[music] [music] Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> All right. Good evening. Welcome to the May 13, 2026 meeting of the Fmouth 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 and broadcast by FCTV, please be cognizant of what you say, how you say it, and what can be seen and heard in your background. We are missing one
commissioner. However, we have a quorum. So, we will be moving forward. I would like to remind the commissioners that for commenting I will call on each of you in turn. So please refrain from speaking over each other. Also all votes are done by roll call. So when I call
your name please state your name and your vote for the record even if you 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 they
will be read into the record. If it is an attendee you would 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 may have your video, 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 Wetland Protection Act and or the Found with Wetlands bylaw apply to their proposed project. A negative determination is that the provisions of the act and or bylaw do not apply. Therefore, the project may proceed as proposed. A positive determination means
the provisions of the act and or bylaw do in fact apply and or may require some conditions. Therefore, the project would require a notice of intent application. So, as an applicant, you want to hear a negative determination. For the benefit of anybody waiting for a
particular hearing tonight and so you're not waiting, the following hearings are expected to be continued. 65 Walker Street, 39 Pine Bank Road, and 24 Westwood A.
Starting the evening, we will be going into executive session. Um, I would take a >> motion to temporarily close this normal session and move to executive session. Driscoll >> 10 second.
>> Got a motion, a second. Any questions? Hearing none, I will call the role again. >> All shy. >> Jim >> McGrath I >> Dave >> Can I? >> Ron >> Driscoll I >> Steve and I >> and Duffy. Motion passes to move to
executive session. See you there in a minute. Excellent. Well, I will um entertain a motion to >> start the regular sessioning up again. >> Start the regular. Second.
>> All right. Got a motion second to start the regular session up again. Questions? Hearing? None. Jim >> McGrath I >> Ron >> Yes. I >> Dan >> Ali, >> Dave, >> I
>> and Duffy. I motion passes to start the session up again. All right. First on the agenda is to review and approve minutes from the April 22nd, 2026 executive session. >> Make a motion to approve the minutes of
April 22nd, 26 executive session. Driscoll >> 10 second. >> Got a motion to second. Any questions? All right. Jim >> Graphy. >> Ron >> Driscoll. I
>> Dan. Dave, >> can I >> and Duffy? Motion passes to accept the minutes from the April 2020 April 22nd, 2026 executive session. [clears throat]
Is Alyssa on? >> Uh she's helping uh she's helping one of our um our agenda people towards the end. So, >> okay. >> She's a little busy. So, I'll take the RDAs. >> All right. Perfect. Just wanted to make sure. >> Yep.
>> All right. So, first up for requests from determinations of applicability, >> Dan Kellogg, 77 Man Road, Falmouth, Mass for permission to add 20 cubic yards of sand to the seawward side of the house. Jen,
>> so yes. So, um staff is recommending the negative -3 and -2. Um, does everyone have their staff report with them? If someone could make the motion at the
bottom, that would be ideal. Thank you. Right. I make a motion to move to determine the work described is within an area subject to protection, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter the area. >> Driscoll second. We got a motion and a
second to move determine the work describes within an area subject to protection but will not remove field dredge or alter the area. Any questions? Hearing none. I will call the role. Jim >> breath I >> Ron
>> I. >> Dan >> Walshy. >> Dave I >> and FBI motion passes. Next we've got the 44 Whitman Road
nominee trust. 44 Whitman Road found with Mass permission to reconstruct an existing deck. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. The staff is recommending a negative three under the state and a negative two under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries not
confirmed. >> I I'll do it again. I make a motion to move to determine that the work described is within an area subject to protection but will not remove filter of the area. Discal second. [snorts] >> All right, we've got a motion to move to
determine the work described as within an area subject to protection but will not remove, fill, dredge or alter the area. Any in a second. Do we have any questions? Seeing none, call the roll. Jim Rath. Roni,
>> Dan, >> Paul Shai, >> Dave >> Tai, [snorts] >> and Duffy. Motion passes. Next, James Burgess, 13 Starboard Drive, foundmouth, Mass for permission to
remove existing walkways, ramps, and decks, reconstruct two decks, and remove a paved driveway and replace with gravel. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Again, the staff's recommendation is the negative -2 under both the state and the bylaw with the
resource area boundaries not confirmed. >> Okay, I take it there. I move to determine that the work described as within an area subject to protection but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter the area. Chris will second. [clears throat] All right, we got a motion and a second
to move to determine the work described as within area subject to protection but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter the area. Any questions? Seeing none, I will call the role. Jim, >> I >> Dan, [clears throat] I
>> Dave, >> Steve, [snorts] you're on mute. That's same >> and Duffy eye. Motion passes with one abstentia. Next, James Burgess 13 Starboard Drive,
Fmouth, Mass. Oh, I know I just did that one. Next. Steven Albano, 2020 227 Man Road, Falmouth, Mass. for permission to install a plunge pool, construct a deck, expanding an existing patio, and modify
a sewage disposal system. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, we're recommending the negative two under the state and the bylaw with the resource area boundaries not confirmed. [clears throat] Jen, >> just a question on this one. There's a bunch of notes on this one about work
that was done inside the jurisdiction, if you will. Yeah, we're just incorporating them into this RDA. They're all very approvable under It's flood zone only. So, it's all very approvable under the RDA. So, we're just basically approving it after the fact.
>> Got it. Okay. Make a motion. Move to determine that the work described is within an area subject to protection, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter the area. >> Discal. All right, we got a motion on a second to move to determine the work described
as within an area subject to protection but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter the area. Any questions? >> Yeah, I have one, Bill. >> All right, Ron. >> How do you modify a sewage disposal system? How are they what are they doing?
>> Um, hang on. Hang on. I don't have the I don't have the plan in front of me. Give me one sec. expanded and modify. They possibly could be putting in that nitro tank. They've been modifying a lot
of of the septics. I'm not sure. I don't have the plan right in front of me, Ron. I'm sorry. I can get that information for you tomorrow, but most likely they're just either relocating some of the tanks to fit the work that they want to do. They could be adding the nitro
now that I think about it. I think they're relocating a couple of the tanks. >> Okay. Thank you, Melissa. Yeah, just looking um at the staff report here because I also didn't review this project. It says that um they're relocating the the leeching field, putting in a new one, and slightly
reconfiguring it. >> Oh, yeah. >> So, the whole system isn't being changed, just kind of shifted. [snorts] >> Thanks. >> All right, now questions. We'll call the role. Jim >> Brady, >> Ron,
>> I >> Dan >> Walshy, >> Dave >> Hi, >> Steve >> and Dy. Motion passes. All right. [clears throat] [snorts] For notice of intent,
all hearings of the Falmouth Conservation Commission are held simultaneously under the authorities of the Massachusetts Wetland Protecting Act and the Falmouth Wetlands bylaws. Although a single decision of the commission is issued, it represents a separate decision under each authority.
As a reminder, public comment is limited to three minutes. So I encourage you to stay within the purview of this board which are the rules and regulations of the wetlands protection act in the felmouth wetlands bylaw and how they pertain to a particular applicant. The chair reserves the right to stop any
comment that is disparaging or inconsequential to the hearing. Please know that all correspondence received by the conservation department is forwarded to all commissioners and becomes part of the record. We will not read each and every letter received at a hearing. Remember our jurisdictions, the
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Falmouth with Wetlands bylaws, not zoning, health or building. All right, first one. Peter and Mary McManamus 113 Ticket Path Falmouth Math
for permission to install a dock. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, I promoted Mike Borcelli up um to present his project. Mike, anybody else I'm promoting up tonight? >> Um,
there may be someone from Megalodon in the audience. >> Darren's here. I'm going to promote him. >> Um, he he may have to speak, but you can hold off. Um, if you have questions, um, I'll I'll kick it off and if he's ne
needed, we can promote him. >> Okay. >> All you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. For the record, Mike Borelli from Felmouth Engineering and I represent the applicant along with Megalodon who
performed the shellfish survey and the associated report. Um, with your permission, I'd like to share my screen. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. 113 Ticket Path is on the eastern shore of Perch Pond. Perch Pond is a um saltwater body that is connected to Grape Pond. It's on the very upper most northern uh end of Grape Pond and
there's a channel connecting Perch Pond to Grape Pond and uh Perch Pond has a number of private recreational uh docks on it. I've been involved [snorts] with several of them. Um, Jen's familiar with many of them [clears throat]
and um the McManuses uh wanted to investigate whether they could also have a dock. So we went through the typical steps starting with a um survey of the property uh also water depth measurements
and then um we designed the dock and uh retained megalodon to do a shellfish survey in accordance with your regulations. Um along the way um we also had an in
had um engagement with the harbor master to make sure he had no issues with the dock. Uh he submitted his comments and had no comments. Uh other than the dock was uh and it's in your staff report projects out further than the abuing
docks. Um but there's a reason for that. um it still um does not exceed your maximum overall length. So, Perch Pond is a saltwater pond. So, the wetland resources include land under the ocean, land containing shellfish. There's a
band of salt marsh um shown on the plan. There is a sloping land form. So uh because it's also in a flood zone, it meets the definition of a coastal bank.
It actually runs through the house. The house is a um what we call a walk out. So the front level where you walk in from the street is higher than the lower level that you can walk out at grade from the I'll call it the basement level, but the lower level. The the
flood zone boundary is identified with the blue dash line. It runs through the house and pops back out. It's AE 12. Um, there's also an AE14 out on the pond. There is no velocity
zone here. So we designed the dock as we typically do uh in a place where the water depth is in excess of 3 feet at time of low tide for a fixed pier or uh in the case of a
floating dock. Um there must be 3 ft of water underneath the buoyancy that supports the float uh to actually extreme low water. Um, if you look closely at the plan, you
will see in parenthesis the water depths reference to mean low water. And you can see that the water depth is basically just over 5 ft in and around the area of the float. There's a 4ft wide walkway leading from
the upland. It crosses the band of salt marsh. And if you've been to the site, you saw stakes here. We also placed a float at the terminal end of the meaning a small marker float
at the terminal end of the proposed 10 ft x 10 ft float. So there's a there's stakes on the shore and then there's a float out in the water. The walkway is proposed to be supported by uh timber pilings 10-in diameter and
they're spaced out uh as far as is uh practical and the in this case I will uh go to the second page to show you the profile of the dock. The pilings are spaced out 16 ft on
center. The upland uh point is here. There's a ramp from grade up. We've elevated this one section because there's two requirements. [clears throat] There's a requirement to
provide 5 foot of separation from the underside of the stringers to where mean high water touches shore for public access. That's a chapter 91 requirement. There's also a DMF policy um that says when you cross a salt
marsh, they want you to be uh one and a half times the width of the walkway. So in this case, 6 ft from the uh salt marsh to the underside. Now, the salt marsh here, um,
if I go back to the plan, probably got degraded from foot traffic over the years because if you saw the stakes, this is a sandy area. It's actually not salt marsh,
but on either side is salt marsh. So, the goal is for the walkway ramp to be elevated. So now um the area underneath may re restore back because the foot
traffic would be next to nothing because now the um the walkway is in in place. Um your requirements say the maximum length from the landwood edge of a salt marsh
is 100 ft. We've extended out 98 ft. You have a another regulation that says you cannot exceed more than 100 ft from mean high water and we're 92 feet from mean high water. Um it's salt marshes are always a little
bit more landwood than mean high water. So um [clears throat] we made the dock longer because um the shellfish survey uh did reveal that there's significant shellfish in the nearshore areas. what is called the B zone. There's
significant densities, but as you get out further and the substrate is degraded, the density um diminishes so that we're well below the threshold in what they call the uh A
zone. [clears throat] And your regulations say the terminal end of or of the structure or the mooring field must be no less than 35 ft from the Azone. We're we're more than 35 ft from the Azone.
Um but it also says if you're within 50 ft of the Azone boundary then you must provide um shellfish mitigation. And we're the applicant is more than um
willing and and expects that he would have to provide shellfish mitigation. And you typically condition that by um uh a contribution to the shellfish mitigation fund that's managed by
um our local uh marine resources division through Chuck Martinsson. So we are more than happy to do that as is customary for other docs with similar uh situation. With regard to the staff report,
um I was happy to see there weren't very many um comments at least related to the project that we applied for. Um they I believe Melissa is the uh author
of this. Um she she reiterates that a shellfish mitigation needs to be provided. Um there's two comments about work that had been done in the past. uh an application in
2017, an RDA for work related to a septic upgrade that I was not involved with. Evidently, there was um a condition that the area from the railroad ties shall be
allowed to grow back and become buffer. I believe that comment refers to these railroad ties. Um and it's the comment actually says
um the land seaweed of the railroad ties was required to be reveated. Um the actual comment says allowed to reveate naturally but it it hasn't occurred. So for whatever reason it's still lawn. So then the staff's
recommending that the area there should be a restoration plan for that area. So, so, uh, I totally understand and I would expect if there was a requirement that you'd want want a plan that shows
that since it doesn't regrown naturally, um, I will I can go through that with my client. Um, I'm hoping that if there aren't any issues with the actual dock, you could close and issue an order with a condition that before any work were to
proceed that the restoration plan be submitted to the conservation commission staff. There was another comment about a slate walk that evidently was constructed
without permission. I'm highlighting [snorts] that with the mouse hand. I believe this is the one that you're referring to. Um so that slight walk is in your jurisdiction
and it yes it should have it should have been permitted. uh mitigation should have been provided for it or alternatively it should it should not be allowed to stay. So I I'll have to go through over that with my client and again um
provide mitigation or revi uh revise the plan to indicate it's to be removed. I I don't have the benefit of going over that with him before the hearing. So, um I'm hopeful you can for the same reasons
for the area between the railroad ties um close an issue with conditions on that as well. >> I think that sums it up. If [snorts] if anything else uh comes up for either of us, we're
we're here to take questions. and I'll stop sharing it. >> Thanks, Mike. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh, we did hear from the shelfish constable. He has no concerns on the characterization of the
substrate. Um, so we're fine with that. Typically, uh, shellfish mitigation was a monetary contribution to the town's, uh, revolving shellfish fund. Um, and
typically it was for the purchase of 10,000 seed cohogs. So, we will be putting that in. Um, and thankfully for your client Mike, the price of 10,000 C cohogs hasn't changed all that drastically in the last 20
years since you and I have been doing this. So, >> I think it's around $500. >> It's 650 now, but it's not not too much more. >> There is inflation. >> There is inflation. >> Yeah. So, um, typically when we did do the the zone B, uh, or area B shellfish
mitigation, it was, um, always 10,000 seed cohogs. Um and then my question, thank you Mike. We can condition um if you we can condition that a
restoration plan be submitted and installed prior to the construction of the dock or at least some of it so that you still have room to to build that walkway through there. Um so that's fine. I have a question though about the dock itself. >> Yep.
>> 10 by 10. It just seems like a strange >> Yeah. >> configuration to me on how are they especially with no tie off pilings like [snorts] >> Yeah. Yeah. It's a little unique boat. >> So, so the McManisters don't have a very
large boat. Um they have a >> they have a boat that they can go out in Great Pond and on the right days go out into the Vineyard Sound, but it's it's not a real big boat. Um, so the the float would also be a place they can kind of hang out, but it the the size of the boat is such that it gives them
flexibility depending on wind direction. They could tie it on the front or on the side. They're only going to have one boat. And I think you would agree since 10 by 10, it would be difficult to put more than one boat on a configuration
like that. But we also expect there' be a condition about that. So, um there's there's no uh intention other than they want to have it have a little bit more uh real estate um to just sit out on as well
cuz I I asked the same question at the time when Mr. McManis said that was the size he wanted the dimensions. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. But you just said that you have the mooring field in the front and you said based on wind directions they might be coming along the south
side of the dock. >> Well, if if that's a problem, then they won't they'll only tie on the front. But they wanted the shape of the dock more [clears throat] for like recreational use other than just, you know, tying the boat. If they if they had, for instance,
a 6x6, it's harder to use it for to sit on, you know. >> Okay. It was just it was um it was just a different shape than and me and I'm just trying to figure out how they would tie it on there. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Um and I had one more one more statement. What was it? Oh, uh, the shellfish constable did want me to, um, make your clients aware,
as all people are aware in Perch Pond, that there's no guarantee the channel between Perch Pond and Great Pond are is going to be dredged and that playing the tides actually is a possibility.
>> Yep. That's part of the game and per >> Okay. just he did actually ask me to to make that statement tonight. So, >> yep, >> I'm making it. >> I can also reiterate it to my client. >> Yep. Perfect. That's all I have, Mr.
Chairman. >> Alyssa, anything to add? >> Not at this time. Thank you. >> All right, I will open up for commissioners comments and questions. Ron, >> I don't need real comments. I'm I'm happy with the restoration waiting for another restoration plan and the and the
mitigation for the the walk. There must is there plenty of room on the the site for the mitigation. So it wouldn't be a problem if >> unfortunately no. So I have to see I have to look into two things. Uh if if there's things we can remove that we can
get credit for or if we can find places that are are acceptable and more than 10 ft from the structure or have to deal with removing part of it. I haven't done an area calculation on the slate walk so I don't really know
yet until I do that. >> Do you want to continue Mike or >> No, because I'm hoping you can close because we can work that out. We have a long way to go with chapter 91. We have to go to the board of selectmen. There's
this is a this is uh with if lucky a spring of 27. >> Wow. >> Doc. >> Okay. >> So, >> okay. >> Yeah. >> That's all, Mr. Chairman. That's all I have. >> Thank you, Dan.
>> Just a question. Either anybody can answer this one. Do we still have a requirement that floats get removed in the winter? Um, unless there's bubblers that Unless there's going to be bubblers that support it. >> Okay. All right. So, if there's a bubbler out there, then it's no big
deal. And and then then a place to start doesn't matter because 10 x 10's kind of a lot more difficult to get out. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I I would also I it would be certainly expected that you'd have a condition
that it can't be stored in the it can't be hauled to the to the to the shore. So, they would have to haul it and stored in the upland which might be tricky or they're going to have to have a bubbler system. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> That was it. And Dave, >> yeah, I guess on a general question, uh, it seemed like, uh, the two things we're talking about, the restoration of a lawn in the back and this and possible mitigation for the slate walkway in the front seems like that's a lot to to, you
know, go ahead and close this without having these things addressed. Seems a bit more than we usually uh, do that way. It seems to me, or am I wrong? There's quite quite a bit going on there, isn't there? So, wouldn't wouldn't we often ask for
the plan to be updated for those things? >> I mean, it's it's it's a straightforward as far as the restoration of the lawn area, Dave. It's pretty straightforward. It's a pretty defined area. Um, we can
that's, you know, it's it's I mean, it's a large area, but it's it's very well defined. So, >> we get into We Go ahead. You go. You finish. No, I mean if if Dave go to the board if if you feel uncomfortable closing it and you want to continue it
out a couple of weeks for Mike to talk to his client. Um the chapter 91 I mean as Mike said it is it is a long process. Um but if you wanted to kick it out to the 3rd of June um in order to get a
restoration plan that's that's fine. >> Well let me let me explain a little more. It seems to me with something of this size we often get a plan of what kind of you know what kind of plants we're going to do and there's it's pretty something of this magnitude we often see some serious work before we
approve the plan. No. Am I am I wrong there? >> We very often see these things these kind of plans. Well, but we often see that right? >> Yes. if I could speak to that. Um, you also very often allow for this type of
work to be done and close a hearing to to uh be sympathetic to the time frame for the applicant. Uh, with understanding your staff's well-versed on the mitigation planting that's typical here.
I mean, I think it's pretty straightforward what has to happen. Um the second continuing it basically just you know lengthens the permitting process. We can't build the dock without it. Um
so I'm hopeful that >> and and on and Okay, I hear you. On the second one, uh the mitigation for the for the slate walk, you sound like you're not sure where we you're going to find the room for that. Right. >> Right. So submitting the plan for the restoration may include removal of the
walkway um as part of it or removal of a portion of the walkway. Uh so you're going to get the results of a plan that's basically
updated to show the restoration and mitigation plan planting um in in a relatively timely manner and well before they could ever build this dock. and you'll have a condition that doesn't allow for the dock to be constructed
without having a satisfactory plan. >> All right. Well, um Okay. Thank you. >> Um Dave, you could also we could also do this if the board feels a little bit more comfortable with this. We could close the hearing condition that the
restoration plan needs to be done under an amendment. That way you would be able to see the plan, evaluate the plan, and then Mike could still be going through the chapter 91 process. They would come back to you within this year and a half
time frame with that restoration plan. You could still condition all the plants or at least most of them to be put in before the dock is built and all of that. And that way you'll be able to see the plan and the applicant can move forward with the with the with the um
state permitting process. I I guess I would say this better idea. >> It could work that I guess I don't want to make a mhill on this unless unless the other commissioners feel similarly and I haven't heard anything that they do. So >> I mean I thinkers don't I I think I
should back off of this and take what Jen recommends. Yeah. >> Yeah. But I think I think that's a perfectly acceptable compromise between, you know, Mike wanting to move or the uh the McManuses wanting to move forward with the permitting process and and
giving this board some shy and um um that you'll be able to to weigh in on that. >> If if everyone else thinks that's cool, the fine I don't want to be the only one supporting. >> I think it's a great idea since I just came up with it.
That's a It's a cleaner uh more certain Okayelcome. >> Thank you very much. I'm done. >> Steve, [clears throat] >> thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize for this the way I'm viewing it now. Um,
my only question was, uh, if the dock could have been moved [clears throat] a little bit to the east, it would have seemingly had a better balance between the existing docks on the pond, but there was an existing walkway. And I realize that was my only comment.
>> Jim, >> yeah, I have one question to put that path in going down to the dock. Is there going to be a lot of disturbance to that uh salt marsh area? >> No, the only if if I could share my
screen again, um it'll easier this. So, I know there's a lot of shrubs and there's an overhanging tree as well. >> So, the the there's a [clears throat] very reasonably uh wide wide enough uh
pathway through here. This is only going to be 4 feet wide. >> Yeah. >> And the supports here are just uh 6x6 posts. So, those would be hand dug. And this work will be done. It's basically like framing a deck almost, but it's, you know, it's a slope. And then the
other work from the other side is all um the actual dock itself. So this area here is all done by hand. >> Um >> Okay. >> So, >> and are they going to bring a barge in close to get >> They're going to have to use a smaller
uh barge here to get there's only about water there close to the shore. >> Yeah. So, so at high tide, the barge can station and still be in sufficient water
depth about in this location in reach to to install these pilings. We may actually even make these two 6x sixs as well since they're not in very deep water. But, um, the majority of this is all easily accessible by
barge. >> Okay, that answers my question. take a week. Thanks, Mike. >> Yes. >> Thanks, Jim. Thanks, Mike. I don't have anything. I think it's been um discussed enough. I'm fine with it.
Anything else from either uh General Lissa? No. All right. What do you guys want to do? >> Make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement. Disl. And I got a motion and a second to close
the hearing and take on advisement questions. Jen, anything in the chat or anybody in the audience have anything? >> Nothing in the public chat, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. So, seeing none, I will call the RO. Jim >> McGrath, >> Ron,
>> I >> Dan >> Walshai, >> Dave >> Kai, >> Steve >> I >> and Dia motion passes to close the hearing and take another advisement. Thank you Mike. >> Thank you very much. Have a good night.
>> Good night Mike. >> Good night. Next we have James Pello and Robert Shemck 65 Walker Street Fmouth Mass for permission to raise an existing single family dwelling, construct a new single family dwelling with deck porches and
attached garage. Install a new Title 5 sewage disposal system and install mitigation and restor restoration plantings. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. This actually is going to the applicant has requested a continuance until June 3rd. My apologies
for not letting you know sooner. >> Yep. No, I I saw that. Just going through the motions. >> All right. The motion of the applicant um continue this hearing until June 3rd 26. Crystal >> can second. >> A motion and a second to continue this
till June 3rd. Questions? Seeing none, I'll call the role. Jim >> McGrath I. >> Ron. >> Dan. Dave >> can't I >> Steve I
>> and yeah motion passes to move this hearing till June 3rd next Jane Crowley Cullinin and Steven R Styles trustees Jane Cwley Cullinin discretionary trust 39 Pine Bankank Road
Falmouth Mass for permission to raise an existing family dwelling construct a new single family dwelling with a porch and patio and install a new title Five sewage disposal system. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. This also will be has
requested a continuence until June 3rd. >> Motion of the applicant move continues hearing until June 3rd. Driscoll. >> Second. [snorts] >> A motion and a second to continue this hearing till June 3rd. Any questions?
>> Seeing none, call the roll. Jim >> McGrath I >> Ron >> Crystal I >> Dan >> Walsh I >> Dave >> Santi >> Steve >> Dan I >> and FI motion passes to continue this
hearing until June 3rd. Next we have continued request for hearing under notice of intent. First up, Town of Falmouth Water Quality Management Committee, 0 Nashina Street, map parcel 24-20-00002-0000 and zero Nashina Street, map parcel
14-15A-0000500, Falmouth, Mass for permission to install a permeable reactive barrier along the shoreline. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, I have promoted Kristen Rathen up uh to present her
project which she is working on behalf of Felmouth's water quality committee. Good evening Kristen. >> Good evening. >> I've also promoted Ken Foreman and Paul Dolman Broski up as well. Um, Ken, I
believe you're a member of the water quality committee. And Paul, I don't know if you're with Sidwares or the committee. >> Paul is with ISOTCH. He is one of the other contractors.
>> Perfect. Great. Sorry about that, Paul. >> Uh, Kristen, do you want me to share my screen for you or you can share your screen? >> I was in the middle of sharing mine. >> Okay, perfect. That's not the right one. Past my bedtime. All right. How does that look?
Let me see it. Okay. All right. So, I have a few slides basically um some details on the project. So, I don't want to assume anything. So, when we're talking about a permeable reactive barrier, we're talking about an inground
passive treatment system that's used to intercept um and clean groundwater naturally in its flow path. Um, you can use different types of media for your permeable reactive barriers. For
this project, our goal is to use a carbon source, which is going to promote the natural microbial activity in the soil um, and help reduce the nitrogen content of that groundwater that's entering Snug Harbor.
So, a little bit background on the project. You guys are well aware of water quality management committee and their charge to look at alternative technologies for reducing nutrient loading into the estuaries um beyond
sewering. One of those technologies was looking at permeable reactive barriers. So in 2014, there was the results of an evaluation that the town commissioned looking at potential project sites in Falmouth for
permeable reactive barriers. Snug Harbor came out of that evaluation as one of the top candidate sites for the implementation of this technology. However, the wastewater treatment, a lot of the
loading to West Balmouth and to Snug Harbor is a result from the wastewater treatment facility which was upgraded in 2005. Um, modeling showed that the load, the legacy plume load should have dissipated from that system within 7 years of that
upgrade, which would have put it around the 2013 2014 time frame. So the town decided not to pursue the permeable reactive barrier project in that area because they didn't think it would be cost effective if the nutrient plume was
going to wash out of the system in a sooner manner. So the town decided to wait. So the degradation continued. Um these are images from last summer.
While the town waited in that period between 2005 and 2024, um Ken Foreman and his um colleagues down at MBL, they have a network of monitoring wells. So this image on the left, all of these red
dots are existing wells in the West Falmouth Harbor shoreline. Uh they have been collecting data there for many years. Um also during that time they did some thermal imagery of the area basically to identify temperature
differentials in the water to find where the groundwater seeps were coming in. So in this image on the left the dark black portions those are colder water where the groundwater is entering the system. And it's hard to see in the Snug Harbor
portion, but that's all solid black there, indicating that there's major groundwater inputs in that localized area. So, the blue line is a general representation of the area we're
proposing for this PRB. Um, these two red dots correspond to these two wells. So this is some of Ken's data, that long-term data of this monitoring network. So you can see that location
happens to be where the highest nitrate concentration is. So as the town waited comes 2024, the plume is still there. The nitrogen concentration has decreased some um but
it has not dissipated by any means. So in 2025 at the persistence and of another water quality management committee member uh the town applied for and received about $450,000
in funding for a permeable reactive barrier in Snug Harbor from the National Estuaries Program Watershed Grants Program. Um and within that proposal, there was about $200,000 of match commitments between town and project
partner um time and labor. So that's for the the PRB itself and a couple of new monitoring wells. So now 2026, we are seeking permission to proceed with this project.
So the project plan um the plan is for the PRV to actually be two permeable reactive barriers with two different technologies um one being emulsified vegetable oil and the other as wood chips. Both of
these media both these technologies are proven technologies to be highly effective for reducing nitrogen concentrations. um both medias serve as the carbon source that the microbial community needs to conduct the denitrification.
So the emulsified vegetable oil, we refer to it as EBO. Um this is a foodgrade product. It's vegetable oil with some emulsifiers in it such as sodium bicarbonate which helps maintain the proper pH balance to have the
highest uh microbial metabolism. Um, so the EVO is installed via injection. It's just pumped um through injection points into the ground. The state underground injection control
program requires injections to be at least 100 ft from surface waters. So the EVO portion of the project is proposed for the landward side of Nashina Street along the frontage of the Salt Pond
area's bird sanctuary property. And the vertical extent of this would be from 15 to 40 ft below the surface. So this would be well below the root zones. Um so the EVO would not be accessible to
any of the vegetation in the area. And the proposed length for this section is about 125 ft. The actual installation for the EVO um for this length be up to about 2 weeks, probably just over a week. Um and it's
the least disruptive to the to the landscape. There's nothing there's no pipes or tubing or anything left after the injection points. For the wood chips, we are proposing to install columns of wood chips. Um, this
would be a little bit further south on the seawward side of Nashina Street on the town owned parcel. Um, so the wood chips you can't get to the same depth you can with the EVO. And because we'd be closer to the shoreline, we don't
need to be as deep. The groundwater is closer to the surface. So, for the wood chips, we're proposing up to 25 ft below the surface. Um, again, another 125 ft in length, and that's along the town parcel in the right away and just um
inward from that where it's already been disturbed. So, the wood chips take longer to install and we anticipate about 5 weeks for those to be installed. And both the EVO and the wood chips can be installed concurrently. So total installation time would be about 5
weeks. Uh once the PRBs have been installed, the project plan is to monitor the performance every 4 months at least through the end of 2027 cuz that's the project funding period.
And as far as the longevity of both of these carbon sources, the EVO has a shorter longevity. Um, for the amount the volume being proposed, we anticipate up to about 7 years for functioning and
the wood chips over 15 years. Um, both of these are temporary, long-term temporary. Um but during this period at least the seven years that gives the town more time to go through the permitting process for the ocean outfall
um to evaluate the bigger picture plan for West Falmouth Harbor whether there would continue to be uh discharge from the treatment plant in other portions of West Falmouth or whether they would want to look at rejuvenating the EVO after
its performance cease. So one of the one of the comments that has come up is about reducing oxygen with this technology. So the objective is to decrease the oxygen in the
groundwater because to promote the ditrification the microbes that are performing that function function under anorobic conditions. So PRBs of this nature
require low oxygen conditions. So Isotch has been involved with other projects where they have monitored um and measured oxygen concentrations down gradient from PRVs. So you can see decreased oxygen um in one of their
examples 40 to 60 ft down gradient but then further downgradient you see negligible changes in that. Um if you recall we're doing a 25 ft vertical extent of EVO. So, you're going
to have groundwater that's traveling below that that's going to be mixing with the low oxygenated groundwater before it gets out into the harbor. Um, the harbor itself is a very well-mixed system. So, you have it's it's a tidal
system and you also have wind and wave action that mixing that water. the volume of water that's being treated by the PRB is very small in comparison to what's actually out in the harbor.
So because of that um the amount of low dissolved oxygen water that would be coming from the PRB is not anticipated to have an impact on the ecosystem. So a little more site specifics um our project site. So this is
basically the point up at Snug Harbor. Um this is one of those two existing monitoring wells. Back to MBL's data. This is where the highest nitrate concentration that the MBL group measures. Um this is one of the other
monitoring wells. So the blue dotted line is the proposed location for the EVO injection. Um this is the site. if you didn't make it out there. So, we're proposing to inject along the right of way um
where it's all primarily grass in that area. The red dotted line, that's where we're proposing for the wood chip bore holes. Um again, this is the townowned parcel.
So it would be along the right of way and just inside the parcel line where it's already been disturbed. So when we're looking at doing a saw to pattern for that to make sure that we have a consistent barrier so that we're not
getting water that's zigzagging through. On these maps, we have a couple of locations where we've identified um where we would like to install new monitoring wells, basically upstream and
downstream from PRBs. Again, to the maximum extent possible in areas that are already disturbed or if there is vegetation going in and hand installing those wells. As far as the efficacy of PRBs, there's
actually two PRBs currently in Falmouth. The most recent one was a partnership between uh the town of Falmouth through water quality management committee and HOIE. Uh this one was installed at the head of Great Pond in 2020.
This was a demonstration project meant to try and refine the longevity estimates of the oil because that's one of the big questions out there for um cost comparisons for lifetime costs. So part
of that project was to install what was expected to be a 2-year dose of EVO and monitor how it continued or not functioning for those two years. So the bar graph on the left shows the nitrate
the nitrogen data from that project. So the first set is just after the EBO was injected. So it's our baseline conditions where you can see that um nitrate is high in both
upstream the control is about 15 ft upgradient from the PRB downgradient and then 50 ft beyond and you can see very quickly how the nitrate concentration drops off to um almost non detect on the
right that project also monitored total organic carbon which was approx proxy for the presence of the EVO in the soils. So what we have here is you see EVO in the downgradient well which would
be expected um some dispersion along with the flow of groundwater but the orange dots those are the upgradient wells and there was no EVO detected upgradient so there was no um back
flushing of that EVO upwards into the system. The other PRB in town was installed many moons ago by Ken Foreman and his group in 2005. This is a wood chip trench PRB on the
shoreline of Laquit Bay. Um, so this is some of the dissolved oxygen data he provided shortly after the installation. The orange box represents where the wood chips are in this cross-section. So you
can see higher concentration of dissolved oxygen waters coming into the treatment zone that oxygen being depleted so that the PRB can function how it's intended. Um and then it's not
completely an oxic water that's coming out the other side. And similarly with nitrate um you can see high nitrogen concentrations coming into the PRB um being treated and then low nitrate
concentrations coming out as far as impacts downstream. So again, this is the approximate location of Ken's PRB on the shoreline. And one of the things they noticed was directly
downstream, it inhibited the algo growth on the shoreline. Um, as you can see the nice reddish area as opposed to it being matted with alol slime. This uh came from a more recent
presentation. This has 15 years after Ken installed the wood chips, showing that the wood chips are still highly effective at the nitrate reduction. Um, and their estimates um, you know, there's still 80% of the
carbon remaining in those wood chips and they estimate that that will continue to chug along for about 30 years. Um and then the last thing I have is they also did um some investigations on
effects of the PRB downstream on the growth of some soft shell clam. And what they found was that there was no difference in the growth soft shell clams directly downstream from that barrier versus their control site.
Thank you, Kristen. You can stop sharing. >> Sure. All righty, Jen. >> I don't have any questions regarding the the proposal.
Can Kristen, can you just clarify from a construction standpoint, how many wells are you putting in both for the oil and for the wood chips? So, we would be looking at So, we're
going to use what's existing there. We have at least two. Um, one may need to be rejuvenated, the one that's high up on the point, but we would be looking at installing at
least one directly upstream from each type. Um, we would want another one downstream from the wood chips and if we're able, one within each PRB
>> and those are the monitoring wells. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. >> Anything to add, Alyssa? >> Um, just one question and my apologies if you answered it and I missed it. There was a question from someone in the
community if the work was still set to begin um this spring or as soon as maybe you had permanent. The hope was this spring, but because it's now the middle of May, uh we will wait until after Labor Day
>> so as to not >> upset any summer activities along Nashina Street. [clears throat] >> Duly noted. >> Okay, I'll take commissioner questions. Dave,
>> um um let's see. Um, Kristen, you may have mentioned, I may have missed it. Um, it seems like the the wood chips are so successful in the past. I'm wondering why you chose two different technologies here. >> So, both technologies are very well
proven. The EVO is a less expensive from a labor perspective and a quicker installation. is also temporary, you know, when you
look at the cost effectiveness and there's secretly a slight research comparison because these two technologies have never been compared directly side by side in sichu. Um, so in the exact same setting so to provide
scientific community and you know regulatory community a nice direct sideby-side comparison. Okay. Um, and with the EVO, that's an injection. Yep. So, you just put a like a thing in the ground, a tube or something, and just just inject it right in. Huh. Yep. Cool.
>> Uh, does the um the chips I guess there's a there's a trench dug there. Is that correct? >> Well, so we're looking at columns. So, it would be a bore hole. So, we would have >> Well, yeah, those columns are they're inner space like you showed, >> right? because that's that's less
disruptive than trying to trench for wood chips, especially that close to the shoreline. >> Are are they are they pounded in? How how do they get down in there? >> Um I'm going to defer to Paul Dumbrosski for the specifics of that installation because he's been part of that.
>> Just quickly, Paul, don't don't dwell on it's in with a an augur drill rig. So the drill rig will auger a hole that's 10 to 12 inches in diameter. Um, so that this the sand will come out and and then it's replaced with a mixture of wood chips and gravel. >> Okay.
Um, I think that's all I've got. Thank you very much, >> Ron. >> Yeah. What happens to the wind chips when you abandon the wells in 15 or 30 years? Is there just holes in the ground that collapse or you fill them in?
>> Kristen, I'll take that one. Um, no. The the wood chips just stay as as they are. Um, one of the reasons to add the gravel is is to give it some some substance. Um, there there there may be minimal um,
subsistence, but really really minimal. And that that's from feedback I've gotten from projects on Long Island where where there there's been several of these put in uh, out on Eastern Long Islands. Um, and and >> they will really truly never stop. Um,
you know, the estimate is 30 plus years, but there's always going to be some carbon component. So, those wood chips will will for a very long time, um, still be doing some level of denitrification. Okay. And and removing nitrate from the water. >> What type of wood chips?
Oak, pine, or the matter? it from what uh Stony Brook University has done um a number of u studies on different wood types and it seems some are slightly better than others but it it doesn't matter too much and and from our point of view we're going to use
what we can get locally and um and that's generally what they've done on on some of the ones that Stony Brook University has been part of on Long Island. >> All right, thank you. That's all. Dan, >> so I actually have a question, but just
to follow up on Ron's. So, what's the ratio of the gravel to the wood chip? >> Uh, it's approximately 75% wood chip, 25% gravel, >> so it could decompose and you could end up with holes eventually, but it's your point is it's out there 50 years or
something. >> Okay. So, Jen, this may be a question for you. I remember when we first discussed this a couple weeks ago, I brought it up. So, does it matter? Does the the response from DMF only specifically mentions the wood chip and
bore holes and not the injected vegetable oil. So, does that matter? >> Um, not really. It means that DMF did not really have any concerns with the EVO injections. >> Okay. >> I thought I would take it.
>> I mean, I mean, they wrote it like they're proving the gra the, you know, the gravel and wood chip and they just they're silent on the other one. So, I don't know what to make of it. That's all. Okay. So, you don't think we need to go back and get them to clarify that? I'm okay.
>> I I don't believe so. >> Okay. All right. I'm all set then. Thanks, Jim. >> Uh, great presentation, Kristen. Uh, I have no further questions, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. I mean, the only one I had is
um when we're talking about sort of monitoring the the the low oxygen water going back into the system, if you know, if it's found that it's actually affecting the system, can this be removed if it needs to be or what what's
the the plan for that? I mean, I'm not guessing, but I'm just curious if all of a sudden, you know, a plume of de oxygen, you know, you're getting an oxic water going into the system and it's actually negatively affecting um the harbor area. Um is there a way to
mitigate that if it ever happened? >> So, there are you could add a became a large problem. Right now with how much algae and phytolanton grow in that system in the summer, there's no
oxygen in the water naturally. So I think it would be more of a steady state than doing further degradation to it. But there are ways that you could manually airate the water if you needed to.
>> Yep. Thank you, Dave. I see your hand up. I have one more question I forgot to ask. At one point, uh Kristen, [clears throat] you mentioned uh buying time for the town for a longer term solution. Is what what's that about? Or is is there a different solution long term they're thinking about?
>> Well, so there's still if you're looking at West Falmouth Harbor as a whole, you know, the town is starting to work on watershed planning for the estuaries as a whole as opposed to individual subwaterheds. Right now the discharge from the
municipal treatment plant primarily goes to West Falmouth and Herringbrook and that comes through Mashipacwick Creek but it impacts all of West Falmouth inherently >> as the town is looking at discharge
options for expanding sewer. They're looking at the ocean outfall which would mean discharge landbased discharge at the treatment plant would stop. Um, so that would be additional a large amount of loading that's coming to West
Falmouth as a whole that would stop. Um, so you'd have to have time to see what the localized effects are in which parts of West Falmouth. >> Okay. Well, thank you. >> All right. Um, Jen, is there anything in
the public chat or audience questions? >> Nothing in the public chat, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. >> I make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement. Driscoll. >> 10 seconds. >> Got a motion, a second to close the
hearing and take it under advisement. Any questions? Hearing and seeing none, I will call the role. Dave, >> uh, can I again? Nice presentation. Thanks. Wall sh >> Ron >> Crystal I
>> Jim >> McCra I >> and Duffy motion passes to close the hearing and take down advisement. Thanks Kristen for the presentation. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks a lot. Do you all?
>> Okay. Next we have town of Felmouth Beach Department, Felmouth Beaches, Felmouth, Mass permission to implement the 2026 Falmouth beach management plan. >> One second, Mr. Chairman. Why I
put Paul and Ken back? Ken left. Oh, there we go. Um there is nobody here for the beach management project. We were solely waiting on comments from natural heritage which we received 5 minutes
before last week's hearing. Um we've reviewed that. We've gone over that with the project team. They have a greater uh conversation that they need to have with natural heritage under whether or not this needs to be permanent under the
Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. But as far as we are concerned, we have their comments. We have their time of year restrictions. We have everything we need to issue an order of conditions for this project. >> All right.
Any questions from anybody here? I have a procedural one. So normal with DP, we don't close hearings until we get numbers. with Natural Heritage, we can close things without having closure on the issues that they raise.
>> No closures on the issues they raised under the Wetlands Protection Act. They're working through it's the same time of year restrictions, everything else. They're just going through a larger review whether or not the acreage
triggers a review under MISA. still going to end up with the same conditions, but they're looking at whether their acreage trips um the threshold where they have to file with MISA.
>> Okay. >> So, there is Yeah. What was that? >> I thought, let's see. I thought what I read was there's a whole lot of questions over what they were going to do and how they were going to do it and so forth. Is that all connected to Misa? >> No, that's not connected to me. What are
you specifically asking, Dan? >> Well, I thought if we need to bring the project team back, we'd be happy to. >> All I'm trying to get at is as I read the report you guys forwarded from the the division from is it DMF or Natural Heritage? Which one was it?
>> Natural Heritage. It should have been. >> Hang on. [sighs] uh beach management plan. >> Jen, I think typically any MISA or MEPA filing happens after a decision from this commission is issued because it's a much longer process.
>> Correct. >> So there typically do close. >> Sure. So as you look at Yeah. DMF, it had a whole bunch of issues in it, right? mean >> and it was asking for a whole bunch of additional information
>> that was >> this is found conservation commission town beaches uh Alyssa you sent this out either yesterday or today it's got five at least five sections where it wants
other stuff right how you going to do the fencing site maps equipment and vehicles and then it has the you know it's the endangered species issues and yes at the very end of it it says
MISA filing fee wasn't correct but that's >> so under us under they're just asking it a lot more questions >> under MISA with us we're going to put those time of year restrictions in and those time of year restrictions are
going to lock down any work they do >> and then we will get that MISA report and work through that. >> Under the Wetlands Protection Act and under our regulations, the guidance that they provided is sufficient to issue that order of conditions.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> They're looking MISA's looking at a whole different set of thresholds than what we look at. >> I understand what you're looking at now that I'm reading it again. Um, but that'll all get flushed out and we'll
take care of it within the order of conditions and when we're working with the beach department and DPW throughout the life of this permit. >> And so does do those conditions, whatever they close on, end up in the order of conditions for the beach
department or how does they get >> they're they're going to issue it a whole different like a chapter 91 license is issued and it has a whole different conditions. They're going to issue a whole another permit that has these conditions. >> Got it. >> That they'll that that they will have to
adhere to. >> Got it. Okay. So, it's covered independently. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> All right. Anything in the public chat, Dad? >> Nothing in the public chat regarding this project.
>> All right. Oh, I guess we'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under adisement. 10 seconds. All right, I got a motion and a second to close and take it under advisement. All right, see no questions. Dave,
>> I'm all set. >> Dan, >> I >> Ron >> Driscoll I >> Jim >> McGrath I >> Duffy I motion passes to close the hearing and take it under advisement.
Next, Brian Mclofflin, Falmouth Pier 37, Inc. 6488 110 and zeros nav map parcel 47B-9- 003-0000 Falmouth, Mass for permission to replace and relocate the bulkhead, remove a
portion of Phil Tide lands and expand the existing dock system. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have promoted Tom Pazarkski for mel engineering to present his amended to project Tom is
there a continued project excuse me Tom is there anybody else on your project team I'm promoting >> yes please Barry Fogle please >> okay thank you that's kind of what I say anything >> okay uh Mr. Fogle is coming in as a panelist
as well. Thank you, Tom. >> Yep. You're welcome. >> Tom, the floor is yours. >> Okay. Um, [clears throat] at the last hearing, we were asked to take a look at we gave a pretty thorough presentation on the overall
characteristics and basically what we're looking to do. Um, and the changes since that meeting, we were asked to go ahead and take a closer look at the 16 foot long bulkhead that's adjacent to the boat ramp. I don't know if you can put up the plans or if you want to share,
um, I can bring up the plans. >> Uh, Tom, I don't have them queued up. I didn't realize you needed me to. So, if you have them queued up, that would be great. >> Okay. some reason I'm having a problem sharing. >> So So John, if it's of any help, I I
think I raised the issue last time and I looked at the plans and I I think they're fine. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that was that was the one issue we were asked to take a look at. Um and we reviewed it with the town engineer and on April 15th he replied to us the proposed sheet piling
construction is reasonable. The changes that were made to that plan is we made a more stout design with stamped structural drawings was submitted to the town on that small bulkhead. We've doubled up the piles that are located then there with steel sheet piling
whalers and tiebacks. We're going to go manta ray tiebacks as well to tie it down. Uh, and I think the other important change that we had to the plans too is we've eliminated a couple of the floats. Um, so there'll be less floats in the water and probably 16 to
20 less piles in the water and that's all I have. >> Thank you. Um, Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to get my VPN to work and it's just not working. So I I am unable to share a plan for
you. Apologize for that. But I think uh Tom summed it up nicely. They're rearranging coming some a couple of the slips. I think they Tom you added one small little tiny finger pier over there or float system to the north. >> Yeah, that was I think that was on the
other the plan, but that's adjacent to the town uh ramp. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So Dan, uh yes, you did raise the question. The engineer did uh town engineer did take a look at it. I think we are all set.
>> I do too. >> All right. Well, any other questions from commissioners? >> Alyssa, >> just a quorum. Um Dave, you're not on this one. >> Can we do it for Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Perfect. >> All right. Make a motion to close the hearing and take it under adisement. Driscoll >> seconds. >> I got a motion and a second to close and take it under advisement. Chad, anything in the public chat? >> Nothing in the public chat, Mr. Chairman.
>> Thank you. All right. Call the role. Ron, >> Chris, >> Dan, >> Walsh, >> Jim, >> I >> Duffy, I motion passes to close this hearing and take our advisement. Thanks, Tom. >> Okay. Thank you folks and thanks
>> attorney Vogle. >> Thank you. Thanks for all your help. Appreciate it. >> Next. Continued requests to amend an existing order of conditions. Maria and James Cwley, 29 Miami Avenue,
Fmouth, Mass. Request to amend the order of conditions for mass DP number 25-4722 to raise an existing single family billet dwelling, construct a new sing family dwelling with the attached garage installer pool and install mitigation
plantings. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, I have promoted Tom Bunker and Maria Hickeyi uh to present their project. Good evening, Tom. >> Good evening. It's been [clears throat] a been a long evening.
Uh but but we learned a lot about uh about whatever cleaning up the water. [laughter] Uh hope >> it works work. >> Yeah. So uh yeah, we here before Maria's here and get right to it and show you
what we've done and open to questions if um >> go ahead. Yeah. One. Hold on one second. Get the wrong one again. Get that over there. I don't know this goes.
Same problem I have still with having two monitors and I haven't figured it out fully yet. Tom, I still can't get on my VPN. So, you got to figure it out. [laughter] >> I don't know what's going on. >> Yeah, >> you need to change your screen saver to
summer. [laughter] I don't like seeing all the snow. There we go. Do you see anything now? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> You see the plan? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> It says here that you can. Okay. So,
finally. Sorry about that. Um so what we we had um after the last meeting there were some uh requests being made and some suggestions uh basically to make a little bit more room
in the uh the backyard around the pool. So, uh the the big change was that we've moved the um the house uh 2 and 1/2 ft closer to the road. This this uh setback was 28 ft. We moved it 25.5.
Of course, that moved some amount of it from the uh zone A to the zone B. So, it reduced the mitigation slightly. The uh pool was it's a different different pool. It's shorter and wider but overall
uh slightly uh smaller footprint again reduce the uh so this reduces the coverage a little bit more reduces the uh the mitigation there a little bit more space here they wanted to move it get more room between the house and the pool uh so we still
have 10 1/2 ft this time from the uh edge of the pool uh coping is 10 and 1/2 ft rather than before we showed it from there's only 10 ft or less from the pool water to the mitigation. And of course, we moved the mitigation uh which had
been more in the the north side of the pool, moved that to the south because of course people sitting in the north might people want to sit facing the pool and facing south at the same time. So we made more of the lawn area up at the top here. um
move the uh the plant the mitigation planting around so there's more of it down on the south line, but we kept the trees up here. I moved these trees another foot or two away from the property line. Uh added two trees here.
Um took out the tree that was going to be too close to the garage. Um, Maria wrote up a a new uh an amend an amended uh narrative sort of
uh removing any mention of of spraying herbicide or or anything like that and limiting it to mechanical removal of the uh invasive plants on the bank. And I'm sorry I missed the one thing about
adding a second uh limit of work down at the base of the bank which would uh separate the uh uh English ivy removal from the um the uh the wetland plants
there um the bakaras um at the bottom of the bank the beginning of the uh the wetland there. Um there's still in the uh staff report um
still comments regarding um well basically mainly a a site visit prior to the tree installation to confirm the locations of of these and other trees. I think there's a recommend
recommendation to move them over. I think we will uh before that time or or contemporaneous with the site visit, we will al probably also be discussing a vista pruning uh window 25 ft wide
uh as yet to be determined, but but looking out obviously toward the water um and keep the trees out of that uh vista window there. Uh there's still an issue an area up in
this location which uh there's a an area of of English ivy um that Lisa said is more suited to restoration than being used as mitigation. Um so
I think we'll we'll take it we we I think um Maria I'll have talk about that. Um, we talked this afternoon, but I think Maria has a clearer picture of what we would do regarding that. Uh, I hope we can wrap this up tonight with
some conditions and uh for moving some of that mitigation out and then um when the time comes meet with staff uh to discuss the uh location of the trees in the Vista Corridor. So, uh, Maria, do
you want to, uh, take it? Want me to leave this up for you? >> Absolutely. Good evening, everyone. For the record, Maria Hickeyi, Maria Hickeyi from Maria Hick and Associates Landscapes. It's past my bedtime, so I'll be short right to the point. As Tom
mentioned, the house is moving 2 and 1/2 ft closer to the road. The pool size has uh, changed. It's a little smaller. It's shifted um, its location. The pool has an automatic pool cover, so we will not
need to put in a fence, which was previously shown at um the hearing that we had three weeks ago. Um a couple of clarifications. So, the removal of the invasive vegetation and the ivy is limited just,
you know, to the upper area um where we're showing the mitigation. It's not in the coastal bank at all. the coastal bank um eradication of the English ivy will be a manual extraction with no
herbicides used. Um the limit of work on that is about halfway down the hill. It's a significant distance from the bakaras and the wetland. Um we're not even getting close to that. Um there were concerns with Alyssa that she would
prefer that we don't um count as mitigation credit an area small area that has English ivy and that be restoration. It's about two to three shrubs. We can easily move them into an area that's currently shown as lawn. I'd
be happy to meet with staff in the field before we do any planting um or even before we do our clearing to go over the parameters and tree placements etc etc. Um but I think the biggest benefit of the planting plan is that it includes an
understory of woody shrubs. Currently right out there there are there is no understory. There are trees and there's English ivy. um and it really limited limits your um habitat value. And so we're going to now be providing a nice
um combination of native woody shrubs as well as the existing trees. It's got a fairly dense canopy as it is right now. And I think the biggest objective will be to remove all that English ivy. As we all know, it likes to climb. and we're
trying to protect, you know, the remaining trees that are out there that are um slowly going to be overtaken by this ivy. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. And again, look forward to meeting with staff out in the
field, you know, before any work commences and then after it's cleared so we can confirm locations of plants and trees. Thanks, Tom. Thanks, Maria. Take this down.
>> Sure. All right, Ken. First off, um Tom, what is the square foot of what is the square footage of the proposed mitigation you have on your plan where the English ivy is? It's been
mentioned in both staff reports that the mitigation cannot be where the ivy is. It's still being shown where the ivy is. What is the square footage? >> I'm not sure. >> Well, we think it's a little bit more than one or two or three shrubs. So,
>> is that along the uh >> the north property line where there's some uh dillies and and all? >> Alissa, can you clarify? >> Yeah, I mean that's why I put a picture from that angle. It's like that entire northern property section. Um, minus
those dillies. So, it seems like a significant amount of space. Um, I'm not sure why I watched the hearing that I missed the last time. I don't really think it was touched upon for some reason. Um, but it's a fairly large area.
It's going to take up a lot more lawn. You know what I mean? So, >> don't know if you have the room. >> Yeah. Well, we actually shifted um our mitigation plants to the south side. >> Mhm. And you need to shift more of them
to the south side. >> And I know that Tom and I met and we went over the square footage and it seemed like we had plenty of room. >> We respectfully disagree. Another thing, um, Vista,
Vista wasn't mentioned at the first hearing. Vista wasn't put on the plan. All of a sudden, Vista is being mentioned. And I'm sorry, I kind of thought at the first hearing you had a problem with relocating the trees on the northern property line due to shade on
the bank, even though there's shade on the northern property line. And now it seems like you don't want to put a tree there because we're proposing a vista all of a sudden. That was never mentioned before tonight's hearing. >> So in the last hearing um a vista
corridor was brought up and we were asked to put one identify it on the plan. >> Okay. And and that's why when there was a right and then when there was a continuence >> I asked for clarification of what is it that you would like to see included in under the continuence and again that was
reiterated. Tom didn't put it on the plan. >> Yeah. He didn't put it on the plan and I pointed that out to him. Um and he had already submitted it. That's why if there's a Vista corridor
down the road, we would address that through an RDA or an amendment to this plan. I don't think myself personally there was a a big need for one. It's fairly densely
>> populated the canopy. So, I'm going to go back to then why can't we if shade is a problem, why are we sticking the three trees under the 14in oak and the other 14 or the 18in oak and the 14in oak, but
we can't put the tree on the back. So the the tree that's coming down is three out of the four major limbs, if Tom, if you want to bring up the plan again, um are dead and they have huge caverns in
them and the tree is structurally unsound. And the way that the sun comes, there's plenty of sun on the north lot line. Um, okay. So, if you look, um, on the existing conditions plan, there's an
X on a large tree that's right smack in the middle. You see that, Tom? >> Up here, >> everybody. Okay. No, it's right where the existing house is. Almost like in the center there's um, if you zoom in, >> this one by the bank.
>> Yep. Yep. Bonnie Oak, Tom. >> Okay. Yeah, >> that tree is about 90% dead. And if you look up in the air, the canopy is so crowded because you have a huge strand stand of
uh black oaks all in the south corner. And then um on the whole section where like the shed is and the north lot line that gets full sun all day, which is why on the proposed plan, I thought it would be a
great place to place some of the trees. I want the trees to not just survive, I want them to thrive. And that's why I have them in full sun in an area that um has very
it's lawn, it's day lilies. There's some ivy way over on the corner as you go down the hillside. and the whole bank if you if um so basically if you go from where the proposed pool is towards the pond that
whole area I have a dense very very dense um proposed planting plan of native shrubs there are there's not a single native shrub in there right now there's a lot of trees on the property there's no
native shrubs and I want to be able to provide a nice densely planted understory. Um, and in order to do that, I I need some light. Um, if we go to like full shade plants, we're a little bit more restricted in what's going to
not only survive, but thrive in that area. Um, so I'm looking at I professionally feel it's better to have a mix of vertical and horizontal density trees and shrubs than just trees.
>> No, I'm going back to your statements of what you made at the last hearing and now they seem to be different. Okay. >> No, I'm moving past that. I'm moving past that. I want to go back to the ivy on the northern property line. Yep. >> Um Tom, it is
a lot more than one or two or three shrubs. So therefore, we would like you to go back. It's been mentioned twice now in the staff reports and it was not addressed by your project team to look at that area mitigation and find another
place for it or reduce the size of the project. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Alyssa, do you have anything to add? >> Um, yeah, I think Tom's kind of highlighting it there. You know, there
is an existing edge of lawn and that sort of lily gardens as pools really just that median, you know, hemisphere of a circle there. Um, so I mean we can see that that's currently vegetated and also simultaneously proposed for
mitigation. So it's just double dipping and not something that we do under the regs. Um, so that'll just need to continue to be looked at. Um, and it sounds like if diversity is what we're after, then maybe an understory tree on the bank could be a happy medium between everything. [clears throat]
>> Um, that's all I have for now. >> All right. You can stop sharing. >> Okay. [snorts] >> All right. Anything from commissioners? Start you, Dan. >> [clears throat] >> No, I don't have any questions other I
have one for Jennifer, but that can wait till the end. >> Jim, >> no questions, Mr. Chairman. >> Dave, >> no questions, >> Ron. >> Uh, no question. I just think there's a lot that he worked out. There doesn't seem to be some confusion between the
agents and project team and the commission. So, that's all. Thank you. >> All right. Yeah, that would have been sort of my question is since it's pretty much right now what we're looking at is
the the volume of plantings and that sort of thing. Can this can that be worked out when you guys go on site or should we do we need a continuance to actually show the actual you know cuz usually you see some on these plans a
calculation of you know you know times 2* 3 square foot and it's measured out. Um, so if that needs to happen, then I would probably almost recommend
it continues to have that put on the plan. >> But we do have that on the plan. >> Just that some of that that and I don't know how many square feet it is is up at the north lot line. Uh, >> yep. Sorry, I see that. >> Yeah. >> I mean, not not not all of the area
where the ces pool is is English ivy. Um, and I but I don't know exactly how much is English ivy up there. >> I think that needs to be worked out, Tom, just so we have a very clear plan. Um, and then it would be helpful to have
the Vista put on the plan. If we're going to do this, we might as well just have the Vista put Oh, well, no, let's work out the Vista later. The house isn't built. So, >> yeah, >> work out the vista later because I don't want I don't particularly like approving
vistas when a house isn't even built because then the people they go in the house, they think they want it this way and then all of a sudden it's this is their preferred view. So, I I I apologize for that. But I do think we need to work that area of English Ivy out. It has been a concern of the staff
for the last two staff reports and really hasn't been addressed. So, I think it wouldn't it wouldn't hurt us for one more small continuence and see if we can't get that worked out. Tom, >> um, can can mitigation planting go where
daily and things like that are or is >> we can talk in the field, Tom? >> Is it just the English ivy that's the problem? Alista, >> you've looked at the field conditions. Is it more over the >> I mean, there's a couple ornamental shrubs. Um,
it's been a minute, so maybe a site visit. Alissa, Alissa and Jen, would you guys would you feel comfortable meeting Tom and I on site, actually staking out on the lawn
the exact places of where the mitigation plants are going to go and Tom would just submit a revised updated plan where that square footage what that square footage is. Um, having been out there many, many times, I feel like it's
something that we could fairly easily straightforward work out. I have no problems with wherever you want to shape the bed. >> I'd like the board to see the plan. So, be happy to meet with you, but this still going to be the staff is still
going to recommend a continuence. >> Okay. Um so yeah what is the uh pleasure uh what date works for a continuence then? >> It's going to have to be the 3rd because
we can't have it like you guys can't get it planned by next week. So and we don't meet the 27th. This will be >> continuence we have on the third. This would be the fourth continuence for the third. So, I'd probably cap it at that.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Tom, I don't see any reason why. >> Tom, is it possible for you to get them the plan by next week? So, it could be on the next >> Well, the hearing is there's no meeting on the 27th. >> We don't meet on the 27th.
>> Yeah. >> Like I said, I'm up past my bedtime, so [laughter] I >> think we all are hearing until June 3rd, 226. Driscoll second. Got a motion, a second to continue hearing the June 3rd
questions. Seeing none, Dan >> Ron >> Priscali, >> Jim >> Gre >> Dave >> and FBI motion passes to continue this
till June 3. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Maria. >> Thank you, everyone. >> All right. And now we have Paul Lieberman and Rachel Nagger. P. Lieberman 2015 revocable trust 24 Westwood Road,
Falmouth, Mass. Request to amend an order of conditions for mass DP25-4829 to install restorations restoration plantings. Jen, >> uh, yeah, just getting Maria back into
attendees. Uh, yes, Mr. Mr. Chairman, we did uh we met with the applicants represented this week, Alyssa. They submitted their revised plan today, correct? So, we are all set to be continue this until next week and
hopefully we can close it. >> Okay, >> we need to make a motion for that >> motion to continue this hearing till May 20th. Driscoll, >> 10 seconds. We got a motion a second to continue
this hearing until May 20th. Questions. Seeing none, I will call the role. Dan >> show. >> Ron >> Driscoll I >> Jim I. >> Dave >> Hi.
>> And a motion to move this hearing till May 20th is passed. Next. Continue a request for certificate of compliance. Timothy Leum Trust RNG Rail Trust 1209 East Falmouth Highway
East Fmouth Mass request for a partial certificate of compliance for mass DP number 25-4524 Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, this uh request has been withdrawn. >> Beautiful.
All right. Now, continued hearings under remanded enforcement order. Jane Sahaggan 21 Davis Neck Road found with mass unpermitted vegetation removal within conservation jurisdiction. Jen,
>> yes, I will be promoting Mr. Sahesian um to address the board. This enforcement has uh been remanded back to us and I will turn it over to Alyssa to give you some
background. And where is Mr. Sahasian? Hang on. Let's try to grab Mr. Sahesian again. Mr. Sahasian, you're going to have to you're going to have to accept being promoted to a panelist. Did
he want to address the board, Alyssa? >> Yes. Yeah, Mr. Hian, you're going to get a little notification. Just click on the button. >> He's declining. >> Try clicking the other button. Mr. Sahesian, you keep declining to be
promoted as a panelist. I'm going to try again, sir. So, there is a functionality where I can allow them to talk while being an attendee. We just can't see the video. I accidentally did that once before. So, I can click this button and see what
happens. >> Mr. Sahesian, if you want to address the board, we can allow you to talk as an attendee. If you want to address the board, can you use the raised hand function at the bottom of the screen where you see audio, video,
participants, chat, raise hand. Just click on that little raised hand function and we'll let you talk to the board or we'll be able to let you talk to the board. >> Um, >> I can begin.
while working on technical difficulties. Melissa, if you want to >> Yeah, because they can still hear. >> Yes. >> Um Yes. So, this enforcement hearing is before you tonight. Um I realized today that I think only Ron um is aware of this enforcement from when it was
originally issued in early 2025. Um, essentially when an enforcement order was issued on this property, it was appealed by the property owner. Um, through the court dealings, it was remanded back to us to continue to work with the property owner towards a
resolution. Um, what I will do is tomorrow send the commission um, a copy of that enforcement order and um, our staff report from that hearing. Um, essentially we got to the point where
the commission had required some reveation of a part of the property where uh, zone A vegetation was removed without a permit. Um, there was a requirement for an updated site plan to denote that area and through the process
um, permit after the fact some work that took place in the flood zone. Um there were a couple other issues on site that had been remediated during the course of that initial enforcement hearing. Um so at this point I had also sent you um a letter from the property owner
describing his position on the matter. He is also currently proposing some um plantings in the backyard of the property. Um so I I do know Mr. Asian would like to extend um his approval for the commission to go onto the property to
see it. >> Um staff is meeting with him Friday afternoon to review his proposal uh in more depth and hopefully looking for the board's decision at the May 20th hearing.
Um the the staff's uh and and the property owners um main concern at the moment is I think a a disagreement on the reveation. Staff
finds that zone A vegetation was removed and should be replaced. Um the property owner contends that they did not remove any originally required plantings from the buffer. That is true. There were no plantings that were installed that were required
through a permitting process. It was just natural vegetation that existed in a buffer. >> Um and over time those buffer regulations became more stringent and more official as a part of the wetland regulations. Um, so though they were not required
planting such as mitigation or restoration that we see in various permits, it was existing and required a permit to be removed and replaced. Um, so at this time I'm going to try to click on this button here and see if we
can hear you, Mr. Sahesian. Um, oh, they might be here. >> Yep, there we go. I'm sending you a little button here so that you can turn on your audio and address the board if you can click on
that. There you go. So, we can probably hear you if you try to talk. >> Um, I think you have u summed up exactly what the history of this matter is. Um, I'm looking forward to the meeting on
Friday with uh with Jan and yourself um to discuss my proposal. um which I then assume will be put in front of the board on the 20th. Uh as you >> Yes, I have sent them your letter in the meantime. >> Yep. Um
I have a uh another hearing in front of Judge Gild Day on the 28th and I would like very much to be able to say that we've come to a agreement of mind as to what needs to be done to resolve the
issue. Perfect. >> Thank you, Mr. Sah. Yeah. >> So, I think at this time, unless the board has any initial questions, um it would just be a matter of me providing you with the formal materials since many of you weren't a part of that original
process, um visiting the site during your next round of site visits and reconvening at the next hearing. >> Right. >> All right. Um, does anybody have any questions at this point? >> Just clarification. So, when are when is
Mr. Jeen looking for closure on this? I'm just trying to figure out the you're you're meeting this Friday with him, but and when are we going to talk about this next? >> Um, at the next hearing. So, what I'll do is I'll send you um the prior materials so that you can see where we
ended things um and kind of the proposal that Mr. Sahasian has to address that and it'll be the commission's position to determine if that is sufficient if the um you know like like the original enforcement requirements are still going
to be required um if a plan is going to be required or if he should um work with the staff um some combination of that. >> Got it. Thank you. >> You're welcome. All right. Motion to continue until May
20th. >> Can second. >> All right. I got a motion and a second to continue this hearing until May 20th. Any questions? >> Seeing none. Dan >> Roni.
>> Jim. >> Yeah. I >> Dave >> can't I >> and FBI motion passes to continue this hearing until May 20th. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. S. >> Friday.
>> Thanks. See you then. >> All right. [clears throat] Next vote orders of conditions. First John and Patricia Rosenfeld 0 and41 Bessels Road. Matt Parcel 36-06-0000-007 Falmouth Mass Jen.
>> Uh, yes. This is um the proposal to create kind of that flat rock area out of existing stone on site. Um, they're not going to bring any additional stone in. They're
not going to be actually removing a lot of stone. And they're rearranging it, cutting them just to create uh I know it's 22 feet long. Forgive me, I don't know how wide. Just a sewn base at the
end. there is still plenty of um you know when I was out there with the property owner and then again with the property owner and the engineer I stress the importance of having that unconsolidated rock out there to break up that wave action as it's hitting that
bank. Um, we kept this stone patio to like a very small small portion uh of that to be able to retain that unconsolidated rock to kind of break up that wave energy. So, I was comfortable with it.
>> Mhm. >> And I don't have any special conditions to put on it. It's >> all work done by hand. They uh according to Jake at the last hearing All right. Make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed.
Driscoll. >> 10 seconds. >> All right. I got a motion and a second to issue an order of conditions as discussed. Questions hearing? None. Dan
>> Ronali. >> Jim >> Rathi. Dave >> can I >> and Duffy I motion passes to an issue an order of conditions as discussed next Williams Goldberg Trust 175
Edgewater Drive East Falmouth Mass Jen >> yes Mr. Chairman unfortunately on this one we need Mr. Bowman for the quorums. We'll just have to vote it next week, which is fine. We still have it has to be issued by the 27th. So, as long as we
issue uh vote it next week, we should be fine. >> Perfect. And due to my scroller, it looks like it's the end of the agenda. [laughter] >> Make a motion to Driscoll. >> McGrath second. Got a motion in a second to adjurnn this VPN.
>> I Jim McGrath I >> Dan >> Walsh >> and Duffy I motion to end the meeting passes. Thank you all for another wonderful evening. >> [music]