, Parcel W1, D number SC. We still don't have an SE number. We checked uh the
portal yesterday, right? Uh site development uh is what's listed on the agenda. It's extensive, but it says site development and this is a new application. The ZBA scheduled for 612. Good afternoon. For the record, Sean
Riley with Tyan Bond. I believe CC is there from Blue Flax in attendance. Great. Um so this property um has the resource areas are salt marsh beach land subject to coastal storm flowage and coastal
bank. Um we actually started with uh blue flax about 5 years ago looking at this project uh in this property with the former homeowners. Um, and it's a very challenging property in that the uh flood zone extends into the property.
Uh, and so does the associated uh buffers. Uh, let me just share my screen. Can you all see my screen? Yes. Yes. So, the flood zone is this light blue line. That's Paul.
Oh, is that Paul's screen or my screen? Can you see my I guess that's yours now. Cursor moving around. Okay. So, the uh the flood zone extends about halfway into the property. Um which also pushes the coastal bank into the property. The
house right now um is not compliant with flood plane regulations. um they have the ability to have the habitable space down on the lower level. We looked at this project uh with alternatives to uh raise and replace the house in entirety. Uh we did that with a
former homeowner. Uh got to the point where we just couldn't find a place to move it with um that would get it outside of the 50 uh hard enough trying to get it outside of the flood zone with the setbacks to the street and also with a significant slope for anybody that
went out to the property. Um that's to the south. Uh the grade drops from about 30, elevation 30 at the top of the slope down to uh elevation 13. So, this is about 17 ft of drop. Um, and it's a
heavily wooded area that would require a lot of disturbance if we were to raise and replace um the house. The uh another alternative we looked at was uh just to renovate the house in kind. Uh the house was built in 1970. Uh so it's in need of
uh updates or uh reconfiguration within the house. Um, unfortunately to bring this into flood compliance and it doesn't take much to get to that 50% threshold that you need to bring the entire house into compliance. Um, the
entire lower level uh the walkout level becomes uh uninhabitable with uh the flood compliance. It is below the base flood elevation. So um the any of the areas of the utilities uh any of that other habitable space would need to be
relocated to the upper levels. So uh we pursued the um the most environmentally sensitive option which we feel is to keep the existing foundation in place. uh the structural members on the first
floor aren't adequate to support any uh additional um space on the second. So we are planning on going up. So the plan is to utilize the existing footprint. Uh that way we don't need to excavate uh around the existing footprint or within
the existing footprint to to install a new foundation. uh to we're proposing a new house on top of that foundation um with a small uh onecar garage addition uh off of the uh again most
sensitive um way to do this which is trying to get most of it outside of the 50 with it attached to the house. We have provided uh mitigation calculations, but um one of the things that that jumps out the
um the increase in building footprint is mostly the garage and that's about 600 square ft. The existing paved driveway um that circled the U-shaped paved driveway. Uh we are proposing to remove
that pavement uh and install a permeable surface. Um the walkways that lead up to the house will also be uh permeable pavers or permeable surface. Um so those are still calculated in our coverage
tables as coverage and we have mitigated for uh those areas even though we are reducing uh the amount of pavement significantly uh on the site. We are remaining with the same bedroom count. We're utilizing the same uh sewage
disposal system that is located um outside of the 100 foot buffer for the soil absorption system. And I think that uh Blue Flax has come up with a very uh thoughtful way to enhance the uh corridors and the
buffer zone u to the other resource areas to the beach and to the um to the marsh, but also enhancing the corridors along the sideline because there is a significant u corridor uh to the south.
So with that, I will uh turn it over to Cece and let her walk you through the um the mitigation planting plan. Cece. Hi everyone. CeCe Cameeri with Blue Flax Design. Um so our restoration
and landscape planting plan proposes approximately 6,000 square feet of invasive species removal and native plant restoration. And that 6,000 square ft is represented by the darker green hatch um where we've observed about
invasive species being present at a rate of about 30%. So it's actually a pretty um pretty minimal amount of invasive species management, but we do have a lot of opportunity to restore native plant communities within this area. The
lighter hatched area is approximately 16,000 square feet. It's really well vegetated with native species including white and red oak, black cherry, American holly, birch, pitch pine, bayberry, arrowwood viburnum,
um Pennsylvania sedge, and wavy hairrass. So, we want to limit the amount of disturbance that we're going to be in there, but we will be kind of hunting and pecking for invasive species within that whole area. Um, we are
proposing to remove seven trees on this site. One tree is a non-native cusa dogwood uh labeled as number four and that will be removed for the installation of the gravel driveway for the garage. The trees labeled one, two,
and three on the north are pitch pine and they are uh in poor condition due to tarpentine beetle. Uh and we feel that their removal would be a beneficial action on this site. Um removing infested trees with um that invasive
beetle is something that we find to be uh important to do on these sites. And the trees labeled five, six, and seven on the southern area are two spruce and another pitch pine with tarpentine beetle. And the two spruce trees are in
also very poor condition. Um, and so we're proposing to remove those seven trees and replant 24 native trees on the site. Um, we've put as many as we can within the 50 foot buffer uh to restore
that area. um kind of on the southwest side with native trees uh mainly red maple and oaks. And then on the southern property line, we're proposing eastern red cedars to kind of provide some screening between neighbors as
well. And invasive species that are present on the site include bittersweet shrub honeysuckle, fine honeysuckle, and English ivy. Um, and the removal of those invasive species and restoration of native plant community will be very beneficial to the ecological health of
this site. And I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Right. Thank you. Does anybody want to start? Go ahead, Eric. Okay. Um, so the mitigation is basically
invasive species management, right? And with with some plants you're going to put in. Um, I I you know, building on the proposed the the pre-existing site is god-given, right? But the in the you're in the NDC
um and um your total increase increases uh what 598. You put you put the 147 plus the 451. Am I right? Yes. Sean's correct nodding. Yeah. Okay. So um I think in this
particular case um I think there has to be a little bit more sacrifice here. Um I I think that there there's you have uh non-pervious an area um existing
driveway. Um I think would be a better bet um to have, you know, to take the square footage that you're over and remove the whatever you need to. I think you can do it because I measured that parking area down there and you're
like 800 square feet. So, um I think that would be a better trade for the increase in the NDZ considering it's sacrificial. I mean, this time it's not a wall that can't come down because you have to worry
about the banking. So, um so I think this is a better bet. The the only other thing I have to talk about would be um I mean the pine trees on the south side of the house. I didn't get too close of a look, but they're kind of on a banking and they leaning towards the house now.
But one, two, and three. So, one of the pines got damaged from wind and bled and I see pine bore activity in that one. Number three is really leaning. I mean that they probably take them down in admin reviews, but number one, there's nothing wrong with that pine tree.
That's a That's a good looking pine. Straight up. No pine bora. That's a healthy pine. I don't see any reason why that's got to come down. Um, and I love it when people talk about paved driveways, how they're pvious in a
hard rain. There isn't a drop that gets into a paved driveway with cobblestone, but you you can call it that way if you want. I think they're making it not paved anymore, right? But there's calling it pvious, which you know, come on. That's semi-pervious. Yeah, semi.
All right. Um, so, um, that's basically what I see and can leave it up to other members. Anyway, thank you. Could I I'm going to piggy back a little bit on what Eric just said because I very much agree. That paved driveway in the back that's going to
remain. Why? There's no garage back there. There is there is actually underneath the Right. Uh deck. So, you're keeping that garage and adding another They're going to keep it. They're going to keep that. Yeah. Well, the garage down below
will be store um Sunfish, the the small boats or uh paddle boards or um kayaks um in the offse. So, no, I understand your Do they need it to be paved to put kayaks and sunfish in? Yeah, I think we
can go back and speak with the applicant about that rear paved area. The only my only concern would be just the area leading down. You have you you both have great points on that. The area leading down to that is about a 10 to1 slope. Um from where we Let me have Can you put
grass there? Because you're not driving down to the back. So they they still need to drive down to pull out the um the sunfish because those will be trailered. Oh. So they would still want to have access down to that lower level whether
it's pvious crush stone or a shell. I think that we can have a discussion with them about I'd like to see all paved driveway out. You're in the NDZ. You've, you know, you've got this new garage. You've
got more driveway still, you know, coming in and, you know, so I I'd really like to see all the paving coming out. Just my opinion.
I'm going to let others go and then I'll come back. Anybody have any I'll just I'll just I'll just uh agree with that. It also strikes me that that driveway, I mean, this this property is sort of a bowl shape, isn't it? You know, given that
slope that goes up on the water side on the south uh west corner. And as I was looking at it, it struck me the driveway is sort of seems to be at a low point on the property. So, it's not it's not it's not a great idea anyway to have asphalt
at that point because it's just going to puddle water. So having that converted to shell or stone or something would be a huge improvement in my view. Okay. Also um for CC so when an area is
only about 30% invaded um you guys will will have a condition and they'll have to be very careful about the removal. It can't be done with mechanical no equipment because you've got to watch and be very careful about the existing nay that they don't get disturbed. So we'll put that in there.
Okay, they do make a that concrete we've talked about before. It's a concrete pore that's u it's that's very porous. Um it's kind of a a new product that works quite well with drainage, but I'd
rather see it totally out. I I get that. What kind What would you like to see in there? Gravel shell. Well, going up the thing though, they're going to spin tires like crazy. Yeah. Well, maybe. Well, there's there won't be vehicles. There's no there's no vehicles. Yeah, they said there are cuz
they're going to trailer this. Yeah, they got their little trailers for the sunfishes down there. So, the the slope I could see that you have to have something. Well, maybe the slope gets left and the rest is taken out. I don't know. I I' I'd love to see what comes back what you
come back with. I think we can come up with something creative that you'll appreciate. All right. Anybody else? At the risk of being redundant, I agree with the removal of the asphalt and let's be logical and fair about the the slope and how you
design that. Okay. Paul, yeah. from the uh from the front of the house to the rear of the house. From what I can gather from this uh this site plan, you're only talking about a drop of about five feet, six
feet, maybe seven. Okay. And yeah, 7 feet from the front to the back. It's 13 to six. And then the the foundation, you step up about four steps to get up into the house. So, it's got a full a full height
lower level. Um, it's it's got the, you know, 7 foot six downstairs level if that's where your question was. Okay. Thanks, Mary Bay. Bob, uh, yeah, I got a couple
of questions. Uh, uh, let's see. Let's wait. The, uh, the park, the, uh, driveway island out front by Foxill Road, there's a cherry in that. Is that going to be retained? Yep, that will remain. Okay. Uh there's a
holly uh right in front of the new proposed garage uh to the uh let's see to the south of the garage or yeah, south uh southeast of the garage, I guess. Is that what's going to happen
with that? Will that have to come out? I think we're trying to keep that. Um, but I I do know the holly that you're talking about and we have kind of gone back and forth with whether or not that may have to come out, but I think we're really trying to keep that there. It's a
hard tree to replace. There's no way you could move it a little bit, could you? The holly, they don't do very well when we transplant. Uh, so if that were taken out, uh, would you have to increase the mitigation at all? Um it I think we are offering 3 to
one mitigation with trees right now. Um I will go back to talk to Teresa and the client about tree number one. Um so that could be if we keep tree number one perhaps, but we are hoping to keep that holly there. Okay.
Uh and there's a red cedar um along the coastline. Um is that going to be retained? Yes. Okay. Uh and the remaining cherry trees to the um north end where the pines are, those are
going to be retained as well. Correct. Correct. But they might have to be pruned. They may have to have a little pruning. I don't think they've been kept up for a little while. Yeah, because one's getting kind of close to the house, to the existing house. Um and then there's this rectangular
area um to the norththeast. um up by the Foxhill Road that you're going to plant around. Mhm. What is that? I thought that was a septic system until you mentioned it was on the other side. That might be I can't quite
remember, Sean. Is that not just a parking area? Yeah, it's like a park. That's where they used to park the uh the Jeep Wagon ears for the girls at um up there at the Camp Avalon. Yeah, I used to play in that. I used to know the Laffies that lived there. I played there
when I was a little kid. Are you talking about the the parking area that's that's here? Yeah, that's in the That's actually in the town right away. So that's the towns. I see. Okay. The property goes around that that area. But you're going to
remove the invasives around there. There's honeysuckle right in there now. Yes. Yep. And you're going to plant the the eye in there instead to try to screen a little bit from the the park. So, the town also owns that cement wall that is L-shaped.
That's correct. Yeah, I assume. All right. Okay. Thank you. Anybody? All right. I have a couple things. The rinse station, can you move it back further? I mean, it's in the NDZ.
Is there any way it can be moved back maybe more toward the garage or along the garage with the others? Then it's out of the NDZ. Um, yep. It's just we got so much
in the NDZ. I think anything that come out would be a big step. Sure. Positive step. So if you could consider that and then Sean on your
plan it it shows I'm at the coverage tables if you want to know where to look. Um, I get the 0 to50 there's an increase of 598. So you owe
1196 square feet of mitigation for that. Um, and that under your mitigation calculations below the coverage tables it says 598 in the 0 to 50. Then you
have 538 increase in the 50 to 100 where you have 1667 increase in the 50 to 100 in your
table. I have I I I'm struggling to figure out where 538 came from when it says 1667. He keeps the three largecape walls. And then of course then your addition for
the net increase in coverage from the 0 to 100 says 11 1,112 when seems it's quite a bit higher than that. If that 538 is incorrect.
Yeah, let me look into that. I'm not quite sure because we're using the we're using the 1667 in the calculation, right? One one down below and yes, your mitigation calculation is fine. So, this is where
I'm struggling. Yep. No, I see. I think you this number right here. Yeah. Needs to be adjusted, which makes this next number down incorrect as well because that one So, that's
just something I noticed and I couldn't figure out. It's amazing how engineers in math, you would think that engineers would not make any math errors. Well, it happens. Um, all right. That's pretty much
my my comments besides what is already been asked about. It's certainly a diamond in the rough. Beautiful little piece of property. Yeah. So, you're going to have to come before us again and you're going to deal with the paved
driveway. You're going to look into that number one tree and also whether the holly can be saved by the south of the garage. You um look into the rinse station. You're
going to fix the calculations. Yep. Um I think have I missed anything everybody? Okay. So you need to come before us again. Yep. Um we have June 11th, June
25th, July 9th, July 23rd. June 11th, please. Okay. We have ZVA on the 12th. You do. Okay. So, we will have a motion to continue to June
11th. I move that we continue 7:35 734 Foxhill Road to June 11th, 2025. Second. Okay. Bob, I Eric, I Janet I. Paul. Hi. And I say I. All
right. Thank you. Thank you. Stick around, Sean. Thank you. You're up next. Yeah. And then go ahead, Paul. Okay. Thank you, Madam Ch. Uh, do you want me to read all of these? Is I think we can put
all three together. And um, Sean, I can't I if you if you want to show anything, why don't you share? I still have this laptop from it um which doesn't have enough data to open up that file. So, if you're going to share anything, you can do it. Um but let me
read the legal ad and then um through the chair we'll recognize you to explain the certificate of compliance request. Great. Uh this involves three properties. The first one on the agenda is 77 Sears Point Road. Patrick Broen and Patricia Black. Map 11A parcel 10B
and 11 SC 1020 2797. The project was demo existing dwelling construction of new dwelling and swimming pool and relocation of a driveway. Second 74 and 77 Sears Point Road, Patrick Broen and Patricia Black. The applicants, map 11
A, parcel 10B and 11, EP number SC10 3418, construction of a new driveway to existing house and land management plan for invasive species control. Then we move to 36 74 and 77 Sears Point Road. Patrick Broen and
Patrick Black are the applicants. Map 11 A parcel 5-10 3-10B and 4-11 DP number SC10 3522. This was a consolidation of the two existing orders which I just read of conditions into a single order and
encompassing the development activities on all three adjoining parcels now owned by the applicant. And because this was a very complicated uh certificate of uh compliance filing uh there were 10 amend attachments and uh there were amendments and so forth and so on. So we're going
to let Sean sort of weed through it and explain to the commission if you'll recognize him chair. Yes. Hi Sean. Go ahead. All right. So stick with me on this one. It starts back in 2012. So, I'm just going to give you the
highlights of the progression of how this this worked through. It started with Dave Clark, actually, uh, and a former home homeowner of both 7477 and 36. So, um, the applicant
before you now was not the original um, starter of 74 or 77 when those two orders of conditions were opened up. Um so 74 and 77 there was work to raise and
replace the existing dwelling uh guest house and driveway improvements. They came before the uh commission with and let me just see if you can see can you see this uh word document uh PDF? Yes.
So I won't walk you through all the amendment all the amendments um as everything was captured within uh the consolidated order of conditions. All of the information that was approved was carried over to the final approved site
plan um that was accepted and incorporated into the final order of conditions which we're going to talk about later for a partial certificate compliance. When we consolidated those orders, the 74 and 77 orders, those
orders should have been closed out in in 2021 to clean the slate and move forward. They weren't closed out. So, we're here before you to close those out. uh essentially uh now that the work has been completed on 74 and 77
um to close out those two orders and then to move on and discuss uh the final um order of conditions that uh encompassed and enveloped all of the conditions. Uh and as uh as Paul said, there's extensive history on this going
back 13 years. Um, and the clients would like to close out all of the work that has been done on 74 and 77. This isn't your typical uh partial request where we're asking for a partial certificate
of compliance for, you know, the driveway and the house were done, but we still have to do some of the mitigation and this and that. We're looking to close everything out on 74 and 77 because all the work has been done. Um the mitigation plantings have had their
survivability time for the three years. Um that's how long this has been going on. Um I have a nice aerial view overlay that I can share with you if there are any questions about the work that was done on 74 and 77, but this
is a general and let me know when you're seeing this that new plan here. We have it. So essentially the work that happened within the buffer zones on 74 and 77 are the areas that are shown um
obviously between the blue and the green. So this is the 100 foot buffer. This is the 50ft buffer and then the green is your uh closest resource areas to the work that was done on 74 and 77. So you can see on
74 there really wasn't a lot of work done except for uh a little bit of driveway that was reconfigured. The bulk of the work was done on 77 and that was the reconstruction of
the guest house, the main house um and the pool and all that. But all the pool and pool house and retaining walls and most of the hardscape and house were outside of the buffer. Um, so what we're
looking for is the close out of the two older orders of conditions which are 102797 and 103418 at this point. And I will open it
up to I know there's a lot to absorb here. I'll open up to any questions that you have and I also have um the overlay of what was constructed um versus what was approved and getting right down into the um let me just split
this view right down into the stones. We we did all the construction layout for this and right down to the the placement of these stones leading up from the driveway, the
catch basin all the way over to the guest house. You can see that everything the steps leading the steppers leading around the corner. Um just want to make sure you're seeing the split screen here. Yes. Yes. So you can see that everything was meticulously laid out. Um
the plant beds, the walls, the driveway. So, all of this was built uh per plan. You can see the driveway here. Um the house, the pool. Um so, with that, I'll open it any questions you have about 74
and 77. And we'll go from there. Madam Chair, can I just ask one question? Sure, Paul. So, so Sean, just so I'm clear because I was up there to look at this this morning and I agree that work's been done by using the word you want to close out 74 and 77, but you keep saying
partial. So, are you asking are you asking that on this on the certificate compliance form? Are you asking for a full certificate on 2797 and 3418? Because that the part Yes, that that is correct. That is correct. on the
on the cover letter it should have said full uh COC on those two because that work is is has been done. Okay, that's all m I just want to make sure. That's fine. Thank you. So but you mentioned the
mitigation plantings are doing well but that's part of the 367477 that you're going to get a partial for. Am I correct? Yes. So only for so there was very minimal uh plantings done on uh 36. They
were just done as part of um if you look here it's really just a small portion over here right and out in the in the front. So you know all of that was done um and it's had that three years of survivability. So, we'd still be looking
to keep the order open for 36 on the all-encompassing one because the uh the dwelling has not been constructed yet. Um they've gone through several architects. They're still working through it. They've got another two to three years left on that order, but again, they're looking to get the
incumbrance off of 74 and 77. So, there really wasn't a whole lot of mitigation done on uh on 36. Okay. But what what is what partial are we approving in
367477? The buildings or the buildings and some of the mitigation. Yes. So this is confusing. Hold on one second. Let me just jump back to So there's three orders of conditions, right, that are open right now. And me get to the page.
Here it is right here. So the two original orders of conditions for 74 and 77 alone before 36 came along. 36 didn't come along until 2020. So those two orders of conditions
10-2797, right? Fully completed. No, I get that the first two that are fully completed because they were rolled into 3674 and 77. I just am trying to understand
what what is the partial that we're approving in that last order. That's um Yep. 3522. Understood. The partial that you're approving is just the work on 74 and 77.
You're not approving anything being done on 36. Okay. And that includes mitigation that was done. Yes, we can we can say that the mitigation is not done if just to keep it completely separate,
right? Because I don't think you filed anything anybody filed anything for the mitigation certifying that that was done. So that was part of my question. I think there was some No, that that makes complete sense. We're not looking for any partial on 36 at all. Okay. So 36
nothing's been done B that we're closing we're saying all work done on 74 and 77 uh has been completed and nothing for 36
at this point we're not certifying anything on 36. Correct. Absolutely correct. Correct. Okay. This is confusing to say the least. So what it'll do is it'll carry the the Sean J
wants to on just 36. Yeah. So Sean, if you're asking So 3522 is the consolidated order that that pulled in all for the work on all three. It has the mitigation for all three. That order was issued in
2022. So yeah, if you're asking us to release 74 and 77, first of all, I'm not even sure if we if that's technically possible to release the lean, you know, the on those properties, but the mitigation for all
three has not yet passed its three-year survival. So, no, it it has it has. There was mitigation in 2022, right? Oh, it's just Go ahead, Sean. It's just one. Go ahead. Go ahead. No. Yeah. So no, it's so the the work has been done the
three years survivability and all the mitigation and who certified that Wilkinson there's a letter that was we do have a letter said that a few I guess I missed it. It's in the it's in the packet. Okay. Yeah. But not for 36. But
you're saying there was no mitigation for 36. 36. There was very little mitigation that was required for 36. There was some and really Yep. Yes, there was because there was a if you remember I have the original. Let me
give you the original. Okay. I'm looking at the order from 2022 and it says it's it's looping in and consolidating the old mitigation and then it goes on to say new mitigation newly proposed mitigation uh 38 3831 square feet includes
790 where existing improved lawn will be removed and the area receded with native trees and herbaceous species. Doesn't say where that was going to happen. Wonder who wrote those. Um, so I'm not sure. So there is, you
know, nearly 4,000 square ft of new mitigation associated with the 2022 order. Yes. So that mitigation was added on to let me to this the approved plan. That knob
was added on to this area in here on 74 and 77. Uhhuh. So all all but all regardless all the mitigation is done for both properties. So if they never proceed with any more work on 36, you've already gotten all the mitigation that
would required to go ahead and build this house. But we're not even asking for any approval for any of the mitigation that was done on 36. We're just keeping 36 as a separate. If I could, I would just close all these orders out and just roll it into one
order for 36. But it's just not that easy. That's how we get in trouble. Yeah, I know. Yeah. So, so we've already So, so even so, even on the 2022 order that has some new mitigation, it has been three years because it was issued in February of 22.
So, that three year will have would have Yeah. Wilkinson's been working on the on this site for years. I know. and installed all this mitigation. So, um, does does it say in there? Let me see if I can find that letter. There is it's in the packet. It is there is a letter in
the packet. It says everything looks fine in the mitigation and and I I agree from walking in there and looking at it, the mitigation looks good. I just wanted to make sure we weren't releasing mitigation that hadn't reached its survival requirement yet. Understood.
And again, the mitigation um for most of the mitigation for 36 was on 77. So what you're releasing is 74 and 77. So really all you need to make sure is that the mitigation is done and compliant for 74 and 77, which we have more than enough
to release for 74 and 77 is what I'm saying. We have extra because it the work that was done on 74 and 77 is you know the driveways and the small piece of house and the guest house where the majority of that work is outside of the
100 foot buffer. The other property which we have to come back for to close out. Let me just give you the this was the plan if you you some of you were probably around and remember the former owner um of this plan. Uh there was a massive
house that was put in uh which was removed um and what we put back in its place was a tennis court. So what we've installed to date is even less than the coverage that was approved. So having to come back and close out, we have to dot
all our eyes and cross all our tees to close out 36. But all of the mitigation is done regardless. So if we don't advance the house on 36 then let me we're closing it with all the mitigation done. This is the house here
through the chair. If I could absolutely I'll try and make a suggestion here. I don't know if this is going to work but for purposes of getting rid of the incumbrance at the registry. All we're going to do is check off that full certificate on the back of that COC form
for those 74 and 77 for 36 so we don't release any mitigation that Janet's concerned about. I think we need to spell out what's still remaining and hasn't matured yet
if there is any. Sean, you said it's a small amount and then identify what has been completed on 36 if you're looking for the partial on 36. So you'll get okay you'll get two full certificates for 74 and 77 checked off
as complete and then 36 you'll get a partial but we have to lay out what it is that was done in terms of hardscape construction of any kind and then what remaining mitigation there is so we're clearing the file moving forward because you say your clients have not decided
how well they want to develop 36 yet they're still in that phase that kind of sum it up that that's through the chair just to add add on to that we can even give you the calculations of what's been built you know and what would be required for mitigation on top of you
know what so just to clarify I think that's a a great suggestion so we would continue this until we provided you that information for 36 as to exactly what's been built mitigation and coverages um but we could still proceed with closing
out 74 and 77 old those are very very old orders right that part I'm I'm fine and everything um just because a motion has to be made for the
367477 partial and god forbid I'm glad I'm not a lease um having to do that that one is going to say that it's a partial for that the what's been completed is 74 and
77 7. Yes, you'll motion will be for to issue a full certificate for 74 and 77 and a partial on 36. Um with the caveat that the applicant will provide um all the details on the
mitigation on 36 that has been completed and yet remains and any uh hardscape that has been uh built and that we'll be certifying is done. All right. So essentially the partial that's not being approved
is anything to do with 36. Correct. Okay. I just want to Yep. And you know part of you okay part of the part of the problem with this is is that you know whenever we roll things into other orders which yeah I don't want to see
that anymore as long as I'm here. I I it makes it really difficult. But the other thing is that when we received this, you know, it said partial certificates for 74 and 77. So yeah, it was a little confusing, but I I appreciate what what
Sean has to work with here and uh what you do. So we I think we can get through this. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Can I just ask about continuing conditions? Um Wilkinson flagged. Yeah. The one about um for uh continuing maintenance
on in the mitigation areas. Good idea. Invasives. Um, we and I think there might be a list somewhere. Sean, did you Sean, tell me if I'm right. Is there a list of other There is there is a list in the Okay. Yeah, we just have to make sure that
those survive that those get their way in here. Thank you, Janet. All right. I think Well, can we do the two first two together? Sure. Because it's technically the same. So you can lump those with the
but just mention the sees that we're closing. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Here it here it goes. Um, I move that we issue a full certificate of compliance for 77 Sears Point Road SE
10-2797 and for 74 and 77 Sears Point Road for SE 10-3418. Second. Okay. Paul, hi. Janet. Hi, Elise. Hi, Eric. Hi, Bob. Hi. And I say
I. Okay, next one. Elise, good luck. Okay, so I am open to any editing as I'm going through this. Um, I move that we approve 74 and 77 certificate of
compliance fully for SE10-3522 and issue a partial certificate of compliance for 36 Sears Point Road under the same SE 10-35-22 with the contingency that the
ongoing conditions are met on all aspects of these con certificates of compliance. Second. Is that right? Did I do that right? Uh yeah, the the last part. Um thank you. Um
uh I didn't know if the conditions needed to be mentioned. I can start over. No. Um, I think what we're looking for is um, we're going to continue uh, 36, Sean, just to get that information from
you. So, maybe can we hold off on approving 36 right now until we we can hold off on approving? Yeah, we can if you just schedule us for the next meeting, I can bring that information back in and then we can give you the exact ongoing conditions that'll be part of that. Okay. Because that we're going
to hold off on that. I think that's best. Okay. Okay. You kind of don't know what when are we moving it to? Not the 28th because we have three people out. That's fine. 11th. The 11th. That would be great. If we could
that would be great. Um so now new thing continue June 11th. I move that we continue just 36. No the whole SE 3522. move that we continue SE
10-3522 to June 11th, 2025. Second. Okay. Paul I. Janet. Hi. Elise. Hi, Eric. Hi, Bob. Hi. And I say I thank you all for your time. We'll see you in a couple in a few weeks. Okay.
Thank you. Okay. Sean, who's on Sean? Who's on first? Sean. Yeah. Next item. Next item. Sorry. Um um next on the agenda, Madam Chair, is a possible discussion of 665 Foxhole Road.
As you all know, this house burned um it was a totally destroyed um emergency certification after the fire discussion. Okay. Um I have the update from
THAAD. So right now the house is um under investigation by the insurance company. So they cannot touch the site at all. Um, great. Now it just went blank. Due to significant damage,
rebuilding requires full compliance with flood plane land subject to coastal storm flowage standards of the building code, zoning bylaw, and of course us. Um, an architect has been engaged and they're meeting this week. The
applicants have spoken with Gable at building about starting around September 2nd in order to be ready for next summer. So it's a rather rapid schedule. Um hence we aren't they aren't asking
for an emergency right now because they have to wait for the insurance company to come back. Um he is thinking that prior to June 1st. So at May on May
28th, he's thinking he wants to file an emergency with uh with us in order to be able to demo the building before the start of sum real start of summer
because being considerate of neighbors um and they would have some work protocol and everything. Then they will file then within about within two weeks with us and with
ZBA and they're hoping that if all goes really well with the whole process that maybe by beginning of August, our first meeting in August, we they would have an order from us after having received the
emergency sir. So that is their very aggressive um schedule and we'll see but that's what we have at this point. Um they are in the throws of the investigation and can't do anything until that's
completed. So that's why we're not everybody was asked and actually I forgot to pick up the emergency cert and bring it down for everybody to sign who hadn't. So, anybody who hasn't, if you'd stop in that box and sign it because I forgot to pick it up yesterday. Where is
it? It's in the brown box at the up at the front of the annex. Um, so that's that's the update. Not a lot going on yet. Um, and they're kind of stuck waiting for the insurance company to
finish. So, we'll see how that goes and whether it's happens in the schedule they want. Yeah. just an observation that it's it feels a little bit like um there's something karmic about the fact that the pool in
the flood plane that we approved is the only thing that survived that fire. Uh you noticed, huh? I did notice since we all that the house. Yeah. Isn't that amazing that the pool remained?
Yes. So that was an interesting um thing to see when the whole rest is a shell and I feel terribly for them. But they are trying to do this as quickly as possible and I hear from Thaad at the
town meeting he was saying they have already rented a place for this summer because they've now lost their whole summer here. So it's just a sad thing and it'll be coming to us soon just so everybody's aware. All right.
Next, Paul. You don't have your mic on. Next on the agenda, Madam Chair, is discussion modifications to the special regulations for tree replacement size requirements. Uh, this was continued from April 23rd, 2025.
Right. Okay. Police Janet, anybody want to want to drive it this time? You want me to drive? No, I just go. I think where we left it. Um, we were the only thing that we really had to talk about that I have written here. Um, we we
added the uh comments made from the last thing about making sure tree topping is prohibited, cutting and topping for a view is prohibited. um was the adjustment was the so we have the ratios for tree removal which are tied to the size of the tree. Um and so
two things to propose. One is that and um when native trees are removed that that ratio in each case is increased by one. So that if a native up to 10 in DBH um
would be a 2:1 instead of a 1 one for a non-native um and 3 one and then four one for the larger natives. We struggled with how to deal with invasive trees um and we toyed with the idea of
subtracting one from that but that didn't work because then if you removed one tree you wouldn't have any replacement requirements. So that didn't work. And maybe the easiest thing to do is when an invasive tree and these terms are all defined in the regulation so we don't have to worry about that. Um that
the replacement be one to one in every case regardless of the size to you know because there is some biomass that needs to be replaced and there's some habitat that needs to be replaced and there's some carbon sequestration that needs to be replaced. So one to one regardless of the size and that would make it
um pretty easy. That would um comments, questions, anybody? Bob uh in the preamble on uh uh a the
paragraph uh I think we should um instead of uh we should eliminate the word bushes and include uh instead of and make that shrubs shrubs. You know, I thought you had cured me of that years
ago, but there's one still raining. And uh should we say anything about navatars when we talk about native plants uh versus straight natives? Thought we did, didn't we say? Oh, what uh what we I
think we said was that you have to go to the CH website, which hopefully has the straight natives, right? that the only way around that without creating a a jungle of confusion and a regulation and trying to define them, natives are defined with just by reference to those species that are
listed on the natural resources division's website of native plants. So if it ain't on that list, it ain't a native and the native RS are not listed. So I think that's I don't know. want to
put any notation that navatars will not be approved or anything like that. We could or uh native plants uh cultivars of native plants will not be approved or something in that.
So that's going to get pretty broad. Where is it that we def I'm looking for the definitions anyway? Maybe in the definitions when you be native plants. Yeah. Yeah. But that's
just a Oh, definition. Yeah, there they are. Okay. So, standard. Maybe we add something there saying that not cultivars or nativars. I mean, we've called it all
sorts of not variations to native plants. Native plants do not include Have we seen this? Have we seen this often on these plans? It's always the same characters that give us plans. Well, we sometimes we get some character
who doesn't see us often. And you know sometimes they try and bring in the nat of ours which and Bob RS was the one who really drew drew our attention to it.
So we've tried hard since then. I'm not sure we've been 100%. We're getting done pretty good pretty well. But you know sometimes we just add here the term native plants does not include cultivated natives sometimes referred to
as native RS. That's great. How about that Bob? Perfect. Great. And uh the other thing I had was uh under four tree removal and cutting uh where it says uh view pruning. Is that a view corridor or is that just uh
view pruning? This is just view the definition of view pruning. Okay. So, it doesn't involve putting markers in the field or anything like that? No, no, no. Okay. And what's our usual our window time of year for tree removal? What is it again?
What months? Especially pine trees. I mean, you got to do them really in the when it's cold because they bleed and track pine bora and then I'm not sure. Do we have we don't have anything? I don't think we have a time of year time of year. I mean, I think we can specify it in an
order, but we don't specify. Oh, if we can do it in an order, that doesn't make any difference. I mean, we can do anything in an order. That's fine. It's a good point, though. Eric brings up uh we get applications for ARS all the time, safety reasons, and a lot of
the trees are pine and they were cut in the middle of the summer sometimes. So if it's a safety thing. Yeah. Maybe we can figure that out. Like so when do you when do you not when is the right the wrong time to Oh when the
wrong time in the summer I mean when it's warm. So especially in late early well late spring like May through Yeah. You cut them and they bleed and the pine bor come. We should put that in. We need to put that in our temple. they can wipe out a whole. Well, I think that's once
these regulations are approved, I think we need to look at the template for the anything that references trees and get some things in there. And it seems then would be the perfect time to put an additional that pines can only be cut in
the winter. Okay. For specific There's nothing wrong with a pine tree. It's a has pine needles for ground cover, pine cones for food for the rights. I mean, they're good trees. They're fine trees. I have I like them. All right. Anything
else? That's good. Thank you for that. Anybody? No. All right. I'll finalize these changes, put them in the drop box for Crystal, and then I guess next we need to agenda for a vote. Yeah. Well, yeah, let's do
it. June. Yeah. Um, yeah, I won't be. So far, June's empty, you know, ex as far as things except for what we continued today, which is an order and, um, Fox Hill. So, oh, and the COC. But
um we could do it June 11th and that gets it going quickly and then we can start incorporating it into our order which that doesn't take a hearing. We can just come up with some verbiage for the order and and put it in. We don't
have to have a hearing for that. So should we continue it to June 11 and that way Okay. So, I move that we continue the discussion on modifications to the special regulations for tree replacement
size requirements, including um modifications made today, adjustments made today to June 11th, 2025. Second. Okay. Bob, I Eric, I
Janet I. Paul, I. And I say I. Okay. Paul, the next thing our last item on the agenda before you adjourn is a summer hearing schedule discuss meeting on the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of June, July, August, and September.
Meetings that will be cancelled are June 4th, 2025, August 6, 2025, September 3rd, 2025. All right. I want you say that again. June what? I'm sorry. June 4. Yep. August 6th and September 3rd.
Um, I picked the second and fourth meetings because I think that works best as far as meeting our requirement to to hear properties within 21 days and that puts us at I think 20
days. Um, so it it works well. But if somebody is objects to that, we we can talk about it. Um, we want to have more hearings. Yeah. Plus, if it gets busy again, if we can always change it if it
gets Oh, yeah. And I will say that we have two properties that were scheduled for June 4th. One's in order. So, I asked I have already asked Crystal to contact them. And we're going to have to have probably at the next meeting I'll
have to we'll have to move to continue those to a different meeting. But just so everybody's aware, one's in order and one's um just and noi. Um then I guess since everybody seems to be
wanting to only have two meetings every month, uh we can go to a motion. I move that we approve the adjustment of the summer meeting schedule to eliminate June 4th, 2025, August 6, 2025, and
September 3rd, 2025 from our calendar uh for uh our hearings. Second. All right. Paul, I Janet, I Eric, I
say I. Okay guys, we have three weeks that we won't have meetings. All right, we need one more motion. I move that we adjourn the hearing. Second. Okay. Bob, I Eric I Elise I.
Janet I. Paul I. And I say I. We're done.