Heat. Heat. All right. Good evening and welcome to the November 5th meeting um of the FMLA Conservation Commission. This meeting is being held virtually via 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. Um, we have a full compliment. Oh, we
don't be we have um we're missing one commissioner tonight due to an illness and we welcome a new one in. James McGrath Jim um is joining us on the commission and he's here tonight. Um all
right, I'd like to uh remind the commissioners that um for comment commenting I will call on each one 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 have uh even if you've made the motion or second uh to our public attendees at any time during this meeting, you may enter any comment or
question via the chat function. At the appropriate time, uh they will be read into the record. If as an attendee you'd like to participate in a particular hearing, let us know via the chat function, then at the appropriate time you will be promoted into the hearing as
a participant. When you are selected, you must have your video enabled and be succinct, respectful of others. Public comment will be limited to 3 minutes each. Regarding IDAS, under the 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 Fment 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 provision 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. And for the benefit of all um anyone
waiting for particular hearing tonight so that you're not waiting unnecessarily the following hearings are expected to be continued and Jen correct me if I'm wrong with this any of these um
14 Betty Lane East Falmouth requested a continuence um 202 Edgewater Drive East in East Falmouth requested a continuence Um then we had uh the Sea Shell Community
Association Zero Davisville Road also that uh under an enforcement order requested a continuence. Steven Augusta Oyster Shell Lane East Felmouth uh requested a continuence and
David and Marcy Barnes 38qua Drive East Falmouth also requested a continuence. Did I miss any, Jen? >> 58 Westwood Road requested a late continuance today, Mr. Chair. >> That was the big one. Um 58
um Westward Road in North Balmouth uh requested a continuence also. So, those will not be heard this evening. All right. So, first up on the agenda is minutes
of the October 8th, 2025 meeting. >> Mr. Chairman, I reviewed the minutes and I'd move their approval. Patton second. >> Thank you, Steve. Thank you, Courtney. Um, any other any additions or questions in regards hearing? None. I'll call the
role. Courtney >> I >> Steve >> I >> Ron >> fiscal eye. >> David >> I >> Bill >> Duffy I um Jim you could you can recuse
yourself. You weren't even there so so I'm going to skip over you. And Robins is an I. So um we're six to one with an extension. Um, next is the October 22nd,
2025 meeting minutes. >> Mr. Chairman, I've reviewed the minutes and I'd move their approval. Patton >> birds. I second. >> Again, thank you, Steve, and thank you, Courtourtney. Um, any other additions,
questions regarding the minutes of the 22nd? Hearing none, I'll call a roll. Courtney >> eyes. Steve >> Patton I >> Driscoll I >> David >> Kent I
>> Bill >> Ty I >> and Jim you be extension also uh and Robins is an I so six to one with one extension um right request for a continuence under notice
of intent Stephen and Susan Yalia 14 Brigetti Lane, East Felmouth, Mass for after the fact permission to reconstruct and enlarge a deck to install associated mitigation plantings
and to vista prune according to FWR18 10B. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, the applicants requested a continuence until November 12th, next week. >> Third. So move
>> second. >> Okay. So we have a motion and a second to continue this uh hearing till November 12th. Um any comments or questions hearing? None. I'll call the roll. Court I
>> Steve I. >> Ron I >> David >> Kent Eye. Bill >> Duffy I >> Jim >> McGrath I >> and Robins is an I. It's unanimous to
continue to November 12th. Um next up is Michael and Marne Farrell 202 Edgewater Drive East Mass um LLC 202 Edgewater Drive East Mass for permission
to construct a dock. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. The applicant is requesting a continuance until November 12th. That's next week. >> Heard so move. And the reason >> uh Mr. Officer Martin still still has not completed his investigation. This is
being continued while um mees um is conducting an investigation on the project. >> Okay. >> Tris second. >> Thanks, Ron. Thanks, Scott. Um, any other comments or questions? Hearing
none, I'll call the role. Courtney >> Bird, I >> Steve I, >> Ron, >> Driscoll, I, >> David, >> I, >> Bill, >> Duffy, I, >> Jim, >> Graph, I,
>> and Robins is an I. All right. So, that is continued till November 11th. A request for continuance is under a notice of enforcement. Seell Lane Community Association, Inc. 0 Davisville Road, map/parcel
40-11-013-0000 Eastb Mass unpermitted clearing, cutting and construction within the flood zone and within the buffer to assault marsh. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh the applicant is requesting a continuance until December,
excuse me, 10th. Um they have recently changed representatives and we will be meeting with Tyler Jendro out at the site. >> Okay. >> Are we meeting Tyler? We're meeting Tyler soon.
>> Bird. So moved. >> Brisco second. Right. So we got a motion to continue until 12:10. Any other comments or questions from the committee hear? Hearing none, I'll call
a roll. Courtney >> Kurt I. >> Steve and I, >> Jonris I. >> David I. >> Bill >> Duffy I. >> Jim >> McGrath I
>> and Robins is an I unanimous to continue this hearing till 1210. Next is Steve Augusta. Stephen Augusta, 33 Ocean uh Oyster Shell Lane, Eastb Mass, unpermitted removal of mitigation plantings in unpermitted installation of
hardscapes within conservation jurisdiction. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, the property owner requesting a continuence until December 3rd. Uh there needs to be a revision to
the plan. Um so >> okay bird >> yeah the representative already spoke to me about it and it's fine for the continuence. >> Okay heard so move
>> fiscal second. >> Okay so we have a motion a second to continue until 123. Um any other comments or questions? Uh hearing none I will call a role. Courtney >> Bird I >> Steve I
>> Ron >> Crystal I >> David >> Kent I >> Bill >> Duffy I >> Jim >> McGrath I >> and Robins is an I it's unanimous continue that hearing until 123.
Next up is David and Marcy Barnes 38. Oh we've already continued this already so I don't need to read it again. All right so we're gonna move on to >> actually Mr. Chairman, >> you just mentioned it the first time. You haven't officially voted this continuence.
>> That's right. Okay. Oh, I got to do it. Sorry. David and Marcy Barnes 38 Squib Noit um East Falmouth Mass unpermitted construction of retaining wall steps and a patio replacement replacement of decking and
alterations of a coastal bank. And yeah. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. The property owners requested a continuence until December 3rd. Uh Mr. Bird, they have had some difficulty trying to find uh um a a a
surveyor to assist them through this process, but we do believe that they have contracted with someone. >> Okay. I will so move. >> Fiscal second. >> All right. Any other comments or questions? Hearing none, I'm going to
call a role. Courtney I. Steve >> and I >> Ron >> Crystal I um David >> I >> Bill >> Duffy I >> Jim >> McGrath I
>> and Robins is an I. So it's unanimous to continue until 123. Thank you. Um for determination of applicability um Michael and Denise Luwendowski
123 Birch Lane North for permission to uh reconstruct the garage and install drywalls. Um 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. for >> fiscal second. >> I see we have a motion in a second to accept staff's recommendation um u for this project.
Any other comments or questions from the commission? Okay, hearing none. I'll call roll. Courtney >> I >> Steve >> I >> Ron >> Eris I >> David >> K I
>> Bill >> Duffy I >> Jim >> McGrath I >> and Robins I unanimous to accept staff's recommendation. Um, next up is Andrew Mc
Williams, 231 Menard Road, mass for permission to construct an addition. Uh, 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.
>> So move second. >> Okay. So we have a motion and a second to accept the staff's recommendations. Um, any other comments or questions from the commission? Okay, hearing none, I will call the roll. Courtney
>> I. >> Steve >> Bton I. >> Ron >> Chris I. >> David >> I. >> Bill >> Duffy I. >> Jim >> Graph I >> and Robins is an I. So unanimous to
accept staff's recommendations. Um, next up is Mark and Susan Laugher for Whitman Road, Woodshole, Mass for permission to construct an addition. Melissa
>> staff recommends a negative three under the state, a negative two under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. >> So move second. We have a motion to accept and a second to accept staff's recommendation. Any
other questions or comments from the commission? None. I will call for the call role. Courtney >> Bird I. >> Steve I. >> Ron >> Piscll I. David >> Kent
>> I Bill >> Duffy I >> Jim >> Grath I >> and Robins is not unanimous to accept staff's recommendation. Um, next up is Connor McGofflin
and J McGofflin 110 Grant Nav from permission to construct a building. >> Staff recommends a negative three under the state and negative2 under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. >> So move Driscoll second.
>> There we have a motion second um to accept staff's recommendation on 110 Grant Nav. Any other comments or questions by the commission? >> Hearing none, I'll call a roll. Courtney >> I. >> Steve >> and I.
>> Ron >> Briscoll I. >> Dave >> cat eye. >> Bill. >> Duffy. I >> Jim McGrath. I >> and Robins is an I. So it's unanimous to
accept staff's recommendations. Next up, Scott Masili, 60 Fwood Heights Road, Charma, for permission to raise and rebuild RA Z and rebuild a single family dwelling and extend an existing soil
absorption system. Alyssa >> staff recommends a negative two under the state and bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed and this project solely takes place in an AE flood zone. Bird shall move. >> Biscal second. >> Okay. So, we have a motion, a second to
accept staff's recommendations. Um, any other comments or questions by the commission? Hearing none, I will um call a role. Courtney >> Bird, >> Steve, >> Ron, >> I. >> Dave, >> I, >> Bill,
>> Duffy, I, >> Jim, >> I, >> and Robin is an I. to accept stand recommendation on 60 F lake road. All right. Next up is request for a hearing under a notice of intent.
All hearings of the Falmouth conservation commission are held simultaneously under the authorities of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act and the Falmouth wetlands bylaw. Although a single decision of the commission is issued, it represents a separate decision under each authority.
All right. So, first up is 14 Betty Lane, but that has been continued. I did read that earlier. >> So, next up would be Frederick P. and Karen E. Collins trustees
16 Clay Path nominee Trust 16 Clay Path Eastbouth Mass for permission to replace the pilings framing decking on an existing deck. And it looks like we got Mike Borselli. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I've promoted Mike
Borceli of Felmouth Engineering to present his project. Good evening, Mike. >> Good evening, Jen. Uh Mr. chairman and members of the commission. For the record, Mike Borscelli, Felmouth Engineering, and I represent the applicant. Um,
I'm going to share my screen and show you my application. Uh, Mr. Collins owns a property at number 16, uh, Clay Path. Um, it's a, uh, residential lot with a house on it.
Has frontage on Child's River. The wetlands resources of note are land under the ocean, land containing shellfish. There's a band of salt marsh. There's a gently sloping lowprofile non-eroding coastal bank. Several years
ago, an order of conditions was issued to um uh build the house that's on the property. Uh there was subsequent um orders of conditions related to the the dock. the the existing dock is fully
permitted and licensed through DP. The application before you tonight is uh a request to maintain by uh repairing and replacement of the pilings
um and the decking and the um structural members. the every everything's uh rather old in excess of 20 to 25 years old. The pilings are um just not holding up. Um and the applicant wants to basically maintain the structure and
it's present configuration, same pile locations, same size. Um everything will be identical. Um the uh doc contractor is John Hansen.
um he has retained a barge and scheduled a barge for later uh in in November. If this um project is issued in order of conditions, um all the work is proposed to be from the barge. and maybe some uh foot
traffic and access uh over the existing path to do some of the work on the um framing and red decking. your um staff provided a staff report
and outlined um the project and there were some comments uh some of which I expected um and I'll I'll address um they when I first met with the applicant I took a look at the aerial photos and um
also the site conditions and the previously uh approved plans and discovered a couple things. Um, first there was a float on the dock along the side that was not permitted. That should
clearly shows up on the aerial photos. I I advised the uh property owner that that could not be there. It was not approved and it was uh more uh more dark area than the commission would allow. It was in water that was too shallow. So
that he listened and removed that. I would expect it to be a condition that that can't return and hopefully you were he listens and we don't have to uh monitor that. Um but he is fully aware that he cannot have the float.
In addition, there was a condition on the dock approval that only one boat could tie at the dock and the expectation was that it would tie on the tea, which is why you like te's. Um, I observed two other boats tied alongside.
Again, the applicant was informed that he had a condition that wouldn't allow for more than one boat. Uh he informed me that he was trying to help out some neighbors, but he understood and he would no longer allow any other
boats to tie to his dock. Again, I'm hoping that that doesn't have to be enforced. Um I did make it clear to him that he would that would probably be um monitored and um hopefully he
listens. I can't control beyond that. But he heard the message loud and clear. Uh and finally, there was some comments uh related to some pruning that's occurred. um your
staff noticed that it looked like there was some unpermitted pruning in the buffer and and says that must stop and that um in order to um maintain that that the applicant should apply for a
Vista corridor. So um we we will in the future um uh submit a new application to you uh requesting a vista core be maintained. Uh finally
there's some stepping stones I guess that uh lead from the steps um down to the dock. I'm highlighting those with my mouse. Um staff says they need either need need to
be mitigated or removed. Uh there really isn't any places to mitigate. So I'm advising my client to remove those stepping stones. And I'm hoping you can make that a condition and certainly there would be no compliance if he doesn't address
that. I would also think there'd be no compliance if he doesn't um proceed with a request for the Vista pruning. But we're hoping that um you can review and this tonight and that the hearing can close so that the barge doesn't have to
be rescheduled. I think that sums it up. I'm happy to take questions. >> All right. Thank you, Mike. >> Mike, um did you address the mitigation? Thank you for addressing all of the staff's points. Did you address the mitigation, the outstanding mitigation
that there might be some missing? >> Yeah, I did. Well, I I alluded to it. I I I would hope that we could um go on the site and work that out with you you or Alyssa and make sure that that's um corrected before a compliance on the
work before we're proposing tonight uh before compliance can be issued. It seems like some of the edges of the um the buffer might have been trimmed a little bit more than they should have, but I I I think it's something we could work out with you and Alyssa, and I'm
hoping you can make it a condition. >> And the gravel to be removed because there's no room to mitigate for that as well. Is your client aware of that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um I think we talked about this, Mr. Chair. we can condition a date certain Mike that if you know we'll go
out there with you and if there's missing mitigation you'll probably need to go out and compare the two plans so we'll probably need a revised plan but we can condition that. >> Okay. Yep. Happy to do that >> and we'll do it by a date certain. >> Okay.
>> You know you know thanks Jen. >> No problem. >> Did you have anything? >> Nothing to add. Thank you. Courtney, aren't you here? >> No comments. Oh, yes, I do. Um, scope of work. Um, you're going to primary goal
is to replace the piles. Are you going to essentially tear the deck down to nothing and then rebuild the whole thing? >> Yes. It's hot. It's hard to just replace pile by pile. So, that the most efficient way to do it is just to disassemble the framing and the decking,
take the replace the pilings, and then rebuild. Um it's just it's if you're going to go through the effort of replacing the pilings, it's it's makes sense to replace those this framing and the decking. >> Yeah. No. Yeah. Understood. Um and it's
you're replacing in kind, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Same with etc. >> No other questions. >> Thanks, Court. Steve, >> no questions. Thank you, sir. >> Ron. >> Oh, good work and working to get, you know, getting this together. Looks like
a good project. That's all. Thank you. >> Thank you, David. >> Just one quick question, Mike. These are the smaller piles in close to shore, the larger ones out near the float, they're going to remain, correct? >> Yes. Um the plan identifies uh which
pilings and decking is going to be replaced. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> For some reason, that run of green hot pilings didn't hold up. the outer part are a different um or a different vintage and they're fine.
>> Thank you. That's it. >> Thank Bill. >> No questions, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Uh Jim, >> no questions, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. I'm good. Okay. Um
so, Jen, we can close this. You're good with that. and we can condition a a plan and all anything else that you >> Yeah, we'll work with Mike. We'll we'll we'll draft an order of condition. Yeah, we'll close the hearings and then make recommendations to the board when you
vote about meeting with Mike by a date certain, having the stepping stones and gravel removed by a date certain, and then getting Mike to do a revised plan. Let's determine if more mitigation is needed, if necessary, date certain. Okay Mike.
>> We're going to be seeing a lot of each other. >> So, I will make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisable. >> Fiscal second. >> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second to close it here and take it under advisement. Is there anything in chat
for us, Jen? From the public? >> Nothing in the chat pertaining to this project, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. We have a motion, a second. Any other comments or questions by the commission members? Hearing none, I will call the
role. Courtney >> I, >> Steve, >> I, >> Ron, >> Chris, I, >> David, >> I, >> Bill, >> Duffy, I, >> Jim, >> McGrath, I, >> and Robins is an I. So, it's unanimous
to close the hearing. Thank you, Mike. >> Thank you. It looks like you're with us on the next one here, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh James and Janice Healey, trustees, the Healey 2020
living trust uh 295 Edgewater Drive West Falmouth, Mass for permission to replace piles, framing, and decking and to reconstruct the access stairs on an existing dock.
Um Jen >> Mike Boriselli is with us from Felmouth Engineering to present this project. >> Thank you again um Mr. Chairman and the members of the commission. I represent the applicant James and Janice Healey.
This is almost a virtual twin of the last application. Um the property in question is 295 Eel Pond. that there's an existing single family dwelling on the property that the
commission relatively recently approved and issued an order of conditions on. There was an existing uh licensed and fully permitted There is an existing licensed and fully permitted uh pier on
this property. The same wetland resources of note uh exist. Land under the ocean, land containing shellfish. There's a band of salt marsh is a non-eroding coastal bank. Um you know the subtle difference between this
application and the last one is um that the dock is older. Um there's several uh smaller diameter creasso piles spaced tighter together. Um the same contractor John Hansen will
do the work. Um we met on site and we're proposing to remove um all of the um creasso pilings uh and replace them with um green heart non CCA treated pilings
and um space them out um further so that we can reduce the number of pilings from 16 8 in diameter to 10 in uh 10 10in pilings. things.
Um we the uh framing and decking is also proposed to be removed. Um if you've been to the site, you notice that there is a um
I'm going to share my screen. Um if you've been to the site, you you would have noticed this uh stairway that leads down the coastal bank to the dock. Um, and there's two uh lateral access
stair stairs that were a requirement for public access. Um, we we we met with the contractor and and we think there's an we think there's an opportunity um to provide better public access. And
by that I mean when this is rebuilt, we're going to we're proposing to raise by that uh R AI E um a portion of the pier uh so that there's public access beneath
instead of uh having to walk up and over the dock. Um, so if we elevate the walkway, there'll be less stairs from the top down and there'll be more separation from the bottom and and public access can be gained under
instead of over. And then the walkway would slope back down to um a a pier uh height at the end where the boat ties. This dock was built a long
time ago. Um, and we're noticing that some of these older docks that were built to be as close to the water surface as possible on some of the king tides are starting to get flooded. Um, >> so as part of this rebuild in the same
footprint, we're hoping to raise the elevation of that pier and uh a little bit um I'm talking like a foot just to keep it um so that it doesn't get flooded um during those king tides. It's a rare
occasion, but it happens maybe two or three times a a year depending on the year and the tides. So, uh, again, this is the same application type. It's within the same footprint. We're improving things by getting rid of the creasso piles. We're going to provide
better public access and hopefully the dock is a little bit more resilient. Um, there were some staff comments. Um, when the house was approved, there was a requirement for four
uh trees to be installed, which they were, but uh I guess we didn't show them on the plan. So, uh staff asked us to show them on the plan for record, which we're happy to do. Um there were also two mitigation areas that were required
for the house rebuild. Um and um Alyssa noticed some some of the mitigation planting uh looked like it wasn't surviving and the there's a request that the um plants that had died
off be replaced. Of course, the applicant's more than happy to do that. And we would expect that um no COC would be uh issued unless uh those two uh uh comments are
addressed. And we're hopeful that you can close this uh hearing tonight. Same contractor, same tenative barge schedule. They'll be done virtually one after the other. Um, assuming we receive
a favorable order of conditions from you tonight and I'm happy to take questions. >> All right, Mike. Thank you. Um, Jen >> had no questions until Mike said he was raising the structure in your application. Mike, you told us you were
reconstructing the access stairs. Now, tonight's presentation, you're not re doing the access stairs, and you're not provided us a cross-section or kind of a profile telling us you were going to raise the structure.
>> Well, the structures being ra I'll share my screen again. >> As in the height raised? >> Yeah, the structure is going to be raised about um a foot. >> Okay. Next time, please put that in your application because it does not mention it at all. And it mentions that you're
reconstructing the access stairs, >> right? Uh just for clarity, the the plan does show that uh this set of stairs is to be removed because it's no longer necessary. I I might not have been explicit in the narrative, but
we're we're we're going to basically rebuild in the same place and just raise the dark level a little bit. >> Okay. Okay. So, next time, Mike, please please put that because you do have reconstruct stairs. You have it you have
an arrow going to the southern >> right >> the southern set of stairs and not the northern set of stairs, >> right? They're proposed to be removed because now public access will be underneath >> underneath. But you're still going to reconstruct the southern set of stairs >> just so the applicant can get down to
the beach there. There's a little sandy beach. It's a little sandy beach because there's access stairs that destroyed the salt bar. >> It may be. I don't know. >> Okay. So, again, Mike, it's, you know, we had no questions until you started
talking about raising the structure, which I don't mind, but just next time be a little bit more specific. Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Um, and then again, Mr. Chairman, we can work with Mike um and the applicant to
repair the missing mitigation. Very good. Alyssa, do you have anything? >> Not at this time. Thank you. >> Okay. So, we'll start with Steve this time. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, staff,
you're comfortable with a revised plan. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay. Thank you. Then I have no other questions. >> All right. You want >> No, I'm all set. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh David >> I'm all set.
>> Bill, >> no questions here. And Jim, >> no questions, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay, I've got nothing for me. Court, >> no. No questions. >> All right, it looks like we can close
this. So, can I get a motion? >> We'll move to close the hearing and take it under advisement. uh subject to the submission of revised plans showing the crosssection of the elevated deck. >> Driscoll second.
>> Okay. So, we have a motion by Courtney and a second by Ron Driscoll. Any other comments or questions from the commission? Um Jen, anything in chat? >> Nothing in chat regarding this project, Mr. Chairman?
>> Very good. Then we will call the role. Um Courtney >> I >> Steve >> Battton I >> Ron >> Briscoll I >> David >> I >> Bill >> Duffy I >> Jim
>> McGrath I >> and Robbins is an I. So it's unanimous to close this hearing and take it under advisement. Thank you Mike. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next up is uh Teresa Lockwood
71 Ticket Path East Falmouth, Mass for permission to install restoration plantings. Uh Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are continuing with the Mike Burcelli show this evening. So, he is still with us to
present his next project. >> Mike. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Again, Mike Borelli representing the applicant. I'm sharing my screen.
Um, the applicant, Teresa Lockwood, um, recently sold the property to another owner. Teresa was is the daughter of um um, Mr. Lockwood who originally
developed this property and has uh, passed away. Um there were two outstanding orders of conditions that were discovered uh at the time of title um review. Uh one was related to the
dock which was built in the mid 2000s. Um we actually were the engineering firm at the time that uh applied for the permission to build it. An order of conditions was issued. Um an older order
to um build the house was also issued. Another engineering company uh handled that. Um as is sometimes uh happening. Not a lot, but some folks
just don't seem to recall or read their documents, and they never uh contacted the engineer, either my firm or the previous engineer for the house to proceed with the
compliance work. So, it came up at the time of the sale. Uh, so we applied for the doc compliance and it was reviewed by your staff really quickly and efficiently and that co certificate of compliance was issued. But the older
house one there were some um issues that needed to be addressed and that's why we're here tonight. It was mainly um addressing some uh uh mitigation requirements. This is for a order back from I think the maybe the late ' 90s.
um early early 2000s. I can't remember exactly um but um when it became uh aware of the uh seller, we contacted the your staff. We met on
site. Uh we reviewed things with Jen and Alyssa. They gave us recommendations. Um um Terresa Luckwood hired uh Raposa Landscaping who then also met with staff
and worked out details and the resulting plan shows some shaded green areas where some proposed mitigation for the original house from way back uh when um it's mitigation related to that to fill
in some of the holes in bare spots in a a really heavily uh wooded but uh thin understory uh buffer. So the the plant has shaded um areas and
it identifies um in a plant legend the plant material that was recommended after Paul reposa met with uh your staff and it identifies the plants and the spacing and the location.
The staff report is pretty light. It has one line on it. It says staff has been working with the applicant. So, I'll take that as a positive staff report and I have nothing more to add and I'm happy to take
questions. >> Thanks, Mike. >> And Jenny. >> Uh, no comments, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mike. >> Alyssa, >> no comments. Thank you. >> Very good. Um, Ron, we'll start with you
this time. >> All right. Nice job putting it under the, you know, the the threat of not closing. It was good work for everybody. That's all I have to say. Thank you. >> Thank >> uh maybe a question for Alyssa perhaps or Jen. Um I've never seen uh mitigation
under trees like this. Were special plants chosen to to handle the shade? >> Yeah, just ones that were shade tolerant. Um the original order back in the day um the backyard was more forested. Somehow the understory has disappeared. So this is
just to restore the backyard to a more forested condition. Um proposal landscaping did choose the plants and we're comfortable with them. >> That's it. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh Bill.
Uh no questions. Jim, >> no questions. Okay, no questions. Courtney, >> nice project. No questions. >> Steve, >> no questions. Thank you, sir.
>> All right. Uh, Jen, anything in the chat? >> Nothing in the chat, Mr. Chairman. >> I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisory. >> Second. >> All right. So, we have a motion and a second to close the hearing, take it
under advisement. Any other comments or questions from the commission? Okay, hearing none. I'll call a roll. Courtney >> Bird I. >> Steve >> Patton I. >> Ron >> Driscoll I. >> Dave >> Dai.
>> Bill >> Duffy I. >> Jim >> Rath I >> and Robins is an I. So it's unanimous to close the hear and take it under advisement. >> Thank you. >> And Mike. All right.
Next up is um by water realy trust 32 do end of place eastbound of mass for permission to construct a single family dwelling with an attached garage and deck install a title five sewage disposal system and conduct uh minor
grading. Jen >> yes Mr. Chairman Mike Borscelli Felmouth Engineering is still with us presenting. I think this is your last project of the night Mike. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> All right, Mike. You got it, buddy. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh again, for the record, Mike Borelli representing the applicant by Water Trust. I'm going to share my screen. Uh in addition, um if he's not on already, he will be on
momentarily. Uh Cameron Lawson from uh ECR. Uh >> do you want me to promote Cameron? Oh, Mike, he's here. >> Yeah. In in the event there's questions Cameron's here. I I'm hoping we satisfied the concerns of staff. Um
I'm going to uh go through the project. The project is uh located at number 32 Dinda Place. It's a a vacant uh lot within a residential subdivision. It's one of only a few
maybe two or three at most undeveloped lots in the subdivision that was developed through the '9s and into the 2000s. Um directly next door is a house that was um constructed. You can see the
edges of it. This is at the very end of the Linda Place. Adjacent to it is an open space. The lot contains 35,000 square ft of it's a wooded lot on the um southern
boundary is a ditch that connects from pond number 14 is it? And it and it flows through to Flax Pond. Um
the wetland resources were delineated and identified by ECR as an intermittent stream and an edge of an inland bank. The flags for the inland bank was surveyed by us and shown on the plan as this
green line. So you have uh buffer regulations at um you have regulation FWR1018 and they outline um certain no disturbance buffer zones.
In this case the inland bank no disturbance buffer zone width is 75 ft. We're showing that with a green dashed line. And then there's a 25 ft outer buffer zone. Your regulations say that
the B zone can be altered but the if it's unaltered the no disturbance zone shall be remain um not disturbed. So the property was designed to meet those regulations. There's a house shown as
far as possible from the wetland resources. It it is set back at the minimum setback or just over the minimum setback of 25 ft from the front yard setback. Um
it has a um slightly sloping topography. So it lends itself to a walkout level on the basement level. So, the grading has been shown to be minimized to just ease the grade around both sides of the
house. Um, there's a deck across the um back of the house. Um, there'll be some very minor um yard areas out in and around the edges of the
house. And then there's a proposal for a um leeching field for the septic system that will serve the house. The tanks for the septic system are between the house and the road. Um this
septic system includes a denitrifying uh unit a nitro by clean to so there'll be significant removal of nitrogen as part of this septic system. Uh, we're showing drywalls to contain
roof runoff. And I think that sums up the proposal. There were some staff comments. Um, limited staff comments. Um they requested that we show
trees within 10 ft of the um no disturbance zone A from the inland banks. And that's a that's a reasonable request just to make sure that there are inventoried and that that um that
there's no trees that are cut in and around the edge of the no disturbance zone uh boundary. And then there was a comment about the ownership. Um we we know that the owner was is Joseph and Melanie uh Bancherry.
Um the applicant is Bowwater Trust. We identify them as the applicant in the in the application. And on the plan there we left the ownership part of the application blank. We'll we can correct that and add the owner to the
application. Um this is um there's a relationship between Bowwater Trust and the owners uh as you might expect. So um we can submit that revised
uh page of the form. Um, one other one other um item that came up during discussion with staff, there was some questions about whether or not the uh Rivers Act applied here. Um we've replied and responded through
uh my company and ECR um and demonstrated that uh the rivers act does not apply here because it's an intermittent stream and the watershed is less than a half square mile that serves
this um intermittent stream. Um and Cameron Lawson is here if there's other questions on that. That sums up my application and my presentation, and I'm here to answer questions along with Cameron.
>> All right, Mike. Thank you. Jen, >> uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. Mike, we're going to need written permission from the property owner. It's clearly stated in our rights in the wetlands protection act. If the applicant is not the property owner, then we need clear
permission from the property owner. So, we're going to need uh some sort of letter from them. >> Sure. You want to speak to that? >> Uh George Batella, who's a member of the by Water Trust, is here. We're happy to
give you that. Um I just wanted him to uh speak that it's this is his sister's property. They're by they're part of by water uh trust and that we can get you I can get you the authorization. I'm their agent. I'm I have permission to sign things for them, but I'm happy.
>> Okay, but that that's fine. But the Wetlands Protection Act doesn't want your signature. They want the property owner signature. So, I mean, we just need something a statement from them saying that it's okay for Briwater Bwater
Trust. Yep. >> By Water Trust to to work. Hello, George. How are you? We were wondering who the creepy guy was behind Mike. Um, I kind of figured it was you. Um, I need something from your family member, George. Okay, >> that won't be a problem.
>> Okay, great. If you guys can get that to me sooner than later, that would be great. And that way we can issue that order of conditions for you. >> We'll do. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Uh, that's it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for addressing the trees, Mike. So, we'll look for a revised plan from you
on that. And we looked over Cameron's uh email and I don't think we have any questions on that. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Let's see. You got anything? >> Not at this time. Thank you. >> David wants to start us off.
>> A couple questions. Mike, uh, how close will the trees behind the house be to the deck? Because it's it's a very treed lot. I'm going to I'm going to share my screen again to answer your question. So, I'm zooming in to make it a little
easier to see. This this green line is the boundary of the no disturbance zone. We cannot disturb in any way anything on this side of the green line. So this line with the circles and the dots is where the limit of work will the hay
bale um sil fence line will be to to make it clear that there'll be no alteration of the no disturbance zone. So between the deck at the closest point in the luna work is about 15 ft or so.
This is the only like yard area they'll have. Um, so the staff the staff wanted us to survey the trees within 10 I think >> on this side I think is what you want. Um, >> yes. >> Just to make sure that they're inventoried
before construction starts and they don't somehow disappear during construction. So, so a lot of that area between the uh 75 and the 25 will be lawn >> lawn or landscape or mulch areas. It
hasn't really been determined yet. >> Okay. All right. >> But it would certainly be within your uh specifications for any any any lawn areas >> and staff is is I guess you know all about that of course, right? >> Yeah. As long as the zone A is fully
vegetated, they can clear the zone B according to your rigs. >> Just one last question. I I do a lot of fishing in pond 14. I was surprised to hear it was a second outlet. I I I talked to a neighbor about it when I was going out and I said, "Is that is that stream intermittent?" And he didn't think so. He I mean I mean pan 14
doesn't go up and down too much. I know that. I don't know if I don't know if it's important whether that is intermittent or not, but I'm wondering if that's important and we know if it's intermittent or not. um ECR um submitted information that uh
indicates it's intermittent and not perennial. >> Yeah, Dave, there's very very specific criteria that has to be met. Um that's why we questioned it as well. Um and it comes down to the size of the watershed that's approximated in this area and it just doesn't quite meet the conditions
to be considered perennial. So though it it flows quite frequently, you know, they they had to draw the line somewhere in the regulations. So, it's it's intermittent. >> That's it. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Dave. Bill.
Uh, no comments. Jim, >> your comments. >> All right. Uh, Court, >> no comments. >> Um, also no comments. Thank you. >> Uh, Ron, >> no. No comments. Good luck with the
project. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good luck. Uh, anything in the chat? Uh, Jonah? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Um, there's a chat by, uh, Loretta Garrison that states, "Bywater Trust development was approved
in 1984 by the planning board requiring the trust to transfer the stream to the town. It never did. Trust still owns stream." So, as you saw on the plan, there is a little skinny parcel. Um,
Um, Miss Garrison, that would probably need to be taken up with the planning board. It's outside of um, ownership of that parcel is going to be outside of the commission's jurisdiction. So, I would um, contact Jed Cornick, the um,
town planner. >> That's it. Jen, >> that's the only chat, Mr. Chairman, regarding this project. >> Thank you. Alyssa, do you have anything? >> Not at this time. Thank you.
>> All right. Not Bill. >> Yeah. Duffy. Eye. >> Any comments or questions? >> I thought we already did that. No. >> Yeah. Yeah. We You know what we did? I'm sorry. >> Oh, yeah. It's all good.
>> It's a very important bill. >> Yeah. Very important. >> Don't forget that. >> I mean, I do love tracing through the woods looking at looking for states and trying to picture how a house will look. >> Second, you can sucking stuff, too. You guys, don't forget
>> I got a couple ticks lately. I got a couple ticks out of it, but >> yeah, I had to do a quick checking break. Um, okay. So, um, there was no other comments or questions from the commission. I'm going to go ahead and call the role to close the hearing. Take
it under advisement. Jen, you good with that? >> I'm good. >> All right. So, can I get a motion? >> Okay. >> Uh, move to close the hearing and take it under advisement. >> Driscoll second. >> All right. So, we have a motion and a second. Close the hearing. Take it under
advisement. Uh, I'm going to call a roll. Courtney >> Bird I. >> Steve and I. >> Ron. >> Chris. >> David. >> Eye. >> Bill. >> Duffy. I >> McGrath I
>> and Robins is an I. So it's unanimous to close a hearing take it under Biden. >> Thank you guys. >> Thank you very much. >> Mr. Chairman, there was a late chat that just popped in regarding this. I'm just going to answer it. The question is just one house will be built. Sorry I am
late. One house on this particular lot is being proposed. You can contact our office tomorrow morning for a copy of the plan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No problem. >> Thank you all. Glad >> you caught it. >> Night, Mike. Night, George. >> Good night. >> Good night.
>> Night, Mike. >> Take care. >> All right. Very good. Um, continued request for a hearing on a notice of tent. Um, 202 Edgewater Drive. I already
called. Uh, I read that one. Um, next is uh Robert and Cara Martin, trustees 58 Westwood Road LLC. 58 Westwood Road, Northb Mass for permission to conduct invasive species removal and install
uh restoration plantings. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, that continuence came in late today, but they have requested a continuence, excuse me, until December 10th. heard. So move >> fiscal second.
Any other comments, questions from the commission? So we had a motion to be continue until December 10th. There's nothing else. I will call the roll. Courtney
>> I >> Steve >> I >> David >> I >> Bill >> Duffy I >> him >> breath I >> and Robins is a I so that's unanimous to
continue until December 10th. Uh, next up is Rudolph A. Vanderhoot Scoot. Um, 44 45 Courier Roads
found with me ask for permission to conduct tree removal and minor grading, install a rain garden, and construct a raised terrace. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh, the application has been withdrawn. >> All right. So, we don't need a vote or
anything like that on that. >> Okay, we're moving on. Uh, continued request to amend an existing order of conditions. Robert and uh Natalie Cullen 130 FA Road B of Mass
request to amend the motor conditions for Mass D25-4528 to permit increase in structure and driveway after the fact and installed mitigation plantings. Looks like we got Tom. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I've promoted Tom
Punker from VSSS Design to present his continued project. Good evening, Tom. >> Good evening. How are you all doing? >> Yeah, we've been here a couple of times. some continuences uh after the last time
um I met with um Jen before she left on vacation and and we weren't both of us weren't quite sure how how I should proceed with this and then after after she came back I I had a plan and I
talked with Alyssa and that's that's what's that's what's filed um now and if I may I'll I'll put our plan up and um get into it. Um hold on one second. I have my screen.
Okay. Okay, I think I have it now. You see our our plan here? >> Yep. >> This is uh >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Got it. >> Got it. Got it. Okay. This is our full
plan. Um, so last last time I was up there was a uh I explained this to Alyssa. There was another errant uh setback line
coming through through here somewhere. So, um I have a zone B and I get to the uh our the existing coastal bank
for the pre-existing coastal bank was shown by this is the not the primary the primary bank is out here on on Vineyard Sound out here. And the house, you can see this is the house that used to be be
here with this outline and and now we're back here. And then there was this coastal bank cuz the the flood zone wraps around behind this whole uh ridge land and there's a coastal bank um that comes across here
and uh ended up here. You see this? This see where there used to be a cottage on the property back here and this coastal bank was a uh slope. You can see there's stairs. There were stairs in the in the cottage
uh right here. So this this coastal bank was actually up against the old cottage on the site which was right right here. And this coastal bank um in as I had interpreted it when we first
filed the plan this this end of the coastal bank the western end of the coastal bank is not within another is not within 100 ft of another resource area. Um and so the zone B for this coastal
bank is up here. Um, but I was saying there is no zone A for this coastal bank because it's more than 100 ft away from another resource area that I just explaining where you know
where these things came from. The flood zone you can see came up onto the property um into the courtyard of the uh the cottage was right here. tennis court was down here and this flood zone came up and around sort of into that
courtyard of the uh the cottage and so um there was one requirement to show all of these stepping stones. So this is a crushed stone surface through here.
This is a zone B of uh coastal bank and it does have an A zone. So, anything in here is what I was considering to be the gravel which is um not driveway. So, considering that it's
pvious, but it was at least told to me that this the stepping stones must be shown. And so, we did that. 56 square ft of stepping stones. I don't know why it keeps moving like that. Get back. um 58 square ft of
stepping stones through here um through the the zone from this zone A back through the zone B and uh as I said this zone B um through my interpretation does not have a zone A so there's no mitigation
required for any gravel surface in here whether it's pvious or impervious and it actually is where the original driveway was um right here and it and it just fade that way. Um
this um this is all in zone B that does require mitigation and this all this driveway area it's currently up to here. So this application is actually for after the fact permission to install this
driveway. And so the driveway now comes to this this line right here. And so we were um counting it all as imperous and um taking we're taking out
8t wide. I I had talked with Jen before she left about possibly taking out 10 ft wide, which would have uh put that 10 ft up to this little angle right here, but I got some request from the owner, the
owner's representative to make it only 8 ft wide. There's uh the the the circular area here is the approved location of the driveway. Jen was concerned that this extra be it
10 feet or 8 feet was allowing more driveway surface on the coastal bank than what was approved. So it's the 8 ft cuts it off right at the edge of
where it was approved. and taking off 8 feet wide by this uh length will remove 358 square feet of uh of driveway surface. These small purple numbers are other
numbers of there's a 237 square ft of driveway through here and that also includes up in this location. There's a 99 square foot reduction here because the driveway was permitted out to this curve but now it's
at this straight line. Uh there's -7 square ft. There's 100 square ft more of walkway here and this was all counted as driveway but that's 17 square ft
being removed. That's a little planting bed. Uh th this area stayed the same as we had before with the numbers the uh increase in mitigation the increase in coverage rather and so we had added the the 58 square feet there. We also added
um these stepping stones which are actually old old foundation granite foundation blocks um but there's still coverage. We added 13 square ft in zone A which is
here and 10 square feet in zone B which is here. Um and so with the zoom out somewhere I have the calculations the the current calculations here.
um take a while to go through it, but then we came up with 1,524 square ft of mitigation to be planted and we have done that here. Jen wanted
some of the I don't know if it's enough, but I some of the mitigation out from here and pulled it closer more into the lawn. Took it away from underneath these pine trees. And one more pine tree has to be replaced in this location. It's it's dead. And then
the other mitigation planting is in here. I talked with Alyssa. Um she felt that as far as where the mitigation is planted would be okay. This is all in zone A and theory being that there's mitigation across here and
mitigation here and that if they have this area which is has always been lawn and if they can maintain it as lawn up to this point they uh
they'll they'll have a place where they can stand closer and will not be um let's say enticed to do any more trimming. This this older mitigation is that at the tops cut off. They've done some shearing here, but uh they'll have
to stop that. But uh if this were planted, then there might be a desire to have more more cutting done, but leaving this open will maybe reduce that desire and they'll have to stop
cutting this and uh plant this. So, that's what I've got at this time. I will uh take this down and take questions and comments. >> Okay, Tom. Thank you. >> Yeah, >> Jen.
>> Um, I don't think I have any comments at this time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Tom, for working on this. >> All right, Jen. Alyssa, >> no comments. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, Bill Bill,
he's muted. >> He's muted. >> Okay, I see. >> Yeah, sorry, my cursor was not just working. Um, I don't have any comments at this time. Thank you. >> Thanks. Uh, Jim, >> no comments at this time.
>> All right, cool. Um what's being proposed here is what we cons is consistent what we allowed on the neighboring property. It is okay.
Thank you. No questions. >> All right. Thanks, Steve. >> I just want to thank Tom and the staff for working this out. This is a nice property. Thank you, >> Ron. Yeah, I also a couple things. One, I want to thank everyone doing all those
calculations and hard work. It's a lot of detail involved and it's been a couple of different permutations. I had uh one proposal, some people have probably already heard me do it, but Tom, I don't know if everyone's passed by you. um that southwest corner of the
property where the mitigation's going in >> is there and also uh in light of that the neighbor couple couple of hearings ago there's um complain about the water problems water issue coming from the KG's property to their property and
rotting their their timber. Um is there any way we could move that mitigation from the Azone there back to the B zone by their property? And I know the Azone has to be fully vegetated before you can do that. But if we um if it makes sense for a couple of different neighbors to
move it back away from that corner, could we do that? >> You're talking taking it from the southwest, but the corner on the the primary coastal bank. >> Oh, I on one. Yeah, we had a possible I think your your
administrator I had I had talked with her about putting mitigation back there and I I think it could make sense um uh in that but she felt it wouldn't be the best as far as the regulations go. Uh and we also discussed how
it it would be difficult and we had that that the hearing be be a couple before this that got withdrawn. That was my hearing and there was the same same comments about figuring out which kind of plants to
plant in there because on those few times when it would be flooded, it could it could have bad bad effect on otherwise dry woodland type uh shrubs. This is always
I mean this is this this this the slope going down here has always been a slope going down the from some I I don't I don't know that it has or hasn't been increased but the I know I know that at times there's always been some puddles
there but I can't say if it's gotten worse or not. Um >> there was there it would have we're not sure that would have plant planting in that low area I think would would be hard be just because of
the the choice of plants and because uh you know Jen had said that it it it just wouldn't align with the uh the regulations. It doesn't align with the rags. And if we did do it, Ron, it would, you know, as I think Alyssa and I explained to
you, it's going to be hard to get a plant pallet down there. If it was done, it could, you know, it could be conditioned that if it failed, it would need to be moved back up the slope. Um, that's going to be up to the commission. It is going to be hard to to get the
right, as again, the right species down there. If all of a sudden has ton of water and then it's dry, ton of water and dry, it's going to stress the plants. But if the commission wants to entertain that, we would have to condition it that if it did fail or a
percentage of the plants did fail that it could they would just need to be relocated to where Tom's showing now. I mean, that's a possibility. I could I could say that they're they're open to it and they would they would kind of they they would like to put the
plants over there rather than than you know on on the ocean side. Um so I think you know if that was something you wanted to entertain we could take a look at it but >> certainly this is what I've done with with the uh you know your staff advice.
>> Yeah. Okay. No, thank you. I just wanted to bring it up and we can we can discuss it later. Thank you. It's all >> all set. Ron, all set. >> Uh Dave, >> uh a couple times this conversation, we
mentioned that planting down in that lower area would be against regulations. Can someone explain that a little bit? >> Because all your mitigation needs to be planted within your zone A >> or closest to the resource area and not in zone B because you tend to allow
clearing in a zone B. So, the mitigation's protected in the zone A. Um, but again, if it's something the board wanted to maintain, we could condition it. >> Condition, right? I got you. >> Yep. >> Uh, that's all I have.
>> All right. Thanks, Dave. Um, Jen, any anything in the chat? Not regarding this project, Mr. Oh, wait. There's nothing in the chat, but Mr. Gates has his hand raised. Mr. Gates is the property owner to the south. I'm
going to promote him if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. >> Not at all. >> He He addressed the board the last time. Okay. Mr. Gates, you'll need to turn your your camera on and your audio on so you can address the board.
>> Here we go. >> Mr. Gates, you got the floor. >> Thank you. I'm trying my video. Oh, there we go. >> There you go, Mr. Gates. >> Thank you for uh allowing me in. Um I'm um curious as to whether it's within the
uh conservation commission's mandate to deal with water runoff. Uh and there's a um I understand you're looking at mitigation planting and the success of them and that makes a lot of sense. Um but will that stippled area where the
driveway is being uh pushed back eight feet, Mr. bunker. Will that uh allow uh more soak away of water from the um the top of the hill there? It would it would be restored with lawn.
Um frankly, I think that the gravel surface, at least in light rains, the gravel surface would take probably take more water in. But this this will be restored with lawn and it will be level as it is now and not sloping. So it
would uh or it could even be a slight raised burm to ensure that no water would run from the parking area down the hill toward toward toward your your lot at the bottom of the hill.
>> Okay. I I I think the burm sounds like an interesting concept. Um it it I do you know what a French drain is? You must know. Uh >> I'm just wondering whether um some gravel path to to take water and not
allow it to come rushing down the hill uh would uh benefit the situation. Well, I think if something if you're talking about a a drain in that area, then I think a
a grassy burm if you're talking about keeping water from the parking area to come down the hill, then I think a grassy just a slightly raised burm would would do the trick. You know, a drain any kind of
underground drain can can can fail. I know Courtney always says that adherence. Um, but it could fail and and just just a like a I don't want to really call it a dyke, but a a uh a slight burm in the grade right
there would would prevent water from running off of the parking towards your property. >> Be much more successful than a dry well or something like that. Understood. Yes. Thank you. I have uh nothing further to add other than to thank the commission for uh
doing what they do. Thank you for volunteering. >> Thank you, Mr. Gates. >> Thank you, Mr. Gates. >> All right, >> the chair. >> Yes, court. Yeah, I uh following up on this, I I mean I think I don't know
whether it's a bylaw or whether it's something the building department enforces, but regardless of whether it's conservation jurisdiction or not, um uh any lot owner is required to in their
drainage designs to prevent water, their water from flowing onto a neighbor's lot. And so that needs to be uh Tom that needs to be engineered so that doesn't happen. >> Well, I think it it's every property
owner should not allow the amount of water to increase flowing off the >> Yeah. >> property there. There's always been a hill there. >> Yeah. >> Um but I I don't know. I mean, there's there's that, you know, whether some flows off of the former tennis court
into that area or some flows from from whatever other places, there's always been hills going in that direction. So, I don't know how much water I'm I'm sure it had puddles at times
before this house was was done, but I can't can't say for sure. If if I might, um the area in question that gets flooded uh has historically been a garden and uh when my grandmother
owned the uh 130 uh one road and um thereafter when my cousins inherited it, we had a a joint uh garden down there and it did not flood. Uh it was uh a
rose garden under my mother and roses don't like to get their feet that soggy. So uh I I have to say the the first time we documented the floods uh was during construction of the present house at
131. >> 133. Yeah. >> Sorry. At 133. Yes. My mistake. All right, cool. Are you all set? >> Yeah. I mean, I I just want to see the
problem solved. I mean, I I'm sympathetic to Mr. Gates and that there shouldn't be runoff from 133 onto his property.
So, how that's engineered, I I think u that should be done. I I would like to see a satisfactory drainage plan submitted prior to the our clo either prior to our closing or
um as a condition to close. >> Okay. Um Dave, I see you got your hand up. Yeah, it seems to me the water's collecting on a property of 133. I really haven't seen it to find where it's going going over into the next
property. That area down there at the bottom of the hill is part of 133. Correct. >> The the very bottom of it is on Mr. Gates's property. See where the the stairs are shown? >> Is it there's a wooden there there wooden pilings? There's a wall that is
that does it does it does the other property begin at that wall? >> No. big before. If I can put my screen back up, I can show you just just briefly. >> Maybe could I'd like to understand how it is impinging on the next property. >> Yeah. So, the property line runs
diagonally through this lawn area. >> Oh, it does. Oh, I didn't realize that. Okay. >> So, this area right here on Mr. Gates's property by this. >> The wall is here. Although it's shown as just edge of lawn, but there's a wall here and these are stairs going down into it.
>> Yeah. I I didn't know the property line went through that area. Thanks. Yeah. I mean that could I I did see it once when I was there. What? Um this >> we we've seen some pictures of it. Jen,
show me some pictures. Listen to it. Yeah. I mean that this could be uh satisfied with um some large dry well or even some uh sort of creating another earth burm down here
which would hold the water on the 133 property. >> Well well court is suggesting that we condition this with an actual plan for that. Right. Right. Right Courtney. >> Yeah. I I just you know I want to see the problem resolved. That's all. But but my point is that that that's not
that wouldn't be a a trivial thing. I mean, we probably need an engineering solution to that, right? >> To get the calculations done, we'd need need something. I mean, I'd rather if you can I don't know, but I'd like to guess my point is if we're going to go
with Courtney's suggestion, then we'll need something. >> I mean, developed in I'm sorry to interrupt. >> That's right. Um in my view I think you know this is a significant enough engineering
um exercise to warrant a continuence rather than just submitting a plan because you know I want to see this kind of a problem resolved because I don't think it's fair to the neighbor and um it's not fair it's not keeping with the
spirit of things. Yeah. >> Well, I'd like to find a way if we could close on. >> I mean, you know, I I'm I'm a stickler for this stuff, as most of you on the commission know, but I I uh this is a
significant enough u engineering thing that I would want to have a set of eyes see it before we just stuff it into conditions that we pass on a week from now. Go ahead, Ron.
>> Yeah. Um, again, let's go back to the old um chairman Jamie who said, "Let's stay within our purview." I might have stepped outside a little bit trying to get the mitigation down there because of the flood or because of the water or the
issue just trying to help out. But here, this is way outside. We're not worried. You know, this isn't in our our jurisdiction to take care of all the water problems and all the all the all the applicants that come before us. Um, we've been out there a couple of times
after Maine after Maine's big rainstorms and there there's no water down there. >> So, that's what I have to say. Go ahead, Courtney. >> Um, I I would agree. We we're our jurisdiction isn't to take on everybody's drainage issues throughout
the town. However, this area is within our jurisdiction and so we we I think it's within our area of responsibility to address this kind of stuff because it is an environmental impact. >> I guess we tend to disagree.
>> Well, that's that's what makes the world go around. >> Yep. >> Steve, I see you get your hand up. Uh you're muted, Steve. I wanted to make a motion to close the hearing and I I believe that we've seen the results of Tom Bunker's work with
staff and that they can reach a resolution to this issue um so we can move forward. >> All right, I got two hands. You got Bill. Did you have something? >> If they're gonna make a motion to close it, then I don't have anything.
>> Okay. Excellent. Anyone else? All right. So, we have a motion to close the hearing, take it under advisement. Any other comments or questions from the commission and all right gates? We Nothing else in
chat, right, Jen? We're clear there. >> Nothing else in the public chat, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. So, I'm going to call a call a role to close the hearing and take it under advisement. All right. Courtney
>> Birdo. >> Steve. >> Patton. I >> Ron >> Driscoll. I >> Steve >> I. >> Bill >> Duffy. I
>> Jim >> I. >> And Robins is an I. So to we got uh 6 to one to close the hearing and take it under advisement. >> All right, moving on. Thank you all,
Tom. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Gates. >> Thanks, Tom. >> Thank you. >> All right, so we have uh continued hearings under an enforcement order. And the first one up we already read tonight which has
been continued is zero Davisville Road um Mr. August at 33 Ocean uh Oyster Shell I don't know why I want to say Oy Ocean Oyster Shell Lane East Falmouth is also continued uh and David and Marcy Barnes at 38
squit is also continued. So, we'll move on to vote orders and conditions. John and L Atlanta Peta at 218 Meadow Neck Road, East Falmouth. Uh, Jen, could you
um refresh us on this one? >> I'm going to ask Alyssa to do that because I was on vacation and I'm not quite sure. I haven't had time to watch the hearing since I was gone.
>> Alyssa? Yeah, thank you. Um, so this is a raise and reconstruct of a single family dwelling. The existing dwelling on the property is very small and abandoned close to the water. So they are proposing the new dwelling to be pulled back quite a ways. Um, certainly enlarged, but there is plenty of room to
mitigate once that current house has been removed. Um they will be uh pruning a little bit into the zone A in order to remove the existing structure and to construct a
proposed retaining wall with some grading in the backyard of the new structure. Staff had advised that the house be relocated towards the street a bit more because the construction of this retaining wall would remove more zone A vegetation. Um it didn't seem
that the commission felt that way. So the hearing was closed. Um all of the corrections that staff had requested and we spoke with um Chuck Roland and Mr. Cheney. Um a revised plan has been
submitted and all of our comments have been addressed. Um so we don't have anything outstanding at this time. um based on the hearing last week though again staff is advocating for keeping whatever we can of that zone A vegetation.
>> All right. Do um I know Fallon mentioned a couple things, Alyssa. Um >> yeah, she reviewed the revised plan and she said that it matched um everything we spoke about. >> Cool. So, they I believe they put in um
either a single rail fence or more stones to help mediate that meadow area. Um they removed the switch grass. Uh we have all the correct calculations now. Um switched around some of the plants.
Yep. >> Melissa, there's a note, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, there's a note on that on the revised plan near the um Do you have the site plan in front of you? >> No, I didn't review it. >> Okay. >> What does it say? >> It says demarcation for edge of meadow
seed landscape plan. So, I'll just look at that and if we have to condition that it's the shrubs and make sure that that's that. That's fine. I'm sure that one. Yeah, they were advocac advocating for the use of more of a decorative stone or boulder outline um as opposed
to the typical sing fence. Yeah, we had just advised that um >> if the meadow is to be mowed, the idea was to have that delineation between the meadow and the mitigation as opposed to the meadow and the lawn. I mean, they can have those there, but that that
doesn't really help us in terms of the potential for mowing of the sweet fern and various other shrubs. Yeah, I don't have the the um unfortunately I didn't grab the landscape plan when I left the office. So, I'll just look at that and condition it appropriately. Okay, great.
Thank you. >> Discussion. >> Anybody got anything else? >> So, the board's okay with the the the wall come going into the existing zone A buffer. They are they are restoring that zone A buffer. Correct, Alyssa? >> Yes, they are. Yeah, they're adding that
to the mitigation calculations for restoration. Okay, >> great. I guess we're looking for a motion to uh issue >> an issue an order conditions as discussed Driscoll. >> Third second
motion by Ron Driscoll is an order of conditions and a second by Courtney. Any other discussion amongst the commission? Okay. Hearing none, I'm going to call for the I'll call a roll. Uh Court >> Bird I.
>> Steve Patton. I >> Ron Chris. >> David. I >> Bill >> Duffy. I >> uh Jim McGrath. >> I Robbins is an I. Unanimous. Uh you
ordered we issued the order conditions for 218 Metleneck Road. All right. Other business. Uh, discuss potential amendment to article 1718 of the November 2025 town meeting
regarding zero westmouth highway. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. So, I have received clarification. I believe that it's going to be article 18. That's the article that pertain to the commission. So, I did come to the
board a few weeks ago. Um, there was an article that was put into town meeting to put zero westmouth highway. It's a little corner parcel over by the Sip Wizit Road exit off of 28 that goes into Palmer. Kind of swing back and there's that
parcel in there. Uh, the parcel was acquired by the town. There is some confusion to as to how, but it doesn't pertain to this discussion. It was required by the town um through some sort of taking
um its original purpose was for the protection of the long pond water uh long pond uh was taken with the town. So any sort of protections with that according to the town council um disappeared at that time.
The original article would wanted the um conservation commission to hold a conservation restriction on the parcel. Unfortunately, at that time, we couldn't support that um petitioner's article because the law just does not allow the
town to hold the conservation uh restriction on itself. The town, the parcel is currently under the care and control of the select board. Select board and town meeting both the select board voted and then town meeting voted last year to issue RFPs to develop this
parcel for affordable housing. Um the petitioners have come back to um have informed us the commission that their intention is to go to town meeting and
make a motion, ask for an amendment um to have the parcel transferred out of the care and control of the board of selectment and place the parcel into the care and control of the conservation commission.
Um if that happens then I do believe the affordable housing RFP um we're not in the business of uh affordable housing. We're open space protection. So therefore the property would not I don't
believe would be able to be developed for affordable housing. This is the intention of the petitioners. Um, I do believe town meeting is going to want a response from the cong.
Um, and it is my recommendation to the concom um just to defer to the will of town meeting. Um, your staff has not had the
opportunity to evaluate the parcel. Um to our knowledge, there are no wetlands or wetland resources on the parcel that need extra protection. It is not within an area of um rare species habitat and
we just haven't had the ability haven't had the time to to to fully do an evaluation of the parcel. Um so I can't really say to support or not support the petitioner's position. Um, at this time I think the only thing we can do is just
defer to the will of town meeting and if town meeting wants to resend their decision of last year and they want to place the parcel in current control of the concom so be it. >> All right, J. Thank you. Excellent
explanation. Oh, and I just want to add that um the water resource protection area overlay that is protecting Long Pond. So, here's the parcel. It's over here. Long Pond is placed over here. Um and if you want, I can bring up a quick
uh map if you would like. Um >> Sure. >> And let me do that. And it is outside of that resource protection district. and um groundwater flows the opposite
direction. So um but I just think the simplest thing would just be to defer to town meeting writing town meeting into my Google search uh town of Felmouth here. And so
I can bring up the parcel and then show you where the water resource protection district is. is and I'll do this very quickly, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. There is the chat. Um, Miss Rusted, we do have all of the documentation that was provided that was
forwarded to the commission um when it was provided to us. So, they are well aware of the packer that was presented by the petitioners. They are they do have that information. All right, I'm just going to find this real quick.
Hang on, guys. Where are you, pesky little parcel? Here you are. Okay, I'm hurrying. Oops. Nope. Oh, water resource pedestrian district. The coastal pond overlay. Okay, I'm
going to share my screen real quick, guys. Share options. Okay. Can you see that, guys? >> Mr. Chairman. Okay. So, here's the parcel. Here's Long Pond. This is the Long Pond water
uh district overlay by the town. So, the parcel does fall outside of that. It might have been one of the original parcels acquired back in the 30s for the protection along pond, but there was some action
um and I don't know if it's from Route 28. Um the taking for the highway or there was some sort of taking of the parcel by the town. Um and according to town council
whatever protections were at that time uh when the taking happened from what I understand those protections disappeared. So it was just a vacant
parcel undeveloped parcel um under the care and control of the select board. >> Okay. All right. >> That's it. Thank you, Jen. Court, I saw you. I got you. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, it's pretty clear from
the what Jen put up that um these two parcels that are in question essentially are orphans that were created when u uh Route 28 was the land was taken from Route 28 and extended south. Um, in
other words, essentially those parcels were part of a larger parcel that originally were acquired by the town to for the watershed. Well, now, you know, 28 has come down, carved them off, and they're sort of these orphans and um my
own feeling about them is that, you know, their value to the resource area given route 28 is pretty limited. So, I I would agree with the concept that we allow let town meeting decide uh what they want to do with it.
>> Thanks, Court. Uh Bill, did you have something? >> I was just going to say the same thing, but I I did what Jen did. I was taking a look at the Google Maps and looking at the parcel for a little bit and then seeing how far away and then I would
rather just let the town do it. Okay. >> Thanks, Bill. Dave, >> Jen has uh has the first of all, what's the language that you used the the applicants or the they want us to do something to take control of it? What's
the what's the word we're using? >> Okay. So, so when a when a when the town owns land, um there it's called care and control. So the conservation commission, we're part of the town of Felmouth. The school
committee, the school administration is part of the town of Falmouth select board, town of Falmouth, but each entity can hold property. So property under the care and control of the Cong
>> is usually protected open space. >> And what my question, >> we have a certain mission statement. people, you know, parcels are placed into our care and control to keep them open space, to keep them protected for various reasons. Um, we own the the Kong
um you as a board own more than 2,000 acres of land throughout town. >> That was my question. >> We manage for you. >> My question was we have done that in the past is it's something we've done many times taking care. >> We own land. I don't I can't recall,
Dave, in the last 20 years when um when propertyy's been taken out of the care and control of one town entity and placed into our care and control. I don't recall. It might have happened when I first started, but it hasn't happened recently. >> But right now, do we have other property under our care and control right now?
>> Absolutely. You have about 2,000 acres. >> Okay. So, if we took on some more, that wouldn't be revolutionary then. Probably >> that would what? I'm sorry. If eventually we did take care and control of this, that would not be unprecedented to actually have control. >> No, >> the mechanism that which we received, it
might be different. But I I didn't I had no idea if we'd ever ever done that in the past. I guess we have. >> Okay. Um >> my other question is it's only one parcel, isn't it? I two parcels was mentioned a minute ago. >> Is it It's just one parcel, isn't it?
>> I believe it's the larger parcel. I and maybe Courtney just said the two parcels because there's two attached parcels. I have not seen the map or the RFP. I do believe it's just the one larger parcel. >> Well, >> but I I could be mistaken on that.
>> My understanding is it's a triangular parcel that you show right at the intersection of 28A and and 28. And then on the other side of the road where old Palmer Avenue is going back towards where man
Levelvel's uh real estate office was and Peace Tree Farm, there's a section of of Woodlands in there between 20 Old Palmer Avenue and 28A. And I think that's the other part of this. Um you know, I'm
very familiar with both of those because that's where I go to get my Christmas bows every winter. So, I'll be sorry to see him develop, but you know, um, we need open, we kn do need affordable housing in this town, and the fact that it's been the land's been kind of carved
off from the watershed, uh, it renders that sort of need for that protection kind of moot by the fact that you got 28 running down there. So, that that's my feeling. I I I wouldn't have a heart attack at all of
saying it affordable housing. >> All right. So, anyone else getting anything comments >> there? There is a responsor there. Um the Mr. Rusbid said there are precedents. Concoms has custody of a very similar parcel separated from the
pond on the west side of between 28. Yes, we we we have owned property. Similarly, the co concom has custody of parcels to the north of the pond both south and she gives the property addresses and north of brickmill road
which are further from long pond then zero west found highway and 28 and in the water map they're west highway adjacent to each other. Yeah, it's the two parcels. It's the two it's the two I think to what they're saying it's the larger parcel and the skinnier parcel
next to it. >> Mhm. So that's just that corner. But yes, I mean we do have um we do own land. We do have care and control of land all over town. Whether it's in a water uh water resource
protection district, whether it's, you know, wetland jurisdiction, whether it's rare species habitat, >> we we do have care and control about, like I said, over 2,000 acres in town. >> Thanks for explaining that. I think I
think Jen's idea of to to just stay neutral on it and let town meeting make the decision. I really think that's the best way to go. Um I I agree with everything you said, Courtney. everything he said and I think
everybody here will agree with it you know but let's let town meeting make this decision because there's no no jurisdiction of the conservation commission here that you know we have to worry about as far as elimination pond
doesn't seem to be an issue so I think town meeting I think we should what we should do is just defer to town meeting on this as Jen said so >> make a motion on that >> to the board >> so should we make a motion just to Let Tom meeting take it up. >> Yeah, we can make a motion
>> then. I will make the motion right now >> to let Tom go. >> Discussion. I'll throw my two cents worth it. >> Thank you, Billy. Appreciate that. Good job. >> First motion. >> Yeah. So, >> open it up. >> Question.
>> What do you got? >> Okay. >> Courtney, what do you got? You said you >> I was just going to say if there's a compelling if a compelling case could be made that this land was val was essential for the protection of the watershed I'd have a different opinion
but I think geography shows that it's not >> okay thank you anything else did you have something I I caught you with a hand up >> thank you for the motion Bill my affirmative to All right. So, I'm going to go ahead and
call a roll since I think the discussion everybody's good with the discussion and and the motion that Bill put on the table. Very good. >> So, I'm going to call a roll. Courtney >> third eye, >> Steve, >> Pat, and I and thank you staff for clarifying.
There are 11 zero west highways. >> Sorry about that, Steve. Ron >> Crisco I >> Dave >> Kai I >> Bill >> Duffy I >> uh Jim >> McGra I
>> and Robins is I so it's unanimous Jen will write it up and and when you do that could you send a copy to each one of the commissioners or what you >> Absolutely. I'll prepare a statement on behalf of the board. >> You know,
>> simple simple statement on behalf of the commission to, you know, to address any of town meetings um or any of the precinct meetings. The reason this needed to be on your agenda tonight is that we started precinct meetings for town meeting this week and you know it
was important to have a a statement from the con. >> Okay. >> Very good. Well, Jim, thank you for joining us this evening. Um, again, Concom 101, you and myself and staff. >> Ron, go have fun in Bermuda.
>> I'll try. I have a few more days. >> Okay, >> we're pretty near right now. >> I think I think Jim Jim should make the motion to adjurnn. How's that? >> Motion to >> I'll make that motion. I second it. Make >> a motion. The second to adjurnn. Bird. I
>> Robin Fi