e [Music] [Music] [Music]
good evening and welcome to the February 26th meeting of the F Conservation Commission this meeting is held being held virtually via Zoom video conference is also being brought broadcast on 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 have a full compliment of Commissioners tonight woohoo thank you all for your
dedication and just a reminder for commenting I'll call on each of you so we're not tripping over each other and that all votes are done by roll calls when I call your name please state your name and your vote for the record even if you've made the motion or the second to our public attendees at any
time during this meeting you may ENT any comments or questions via the chat function at the appropriate time they will be read into the record if as an attendee you'd like to participate in a particular hearing let us know via the chat function 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 be succinct and respectful of others public comments will be limited to three minutes each regarding rdas
under a request for determination of applicability the applicant is asking the commission to determine if the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands protection act Andor the fouth wetlands bylaw apply to their proposed project a negative determination is that the
provisions of the act and or the B law do not apply therefore the project May proceed as proposed a positive determination means the provisions of the act and or the bylaw do in fact apply and or may require some conditions
therefore the project would require a notice ment application so out of Simplicity as an applicant you kind of want to hear a negative determination and for the benefit of anyone waiting tonight for a particular hearing so that you're not waiting unnecessarily
the following hearings are expected to be continued number 10 Central AV and number zero Davisville Road that brings us to our first order of business which is to vote minutes
first is January 29 2025 anyone Mr chairman I reviewed the minutes and i' uh move approval Patton second all right we have a motion in a second to accept the minutes of 129
as submitted questions or comments we're voting on these minutes Betsy black R Courtney Courtney all right I can't hear you it doesn't look like you're muted but it can't hear you thank you yeah all right
Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Ron bcco I Russ Robins ey Steve I it is unanimous we have accepted the minutes as submitted did anyone else hear Courtney
or was it just me didn't hear no he said yes can am I right now yes now thank you okay I was operating on the wrong microphone ah hate when that happen all right next up is the vote
minutes of February 12 2025 Mr chairman I review the minutes and I would move approval as written Patton glad fter second excellent we have a motion in a second to accept the minutes of 212 as submitted questions or
comments we're voting Betsy but I Courtney bird ey Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Ron dris AB stain wasn't there rust Robins I Steve I it
is 6 to one with an abstention however we have accepted the minutes of to2 thank you Kristen next up is a request for a continuance under notice of intent Nicholas poonis 10 Central Avenue fou
mass for permission to remove a patio construct an addition install a fence and install plantings Alissa the applicant has requested a continuance until March 5th show move Brisco
second all right we have a motion in a second to continue this till March fth questions of comments we're voting on the continuance Betsy bter ey Courtney bird ey Matthews ey Kevin O'Brien I Ron
Risco I Russ Robins ey Steve p i it is unanimous we have continued this until March 5th next up Wayne Van Wart the seashell Lane Community Association Inc zero Davisville Road MPP and parcel ID is
40-110 13-00 Palou mass for permission to reconstruct and enlarge an existing licensed Community dot system Alissa the applicant has requested a continuance until March
26th thir so move Fisco second all right one of multiple continuances all right we have a motion in a second to continue this until 3:26 did I get that right yes okay questions or comments all right we're voting on
the continuance Betsy I Courtney I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Ron CH I Russ Robins I Steve n
it is unanimous we have continued this until March 26 next up is to a request for continuance for certificate of compliance excuse me first up Elizabeth D lavka trustee Dogwood realy trust 69
bar Road found with mass request for a certificate of compliance for Mass D number 25- 4621 the applicant has requested a continuance until April 16th where so move Riso
second all right we have a motion in a second to continue this until April 16 seems like way down the road yes it'll be here before you know it questions or comments we're voting on the continuance Psy BL felter I Courtney
m i Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Ron Risco ey Russ Robins ey Steve I it is unanimous we have continued this until 416 next up is a request for a
continuance under an enforcement order first up 58 Westwood Road LLC Cara of Robert Martin 58 Westwood Road fouth Mass unpermitted construction of a shed and removal of vegetation within the
buffer to a Coastal Bank and Coastal dun Alissa yes the homeowners representative has requested a continuance until March 26th so move FAL second all right we have a motion in a
second to continue this until March 26 questions or comments we're voting on the continuance Betsy blood felter I Courtney bird I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Ron Chris I Russ
Robins I Steve I it is unanimous we have continued this until March 26 next up our request for determination of applicability first up kvc Builders 78 Garden of Road wood mass for
permission to reconstruct an existing deck in the same footprint Fallon St recommends A3 under the state and negative2 under the bylaw resource area boundaries are not confirmed where so move rco
second all right we have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation questions or comments we're voting Betsy BL fter I Courtney word I Matthews I Kev
O'Brien I Ron GCO ey Russ Robins ey Steve mat I it is unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation next up Marsha Mains 366 maravista Avenue fou mass for permission
to construct a second floor Edition and three smaller editions construct roofs over two Stoops and install a dryw Fallon sta recommends a negative -2 under the state and bylaw resource area boundaries
are not confirmed and this project Solly takes place in an AE flood zone thank youve Drisco second all right we have a motion on a second to accept staff's recommendation questions or comments we're voting Betsy
fter ey Courtney bir I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Ron chis I Ross Robin ey Steve p i it is unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation
next up James dly 28 Boston Street found with mass for permission to raise ra a and rebuild a single family dwelling install drywells and reconfigure an existing driveway
Fon stas recommends a negative -2 under the state in bylaw resource area boundaries are not confirmed and this project solely takes place in an AE flood zone anyone I'll make a motion to accept staff's re recommendation all right dral
second all right Courtney fell asleep there for a minute okay so we have a motion in a second to accept staff's recommendation questions or comments we're voting Betsy gladfelter Ry Courtney bird ey Matthews ey Kevin
O'Brien I Ron riscal ey Russ Robins ey Steve m i it is unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation next up Daniel delandis seven nationa Street B with mass four
permission to raise R A Ze and rebuild a single family dwelling install a drywell reconfigure an existing driveway and install a new title 5 sewage Disposal system ton staff recommends a negative -2 under the state in byaw resource area
boundaries are not confirmed and this project slowly takes place in an AE flood zone bird so move second we have a motion in a second to accept staff's recommendation questions or
comments we're voting Betsy alai Courtney I Matthews Z Kevin O'Brien I Ron Bisal ey Russ Robin I Steve and n it
is unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation next up Linda dpri trustees 40 OST Road East fou mass for permission to reconstruct an existing deck and front porch
Allen stff recommends a negative3 the state and negative2 under the bylaw resource area boundaries are not confirmed heard so move fiscal second all right we have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation
questions or comments we're voting Betsy gladfelter I Courtney word I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Ron fiscal I Russ Robin ey and Steve and it is unanimous we have
accepted staff's recommendation thank you Alyssa and Fallon next up our requests for a hearing under notice of intent all hearings of the fouth Conservation Commission are held simultaneously under the authorities of the Massachusetts Wetlands protection
act and the fouth wetlands bylaw although a single decision of the commission is issued it represents a separate decision under each Authority and as a reminder public commenting is limited to 3 minutes so encourage you to stay within the purview of this board which are the rules and regulations of
the wetlands protection act and the F with Wetlands bylaw and how they pertain to a particular application the chair reserves the right to stop any commenting that is disparaging or inconsequential to the hearing first up it's Michael Wills
general manager Beachside Village Resort condo association Inc 45 surf Drive bouth m for permission to replace an existing paved parking lot with a reinforced gravel surface Alissa yes I've promoted
Rob Dar from Bracken engineering to present his project excellent Mr Dar you're up sir thank you very much uh good evening everyone uh for the record my name is Robert dear here with bracket engineering on behalf of the Beachside
Village Resort Condominium Association here uh they are the ownership group at 45 surf drive I'm just going to share my screen if that is okay yes sir uh for those unfamiliar surf Drive
we're down here on the sound here on the south side of uh Falmouth uh we are actually like right across the street from the surf Drive uh Beach right here so our property is right here
um we are within um a velocity zone for a good portion of the property the rest of the property remaining in a uh AE elevation 13 Zone um and within the uh
limits of moderate wave action uh so with that uh and so we've we're surrounded on three sides here by streets we've got surf drive here to the South uh the private Lane Thomas Lane right here um in Walker Street coming
down to the west side of us as well um just going to bring up the [Music] plan so just bringing up the plan here again uh surf drive to the South Walker Street to the West Thomas Lane here to
the east um you can see here this is the limit of the Velocity Zone that cuts across the property uh the 25t offset for the bouth Wetland regulations regulatory Zone cuts across right here um and then the remainder of this is
within uh this AE elevation 13 uh with AE elevation 12 uh beyond that outside of our Locus except for this tiny corner here uh this line also um is the limit
of moderate wave action line as well um that's something I'll address in just a second um just so just offsite in terms of other resource areas here uh previously delineated on a plan provided uh by on record provided by uh BSC uh
there is a coastal Dune here in this corner uh and so we do have a 50 foot and 100 foot buffer zones uh from that Dune that extend onto our property so in terms of proposed work here um what we're doing is is attempts
to eliminate uh quite a bit bit of off-site flooding that happens basically this parking lot floods up this leeching catch Basin right here is unable to handle the amount of storm water that comes there um this floods comes down
Thomas lande floods out Thomas Lane comes all the way down to Surf drive and floods out the leeching catch Basin uh that there's another one here in this corner but primarily it seems to reside here uh and it it gets so bad that it floods up you know some of you may may
be kind of familiar with this floods out a good portion of surf drive itself uh and really impacts traffic and uh and safety down there so uh so we were hired uh by the ownership here to try to remedy this um
what we figured out was that um it seemed like this issue started when this parking lot was paved um because right now it is paved and there is sort of like a chip seal sty gravel surface placed on top of it so it looks like a gravel parking lot but it's
really paved so there's no infiltration there at all so what we are proposing is to remove that pavement uh it's about just under 9,500 square fet of pavement up in this upper lot area here um excavate down uh remove any you know
base subbase to that parking area and fill that back up with Crush Stone approximately 8 Ines compact that and then uh we utilize these um these plastic grid kind of
um you know support pavers uh that get placed down and then they get filled with uh a smaller gradient of crushed stone within so it it just supports that and provides some stability to the parking lot while still allowing
infiltration down below um we did run uh some hydrology numbers for this um based on you know this area we you we've got a we've got a contributing watered of approximately like all of this coming
down here this is including um you know the about half of the Roof System here for this primary building uh the majority of the roof of the smaller building and the roofs of these sheds um and so with all of that contributing area we're still we're well within able
to store you know uh The 100-year Storm Volume um and that's based off of the newer Atlas 14 storm events so it's over 9 inches of rain um and so we can contain that easily um with some room to
spare we get about 2500 uh cubic feet of storage within this gravel system here so along with that uh just on the entrance here there would be just a cobble apron to stabilize that entrance
um and and that's that's about it for the rent you know for what we're proposing um the leech and catch Basin would remain since it's already there just to provide a little bit of extra um infiltration it's already there no sense
in removing it um staff comments came back um there were fairly minor but there were a couple things one was to delineate the limo line here the limit of moderate wave action um I will submit a you know we can certainly submit a
followup plan for that um and just showing that that is this line here it double acts as the lmoa line uh additionally um it was caught that previously this shed that's up here in
this upper eastern corner here used to reside here it was moved here and this newer shed was was constructed uh so we do we would like permission to retain that shed um currently the ownership is
working with the building department to see what they need to get for a postao building permit for that and if they need to provide any kind of anchoring um or flood vents for that structure as well so um that is about it um with that
I guess I'll open it up to any questions um concerns from the commission excellent thanks Rob Alissa uh I have no questions at this time thank you all right
Fallen nothing to add thanks all right commissioner comments and questions Betsy yeah my only comment is this looks like it'll be a big Improvement but I'm going to beat Courtney to this uh what what maintenance plan do you
have do you have need to vacuum it out so unfortunately you know with you can't quite vacum it like you would with a perious pavement um so it's really just comes down to constant monitoring of it if
portions if you find that portions um suffer from a bit more sedimentation to others you may just have to come into like a early replacement system or removing it you know washing it and replacing it um it's it's going to be
that kind of Maintenance to it I think that we have enough size both horizontally and um volume metric storage of it that um you won't see too much of an issue you know I think the biggest sediments that we're going to see there is really sand um tracked in
um since we are almost in a dune system down here and you know that shouldn't shouldn't impact our storage too much at least in the sand sand can blow in also exactly okay that that was my only
question so I mean this looks like a good system but if it plugs up may as well have pavement there yeah well if it plugs up you know it's a little easier to clean up in in the long run you know you can you can get a
bat it pull it up reset it as required okay thanks that's all Jamie thank you Courtney uh just a minor question on the the the top level of um finish level
that you you show that plastic grid is what are you using pone there yeah and that's more or less just to match the top layer that's there now um over the pavement that's there that's kind of a p Stone so that would essentially just be put over there at
the top just to hopefully kind of hide the plastic grid and and I I I have the same concerns bety does I mean you know wind blown sand down there is always going to been an issue so you're going to have an ongoing maintenance thing so you might
want to what you might want to do is develop a maintenance plan a monitoring plan no other we it's a good project I think on the right track no other question
thank you Kevin no additional questions thank you Ron hey is there the same concern about on the west end on Walker Street are those catch basins over there enough to keep the the flooding or the rain inside your property the catch basins over there
seem to be doing an adequate job at the moment to between the what's captured by the catch basins and what runs off just into the lawn areas there doesn't seem to be any particular flooding coming off site from this side of the property it's really more this Thomas Lane um and
coming down the surf drive here all right thank you all Russ Steve no questions Mr chairman thank you all right Alissa is there anything in the public chat function
please there is a note from Jake rck he is the board chairman and he is here um Mr Rik if you would like to address the board could you raise your hand okay he raised his hand meanwhile can I ask a quick
question Jamie absolutely Mr deir is that correct yes yep um you you seem to indicate that you do have a a a maintenance plan that goes along with this could you could you send
that to Alysa to put in the record please yeah it is in the um drainage report that was sent over there but I can break it out so she doesn't have to sort through a 97 page report to find it um and send that separately yeah that
would be good yeah okay Alysa thanks all right problem Mr rhus you there just want to thank you for your time um I just want to say a couple of quick things
we the beginning of this process can anybody hear me yes do you have your video on please there we go thank you thank you um what initiated this process was a brand new parking lot that we uh installed that um the conservation team
was familiar with and there was a little bit of poor judgment because when we put down a 5inch seal underneath it eliminated that whole back area from Gaining water or letting water seep through so when this thing actually started to materialize which was about a
year ago we immediately figured out that that was the problem so removing that 5-in seal probably would eliminate our problem completely as of the last six months we've had no water issue we are bone dry
over there uh we had that heavy spring last year which compounded everything maybe blocked a few things up so this system that uh Robert is speaking about that we've talked about over the last several months is actually kind of a proactive
approach and the way I'm kind of looking at it as it's as we're a a permanent fixture in your community we are also as a board looking at the other side of the parking lot down by
where the other two catch basins are to if this is actually going to do the do it we're we'll probably may continue and do the entire other other area uh as we you know I can I can budget money out um
for that I've also spoke to your your concerns with the uh the construction um contract company who's going to be doing the work because there are bigger Stones except that go underneath the P stone that actually fill this system and if it
looks like the P Stones don't um cause issues they're not actually part of the system itself so we talked about possibly if it doesn't workc because it gets too congested we can literally brush those right off off it just looks
really nice right now so that's kind of where we are um when it comes to that piece stone is more cosmetic than actually part of the uh the the design itself that's a that's my two
cents all right in that case I'll make a motion I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take under advisement F second all right we have a motion in a second to close this hearing last call
questions and comments we're voting to close the hearing Betsy blood felter ey Courtney where ey Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Ron Chrisco I Russ Robins I Steve and
I it is unanimous we have closed this hearing thank you gentlemen I I have one more comment no well no it's not for the it's just it's nice to hear people are being proactive about issues like this well
what's going on at Beachside is actually uh we're the let's use the word guinea pig for the entire little community so I'm in I'm in communication with the surrounding owners to so they understand
exactly what I'm doing and how it may benefit them as they look at the same issues that may come to them okay so uh you know we're trying I'm trying to get that whole group down there in the
corner uh to be proactive because there is a lot of water that gets that gets on that street with or without us and we've got to figure out a way to uh make it happen make it make it better
you know so good project thank you yeah all right next up John and Lisa Alquist 43 nevs way f with mass for permission to reconstruct a dock
Alissa thank you yes I am promoting Mark dib from cap and Islands engineering and Brian Wall from Troy Troy Wall Associates I believe is the name um to represent the project I'm just grabbing everybody and you can take Mr Rish out yes sorry I thought I did that
wonder if the video screen is just Frozen okay all right Mr Deb you're up sir good evening everyone Mark dib with cap and Island engineering representing the applicant for 43 NES way in fouth um
we filed a notice of intent application to rebuild an existing Dock and add a ramp and float at the property with your permission I'd like to share my screen yes sir so again the property is 43 nees way um
you had recently seen a proposal for some Upland work at the property uh some invasive management along the coast uh and just some some Upland improvements um we are here today
to propose to rebuild the existing dock um the property sits on Great Pond to the southeast there is a salt marsh and Coastal Bank on the property um that slopes up to an existing uh rather large
uh concrete wall uh again the the the water body is uh Great Pond um it's a size sizable with water body we did provide some additional information uh that the Harbor Master was looking for just to confirm um
navigation aspects of the property a little background um the the house concrete patios concrete wall um was built approximately in 1970 um we could also tell that the wall
itself was built along with the house and uh there is an existing stairway that's like inset into the wall structure that came off the wall and down to the um down to the ground in this area of that's this red depicts the
existing stairwell that we believe was built um since it's inset into this wall we believe it was built at the same time as the house and um from there uh we also believe in reviewing Aerials and um
from some verbal communication with neighbors that the existing Pier was also in place from um aerial uh imagery we have from April of 19 1974 um as that being built and it was
actually a longer structure in the 74 area than what is out there today and there's also a couple of existing piles in the water um that we believe was an additional bent section we had a local
uh dock installer go out and review and and look at those piles and they had Hardware to reflect an additional bent section so that's what this this extra piece of red area on the existing dock uh
represents um so usage of the dock would have been as far as we can tell down down the existing stairs off the rather large uh concrete wall structure across the bank across through the vegetation onto the dock
um system and just to note this is um this is a velocity zone so we are looking to rebuild the dock uh an existing dock in the velocity zone so the actual proposal is to um rebuild the
dock um however in a less impactful location so what the the red represents the existing area of of of the proposed structures associated with the dock and the blue represents uh you know making
it having less impact you won't have to Traverse across the the Coastal Bank um you this Landing won't have to be on the Coastal Bank uh the end of this dock will not have to be halfway in and out of the salt marsh um so we're proposing
to just reconfigure the same area of existing dock um to reduce impacts uh to have a less impact than re rebuilding the actual dock uh in its existing place um lastly I if you if you were to
rebuild either the blue dock or the red dock um you know the the the functionality of of that dock uh based on water depths and just the the shape of it um we are proposing to add a ramp
and Float onto that to get to a depth of three feet and um which would reduce impacts from the actual use of a Bo boat in that area um you know so to summarize you know the
the intent is to rebuild the dock however it's also to um reduce impacts from rebuilding it we can span the Coastal Bank we don't have to uh potentially disturb uh the Coastal
Bank and you know that that is the proposal we did receive um staff report um we received that report uh earlier this week uh the Lim line is the velocity
zone line we can definitely add that to the plan um I think our narrative might have referenced the dock in existence from the early 70s um we have evidence from the on F
website it's uh April 197 74 is is um when we have definitely Visual Evidence of the ex doc existing um there's a a couple more comments maybe the staff could touch on those
um the yeah I'd like to end my presentation there if Brian Wall wants to um let staff review first or add something at this point he can um but I'll turn it over to the commission for now thank you
wow Mr wall you have anything you'd like to add at this point uh no thank you Mr chairman I I'll wait till after the staff and if there's if the commission has questions mark D stop sharing please thank
you all right Alissa great thank you hi Mark um just to confirm before we again I did not see a de number on their website do you know if you've received one for this project yet I did not see that either okay so um
at least for that reason we'll have to um continue this um I did note though that we did receive DMF comments so um they just to recap for the board I'm not sure if this was emailed to you um they did have concerns with the proposed work
being in shelfish habitat um but did stress should the project be approved um that float stops would be a benefit um also you know barge work restricted to around the high tidde schedule and doing as much as they can in the
Upland um mark thank you for clarifying where the limo is we're just starting to see that more and more on plans it's just good to know um and so you said that the reference you're using for the date
of the dock is our GIS photos the earliest one we have okay I think it's 75 but I'll I'll double check that um either way close enough um so the staff's perspective is that the project before you does not meet IR
regulations um the doc on site right now though it absolutely can be seen in Aerials even that historical portion can be seen in very early Aerials there is no local or state permit for the dock right now um typically when a project is
brought before you for um an enlargement and relocation of a dock you like to see that type of Permitting in place um unless it can meet your regulations and this does not um we do recognize that that historical section and those bent
peers um absolutely existed although I think we're all only using aerial photos as our evidence for this project and based on what I could tell it doesn't appear that that historic section can be seen in aerial photos since the 1990s so it really hasn't been a part of the dock
for several decades and I don't believe that really has any bearing on this project you know if someone had a a deck off the back of their house 20 years ago you don't take credit for that square footage now um I understand why you're proposing to relocate the dock um it certainly
does make more sense to connect it to that existing access however those staircase um going down towards the bank uh I don't think should be counted as dock square footage I understand it structure in a vzone but in terms of Doc square footage I don't think the two
should be mixed um similarly because this project is a dock and a velocity Zone it does very clearly state in our regulations that there is to be no expansion of these docs um and there was no variance request submitted with the application
um there's been no argument for how a public benefit is demonst ated through this I mean this is private property I don't see how one could exist um and though a shelfish survey was submitted it was not a full shellfish survey though they didn't find
many um much shellfish at this time um so it it's really up to the board if they would like to um explore perhaps permitting the structure that's there but please keep in mind that there has
been no local permitting only aerial photos can show that its existence is there um and there's I think the benefit to the environment would be removal of the structure in its entirety than making it four or five times bigger in a
velocity Zone um that is all I have at this time thank you all right Allen nothing to add Alyssa got it all thank you all right um I'm going to start with the intention of
a little bit of clarification um I think what we need to look at is the fact are we willing to grandfather the existing Doc and you know there's there's um photographic evidence that existed in 1974 I heard everything Alissa said no
disrespect to to your opinion Alysa um so for me it's kind of simple if we grandfather the existing dock the the new location is actually a much better uh way of having it because you're walking straight out you're not going down a set of stairs crossing a coastal
bank and then going back up in that regard I'm I'm for it I understand it has to be um out further to get the the water difference so um I agree with the float stops if we do
if we do approve it um and a a question to Mark I think is the bank in that that other permit the other order conditions is that being revegetated yes there's a invasive management and then restoration plan yeah I just it's been a while so I don't remember off the
top of my head all right so that's a benefit there too that that that Coastal Bank will be cleaned up revegetated um and in theory not trampled on again so those are my comments
Kevin uh no additional comments thank you Mr chairman all right Ron I'm all said thank you no comments all right Ross the only thing I've got is I don't remember and you know correct me if I'm
wrong but I didn't think we we we would allow somebody to replace something in kind you know from damage or storm or whatever else but I don't ever remember in a ve Zone anyway allowing additional
doc um that's I I kind of really appreciate um Alyssa's um comments and I agree with it so that's me all Steve
oh Mr chairman I agree with your comments and the question remains do we grandfather ad do and it obviously existed but for whatever reason didn't get perit no okay yeah no this is the
proverbial dilemma Psy so I'm gonna start I have a lot of comments but I'm gonna start with what Russ just said we have um
allowed previous docs you might call this grandfathering although I would say this is a big stretch because normally docks that we consider as grandfather docks had been ones that had been used
and maybe were damaged in the storm and so we're kind of shaky and then we allow them to rebuil rebuild they're always built in the exact footprint that of the prior
dock so I've never seen had had uh a project there never seen a project that came and asked for a little piece of a prior dock to be used to rebuild a
completely new Dock and a completely new dock in a velocity Zone which we don't allow yeah and even if you wanted to build in the velocity Zone you should be asking for a variance and there's no
there's no request for variance here and um the shellfish survey is completely inadequate and it's not acceptable and that's all I have for
now all right Courtney um I agree a lot with what Betsy has to say um first of all is this St uh the or the existing
doc from the 70s never at any time had any permitting on it there's no chapter 91 license there's no Town permit now I realized this was before conservation before our
bylaw and before we would have overseen stuff like that but there was no record of it but I agree with Betsy um that uh you know when we allow
rebuilding of docks we allow them in the you know be reconstructed in the same footprint in the same location um we're almost being we're almost looking at the the equivalent of the wedding at
kaan in which uh uh Jesus um converted water into wine so in case uh so in case the applicants want to take us all out for wine later you could follow that but what I'm suggesting is that
um you that's a real stretch to go to to say that that structure which was never permitted and on either locally or through the chapter 191 is something you're going to reconstruct you're it's call it call it a a spade a spade it's a
brand new dock yeah no nothing nothing iside it is a brand new dock as such it needs to meet our regulations and the first regulation that it violates is that you're not
allowed to build a dock in a velocity Zone 10.16 H1 unless you can show an overriding public benefit I don't they have not proposed
an overriding public benefit so as far as I'm concerned it's a no vote it's DOA Y and then I would agree with Betsy the shellfish
um uh methodology uses not the methodology that we approved to be a standard methodology the guy who did it never left his book but I would just ass soon save the
applicant the money of doing the survey right because I I would be in favor just turning this down on the basis that it doesn't meet our regulations on a on docs and a velocity Zone those are my comments Reverend has
spoken all right Alissa is there anything in the public chat function please there are no chats in the chat function and there are no hands raised I have one raised oh I'm sorry
Brian I'm looking in the chat no I just raised it Alyssa you didn't time um so if I may u Mr chairman through the chair um since there's no DP number we're going to be requesting a continuance and we'd like to submit some additional
information so we understand what 10161 H1 says that there can be no new dock or an expansion of an existing dock in a velocity Zone and it's our position that this dock did exist and that we're
simply trying to rebuild it in the same size albeit in a different location and unfortunately we were not able to get all the information available for you today and so we're going to be submitting some additional information for your consideration at the next
hearing and that information will clude I would suggest that Mr alquest has talked to two Neighbors in the area um direct neighbors actually and they are going to give us something in writing that says that the dock existed as far
back as 1963 one of them is going to say and the other one is going to say it's been there since 1965 and we did look at the submerged piles and the hardware on those piles is the same as on the hardware on the dock
that you can access above water and the neighbors that I just mentioned are also going to say that the dock extended another 20 feet um to a te and so it's going to be our position that it's an it is an existing Dock and I do understand what Courtney said and what um Betsy
said um it would have been a better case if we had a chapter 91 license and it doesn't but I know that this board has seen many many times you're well aware of the amnesty program it was back in the early 1990s it was not uncommon for for property owners to not know about
chapter 91 and to not get the license and with the dock being shown in a photo from 1974 and the neighbors telling us it's been there since 63 or 65 that predated the wetlands protection act in the wetlands bylaw the town adopted the
bylaw in 1979 so again it would be a better case if we had licenses and permits but we don't but I think we have some pretty strong evidence that the dock did exist and our contention is is that we're simply trying to rebuild it and we're not trying to expand extend it or build
a new Dock and that's why we think we qualify um for consideration we will get you that information next time so we will be asking for a continuance okay ala what do we have for date uh let me look
[Music] here Mark Brian how long were you thinking in order to obtain that information and get it over to us so I I think the information that I mentioned we can get relatively quickly but I'm
going to defer to Mark I think that was there any new information did you say you had to put the limo line on the plan Mark yeah the the limo line um I do want to talk to staff about the shellfish but
that's not too worried about that um I think we can do I don't see a big issue with doing March 12th uh it gives us a week do you think we need more time than that Brian as far
as plan work goes I you know there's not much yeah I'm sorry to talk about our our schedules and real time but I I have a conflict that night I have to be in mashby could we have the 19th or the 26th so we're not meeting the 19th but the 26 is available would that be okay
Mark yep great at the request of the applicant I'll make a motion to continue this till March 26th second we have a motion in a second to continue this until March 26 last call questions or comments we're voting on
the continuance Betsy what R Courtney bird I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Ron chisi Russ Robin ey Steve I thank you it is unanimous we have
continued this until March 26 thank you Mr wall I think Mr de dismissed us already oh he's still there um thank you thank you everyone good seeing you good seeing you again Mr Robbins thank you and you
Brian have a good night everyone thanks Brian all right Brian all right next up is a continued request for hearing under notice of intent has been previously
continued bear with me one second 3 five brings us to Moran trustee chowy Moran qualified personal residence trust 402 wildhaber Road Val with mass for permission to replace an existing concrete bulkhead
with vinyl piling and to conduct invasive species management and restoration and the Quorum excludes myself as I have recused but I'm going to stay on as
moderator because I know how much you guys love me so Alissa thank you I have PR and Mike belli with family with engineering and elain Johnson I'm sorry elain I don't know your company's name off the top of my head um to describe their project
excellent Mr Bell you're up sir thank you Mr chairman members of the commission for the record Mike belli fouth engineering I represent the applicant along with Elaine
Johnson and um this is a continued hearing we continued it after we uh made our initial presentation and received staff comments we subsequent quently um had a site visit with your staff made
revisions and we're back tonight with your permission Mr chairman I'd like to share my screen yes sir just a brief uh Refresh on the project the project involves the Reconstruction of an existing licensed
bulkhead I'm showing um where that bulkhead is located it's along the shoreline um of wild haror it currently terminates here there's been some attack
around the end so we're proposing to uh change the angle slightly uh landwood and extend it a little bit further landwood it is 8 ft away at the closest point uh to the edge of
ass salt marsh system that is shown here with the green lines and goes in a Northerly Direction this extension will uh mitigate against further uh attack around the end um when we uh designed this and we
looked at access for construction we met on site with the contractor Ben Carson of uh chip Schultz Marine Charles Schultz Marine I should say um and we
concluded that the most viable option for Access is from the driveway across this construction access which happens to go through a landscape area in an area where there's some uh vegetation that includes some trees and some
invasives so uh Elaine was um brought on board she was she's already uh intimately familiar with the property because she's she's done other projects with you with landscape design on other
areas on the lot I just I just went to a blowup um that construction access is here so this area is infested with uh invasive plant material there's some Oaks um some small uh small Pines that
need to be removed and a couple of East and red Cedars so we can gain access to do the work and then there's a plan um in this note says shaded are represents proposed management prer referred to the
plan by Elaine M Johnson for details and specifications on that uh restoration and invasives management um there was another um application from the past that required additional uh mitigation because the
shed was um enlarged and that mitigation had been proposed over here um where I'm circling in in the erosion due to the attack around the end eroded away that mitigation so uh with
uh the advice of your staff there was a proposal to um instead of uh replanting there we proposed to plant it um the same area but in another Lo
still within the a Zone and it's this band shaded here your staff um also pointed out at the original uh staff comments uh in the report that this dog fence was not permitted and it needed to be abandoned
and restored so that that is also proposed to um I have a note on here the Shaded area represents uh existing dog enclosure to be restored with Native Plant things and to remove the wire fence I believe the wire fence has already been removed so that's going to
be restored so um I the most recent staff comments from uh February 21st are very limited I'm going to take as staff support
um they're limited to two um staff cannot support the use of something called Coastal dog hobble that's a new one for me um a plant is it does not appear on the native to be not appear to be native to the region um I'm sure we
can remedy that and Elaine can work with staff um to come up with a substitute and the other only other uh staff comment was that we still have not received division of marine fisheries comments and and I don't really know why
U because it's been quite a while I'm hopeful I don't know what the vision of marine fisheries could have to say about replacing an existing licensed bulkhead um that but I'm hoping that we don't have to wait any longer for the division of marine fisheries comments and that we can
um if you are satisfied and it makes sense close the hearing tonight but that's not my decision to make I just don't know what they could come up with but we've been P been patient there's been a couple of continuances I I have no explan for why
they're not commenting perhaps no comment means they don't have any comments but um I defer to you for that I'm here for questions I'm G to not
stop sharing and Elaine needs wants to make some presentation I can share her plan and uh we can go through her plan as well if you'd like me to oh are you prepared for presentation
now yeah um Mike has kindly um agreed to do his screen sharing things since I'm afraid I would mess that up um good evening Mr chairman um Elaine Johnson as
um Mike introduced me I'm very familiar with the Moran property if I um think back to uh our last our initial hearing um I'm assuming that the board has very
few questions about that proposed planting to restore the construction area so that um the bulkhead can be rebuilt and um secured in that area and
we had talked about the planting plan for that at that time uh basically to review my notes we were removed moving six trees and I proposed to plant seven
um in addition to the shrubs that we had talked about um with relationship to the dog run uh both um Alyssa and Jennifer and uh Mike and also the Clover
landscape crew um took a look at that area and we are in total agreement that it will be rated the fence as we know it is long gone and the electrical conduits and all of that um paraphernalia will of
course be removed we have permission to remove three dead trees and also an underst story of invasive on the periphery um and Alysa would will recall our conversation about that area and
then I specified uh placing with native plants with some vertical diversity I understand that uh Luc oxis um is not on the list as a native in Massachusetts which is unfortunate because it's a very
nice plant and I use it in other areas all the time but that is not a problem of course I will just add those equivalent nine plants with adding more filia um inkberry and aronia as an
understory type planting in that area the other area is down by the beach that's an existing mitigation planting that was actually installed in 2014 and was actually revised and added
to and improved in 2020 um so in as much as it doesn't make sense to add the 309 Square mitigation uh amount for the shed which was the RDA in
2014 um I propose that we extend that planting um by widening that border as you'll see um on my plan and adding some low Shrubbery native planting in front of what's existing so
I think I actually have that border to be I'm trying to read my writing about um 70 ft long by 5T wide which is well over the 309 square feet that we
were requested to plant I think that's all I have to say any questions or comments all right thanks for sharing that Mike Alysa thank you um yes plans answered
all of staff's concerns um thank you Elaine for replacing those um plans with more of some of the other species in the area um as Mike stated yes I'm not aware that we've received any DMF comments as of um today I don't believe anything
came in either um I do think it is protocol that you typically do not close hearings without these types of comments I think based on the last hearing we were anticipating perhaps a time of year for horseshoe crabs um that's really all I have thank you
all right Fallon nothing to add thank you okay commissioner comments Ron we're gonna start with you I'm all set thank you all right Russ I'm all set looks like a good
project thank you Steve yeah I think we've seen this one enough thank you almost let's see I just have a question for Alysa is there a stat statutory time
requirement for the DMF comments um I could perhaps look through previous filings we might have gotten the same um type a letter in the past they've they've had a lot of projects over the years um so I could look into that time frame if that's enough for the
board we can just tack that onto the special conditions it's probably what we would do anyway we get the actual letter yeah so we could we could close it and say if there are any special conditions in in the DMF letter then add
them on they'll be added that there will be incorporated because it's really frustrating I can tell you to have a project that keeps getting delayed because of Permitting okay sounds like you have
some experience with that just a little Courtney uh I have no comments accept I likeo Betsy's suggestion that we close it and um you know insert any DMF
comments if appropriate yeah other than that it's a good project I don't have any issues with it Kevin uh no comments Mr chairman thank you all all right Alissa is there
anything in the public chat function please there is nothing in the public chat and there are no hands raised then I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement
second this is this is lovely project the lovely but we've all seen enough of it we're ready to move on well we love seeing you but thank you great all right you have a motion in a second
to close the hearing last call questions or comments all right you're going to vote to close this hearing Betsy left alter I Courtney bird I Kevin O'Brien I Ron
Chris Russ Robin Z Steve I it is unanimous with that Quorum you have closed the hearing thank you Mr belli thank you m Johnson thank you very much next up Thomas and MaryAnn villo 43
South View Way East fouth mass for permission to construct a dock and the Quorum excludes Ron Alissa yes Mike brael is still here to present his next project excellent
welcome back Mr Borelli thank you again Mr chairman members of the commission again for the record Mike belli fouth engineering representing the applicant this is again a continued hearing it was continued uh I believe
mainly because we had not heard from another agency um in this case um this isn't priority habit the pond itself is in priority habitat so there's an entity called Misa uh also known as a natural
heritage um and it's when in priority habitat we must file the notice of intent application with them um they have a streamline review and um if you file the notice of attent you they
uh will uh comment within 30 days at the last hearing it hadn't been 30 days and they hadn't commented at this hearing um they have not commented and the letter basically says that there'll be no environmental take is the phrase
they use meaning it's not there will be no impact to uh the priority habitat which I believe in this case is the infamous tied water mucket which is a freshwater muscle
um so uh in in uh just brief summary this is a proposed um uh Landing with a one fixed uh Pier section and then a ramp in a float measuring 8 by 122 that'll uh provide for uh passive
Recreation on Flax pond it's similar to excuse me Mike you're not sharing I don't know if you ask if I can share my screen there you go thank you should be seeing my plan which shows a small Landing uh ramp and an 8x12
float it projects out about 32 ft from Shore the plan also shows um a profile and it shows the one section of fixed pair ramp and Float it'll be um secure to the Bottom by 4in Galvan steel
pipes there's a typical cross-section for the fixed Pier section um you you've reviewed and approved I think three or four of these in the past five years that I've submitted um this is very similar it seems to be a trend on Flax Pawn to gain
access typically for kaying um canoing and things like that and I mean swimming off this flow so passive Recreation is the intention um there were some in addition to continuing because of the uh not not having any comments from uh
natural heritage um there were some staff comments that I think we've addressed uh um except for one which I'll I'll get to which I'm hoping you can still close because it's minor um there's an existing slate there was an
existing slate walk I should say here if I I can zoom in on that it it's just it's just from the grass area it's the beginning access to this path it really doesn't serve any purpose um they removed that slate because it was not
permitted and it would T it would require mitigation because it's it's impervious so they removed it um in addition to that uh Mr villo had had a um a uh kayak rack and there's some
photos in the staff report if you could if you want to refer to them it's basically was some cinder blocks with some uh I think 2x4 cross members laying on top of the cinder blocks and he just laid The Kayaks across that there was a
uh that too has been removed um there was one uh final uh request that we show the no disturbance Zone from the edge of the uh Inland Bank and it's a 100 foot no disturbance Zone because your regulations say that it
incre increases to 100 ft if you are in priority habitat which we are um finally there was a revised staff report um that says please submit a revised plan showing on the depiction of the
remainder of the path I think I think by that U Alysa meant that I there's a secondary path it's not really a path but it was sort of a uh temporary path
that was created by um some equipment um but there was some permission to remove some trees and the path was where the where um the Workman walked through here cut the tree and
dragged out the pieces of uh tree so I can show that on the plan but that is not used and we expect that'll just reestablish itself self as the buffer this is basically a typical Woodland
under story with Brier uh Briar and things um up to this point up here and this primary path will be the only path on the on the property um we were asked to submit a photo that
the kayak rack was removed which we can certainly do and I think that sums it up I'm happy to take questions thanks Mike Alissa thank you um yes thanks Mike um
for the information about the path um I think just putting a note on the plan saying that you know it was used for tree removal and it'll just revegetate naturally we'll be fine um and then whenever you guys are able to send over a photo of that that would be
great thank you bon nothing to add thank you all right commissioner comments Russ you're on the hot seat make it easy I have no
comments Steve no it seemed to responded to the staff's questions and everything's all set so I'm set what let's see no comments cour courney unlike the
previous doc application no comments Kevin no comments Mr chairman thank you wow all right Alissa is there anything in the public chat function please there are no hands raised and
nothing in the chat all right it's like a press conference no comment all right what are you thinking folks um I'll make a motion to close the heing take it under advisement well
filter second all right we have a motion in a second to close the hearing last call questions or comments we're voting to close the hearing Betsy quad pter ey Courtney bird
ey Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robin ey Steve p i it is unanimous with this Quorum we have closed this hearing once again thank you Mr belli thank you Mr chairman thank you
Commissioners and have a good night thanks night Mike night Mike all right next hearing has been previously continued brings us to Ronaldo Andre zero Central Avenue map
and parcel ID is 32-4 -4- 002 East fouth mass for permission to construct a single family dwelling and install a Title 5 sewage Disposal system on an undeveloped lot
Alysa thank you yes Mark tib is here to present his project and Mark I am trying to promote Jake I believe he's joining you yes um he has declined do want me to send it again
all right Mr dib you're up Sir hang on one second I'm gonna try to get Jake he's just he's just down the hall sorry can you send a request again Alissa real quick he was gonna be doing the presentation so
yeah Jake if you can hear me just click on the window that's popping up all right while you're stalling I'll just offer that the Quorum is all of us because this had not been opened Jake is coming on there he is hi Jake hello sorry about
that it was hiding behind another window oh no worries there's too many windows on Zoom there's too many windows all right uh so I'm uh as Mark indicated I'm doing the presentation uh good evening my name is Jake fricky I'm
professional land surveyor with Cen Islands engineering representing Ronaldo Andre for a project for this project on Central Avenue we filed this notice of intent application D number 25-55 to construct a dwelling on the
property and with your permission I would like to share my screen yes [Music] sir all right um the project that uh that we have for
you tonight is on Central Avenue uh this is on the Northerly portion of Central Avenue on the East side this is a a primarily vacant parcel uh which which has a little panh handle that extends over to Central a and then it is a sort
of a back lot situation the surrounding resources for this parcel are land under the ocean land containing shellfish being eel Pond and then there is a salt marsh which runs along the bottom of the Coastal
Bank and wraps around some there is also a bvw which extends into the Northerly portion of the lot here we have a Coastal Bank uh that runs along the eel Pond and then curls cuts across the lot runs off the lot to the South and then
curls and comes back and runs off to the north this uh there's also land subject to Coastal storm Flowage we have a velocity Zone pe14 we have an azone ae12 and then a X500
andx as well the lmoa runs consistent with the velocity Zone in this area we're showing a 25 foot fwr velocity Zone off of that line there
we're also showing a 100 foot fwr buffer zone from the salt marsh a 50 foot FW from the BBW and a 50 foot FW from a portion of the Coastal Bank
we're also showing 100 foot FWB from the bvw over here and 100 foot FWB from this Coastal Bank in this area here this is a this is a primarily
undeveloped partial wooded lot um with an existing vehicle track that runs across through here down to a turnaround down at the top of the Coastal Bank with a small path that leads down to the
water uh please note that concurrently with this we are also developing a subdivision plan and so we're showing future lot lines as dashed here and this is called sack here and
the future lot line for our parcel that we're discussing today runs through here and we're showing those uh just to understand the sort of the the area that we're working with on this the proposed development includes a
four bedroom singles family dwelling with an attached garage deck and small patio and a driveway that leads out to Central Avenue we're showing traditional 5 septic system to service the house and dry Wells to catch the roof runoff the
existing turnaround seaword of the proposed dwelling is to be restored except for a 5 foot wide path leading down to the water the 12- foot ride driveway coming out of the house here runs parallel to
the property line and is graded substantially to match the existing conditions there to minimize impact P we're showing a leech and catch Basin at the low point of the driveway here to capture any runoff that that
comes down these slopes because it's sloping down this way and sloping down this way and uh we're showing a Cape Cod burm on the Northerly side to ensure that any any runoff that's going down that portion of the driveway is captured this driveway in this area here
crosses a Coastal Bank in two places with a total area of 530 square feet to compensate for this uh we are proposing to rate the existing vehicle track in
this area between the two tops of the coastal Banks which is about 1230 Square fet uh this existing vehicle track is about 100 feet from the BBW and the new proposed driveway is around 127 ft from
at the closest point and that we feel while the imper the proposed driveway is impervious versus the uh Earth in vehicle path that the paved driveway will have a lower impact
longterm as there will be uh little potential for erosion and all of the runoff will be contained and sent underground uh and let's see so there's a limit of work which runs along on the
the south side of the property here loops around to the North and then runs this way out to the street and and that limit of work is also the
limit of clearing for this project all of the work except for the restoration planting of this turnaround here and this piece of the vehicle path over here is within
either the FWB or outside of the jurisdiction in this area and so no uh mitigation planting is proposed at this time that total of the restoration planting is around 2200 square
feet we did receive some staff comments and I will address them the first comment was in relation to a small metal skiff which is a appeared in the salt marsh down in the vicinity of the end of this path and we can make sure to have that boat removed
as part of the project secondarily staff is concerned that the restoration planting of the vehicle path in this area uh is off of the proposed lot and that upon the
division of the land that it would be difficult to ensure that that work was completed it is our opinion that the order of conditions would run with the entire tract of land until a certificate of compliance was issued and any parcel created during the period of that open
permit would be subject to that order of conditions as filed staff also indicates that their opinion is that a Coastal Bank is a continuous landform and should be treated with a uniform buffer as I sort
of discussed this this has got a different buffer in this area than it does over here and I will expand upon that now we're showing a uh the BBW runs in here and there's a Coastal Bank which
is adjacent to it and that Coastal Bank at to at that point has a 50 foot a once this Coastal Bank departs from the bvw and extends to the South we're showing that it just has a 100 foot B but no
azone as it is no longer adjacent to the land form to the to the BBW this Coastal Bank the bottom of this Bank runs completely off the lot uh and it is furthest point is about 175 fet
from the bvw um while it's well understood that adjacent is considered to be close or near something there's actually no definition of adjacent in the fouth wetlands bylaw um but we do note that in
fwr 10.18 5A 4A that non- eroding Coastal Banks not in a velocity Zone with a slope greater than 4:1 and not adjacent to other Wetland resource areas as defined a through e but within 100 feet
of other Coastal resource areas um as defined by this have a 25 foot a and while this does not give us the definition of adjacent it it is it it clearly identifies that the distance for adjacent must be some distance
significantly l less than 100t or they wouldn't have noted that um we feel that as the bank clearly departs from the Wetland and runs to the South and exits the lot before coming back again it's not adjacent and should not be shown with the uniform 50 foot a but rather
with a variable 50 and then 100 foot B this type of variable resource area has been approved before in 2021 there was a project at 188 git road which has a coastal Bank on the Northerly side of the lot which is shown as being
variously adjacent to a isolated Wetland and in the portion which it is adjacent the buffers change this was also shown in a project in 202 at 20 in 2010 at 94 oyster Pond Road similar situation where
there is a a Coastal Bank and the salt marsh runs along the bottom of it for a portion and then departs to the South and at that point the buffer zones are reduced as the bank is no longer adjacent to the other resource
area uh finally staff notes that the subdivision um is not official and the Lots could be reconfigured so that the driveway does not cross the bank uh while we understand this in theory uh a reconfiguration of the Lots would not
avoid the bank as the bank extends entirely across the lot from in this area uh and so what we're showing here is to propose the driveway as far away from the bvw as possible which it's
approximately 127 feet um finally staff notes that uh that there is no driveway and that uh it is only this existing vehicle track um but which is unpermitted uh based on publicly
available Falmouth Aerials the vehicle track has been existent since at least 1968 which predates the wetlands protection act as well as local bylaws our position is that the track while technically unpermitted is a grandfathered use and by moving that use
further from the BBW we're substantially improving the conditions we feel this project substantially conforms to the fouth Wetland bylaw and is consistent with previously approved projects at this point I'll stop sharing my screen and be happy to answer any additional
questions thank you Jake Mark is there anything you'd like to add at this point no I'm good for now thank you sorry is there anything you'd like to add I think he he said he's good he's
good sorry thank you bissa thank you um hi Jake thanks for explaining all of that for us and for addressing the um boat down at the end we can certainly just condition that getss removed during the project um just to run through again the
staff comments um staff did have concerns with the buffer zones as described on the property um though Jake has explained some examples I really can't speak to those at the moment um the way it's been described to me and
the way that Jen has routinely argued against the changing of buffer zones on a contiguous land form is that as Jake described the bank is coming up on the seaword side wrapping around and taking out most of that middle of the property
um Jen and I were just in a meeting last week advocating for the fact that that uniform that that buffer should be uniform throughout the entirety of the landform um perhaps it very well maybe have may have been approved in the past I'm not sure what the argument was at that point
and if that lot was already um partially developed this is not the case here here this is a completely undeveloped lot aside from that pathway um though I understand there are
proposed Lots divided out at this time there the board should not feel pressure to permit this lot with the driveway over the Coastal Bank should you find that that is against the regulations it is a resource area I understand the path
is there it has never been permitted um it's larger than a path than you would typically allow through a resource area um and it will be paved as described um I do recall when this property was up for sale several years ago there were a couple plans floating
around there were several potential buyers talking to us and the staff repeatedly informed these potential buyers that this Eastern portions of the property simply may not be developable that Coastal Bank was very apparent in the topography on GIS and we simp
weren't sure if a home could be proposed in that eastern half of the property um and then in regards to the restoration plantings um it's great that something is being offered to offset um
I I admit I don't know quite how all the recording will work so we did have concerns if the order will be recorded on all future um Deeds of these Lots however should we see a proposal in the future for future Lot B which is where
most of that planting is proposed it's very possible we could get a design to us and then they want to change where those plings are going um it just could be an Ever evolving process um I think that's all I have for now but
thank you Fen nothing to add thank you okay Steve we're gonna start with you thank you Mr chairman um my concern and I don't know if it's appropriate is
more with the future development of this entire parcel as briefly mentioned by Alyssa in her comments about the need to maybe relocate um mitigation or other other tools for
the future so it seems should have a better picture of the of the proposed development at this point that's my view thank you okay
Betsy uh Jake could you put your plan back up again yes hang on I'll tell you what my concern is f first of all the the Coastal Bank the top of the Coastal Bank the Coastal Bank is a a
contiguous land form but my concern is for the people who live in 30 River Haven Lane if there's a big uh flood that water's just going to be
pushed up in in that area and that's I mean that's what the role of a of a Coastal Bank is and so um I'm a little concerned with with having the road dip through that you know down the
Coastal Bank and up The Other Side Y so I have to think more about it but that's what my concern is that's all Jamie all right Jake if you would stop sharing yes please and I guess I would like to say in response to
Betsy that the the proposed grades along that driveway are primarily in coincidence with the existing grades and so any uh flooding issues that may currently be happening on 30 River Haven would not be substantially different pre
and post driveway okay Courtney um mostly on the lot lines um the solid lines on your drawings are the existing lot Langs and the dash are proposed is
that the way I read your plan no that that's correct okay so um your mitigation there for that road uh is on a separate lot than existing lot than the where your
proposed house is is that correct that's correct but at this at this time it is all one lot so I'm just concerned that because the wor that mitigation is on an
ex a different lot when it comes time for the order conditions that has to apply to both of those lots and so I think do you follow what I'm saying and and we need a permission from the LW owner not granted may be the same but we
need the paperwork that that you see in the the the paper trail a guarantee so that you know when everything's gets res subdivided all that stuff doesn't get lost in the
shuffle so I you know I I understand your concern however you want to do that I just I'm I won't be comfortable with an order of conditions until that my concern is satisfied other than that I have no
other questions all right so Jake first I'm G to say welcome to the team you did a great presentation so we appreciate it very thorough you did your research um I have similar concerns with this lot you're saying that it's it's
one lot at the moment so you could you could mitigate anywhere on it um but I agree when it gets divided it becomes a whole different issue um and just to be clear you're saying that that that development is not subdivided at the moment
correct I'm sorry you sort of faded out in the middle of your question there the that property has not been subdivided yet correct that's correct we're being asked to look at a at a project on how many acres that is in its
entirety so that that's kind of confusing to me um I have issues with that with stone water storage there you know that's in a in a in a um um what the word I want is um it's in a Swale at
the moment you're going to fill that Swale you said you're going to bring it up to adjacent grades so you are going to change storm water flow um I mean that's what it looks like to me
um my last comment is this is perfect property to have a denitrification system be really nice to see something like that yeah my two cents Kevin um nothing to add other than there
just too many questions yeah Ron yeah it's I I have concerns about the the the mitigation being in the in the middle and possibly being transferred to another lot um I think there's some way they could you could we could put it in order of conditions that
you have to if you subdivide that lot you have to either change the mitigation or or continue it somehow be able we should be able take care of that but um other than that you have a lot of questions on the property but uh that's all I have to say that's a good point could there be a
deed restriction on the new laot if it's all the same owner at the moment you know yeah okay thank you for that Russ we got nothing right now thank you all right Alissa is there anything in the public public chat function
please there are no hands raised and nothing in the public chat right what are we thinking um all right Courtney yeah are we gonna be comfortable closing this without that uh issue of the lots and the
jurisdiction and and where the mitigation is going and so forth until we have some kind of clear document on that I I'm personally not comfortable closing it so I see something that's that's a legal document that makes this
very clear what's going on know I mean procedurally that's just me it's they have a proposal in front of us so close it it doesn't mean we agree with it
um want to continue and look at at a different avenue that's fine too I'll get right to you Mark and but if we contined it we'd only be continuing it until we got that documentation that's all because we I think we've settled all
the other issues but we don't continue things it's the applicant who who requests to continue all right Mr dib uh thank you uh again Mark dib
um I would like to just pull the Commissioners on the buffer zones I think uh you know Jake did a great job presenting the buffer zones shown on the plan and we're we like confirmation that
the commission agrees with the buffer zones shown on the plan or not I don't if if anybody has concerns about those um because it it is a major basis for the design and I just also wanted to uh
kind of mention that we're proposing to restore the path because we will no longer or the vehicle you know path because we will no longer need it um technically though it's not mitigation so I just wanted to kind of differentiate that um you know we're
trying to restore it but technically this project is uh does not trigger that per se as mitigation but um I defin we definitely want to pull the commission on on the buffer zones um because that does affect the proposal uh pretty
significantly thank you Alissa do you have something on that uh just that the staff comments stand um I I really can't speak to the projects that were used as examples um I don't have that off the top of my head I
I do recall 188 git very well simply because it was a extreme large property is there's a lot to look at that could have been missed I I don't know if really if it was a topic of discussion um I just know that the staff has routinely argued
against um changing the buffer Midway through a resource area that's all all right Jake what are you thinking I think that we would would like to request
continuance till March 12th so that we can address some of your concerns and maybe look into legal avenues for ensuring that the restoration planting on uh the of the
vehicle path there is for sure going to get done even if the lot is divided okay Alissa is the 12 available I believe so let me double check yes we're advertising that today there's not
much on it um I did have a quick followup for Jake if I may absolutely um so when this order is recorded presumably on on the entire lot um because there aren't it's not subdivided yet how would this work after compliance
there would be plantings required from one property but situated on the other you know so if when that second property came to us for something in the future as much as we all know that those plants were tied to something it's no longer tied to you know I'm trying to say I don't I
don't know all the legal terms I guess to express my concern there right I I understand your concern and you know our position is that uh that that order of conditions runs with the whole parcel uh any Parcels divided out of that would still be subject to that order of
conditions or s sort of overing just like if you had a a large property that had a an easement running across it if you divided out that lot that easement wouldn't just disappear because you cut it up into pieces that that thing would
still exist as an underlying uh encumbrance upon the lot until such time as it was released and in this case the order of conditions would be released at the time of the certificate of compliance okay thank you and Jake did you guys get um
planning board approval on the subdivision no we we have not uh gotten to the planning board yet and the reason that we're even showing these lot lines on this for this discussion is just so that you could sort of understand where where we were headed with this uh so
sort of information more information is is good in this case so have you even applied to planning no so for our purposes we're really looking at this is one lot yes I know you said that I'm just
pointing out the obvious here okay all right so we have a request by the applicant for continuing till March 12 so I'll make a motion to uh continue this till March 12th March second all right we have a motion in a second to
continue this till March 12th last call questions a comments for voting on the continuance Betsy BL filter ey Courtney I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Ron RIS I
Russ Robins I Steve m i it is unanimous we have continued this until March 12th thank you Jake thank you Mark you absolutely have a good evening thank you good evening that's interesting all right
next up continued request for hearing for certific certificate of compliance that had been previously continued brings us to continued hearings under an enforcement order first up Jane F 2622 and Z Shore viiew Avenue map and parcel
ID is 39- 02 C- 000000 d504 fou Mass unpermitted removal of salt marsh vegetation and un permitted reconstruction of a deck within conservation jurisdiction Alissa yes the staff is recommending a onewe continuance um we
are still working through communication with the homeowner to determine next steps and a more proper time frame for a a continuance and we have room for that next week we do um and again the reason I say one week is just so we can keep
talking about it you I don't believe you'll see anything next week um but dat is that March 5th yes yeah at the request of the applicant um we'll EXT
we'll continue this to March 5th for second all right we have a motion on a second to continue this till March 5th questions or comments we're voting on the continuance Betsy BL felter I
Courtney bir I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Ron RIS Russ Robin I Steve p i it is unanimous we have continued this until next
week and so the next two I'm going to read together we're going to open them simultaneously because they're jent properties it'll become clear once we get into it um but just so you know we're only going to vote once but we're
we're going to open both of so it is the first is Patrick Burke trustee Church Street trust 158 Church Street down with mass unpermitted removal of vegetation within the buffer to a Coastal Bank along with John Cook
trustee John C cook 2009 trust 170 Church Street down with mass unpermitted removal of vegetation within the buffer to a Coastal Bank Alissa yes I was speaking today with one of the homeowners Representatives they would like to continue the hearing out
until March 12th they would like to come before you with a full restoration plan um and they just need a little more time for that so moved of the applicant I'll move to continue this till the 12th of March second there you
go oh okay all right we have about six motions in a couple of seconds so we're going to continue this until 3:12 and again this is is uh 158 and 170 Church
Street all right so questions or comments we're voting on the continuance Betsy gladfelder ey Courtney bir ey Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Ron RIS I
Russ Robins ey Steve m i it is unanimous we have continued both properties both enforcement orders two three 12 and that brings us to 58 Westwood that been previously continued so we are
at BO orders of conditions Jeffrey V 47 lak Shore Drive East Alou Mass Alysa and I'm sorry the Forum excludes Ron sorry Ron
uh so this project is the Reconstruction of the staircase down the buffer to the Inland Bank um as you might recall from the plan there was an existing concrete um staircase for lack of a better word at grade um it is in disrepair and the
applicant is the new homeowner and they would like to construct a wooden structure um throughout the buffer of the backyard down to access the water um due to the increase in impervia Surface by the staircase in addition to the deck
on I believe it's the north side of the house um there is a mitigation requirement the applicant has found room within the vegetated buffer to sustain new mitigation um there are a few invasives
in the area namely Ivy um that he will be eradicating during that process the applicant has removed the concerning features from the plan that I believe the commission and staff shared there was previously you know a new retaining
wall and some rip wrap and all that's been removed um at the end of the day staff does have a few lingering concerns um given the steepness of the bank I'm not quite sure how all the plantings will be maintained it's also very difficult to
tell in the winter If there really is an underst story or not um but and then um it is a very large structure going down the buffer um I think the landings can be interpreted as deck features and thus moving closer um but
I'm not sure if the board shared any of those concerns I'm fine with the project as it is and I'm willing to put forth a motion to accept as the plan was given to us with the the only thing
is I I would say to confer with him about what the watering plan will be sure I think we briefly talked about a drip line just to make it a easier he said he might want to do a drip line you know that'd be easier than moving from
place to place with a host right I'll second the motion bird all right so Betsy that was a proper motion issue an order of conditions okay yes all right so we have a motion and a
second issue an order of conditions as discuss any other input questions comments requirements all right we're voting to issue an order of conditions Betsy what filter ey Courtney bir ey Matthews ey
Kevin O'Brian I Russ Robins ey Steve I it is unanimous we have issued an order of conditions thank you last motion who wants it I'll make a motion to
adjourn second O'Brien black felter ey bir ey 's ey Ryan I CH I Robins I I it is unanimous
we are adjourned [Music]