Heat. Heat. Good evening. Welcome to the June 10th, 2026 meeting of the Falmouth Conservation Commission. This meeting is being held virtually via Zoom video conference and is already and is also being broadcast by FCTV on cable channel
9. As this meeting is broadcast by Zoom and FCTV, please be cognizant of what you say, how you say it, and what can be seen and heard in your background. We have a full complement of commissioners tonight. Thank you all for your dedication. I would like to remind the commissioners
that for commenting, I will call on each of you in turn. So, please refrain from speaking over each other. Also, all votes are done by roll call. So, when I call your name, please state your name and you vote for the record, even if you've made the motion or second. To our public attendees, at any time during
this meeting, you may enter any comments or questions via the chat function. At the appropriate time, they will be read into the record. If, as an attendee, you'd like to participate in a particular hearing, let us know via the chat function. And at the appropriate time, you will be promoted into the
hearing as a participant. When you are selected, you must have your video enabled. Be succinct and respectful of others. Public comments will be limited to 3 minutes each. Regarding RDAs, under request for determination of applicability, the applicant is asking the commission
determine if the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act or the Falmouth bylaw wetland bylaw apply to their proposed project. A negative determination is that the provision of the act and or bylaw do not apply. Therefore, the project may proceed as
proposed. A positive determination means the provisions of the act and or bylaws do in fact apply and may require some conditions. Therefore, the project would require notice of intent application. So, as an applicant, you want to hear a negative determination
for the benefit of anybody waiting for a particular hearing tonight. So, you are not waiting unnecessarily. The following meetings are expected to be continued. 38 Scubnocket Drive and 58 Cape Cotter Road. >> First on the agenda is make session
temporary close this hearing and move to the executive session. Driscoll >> second. >> Got a motion a second to temporary close this hearing. Move to executive session. Any questions? See no, call the role. Dan, >> Ron,
>> Driscoll, I >> Ronnie, >> McGrath, >> I >> Jim, >> Ben, >> I >> Steve >> Tai, >> Dave and Duffy, I motion passes. We will adjourn to executive session and we'll
be back. All right, I will accept a motion to uh come back on in. Didn't we do we didn't we do it when we left the executive session to come back in here? >> Yeah. Do we have to roll to start again?
>> Just do just I'll double check tomorrow, but if you want to roll start again. Thank you. >> Reopen reopen the open session. Driscoll >> second. >> Motion a second to reopen. Steve >> I >> Dan >> I
>> Jim >> I >> Ron >> Crystal I >> Ronnie >> I >> Dave >> Tai >> and Duffy motion passes to reenter executive session. First on the list we have a request for
>> a continuence under a notice of intent. David and Marcy Barnes, 38 Squib Squib Knocket Drive, found with permission to replace a piling and for after the fact permission to construct retaining walls, install a patio, replace of decking, and alter existing vegetation.
Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. The applicants are requesting a continuence until July 1st. >> Make a motion to continue the hearing of a notice of intent of July 1st. Driscoll second. >> Got a motion and a second to continue this hearing till July 1st. Any
questions? Seeing none. Steve >> I >> Dan >> I >> Jim >> Breath I >> Crystal I >> Ronnie >> Bman I >> Dave >> I >> and Duffy I we will continue this
hearing July 1st. Next we got a request for a continuence under an enforcement order. Maryanne Peshi Choke 58 Cape Cott Road Falmouth Mass violation of or of the order of conditions for mass DP
number 25-4519. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. This matter is uh the applicant or resident has requested this matter be continued until Alyssa July I don't have it in front of me. This is
>> first >> first July 1st. Thank you. >> Make um make a motion to continue this. We have enforcement audit until July 1st. >> Driscoll >> Bowman second. >> And a motion a second to continue this
hearing until July 1st. Any questions? Seeing none. Steve I >> Dan. Jim >> Grath I >> Ronnie >> I >> Ronnie >> I >> Dave >> Tai
>> and Duffy I motion has passed to continue this till July 1st. All right for request for determination ofability. First up, we got Town of Felmouth Engineering Department CEO Jim Mclofflin, Turner Road and Thomas B.
Landers Road, Felmouth, Mass, for permission to install drainage improvements along Turner Road and a portion of Thomas B. Landers Road. Melissa >> staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative two under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. These negative determinations
indicate that work described in this RDA is within an area subject to protection, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter the area. Therefore, the said work does not require the filing of a notice of intent. >> Move to determine a work described as within an area subject to protection but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter the area. Driscoll
>> Bman second. >> Got a motion and a second. Any questions? No. >> Seeing none, I'll call the role. Ron. >> Driscoll. I >> Ronnie >> Bman. >> Dave. >> Shanti. >> Steve. >> I. >> Dan.
>> Walsh. >> Jim. >> Rati. and Duffy I motion passes. Next, Thomas Lewis, Massachusetts Coastal Railroad right ofway found with mass permission to conduct vegetation
management. Melissa >> staff recommends a negative five under the state and a negative two under the bylaw. resource area boundaries are not confirmed and a negative 5 is a determination under the state that indicates his proposed work meets requirements for exemption as specified
in the WPA under 310 CMR 1036B 310 CMR 10586A 310 CMR 100 appendices and 333 CMR 11. >> Can we just move to all that? Read the right move to determine the
work described as within an area subject to protection but still but will not remove fill dredge or alter the area. >> Driscoll >> moment second. >> Got a motion a second. Any questions? Seeing none. Steve
>> and I. Dan >> als Ronnie >> I >> Dave >> Denti >> and Duffy eye. Motion passes. Next we got Eric J and Peter S. Melo 56 Field
Street found with Mass for permission to install a new Title 5 sewage disposal system. Alyssa >> staff recommends a negative two under the state and bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed and this project solely takes place in an AE flood zone. >> Move to determine the work described as within an area subject to protection but
will not remove fill dredge or alter the area. Driscoll >> and second a motion and a second. Any questions? Seeing none, I will call the roll. Steve >> and I. >> Dan. >> Jim.
>> Grant. >> Roni. Ronnie >> I >> Dave >> I >> and Duffy I motion passes. Next we got Laura Nongesser 178 Edgewood Drive
Eastbound with mass prefer permission to per pro to permit and repair an existing pier. Kalissa >> the applicant has requested a continuence until July 15th. and make a motion to continue the determination of applicability to July
15th. Driscoll >> Bowman second. >> Got a motion and a second to uh continue this RDA to July 15th. Any questions? Seeing none. Steve >> Martin I >> Dan
>> I >> Jim >> McGrath I >> Ron >> I >> Ronnie >> I >> Dave >> San >> and Duffy I motion passes to um continue
this till July 15th. All right. Four notices of intent. All hearings of the Falmouth Conservation Commission are held simultaneously under the authorities of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act and the Falmouth Wetland Bylaw. Although
a single decision of the commission is issued, it represents a separate a separate decision under each authority. As a reminder, public commenting is limited to three minutes. So I encourage you to stay within the purview of this board which are the rules and regulations of the wetlands protection
act in the fmouth wetlands bylaw and how they pertain to a particular application. Please know that all correspondence received by the conservation department is forwarded to all commissioners and becomes part of the record. We will not read each and every letter receive at a hearing. Remember, our jurisdiction is
that of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act and the Falmouth Wetland Bylaws, not zoning, health, or building. First up for a continued request for a hearing under notice of intent, we have Michael Tano, 86 Edgewater Drive, East
Famouth, Mass for Permission to construct two additions in a porch and to renovate the existing house. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I promoted Mike Barceli up to present his project. >> This is Mike's project, right, Alissa?
>> Yeah, I saw a sign out for >> Yeah. might be having up there. >> There you go. Mike, >> what are you guys doing to me? You changed things up on me. I'm not that technically uh adept at this stuff. Can you hear me? >> We can hear you, Mike. We got you.
>> Can you see me? >> We can see you, too. >> Thank you. All right, for the record, Mike Boselli, Dmouth Engineering. I represent the applicant, Michael Tanos, who owns the property at 86 Edgewater
Drive East. You may, some of you may remember this property. Uh, Mr. Tanos received permission to construct a private recreational pier. Uh, uh, that was constructed. A certificate of
compliance was issued. Um, he has plans now to make this house his, uh, year- round residence. and he is now proposing renovations to the house. Uh, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd like to share my screen. >> Go for Mike.
>> Thank you. >> Am I sharing? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Uh, the property at 86 Edgewater Drive East um has frontage on Child's River. It's a just under 13,000 square foot
lot. It has a um single family dwelling on it, a shed, uh a crush shell driveway area. Um I'm showing you the plan that has the impervious surfaces as for the existing condition uh shaded.
Um the wetland resources of note include uh land under the ocean and land containing shellfish, a salt marsh, uh a coastal bank um the top of which we've identified with this orange line. Um we've also shown the 50ft no
disturbance zone A and B from the top of the bank. And we've shown the 100 foot no disturbance zone A from the salt marsh. It's this green line. Um the the proposed project um is to
renovate the house uh which includes putting a second story uh addition on a portion of it. Bumping out the front uh 9 ft by 20 towards the street. U modifying the deck slightly. Putting a
small addition on in this corner and a and a porch. Um so the shaded areas represent the proposed impervious as as compared to uh the existing um in and in the design of the
renovations uh they are such that there is no increase in imperous surface. So there's no uh requirement for mitigation planting. Uh the septic system is not being
updated because there's no increase in bedrooms with the renovation. There's going to be interior renovations that um uh change things, but there's no net increase in bedrooms. We actually did a walk through with the health agent to
verify the number of bedrooms as three. Um we're proposing dry wells. Um for roof runoff we show a limit of work. Um the staff report was submitted
and I was looking for another page but there were no significant staff comments um other than um a couple relative to the previously required mitigation planting. Evidently, one
uh of the restoration trees has died and needs to be replaced. And there's a couple of smaller mitigation plantings in this shaded green area that I guess didn't make it and need to be uh replanted. Um
certainly make sense and they should be replaced. Uh there's not much else I can say. It's a fairly benign project. Um
not moving closer to wetland resources in any way. Um and I think we've demonstrated that um there's no uh required mitigation. And with that, I'll stop sharing and take questions.
>> Thanks, Mike. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Um, I have no additional comments just other than we'll need to replace the deceased plants, the plants that didn't make it. They'll just
I'll just write that they need to be replaced. >> Anything to add, Alyssa? >> Not at this time. Thank you. >> All right, I'll open up to commissioner's comments. Uh Jim, >> uh they're removing the crush shells. What what's going to replace the crush
shells? >> Um bark mulch and ornamental planting. >> Okay. No further questions. Thank you, Steve. >> Have any other questions? Thank you, >> Dan. >> No, looks good. That was the only
question I had as well. So, I'm all set. >> Ron, >> yeah, the um removal of the the shell, that's that's negating any mitigation for the addition to the house. That's where the That's where we're getting the the good result here, right Mike? >> Yes. Because crushed stone, crushed
shells, and things like that are still considered impervious in the no disturbance zone. >> Okay. In other words, that's one of the few places where I've seen where the restoration plants are successful on the northern side of the house. >> Yeah, it looks good. >> Yeah.
>> Trying to take care of them. >> Ronnie, >> no questions. Thank you, >> Dave. I have no questions. I was just going to say that up there in the restoration area, they've already done some replacement. Seems like they're doing a very good job. Seems to me.
>> Yeah. Thank you. >> And I concur with the rest of them. So, I've got no further questions. >> Make a motion to close the hearing. Take advice. Misman second. >> We've got a motion in a second.
Any questions, Jen? Anything in the chat? Nothing in the public chat. >> All right, I'll call the role to close the hearing and taking on revisement. Jim >> McGrath I >> Steve >> I
>> Dan >> Walsh I >> Ronnie >> I >> Dave >> I >> and Duffy I motion passes to close the hearing and take it under advisement. Thanks Mike. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks Mike.
>> Have a good night. See you next. Next we've got James Pello and Robin Shemik. 65 Walker Street found with mask for permission to raise an existing single family dwelling, construct a new single family dwelling with deck porches and attached garage. Install a new Title 5
sewage disposal system and install mitigation and restoration plantings. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have promoted Zach Bazinski up from Bracken M Engineering to present his project. Hello, Zack. Good evening everyone. >> Good evening.
>> Been a while. >> Been a while. I'm back. >> I'm share my screen at this time. Mr. Chairman, >> you're all set. Go for it. >> Thank you very much. >> So again, for the record, uh Zach Basinski, professional engineer, Bracken Engineering here this evening on behalf
of the applicants. Uh this is 65 Walker Street, an existing developed single family house lot in the downtown area. This is Let me move this screen. Not going to work. Um, just east of the town hall. Uh, existing house was built in
1966. Two-bedroom structure. The resource areas on or near the lot are in IVW. Um, we had received staff reports. We've had the um IVW redelineated by ECR, Brad Holmes, and CAM. So, uh, field
data reports were submitted for that. Other resource areas on and near the lot are an AE12 flood zone and then the associated coastal bank. So the um applicants recently purchased this property. They're looking at raising or demoing the existing structure, building
a new three-bedroom structure on the property. Um there is an increase in structure area on the lot. We did have um a review of the proposed project with staff yesterday. Uh, so just to bring the commission up to speed on everything, um, based on the staff
report that was submitted, try to move this out of here. These zoom bars get all in the way. Here we go. Um, we have updated the actual site plan uh to address staff comments, added all the requested trees onto the property,
and the applicant has also reduced the size of the structure of the house. Oh, >> so that good enough. So, we're going to So, the applicant uh application is actually um changing a slight bit on this. So, just to review, I know there
were some comments regarding separation of mitigation plantings around the structure. The redesign project has been designed to provide the 10-ft separation around the proposed structure as a reduced uh mitigation requirement as results and it will also result in a
vast increase in nitrogen reduction on the property. So currently the system is serviced by a two-bedroom compliant um nondight septic system. We're proposing to put in a new clean tube nitrogen reduction septic system as part of this
proposal which would actually have a 52% reduction in nitrogen loading um on the property. So with that um we've also added drywalls everything back into the application. So at this time I will turn it back over and address comments.
>> Thanks. Yep. You can stop sharing. >> Yep. >> Jen, >> we haven't seen the revised plan, so we have no comments on the revised plan. We specifically asked Bracken Engineering
not to submit a revised plan the night of a hearing to the commission without the board reviewing it first. Although, Zach, I appreciate you attempting to um address our concerns. I get it. Unfortunately, we cannot comment on something that you flashed up on the
screen very briefly. Um, is it a three is it still a three-bedroom system, Zach? >> Still a three-bedroom system. >> Yes. So, the threebedroom system um does not meet the board's current regulations. Um, your regulations state that if there
is an increase in design flow, it's within 100 ft of a wetland, that's just not allowed. Um, this will have to be continued. We will need to review the revised plan so that we can uh address the um revisions that were made
that we have been been given an opportunity to review and we will be prepared to issue that staff report to the board at a continued hearing. Um but Zach, again, don't don't present a plan without the staff seeing it first. It's
it has to do with the open meeting law and um now we need a copy of that plan for our record since you put it on the screen. Um and we don't have that. The board does not
have a copy of it. The board hasn't been able to to consider that plan. Um so there's absolutely no way we could close this hearing this evening. >> Nope. Just wanted to let the board know that we've addressed staff comments >> and I I appreciate that that you
addressed some of the comments and not all of the comments. Kind of really glossed over that three-bedroom increase or that one-bedroom increase. Um, with the one-bedroom increase, have you approached, have you gone to the health department to have them do a walk through the house to determine if it's a
two or threebedroom house? >> We have a a meeting scheduled. We're actually filing for the variance with um we've talked to Scott about the bedrooms and we've we're filing for a variance request through the health department. >> A variance request for what? >> The increase in the flow and the removal
of the um two-bedroom de restriction that's currently on the property. >> Okay. So whether or not the board of health agrees with that or not, again the the wetland reg our local wetland regulations say that
that you know unfortunately an increase in design flow just cannot happen within uh 100 ft of that wellin. So from the concom standpoint, it would still need to be if the board upheld that regulation, still need to be deed restricted to two bedrooms regardless of
what the board of health says. >> Yeah, we're going to be asking for relief, Jen, on that because of the the environmental improvements with the septic system. We know that there's a disconnect right now from the oldcom regulations and the old title 5 regulations. So
>> there's no disconnect. So, okay. Well, we'll look forward to looking at the new plans, Zach, but again, please Alyssa asked you not to do that yesterday and um it was just unfortunate that that happened. Thank you,
>> Alyssa. Anything to add? >> Uh just a reminder that we did receive a better comments for this project about a month ago. Um there were some concerns about um trees along the property line. Um, since we are waiting to see trees
shown on the plan, uh, we can take a closer look at that. I I didn't look at them particularly closely when I did my site visit. Um, but there are some concerns that they are dead or decaying. Um, so we can evaluate what needs to be removed for construction, what should be removed for being a hazardous condition,
um, and what can be reinstalled. >> Thank you. >> So, Jen, does it make sense just to continue this off? >> Yeah, we're going to continue. I do have one question for Zach. So, Zach, have you actually filed with the board of health yet? >> Uh, Penny was submitting the application today.
>> Okay. So, in the future, uh, I do believe the Wetlands Protection Act. No, I rephrase that. I know the Wetlands Protection Act says that if you're seeking a variance or or you need an, uh, approval from any other board, zoning, planning, uh, board of health that you need to f at least file with
that board prior to coming before the Cong. Um, so just keep that in mind next time. Okay, >> we'll do. >> Thank you. >> Make a motion >> particular date. I mean it I don't I I think it's probably just better just
waiting for the next plans to actually look at before commenting. >> You have nothing to comment on. You haven't seen the plan. So, >> exactly. >> Um, Zach, what date are you looking for? >> We do July 1st.
We can we offer you the 24th? >> Do the 24th? I'd like that. >> Uh, hang on. I'm looking at the 24th. RDA's two notices. Uh, I think we could
we've got one notice, continued notice we haven't seen. Uh, we could accommodate you on the 24th act. >> Thank you very much. >> That works for you. Yep. >> Okay. We'll get you on the 24th. >> Motion to continue this hearing until June 24th. Driscoll, >> just one one question first. So, does that leave enough time for the other
groups to actually look at the proposed changes? >> I'm going back to what you said, Jenna, about you need other groups to have looked at things first. >> Well, so your your regulations are independent of the board of health. The wetlands protection act says they at
least have to file with the board of health. So, as long as Zach files with the board of health, um, by the 24th, we should be good to go. Again, regardless of the decision the board of health makes, your regulations state that, um,
there cannot be an increase in design flow within 100 ft of a wetland. Now, um, you can debate that if the board grants the three-bedroom system or, you know, Scott has an opinion on bedrooms and that fact. That would be, you know, fine. We can take that into
consideration. Um, but Zach, that's up to you. Do you want to wait until you go through the board of health process or do you want to try for the 24th? >> Let's put out for the 24th. >> Okay. Bman second. All right. Got a motion in a second. Any questions?
See none. Steve >> Patton I >> Dan >> Bshan. >> Ron >> Friscoll I >> Ronnie >> I >> Dave >> Panti. >> Jim I >> and
Duffy I. Motion passes to continue this hearing until 6:24. Thanks Zach. Very good. >> Thank you. >> I'll be around for the next one. >> All right. Next, Jane Crowley Cullinin and Stephen
R. Stiss trustees. Jane Crowley Cullinin discretionary trust 39 Pine Bank Road found Mass for permission to raise an existing single family dwelling construct a new single family dwelling with a porch and patio and install a new
title 5 sewage disposal system. Zach Bazinski is still with us this evening from Bracken Engineering to present his project on Pine Bank. And Zach, I better see a plan on the screen that matches the one in my hands.
>> You have a plan that will match that one. Jen, >> okay. And no quickly flashing another one in front of me. >> I will not show the other one. >> Okay. >> All righty. Hey again for the record. Zach Basinski, professional engineer by acting engineering. I here this evening
on behalf of the applicants. Uh this is 39 Pine Bank in North Falmouth. Existing developed single family house lot. Um resource areas on or near the lot are a coastal dune system and then an AE15 flood zone uh for the property. Uh
existing 10,000 ft lot. Existing house was built back in or permitted back in 2007, built in 2008. So, property is recently sold to a new owner who's looking at demoing the existing house and rebuilding a new house on the
property. Uh, slight increase in uh structure by 19 square ft, but an overall reduction in impervious area on the lot. New house will be built in compliance with the uh FEMA building code requirements and will be serviced with a new denitrification as septic
system on the lot. still saying four bedrooms, two four bedrooms on the property. Uh we did meet with um Alyssa to review adding some additional trees. Those were located, picked up, and added to the site plan. So, we do have an updated site plan uh to submit back to
staff uh for review. Again, uh applicant is um the existing septic system when the existing property was built was installed in the rear of the property here. So, in order to upgrade and install the new septic system, the existing vegetation will be removed. We
are proposing to replant vegetation on the outskirts of the existing septic system. Um, and there were some additional cedar trees that were out there. They would we'd ask staff that if they come out that they would be uh replanted back in the area and um go
from there. applicant is also um proposing some additional um native plantings in the front of the lot up here, although they are not required to install any additional mitigation requirements. Uh they are proposing to do an additional 500 square ft out here
uh in the front of the property. Uh based on this, we believe we meet all the performance standards and we'll turn it back over. >> Thanks, Zach. Right. Gen. >> Yes. And um Zach said there were slight just changes we wanted to the plan. So
we're fine with him submitting the revised plan as requested by staff. No additional comments. Thank you, Zach. >> Thank you, >> Alyssa. Anything to add? >> No comments. Thank you. >> All right. I will take commissioner
questions. I'll start with you, Steve. times like this, it it I I I tried to recall what did we why did we continue this? Uh >> I wasn't available that evening when we had the last >> Oh, okay. Good. Okay. Then I have no
other questions. Thank you. I thought there was something we wanted fixed. >> No, I just had a double hearing. >> Okay. Thank you, Zach. >> Dan, I'm only trying to figure is is the driveway changing in this plan? That's actually getting reduced
>> reduced slightly. If I could share my screen again, I can show you. >> Go ahead. >> Because a bunch a bunch of hardcapes being added on. >> Yep. So, the driveway of the picture, right?
>> Yep. Driveways actually being reduced. Same configuration, same entrance off the front. Parking spaces up here and then the parking underneath the building through here. >> Okay. Okay. So that kind of offsets the added hardcape there on the left side of the building. Is that the calculation?
>> Yep. Yeah. So we had a reduction in the impervious coverage from the driveway area through here. So that's why there's a reduction. >> Right. And the the words up in the top where those parking spaces are a little confusing because it says parking spaces then it's kind of parentheses to be
counted towards coverage, but then it's got crossed out. I'm just trying to figure out whether you're removing them or you're not. No, that that that space is for the zoning. We're going for a zoning application. So that's the area when they look at the coverage from a zoning standpoint.
>> Okay. Okay. All right. No other questions. Thank you. All right. All righty. Uh Ron, >> no questions. Good luck. Good luck with the project running. >> Seems pretty straightforward. Good luck
moving forward, >> Dave. >> Uh, just one question, Zach. So, the mitigation on the left is required. That's for the uh new construction on the left of the house. Does also did you say is being vegetation taken out because of the sewer system? New sewer system.
>> Yeah. In the back. Yep. In the back of the lot. So, when they had done their original planting in the original project, they installed mitigation planting it through the back. So, that's right through here. So you can see the actual septic system dashed out. So they built up this whole retaining wall
system when they raised this up for the sept the old septic system and the vegetation is grown through here. So we have to take that out, put the new septic in and then we're going to replant around the edge of the septic and then there's additional >> oh mitigation that's being provided.
>> Okay. So so there's some mitigation in the back as well then. Okay. >> Yeah. Right. And the mitigation in the front is optional. >> Optional. Yeah, >> that's all I got. Thank you, >> Jim. >> No questions, Mr. Chairman.
>> And I have no questions either. So, Jen, anything in the chat function? >> Nothing in the public chat. >> All right. >> I make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement. Driscoll >> second. >> Got a motion, a second to uh close the hearing and take it under advisement.
Any questions? Seeing none. Steve >> Patton >> I >> Dave >> I >> Ron >> Dusal I >> Ronnie >> I >> Dan >> Jim >> Graphi
>> and Duffy I motion passes to close the hearing and take it under advisement. >> Thank you much everyone. >> Thanks again Zach. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Have a good night. >> You too. >> All right. The next two are continued.
Next vote order of conditions. Robert Franklin West second. 380 Wild Harbor Road, Falmouth, Mass. Jen. >> Yes. 380 Wild Harbor. This is the one with the
um lot with a path next to it. But um pretty much Tim submitted his plan. The only revision we needed was for him to add additional mitigation for counting the driveway, which was dirt. Um, Elsa,
have we received that plan from Tim? No. So, we'll just condition a revised plan uh with additional mitigation on that and we're fine. I don't believe we have any other comments on that. Um,
>> Alyssa, >> uh, just wanted to show the existing trees on the property. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> Excellent. Any questions from any of the commissioners? >> No. >> Thank you.
>> Make a motion to issue an order of conditions as briefly discussed. Driscoll >> second. >> Got a motion in a second to issue an order of conditions as briefly discussed. Any other questions hearing? None. Dave, >> I >> Steve >> Patton I >> Ron
>> I >> Ronnie >> I >> Ron >> I Dan sorry >> I >> Jim >> I >> and Duffy motion passes to in issue an order of conditions as briefly discussed
next Maria and James Crowley 29 Miami A Falmouth Mass Jen >> uh yes rais and rebell with the poll in the back uh some slight invasive species removal with some
restoration and mitigation. Um went out on site with Tom and Maria, figured out areas to put the more mitigation. So I think the revised plan satisfied staff's concerns. So we're good.
>> Excellent. Any questions for from commissioners? Oh, >> just a note on the quorum. It is Bill Ron Jim Dan. >> All right. Make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed. Driscoll
>> McGrath. Second. >> Got a motion and a second to issue an order of dis order of conditions as discussed. Questions? Seeing none. Ronnie >> Oh, Ron >> Briscoll I. Tim
>> graph I >> Dan >> I >> and FBI motion passes to issue an order conditions as discussed. I don't see anything else. >> All right, make a motion to adjurnn. Drisman
>> Bowman second. >> A motion a second to adjourn. >> Dave and I. >> Steve. >> Patton I. Ron >> Priscal I >> Ronnie >> I >> Dan
>> Paul shot >> Jim >> Brad I >> and Duffy motion to return is passed. Thank you all.