It's their thing, I guess. But the, you know, it's uh but you know, like you're eating breakfast food, it's like you're eating lunch. You know, it's just very >> Yes. >> Welcome to the Davis Conservation Commission meeting for December the 11th, 2025. As a commission, we operate under the
Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 131, Section 40, Wetlands Protection Act, chapter 26 of the Town of Denver's General bylaws, the Wetlands Protection bylaw. After each applicant presents his or her request and a board has had time to ask questions and discuss the
project, we'll accept questions from the audience. Because this is a public meeting, it is required by law that you give your name and your address before you speak. Although we may disagree on the issues raised, all persons present during this meeting are expected to be civil to all other meeting attendees.
This includes members of the commission, staff, abutters, concerned citizens, property owners, and project applicants. We also request that you confine your questions to the project and only as it pertains to the wetlands act. We cannot handle nor do we have jurisdiction over
matters such as noise or traffic. All problems not related to the Wetlands Protection Act in the town of Denver's wetlands protection bylaw must be taken up with other boards. Okay. Our first order of business would be a roll call. Peter Wilson is present. Lorraine Drapek
is not here. Mary Height >> present. >> Paul McNelki >> here. >> Michael Splain >> here. Okay, the first item on our agenda is a notice of intent for 80 Water Street, D file number 14-1433.
The applicant is Peter McKinnon and are being represented by Hancock Associates. >> Good evening. >> Hello. Is this on? Um, uh, for the record, my name is David Cowell, a wetland scientist here on behalf of
Peter McKinnon tonight. Um what you have in front of you is a notice of intent. This uh is um an after the-act notice of intent for work that he had executed on his property that was found to be non-permitted. Um um so asked to come
back and do this. Um just to refresh the conservation commission's memory and for the members of the public, anyone in attendance, um there were three activities on the property that I think were subject to enforcement and um
retroactive um um permitting. One of which was uh on his property, well, just to orient people, let me just reorient everyone. Uh on his property here, um he's uh it's Water Street right here. This is the the Crane River. Um he has
coastal bank that occurs a retaining wall that he has here. >> He has sort of a tiered property that that goes go there's a plateau here, then a retaining wall that goes up, another plateau, and another retaining wall as it staggers up this postage
stamp lot that's that's between Water Street and the river. Um the activities were he had did some corrective actions on his retaining wall that was damaged due to an auto accident. There was actually a vehicle that accident put a
car actually hit Peter's car and drove Peter's car over a wall and down the fence. He had some remarkable photographs of this um where the car had damaged the retaining wall. Um the repair in the retaining wall was in kind. It's a stone and mortar retaining
wall. Um the Hancock Associates surveyed and we verified that there was no expansion of footprint or there was really we think an other two features was a uh shed that he had uh installed on his
property and the other was a dock that he has here that um did not have prior permitting or a chapter 91 waterways license. We're trying to get through you guys and then we'll we have the chapter 9 waterway application once we come to
conclusion on this. So um with that uh uh I'll talk about the matter of the shed first. So he had constructed a shed that was non-compliant um um by ZBA standards and um he was mandated by ZBA to remove it. Hancock Associates has
since uh revised our plan to detail a ZBA compliant shed. The shed that we're proposing now in this notice of intent has a footprint. It needed to be less than 120 square feet and this is 119 square feet and there was a height
requirement. The prior shed was uh two stories tall. This is a one-story shed compliant with that. So it's compliant with a um footprint. Um the setback to the property also needed to be increased. So this now is set back to
conform to that. So with ZBA, they asked us that with this being compliant at this point to file and ask for I think it's an accessory structure permit which we have filed with the ZBA and and that's where it stands now. Um in terms of compliance with the wetlands protection act which of course you guys
are interested this does occur in riverfront area and with our application and I I talked to Emily a little bit about this. We we corresponded with mass D that I had uh uh forgive me I had errantly qualified an exemption that doesn't apply to us stating that there
is an exemption afforded to a pertinent structures to a single family house located over lawn afforded to its uh like decks sheds uh these small structures um but that's only afforded
if you're greater than 50 ft away and as mass DP commented on this that was their only comment was, "You're not afforded the the the exemption, so you need to demonstrate compliance with the um uh the riverfront um standards." But in
conversation with uh the DP analyst on this is Kyle Lally, who's uh been a colleague of mine. Um so I did talk to him about this and he said that you don't need to worry about in in the initial submitted as a redevelopment project and D commented you need to demonstrate
redevelopment standards. In my conversation with Kyle, he said, "You don't need to file as redevelopment. Just if you just qualify that this is new development, under new development, you're afforded 5,000 square ft or 10% of the total square footprint of the
lot." And he had asked me, "Is this lot greater or less than 5,000 square ft?" And the answer is the lot is 4,777 square feet. And he said, "If that's the circumstance, you have up to 5,000 square feet. So don't worry about the footprint, the additional footprint. Um,
in terms of uh environmental protection, we think that this is relatively innocuous even to the point that that I don't think we're we're not proposing erosion or sediment controls. What he's proposing to do, if you'll envision, it's just he has this plateau. I don't know if any of you guys have the
opportunity to visit the site. Um, he's not doing any footings. He's it's basically carpentry um at the surface up where he's going to construct the shed and and just place it on this. So there there won't be any real disturbance of soils. Might be a little sawdust from the buzz saw, but um nothing that would
would warrant putting in um like fiber rolls or silt fence or any of that nature um as it occurs there. So um before I move on to the the deck maybe or or the dock, maybe I take pause here and ask the commission if you guys have
any questions, comments on the shed. >> So was the original shed demolished and you're building a new one? >> That's it. Yep. So the shed that he constructed was mandated to come out entirely. I don't know if it's still out entirely, but Peter's aware that that he needs to um when this is done, it needs
to maintain that sixoot setback. So nothing that he had had put in that that setback needs to be out of there. And >> just uh a little different explanation of what uh Kyle Alli was telling you about with >> the 5,000 foot lot in the fact that
you're you're less than that. What does that allow you to do? >> Well, he he said it's he said it's essentially if you have up to 5,000 square feet under the regs and your lot is under 5,000 square foot, it's it's not necessarily a loophole, but he said it's sort of a stipulation that you you
you can develop your entire lot, right? You still need to conform to to riverfront standards for for protection. And um you know usually there's an inner 100 foot riparian zone if you're doing no development that you can't take down trees and clear new virgin land in in
areas like that. But in a circumstance where it's it's he recognizes it doesn't for redevelopment lawn and top soil doesn't meet the the qualification alone to be considered previously altered surface areas towards redevelopment
standards >> in your new redevelopment. However you want to describe it. >> Yep. >> Is the shade >> new development. Yep. New development in riverfront area would result in an increase of 119 square ft. And if we
were to tabulate the total developed surface area on the lot, it's I mean we we could do the calculations just to go through the motions, but again, he said if if you have up to 5,000 ft and your lots 4,700, the the calculations are
moot. It's it's you're afforded that that increase. >> Okay. Anyone else have questions on the shed? >> A little bit. What uh what's the footprint on the shed? >> 119 square feet. >> The footprint. >> Oh, the footprint. Oh, the the one that was there now or the one that we're proposing
>> you going to build? Yeah. >> Oh, the one we're proposing is 119 square ft. >> Okay. >> 119 119 um roughly 10 uh 10 by 10. >> Oh, yeah. the dimensions um
>> 8 1/2 by 14. So 14 ft by 8 1/2 ft >> which >> and now it's uh it'll be uh comply it'll comply with setbacks with zoning but you're going to have to go in and get a uh get a finding for the from the zoning
board of appeals. >> That's the accessory structure permit application we have. Um and again coming to the hearing tonight it it was our of course it's always our hope to close a meeting but at least tonight I think that this discussion if if we leave here
tonight we'd have a short um um series of things to do prior to the next year. >> When was the other shed put on? Do you know? >> Oh the the one that was non-compliant that he constructed. Peter, maybe you can answer that. >> Last summer. >> A year ago. >> But I'm sorry to the microphone.
>> Yeah. Sorry, >> for the record, Peter McKinnon, property owner and applicant. >> Last summer, I constructed a shed that was not meeting setbacks. So, the town asked me to remove that, and I did. >> Yeah.
But you never got uh you never got permission to do it. Is why we're here to >> is why we're here now. Uh to get >> Well, we're here for a couple of reasons, but >> Yeah. No, I I figured I'd just throw this on top. >> That there was a dock built as well. >> That was built in 1989.
>> Oh, okay. Yeah. >> And this this is the third time I've been asking to get that permitted properly. >> Keep it on the shed. >> Yeah, but I just on the shed. Yeah. Thank you. >> So, yeah, that answers your question. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. >> So, I'm uh Paul McNelte. >> I'm still sort of new to this. No worries.
>> Um I'm still sort of new to this. So, um what exactly are you requesting? I'm I'm uh is are you I'm not is is there a specific thing that I mean I'm apologized if I'm supposed to have read all this and forget >> but what is it specifically you're
asking us to approve >> is to to to permit construction of of a now compliant shed. So we're asking for the in circumstances like this where he's already normally we would come in and ask permission first and you would
approve this and then we would build it. In this circumstance where Mr. Mr. McKinnon has errantly, you know, done some things in his property without a permit. We're asking to retroactively permit those. So, in this circumstance, one of the things that he did, construction of the shed a year ago did
not and could not meet performance standards from the zoning board of appeals for um there's a setback distance off of side property and there was a height requirement and it it exceeded the height and the too close to the property. So mandated by the ZBA to
take that down. Now we're asking for permission in accordance with the wetlands protection act and local wetland bylaws to construct a compliant shed. So he's demolished the shed that he created and he's going to asking to put in a shed that's smaller in size and
now compliant with ZBA if that >> I'm sorry. >> That's one of three things with this NOI application. Yeah, we're also asking to repair the the wall >> and some dock. >> From the perspective of the shed, is there again I apologize. Are there
specific requirements or requests for for um exceptions that are being requested from the conservation commission? >> So, as far as saying we want >> it's within our jurisdiction because it's within 100 ft of shore. >> Okay. Uh but I think you heard it say with the lot that's less than 5,000
square feet it kind of gives latitude and then uh there is a limitation on the square footage of a shed to be considered a minor structure. >> Yeah. >> And that's 120 ft. So they're coming down just underneath that. >> If I could just address staff for a
minute. Uh um Emily is the the representation that because it's less than 5,000 ft they can do more developing. Is that >> that's um that was a discussion that Mr. Cowell had had with Kyle Elliott at D. >> But I mean is somebody me wrote wrote
that down or >> I don't have that invey in writing. Um if that would help. >> Sure. Yeah. Prior to prior to the next uh hearing I'd be happy to to have that communication in writing. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Yeah. It's um the the new
performance. I can cite the regulation, but yeah, it's the the the um 10.58 of there's there's four or five. So four is the new development standards that affords development up to 5,000 square feet or 10% of the lot. >> All right. Thank you.
>> That's it. Yep. I was >> I have no more questions on that. >> Paul, were you all set? >> No. Yeah. Yep. Good. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any questions? So, the shed's been taken down and now you're asking, you're giving us that notice that you're going to build the shed the right size. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Yep. In short summary, um because there was three items and I did I I talked about the retaining wall but didn't afford Do you have any questions on that? Again, I think that this the stone and mortar was was in kind repair of what was damaged without expansion or um any
>> staff is there, right? You've seen the wall. >> Yeah, staff has seen the wall. um it was built in kind with what was there before. There was no expansion. So this is just to bless the work that was done and there'll be no further work permitted on it. It's just saying what was done is correct and that step is has been blessed essentially.
>> Okay. So I think that one's done. So now let's proceed to the the dock. >> All right. On to the dock. So as as Peter had prefaced a moment ago, um there's there's a wooden there's a a modest wooden float dock that he's that's been on this property since the 1980s. been out there for a long time.
Um, in this day and age, I know I work in central region more often and I know with with chapter 91 waterway license, we're retroactively asking people to permit things that are in great ponds in inland but on coastal areas. So, this
was um upon review of this being there since the 1980s, there was no record of this having ever had a a either a notice of intent permit or a chapter 911. So, we're retroactively trying to permit that. Now, um we did we worked with a
marine consultant, Five Fathoms Consulting, to um in some discussion with the harbor master early on about um whether or not this the dock as is required some retroactive refitting and and work on it
to bring it up to compliance or standards. And we did try to do that. I think that um one of the concerns was that it it it might impress on the blood fl but this um this system here that we devised
relieves some of that. So at this point we had uh five fathoms consultant provided us with with some um modifications to this. Uh we did submit this. The harbor master I believe had a series of comments and concerns that he expressed with this to which we have
responded. And the last comment received from the harbor master was that he still expressed concern that we carried a disclaimer on this plan. The permit site plan is stamped by Jay Palakawitz, a civil engineer with Hancock Associates,
but he added a qualifying statement that Hancock Hancock didn't do this design and that this is based on the premise of Five Fathoms Consulting. The harbor master pointed out that five fathoms consulting is not a marine engineer and had
expressed concern. I think that this has to do with standards. Um our response was that we don't we don't think that this necessitates I don't think that it it requires a marine engineer to to sign off on this.
I don't we it's not without effort. When this when this came to us, I tried to retain about five or six different marine engineers, all of whom turned us away due to size and they said, you know, we're marine engineers normally get involved when you're deal dealing with seaw walls, revetments, things that
are due to that are subject to to sheer stress and oceanic processes. Um, but they said for something like this that's just a a you know 20 foot dock that they wouldn't get involved. So we are we are comfortable with this. I mean, I I don't
know how to how to resolve that since we can't retain one. And I don't know that it it it mandates one. It was I think that the harbor master's last comment was almost a cautionary just just you know asking you guys if you were comfortable with this and in terms of
maintaining standards for for I don't know liability or whatever. >> So So this dock was there. It's been there 40 some odd years close to 40 years. >> Yeah. And so why are we bringing this up now?
>> It's as these things arise that and it's the same thing. And I I'm just giving an example. I'm on the conservation commission in the town of Clinton. And one of our members is Kim Roth who's a D analyst in D at this point is recognizing that when people are doing
new new work on on their jobs, they go down the rabbit hole of like, was this ever permitted? does this have a chapter 91 waterway license and and suddenly they're retroactively being asked to file them now. Um like I said, my experience is more inland with uh but
chapter 91s are required for designated great ponds and we have uh a few of those in Clinton. Um so that's why we're addressing it now is is really just because it came up the harbor master I think. Um >> what was this brought up being in violation of?
>> Um it doesn't have a chapter 91 license. It was never permitted through the town. not in compliance with the performance standards. Once it came to our attention, we had to follow the proper channels to um to try to get everything >> even though it was built. There's no grandfather
>> because it was never permitted ever. So >> would permitting been have been required in the 80s? >> That I don't know, but I'm not sure when those but um but there was just nothing nothing ever done for it. So, it was essentially a a non a non-legal
structure. >> Okay. Y on on your drawing, I see two X's on either side of I'm presuming that's the float in the middle. >> Yep. This is the this is the float. There's a he has a wooden deck here. There's an existing uh ramp or gang way
that drops down to it. And this is the wooden float with peers on the side. And these are um these are anchors, chains that that retain it in place. So there's no piles. It's all uh just
with cables holding it. Cables and anchors. >> Yes. >> Yep. Yeah, it is. We we we agree it's minor and we feel that way. But again, I to to Emily's point, um, yeah, there's
no there's certain things that if they were done prior to enactment of the Wetlands Protection Act in 1973, they're grandfathered in because those those those standards didn't exist at that time. Um, chapter 91 uh is like one of the oldest
environmental regulations in the United States uh having been enacted in the late 1800s and 1980s uh well beyond 1980 it's about 100 years later. So retroactively they're asking for us to permit these things in
in the conservation's perview it's whether or not the dock is compliant with the wetlands protection act and your local bylaws chapter 91 notwithstanding that'll be reviewed by DP. This is a float. >> It >> It's a float. Yes. >> Correct. So, does it sit on the mud at low tide?
>> Is that uh Peter, that was the concern, right? Yeah. >> Are you prepared to alleviate that? >> Does this alleviate that, Peter? I forget. Um again, I I and forgive me as the wetland scientist, I've been relying on >> because we have a regulation. It has to be
>> is it 24 in? >> Um this I believe that this would be have to be 18 in above the mud. And I I believe you stated >> I think it meets that standard that based on our discussions with TJ that it's it's at least 18, >> right? That that was the modification that we did to this
>> modified with legs so it won't sit on the right >> or will be. >> Yep. >> Or has one or the other? >> Yeah, >> it has been. >> Yep. That's what these are proposed. >> The Oh, so they're proposed. So it hasn't been done yet. >> Yeah. So this hasn't been done. This is an entirely new um system. The dock is
an entirely new system. >> There's nothing out there now. I wouldn't call it an entirely new system, but I would call it a modification approach in the air. Yeah. Sorry. Cuz we're not it's it's it's still the same. But the the the work we're proposing to put the anchors in to put these in are designed to alleviate that.
>> Okay. >> That that 18 inch >> I'm asking all the questions, so I'm going to just >> Oh, no worries. No. And I'm glad you are. This is this is >> So, just to be clear, the the the ramp or the walkway and the dock are
currently out there. >> Yep. >> Yeah. So, >> uh it's a reworking of the existing dock. >> I I would call it a retrofit to to meet standards such that we can get the chapter. >> What's the ramp consist of?
>> Is it is it a metal deck or something or >> metal deck? And how's that supported uh from the how's it Yeah. Comes off the shard >> steel brackets. >> Peter sorry. Yeah. Peter, come back up. Yeah.
>> So steel steel brackets to the land and then to the float. >> So and then so it's off the ground. It's off the water. >> Yeah. This is this is this there's this is >> there's there's about four feet below this. Six feet below. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So that would allow kayaks and such to >> pass under. You know what I'm talking about, right? >> Absolutely. >> Big concern on the river these days. >> Yeah. All right. Uh but uh the uh the dock itself can't sit sit in the mud
anymore. So >> it's built on a trust system. So it doesn't actually sit in the mud. >> Well, it has to have a certain amount of clearance. >> 18 inches. Yes. So, how are you addressing that? Or is are you going to
answer that? >> Oh, no. Same as >> because you're you're not a you're not an engineering guy. You're >> No, but but I rely but I rely on their answers uh before I come into hearings. But I believe this is this is that was the discussion we had with T. >> I believe that it it meets the
requirements now, but I'm willing to do anything you need me to do to adapt to it. So, you've hired a company that's going to come out and >> Yes. >> assess this and say this, this is what we can adjust myself. >> We We've had the >> Are you going to do it yourself? >> Yeah. I don't think it's that difficult.
>> Oh, right. >> Are you sorry? Sorry to interrupt. Yeah. I I thought your question was, "Are you going to hire a company to assess this?" We >> It was That's what we've done, right? >> That's That's where we are. I thought if you're asking how are you going to do >> I thought he just said he was going to do it himself. Oh, that's that's who's
going to do it, >> right? That's a different thing. >> Oh. Oh, I you're going to hire someone to do it. >> It's been done. Yes. That's the TJ we hired. >> It's it's been assessed professionally and this is the plan to maintain that 18inch clearance. The separate question
is who's who's proposing to execute the work? >> Yeah. Yeah. But all I'm asking is how are you how are you accomplishing that? Keeping it off the mud. How's that? How are you able to accomplish? >> I think the answer to that is we're going to add four or four stilts to keep it off the
mud. >> I think I understand your question. That's and that's as I've now now again, you know, I I I wish TJ was here to say it for himself, but what I've learned from him through this asking these questions and and talking about this was that these posts are
intended to put in that this is a fixed tube that maintains that 18 in. >> So the post are they being driven down uh no >> into the mud? >> No, because it floats, right? It comes up with the tide. >> Yeah. So it goes up, but when it comes down,
those posts hit the ground. And >> so these are posts attached to the bottom and they only allow it to come down so far. They don't sink into the mud. >> So the way it was designed originally is to allow for the 18 in we've talked about. >> I apologize. Usually there's like an engineer or someone and they lay all
this out. So, the way the float was designed was that it it sits 18 in off the river bank like you everybody's asked and it comes down with 4x4s with a 2x6 skid on the bottom. So, the only thing that sits on the river bank is a 2x6 skid on each side
>> and it and it just sits on top >> and it allows the ear and everything to go underneath which is the >> the >> I'd probably like to see that. >> That's the regulation we put in. >> All right, that's all the questions I have. There are others out there with those these things these fe
>> um >> go ahead Paul. Do you have any questions? Paul >> n >> uh Mary >> no do you think we should consider doing a site visit? >> I'd like to look at it. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I'd like to see >> because it it is where it is now and
you're going to make improvements, right? That so >> yeah. >> What do you guys think? I think I'll get a better >> I think I want to go >> grasp of it if I just go out and take a look. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah, >> that's fair. It is it is a unique
property that that even I'll say looking at it on a site plan in in the CAD file, but once you get out there and you realize the steepness of grade, the terrace retaining walls and in the >> Well, I know those properties, I mean, they practically sit, you know, you
practically step off and you're in the river, >> right? Right. But I know a lot of it's tricky. I mean, there is a guy that actually has goats. I don't know how he does it. He has >> trees and everything and >> maybe goats. >> Yeah, I look I look for them every
>> But no, I I agree with you. I think a site visit may provide better context and understanding. >> Um the other thing I could I can ask if they I think having a picture of a cross-section might might >> Yeah. >> might even illustrate that better. I could ask if we could do that. >> Okay.
>> Um Yeah. Uh, one other question that I guess didn't come up, but the harbor master raised the issue of the anchors and I think he said in his comments that we don't use helical anchors of >> um are strongly discouraged. So he
wanted to see if there were possible alternatives >> an alter alternative. So are you aware of that? >> Amenable to make that change in in conversations with Peter prior to tonight's meeting. He Peter's more willing to ascent to any plan changes to make this compliant
>> to to to make it work. So between now and the next hearing, perhaps I can coordinate on on what a a suitable alternative to the vehicle anchors would be >> such that we can make the plan changed and have that ready for the next. >> That'd be great. >> We just Yeah, we
>> we don't want to be leaving >> steel in the mud. I mean, if they break off, they're not going to be extracted. And we're just we're really trying to rehabilitate the mud down there. So, I think we'd prefer the cement type instead of the heel. >> We're happy to to investigate that in a
sent to it for the next. >> Okay. All right. So, I guess uh is there any public comment before I I move along? Mr. Brad Street. Thank you. So, we'll just make a motion to continue. >> Yeah. Yeah. We'll go. Emily will set up a meeting down.
>> Bill Bradford, town meeting member precinct one. If I understand it correctly, that the WAF has feet that are supported on the bottom that as the tide goes down, they settle.
the continuing action of going up and down. Aren't they going to drive themselves further and further into the mud? So, if you're talking about an 18 inch, it could slowly that be less and less because the feet go up the water,
they come down and they set. They go up and they come down and they set. The continuing action of the high, the tide goes in and out what, twice a day. Over time, I could see this waft getting lower and lower. I'm not an engineer.
It's just what I happen to listen to and what I thought of. >> Thank you. >> Are we Excuse me. Are we at 18 or 24 for clearance on these? >> Um, for this one, it would be 18. >> Huh? >> For this one, it would be 18. >> 18 >> for this project. >> Yeah.
>> But we have been requiring that of any new dock that you cannot sit on the on the ground. I have to sit on. >> He wants to address that. >> I don't think the gentleman understood. On the bottom of my 18inch 4x4s is a
2x46 cleat that acts as a sled. So the 2x6 hits the mud and keeps the post from driving down into the mud like you're concerned about. And that keeps it off the bed 18 in. Again, I understand. I think I understand what
you're saying is, but with a tide going in and out the mud, every time it goes in and out, there's a possibility that's going to go deeper and deeper and deeper into the mud. >> So, when the 30 acres of vineyard has money,
>> I'm I'm not I'm not I don't own. It's just a question. >> Okay. Bill, I think he's saying there's a flat surface that it sits on that's wider than the and that's that was my point. >> Bill, this is what we're this is what we're requ
>> No, no, I understand that you're talking about a skid, but even the skid going up and down. >> No, it doesn't. >> I'm I'm sorry to interject. Um, >> you have to go to the mic. >> Yeah, I was gonna ask. I I think I think I can make sense of this if if you
would. I but I appreciate your concern. Yeah, that's it. So, >> yeah, forgive me. Um, but I I I think your concern is that every single time this comes out and goes down again over time, it drives deeper and deeper and you lose that 18 in of separation.
What Peter was trying to explain is that it's not just the 4x4 post that's going in and out. There's actually a flat surface that serves as a skid on the bottom of this thing that comes down and dissipates some of that energy so that it isn't driving down.
>> And the other thing is that every single time that the tide comes up and that platform elevates and becomes buoyant, >> it comes down again at at mud surface and it's still 18 in above surface. >> It doesn't drive further and further down over time. With every rise and fall
of the tide, it falls back down at 18 inches. Comes back up again, back down to 18 inches. So, if that's understood, >> Bill, I think you're thinking it going it's going to make a hole deeper and deeper, but every time the tide changes, it comes back to where it was.
>> As it sets in the mud at low tide, it goes up. The tide goes in and out. Anything that's been disturbed in the mud will move so that as it goes up and down the tide that
sled will go deeper in the mud. That's only the observation I've made. >> So question >> a question for staff visit will help a lot. >> It's a question for staff just in general. So how are these are these um reviewed over time? I mean, this there
must be situations where is it like 5 years from now there's a we come back and somebody takes out a tape measure and we're good at 18 in or I mean because this must be a really common situation, right? Where things change over time. >> Yeah. Did you have something Dave that you want to add? >> Oh, no. I just I just took the podium
again to >> Oh, okay. >> make myself available to answer these questions. >> Okay. If you would like to answer that, go ahead. But, um, but I mean, yeah, it's harbor master reviews and then with the chapter 91 permitting, it's there's a review process. >> Oh, okay. Over time. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Great. And and and again, just a
consideration in an area like this that that has such a tidal dynamic process, these mud flats are dynamic as well. These mud flats themselves are going to either rise and fall with a coastal storm event or anything like that. Again, as it rises and falls, every time it comes down, it'll be 18 in over
whenever the the tide goes out on top of that mud flat. But the concern of of of having holes in the mud as these drive deeper, the mud is such a fine sediment that that if you were to put a hole in it today and walked away, the tide is going to take that out and that's filled
in tomorrow. It's it's >> So, we get it. >> I understand the concern. It's what we want to see. We want to have those floats off of the mud and this is accomplishing that. Yeah, that's good. >> That's that's the intent. So, um, again, back to public comment here.
>> Okay. There any other questions or comments? >> All right. So, I think we want to set up a site visit. So, in order to do that, we're going to have to continue uh this public hearing. So, someone can make a motion. >> I'll make a motion we continue the uh public hearing for
Well, actually, it's not for the COC, it's for the notice of intent for D file number 14-1433. Um, you want to go out to the next scheduled date? It's January 8th. >> 8th. >> Yes, please. Yep. If we can ac I know the holidays are upon us. Um, but if
we're able to accommodate a sidewalk between now and Christmas and get us back in January, that would be appreciated. >> Great. >> Okay, good. All right. So, motion's been made to continue to 18. Is there a second? >> I second. >> All in favor? >> I I Okay.
>> Outstanding. Thank you everyone. Um, administratively, I just want to ask, we we are on the agenda again for the request for a certificate of compliance, which we talked about at the last meeting. We were asked by um, his neighbor's attorney for you guys to wait until we've progressed with the notice
of intent, and we're fine with that. We're not in any rush. Um, I was just asking I I I intend to leave now. And if if it's on the matter, um, again, you can continue that without a finding until we have our sitewalk and and address it January. the attorney for the
neighbor raised any concerns since then? >> I have not heard anything from him since then. >> So, it's up to the commission if you want to shed the shed has been removed. Do we know that? >> As far as I know, the shed has been Is there any part of the structure remaining? >> No,
>> that's it. So, that's just administratively I I was I was going to boogie and um Yep. That was just I mean there was no reason they're two separate matters. It was a 2014 I think permit >> the will of the board and we could just vote on this now because everything I understand is that it's been done in
accordance with the plans as submitted >> on on request number two, >> right? >> Yeah. >> And uh staff satisfied. Yeah. >> Um yes. The only portion of the work that was done that this certificate of compliance is for is just the addition on the property and that was done in
compliance. So that's really what's that's what's getting the final blessing with this COC. >> All right. I'll make a motion if you like, Mr. >> Yeah. Then what do you think, Paul? >> Yeah. No, I agree. Yeah. From looking at this earlier. Yeah. >> Are you okay with that? >> Okay. Make a motion. >> I'll make a motion that we issue a
request uh for a uh we grant a certificate of compliance for 80 Water Street D file number 14-1247. applicant Peter McKinnon. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I
>> I >> Okay, so that matter is >> Thank you again. >> So we just have one left for 18 and >> folks will work together to to get a suitable date and time for site visit. >> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Peter. >> Okay. Next up is a notice of intent for 9 Jacob's Landing D number 14-1445. The applicant's Jeffrey Bunk. And >> are you Jeffrey or are you representing?
>> I'm not Jeff. No. Uh my name is Luke Fabri, Geological Field Services representing Mr. Bunk. >> One second. So, uh, we've proposed, uh, a pier to be built at Nine Jacobs Landing. Um, the pier is, um,
shown here. >> Can you see the bottom of this image as well? >> Zoom out a little bit here. There we go. Is that better? >> Yeah. Great. Thank you very much. >> Sure. >> So, this is the existing dwelling. Um
this right here is uh an existing chapter 91 permitted uh revetment and concrete. Uh this when they built this in the 80s the subdivision they got a chapter 91 license to build this stone rip wrap
along the edge of it. So the pier is going to start by being anchored to the top of that existing structure and then it's an entirety 197t long. It's 152t here and then
two that are uh 8 by 10 and 6 by uh 20 for 200 foot system with 40 foot g. There's two 4 6 8 10 12 14 piles which are going
to be southern pine piles. This is an aluminum here. There's no pressure except for the piles and the cross. The all of this structure here will be aluminum with flow through decking
aluminum gateways. This is the salt marsh that's on the property right here in green. I know that was supposed to be watering vegetative wetlands according to the spec, but we didn't have any watering vegetative wetland. So that's three.
This is the 35 foot no build, 50 foot no build, 100 footbrarian, and 100 foot buffer. So uh this is the pier here. This is the existing profile. This brings us out
into uh the edge of Damis River outside of the federal channel. >> The floats are in uh permanent water. >> Yes. Um it's high to see this. This
contour right here is 11 ft is minus 11. And um mean low water is -4. This is difficult to read. It's it's minus like 4.2 and medium high
water is plus 4.7. High high water is 6.5. Um this is the existing grade right here. This is this line right here is mean high water.
This is bottom and this line here is mean low water. So, if you you see this on the I got a couple of aerial photographs that show the low tide and kind of the positioning of this uh dock and pier.
So, if you could go to the next slide, please. Uh keep going. Well, actually, we'll stop here. >> Okay. >> This is uh the proposed damis dredge project. This is the uh sheet that was uh in front of the proposed pier right
here. 197 ft is a 20 foot set back off the channel in this along this line here and this one's about 26 a budding >> neighbor is 26 as well. Um there's no proposed stretching in this area
and the sun um to the west. Next please. So this is that image again. I just wanted to you know give you kind of a broader look. This is the proposed Pier, excuse me. The proposed pier is
right here. This is the corner of Liberty. And then we're going out to the Kerman Bridge, Kerwood Golf Golf Course. >> And one more, please. >> Um, I'll talk about this.
>> We're going to address some of the comments that we've received. The edge of the pier is 86 ft from the center of the channel. This channel is a 200 foot wide channel and that buoy is roughly in the middle of the channel.
These are the buoys that come around the corner and the harbor master has expressed a concern about congestion in the river and having a pinch point. I I think the this is not part of that
the pinch point because this is open channel. This comes around swings around the wood bridge where things start getting congested at least I find as a boat is when I come up through here. These actually extend out into the channel ways and so you know people have
an issue I think with this corner but not in this general location. So, I did receive several comments that I'd like to address. Um, one was from the uh the excuse me, the town department of public works where they
said that we need to uh apply for a storm water permit because we're in the flood zone. Um, I haven't looked at the spec. I know there's a uh a a waiver request. Um, we're not doing any construction upland. Everything's going
to be done from the ocean. Um, we have two anchor points on an existing concrete wall. So, I did not look at the storm water um regulations specific to Danvas, but I'm going to need to do that and either apply for a permit before our
next meeting or uh request a waiver. And I'm not I'm not sure um if if a waiver is something that they can issue. If it's not, then we'll apply for the permit. But we have no sedimentation control. But we have no ground disturbance
uh proposed as part of this project. Um the next set of uh comments that we received was from the division of marine fisheries and um they were concerned about the salt marsh and they requested that all work be
conducted from the up the uplands not working in the um on the tidal flats. Like if we're doing this by hand in the tidal flats, this is going to be done by a a a dredge, not a
dredge barge, a pile barge that's going to come in at high water and drive these piles, drive these, you know, drive all the piles and come back with the frame from the water and set the peers in position. So there'll be no land
work. There'll be no staging on the mud flats. It'll it'll all be done either from a boat or from a barge except for anchoring the top of it to the to the wall. And again, we still won't be um
on the tidal flats. The other concern that they had was for um the shellfish resource areas. Uh if we go back to the first image, please. Um the dock's been proposed with kind of
these are 38 foot sections of the pier. Um we have a maximum of about 40 45 ft. Uh these at 38 ft fit um appropriately with enough support and we
have 14 piles which represents 14 square feet that's being taken up of the title flats. I don't think that the impact of this pier would be significant to the shellfish population in this area, especially since they're not
harvested. The last concern that they had was for erosion control. As I said, we have no upland work to be done. There'll be no soil disturbance. Um there's no erosion controls proposed.
Um with that the last set of comments was from the harbor master which uh asked me to compare the proposed project to a chap uh army corps of engineers uh document that's uh it's entitled for
the placement of fixed and floating structures in navigable waters of the United States by the regulatory program of the New England District of the Army Corps of Engineers. This is dated 19 96. And what it is basically concerned with
is the encroachment on the um the channels. >> And this is a channel that's maintained. Um and so there are a couple of uh criteria under this regulation that
apply to this um proposal. And the the first one is if you could uh go to the the next I'm not sure if it's the next one or the the
Okay, this this will work. Um they're concerned about actually go one more. >> Sorry. >> No, you're fine. They're concerned about how much the pier will occupy of the waterway
at mean high water mean low water. And the standard is it can't take up more than 25% of that distance. And it mean low water coming straight out across is 1350 ft
and low tide is approximately 900 ft. The proposed pier is in total 197t um which is about 10% of
little over 10% of the 900. So it's well within the standard of less than 25%. That was one of the criteria. Another criteria is that um they want me to put
the uh state plan coordinates on the two furthest corners of the structure. They're not on this plan. And I told Chris that I'm assuming we're going to do a site visit is that I would have those put on the plan um for the the
meeting after the site visit. But it's just applying the coordinates um to that. Um another is not complicating another criteria is not complicating future dredge projects and staying far
enough back from a channel that you'd be past the 3:1 slope that the Army Corps likes for dredge projects. The current dredge project is proposed at six feet with a up to one foot overdredge. So you
will can either call it se six or seven feet. Um and the the setback distance is 20 feet. So if you were from the edge of the the edge of the channel, if you were
dredging that, you know, 3 to one would be 18 feet. So we meet that criteria as well. So he's set back pretty, you know, pretty good distance. Um, one thing that the harbor master is concerned about is
not creating is he he'd like that our dock line up with the neighbors dock so they all kind of parallel to each other. Um, that would require me swinging the the west side of the dock. I'm sorry. Let's go
back up to number one. as far as swinging this side of the dock. See how this is parallel here? He's talking about having like a straight line across this that would make I to do that I'd have to do one of two things. Rotate this whole
structure underneath here which these piles at the end of this ramp are meant to hoist the ramp up in the winter time to be protective of ice. So they they have to be
in that location to rotate. This would mean that this pier would sit kitty corner on the float and it's not initially but over time it's going to develop a lean to it and it's just structurally
an issue to to get it to go back. I'd have to rotate this whole thing six feet which would make one side longer than the other. So, I'm not sure of the practicality of that. I understand what he's asking for. Um, but I don't think
that this point to the Damis River, it it's it's not congested in the way that it would constrict a boat. But, you know, the channel lock is out here
90 ft. So there's plenty of room to move around and keeping the structure square from an engineering perspective is a more stable structure. And those are all of the uh
all of my presentations. >> I think we're all in agreement that we want to get out and see the site, you know. >> Yeah, I I assume so. But >> I just have one quick question. You just approved. And did was that docu built? The one further north?
>> This one here. This has a chapter 91 license >> that's existing. >> That's been there for >> And there's another one that was just built >> on this side. >> And where is that? Where is your pier and your floats in relation to that? Are you farther out into the river or the
same or less? No, we're um >> Can you go down? >> Yeah. >> Uh actually to the to the one where you see all the quotes. >> This one? Nope. Um one sec. Sorry. >> Because we just gave her a statistic.
>> Comes out this way and he's they're all in a line. You go out there, >> right? And that's the question I'm asking. So that's good. This one comes out to roughly the same location as this one. Plus or minus like 5T or so. And
this actually that that corner is 26 ft. This corner is 26 ft. This corner is 20 ft. And you can see how the boats, you know, they come up along this river and they're they're turning this way. There
are a few that go that way, but they still have to turn this way before they go that way. So they're not turning into us per se. And like I said, it just he this comes out straight.
I would have to >> Okay. It it doesn't matter for right now. >> I'd really have to change the uh >> um >> the anchoring system for it. >> Any other quick questions before we uh >> I just had one. I mean, very quick. This is a new dock, right? You made some comment about it pre-existing, but that
was just the shoreline. >> The shoreline, this uh uh is a >> Oh, in your first diagram, >> but your first diagram, you had a picture with all the the um >> stones the Yeah, the various pilings and then underneath. Yeah, that one. So, you
had commented on existing, but that's just the existing >> shoreline. >> Just Yeah, we call it the the concrete that's at the top of the top of bank. >> So, it's new. I mean it's a whole new all new >> dock. >> It was built the pier is all brand new.
>> There's a copy of the chapter 91 license for the revetment in the NOI. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? Mike, any questions? >> Well, you know what's the uh you have so you have a seaw wall there. What's that
made out of? Uh the the it's a wedge of stone and at the back of it there's a concrete um like a 12-in concrete wide wall that
>> pou concrete or >> pou concrete. Yeah. >> And and you're anchoring >> there was some concrete block and stuff that somebody had made staircase out of a while ago, but that's not the structure that we're It's >> Yeah. And you're anchoring onto that? >> Yes.
>> And then the pier goes out. How far? >> Well, it's sitting on that. It's not holding it in place. >> Okay. It's >> I was wondering that >> these piles here, all it's doing is is resting. This is not going to be going this way because I have 14 piles
>> holding the structure. So, you're really just sitting. >> But you haven't done anything yet. So, you can make whatever tweaks, assuming this even gets allowed. But so uh the uh the pier is how long?
>> Pier is 152 ft with a 40ft gang way and an 8ft dock at the at the bottom. >> So at the very end when everything's attached >> 197 >> 197 and then uh then what? A bolt would be attached to the end of that.
>> Correct. So, you know, if you have >> And that's You're right at permanent. You're right at the channel. Right at permanent water, right? >> Well, we're in permanent not water, but we're not in the channel. The channel is
a 200t wide channel. We're 20 ft back from the channel. So, even with a, you know, 30ft boat with a a 10-ft beam, you're still not in the channel. And the buoy is I think it was 86 feet
from that. So most >> What's the buoy you mentioned? Why are you mentioning that? >> Uh well there's a a red navigational buoy. Most people stay, you know, red right return. Oh, >> right. >> Most people keep it on the right as you're returning. And those that buoy is in the middle of the channel. So the
channel's 200 feet wide. When you're look at your dredging, you're dredging either side of a 200 foot wide channel. It's not, you know, 90 feet. It's 200. >> What's the clearance under the pier? >> The clearance under the pier, I don't
think I can read it off of your board. It is >> I can zoom in on it. >> 6. Uh, I measured it over the >> at high tide. >> At high tide,
>> it's always this. Oh. Uh, mean high water. 47 2 4 6 7 I think it says 69 >> over mean high water
>> over mean high water. Yeah. >> Yeah. 6.9 ft. This is mean high water right here. So you have almost seven. >> All right. Thank you. >> That's all I have. >> There are certain regulations for
clearing over a salt marsh. Yes. Yep. And I can um I can get those over to you guys. >> But that's is this >> I believe so. Yes, I can. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Mary, any questions? >> No, I'm good. >> Okay. So, I think is there any public comment before I proceed?
Okay. Uh so, we're going to continue, but we want to continue to January 8th. >> Jan. Yeah. >> And can we arrange a site visit by then? >> Um yes. >> Free site visit. Well, he has other permitting to do, don't you? >> He has to do it after this.
>> You have to do chapter 91 after this. >> He talked about uh storm water >> to file a storm water application. >> Yeah. But those typically run concurrently with Cong, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And uh yeah, I'm I'm flexible, too. If you're going to do uh the Crane
River site visit, you know, I'm not in Clinton. I'm just in Salem. So, anytime you want. Okay, good. >> It's easy. It's a drive up access. I mean, it's it's very simple to do. >> All right. So, that means you have three
site visits. You're you're looking to coordinate, >> right? >> Yep. Absolutely. I will uh I'll get on that right away and we'll we'll find something that works for everyone. >> We have what 28 days till next meeting. >> We got this. We can do it. >> Okay. Okay. So, uh someone can make a
motion to uh continue to January 8th. So that's reading this here. Motion to >> I move I'm just still make a motion making a motion reading making a motion uh to continue the public hearing at 9 Jacobs Landing D
number 14-145 to January 8th 2026. I second the motion. >> Before we uh go, uh are we going to have a lot of stuff on that day or >> um right now we have just um just 80 water.
>> We we haven't received anything new for that day yet. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I second the motion. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I Okay, so >> thank you very much. >> Get out to see your place and we'll see you again next month. >> Not his place, but his client, right?
Uh, yes. >> Okay. Next up is a notice of intent for 8 Wildwood Road, D file number 14-14. >> They have a number, didn't they? >> Yes, they did. Yep. >> Byebye. >> Uh, 1447.
>> 1447. The applicants are John and Nina Ragosa. And I think Bill Emanuel is here to represent them. >> Go ahead, Bill. >> All right. Uh some very intric intricate projects tonight. Uh mine is not as intricate as
that. Uh good way to end the evening. Uh Nina Regosa is here. It's her property and Steven Dvaro, her dad, is going to be the uh the the resident in the new
addition. Uh this is 8 Wildwood Road and the existing structure is here. There is a intermittent stream. Well, the the uh rail trail the is elevated. It's uh behind the property here and
there is a culvert that comes there's a big swamp on the west side of the rail trail and then there's a culvert that comes under it and runs through the property like this. and then on out across Wildwood Road. Uh I flagged there's a fringe of
wetlands alongside that culvert. I've marked those wetlands beginning at a head wall here and uh for the most part they they go within a few feet of the uh stream bank. It's actually armored here. The first three flags is actually
armored with rip wrap. And then it it uh scooted out into the grass a little bit here. You can see there's a little fence that demarcates where the edge of lawn is. it it went out into the grass a little bit, came back in, and then ended at the culvert that comes underneath the
uh the large rail the old railroad embankment. So, there is the here's the 35- ft uh no disturb zone. This is the 50 foot no build zone. And this line here is the
100 ft buffer zone. This is the new addition. It will have a nice patio with a pergola. There will be a fire pit and a little uh it's being called the barn, but it's really a shed. And there'll be
a a new little patio here. There's an existing door underneath this this uh first floor deck. It's a walkout style home. So, this deck is a is a story above ground. There's a a double door down here. And this patio will provide a
nice transition to enter into that lower door and not track mud and such into the in the house. Um you could see quite a bit of this work is actually outside of the buffer zone. The uh the shed is entirely outside the
buffer zone. Some of the uh addition is outside the buffer zone. This existing above ground pool will get dismantled. a portion there is an existing deck. You can see in a lighter gray line it runs right up to the pool. A portion of that
deck gets dismantled and the addition is built. All of this area is wide open grass. We don't even need to remove a single shrub to accomplish this work. Uh you'll see here's the 50 foot no build line and that's driven off this one flag
here. uh 114 square feet of that little atgrade patio is within the no build zone. So uh your bylaw does allow for uh certain a small amount of encroachment into the no build zone. Uh this is less
than 1% of the uh area of no build zone on the property. Your bylaw uh allows for an encroachment up to 20%. So we are at less than 1% to mitigate for that encroachment. Uh we do propose
a 240 square foot area along the uh the edge of wetlands here. It's just outside the fence that we're going to naturalize. We're going to put in a half a dozen sweet pepper bush shrubs. Those are facultative shrubs. They'll do well in that environment in the summertime.
They'll put out a nice showy white flower. It's a pollinator species and I think it'll be very beneficial to uh restoring that area little area of buffer zone next to the uh the stream. >> What is that area right now, Bill?
>> What is it? >> Yeah. >> Uh it's just kind of there's a gate there. It's kind of open. Uh generally devoid of shrubs. >> Just brush type stuff. >> Yep. So it's actually devoid of brush. So it's a good spot to put some shrubs in.
Uh so so that's it. Um we do show erosion control that we're going to begin at the edge of this uh right at the edge of the patio there and just run this straight out to you know basically cover all the work area here. Uh as I said this is a
uh a gently sloping open lawn area. Construction access will be from the high side or you know the uh the northerly side. They'll have to dismantle a uh a nice vinyl stockade fence here to get the machinery in there. And then once the excavation's
done, the project's done, they'll just reinstall that fence. >> And there's a shed in the the the fire northern part. Is that anything happening with that? >> Uh >> not that it matters. >> An existing shed. >> Is that existing? >> No, this is proposed here.
>> Okay, >> that's proposed, but it is outside the buffer zone. Okay, one quick question. The um the water that drains across and goes underneath Wildwood, >> where does that >> end up? Where does that go after that?
>> Um I I don't know the the the roads in this area, but it uh it it it goes through and then it continues off in sort of a northeasterly direction behind some of the houses that as you come down Wildwood, you make that hard right turn.
Uh there's homes here and it goes in the backyards of those homes. So it goes off in a northeasterly direction. >> It's the same water that comes from the North Street project. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. There's a large wetland on this
side of the rail trail that drains through this >> subdivision on the in the northern corner of your drawing too, right? The lane or whatever it is. Right. >> Okay. Uh, okay. I mean, think I think you covered it all, Bill. You're just saying that's
you're within the limits on the the patio being within the 50 foot. And other than that, it it's outside of the the no building, the no disturbs, >> right? >> Uh, so I really don't have any other questions. Mike, do you have any questions? >> Just so this is an accessory dwelling
unit. >> It will be. Yes, >> it will be. >> Yeah. from our most recent um bylaw changes allowing those types of units, >> right? >> Yep. >> And um would you talk a little more about what the uh the vegetated wetland
is, what it consists of? >> Yeah, it it's uh apparently an excavated channel. Uh as I said the initial three flags from the head wall one two three uh there was actually uh the bank was uh
stabilized with large rip wrap uh and obviously there's a culvert that was installed underneath the railroad embankment many many years ago. It's a stone culvert. Uh so it's very old. >> And so obviously that channel was was
excav you can see it's fairly straight. So somebody over the years has straightened that channel and made it run from one culvert to a a head wall and a pipe under Wildwood Road. >> No flooding issues there. I take it >> it's not mapped at all as a as having a
100redyear flood >> on it. So um you've lived there now. 10 years. Any flooding? >> No. >> Yep. >> That's all. No more questions. Thank you. >> One quick question, Bill. The um the gas
line that goes through that area, is that impacting on this property at all? >> Uh there is a marker for the gas line right up tall, but you know, >> Yep. Um, frankly, I don't know where it goes uh from that point, but I'm pretty
certain it doesn't go through the back of the house. >> Yeah. >> That gas line, I have no idea why, >> but there's a line of sight for those. When you walk down the rail trail, you you see them like >> and you can see them progress along. Yeah. Um,
>> so I don't think those can be moved. I mean, the markers themselves. >> No. >> No. >> I think that's further north. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Uh, okay. You guys are all set. Mary, you have any questions? >> Good. >> Any public comment or questions? None.
>> I have one. >> Go ahead. No. Um, and it may not be applicable to this, but from the standpoint of um impervious versus permeable surfaces. Have you given thought when you you talked about um you know different patio areas and that type of thing. Have you given any thought to making that more permeable just so the
storm water is settling in as opposed to being managed across the you know the yard? Yeah, the I mean uh these patios are generally small in area and uh you know whatever doesn't it we we didn't really talk about whether
these are going to be pvious features or imperous features but either way uh even if it were an imperous feature they only have to travel a few feet in either direction before it hits the lawn and then it percolates in the ground. Y >> what's the footprint on the patio? Oh.
Uh, we don't have that dimensioned on the plan, but they're, you know, roughly on the order of 12 by 12, something like that. >> Okay. >> Do these ADUs, do they need separate entrances?
>> I'm not sure 100% of the rules, but uh I know there's they're supposed to be separate. And isn't there supposed to be a common area connection? >> Yeah, >> they're generally attached to the existing, although I think they do allow uh separate ADUs too as well, right?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's a state rag, but I think the town rag requires a common connection and that's what this this square here is that common connection to the house. >> Okay. Um,
I don't see any problem with this. I don't know if anyone else has any observations. >> No, I don't. >> No. >> No. All right. Well, someone can make a motion that we approve this and get them going. >> Uh, there's the
this that's this one here, right? Eight Wildwood, >> right? But there's two things. We have to approve a waiver first. So I need to close grant a waiver. >> No, we're going to close the public hearing. >> Make a motion. >> So we'll go right here in the face. All right. >> So we're going to go right down the
list. So we're going first we need to do is close the public hearing. >> I make a motion to close the public hearing for 8 Wildwood Road D number 14-1447. >> And second the motion. All >> in favor? I >> I
>> I make a motion to grant a waiver to allow work in the 50 no build zone for 8 Wildwood Road D number 14-1447. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> I make a motion to issue an order of
conditions for 8 Wildwood Road D number 14147 with additional conditions as discussed. Can one additional condition was that they mentioned on the plan that they would be building a pollinator garden
>> and some land you're doing a little landscaping there that you >> 240 square feet of >> uh restoration. >> Okay. Okay. So, the motion's been made. Is there a second? >> I I'll second the motion. >> All in favor? >> I >> Okay, good. All right.
>> You're all set. >> Thank you. >> Three years. That's the term of the notice of intent conditions. So if the three years goes by and you haven't finished, you have to come back and ask for an extension. >> You expect to do this rather quickly, I take it.
>> So you'll come in when you're done for a certificate of compliance so we can sign it off when you're done. as early as September, October. >> Well, depends on >> Yeah. Just some people forget to come
back when they're done. >> We'll be back. >> Okay. Good. >> Uh, whatever you're doing. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. >> Thank you. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Uh, okay. For old and new business, we have uh two sets of meetings, two sets
of minutes from our October 23rd and November 13th meetings. Um, I think we can vote on those at the same time. So, as long as everyone has read those and >> the only thing is Paul is not able to vote on the November 13th meeting because he wasn't there. >> Oh, okay. So, let's vote on them separately then. All right. So on the
October 23rd meeting, someone can make a motion. We'll accept those minutes. I move to make a motion to accept the minutes of the October 23rd, 2025 meeting. >> I second the motion. >> All in favor? >> I. >> And now we need a motion from someone
other than Paul to accept the November 13th. >> I'll make a motion that we uh uh accept the November 13th uh minutes of the November 13th meeting. >> I second the motion. >> All in favor? >> I. Okay. There's one thing Emily doesn't have it on here, but we talked a little
bit about it at the last meeting was uh >> uh rotating the the chairmanship through other members of the board. >> Yeah. >> Uh and I see that Emily sent out a >> the rules. >> A brief description today, but >> I know other boards have
>> a finite set of guidelines, don't they? Well, yeah, I found more set ones for um planning in CBA, but for Hong Kong, everything that I found in the MATC guide book, too, it said we follow Robert's rules of order to to the greatest extent possible, and that's kind of our our guideline for
everything. Um, and as the commission is ready for a new chair if you would like to do that, it's an option. You have that flexibility, too. So, members of the board, I want you to consider if you would want to serve as the chairman or chairperson and uh we'll
revisit this at our meeting in January. >> Yeah. >> And then >> for the new year. Yeah. >> And then I'd like to get a new chairperson installed here as quickly as possible. >> Yeah. >> Great. >> I've been doing it for too long. you've been doing for a long time and I was doing it for a long time uh >> before you and trying to get you to come
on >> pandemic I think is what I started doing. We had to do all the uh >> the remote meetings and then go >> that's been five years so that's >> it's time for someone else. >> Yeah. >> And then I think if we just rotated through the members of the board like one year at a time and then >> if you serve for a long time you're
going to come back and do it again. >> Yeah. No, that's how it works. Yeah. >> Okay. And we now I I have some people that have been on for a while um that would that would consider. We'll find out who's who's interested. >> I would think about it and I know the
other girl would >> I think interested >> and she's actually been on longer than you. I think as a chie >> it's I was going to ask that question. Who's here longer? Mary or Lorraine? >> H >> I think I've been here longer. >> I don't know if she was here. I think
she started. It's close right now. >> It's close. But I think I think that you started before her. >> Just just know that for the next meeting, >> but I'm not going to like if she's interested, I'm fine with that. But if she's not, then I would think about it more. Do you know? >> Yeah. >> Um Yeah. I would I have no problem doing
it, but >> um >> Yeah. I just kind of like to >> You get to talk to Emily. >> Yes. I don't I don't know anything about what it is that you do or any of that. We could talk about that another time. It's not much not much different than what you see.
>> Okay. Uh >> yeah, I will be okay. >> Someone can make a motion to adjurnn. We will do that. >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> I second the motion. All >> in favor? I I Okay, good.