[Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music] Good evening. Welcome to the April 30th meeting of the Fountain Conservation
Commission. This meeting is being held virtually via Zoom video conference and is also being broadcast by FCTV on cable channel 9. As this meeting is being recorded by Zoom in theory and broadcast by FCTV, please be cognizant of what you
say, how you say it, what can be seen and heard in your background. At the moment, we're missing two commissioners. However, we have a quorum, so we're moving forward. As a reminder, I'll call on each of you it uh in turn so we're not talking over each other and that all
votes have to be done by roll call. So when I call your name, please state your name and your vote for the record, even if you've made the motion or the 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 that
would 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. Then at the appropriate time, you'll 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 three minutes each. Regarding RDAs, under a request for determination of applicability, the applicant is asking the commission to determine if the
provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and or the Fmouth Wetlands bylaw apply to their proposed project. A negative determination is that the provisions of the act andor the bylaw do not apply. Therefore, the project may pro may proceed as proposed.
A positive determination means the provisions of the act and or the bylaw do in fact apply and or may require some conditions. Therefore, that project would require a notice of intent application. So, as an applicant, you actually want to hear a negative
determination. And for the benefit of anyone waiting for a particular hearing tonight and so that you're not waiting, excuse me, unnecessarily, the following hearings are expected to be continued. 12 Pawn View Drive, 84 Old Dock Road, 10
Central A, and 362 Echapescet Road. And we have a lot to get through tonight. So, please everybody stay on point. Be succinct and we'll see where we're at. Somewhere around 8:45, 9:00. If we need
to, we'll take a break, which means we're going to be heading to midnight. So, let's try to avoid that. First, I'll vote minutes April 16, 2025. Anyone? Anyone at all to approve the minutes of
uh April 16th as written? Glad filter second. All right, we have a motion and a second to accept the minutes as submitted. Questions or comments or input? We're voting to accept the minutes of April 16. Betsy Gladfelter.
Matthews. I Ron. Risk I Russ. Robins I Steve and I. It is unanimous. We have accepted the minutes of April 16th. Thank you Kristen. Next up are request for continuence under a notice of intent.
First up, David and Kristen Cousins, 12 Pond View Circle, Felmouth, Mass for permission to construct a deck, remove a shed, install dry wells, and install mitigation plantings. Jen, yes, Mr. Chairman, the applicant is requesting a
continuence until May 21st. So moved. Gladfelder Driscoll second. All right, we have a motion and a second to continue this hearing until uh May 21st. Questions or comments? We're
voting on the continuence. Betsy, are I? Courtney is not in yet, right? Matthew's eye. Ron Driscoll I Russ. Robin's eye. Steve and I. It's unanimous with this quorum. We have continued this
until 5:21. Next up is David Flity. Clarity Environmental Services 84 Old Dock Road Felmouth, Mass for after the fact permission for the installation of Hardscape and permission to install the associated mitigation. Jen
um yes, the applicants requesting a continuence until May 14th. So move Gladfelter second. Right. We have a motion and a second to continue this until uh May 14th. Questions or comments? We're
voting on the continuence. Betsy Blackf. Courtney I. Matthews. I Ron Priscali. Russ. Ron's eye. Steve Ben. It is unanimous. We have continued this
until May 14th. Next up, Nicholas Pulcronis, 10 Central Avenue, F of Mass, for permission to remove a patio, construct an addition, install a fence, and install plantings.
Jim, yes. Uh, continuence request for June 4th. So moved. Glad filter second. We have a motion and a second to continue this to June 4. Questions or comments? We're voting on
the continuence. Betsy Blackfelder I. Courtney I. Matthews I Ron Driscoll I Russ. Steve I. It is unanimous. We have continued this to June
4th. Next up Pincenol Builders 362 Echapescuit Road Forth Mass. Request to amend the order of conditions for mass D number 25-4831 to revise the planting plan. Jen
Alyssa, can you help me out with that? I'm sorry, Alyssa. Uh, yes, not a problem. That's the one that I will need to readvertise and put the wrong street um name. So, that will go on to the 14th. Thank you. It should be a quick one. Fiscal second.
All right, we have a motion and a second to continue this until May 14th. Questions or comments? We're voting on the continuence. Betsy Felter. I Courtney. We lost Courtney. So
disappeared. Matthew Z. Ron Priscal. Russ Z. Steve Ben. is unanimous with this quorum. We've continued this to 514. Next up is a request for a continuence under an
enforcement order. 58 Westwood Road LLC, Cara of Robert Martin, 58 Westwood Road, Tom of Mass. unpermitted construction of a shed and removal of vegetation within the buffer to a coastal bank and coastal
dune. Uh, Jen, uh, Alyssa. Uh, sorry, Alyssa. No worries. Um, so the staff is recommending a continuence to June 25th. We do know that the homeowner is acquiring some quotes for
the work. Um, we did speak to their representative and suggest that at the very least the hearing should open next time. This has been ongoing for several years now. So, it'd be good for at least everyone to um hear about the project at the next available um hearing. So, we're
we're good with June 25th. So, moved Robin second. We have a motion and a second to continue this until June 25th. Questions or comments? We're voting on the continuence. Betsy
Roelter I Matthews I Ron I Russ Russ Robins I thank you Steve I it is unanimous with this quorum we have continued this to 625 next up are requests for determination of
applicability first up James Ferry 185 Edgewater Drive Westmouth mass for permission to construct a second story addition with a deck. Alyssa staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative two under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not
confirmed. Anyone so moved? Fiscal second. All right, we have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation. Questions or comments? We're voting. Betsy Lad filter I Matthews I Ron Driscoll I Russ Robins
I Steve Ben is unanimous with this quorum we have accepted staff's recommendation next up Lee Doutau trustee Shanklin Family Real Estate Trust 663 Man Road Fmouth Mass
for permission to install a fence staff recommends a negative three under the and a negative two under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. Driscoll so moved. Second. And we have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation. Questions
or comments? We're voting. Betsy Gladfelter. I Matthews I Ron Russ. Steve Mr. Patton thumbs up. Patton I thank you. I don't know if that was on your end or my
end but sorry is your name quorum. We have accepted staff's recommendation. It's all good. Next up James B and Mary E. Knox 24 Eric Clawson Lane found with Mass for permission to install mitigation plantings in accordance with
mass D number 25-202. Alissa staff recommends a negative2 under the state and bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. Second. We have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation. Questions or
comments. We're voting. Betsy I. Matthews I. Ron Priscal I. Russ. Steve and I. Is unanimous with this quum. We have accepted staff's recommendation. Next up, John Merlesina,
15 Beach Street, found with Mass for permission to repair a failed sewage disposal system. Melissa staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative -2 under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. So moved. Robin second. All right, we
have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation. Questions or comments? All right, we're voting. Betsy Bloodfelter I Matthews I Ron Piscll I Russy.
Steve I. It is unanimous with this quorum we have accepted staff's recommendation. Next up, Dana and Sophia Bartholomew, 58 Juniper Drive, Com of Mass, for permission to reconfigure a driveway and
to install patios and a spa, I'm sorry, patios, a spa, and gravel paths. 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.
Second. All right. I like that we have competition for motions and seconds. Always a good thing. So, we have a motion, a second to accept staff's recommendation. Questions or comments? We're voting. Betsy I Matthews I Ron Biscol I press Robins I
Steve Ben I. It is unanimous with this quorum we have accepted staff's recommendation. Next up, continued requests for determination of applicability. Daniel Hickey, 368
Edgewater Drive West, found Mass for permission to pump, dry, fill, and abandon or remove a failed cesspool and to install a new title 5 sewage disposal system. Alyssa, staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative two under the bylaw. Resource
area boundaries are not confirmed. Go so moved. Second. Second. All right, we have a motion and multiple seconds to accept staff's recommendation. Questions or comments? We're voting. Betsy Filter. I Matthews I
Ron Driscoll I Russ. Robins I. Steve and I. It is unanimous with this quorum. We have accepted staff's recommendation. Thank you to the staff for all that. Next up are requests for
hearing under a notice of intent. All hearings of the Felmouth Conservation Commission are held simultaneously under the authorities of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Falmouth Wetlands Bylaw. Although a single decision of the commission is issued, it represents a separate decision under
each authority. As a reminder, for 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 and the fmouth wetlands bylaw and how they pertain to a
particular application. The chair reserves the right to stop any commenting that is disparaging or inconsequential to the hearing. First up has been previously continued. Second of Second Esset Hills Association, Inc. 200
Second Esset Road, Fmouth, Mass. Full permission to reconstruct a set of access stairs, replace decking on a walkway, and conduct beach nourishment. Jim, yes, Mr. Chairman, I am promoting Mike
Borceli up to um present his project. Excellent. I see Courtney's back in. Yeah. Sorry about that. No
worries. Mr. Borceli, good evening. You're up, sir. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. For the record, Mike Borceli, film with Engineering, and I represent the applicant. Seconds at Hills Association. With your permission, I'd like to share my screen. Yes, sir.
The Sakesset Hills Association owns a uh beach parcel where the where the association beach is located at the very end of Saknesset Road. I'm going to zoom in on that area on this plan. Um at the very end of Sakesset
Road is a paved parking lot. You've reviewed a couple of uh applications on other projects here. most recently a project to uh u improve drainage on the parking lot. Um this property is the
beach parcel. Uh the wetland resources of note include land under the ocean at Buzzard's Bay, a coastal beach, a coastal doom, and land subject to coastal storm flow, which there are a couple different
flood zones. I've shown on this plan in red the existing uh walkway over the dune uh and some stairs. Uh if you've been to the site, you've uh noticed that the dune has eroded and there's a fairly
abrupt escarment in the stairs were undermined. They've been sort of just temporarily supported for safety, but the plan is to uh remove the stairs and rebuild them.
Um the walkway from the parking lot over the dune is fine except they'd like to replace the decking. Um, and also they're hopeful that you can give permission to do some um beach
nourishment um to try to soften the slope and and add a little bit of um more compatible beach sand u at that escarment. I have uh a typical crosssection shown on my plan that I
that highlights how we intend to do this. It'll be elevated over the over the dune and then there'll be stairs and a landing and then stairs down. And you can see where we're proposing some beach nourishment um just in the area where
the slope is very uh abruptly uh eroded. We show a an access uh from the parking lot through down. The uh machinery would be limited to a a rubber track mounted
uh skid steer. It's fairly small machine with a low uh displacement on the ground. The material would be dumped in the parking lot and bucketed over across the beach. Um, I got a staff report and the staff
comments were um as follows. Staff recommends that construction access uh all is also restored with shrub material in addition to beach grass. That's fine and we're more than happy to accept a condition for that. There was a question uh will any mats be placed on
top of the dune for construction access due to the lightweight of the equipment and rubber rubber tracks? We don't think it's necessary. That vegetation's pretty resilient. It'll just sort of bend over and spring back. Um but if you are concerned and you would prefer mats, um
we would we could certainly accept the condition. It may be more it it may not change any impact to that vegetation. It's pretty resilient. a lot of its invasives and putting mats down may be even more impactful than
just allowing the rubber track machine to to ride over through. Um there was a comment about some uh vegetation that had been um cut over the years. So um I will make
my client aware not to do any cutting without permission. Uh this is also in um Misa uh priority habitat and we filed with MISA but we have not yet heard comments. So I don't know that you I don't believe you can actually close the hearing but I thought
I'd open it take questions hopefully uh resolve any other matters and continue. I'm hoping just for the purpose of getting the um letter from Misa due to the priority habitat. With that I'm happy to take questions.
Thanks Mike. John. Yes, Mike. Thank you for answering uh the staff's questions. Most likely, you're going to h you potentially will have a time of year restriction on this because clovers have
been not recently, but historically seen at Woodneck right over the channel. So, you may have that time of year restriction on there. That would come from Misa. That would come from Misa. Yeah. Yep. Um, but that that's it. I
don't have any further uh questions except Mike, please tell the association to stop having Yep. I'll make sure to pass that along. Thank you. All right, Alyssa. No comments. Thank you. All right, commissioner comments or
questions? Betsy? No comments or questions. Thanks, Mike. Yeah, Courtney. Um, I have a qu I have kind of an issue with this because that whole channel is armored all the way back and basically this what
it what it's happening is the channel wants to scour right up on that revetment and um that's there and so putting a set of stairs down there I just that doesn't think makes much
sense. People can certainly go down to the end of the parking lot and access the beach without and then walk around if they want to sit there if there's any sand. But that that whole side is eroding away. So you're kind of fighting mother nature.
Comment. I could share my screen and point something out if it's appropriate. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'm I'm aware of the I'm aware of the revetment. Um, and just for reference, the the rip wrap the rip wrap on the on
the creek is over here. Um, and then the beach because of the where the the the creek uh flows, it flows out and it's creating like a delta out here. So, we're north of the rip wrap. We're in the same exact place where the existing
stairs are. So, these aren't new and they're sufficiently away from the um edge of that rip wrap where we don't we don't see that as an issue. This is like the only access that's been historically there for decades and all we're trying to do is rebuild it and add some beach
nourishment. Yeah. Okay. I just uh I I'm just concerned that it's that it's not a longterm thing because of the way the channel wants to scour that out over there. Mhm. And you know that that whole
marsh air exit is heavily armored and seriously altered and that impedes on the flow coming in and out. But you know that's my comment. I'm not opposed to it. I mean I just think it's a feless exercise.
Understood. You good? Yeah. All right. So Mike, just to be clear, this is to replace in kind. Yes. Ron. Yeah. Um Mike, are you going to replace just the stairs? Are you going to replace the foundation, the pilings
or whatever it's called that supporting the stairs? The cement. The cement. Um we're going to put we're going to put new 6x6 posts down. Okay. Because they they seem to be out of line. They seem to be we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna build a new uh elevated stairway
with with landing at the top and a mid landing and that there'll be um a 6x6 post that will be in the appropriate places. So what what what you see out there now will be different, but it'll be in the same footprint. It'll actually be a little shorter. It won't go quite
out as far out onto the beach. Okay. And nice shirt, by the way. I'm all set. Thanks. I like your shirt, too. It's my spring shirt. Spring. Yeah, it's it's a bright spot today.
Oh, we digress. I'm all set. Thank you, Mike the fashionista. Yeah, Russ, I'm good, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Mike. Good explanation, Steve. Yeah, I'm I'm all set. Thank you.
Jen, is there anything in the public chat function, please? Nothing in the public check regarding this project, Mr. Chairman. All right. So, we need to continue for the Misa letter. Is that correct? All
right. Um I mean, we could put it on the 14th if it's just for the receipt of the Misa letter. It's just reading it off. So, um but that's the last thing I would put on the 14th. Are you for the 14th? If if it if we
could. At the request of the applicant, I make a motion to continue this hearing to May 14th. Second. All right. So, we have a motion and a second to continue this till 5:14 solely for the purpose of addressing the Misa
comments. Last call. Questions or comments? We're voting on the continuence. Betsy Gladfelter. I Courtney Bird I Matthews I Ron Risal I Russ Steve Ben I It is unanimous. We've
continued this to 514. Thank you Mr. Boselli. Thank you. Next up, Michael No, MCN Construction 205 Lakeshore Drive, East Farmouth, Mass. for permission to install a
landscape wall, remove an unpermitted dock, reconstruct the existing deck, install access stairs, replace a portion of existing pavement with crush stone, install a patio. Jen, yes, Mr. Chairman,
Mike Burcelli is still with us to to present the next projects. Mr. Borelli, you're up, sir. Thank you again. Just for the record, Mike, um I think I implied that I want everybody to fly through everything, and I didn't mean to rush you. That's that wasn't my
point. Um I just don't want to go on about silly stuff. We don't need to. I want to fly through it, too, just as much. Excellent. Just didn't want you to feel rushed. You're not at all. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to share my screen. Yes, sir.
Again, for the record, Mike Boselli, Felmouth Engineering, and I represent the applicant. Um, the property is at 205 Lakeshore Drive. It has water frontage on Jenkins Pond. There's no bordering vegetated wetland, but there
is an inland bank, and there's land underwater body. Um this area is also in a um municipal zone too uh for a public well. Um your regulations about no
disturbance zones uh stipulates that if the wetland in questions in a zone two then the typical 50 foot no disturbance zone is increased to 100. So we showed it that way. Um there was some questions
about that. uh from staff and I think I got that right. Um if if I have it wrong, I'm I have it wrong in a more conservative way, but I I think I do have that right. So, we showed a 100 foot buffer from the inland bank. Um there's an existing single family
dwelling uh driveway and there was a deck um shown on this plan. the contractor who is my client representing the owner uh has uh initiated uh interior renovations to the
house and one of the things that isn't really an interior renovation but is was in dire need of replacement was the deck and I think he got a little ahead of himself staff's aware of this he removed the deck um prior to getting permission to remove
the deck um we're here tonight asking to rebuild the deck that he already removed. Um, in addition to that, there's a little bit of a grade under this deck. And if a small amount of
regrading and filling is done with a landscape wall right at the edge that I'm showing in red, then the area under the deck will be flattened slightly. So, the underside could be used as a patio out of the sun. Um, and so it would
serve the purpose of a deck above and a patio below. Um, this this structure is a basement walk out on this side of the house. Um, there's some proposed steps off the deck um, shown here. And since this lowprofile landscape wall, by that
I mean it's like 30 inches to um, no more than three and a half feet tall. Um there'll be some steps that just allow you to get down from the top of the wall down and then the B the rest
of the existing path down to the water is is there. Um there's pavement on there was pavement on both sides of the house. Staff's met with the contractor and talked about things uh about this
project already. There was discussion about it would be a good idea to remove the pavement. we we're requesting permission to remove the pavement. The client the client applicant thought well it's it is a good thing to do. So he already removed the
p. Um right now it's um it's sandy grally dirt. Um, and the application requests permission to put crushed stone in place of the pavement so that it won't have the potential to uh erode.
It'll be more stable. In addition to that, there was a recommendation to put dry wells. Right now, there are no dry wells, so we're proposing dry wells as well. Um, that sums up the project that Fallon
gave me some staff comments um that I can uh respond to. Um um we were we were originally told that there would be Phil would be added under the deck. Um, and she's looking for a clarification. And I I I'm
responding that minor fill will be added estimated at 10 cubic yards or less just to flatten out that slope. Um, the landscape wall is there to retain that. So, it's like a half a truckload basically.
Um, there was some discussion about um the buffer width, the 100 foot buffer width that I already alluded to, and I believe it is a 100 foot. She she thought I meant because it's in priority habitat, but it isn't in priority habitat. I might have misspoke or not
correctly said that in my narrative. And finally, um these stairs uh there's a there was a comment that these stairs likely require u mitigation. I didn't consider that, but most definitely it's a very small amount. We're we're happy to provide
mitigation and it would be for in a 3 to1 ratio. It's it's uh you know it's a very small amount and we can find a spot to put the mitigation planting. I'm hoping if you see to it to close this hearing that that could be a
condition. And finally with regard to the dock as is common you apply you file a notice of intent and sometimes things are discovered and at some point in the past a little dock was built without permission. The owners
willing to remove it. So, we put a note on the plan to remove the dock until it's pro properly permitted. So, if they want to come back after it's removed and do it through proper channels, they'll file a new notice of intent for that work. And I think that sums it up. I'm happy to take questions.
Thanks, Mike. Chen, uh, you're muted. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Mike, what about the Fallon's comment about the gravel in the A zone? Uh, can you refresh my memory on that? She just says gravel within the A buffer
zone is considered impervious surface. I think I guess maybe she meant maybe gravel where there was pavement. Yeah. So, we're going from pavement to gravel. So, that's kind of a wash, right? Um I think just I know this isn't your plan, but the lack of
the the normal mitigation calculations kind of, you know, yeah, I get that. Um the area of these stairs I can calculate and and of the stairs that are on the plan I can
calculate and come up with a mitigation number and um just send a a letter. That would be great if you could do that. And the stairs going to the retaining wall, they're replacing the existing stairs. Yes. Um but they might be slightly
bigger so we can mitigate for the slightly biggerness of them. Biggerness. I like that. And one question that I had, Mike, when I was looking at this plan is we have that retaining wall that they're putting
in so they can kind of take the slope underneath the deck and raise it up to put that patio. Yes. There's a very small distance between the deck and that retaining wall. Is that going to be grass or wood chips or is that going to
be patio? because if it becomes patio, it's moving closer. So, it just looked like one of those things where a contractor could go in and just put the patio right up against that retaining wall thinking that that was what they're supposed to do. That's a good point. And it is no intention of
that. I think there should be an definitely a finding or a condition to that effect. And I'll I'll school the applicant on that to make sure he doesn't go beyond the drip line of that deck. you and I have some recent experience with that and I will I
will do my best to educate him and if he doesn't listen then I won't even apply for a compliance. I'll I'll have him deal with it before I submit a compliance. Perfect. Excellent. But let's hope that we don't have to deal with anything and that they just Yeah.
Perfect. Um, and I think maybe Fallon got a little possibly confused because the Lucas information, it does have number five, natural heritage. I think that's because when people are looking at um GIS now
under natural heritage, it's not just priority and estimated habitat. They're listing all like the critical core communities and all of this and it's confusing everyone, right?
So that's it. Um, and that is all I have. So 10 cubic yards. The patio won't go to the wall. And the stairs going from the deck off the deck are going to be
calculated and mitigated at a 3 to one. And the stairs going to the retaining wall. You'll calculate that as well. Correct. And then the small area of mitigation will probably go I am assuming on the west northwest
side of the property along that well there's there's open areas I noticed when I was staking it. Um but I probably will just maybe I'll uh I'll I'll come in for a staff meeting and just verify that before they're planted.
Okay. Um, and if the board's comfortable, we can condition that and Mike can submit a revised plan. I'm fine with that. That's all, Mr. Chair. All right. Uh, just a quick note for the mitigation. I don't really see on the
plan the edge of natural vegetation. Um so when the plan's updated to show the mitigation if that can be added too so we understand the lawn versus vegetated buffer. Yes. Thank you. Can do that. All right. Commissioner comments
Courtney. Uh no comments other than I will agree with the previous comments. You have a nice shirt like Oh boy. Wear this every Wednesday. I was just gonna say that you're gonna have to now. Are you I can't because you'll see me wearing it
again. Not very fashionable that way. Get a green one. Will you run? I'm all set. Thank you. Nice presentation. Mike, thank you. Steve, I'm fine with it. Thank you. No
questions. Let's see. No comments or questions. Thanks, Mike. Thanks, Jamie. All right, Jen, is there anything in the public chat function, please? Mr. Chairman, sir, did you call my name? I didn't hear
it. I thought I did. I thought you said you're all set and I apologize. I I thought I was on the battle list. Um I I just have one request. I can ask too.
Since you're going to um submit a new plan, could you put the deck size on this plan for us? And please um tell the contractor, don't try to gain six inches
here or a foot here. I I'd hate to see the guy spend money and go back and have to cut it down. Yep. Can do. Yeah, we've kind of been there too many times. We're not doing it anymore. So, I really would hate to Yeah. do it, but
it's it is what it is. Thanks, Mike. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. All right, I have to ask Russ again since I skipped the I owe you two. All right, never mind. Dan, is there anything in the public chat function, please?
Nothing in the public chat, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement. Second. All right, we have a motion and multiple seconds to close the hearing, take it under advisement. Last call. Questions or
comments? We're voting. Betsy I. Courtney I. Matthews. I Ron Risk I. Russ. Robin's eye. Steve Matt and I. It is unanimous. We have closed this
hearing. Thank you, Mr. Boselli. Thank you. Next up, Chris Lman, Barleta Cape Properties, 19 Circle, found with Mass for permission to rec reconstruct the
existing pier. Jen Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have promoted Chuck Roland up from Capen Islands Engineering to present his project. Excellent. Chuck, you're up, sir. Good evening. Chuck Roland, Capen Islands Engineering.
I'm representing the owners of uh 19 Non Circle. Um, I have before you a fairly straightforward project, uh, which to be honest is probably a first for me, at least in front of this board.
Um, so, uh, you're, this commission has, um, heard several projects throughout the years. Uh, I can count one, two, three, four, five. The most recent one, uh,
SC25-4293 for uh, repair of a rip wrap, uh, growing, concrete, walkways, patios, blah, blah, blah. But uh the long and the short of the project uh to keep it brief um is we have an existing fully permitted licensed uh timber pier that
has deteriorated. Uh the timber pilings are no longer structurally sound. Forgive me. Um you're not sharing. I don't know if you intended to. So close yet so far away. You know you're getting out of it caught
free. So forget now let me know when this pops up. You're good. Um so uh thank you very much for pointing that out. But um these are the pilings that have deteriorated
that um I show in the section in the profile view. Um and I have a zoomed in portion of what is being uh replaced right here. So this is an existing slash proposed plan
um because we're replacing everything in kind. Uh there are very small areas where we think that we can drive pilings into back into place uh with the rocks in the area. Uh and as I have also dimensioned
um the timber pier uh so that way unlike other projects I've been in front of you for uh it will get back put back in the same dimension. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you,
sir. You can stop sharing. And no questions, Mr. Chairman. Melissa, no comments. Thank you. Uh, commissioner comments and questions. I have none. Ron, I'm all set. Thank
you. Russ, I'm all set. Mr. Chairman, Steve, Mr. Chairman, I have to admit I didn't do a site visit because it's simplicity of the plan. I felt I would just be gawking and I do enough of that in my site visits. So, I have no
comments. Thank you. Let's see. Excellent presentation, Chuck. Other than that, I have no questions. All right, Courtney. No questions. Uh, Jen, is there anything in the public chat function, please? Nothing in the
public chat function, Mr. Chairman. Sorry, I didn't time that because that might have been a new record. I don't know. I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under adisement. We have a motion in multiple seconds to close the hearing. Last call. Questions or
comments? We're voting. Betsy Felter, I Courtney Bird I. Matthews I Ron Briscoll I Russy I Steve I it is unanimous we have closed this hearing thank you Chuck thank you
have a good night have a good night Chuck All right next up are continued requests for hearing under notice of intent one has been previously continued as has the second brings us Two, Linda Quinnel, 44
Shaker Lane, found with Mass, for permission to pump, dry, and abandon the existing sewage disposal system and to install a new title five sewage disposal system. And yes, Mr. Chairman, I am promoting Glenn
Harrington um to present the project. All right. If I could, just before you do that, um this is a continued hearing that had been open. So the the uh quorum is all of us tonight. Mr. Harrington with us.
Mr. Harrington, can you unmute yourself, please? Can you speak? Mr. Harrington, do me a favor. If your phone number is 774 and ends in 813, can you use the raised hand function,
please? Okay, thank you. Okay, allow What are we doing? I Jamie, I'm trying. Please. I did not know this was going to be an issue tonight. So, I found out at 7
o'clock. Um, I don't know how to unmute the phone. Mr. Harrington, you're going to have to unmute your phone. And I I don't know how the phone got
muted. Um, Mr. Harrington, do you know how to unmute your phone? I sent the window that asked to unmute, but I don't know if it's been clicked on. I don't know if that's his phone number
if he's raising his hand because he is Well, there's no there's no video component to either. If you look under participants, Mr. Chairman, could we um table this? And uh yeah, let's table Mr. Harrington, we're going to have to table you until
we figure this out. So hang tight. I'm going to move you back into attendees. Okay. May I'll make a motion to table this hearing for now. Robins, we have a motion and a second to
table this hearing. We're voting on tableabling. Betsy uh Latel I Courtney I Matthews I Ron Briscoll I Russ. Steve
I unanimous we have tabled this particular one we'll come back to it next up is John and Lisa Almquist 43 Nev's way Felmouth Mass for permission to reconstruct a dock and I have a note that um the
quorum is all of us tonight and that there was no D Yes, I have promoted Mark Dib from Capeen Islands Engineering and uh Mark, am I promoting Brian as well? Yes. Okay. And Brian Walls.
All right. Mr. Debut officer. Uh, good evening. Mark Dib with Cape Islands Engineering. And I am actually going to let Brian, attorney Brian Wall, start the presentation, assuming he connects. Mr. Wall, you're up, sir. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Um, things have gone a little bit faster than I thought, so thank you very much. Um, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'm here tonight together with Mark Dib representing the applicants, uh, Mr. and Mrs. uh, John and Lisa Alquist. And as the commission might remember from just
a couple of weeks ago, um, this is an application seeking permission to reconstruct and relocate an existing dock at 43 Nevs Road in East Falmouth. Um at the last at the end of the last hearing, the applicant requested a continuence in order to consider some of
the comments that the commission had made and to revise um the proposed project plan. And in the interim, Mr. Dib has prepared a revised plan and we submitted that. I've also submitted a letter uh addressing some legal matters
which I'll talk about in just a second. And my letter includes uh three letters from neighbors uh in the area. um which again I'll talk about in one second. I'd like to make three points and then I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Dib uh to
talk about the revised plans. The first point I would like to make has to do with the burden of proof. We we are taking the position that there was an existing dock at this property and again last time we submitted um a an aerial
photo and also there is the fact that the dock itself is still in the water and in the interim we've submitted the letters and what I'd like to politely do is remind the commission of what the burden of proof in this matter is. If you look at the DP's regulations and the
Falmouth regulations, they're fairly consistent on this point. And what it means is that the applicant has what's called the burden of proof and also the burden of production. And the burden of proof means that the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the regulations and performance standards.
And the burden of production means that the applicant must produce at least some credible evidence from a competent source. And the applicant's position in this matter is that the dock predated the wetlands protection act and the found with wetlands bylaw. So when you apply the burden of
proof and the burden of production, it requires that the applicant produced to you the commission credible evidence in support of this position. And again, as I mentioned at the last hearing, there was an aerial photo from the early 70s showing that the pier was there. And
there was also the fact that the pier is still in part in the water. The letters that we that you did not have the last time that you do have this time are from neighbors who have properties proximate to this particular property. And they
have been there throughout the history of the dock. And what the letters essentially say is that the pier was built at or about the same time as the house was built, which was in 1970. The letters also provide evidence
regarding the dimensions of the pier. Our contention is that what remains in the water is part of what the pier was, but not the entire pier. And the letters provide evidence as to what the pier used to be. Finally, the letters provide
evidence that the dock fell into nonuse because the owners were advanced in age and because the wife had fallen ill and the husband was taking care of her. So, we would suggest to the commission that these letters are from eyewitnesses with personal knowledge and are therefore
credible evidence from a competent source and that when the letters are combined with the aerial photo and the existing dock in the water, we contend that we've sufficiently established that there is a pre-existing dock at this property and that it predated the wetlands protection act and the found
wetlands bylaw. The second point I'd like to address is abandonment. There were some comments at the last hearing that the prior owner abandoned the pier and these comments were based essentially on the fact that the pier was in non-use and
obviously the condition of the pier that it is not what it what it once was. It's it's obviously in a state of disrepair. However, in land use regulations such as wetlands and zoning, the courts have told us that abandonment
requires more than mere use. It also requires what's called intent to abandon. And in this case, our contention is that there there may be non-use of a pier, but there's no evidence whatsoever that the prior owner intended to abandon the pier. And I have
a little I have a little parable to kind of demonstrate this particular point. A good friend of mine going back to college actually inherited a classic car from his father when his father passed away. And the car is not roadw worthy. It's not operable. and it's in need of
restoration. But unfortunately, my friend a couple of years ago had a stroke and he's not capable of working on the car right now and he's a little bit financially distressed, but he understands that the car still has value and so he's keeping it. It's covered with a tarp in his yard because he knows
one day he might be able to restore that and if he can't, he can sell it. The same concept applies here. the prior owner knew the value of a pier and that's why he kept it in the water and indeed Mr. Alquest when he looked at the property
this was a very important aspect to him. He is a boat captain and he does a lot of boating including with his grandkids and when he was looking for a property and found that the purchase he looked at this because of the dock he did his due diligence including visiting the office
of the commission and he bought the property because of that existing pier. So we would respectfully suggest to you that although the pure was in non-use, it was not abandoned. And finally, uh my last point before I turn it over to Mark is I want
to talk about the miracle of Kaa. The last time uh that we were here as the comments went around the commission. The last commissioner to comment on that was Mr. Bird who I noticed just turned off his video. Um oh, he's back. These are
specifically tailored to Mr. Courtney Bird. Um, Mr. Bird brought up the miracle at Kaa and I think he did so for the proposition um to make the point that the applicant was attempting to create something out of nothing. And
after that hearing uh ended, I started to reflect on what Courtney was trying to say. And on one hand, I kind of thought he was a little bit over the top referring to the miracle that came out. But the more I thought about it, I thought he was right. However, I think
he was right for the wrong reason. And this is my little story, and I'll only take a minute or two, Mr. Chairman, because I know you have a big agenda. The miracle of Canada does not stand for making something out of nothing. If you know the the scripture, what happened was Jesus and Mary were at
a wedding. I think it was a relative's wedding and the party was going on and what happened was the wedding ran out of wine. And so Mary said to Jesus, "Can you do something about this and make some wine?" And Jesus didn't snap his fingers and create wine out of nothing.
What he did was he called the head waiter over and said, "Bring me seven large jugs of water." And I think these jugs are much more than jugs on the table. They were large containers of water. And then Jesus proceeded to turn
that wine, that water into wine. The other part of the miracle of Canaan story is that the host served the wine and then came back to I'm sorry, the head waiter served the wine and came back to the host and said, "You know, most hosts serve the good wine first and
then serve the cheaper wine later when everyone's kind of tippy and doesn't know the difference, but you've actually waited to serve the best wine last. And here's how this ties back to our project. We are not turning something.
We're not creating something out of nothing. The water is the pier in the in the in the water. It's the aerial photo and it's the letters from witnesses to show that there was a pier there. And what you're going to hear from Mr. Dib
about our proposal to relocate the pier is that we're making it like the wine. We're making it better than the pier that was there before because by relocating it slightly, we're actually making the pier more compliant with your regulations and better for the
environment. So, I I want to hand it to Courtney for making me think about it because again, I think he was right to refer to that miracle at Kaa because it's applicable to this particular story, just not for the reason that he thought. So, having said that, I'm
available for questions. Um, but I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Dib to go through some of the revisions and talk about the dimensions of the pier and and other matters that are relevant to the performance standards. All right, Mr. Wall, the troublemaker.
All right, Mr. Dib, you're up, sir. Uh, good evening again. Mark Dib with Capen Islands Engineering. With your permission, I'd like to share my screen. Um, so as attorney wall mentioned, we did receive um two letters from abutters
and what I did was apply the information that they provided in the letters to the plan. And what that resulted in was um as explained in the letters, they mentioned that the pier
extended uh 12 to 18 feet out further into the water and then also had a floating uh a a floating section at the end. So a float at the end. So what this is is means the um we had already known from
the aerial that there seemed to be an existing additional bent or 8ft section. Um, and then if if it did have a ramp and a float, um, that would extend overall another about 18 feet uh, out
into the water with a 20 foot wide float. So, we recreated that in gray. Um what we also did was um in red dashed um line work uh showed what would be
required to get from the open piece of the retaining wall um that serves as the access over to that existing pier. And we've documented um those two quantities um over on the existing pier summary.
Um, so the gray areas, both the pier and the existing stairs are it's about 300 square feet as well as a walkway to get there is another 102 square ft. Um, so to rebuild the pier in kind in the same location um approximately 400 square
feet. Um, it would be tr traversing over the coastal bank um and throughout this area. So, what we've proposed um is to shorten what we originally had um shown
on the plan to uh mimic essentially the existing pier um both in um shape uh with a ramp and a float. Uh we've actually reduced the float um to within Fmouth's uh bylaw being less than 200
square feet uh I'm sorry less than 100 square feet and um overall also reduced the required footprint um by about 36%. So, we're coming straight from the existing break
in the wallway in in the concrete wall out to a um similar shaped and length uh pier for the project. Um we're able to uh span from the existing wall over the
the coastal bank so we can uh reduce uh impacts to the coastal bank. Um and just overall we feel it's it would be a reduction in impacts um over what would be required to
rebuild uh the existing pier. Um so that is the current updated proposal for the pier. Um, we did receive a couple questions uh in a staff report um regarding the shellfish study and we did
update the study to meet the um requirements in your regulations. You'll see there's many more transacts and locations shown. Um we did clarify that um density shown was listed in
square yards of 0.2 27 uh per square yard which is the same thing as a uh nine 9 by9 foot area as well. We did provide just per square foot. It's 02 um square feet. So we did
provide that information to staff today just as a uh response. Um, that is my presentation on the technical aspects of the dock redesign
and I'd be happy to answer any other questions. Thanks, Mark. Jen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Um, the staff's position remains unchanged from before. The aerial photo provided at the last hearing does not show a full dock. It
shows a much smaller section. Like to the board. This is a velocity zone. There is a prohibition about new docks and enlargement of existing docs in a velocity zone. The structure, if it was built in the 70s,
doesn't have a chapter 91 license, so it's not a properly permitted structure. It obviously hasn't been in use in a number of years. Um it's the current design before you
tonight is not meeting water depth. Um so that's a problem as well. And um although Brian um did submit some affidavit, some letters, the board will have to weigh the credibility of those
letters. Um these are supposed to be individual uh recollections of the size and structure of the dock. Yet, two of the letters are verbatim. They are worded exactly the same. So, I'm wondering
um how that is individual recollections of what was on site. And that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. I mean, this I mean, this would be enlarging a structure in a visually prohibited in
your regulations. That's all. Elissa, no comments. Thank you. So, the question really comes down to whether we're we're willing to grandfather the existing. I mean, to me, that's what it comes down
to. So, if it predates reg uh state regs and local regs, would it still have required a chapter 91? Yes. Chapter 91 is independent of the Wetlands Protection Act and it has been in existence since 1866.
I remember that. Yeah. Right. Okay. All right. Questions or comments, Ron? No, I'm all set. I've heard the evidence and uh again the verb the verbatim letters and the fact that we really don't have a
chance to talk to the the neighbors. How far, you know, how far they live? Have have they seen it all? They've been on the dock. Did they see it in use or is it just something on writing to hopefully get their neighbors a nice dock? That's all.
Russ, I'm good. Mr. Chairman, Steve, I have anything to add? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's see. That's okay. I'm just going to come out right and say what Ron was implying was
that these letters are not credible. And even if there were letters, there'd be people people two people my age, younger than you, Courtney, but but not always with the best
memory. This it's in inconceivable. And we have never allowed a rebuild of a dock in a different footprint. Even if you were to believe
that there was a dock of this dimension in the past. That's all. All right. Um Courtney, please be succinct.
uh new wine and old bottles. Um the miracle of Kaa referred to the uh to turning wine into the from water in bottles, but the bottles were if you're putting new bottles in a different
location, then that doesn't apply here. So, um, I'm not buying the miracle of KA. Mr. Chairman, may I briefly respond? Hold on, hold on, hold on. Courtney, are you all set? Yes. All right, Jen, did we
get a D number? Give me two seconds. I'll find out for us. I believe I'll give you four. Uh uh Mark, do you did you get a D number yet? I would have to look that up as well. Yeah, let me look at it real quick. Off
the top of my head, I do not know. It's written on the quorum sheet, so we must have Oh, okay. It It's written on the quorum sheet, you said? Yep. Then we have a number because I had a
note that we had no D number. Okay, good. So, we cleared that up. Mr. Wall. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I'll be relatively brief. Um, just with regard to the staff comments, um, the photo I think does show a smaller dock section in the water. But I think it's important
to note that whenever the photos are taken, if they're not taken in high summer, then the float and the um the uh ramp are not in the water. So the the photo may not have captured the full um extent of the pier. Secondly, chapter 91
um clearly if there was a chapter 91 permit, that would make our case that much stronger because that would be strong evidence of the existence of the peer. But the absence of a chapter 91 permit does not mean that we can't establish the pier. It just means that the pier wasn't properly licensed by the
state. That's not an unusual event. Um some of the older people on the commission might remember that back in the early the late 1980s and the early 1990s there was an amnesty program because non-compliance with chapter 91
was so prevalent. D uh created a program that basically allowed property owners to register their docks without penalty and many people did that but not everyone. So I think that's um I would put that under the category of the weight of the evidence not necessarily a
preclusion on our ability to prove the dock existed. And my last comment has to do with the uh verbatim letters. So let me explain. So after the last hearing, you know, it was clear the commission was concerned that the pier that the evidence of the pier was not sufficient.
So what we did was we canvased the neighborhood. Mr. Almquist talked to his neighbors and the neighbors said, "Oh, sure. Yeah, I remember the dock. I've been here 30 years." And if you read the letters, the evidence, there's a foundation for their testimony. And for
example, um the property at issue is 44 Needs Way. One of the letters is from 43. It's a it's a direct neighbor. Another letter is from 39 approximate neighbor. And another one is from to
Need's Way. So what the letters show you are eyewitness testimony um recollections that are based upon their personal knowledge going back to 1970. And why are they verbatim? because I helped the neighbors write the letters. I asked them questions. We took the
evidence down. They read the letters and they signed the letters. So, I would respectfully disagree with those commissioners that say that they're not credible. You may not consider them to be fully weighted. But I would submit to you that per your burden of competent
evidence from a credible evidence from a competent source, these letters fit the bill. In our cases, together with the aerial photo and the actual remnants of the pier, there's a sufficient case to show that there was a dock there beginning in 1970. I I think the commission could
feel comfortable approving this project. Hold on. Hold on. You're all set, Mr. Wall. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Yeah. I had one more comment and it refers to Brian's uh presentation with making making uh
better wine out of making wine out of water. This might make the pier better for somebody who wants a pier here, but a pier in the velocity zone is definitely not going to be better for the
environment. Even those letters testified that part part of the destruction of the of the pier of the little bit of pier that's left was due to storms. So that's those those are my comments.
All right, Jen, is there anything on the Oh, sorry. Alyssa, I'm sorry. The quorum sheet lies. We do not have a D number. I looked it up. So could you repeat that? I was right. the quorum. She lied. It's
the wrong wrong information number by now. I know we've been continued for a I think a month. Um I'm not sure why we wouldn't have one. Are we sure the application went to the state properly? It's listed on the D portal. There's
just still no number. Okay. So, we can't close it anyway. All right. So, um Jen, is there anything in the public chat function, please? Not regarding this project, Mr. Chairman. You always scare me when you say that. I
know. I know. I just did that one just to get you. Waiting for the next hearing that's going to blow up. Okay. Um, comments, Jim? Any other questions or comments?
All right. Mr. D, do you have a a request for us? Um, yeah. I would like to request to continue to um track down a D number um to if we can the the
14th you know I think it would be just just for that DU number to present into the record. I'll just say if if all we're going to deal with on the 14th is a D number or not. So, any any questions, comments,
discussion, input, output, whatever you want, get it out now. Brian, are you okay with that? Well, I think we're being continued. So, um I don't presently have any intent to submit anything new, but if if I reflect
on things, I'd like to reserve the right, Mr. Chairman, to submit something new. Okay, that that's fine. We're going to throw it off further than the 14th then. Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay. I would like to request a continuence to May 21st then if that's okay. Can we do that? Jen, that will
work. At the request of the applicant, I make a motion to continue this hearing till May 21st. Risk a second. We have a motion and a second to continue this to May 21st. Last call. Questions or comments? Right. We're voting on the continuence. Betsy
Gladfelter. I. Courtney. Bird. I. Matthews. I Ron. Priscal. Eye. Russ. Robins I Steve and I. It is unanimous. We've continued this until 5:21. Thank you, Mr. Bid. Thank you, Mr. Wall. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the commission and staff. Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Chairman. Track down. Track down Amy Watley. She's the one that assigns the numbers to Falmouth. Okay, Mr. Chairman, for the record, I will.
All right. Courtney. Yeah. For the record, I will not be there in attendance on the 21st. Okay. All right. We're going to take the next one and then we'll go backwards. So, next up is Donald and Nancy Caller in 11 Foster Road East Mass
for permission to install a fiber roll array and conduct beach nourishment. One second. Mr. Chairman, why I place M. Turning wall back into attendees and grab Mr.
Borelli. Oh, you too, Mark. Sorry, I thought I didn't see you for a second. Okay, there we go. Going back in, Mark. Okay. Where is Mr. Burcelli? Okay. One, two, three,
four. Ron, Steve, and Russell, you're you're going to be here on the 21st, correct? 21st of May. Yes. Yes. Russell, yes. Steve, yes. And Jamie, yes. Okay, good. Thank you.
All right. 11 Foster Road. Russ is not on this [Music] forum. I have this right. Yeah. Number 11. Okay. All right. Mr. Boselli, you're up, sir. This is 11 Foster Road. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Again, Mike Boselli, for the record, Engineering, and I represent Mr. Nancy and Don Colerin, 11 Foster Road. With your permission, I'd like to share my screen. Yes, sir. This is a continued
hearing. Um, the caller's had applied for uh permission to install some fiber rolls to mitigate against some erosion at the property. The property is on Vineyard Sound on Foster Road at Coastal Beach. There's an existing uh stone seaw
wall and the section on the very east side of the property has eroded. it did not have the benefit of a armoring. So, we're proposing a soft solution here. Uh I presented all the details at the last hearing. There's a cross-section of the
pooyer fiber rolls. Construction access is through the yard. The hearing was continued for I for what I believe are some bookkeeping items. Um I met with staff on site subsequent to the first hearing. Um there were a couple of
things that we had to deal with. Um, one of the decks uh was purported to have been uh um enlarged. So we uh calculated the area of the enlargement and um proposed some mitigation to offset that um right in
the area adjacent to the five rolls that we're proposing. Um the plan was revised on April 7th and the revisions included um we added some uh existing trees for the record. Um the top of the bank had
not been labeled which was right at the top of the rip wrap. We added that and of course the mitigation planting and um um the buffers to the coastal bank as well. Um we're proposing
um mitigation a mix of bay berry and beach plum three gallon size 4 feet on center in staggered rows in that area right adjacent to the koi fiber rolls and that's sums it up. I'm happy to take questions. There were no further staff comments.
Thanks Mike Jen. No comments Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Okay, Elissa. No comments. Thank you. All right. Commissioner comments and questions. Russ, we're starting with you.
Oh, I'm sorry. You're not on it. Never mind. See, I'm just trying to make up from last time. Steve, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any questions. Nor do I. Courtney, nor do
I. I sense a theme. Ron. Yeah. Mike and Steph, thanks for putting it all together, matching up. Nice project. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Jen. Is there anything in the public chat function, please? Nothing in the public chat, Mr.
Chairman. All right, folks. What are you thinking? Close the hearing and take it under advisement. Patton second. All right, we have a motion and a second to close this hearing. Last call. Questions or comments? We're voting to close the
hearing. Let's see. Bloodfelter. I Courtney I Matthews Iron Crystal I Steve and I. It is unanimous with this quorum we have closed this hearing.
Thank you Mr. Borelli. Thank you. Uh, one more later on. Yeah, sorry I can't help you and take them out of order. Oh, yeah, you do. Okay, you're going back into attendees. All right, we're going backwards. So, I need to Or let me ask, Jenn, you think
we're ready for 44? I don't No, I see Mr. Harrington, but now I don't see a phone number or another one. We can try again if you'd like, Mr. Chairman. Uh, let me see if I can promote Mr.
Harington up here before we gonna try to promote you up again. Okay. Can you unmute yourself? That is perfect. There we go. All right. Mr. Harington, we need a motion and a second to unt this hearing. Make a motion to
unt second. All right, we need to vote on untabling. Betsy, I Courtney bird eye. Matthews I Ron I. Russ Robins I. Steve I. It is unanimous.
We have on the table 44 Shaker Lane. All right, Mr. Harrington, you're up, sir. Thank you very much. Good evening. Um I'd like to um present the
title five plan for 44 Shaker Lane. Um representing the owners, the Quinnels. Um at this point they have a failed septic system and this is a proposed design plan to replace their existing
failed system. The proposed system is um a combination of an Advantex tank and a nitrex tank. Um it's my understanding this will be the first one in Falmouth. The board of health did approve it on
Monday. So um there was um staff comments um after the uh first review. I did a revised plan and added um those comments of the 14th and have
new comments were issued on the 29th by staff. Um those comments uh well the the first set of comments also included the uh request for a lancey stamp and so John
Doyle reviewed the plan and stamped the plan and during his review um he did we discussed the coastal bank and I had not shown it at the back of the house um where it was forced up against the deck
and the side of the house. So, um this one staff comment was that the coastal bank delineation had changed. Um that was the reason um so it was with the land surveyor's input. Um how will the tank and advantex treatment modules be
installed considering the location of the top of the bank water line electric line and will the bank be disturbed? um the proposed Advantex tank and there is one treatment module um that is set
off to the side right now in the location of the existing septic tank. Um right now it's proposed that the existing septic tank be removed and the Advantex tank and the module be put in.
Um I'm proposing a 40 mil liner to protect um it's within 10 feet of the water line. Um there is also a possibility that that treatment module may be installed on top of the tank. So
that will um decrease the distance um or any potential impact of the bank. Um I did put in the notice of intent that 20 ft of the bank may be impacted. Um but it would be um reconstructed in the in
the same manner and shape um that it exists right now. But um because of the sizable it's a 2500gallon tank um and the necessary piping for the alkalinity
tank and the nitrix uh sorry and the advantex uh filter module. Uh there may be some impact of that of the coastal bank. Um the driveway will have to be cut to allow two lines to be brought
across and uh one is a gravity line that goes to the nitrex and the other is a recirculation line that goes from the distribution box back to the Advantex tank. Um and then the leeching facility
is a bed of H20 flow diffusers with stone. Um the location of the leeching facility was relocated away from the underground electric line. Um there were staff comments regarding uh the electric
line and at this point uh tried to move the leeching out so that it does not impact the underground electric line. Just move the electric line. Um, one of the staff comments was about the um the dock and I I do not have any
further information about the dock. I'll take any questions. Yes, sir. Thank you. Um, so I was sharing the screen for Mr. Harrington, so if the board would like me to put it back up, please let me
know. Um, Mr. Darington, please talk to your clients about cutting the buffer and the salt marsh plants. Uh yes, when the staff went on site, that was noted. I think I'm going to share my plan one more time. Mr. Harrington, I think what
um Fallon was referring to on the coastal bank is if you everybody can see my cursor, you had it coming around here and then you had it wrapping down that way. Uh and now it just kind of stops. So, I think that's what she meant by it
changing. Okay. Is you kind of had it wrapping around this way, but you said you spoke with uh Don. Um so, that has been clarified. And then, um you explain how the tanks will go in,
if this part of the bank would be disturbed. Um, and again, your clients will need to talk with us regarding the dock and the cutting. Um, but as far as the installation of the septic, I don't think we have any further comments.
Thank you, Melissa. No comments. Thank you. All right. Commissioner comments or questions? Let's see. No comments. Thanks,
Courtney. No comments, Ron. Yeah, the electric line of concern is that just to the lamp post out at the corner of the corner of the property. Just one single feed. It's not It's not the feed into the house, right?
Uh the line that was coming from the transformer, I believe, was the line that was a concern. Okay. All right. Then that is a concern. Okay. Thank you. Yes, Russ. All set, Mr. Chairman. Steve,
no questions. Thank you. Is there anything on the public chat function, please? Nothing in the public chat. Make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement. Third and second. All right, we have a motion and a second
to close the hearing. Last call. Questions or comments? Apologize for the delay. Excuse me, Mr. Harrington. I said I apologize for the delay. No worries, sir. Thank you. All right. We have a motion and a second
to close the hearing. Last call. Questions or comments. We're voting to close the hearing. Betsy. Lter. I. Courtney. Third. I. Matthews. I. Ron. Driscoll. I press Robins. Hi Steve.
Steve, give me a thumbs up. I thank you. It is unanimous. We have closed this hearing. Thank you, Mr. Harrington. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Harrington. All right, back in sequence. Next up, a
request to amend an existing order of conditions. First one's been previously continued. Brings us to Elizabeth Catz, 190 Associates Road, Realy Trust, 190 Associates Road, Felmouth, Mass. Request to amend the order of conditions for
mass DP number 25-4833 to install a pool with a patio, construct a deck, remove the existing retaining wall, and install additional mitigation plantings. Jen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I've promoted Tom
Bunker from BS Design and Chris Huruchi from Puruchi and Selene to present their project. Tom Bunker. I know that name somewhere. I've been here before. Yeah, you've seen me on TV before. That's it.
Um, yeah. So, yeah, Chris is here. Her her video is turned on. So, I'm Tom Bunker, BSS design. We prepared this plan and from Horuchichi Selene did all the uh nice design work for a uh a pool.
Uh I will share my screen if I may to go through the existing and the proposed conditions here. Yes sir. Okay. Okay. So in uh this is to amend an order of conditions that was issued in
uh 2023 which case let me get this bigger. Okay. Um so at that time uh we prepared a plan to install a hot
tub and patio and stepping stones up in this location on the north side of the house. Um and that and also a a chain link fence around the property which which goes around there and uh a lot of
mitigation uh around here all all around the uh the wetland side of the property. And so this was approved. Everything is not quite done. the the only thing that hasn't been done is this
this walkway had been approved to be changed right here and that that has not been done yet. Uh but th this was all all done not ready for compliance. Now we've amended the plan. [Music]
Um we're basically changing the hot tub area, putting in a swimming pool. You can see on the existing plan uh there's a retaining wall with stairs
right in this location which is about you know close to 5t high. Um and so that wall this the stairs will be removed. I think I had that up shown where that wall goes up. I
can't really see it on this print, but the that that wall is basically in the same location. And then there's some stairs that go up into the uh pool location. And so the the wall will be removed and replaced with no stairs in it. And then this area here, which on
the existing uh stays around elevation seven all the way up to the base of the wall, this area will be filled. Uh I can take one step back. It's in the Falmouth velocity zone. The FEMA velocity zone is in this location here. And then the
Falmouth velocity zone is right across here through the house. Uh and so and there's also the the the limo the or the limit of moderate wave action follows the
delineation of this zone A back here. So there's moderate wave action here. and I not kept up with the changes in the wetland regulations and what what's being looked at or not looked at. But uh anyway, this
uh the existing wall is not in the uh Felmouth velocity zone and the proposed wall is not in the Felmouth velocity zone but this area here. So, it's it's built up with a sloping uh sloping fill
and stone stone steps like curbing on edge. Uh which we felt would be appropriate for an area where there might be at least moderate wave action uh rather than an abrupt uh vertical uh
face of the existing retaining wall. And then the uh swimming pool in this location, patio around it. Uh here uh is in the staff report. There'll be an enclosure
um around the air conditioning units um here. And there's some deck and a uh a shower rit station in this location.
um show you the existing there's a deck it's a little further back on the on the uh on the house. Um so the proposed deck here is 174 square ft in the bless
velocity zone this this structure right here. So, we're adding that 174 square feet, which is less than 200 obviously. And the uh all of all of this uh patio and pool, the uh mitigation
calculations come out to uh in the A zone, there's 277 square ft increase in zone A, which will require 831 square ft of mitigation. And in the B
zone uh is is uh increasing the B zone is it's mitigation is uh yeah I have that in two numbers there but it's
a the B zone is 1448 so it's a total of 2279 square ft from this change and then the previous mitigation in 2023 is 1,085 five and just showing that on the entire
site when we get that be 3,364 square ft of mitigation, you know, including what was done before and and what's now. And so that get back to where we are here. Oh,
there. So there's um quite a bit on the previous mitigation. that came up around here right to the 10 ft from the deck. So, the new mitigation is broken into two two areas
uh 735 square ft of mitigation in this location and then over here uh is another 1544 square ft of mitigation going up here. Uh basically the staff comments were
about the location of the mitigation. [Music] The one was that there's some mitigation out in the zone B. Now I don't think that's contrary to your regulations and it says you know we have to start by
putting it in zone A which we've done a lot of mitigation in zone A and there's a little bit of mitigation proposed out here in zone A. The only time when mitigation is when all mitigation is required in zone A is when all of the increase in coverage is in zone A. And
that's not the case in this in this where we are allowed to put mitigation in zone B. There are a few other places u they've you know given up a lot of lawn in this location
here um basically cut it in half and a lot here too. So there is room to move it over, but I'm not sure it would be required to move this amount of mitigation into the zone A. It it it
could be done. And of course they uh staff suggested and it's a good idea to make a little bit more space right here at the end of the stone wall. This is a retaining wall here. And so we're leaving fairly small area here.
and that that could be a good idea uh to allow a little bit more space uh to have to get some other larger kind of equipment in there for maintenance or repairs. Um those those were pretty much the uh staff comments and uh I'll stop
the share and uh take your comments. I should ask though if Chris has something to add. Uh no. Uh you know I think uh you've seen this project a couple of times. Uh the first was for the original filing. Um the Wilkinson team was here I think
last week um to talk about uh work uh um uh some invasive management work and then we're back for this and um I mean there there's a you there there was a lot of lawn on this project uh in your jurisdiction and and uh you know the the
uh the applicant understands you know the uh the importance of mitigation. Um, you know, I'm hopeful that we can kind of work uh with uh with commission and with staff on this uh amount of mitigation that's in zone B. Um so, uh
you know, our standard uh the mitigation that's currently there now is what we would also be doing here. Um I think yeah, we've got another 2200 square feet of mitigation. So, three gallon plants, four feet on center. Um we know the drill. Thank you.
Yeah, I can make one other comment on the staff report. I saw that uh either Alyssa or Fallon, I think it was Alyssa said gave the number of shrubs 4 feet on center. Of course, in our calculations, we we calculated for 3T on center. The
number of shrubs that we show is for three feet on center. So that's it. All right, Jen. Yes, Mr. They are giving up a lot of lawn, Tom,
but they are asking for a pool and a patio and a hot tub and everything else. So there there's that balance. So um it's going to be up to the board if you want that other um mitigation up by the road to be closer to the buffer. Um
mitigation is supposed to actually be a buffer and not a screening plant or running up the sides of properties like we always see. But I mean, it's just a tiny bit. The board can decide what they'd like to do. Um Tom, you going to adjust it to give yourselves more room
near that stone wall in case you have to get a plant in there? Um plant a machine? Yeah, I think we'll we'll do that. I mean, I think you can just squish it and it'll be fine. Yes, those are our only comments, Mr. Chairman.
All right, Alyssa. No comments. Thank you. All right, commissioner comments and questions. Courtney. Um, I would agree with staff's commentations. No other comments. Ron, good luck with all those
plants. My comments. Thank you, Russ. I have no comments, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Steve, I don't have any comments. Thank you. All right, Betsy.
Yeah, I just have one comment, Tom. uh what you remember isn't actually what it says in the regulations. You're supposed to put anything in B is supposed to be to mi be mitigated from B
is to be is to be put in A unless there's no more room in A. But that's my only comment. This isn't very much. It's not a huge deal. But I I I would hate to have you go from this meeting
and have that error in your head about the regulations. That wouldn't be the only error. Why we're here, buddy? All right, Jen, is there anything in the public chat function, please? Nothing in
the public chat, Mr. Chairman. I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second to close the hearing. Last call. Questions or comments? I have one more question. I
maybe everybody who has to deal with this is clear, but I'm unclear whether the plants are going to be four feet on center, right? Which means the number of plants that are on the plan has to be modified. No.
No. I I calculated that based on three feet on center. Well, that's what I'm saying. So, you have more plants listed. What? They're not going to be planted three feet on center. They're going to be planted four feet on center. Are they? Yes. Yes, they are, Tom. We'll
we'll write it in the order of conditions. We'll be fine. Okay. I I didn't know where that came from. It it came from a slight policy change, but you you you did what you you were correct. They were three
feet on center for the last 20 years that I've been the administrator. This is what the board has wanted. Now they've loosened it up a bit, giving us some breathing room. Another another air stuck up in here. I'm trying to help you
out, Tom. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Any other questions or comments? We're voting to close the hearing. Betsy Blfelder. Courtney Bird. Matthew Z. Ron Chris. Russ.
Steve. It is unanimous. We have closed this hearing. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll get our plan in. All right, we're moving pretty good. Does
anybody want a break? Want to keep rolling? No, it's finished. All right. Hey, just trying to b. All right. Next up, our continued request to amend an existing order of conditions. First up, Jeffrey and
Cynthia Andrews, 34 Wigwam Road, Falmouth, Mass. Request to amend the order of conditions for mass DP number 25-4852 to install restoration plantings and to reconfigure the location and
square footage of various hardscapes and retaining walls. Jim, yes, Mr. Chairman, I promoted Mark Dip from Capen Islands Engineering to present his amended request. Welcome back, Mark. All right, this is
continued, but it was not open. So, the quorum is everyone here tonight. Mr. Dib, you're up, sir. Uh, good evening. Again, for the record, Mark Dib uh for the project at 34 Wigwam Road. Um, with your permission, I'd like
to share my screen. Yes, sir. So this project was uh previously before you about a year or so ago. Um it consisted of invas a invasive management plan and restoration plan. uh a proposed
septic system um some additional invasives management um that was proposed on our plans and was performed by Maria Hickeyi landscapes and as the project progressed um there were some
minor deviations to the plan. Um we are seeking this amendment prior to um replacing some dead plant material um cleaning up some areas um and just wrapping up the project. This is not COC
request. It is an amended order request. Um what I did was uh the plan you see before you is an asbuilt plan with some itemized um plan deviations. is there's a table in this area. I'm going to zoom
in a little bit on the plan, but read from that table and then each thing in that table is identified with a number on the plan. So, number one, patio and walkway change at the front left of the house. Um, we actually
removed a section a 23 232 square foot section of patio in this area um that was not proposed to be removed on the original project. Um there's an infill uh listed area
um number two is oh number two is this area. Um it resulted in a net reduction of hardscape of 53 square ft. Uh we just reconfigured the attachment to the to the driveway
and actually was able to remove some hardscape. Number three was there was a just an existing dirt area on this existing patio that was infilled. That was actually an increase back of 55 square feet. um a change to the plan,
but really no change of impact or um plus or minus square foot of hardscape was just a cobble apron at the entrance. Um we did increase the driveway width through this area by 1
foot overall. Uh so a 98 square foot um increase. And um the contractor did add uh these stepping stones um just to get from this upper level of walk existing
walkway down uh to the existing path. Um and all those changes did result in a net decrease of 76 square feet of hardscapes. Um, one other key item that was a change uh for this project and I
think you might recall um I also did a project for the second association. They added some drainage improvements at this intersection as well as some drainage improvements in here and even some drainage improvements uh further south
on Wigwam. And that combined with um this property we've provided and it was on the plan. We provided a burm through the old driveway that used to access here. Um we did slightly at the
end of the project or dur you know during um installation of the project we slightly changed the grade of that burm uh up about a foot. And basically what what this project has achieved is an elevation of approximately 12 12 and a
half feet that kind of wraps around this house. Um so that um if all the improvements that the association made um that was designed um this house has
been prone to flooding over the uh last 10 or 20 years. there would be four literally four feet of water in the bottom of this house uh mixing potentially with utilities and stuff. So we've um provided an ultimate kind of
escape for water. Um if everything failed all the new systems, you know, if we got another one of those 5 in in 45 minutes, um still hopefully the the the systems in the road would manage it. Um,
but there's been there's an escape outlet. It's a vegetated swale. Um, it'll just allow water to to flow through a vegetated swale off into this uh large area. Um, and just safely um go
away from the house instead of first flooding the the bottom of the house by 4 feet. Um, so that's a minor change, just a vertical increase of elevation of this berm. Um, we did list some
uh minor changes to uh just relocating. All these boulders were on site. They were part of existing walls. Um through A, B, C, and D. There was some minor just adjustments from the proposed plan.
Like this area, we had a two-tier wall. Instead of two tiers, it was one tier um on that wall. So, I mean, we we believe it's still a net u net benefit to the project reduction of impacts. Um, like I said, this is not
a COC request. It's just for the commission to look at these changes and approve these changes. Uh, um, hopefully approve these changes prior to some final replacement of um, dead plant material, the installation of these
additional trees. I hadn't touched on that. We there was some uh work in this area that we're proposing to replace some of the trees. Um as well as these trees were actually on the original
project plan. So we're going to plant those trees as well. Um so trees are getting replaced in this area. Um I'd be happy to answer any questions the commission might have. Thanks,
Mark. Jen, I can't hear you. I don't know if anybody else can. No, I can't hear her. How about right now? Okay. I don't know why. I apologize. I have no idea why my audio is going in and out.
Um, what I was trying to say was, um, there were a lot happened on this site and we have been working very closely with Cape Islands Engineering to um, try to bring the property back into
compliance, make sure the grades weren't changed too radically where the board um, wouldn't want to see them. Um, as far as the trees in the back, there were a lot of trees that were removed that were not proposed to be removed in the
original project. The applicant is proposing to restore that that that tree line and buffer. Um, and again, we've just been working closely with Capen Islands and other parties to to bring the property into compliance. As Mark
said, this is not a compliance request. It's just a step in that direction. Um, but other than that, I have no comments or questions. All right, Alyssa. No comments. Thank you. All
right, commissioner comments or questions? I don't know where we're at. Courtney, no comments. All right, Ron, I'm all set, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Okay, Russ, all set, Mr. Chairman.
Steve, all set, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Betsy. No comments. Thanks, Jamie. Thanks, Mark. All right, Jen. Is there anything in the public chat function, please? Nothing in the public chat. And I'll
make a motion to close this hearing and take it under advisement. Third second. All right, we have a motion and a second to close the hearing. Last call. Questions or comments? We're voting to close the hearing. Betsy Gladfelter I Courtney
Bird I Matthews I Ron Priscal I Russ Robin's eye Steve Matt and I it is unanimous we have closed this hearing thank you Mark thank you good night good night thank you
all right next up is continued requests for a certificate of compliance. Elizabeth Davka, trustee, Dogwood Realy Trust, 69 Barack Road, Falmouth, Mass. request for
a certificate of compliance for mask EP number 25-4621. Jen, yes, Mr. Chairman, I am promoting Margaret Carr up. She's addressed the board before on this project, and I'm
going to turn it over to Alyssa, I believe. Um, I can summarize the updated changes. Please. Thank you. Of course. Um, Miss Carr did reach out to Cape Islands and did obtain
um an updated site plan. And in looking at that site plan, she will be removing the slight increase of impervious surface on site. Those unpermitted stepping stones, Fallon did go out to the site today to confirm they have been removed and some um grass material has
been planted in their place. Um the tree that was located in the dune system that had died has been labeled on the plan. Um we did have a note. We know that some of the commissioners were interested in perhaps seeing some plant material
reinstalled on the site to compensate for that tree. Um, none is proposed at this time and I believe those were the outstanding comments. Thank you. Uh, Jen, for clarity, um, whatever we're going to vote on tonight,
I mean, I I assume our choices are a continuence. It would be would it be closing it or actually voting on the certificate of compliance? You would be voting on the certificate of compliance. Okay. You're clear on
that. Mhm. Because I wasn't. Okay. Um so just to reiterate, you said that the um there's no mitigation proposed for that tree restoration. Correct. Okay. And the
drainage has still not been done in there. Um, correct. We got the impression from the board that many were content with the drainage system as currently installed. Um, so we did not advise on any changes to be made.
Thank you. All right. Commissioner comments and questions. Um, I'm going to start at the top. Betsy. Uh, I'm fine. I'm ready to to make a recommendation. Except I just
might like to make a suggestion that the tree that was there, that's how trees get in natural areas. So if another tree takes root, just allow it to grow. Right. That's Yeah,
Courtney, I have no comments. Okay. Ron, I'm all set. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, Russ, no comments, Mr. Chairman. Steve, other than that, thank you. All right, Miss Carr, do you have anything you'd like to add at this
point? Uh, the only thing is that when the Cape Islands engineering engineer went to uh review that everything had been done, he said that the tree is actually alive.
Um, it's it it is I could see that it was still there, but I did not venture into the the dune. So, maybe it will emerge again. All right. Should I make a motion? Uh, please. I'll make a motion to issue an
order of certificate. Certificate of compliance. A certificate of compliance. It is getting late. AI offer second that. All right. So, we have a motion and a second on the table to issue an order of conditions. I'm
sorry. See, I to issue a certificate of compliance. All right. We're voting to issue a certificate of compliance or not. Betsy, I'm going to vote yes. Gladfelter. I
Courtney third eye. Man, I don't know. Matthew's eye. Ron Escali. Russ Robin's eye. Steve and I. It is unanimous. We have issued a certificate
of compliance. That's a good thing, Miss Carr. You can say yay. Okay. Thank you. Breathe easy now, Miss Carr. We'll get that out to you and then you'll have to get it recorded and then the order of conditions will no longer be an encumbrance on the deed. Okay. Okay.
Thank you. Not a problem. Good night. Good night. Good night. All right. Next up are continued hearings under an enforcement order. First one has been previously continued. Brings us to Steven Augusta
33 Oyster Shell Lane East Mass. unpermitted removal of mitigation plantings and unpermitted installation of hardscape within conservation jurisdiction. Jen, yes, I'm going to turn this over to
Alyssa to sum up the enforcement matter. Thank you, Alyssa. Thank you. Yes. Um, so this is before the commission tonight. We had uh looked into the property at some point in the fall through aerial photos to notice
that there were um some outstanding violations on the property. We began in the fall to look more closely at it. There was a previously approved order of conditions on the property to construct the home. Um in doing so, there was uh significant
amount of mitigation required in looking at aerial photos as seen in the staff report. That mitigation was installed but later removed. Um there were a number of trees proposed on the northern portion of the property that we were unable to tell um if they were still on
site. Obviously looking at the aerial photos. We also noticed through the aerials that some type of hardscape paper system had been installed to the south of the home. Um we had reached out with a violation letter ultimately
scheduled this enforcement hearing and did meet with Mike Bur and Mr. Mr. Augusta, the homeowner at the property um a handful of weeks ago, I believe back in March. Um in going out there, Mr. Augusta explained that the mitigation area experiences significant
flooding which was not originally foreseen and it appears that those plants uh were simply not tolerable to that type of water level. Um, so the staff would recommend that since mitigation is tied to the deed and required for the construction of the
home that that mitigation is either replanted with more tolerant species or relocated on the property to a drier area. Uh, the PA system to the rear of the home is a way to help um with vehicles in
that area. There are garage doors under that deck you can see in the aerial photos and um when vehicles are in the area due to the slope and the nature of the grass the area was becoming muddy and and not stable. So Mr. August added
that PA system. Um, when we are finished with tonight and I'm back in the office, I'd be happy to send the commission for those who were not present particularly that old plan of reference. Um, the deck is at
that angle shape so that it wasn't moving closer to the salt marsh. So, because those PA systems are there, it is now moving closer to the salt marsh. That goes against your regulations. So, the staff is recommending that the
commission require that PA system to be removed. Um, lastly, when we were on site, those um understory trees that were installed in the forested area next to the home um have all been cut. They are maybe a foot or two tall. Um I'm not
sure of their overall viability. Perhaps a arborist can take a look at them, see if they have the ability to regrow into a full tree. pro if not um since they were required mitigation plantings the staff would recommend Oh, I'm sorry. Did I blank out
there? Yeah, it's all right. Oh, sorry. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Um I was just saying that the trees in the forested area were being cut. Not sure if they can regrow into full form. If they can't, the staff recommends they are replaced.
Um, in speaking with Mike Borceli, I know that he will be able to stake out that mitigation area for the commission. I believe um, Mr. Augusta tonight is very open to giving permission for the commission to go out to the property and take a look for
themselves and I think that's all I have. Thank you. All right, Jen, do you want to add anything at this point? Nothing to add, Mr. Chairman. Okay, Mr. Borisella, you're up, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Mike Borcelli, Film of Engineering. I represent the applicant,
Steve Augusta. Steve's with me tonight. Good evening. He came to my office to participate in my Zoom meeting. Um, we have been uh reviewed the uh findings of the staff. We understand all the issues. Um, we have a plan to stake out the
original mitigation area. uh meet onsite with uh we're probably going to meet with one of the local firms u likely Crawford Land Management to talk about plant materials that are more
appropriate to this mitigation area. Uh Alyssa did allude to the fact that the mitigation had been installed, but the there a couple winters ago with some astron astronomical tides, they got
flooded and died and they weren't appropriate. So, uh plant species for the area. So, we're uh intent on designing a new mitigation area of planting um after we consult with
um a landscape professional uh coming back with new mitigation planting plan and um um we need more time basically. So, what we were hoping to do is stake out the mitigation, meet
on site with probably Crawford Land Management, and we'll invite staff um to come and talk about appropriate plant materials and and or maybe we'll meet with them first and then have a meeting with uh staff on site um and address the
things that were identified um in the report. um the um the area where there was uh reinforced turf constructed between the house and then to the south of the house as Alyssa
had alluded to was Mr. Augusta needed to try to install something that would not result in the area getting churned up by tires where gaining access to the garage doors. um we need to come up with a solution
for that uh as well. Um I as of like recently Mr. Augusta tells me that it's it's reinforced turf which I know you've reviewed before and on some project allowed and it's it basically looks like grass right now. So it does it's pretty
good. So um we need to look into that a little bit more. So, we're we're happy to work with and we intend to work with your staff and you to try to come to a solution to the the these issues. Um, with regard to the the sapling trees
that were planted in the woodland, I think we can uh come up with some solution for that where maybe there's additional trees planted in different areas um in the same woodland that are more appropriate and wouldn't impact views
uh of surrounding abuing uh neighbors. Um so we understand the report. are happy to work with um your staff and you to try to come up with a solution, but we we do need we need some time to work this out. And we're hoping we can come
back and report to you just on our progress in June and then maybe um have solutions and that maybe in the early fall plant season we can execute a plan to to fix all this.
You good, Mike? Yes. Okay. All right. So, these didn't fail. They were cut. Correct. The the shrub mitigation the trees the trees were clipped on the top. Yes.
There was because of the water. So, you're going to look in I'm just clarifying. So, you're going to look into more appropriate plants for the wet location. Yes. Or an alternative location. Yes. Okay. All right. Just so
we're clear. And the um the order of conditions is expired. No. Unless there's some life to it for permit extensions, but we'll likely have to either work under the enforcement order. We can do the work under your enforcement order, or we could do it as
a notice of intent since there's an enforcement order. It' be cleaner. But I would leave I would leave that to to your uh to Jenna about how to proceed before we do the actual work. Yeah, I think it's fine probably doing it under the enforcement order. I mean
it's cleaner and simpler at this point. You know, um the connotation is it's a bad thing, but we're working towards a solution, so that's always positive. Y All right, Jen, do you have anything you want to add at this point? I didn't want to skip over here. Nothing. uh that I
need to add. Um Mike, you're going to stake out the mitigation area. I'm going to stake out the mitigation area. I'm going to arrange a meeting with landscape consultant, meet them, come up with
some conceptual plan and then have meet with staff on site to review that conceptual plan and then work out details and then go forward with something beyond after that. Okay. Okay. And Mr. Augusta, are you okay after Mike stakes the
mitigation out? Is I'm sorry. I couldn't hear him. I'm sorry. No, it's okay. My Is my audio out again? No, I'm turning it up over I can't hear too good anymore. So, okay. So, my question is and if you can't hear me, Mike can let uh repeat. Um, does the board want to go
out to the property to see the mitigation area and the trees once Mike stakes it? And would that be okay with you, Mr. Augusta. Yeah. Is that good? Yeah. Sure. Okay. So, it's going to be individual. It's not going to be an
organized site visit because that's it's really difficult. I understand completely. Okay. That's fine with me. We're going to get it resolved. We're going to, as you know, you saw the pictures I think when I was you that day and I'm I brought pictures with me. I probably should have given them to you,
but anyway, of the flooding. I have all the everything that was planted underwater under 6 8 10 inches of water salt water. So I you know everything died. I I didn't know what to do four years three years ago. Four years ago I took it out. I put the lawn back. I didn't know what to do. So that's what I
did. I saved I still saved quite a few of the plants and I moved them around. I think I showed you and you were there. But we'll got to work it out. Okay. That's fine. Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure because I know when we were on site you wanted a kind of a more organized site visit. This is kind of a
a change to that. So I just wanted to confirm that you are okay with that. I people want to come they can come take a peek. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You are welcome. All right. So I'm going to poll everybody just so everybody has a chance whether you want to comment or not. Um
Ron, we'll start with you. Do you have any questions or comments? just is so we can go to the site now or should we wait for it to get staked out? Well, I would wait till it gets staked out. All right. So, come just m of you and let us know when it's staked out. We can then plan a our a visit from there. That's all. I'll
let your staff know. Thank you. Thank you. I'm all set. Thanks. Thanks, Russ. I think they got a good plan here to move this forward. So, um I'm good with it. Steve. Yeah, it sounds like everybody's on
board. Let's just keep rolling on this. It's a nice site. We worked on it before and uh the pictures are revealing. Betsy. Yep. Keep rolling along. There's a theme there, Courtney. Um just
a question on the U pavers or the reinforced turf. Was that something that was omitted from the original plan? It wasn't omitted. It was just never proposed. Yeah, it was never proposed.
And Mr. Augusta, I don't think really knew it was not know that he needed permission to do it. Yeah, not a big deal. I just I was just curious. You'll see it when you come out. The grass are growing up through them. It's It really looks It's really cool. It's got, you
know, they have holes in them, you know. Okay. All right. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Courtney. All right. So, um, so Mike, we're wait until you have it staked out. Um, we'll allow, you know, any commissioners that
want to take a look at it. Sometimes that's better, you know, Mike, Steve, you might not know, but, you know, sometimes it's better for the commissioners to see it for themselves, put it in context. Um, but it sounds like you have you, you know, you have the beginnings of a really good plan to
go forward. So, let's do that. Let's just move forward. Let's let's um let's not have any problems. So, how long do you think you want to kick this out, Mike? Um we I'm I'm I
would like to request June 25th to like report back. I think we won't have anything planted then, but we'll have had it staked every we'll have consulted with uh Crawford Land Management. Your the individual commissioners will have had time to go out and as soon as it's staked, I'll let Jen know. you know,
that'll give like the month, you know, mid mid mid May to uh mid June time to sort of figure out the next steps. Um, we're not trying to like delay this. We just want to do it right. And we also know that it's going to be like middle of summer and it's not really the best
time to plant. So, that'll give us time to sort them some things out and report back to you where we are in June to. So, you're holding us accountable to like have made some progress. Well, progress is always good, but just to just to say it, you know, we're going
to probably give you a date certain. I mean, we're going to want it done in the fall. This, you know, we're not going toain, you know, delay, you know what I mean? I was just trying to say it won't be, you know, if you give us till June 25th to do get some things moving and
then report back to you with the target to be planting in the fall. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, Jen, uh, June 25th look okay? Yes. So, I'll make a mo I'll make a
motion to continue this to June 25th. Just a second. Second. All right. We have a motion in multiple seconds to continue this to 625. Mr. Boselli is going to let us know when it's staked. We're going to visit and we're going to keep this moving forward. All right.
Last call. Questions or comments? Right. We're going to vote on the continuence to 625. Betsy Bloodfelter I Courtney Bird I. Matthews I Ron Driscoll I Russ. [Music] Steve and I. It is unanimous. We've
continued this until June 25th. Thank you, Mr. Boselli. Thank you, Mr. Augusta. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good night. Have a good night. Good night, Mr. Augusta. And they're gone. All right. Next up, vote orders of
conditions. First stop, Elizabeth Cat, 190 Associates Road, Realy Trust, 190 Associates Road, Felmouth, Mass. And to point out the obvious, this has nothing to do with what happened tonight. This is the invasive species and
restoration work down by the pond area. pretty straightforward. I just have a note about they were proposing 78 foot spacing and I say no spacing. I think they agreed to that
during the hearing. Did they not? I I did look into it and I think I crunched the number. I can't remember if they changed it to six or five feet with their slight increase in shrub count. Um, depends if you guys are okay with that.
We usually go with five, five, six, something around there for restoration. For restoration work. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Anything else? Anybody want in there? All right. So, we read five to six feet
spacing. Yep. I'll make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed. Third second. All right. We have a motion and a second to issue an order of conditions. Last call. Questions, comments, input. All right, we're voting to issue an order of
conditions. Betsy Blackf. Courtney. Bird. I Matthews I Ron Priscal I Russ. Steve I. It is unanimous. We have issued an order of conditions. Thank
you. Next up, Anthony. I think it's Rocky 225 Lakeshore Drive, Dmouth, Mass. If I'm wrong, sorry. Yes. This is to restore a buffer that
was removed after permission for a stone wall. Removal of a pa walkway. Uh we've been working uh or attempting to work with uh applicant for a while. We're glad to finally have a
plan. Um so that's about it. Just it was a violation um considering that this has been ongoing for about two years now. and staff would advocate for a date certain planting time frame. Um we are entering
peak spring planting so that could be convenient. Um we also they are working on an updated site plan because we had some questions about the grades. They mentioned regrading but didn't show any. So I think they're just going to show us some spot grades that's in the works.
Um, they also mentioned they would be willing to replace the low bush or at least limit its quantity. Yep. Okay. So, what are we looking for for a date like June 15th? It's exactly what I
wrote down. June 15th. I'll make a motion to issue an order of conditions that includes date certain June 15th for planting. Third, second. Okay. Do you have a motion and a second issue an order of conditions with a date
certain of 6:15? Last call. Questions, comments, or input. We're voting to issue the order of conditions. Betsy Bloodfelter. I Courtney Bird I. Matthews I. Ron I Russ.
Steve I. It is unanimous we have issued an order of conditions. Next up, Nordo Nissi III and Jane Nissi. 117 Little Neck Bars Road, Palmouth, Mass. Yes, this is for a proposed addition, a
proposed garage, covered porch, pool, uh, patio, and restoration and DCPC plantings. This is Tim's project, right? This is a mineral engineering project. A couple of times. Yep.
It's almost the anniversary, right? When we first saw it, probably. Yeah. So, it was pretty clean. It was pretty clean plan and presentation. Yeah. The last the last presentation, correct? Yeah, that's that's what I
mean. What we're voting on. Yes. All right. Anything anybody want to see in there? Just whatever the Yeah. Well, what I say that I say, you know, beyond the normal stuff that we put in, but you know, anything specific
to this this site, you know what I mean? No. Make a motion to issue an order of conditions as extensively discussed. Third and second. All right. We have a motion and a second to issue an order of conditions. Last call. Questions,
comments, or input. We're voting to issue an order of conditions. Betsy Blood Filter. I Courtney I. Matthew Z. Ron. I Russ. Steve.
It is unanimous. We have issued an order of conditions. And next up, Honor Fullerton Stone 44 Kerry Lane McMouse.
Yes, this is in uh invasive species management um and some restoration. Um there's two areas on the bank. area that's just mainly in the flood zone. Those areas are fine. The the
the issue on this one is they have historically an unpermitted vista and they want to continue that vista and maintain that vista by cutting trees in the vista and
um installing some lower shrubs um in lie of allowing the trees to grow back as actual trees. There was a lot of conversation with uh Nick Crawford at the hearing on this.
Staff has concerns because this house is currently on the market. It is an older home. It's very unique. Um and our concern is that if we
allow this the establishment of this this Vista corridor, it may not match a corridor if the home is sold, raised and rebuilt. We usually um it's just a
concern or can share that concern or not. Um I would say that we usually allow the removal of trees and vistas. We allow them to be pruned. Um they are uh proposing to remove some trees in
that vista. Um I don't know how the board feels about it. If you want to allow it, you may want to put in some provisions that if the house is raised and rebuilt and a new vista is established that this one is allowed to grow. Throwing that out there. If
they've always historically maintained it, why are there trees there now? Obviously, it hadn't been maintained and it was never permitted initially. Correct. There's no there's no not that we can find. We have no no
record of it ever being permitted. So I don't think you should cut the trees at this point in the vista. In the vista, right? I think they should follow the current rules for vistas. Corre correct
and then eventuality if somebody else comes in wants to change the vista then they have to replant the old Vista. I mean, yeah. And that's what I'm saying that, you know, if the board would were to allow this, you know, manage the the
trees as the the shrubs, not remove Betsy saying, not remove the ones that were proposed. And if a new person comes, I don't even think we need to write it in this one. We can just address it in a new filing. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. You just don't know. So, they have
to comply to current rules for for discas. Okay, that's kind of simple. I mean, is is the house currently for sale or no? I It doesn't matter. It No, I know, but it just I'm curious.
It was unclear. It was unclear when you asked it last week. Yeah. I'd say it is for if they comply with current regulations, it's the the recommendation that we allow pruning but no cutting of the trees. Okay, that's
fine. Other than that, though, I think that was the only concern the staff had was in that Vista corridor and the removal of the trace. And I I think that uh I think staff should go out and go review it with whoever is going to do the work so there's no misunderstanding.
We can do that. So, I'll make make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed. Third second. All right, we have a motion and a second to issue an order of conditions as discussed. Last call. Questions, comments, or input? We're voting to
issue an order of conditions. Betsy filter. Courtney. Bird. I Matthews I Ron Driscoll I Russ. Steve Ben. It is unanimous. We have issued an order
of conditions. Next up, Jeffrey, 86 Ill River Road, East Falmouth, Mass. Okay. The main part of this project is the core fiber roll installation along the lowprofile eroding coastal bank. Uh
second part of this is the historic violation on this property, the continued cutting of those number number of trees. um that they'll have to be addressed and the the installation of the astro turf
in your buffer zone. Um so Crawford Land Management is coming in to do the core fiber roll as well as the um trying to rehabilitate the the trees
that have been um historically managed out there. Um it will take some work to do that the the vegetation part of it. Um so
um I really will put that condition that Crawford Land Management shall be the sole entity to perform the work unless we approve otherwise. Um it is very um unique work they have to do and we met out there and had a comfort level
that Nick could could do the work and and and perform it and make sure these trees survive. Um fiber rolls we don't have any issue with and then the outstanding issue was whether or not the board will allow the astro turf.
Um, so we'll put some conditions in about how the vegetation work is going to um take place and move forward as well as the core fiber rolls. We're just um concerned with the astro turf
installation, but for our consideration, the astro turf should be just considered an impervious surface. Correct. Is it in zone A or zone B? Allessly, I can't remember. I think it was B, but I'm not sure. Hold
on, Court. AstroTurf. Yes. Just made it um zone B only. Yeah, it's concerning to me. It's just that when we say astroturf, it's like we're throwing out some, you know, nefarious, you know, toxic
chemical, you know? I mean, it's it's for our purposes, it's not any different than pavers or something, right? So, they'll need to mitigate for it. No, I understand that, but that's what that's the way we need to treat it, right? I mean, they're saying it's pvious, but it doesn't support plant growth. So, for
our purposes, it's impervious, Courtney. Um, that was They should mitigate for it if they haven't. I stole your thunder, huh? Yeah, that's all right.
Yeah. So, if they propose to mitigate for it is or was they not? So, they have they want to keep it. They got to mitigate for it. Okay. I think that's fair. Anything else? Steve, I see your hand. I
agree with Courtney, but it seemed like a darn good practical idea. Perfect. I'll make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed. Third second. All right. For the record, Rush, you're not on this quarum.
Sorry. All right. We have a motion as a second to issue an order of conditions as discussed. Last call. Questions, comments, or input. All right. We're voting to issue an order of conditions. Betsy Lelter. Courtney. Third. I. Matthew Z. Ron. Disco. I. Steve. Matt.
I. It is unanimous. We have issued an order of conditions. And before we go for the last one, a reminder we have no meeting next week. So, and we have a potential new
commissioner going before the board of selectment on Monday and another one two weeks away from that. So, tell all your friends. All right. Last motion. Who wants it? Third move to adjurnn.
Driscoll second. Wfter. I sorry I Ross, you skipped. No, he didn't. No, I was in there. He was in there. He went He went before Ron. No, you're just
ignoring him tonight. He's He's trying to, but he's not successful. We're ajourned. Thank you everyone. [Music]