Heat. Heat. Good evening. Welcome to the January 14th, 2026 meeting of the Falmouth Conservation Commission. This meeting is being held virtually via Zoom video conference and is also being broadcasted 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 and how you say it and what can be seen and heard in your background. We are missing one commissioner and one will be late. We have a quorum, so be
moving forward. I would like to remind the commissioners that for commenting I will call on each of you in turn. So please refrain from speaking over each other. Also all votes are done by roll call. So when I call your name please state your name and your vote for the record even if you've
made the motion or second. To our public attendees at any time during this meeting you may enter comments via questions at 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'll be promoted into the hearing as a participant. When you're selected, you must have your video enabled, be succinct, and respectful of others. Public comments will be limited to 3 minutes each. Regarding RDAs, under a request for
termination of applicability, the applicant is asking the commission to determine if the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetland Act and or the Falmouth wetlands bylaw apply to the proposed project. A negative determination is that the provisions of the act and or bylaws do not apply.
Therefore, the project may proceed as proposed. A positive determination means that the provisions of the act and or bylaws do not fact imply and or may require some conditions. Therefore, the project require notice of intent application. So, as an applicant, you
want to hear a negative determination. For the benefit of anybody waiting for a particular hearing tonight and so that you're not waiting unnecessarily, the following hearing is expected to be continued. 52 Oyster Shell Land, Damoth, Mass.
All right. So, to get started, we need a vote in the minutes for December 10th, 2025. >> Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve of the minutes. I've reviewed them and Steve Patton.
>> Frisco second. >> Got a motion or a second. Any questions? Hearing none. I'll call the roll. Jim >> I McGrath >> Steve >> Patton I >> Ron
>> Driscoll I >> Dave >> H >> I >> Duffy I motion passes next. >> Sorry Mr. Chairman did you say December 25th? You didn't >> December 10th 202. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. >> No worries.
>> Merry Christmas. and a vote on the minutes for January 7th, 2026. Mr. >> Chairman, I move the approval of the minutes of January 7th. Patton >> Driscoll second. >> Got a motion and a second. Any questions?
Hearing none, I'll call the roll. Jim >> McGrath I, >> Steve, >> I, >> Ron, Driscoll, I, >> Dave, Tai, >> and Duffy I. Motion passes. The minutes have been added to the record.
Next, we have a request for continuance under notice of attention builders, 52 Oyster Shell Lane, East Falmouth, Mass, for permission to enlarge the existing deck and install the associated mitigations. Again, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, the applicant's
requesting a continuence until next week, January 21st. >> Continue request continues to 26 20 First second >> motion to second. Any questions?
I'll call a roll. Jim >> McGrath I >> Steve >> Patton I. >> Ron >> Crystal I. >> Dave >> Pence I. >> Duffy I. Motions passed. Request to continue till January 21st has been
approved. >> All right. So request for determination of applicability Fmouth Beach Hotel Reality Trust 321 Shore Street, Falmouth, Mass >> for permission to construct landings, walkway, and install ADA compliance
features. Lissa >> 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. >> Friscoll so moved. Patton second. >> We've got a motion, a second. Any questions? And I had a question um with
the film conserv cons conservation commission regulations and the ADA compliance uh who wins? >> So we don't have any ADA compliance regulations but since the project solely takes place in a flood zone if they would like to propose something you know larger smaller than we see on other
properties it's it's permissible. >> Okay. Thank you. All set. >> All right. So we have a motion and a second. Call the role. Jim >> I. >> Steve. I >> Ron >> Driscoll I >> Dave >> Tai
>> and Duffy I motion passes. All right. So for notice often all hearings of the Falmouth Conservation Commission are held simultaneously. >> Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. >> I forgot. >> Did we miss 75 Reynolds? >> We did. Sorry. We have a continued
request for determination of applicability. Scott Michelle, 75 Reynolds Street, Felmouth, Mass. for permission to construct an addition and porch in to reconstruct a deck. Melissa, >> the applicant has requested a
continuence until January 21st. >> So move patent. >> Driscoll second. >> A motion a second. Any questions? Hearing none. We'll call the role. Jim >> McGrath I. >> Steve >> I. >> Ron
>> Chrislly. Dave >> Hi and >> Duffy I motion passes to continue till January 22nd 21st. >> Perfect. Thank you. Now all hearings of the Falmouth Conservation Commission are held
simultaneously under the authorities of the Massachusetts Wetland Protecting Act and the Falmouth Wetlands bylaw. Although a single decision of the commission is issued, it represents a separate decision under each authority. As a reminder, public commenting is limited to three minutes. So I encourage
you to stay within the purview of this board, which are the rules and regulations of the Wetlands Protection Act in the Falmouth wetland bylaws and how they pertain to a particular application. The chair reserves the right to stop any commenting that is disparaging or inconsequential to
hearing. Please know that all correspondence received by the conservation department is forwarded to all commissioners and becomes part of the record. We will not read each and every letter received at a hearing. Remember, our jurisdiction is that of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act
and the Falmouth wetlands bylaws, not zoning, health or building. All right. So request of no intent. We have Michael and Pamela Backreck Trustees Backreck Family Living Trust 197 Shawwood Drive, Falmouth, Mass
for permission to raise an existing single family dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling with detached garage. Jen, >> uh, yes, Mr. Chairman, I do not see BSS design in attendees at the moment. I'm
sure they're coming. Can we table this? You'll need a motion to table. >> Motion to table. It's till later. Driscoll second. >> Any questions? All right. The motion to table. Jim >> McGrath I. >> Steve
>> B. I. >> Ron >> I. >> Dave >> Hen's eye. >> Duffy. I motion to table is passed. Next. William and Elizabeth Scandal. 314 Quisadav Falmouth Mass for permission to
construct invasive species management and install restoration plantings. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am promoting Mike Borcelli from Felmouth Engineering and I just saw Nick Crawford. Yeah,
there we go. And Nick Crawford from Crawford Land Management to present their projects. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, for the record, Mike Boriselli, Felmouth Engineering, representing the
applicant along with Nick Crawford. I'm going to just open up the hearing and turn it over to Nick. Uh, I'm going to share my screen very briefly. I'm sharing with you the town GIS map shows uh highlighted in green the
property in question. It it is um property with frontage on Quissit A uh Quisset Avenue and Quissit Harbor. Um there's a a large uh residence that's currently under renovation in this
location. There's another carriage house further to the east in this location. It has frontage on Quissit Avenue. The um it is surrounded um by um a coastal bank
portions of which are armored. Um there's an existing dock. This commission issued an order of conditions in the recent past to uh reconstruct that dock. Uh this commission also issued an order of conditions to do some
significant property improvements including a re reconfiguration of the driveway um construction of a pool and a pool cabana. You've also um issued a couple of RDAs for minor activities on the main house
and some um activities associated with the the carriage house. Um now we're here um for permission to do some other improvements on the property. In this case, the um coastal bank that surrounds the uh
entirety of the property on the Quisad uh frontage is um full of invasive plant material and the applicant is hoping that you can approve an extensive invasives management
program that has been designed by Crawford Land Management. ment. Uh we provided for the file the overall master site plan and on this site plan I show
highlighted in green the areas of invasives that are basically from the top of the coastal bank seawward to the toe of the bank. Uh uh and the methodology details, protocols
and all of the uh details associated with the work are outlined on the technical plan uh prepared by Crawford Land Management. There's not really much more for me to
say. Uh the area of expertise is Nick's and um I'm going to stop sharing but I'm available for questions and I'll turn it over to Nick. >> Thanks Mike. Uh good evening everyone. Nick Crawford from Crawford Land Management. Um
uh so what we have here is a a fairly straightforward invasive species management project. Um the total area um proposed for restoration is approximately 42,000 square ft. Um, of
this approximately 33,600 of that is um, highly invaded with invasive species including uh, the usual suspects, honeysuckle, border privet, uh, oriental bittersweet, porcelain
berry, multifllora, rose, etc. Um there's a few pockets of um native vegetation on the coastal bank and that's what makes up the difference between the 42,000 and the 33,000 ft. Um
as far as canopy trees on site, um there are a mix of native canopy trees that are um red maple, black oak, eastern red cedar, American holly, black tupelo. Um there's
currently 10, well it says in 11 invasive trees on site that we would be flush cutting and treating. Um but I'd just like to clarify it's actually 10. One of the 11 um you know in quote uh invasive trees was
actually just a large private we noticed when we went out to flag the vegetation. >> One second. Is there do you want to share a plan? >> Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. >> Uh, let's see here. Share.
Did that work? There we go. Okay. Share. What am I sharing here? Go. And now you can all see. I'm sorry. not the bestest at this.
Um, can you see anything? >> We can see the agenda, Nick. >> Okay, perfect. All right, so let me just zoom in on this uh or zoom out a little bit so you can get the total extent.
>> So this is the entire site. Um all the areas that are proposed for restoration are in gray. Um the areas that have uh a healthy or
decent native plant community um at this current time are in the darker gray. Um when uh we would propose to restore this, you know, 100% of the native species would remain. Um,
so like I said, out of that 42,000 square ft, approximately 33,000 of it is proposed for invasive species management. Um, there's minor invasives to remove from the areas that are exhibiting the native plant communities
currently. Um, hold on, sorry, just got a lot going on on my screen. So um in a nutshell the way the work would be completed is all the work would be completed from the top of the coastal
bank. Um, we would use uh uh low impact um footprint uh tracked equipment from the top of the bank to aid to aid in um bringing
material up the bank after it's been cut and treated and to get it to a brush container on site. Um all the work on the bank itself would be completed by hand and all the um herbicide
application would be completed by um licensed applicators. Um, in addition to the removal of all the invasive species, there's one eastern red scener cedar at the corner of um
the house as you pull up the driveway that we would just like to prune to kind of lift it off the roof a little bit. Um once all the invasive species on the site had been uh flush cut and treated
uh the whole area would be seated with a custom uh native seed mix and all the bar and exposed soils would be covered with um 15-month erosion control blankets. Um,
from there I I I know we're waiting on NHSP comment at the moment, but um, you know, it's a fairly straightforward invasive species management just spread ac across a little bit larger area. Um,
and uh, you know, I saw this I saw the staff comments and we're happy to um, make those where are they? Make those revisions as needed. I noted that um, you know, we can remove the switchgrass from the
native seed mix that we would uh, seed the coastal bank with. It's probably well, not probably, it is there already, so it'll it'll come in on its own. Um, as far as uh hydro seating, we are planning on,
like I said, covering it with the erosion control blankets. Um, so we can negate the need for any hydro seating. Um, hold on. I'm just trying to bring up the comments real quick. Uh,
where are they? Shoot. Here we go. Um, let's see the rest of the comments. Um, yeah, we're waiting on NHSP. Um, as far as protecting the plantings, you
know, the plantings are proposed at going in 4 and 1/2 ft on center within the areas that um, currently possess the invasive species. um you know I don't think that you know most of them are deciduous which um
which is best case scenario for protecting them from the elements um throughout the winter. Um, you know, we would look to plant this area one full growing season after the invasive species management had been completed so
that we can get a uh a good control on the invasives and any invasives that may newly germinate or respout after the initial restoration. Um, we're totally on board with the typical uh monitoring reports, the
annual monitoring reports. um as far as you know runoff and uh how that would be mitigated. Um you know the the bank will be covered with the erosion control blankets will which will
mitigate that to some degree. Um but honestly the site if you were able to walk it not much of it is really pitched towards the bank itself. Uh, the bank itself is steep, but there's not the the bank isn't really taking on very much
runoff from other places on the property. So, I don't I don't anticipate um I don't anticipate any significant runoff or erosion while the site is becoming vegetated. Um, you asked about the treatments and
treatment times. So, the initial treatment would be done during winter and or early spring. Um and that would be a cut stump or cut stem application. Um, as far as the um future treatments,
you know, we would certainly make sure that we were staying away from any weather, whether it be um, you know, heavy winds and or um, rain in the forecast to make sure that we're um, applying the appropriate herbicide per
the labeled rates um, per the appropriate rainfast times so that all that is um, up to EPA standards. Um, and lastly, you asked how the grasses would be mowed on the bank, and the
mowing is really just to help establish both cool and warm seasoned grasses. Um, since the project would take place in the winter, early spring, um, the warm season or I'm sorry, the cool season grasses would have a chance to
germinate. um depending on how thick they came in, it would be um advantageous to have the option to be able to I'll call it brush mow some of the cool season grasses to encourage the warm season grasses to be able to
germinate. All that mowing on the bank would also be done by hand basically with um weed whackers as needed. Um I would, you know, as we restore the site, I I mentioned this to Jennifer
when we were there for the um for an initial site visit. Um we would restore andor um remove invasive species, seed and blanket it in manageable sections so the whole site wasn't opened up at the
same time. Um, you know, my guess is probably about 70 75 linear feet of bank would be kind of an appropriate amount to um to restore at a time where, you know,
it's only 7 to 10 passes of erosion control blanket. So, it could be done in a day. Um, and with that, I'll open it up to any questions that anyone has. Thanks Nick. You can stop sharing. >> Jen,
>> um, thank you Nick for answering our questions. I think the runoff question came on I think she meant when times of rain are forecasted because that slope is so steep. But you explained that so I appreciate it. you were wondering how you were going to get a brush mower on
that northeast bank which is like this. So by hand weed whacker that's fine. So you pretty much answered all of our questions uh and comments. Mr. Chairman, we are going to need to continue this for natural heritage comments. um just
to let the board know we have to place the hearing um your projects on a hearing within 21 days and in the states infinite wisdom natural heritage gets 30 days to comment. So a lot of times we don't get natural heritage comments
because they have another week or so to be able to fulfill that. So unfortunately sometimes we do need to just continue these four natural heritage comments. Um but that's all I have. Thank you. >> Alyssa, do you have anything to add?
>> Not at this time. Thank you. >> I will open it up to commission comment questions. Dave, >> I don't really have any questions except that um Nick, can you tell can you tell me what a flush a flush cut is? >> Yeah, it's just cutting flush with
grade. So, it would be approximately at grade or about an inch above grade. >> So, that means not taking roots out when you when you cut it. Correct. All the all the root systems both well we won't be cutting anything native but all the root systems from the invasive species
would be left in place uh to maintain soil stability um while the seed mix was able to germinate and vegetate the area. >> And then the treatments you put on it are what actually kill those those invasives. >> Yeah. I mean we don't have any real NAS
we don't have fragmitees or Japanese knotweed or stilt grass here. So most of the most of the treatments that'll happen on the invasives that are there now like the bittersweet and the privet and the honeysuckle, those are pretty much one and done. It's really the the
seed source that we'll be dealing with after that. >> All right, that's all I had. Thank you. Nice project. >> Impressive project. >> Does that mean Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Okay. the the hedges on on the north
side of the home are are they ornamental or do they stay or do they go? >> Um the all the invasive species are proposed to go. Hold on. I'm just uh pulling up the plan to see what >> I don't know whether invasive species or
not. >> Yeah, on the northern side of the property I believe the hedges you're referring to are um burning bush. So those will be removed. Okay. These were just evergreens, but >> Oh, okay. Uh,
>> you mean like along the side of the driveway and everything? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, those those will those will be removed. So, it's basically uh currently the condition they're creating is just a veneer of green and it's a 100% bare soil underneath.
>> Good description. Okay, thank you. That's all, Mr. Chairman. Russ. >> Ron. >> Oh, sorry, Ron. Yeah, my bad. >> Okay, >> I knew who you meant. No, I I don't have any real questions. Just looks like a really massive project. Good luck with
it and hope it's done within a few years. >> Yeah, >> Jim, >> no questions, Mr. Chair. >> Courtney, were you able to watch the entire thing? >> I came in on most of it, I would say, once he started his presentation. So, I
guess I'm I've heard enough to make a decision and u I have no comments. >> All right. Um for a continuence date, Jen, >> um we can do at least um we can try for next week and if we don't have the
number, we'll just kick it out another week. But let's just put it on next week's agenda. So, the 21st. >> Yes. We'd request the onee continuence. I was thinking the same thing. if it you're not meeting on the 28th. So if it's not on the 21st, it'll end. Uh if we don't have comments from Misa by next
week, we'll have to continue through February 4th. But we are asking for the 21st now. >> So at the request of the petitioner, I uh move that we continue this till the 21st of January. >> Second.
>> All right. You got a motion and a second. Any questions? Hearing none. Dave, >> I >> Steve, >> Ron, >> Jim, >> Graph, >> I
>> Courtney >> Bird I >> and Duffy I. Motion has passed. We'll continue this till next week on the 21st. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> All right. I'll take a motion to
untameler backrack. motion on table the uh 197 Shortwood Drive and put it back on the agenda. Driscoll third. >> All right. Any questions? No. All right.
>> N I'm going >> One second, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to Where's Mike? There he is. I'm going to Oh, shoot. No, Mike. I don't want to make you a host. Mhm.
>> Come on. Let me be chairman. >> Hang on. Bill one week tenure. >> Everything's bouncing around on me right now. >> Tom. >> All right. So, Mike's back in attendees and is not able to be chairman this
evening. And Tom Bunker, I've just promoted up to present his project. Good evening, Tom. I must have just missed you, Tom. Apologize for that. >> Yeah, no problem. I was uh I apologize for messing up the schedule and to you
and to the back racks. Uh I was just finishing up some stuff with the MASHB CBA. >> Yeah. No, no worries. I must have just missed you, Tom. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For the record, my name is Tom Bunker. We prepared this. Oh, maybe I'll share the screen if I
may. Um where's that share button? There it is. Um, how's that? You see the Yes. >> Yes, we can, Tom. Thank you. >> Okay, good. Yeah, we prepared this plan and uh first I'll say that uh we had
this is the plan that we filed. There are a couple uh sort of errors of errors of omission where we had done some work back here in uh 2015 and didn't adequately check our plan before we
filed it. Um, one one one being the uh I'll note in the upper right where it says lot 322 we show a 12-in pine that's no no longer there and it's noted on the staff report that uh it was it said the
tree was removed in 2018. Uh but if I may I'll show a picture. Um it actually blew down that was in um March of 2018 that that 12-in pine tree. Um and you know they
had it had it cleared up by a contractor, but that was clearly blown down before it was uh before anything else was done to it there. Um so it was not it was not removed by the homeowners. Um,
and there are a couple other things that that are incorrect on the existing conditions, but I'll go through anyway. So, I have this existing house which is built about in 1954 and uh on Shorewood Drive and what's it
there? And you see on the locust map that's up this is a Shore Drive that's up north, not far below Route 28. uh right on great pond very below where it uh not far below where the Kuname River comes into it. U the house next door
here on the south the backrats also own and live in and that h house was built not too long ago. And so what they're proposing to do uh well of course go over the resource areas. We have the great pond uh land
under the under a salt pond. Some uh fringe of salt marsh here. Coastal bank. The flood zone um comes right up right up just about to the top of the coastal bank which is exceeds 4 to one slope but
uh but is does not the bank itself does not go much higher than the flood zone which is elevation uh elevation um well I think um and uh so there's the furthest landwood
resource area actually is the I mean the furthest land resource There is the coastal bank but the furthest uh zone A is 100 ft from the salt marsh which is back here through the house and then the zone B from the coastal bank uh is
landwood of the house running through this location here and then landwood of that zone B is beyond jurisdiction. And so you notice in this staff report we have this uh proposed garage uh which is you know outside is not in a flood zone
or in a buffer zone. So I have this existing house here. Um and then the uh proposed house you can see it looks uh basically the same. It is 2 ft further landward and it was
squared off a little bit where this this uh house is 7.6 6 ft to the property line. Uh but in moving it back a little bit and rotate it parallel to the property line. So I have 8 ft
from the house to the property line and uh where the uh uh house closest point is 51 ft on the house to the the deck or the steps rather and
it's 76 ft uh from the uh the salt marsh elevation here. 76 ft and in this case actually gone to uh well was 51 ft
is now 53 feet and the 76 ft from the salt marsh was 79 ft. These are rounded off to the nearest foot. That's why you know one increased by 2 feet and the other increased by 3 feet but it's it's still an increase.
Uh, and yes, I do think that 8 ft, I know you have your 10 ft, but uh I 8 ft with with no native vegetation around that could be harmed. Uh, I think 8 ft is uh adequate for
putting the putting the house in. It's level. There's no native vegetation. Um, no problem getting equipment around on this side. Um, Mark Delpier is the contractor. He's uh good and careful u
in that respect. On the other side, the backracks uh own this property also. So, you know, the limit is the rather the setback is 64. We do have a limit of work shown here. Um but they're,
you know, they own it. Uh so there'll be no easement required or whatever. they have their own permission to cross over a little bit of this property if they need to to do this uh construction. Um
been there they uh you know downspouts all around that have no dry wells. We're proposing dry wells here. I can point out that one uh um these stepping stones existed some
years ago. They no longer exist. So, you know, I can show you a revised plan of taking them out, but this is the plan of record. Um, so they are out. Um, and then there this tree obviously is not
here. And so on a revised plan, which um I'll see if there are other other changes, but uh I've made some changes already which I can show you. Um, and there a couple trees up in this this front yard. um which will be uh removed.
So if I just quickly I'll I'll show this um oops sometimes I don't always know how to pan but anyway there's some arborite or or some type of similar tree right up here.
Um and this this one is the second one is 11 ft away from this house. So we show this one. Um the one that's closest to the house has been topped probably cuz it was growing up into the roof and everything. Um, but
there's there's room to get through there um by taking out this one that's in in poor health. This is in uh your jurisdiction. This this one tree um
as you can see it's in the zone B um there. and we took the stepping stones out and u in the staff report they asked for the on a colored plan. I've gone over the mitigation calculations
actually twice now. One after I made some removed those steps there. There is a reduction still is a 129 ft reduction in the zone A uh because it's moving 2 feet back. The house is moving two feet
back and uh there's a 30 square foot increase um when there's overall a decrease in coverage on the lot. So no mitigation is required. Um so that is the proposed
plan. I will stop the share and um take questions. >> Thanks Tom again Jen. >> So Tom I have a couple of questions based on your presentation. And you're
telling me that the stepping stones on the north side, the ones that you have shown on your existing condition plan, no longer exist on site. >> Correct. >> Then why are you counting them as your existing coverage when you sent us your
>> and I I sent I sent you coverage twice or I sent you this I sent you this revised plan. I am no longer counting them. this other plan I said I revised it this afternoon and I I I sent it to you um >> after you sent the imperous surface one
to us this morning. >> Yes, I said >> yes I I sent that then I went out to double check things. I saw that I calculated them again and on this revised plan I have the calculations. >> Okay, that's fine. And then the tree you
were talking about that's on that northeast I mean I'm sorry that north Yeah. >> Yep. >> The tree you were just talking about that you needed to take down in order to be able to access around the house cuz you're not giving yourself that full 10-ft limit of work cuz of the property
boundary. >> Yes. >> Okay. So you'll put a tree back. >> Yes. I expect we'll be required to put a key back for taking that down. Okay. Because there's really no trees on the lot really. So they're on
neighboring lots trees but not on not on this lot. >> They are. Yeah. The like along the property line and Y and >> it does look unfortunately when staff went out there it does look like um the
bank is still being cut unfortunately. >> Yeah. That >> I know to your to your client. >> Yes. the coastal >> about that and I didn't know if we could do uh the bank I don't know the proper term for it but
a stump regrowth like in did on Bournespond Road um where they could uh select sprouts from the the stumps and and and uh manage them to regrow.
>> That would have to be done under either an amendment or a new filing. Okay. Well, what Yeah. What I guess we can talk about what what you would like done there. I mean, restoration. I I don't >> restore the bank and so >> Okay. Well, we can talk to you and give
you guidance that you can pass on to your client. >> Yes. >> But at this point, stop cutting the bank. It would be appreciated. >> Yes. I mean, your client is asking the board for something and the board has already asked them to stop cutting the
bank and it's still being cut. So, >> okay, that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Alyssa, do you have anything to add? >> Nothing to add. Thank you. >> Okay, open up for commissioner comments. Dave,
>> I just have one question probably for for Jen. Uh, Jen, I I've heard this talk about 10 foot, a minimum of 10 foot from a building to the edge of the property. These are smaller, but is that because this is okay because they were smaller in the existing and it really hasn't
changed much from existing to the proposal. Is that is that why we're not worried about the normal 10 ft? >> I am worried about the normal 10 ft. Um, usually it's in relation to a buffer or something like that. um not too
concerned on the southern side because they own the adjacent property cuz they so they could grant themselves a construction easement. If they had not if they hadn't owned that the the adjacent parcel, we would be pushing for a construction easement from the
neighbor or to give them adequate room to to construct this house. Um >> and and on the >> it's only it it's 8 ft in relation because of the property boundary. Um if
they had just decided to build it in the same footprint, the board would allow that. So I'm not too concerned with the northern property boundary. Um they'll just need to make sure that they don't cross over that limit of work. and Tom
over on that side, that limit of work is going to be a lot more than just a like uh one of those silk socks. It's probably going to have to be orange construction fencing along that north side so >> Delpy doesn't accidentally cross over
that. How big is his machine? Can he make it over there? >> Well, he has uh various machines. >> Machines. Okay. you know, big excavator and little bobcats. So, we can >> Okay. All right. That's all I can. Thanks,
>> Steve. >> Thanks. I have nothing to add, Mr. Chairman. >> Ron, >> just wonder. Is this a two-story house? >> Yeah, it's existing one, but it'll be a twotory. Yes, this. >> Okay, that's good. Thank you. That's all. Good luck with it,
>> Courtney. No questions, >> Jim. >> No questions. >> And I don't have any questions either. Uh, it's your pleasure, John. >> So, we need a motion to continue. >> No, I don't think we need a continuence.
I think we can condition the replacement of a couple of trees, orange construction fencing along that north line. Um, >> bank work. Uh the bank work cannot be conditioned. The bank work is going to have to come back to us.
>> Condition that we'll have to get come back to you and make a plan to correct amend or something. >> Yeah. Have it have it analyzed by you know an appropriate consultant and then come back to us Tom. Okay. >> Right. I make a motion to close the
hearing and take it under adisement. >> Third heard. Second. >> Any questions? Call the role. Dave >> Hi, >> Steve >> I >> Ron >> Biscali >> Courtney >> Her eye >> Jim
>> Rathi >> and Duffy I motion passes we can close the hearing and take it under advisement >> thank you >> thanks Tom >> thanks Tom >> sorry I missed your plan this afternoon >> that's all right there was a lot going on
>> hey Tom >> we're silly >> hi Tom >> right Next we have Stevenson and Janice Rero 173 Mtox Road Found Mass for permission to raise an existing single family dwelling, construct a new single
family dwelling with porch and deck, install a new title 5 sewage disposal system, and install mitigation plantings. Jen, >> yes, I am promoting Mike Borelli so he
can present the project. an attempt to hijack the chairmanship. I don't know what Mike's planning on doing. >> Hello again, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Again, for the record, Mike Boris, Felmouth Engineering, and I represent the applicant, Steven and Janice Reto
with your commission, I'd like to share my screen. Go ahead. >> I'm going to first share uh just for orientation purposes a GIS map. The lot is shaded in green. It's on a peninsula
um that faces um westerly on Wait Bay. Um a toxic road meanders through and there's um several houses on the western shore of uh eastern shore of Okoy Bay
facing west. Off to the southwest is um Washburn's Island and Sea Pit. The property has 2.3 acres of land. This is the existing conditions plan. I'm going to zoom in to the to the area of
interest. Um the wetland resources uh include of course land under the ocean on Wakoy Bay, land containing shellfish. There's a coastal beach. Uh there's a coastal bank.
Um there's a um boundary of a flood hazard zone, a ve 13 on the uh west side and um a
an AE15 I believe it is on the side that we are doing our work. Actually, I I misspoke. It's VE13 and then on the on the on the upland side is not a special flood zone.
Uh this is the existing uh conditions plan. The top of coastal bank is shown here in red. Um the house uh that exists is shown shaded in blue along with other areas
that uh would be considered imperous surfaces within a no disturbance zone. In this case, there's a 75 ft no disturbance zone A from the top of the coastal bank and then there's a 25 ft
outer buffer zone B from the top of the coastal bank. So all of the invious surfaces are that exist are in the Azone the proposed post. This is the proposed condition. Uh for reference in the background you
can see the existing house with a red uh line work and you can see that there was a significant portion of the existing house closer to the top of the coastal bank on the north and northeast side of the
um proposed house. It's been pulled back some. There is a deck. The views are magnificent. Um and the house has been oriented to make uh take advantage of those views.
Um this plan also highlights in blue areas of imperous surface in the no disturbance zone A and it also in this case because the house is uh somewhat larger some of the imperous surfaces are
in the outer buffer zone B. More on that in a minute. The um house is currently served by cesspools which will be pumped and pumped and filled and abandoned. Uh and the new house will be
served by a title five septic system that includes a 1500-gallon septic tank, a nitro uh innovative alternative unit which is a denitrification unit and then a leeching field which is all
located um as compactly as it can be close to the house u minimizing uh necessary clearing. Most of the leeching field is under the proposed gravel driveway and it's certainly an significant
improvement over the current septic system. There's a limit of work shown uh meandering along here. We're proposing dry wells and there's a
dry well detail there. There are four trees to be removed. Um um and we're showing um the replacement trees in the mitigation planting in the Azone
um on the norththeast side of the house. It's in an area that's currently grass and definitely could um use enhanced buffer along the top of the bank. So it'll it'll blend in with the top of the bank and some existing vegetation
um to the to the north of so the green area is the proposed mitigation. Uh there's a summary of imperous surface uh calculations here and in this case uh because of the
orientation of the new house uh and it's shifting back even though it's bigger there is a a decrease as compared to the existing imperous surfaces of 56 uh square ft.
I'm sorry, I misspoke. There's only an increase of 56 square feet um from the current uh impervious surfaces to the proposed. There's a there is an increase of 56 ft and we've applied a factor of three to that which results in a need
for 168 square ft. Um then we uh also calculated the um difference between existing and proposed in the outer buffer zone B and there's an increase in
the B zone of 800 ft. If you remember on the existing conditions plan there was nothing in the B zone uh um in the new house >> got bigger and it got bigger for the most part in the B zone.
So there's a two to a 2:1 factor for that 1,604. When you total all up, there's a requirement for just just under 1,800 square ft. And um >> we're also providing tree replacement
because of the requirement under the mitigation planting. And the mitigation planting was based on these um shaded areas on both of these plans. That sums up the proposal. What I'd like to do now is just touch
base with on the staff report. I I reviewed the staff report and then I've reached out to Alyssa to go over the staff report. Um, and I think all of the staff comments are relatively
u minor and could be easily handled. Um I think the most significant one is uh related to the way we calculated the impervious surfaces. If you look on this plan, the blue
shaded area, you will see not only the house and the porch and the step, but there's an area of crushed stone and there's a rinse station. Um, we counted that because it existed and it looked like it had been there for
a very long time. Um, however, there's there's other plans from a previous owner that don't show this and it's difficult to demonstrate that it existed in aerial photos. So, we can't really conclusively prove that the crushed
stone or the rinse station were there. So we're going to have to modify our imperous surface kelks to not take credit for removing those things. So that's going to require a modest increase in mitigation planting. We have
areas in the Azone that are available that we can work with your staff and select to get to the requisite uh larger area requirement for the mitigation planting. Um, we're trying to work I'm
trying to balance uh preservation of the the views I referenced earlier, but also enhance buffers with native plantings. So, um I'm hopeful that you can um unless there's other significant issues you
could uh close and condition that we work with staff and modify the mitigation planting to reflect that. two chairs last >> there was a recommendation also of trying to do some supplemental planting
on the eroding bank it's not a requirement they just made some observations and I can review that with my client if we were going to do that we'd come back to you under an amendment there was a comment that appears that there's been some cutting um of some of
the um brush layer. Um, and there's a photo attached to the staff report. My client's been made aware of this. He's he's in possession of the report and he's he
understands that that cutting cannot occur. There's an existing wire fence located along um the uh uh edge of the eroding portion of the coastal bank. Um and that is intended to be removed. It really serves
no purpose. And when the mitigation planting is installed, that's located up here by the way. And when that planting is installed, that buffer planting will discourage anyone from walking closer to
the bank and the fence the fence is the wire fence is not not necessary. It was a suggestion that we also do provide a limit of work on this side of the house um just to preserve any vegetation
uh or or to limit how much vegetation needs to be removed. um over here even though it is outside of an Azone, but it's a good idea. There's a couple of mature trees that we want to make sure the contractors don't get carried away. So, we're happy to add a limit of work
on this side of the water service to protect, for instance, this 20-in oak tree that's here. And then there's a U comment about um regulations as they relate to armoring
the coastal bank and and pointing out that this would be a new house and it would no longer be protected under the regulations that state the house has to be uh predate 1978. My client understands that um he has no
intention of or any uh expectation to honor the coastal bank. He has an existing um uh timber bulkhead at the base that if if that needed to be repaired, he he would come back for
that, but he wouldn't propose any additional hard um solutions to stabilize the bank. The previous owner was successful in stabilizing the bank with koer fiber rolls um in this area. Unlike the adjoining
property, for whatever reason, the queer fiber rolls were not as successful. In fact, they they didn't take at all. But um the regtos are fortunate in that their coastal bank appears to be relatively stable.
So I think that sums it up. I'll stop sharing and I'm here to answer questions. Thank you, Mike. Jen. >> Um, Mike, um, when you're redoing your mitigation
calculations, do you have enough room along the top of that bank to put the required mitigation and still keep them 10 ft from the house and >> Oh, yeah. blah blah blah blah blah without running them up along the side of the house or anything like that
because I mean this is a 2.34 acre property that house could be pulled back a bit more if needed without trying to wrap the mitigation around the house. >> Yeah. What we're what we intend to do, if I could shimmer screen one more time, is we're going to do a combination of
two things. We're going to we're going to probably slide the house back slightly. >> Okay. Um because every every every square foot of blue that goes over this
line turns into square foot of tan in the it changes from 3 to one to 2:1 requirement >> 2:1. Yeah. >> Uh we also have some areas available that will be not less than 10 ft. So we're going to do a a balancing act between the two things keeping in mind
the view and not having anything tall growing in front of the view. So, it's not a lot of additional mitigation. I I think we can easily do it and work out the mechanics of it um with a revised
plan and review by uh you and or Alyssa. >> Okay. If the board is comfortable with us reviewing that, we will. Um kind of a big changeish. It's not a small modification, but the board's comfortable with that fine. You're
saying you are going to move that house back, Mike? >> I think we're going to shift it back a little. I don't know how much yet. I have to do the analysis. >> Okay. Okay. I just, like I said, I don't want to see them wrapping around the south side of that. >> Um,
>> no. What inwards the towards the gravel driveway or something like that? >> No. What I intend to do is come up with a concept and then come come meet you at staff hours and go over it before it Okay. That's all I have. Chairman, thank you.
>> Alyssa, you have anything to add? >> No questions. Thank you. >> Okay, Steve. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, >> I think Mike addressed all the uh concerns that came up from staff, which
were um almost made me go back out and look at it again after I read them. That happens every once in a while. Um the No, I don't have anything to add. Thank you. I don't have any questions, >> Ron.
>> Yeah, I think that working with the staff is great, Mike. And moving the house back, that seems to solve a few things for you. My question is a little outside is the you have a path down to the water and you have a set of stairs that look like death warmed over. There's a 100 foot rope there. Are you going to do anything about the stairs?
So, you're going to have to use the rope to get people rescued from falling down. Uh my client doesn't mention that to me. I haven't actually walked down that set of stairs, but um it he may he may visit that and and want to do some repairs to the stairs, but that of course would be
a a different application. >> Right. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thanks. That's all. >> Courtney, >> no questions. >> Jim, >> no questions. >> Dave, again, maybe another question for Jen.
Jen, it seems like moving the house and we have could have been some change some significant changes in mitigation. So, we're g we're going to do this without a revised plan. I kind of thought we might have asked for a revised plan and a continuence for that. These seem fairly >> that's going to be up to the board. I
mean, usually we would do a revised plan. It would have to be next week. Um, if the board wants to see that revised plan, that's fine. I >> I guess I guess I'm voicing my opinion. It seems like a pretty much big uh slew of changes and maybe we should but uh I don't
that's all I've got. >> Yeah, Mike. But how far back would you be thinking about moving the house? I mean extensively or is it like we're just talking a few feet? >> Just a few feet. U because I think if we move it back just a few feet and we have
areas. Um Am I still sharing? >> No, not yet. No, Mike. >> Sorry about that. Um I think if we move back just a few feet um more of this house is going to get out outside of the uh even the B zone. So that that'll reduce and and more of it will be out of
the A zone. So just moving this sliding this back a little bit um combined with the fact that we have areas over here um that we can also add mitigation to. I think the two together is is is going to make it all come together fairly
easily. Right. Um, if it's just a couple of feet, um, Jen, I'm fine with it, but I'll give the rest of the commission members another shot at, uh, whether or not you're comfortable with it, or would you rather continue it for another week
while he makes those calculations. >> Steve, >> chairman, I have confidence that the board and Mike can work out their differences on this and uh, >> um, reach a good settlement. Thank you. >> You're welcome,
>> Courtney. >> Yeah. Um I my sort of standing opinion on these things is these the changes you're proposing while approvable are significant enough that I think we should see them
>> you know and I mean it it certainly can be a continued hearing that takes five minutes for uh for a review by Mike of what's what the changes are but you know if there's something that comes up we've a chance, got a whack at it, whereas if
it gets closed, then it's a different thing. So, I would opt to continue it for a week. I mean, I don't think it's going to cause the homeowner any great distress. It will >> Well, I not to interrupt, but it won't be a week. Um, we can't we can't do that
that fast enough. Um, I don't I mean, you have a oneweek submittal requirement. So, it's I can't I can't submit something to you in a timely manner to have a hearing next week and you're not meeting on the 28th. So, if you continue this, we're continuing it to February 4th.
And I I thought these were manageable and that in the interest of time, but if you feel that way, we we if we have to continue it, it's got to be the 4th because I have to submit no later than the 28th for the 4th. And as it is, um, we're under the gun with other projects,
>> Dave. >> Uh, so Mike, how critical is this to, uh, to the property owner to move this quickly? Is it really important to move quickly right now? >> He's just anxious to get all his, uh, permits so he can, you know, he's like
anyone. He want this sooner the better. >> All right. I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement. >> Let's see what happens. >> Driscoll second. >> I have a motion and a second. Uh we call roll. Dave,
>> take me last. Where'd you got to think? >> Okay. Steve. >> Yes. I Patton. I >> Ron >> Driscoll. I >> Courtney >> Bird. No. >> Jim >> McGreth. I >> Dave.
Uh can't no >> Duffy I so three to two uh motion passed to continue I mean to close and take it under advisement. >> Thank you. And I will turn it around as quickly as possible and I I do believe
it's relatively minor and I I'm sure we can work it out with staff. >> Mike, can you get us a plan before I write this order so we can hash it out? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. So we close it. We got 21 days to issue the order, right? Yep. >> Yeah. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. If we can like hash it out the week of the 28th, that would be great because they'll they'll vote it. They'll vote it next week. Um if you could get me something maybe by Tuesday morning, Wednesday morning. Rough. Rough. >> Yep. I'll do my best.
>> How much are you How much are you sliding it back, you know? Yep. >> Some rough numbers for me. We can work with you. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you. Thanks, Mike. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> All right. So, >> you're done, Mike? Have a good one.
>> Yeah, I'm done. Have a good one. >> Okay. Have a good night, Mike. >> So, now under continued request for hearing and a notice of intent, CS Newton builders 52 Oyster Shell has already been continued till next week. Next we have Falmouth Port condominium
owner co Rudy Hunter Felmouthport Drive across from units 278 to 292 Falmouth Mass for permission to raise and regrade the roadway and install drainage improvements. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am promoting Mark
Dib of Capen Islands Engineering to present his project and I do not believe Alyssa, we have opened this one, have I? >> Nope. >> Nope. >> Okay. So, the quorum is everyone.
>> Mr. Chairman. >> Yep. >> I have a conflict of interest on this matter and need to abstain. >> Okay. Can I observe or would you prefer I go away? >> You can feel You can observe. I don't. >> How's it going, Mark?
>> Good. How are you? Um, for the record, Mark Dib with Cape Islands Engineering on behalf of the Falmouth Port Condominium Association for a notice of intent. Um, with your permission, I'll share my screen.
Uh just start off with a quick locus map. So this is um Fwm with Port Drive services a relatively large condominium cont complex that has over 50 buildings each with three or four units in them.
Um it's bordered on the east by the the end of Great Pond. um 20 Route 28 to the north and then you know these buildings and this this roadway is Fmouth Port Drive. Uh the project tonight is a um
it's a roadway regrading project. Um the portion of the roadway that we're working on is approximately 200 ft in. It starts I didn't mean to click that. Uh it starts about in this area and goes for
about 600 ft along Falmouth Drive. I'm going to go to the site plan. Um so on this plan uh route 28 is over here on the to this end. Um we are working on this
part of the roadway and then it ends um close to the uh pool and clubhouse area. um existing resources associated with the site. Uh there's great pond over in this area. There's um uh resource areas
that are creating a um 100 foot a buffer zone as well as there is a coastal bank um through parts of the project kind of in between these buildings that are creating a B zone on the site. can zoom
in a little bit. Uh so the A zone and the B zone. So what the project is is um as you come into Fmouthport, there's a low point um in Fmouthport Drive that is prone to flooding um when uh storm events
happens. Uh there's there's a couple catch basins that are literally at elevation three. So, elevation three above um sea level. Um it has some drainage systems underground uh most likely almost sitting in groundwater at
this point. As well, there's an existing overflow pipe that at that elevation the tides can almost come up the overflow and further uh create issues with that low point in in Fmouthport Drive. So
what we're proposing is to bring um not only the low point but uh basically from the road this uh access road into some of the buildings everything to up up to roughly around elevation 7 to provide
flood resiliency and to be able to have runoff get into a um infiltration basin and drainage swailes uh that can adequately maintain and capture and treat uh the runoff in
the area. Um we did provide um runoff data that says that this uh which would be a grass infiltration bay um infiltration basin should be able to handle the 100red-year storm event as
well. It will have a redone and reconfigured uh emergency overflow beyond that. So any kind of uh hopefully that'll never see water but um it's at a greater elevation where uh seawater from
moon tides and extreme high tides will not um you know actually come back into the site. Um again it's a it's it's for storm water management and flood resiliency.
Um it's not it it you know a major storm that creates an actual 100year uh flood event per flood zones. Um you know it's a it's an AE uh
12 flood zone. So you know the it's it's not to protect against the 100red-year flood. It's it's to protect against most storm events. um you know now even relatively small events will create a pretty significant puddle that can
become hazardous to get through at the low point in the roadway. Uh a couple other aspects of the project um are the so the in order to achieve that elevation seven basically from you'll
see there's an existing seven grade here and then it's all lower than seven all the way to over about here. Um you know to blend everything in keep appropriate slopes and and get the runoff into uh the basins. uh you know the work does
include this gray area. Um there's no expansion of pavement. Uh it's just in the same footprint. Um we are proposing a just a grass shoulder along this side from the entrance to River Bay over to
the there's an extra detail. There's about another 50 ft of that grass. Uh it'll basically be a walkway uh so people can can walk along there to get from their condos to the the pool and
complex uh clubhouse is just at uh just off the page here. Um, we did receive a staff comment regarding uh so the this outlet structure in order to get to the right elevation. We're
going slightly into some natural vegetation. I did propose a sketch today to um respond to that comment. We'd be willing to basically with the orange outline here is what would be some
natural area that's gets disturbed. um we could provide restoration uh in excess of that. Um this is a there is some grass area. So the green would be um to restore um
an equivalent amount of area for to have that outlet. Again, that's an overflow outlet. Hopefully we'll never see see water coming out of that basin that's designed for more than 100year um storm event. uh we'd be happy to make a a
quick plan revision to to include that. So with that, I think that is my presentation. Um for now, I'll stop sharing if I need to go back. I can answer any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mark and Jen.
>> Uh yes, Mr. Chairman, we did go out. We did walk the site with Mark at this point. I think our one concern was the the proposed sidewalk that they are turning into that grass area and I don't have any additional concerns. Mark, we
can work with you on the out if you need to put some plants down there. That'll be fine. >> Alyssa, anything to add? >> Not at this time. Thank you. >> All right. comments, Jim.
>> Uh, no comments, Mr. Chairman. >> Ron, >> all set. Thank you, Scott. Good luck with it. >> Courtney, >> I just assume I'm asking what I assume to be an obvious question, and that is that the finished grade of the road is still below the parking area that that
you showed there. >> Yes, there's a I could re show the screen, but the parking area is at about elevation nine. Um, so it it >> road is at seven. Okay. No other questions. >> Thank you, Dave.
>> I'm all set. >> Right. And I'm all set, too. Um, I'll uh >> make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement. >> Third second. >> Motion to second. Any questions? I haven't asked this yet. I apologize.
Do you have anything in the chat? >> Oh, yes. And I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I should be reminding you nothing in the chat. >> Thank you. All right. Roll's been called. Uh Jim >> McGrath I >> Ron >> Driscoll I >> Courtney
>> Bird I. >> Dave >> I >> and Duffy I. Motion passes to close. Thank you Mark. >> Great. Thanks everybody. Have a nice night. >> Thank you Mark. Good night. >> Bye Mark. >> All righty.
All right, we have a continued request to amend an existing order of conditions. Kim Sarin, 24 Edgewater Drive East, East Falmouth, Mass. request to amend the order of conditions for MADP number 25-4981
to regrade a portion of the backyard and install retaining walls. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have promoted Brad Bertolo up from JC Engineering to present his continued project. Good evening, Brad.
>> Uh good evening, Jen. Good evening, commissioners. For the record, Brad Rolo from JC Engineering on behalf of Kim Serin. Uh we would before you just before Christmas to request an amendment regarding some proposed uh retaining
walls along the property. Uh, I'll share my screen if I can if I may. Is my uh screen visible? >> We can see the screen, Brad. Thank you. So, uh, previously presented, I believe
it was December 17th, uh, I mean, uh, of last year, uh, we proposed an amendment to the currently permitted plans at 24 Edgewater Drive East. This project involved a tear down rebuild single
family dwelling uh removed a cess poolool installed title five septic system uh and included uh site grading uh some various walkways uh roof dry wells.
Uh we presented a an amendment to include some proposed retaining walls to help with the accessibility along the southern side of the structure. Uh the original plan called for grading
that was, you know, never really thought entirely about access and it just created a a too steep of a a area to to walk on the patio. So the proposal is to
include a couple terraces on the south side where can pick up three or 4 foot or two or 3 feet of drop elevation over staircase stairway and then have more of a level uh walkway.
Uh as part of the project uh we are proposing a the a wall as well along the east side of the of the structure. Again the property owner went ahead and started doing work ahead of time and we're aware
that this shouldn't have happened and um we uh have you know stopped work on on all the all the projects. Uh at the last hearing there was concern regarding the stone wall being considered an accessory
structure closer to the resource area than the primary structure. And uh this commission allowed me to uh request a continuence to further evaluate the plan. And I reviewed the
regulations and I I feel that the the project as presented one is an improvement over what was originally presented. It's a vast improvement over the uh per permitted plans
and we feel that it is compliant uh compliant with the the regulations. Uh the the town uh wetlands regulations does discuss under u
section 10.8 18, you know, work to redevelop a uh an area disturbed within the zone A. Uh majority of this property is the zone A of the adjacent salt marsh. And again,
it it discusses that for all resource areas listed u in the bylaw, which includes the the salt marsh and uh coastal banks, uh accessory structures in zone A located closer to the resource
area. are located closer to the resource then the primary structure may be modified but the amount of imperous surface or imperous surface that cannot support vegetation in this area must not be increased.
So going back and looking at the site prior to construction, this resource area buffer zone, the the nearest area to the coastal bank and salt marsh
pretty much was a grass yard. Had a large areas of rip wrap that didn't support any uh vegetation besides a couple random shrubs. And obviously we had the uh walkway uh block patio black block of
patio blocks uh that created the steps leading down to the pier. And again on the southern side, similar situation. Uh a pretty significant sized area of
of rip wrap that prevents any type of uh native ground cover being from being planted. So, we have a considerable amount of what I consider landscape features on the on the project on the property that are considerably closer to
the resource area than the proposed retaining wall. Uh the revised plan I submitted last week uh includes slight modifications uh to the walkway.
Originally the walkway was to remain and there were the permit plans were to reconstruct the areas closest to the house that's within the the original work limit which was basically followed uh just uh up upland of the uh coastal
bank which follows the flood zone line 12. And this proposal uh includes removing all of those uh patio blocks and timbers and that walkway and not reconstructing it as as it was, but
providing a walkway with landscaped landing areas. The the slope itself changes between elevation 13 and about seven. So trying to maintain the slopes that were occurred
on the pre-existing patio. I felt it was best to have uh at least a few steps. And I'm proposing similar material that was used uh for uh the retaining walls. They're they're
granite granite stepping blocks uh that could be set into the bank and then the the area between each uh step was proposed to be uh planted with uh like a clover leaf, something
that's uh low maintenance. uh provides good crown cover and uh eliminates all the uh patio blocks or it's that uh would have probably been reconstructed under the original permitted plans.
Uh we also are proposing to remove all of the rip wrap areas and red reveate those those areas again.
Um sorry wrong wrong uh wrong document here. Again, as you can see here, there was very uh minimal vegetation uh existing between the limiter work and
the resource areas. and by reveating that entire area. So from southern property line to northern property line between bulkhead and retaining wall that'll that'll grace greatly increase the amount of uh
natural habitat and buffering between the the the house and the yard and uh the resource areas. The retaining wall itself will also uh help to create a a
more gradual slope across the yard which basically follows the uh regulations regarding restoration of on-site degraded resource area buffer or at least one of the recommendations says
grading to a topography which reduces runoff and increases infiltration. So pre previously this was a grass slope. We had originally kept it as grass on the permit plans. Uh we
maintain that but by gradually or just having a slight pitch will help flatten this area which will help aid in infiltration slow surface water runoff.
Uh the retainer wall also kind of acts as a barrier to help uh you know pond any heavy heavy rainstorms to to help slow any runoff that runs down the bank. Again, the increased mitigation area
will help to slow runoff, increase uh and increase infiltration due to the change in surface from grass to more native plantings and ground covers. The permit plans called for which are currently approved uh 440
square ft of uh mitigation area. it was going to extend up to about I believe elevation 10 and fill in the areas on either side of the walkway. So, this improved uh plan
does increase it to 1740 square ft. Uh so, a a considerable increase in the amount of uh proposed mitigation. The trees on on the plan here were uh previously approved. they are uh being
planted uh to replace four trees that were removed uh roughly in uh this this location of the property. Uh so I think that I know that work was done ahead of time
and I'm not condoning that that should have been done and uh but I think that whether this work started or not uh this this plan is a vast improvement over the permit plans and will will uh greatly
benefit uh the resource areas. I'd be happy to answer any questions if uh you have any questions. >> Thank you, Bradley. >> Point of order on the Do we have a quum?
What the What is the quorum for this? I believe we opened it before. >> Yes, everyone's on the quorum. >> What's that? >> Everyone's on the quorum. >> Wonderful. Thank you. You're welcome, >> Ken.
>> Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm struggling with this one. I've seen this board um not allow retaining walls in their Azones. I've seen this board have them removed from plans. Um,
the tiny little walls tend to become problematic sometimes. Um, Brad, did you do any exploration under that that rip wrap? There's no tostones in there or anything else because you've
got that you've got that sheep pile, right? There's no toe stones under that rip wrap or anything like that because you're proposing to remove all that. Correct. >> Yeah, that that appears to just be some surface surface stones uh on on the
slope itself. >> Okay. So there's not going to be any like major excavation to get that out of there. >> No, it just be enough to reestablish some some soil placement and planting of soils. >> Yeah. Um
unfortunately I think my position hasn't changed from the last time. Um and it it's not because work started without. We see that all the time unfortunately. Um it's just um
again I've seen this board have have these types of landscape features um structures removed when they happen to be either right on where a corner of yours is right on the top of that bank and then
in that buffer zone A. So again I think unfortunately my position has not changed from the last hearing. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Jen. Alyssa, do you have anything to add? >> Not at this time. Thank you. >> All right, I'll take some questions from
the commissioners. Jim, >> yeah, it didn't seem like this retaining wall really added a great feature. I mean, the the the grade was going up kind of consistently, so I'm not sure why it was even put in
in the first place. So, um I I don't think it was necessary and I I don't think it should be in the uh the buffer zone A to be honest. >> Thank you, Dave. >> Um that on that uh that wall, Bradley,
how um actually can you show me the Can you share again, Bradley? You have a question on the plan? >> Absolutely. >> I'm wondering how how long that wall is. It's it seems like it's right on top of the coastal bank and it's I think you mentioned just a small part of it in
some context a minute ago, but it's right along a long it's a long thing along our top of our coastal bank, isn't it? Where is the coastal bank there? >> Coastal bank that blue line, right? >> Uh yeah, per Yeah, purple line. Yes. >> Yeah, purple line, right?
>> It follows the flood zone line. So, we're we're talking about a wall all along and very right on top or very close to that coastal bank. So, you know, I I guess I'm agreeing with with Jim that that's that's a significant thing. And uh um so I'm I am worried
about that with Jen as well. Uh can you tell me more also when you say the permanent plans? What could tell me more about those? What were they and what was permitted originally? Uh the the the permit plans are the plans that uh see pull it up right now.
>> Brad, do you have those or do you want me to pull them up? >> I don't need a detailed description, but just generally what was what was permitted. >> There we go. >> So what was permitted was everything on the site minus the the retaining wall. >> Basically the wall
>> that wall. So what we maintained on the original plan was basically followed the the slope that was pre-existing. We didn't we weren't doing any work on the coastal bank. Okay, >> which you can see from the purple line
>> and that goes those besides the mitigation and then everything on the work side we were just kind of maintaining 13 14 just kind of carrying it across parallel with the the rear of the house >> and and and were were all the walkways along the side of the house down the
bottom of the plan they they were they were permitted. >> Yeah, everything that's on this plan was permitted. As you see, we had a walkway, but this was just a kind of a relatively >> you've got you've got that down going down the stages now and a couple steps. >> Exactly. So, >> which is not a big deal, right? At least
in my mind. Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. And >> so big the big the big thing is then that that wall that's the that's the big issue for the between the planes. Huh. Yeah. >> Yeah. Again, it's it's on a
uh the coastal bank is follows the uh flood zone line. Currently, the coastal bank is there for storm water protection and there's not much protection with it being all grasped uh up to up to the limit of work.
Anything beyond that is above the flood zone elevation, not going to be subject to uh you know your standard 100year flood elevation. It's above the flood elevation. >> So um >> but but the the issue is building it
right there so close to that coastal bank and it's um but anyway I I guess I'm I'm leading toward Jen and and and Jim on this it's a big it's a big thing. That's all I have. Thank you, Dave Courtney.
>> So, um, this is more of a question for Jen, and that is, um, could that would that wall be moved back toward the house to a certain point and comply with our regulations? >> Sorry, I was just looking something up,
Courtney. Other words, I get the I get what they're trying to achieve with a retaining wall. So, they have, you know, there's a division point between
mitigation areas that are not supposed to be used for >> No, Courtney. it it it it there's no way it can be outside of that zone A um because the house is is fairly close to that top of bank
from what I'm looking at. Yeah, the house is only 21.7 ft. The corner of the house, that doesn't even include the deck. The deck is 17 ft. No. So to get out to get that wall outside of that zone A, it's not
possible. And so, and if it stays in zone A, is there any provision under the regulations where they could mitigate for it? >> Well, again, I've seen this board remove features like this because it has been
within your zone A buffer. >> No, I understand and I think consistency is important. Um, okay. I got to mull this one over. No other questions. >> Thank you, Steve.
I support the staff's opinion and uh decision. Thank you, >> Ron. Brad, thanks you for doing all the work and making all these all the mitigation increases and and trying to get us to go for the wall, but I think it's just an impossibility. You weren't
you weren't aware when they put the wall in, correct? >> No. >> No. And uh so right now if you had if you had to if you you can see the writing on the wall that this wall is going to come out. >> Can you even think about what you could do for it to >> to help stabilize that area
besides just changing the grade back to where it was and just and and regrassing it? That's that's what we'd have to do. >> Okay. All right. That's all. Thank you, Brad. >> Thank you. And I'm sort of in the same
um mindset as the rest of the board. Um so going from here, um Bradley, would you be able to um amend this plan and take out the wall and regrade it and then send it back?
>> That's that. My one question is um it appears that this one wall closer to the water is your concern. Is there concerns with the walls to the south of the of the structure?
>> No. The ones alongside the house, Brad, the ones going down. >> Correct. >> No, I think we made that clear at the last hearing. >> That's what I understood. I just wanted to verify. >> No. >> Is those walls able to be approved under
a uh staff approval or administrative approval? >> Am I getting that? If that's the process, then I'd withdraw this amendment and just file a an administrative approval to let me share my screen just to
verify. Um, I would be looking for this change under administrative approval to uh make things a possibly a little easier I on on your end.
I'm fine with that, Brad. So, we can do this two ways. If you want to withdraw this application tonight, file an administrative approval. We can approve, Mr. Chairman, if you're okay with that. Those two side walls. It is a pretty steep slope over there. And then, or
Brad, we could, you know, go through with the amendment, you know, approve those sidewalls and just not approve the larger walls. It's strictly up to you. It's procedurally six one half a dozen or the other.
>> Yeah, it just avoids another uh document recording. >> Okay, that's fine. >> It's if it was had to go through the amendment, then I would submit a revised plan uh doing that. I just think it easier just if it's can be approved
administratively just to go back to the original plan and show the the grading to the south of the house matching what's on the plan that was presented this evening. U
and if if the commission's up with that, I'd be I'd be uh requesting that. Obviously, it's not what the the property owner is going to want and I but I I hear your concerns and uh your
consistency on on projects. So, uh, I appreciate the time to let me, uh, try to win you over. >> So, are you requesting to withdraw this application? >> I would I would request at this time to withdraw the amendment.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Any um, do we just have to vote on it or can you just withdraw? I I would just I would just since it's being discussed and like this, I think you can vote on it. Yeah, we usually don't, but that's not before we had a presentation and everything. So, I would just say,
you know, you accept the withdrawal without prejudice and Brad, if you want to submit that revised plan to Alyssa and I with the with the walls on the side and the regrading of the back, we'll handle it from there with you. Okay. >> And I one more little question. Is it
rip wrap still come out? >> That stays stay. >> That stays. >> Okay, I'm done. Thanks. >> All right, I'll um >> I'll take a motion to accept the withdrawal of the at the um applicant's request. Driscoll
>> heard. Second. >> Any questions? I'll call the role. Jim >> McGrath I >> Dave >> Gent. Courtney >> third eye I >> Steve I >> Ron
>> Chris I >> and Duffy I motion passes to withdraw. >> Thanks again for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good night. >> Good night. >> Great great attempt. >> Thank you. Maybe next time.
>> Maybe. >> All right. Next on the agenda we have a continued request for certificate of compliance. Timothy Leeham, trustee RNG Reality Trust, 1209 East Falmouth Highway, East Falmouth, Mass. Request for a partial
certificate of compliance for Mass D-4524. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, this uh uh the applicant is requesting um an additional continuance to February 18th.
We are still awaiting some information that we requested that we need to provide to the board. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Request to move the continued hearing till February 18th. Driscoll.
>> Second. >> Dave, did you have a question real quick? >> Uh what what generally is this this project? >> Okay. So Dave, if you can don't mind, Mr. Chairman. Dave, this was the reconstruction of Bosen's Marine off of
um East East East Balmouth Highway. >> Uhhuh. >> Um they um have um they are requesting a partial certificate because part of the project has been completed and part of the mitigation for the project has not
been completed or has been but was recently completed. Um, so we're we're just we're requesting additional information on the Salt Marsh restoration in order to provide this board with a with a recommendation.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Not a problem. >> All right. We have a motion and a second to uh continue to February 18th and I'll start the role. Dave >> Hi. >> Ron >> Driscoll. >> Jim
>> Rathy. Courtney >> heard I >> Steve >> and I motion passes to continue to the 18th. All right. Next on the agenda continued herings under an enforcement warrior.
John G. But Mary Ellen Butt, 41 Mary Manuel Way, Felmouth, Mass. Unpermitted construction of a deck and fence, removal of trees, and clearing vegetation within conservation jurisdiction. Jen,
>> so this is an interesting one. This one's been on your agenda for quite a while. We have been accommodating the property owner for personal reasons. Um, Fallon did reach out to Mr. But on Monday. He did. I'm looking at an email
right from him that said he would attend tonight's hearing. Unfortunately, he does not seem to be in attendance this evening. My recommendation would just be to continue this for one more week. If again there is no representation at that
time then the staff will proceed with a presentation of the enforcement so the board is aware of what's going on and we will reach out to Mr. But tomorrow to see what happened but I I I don't want to to
not get not have the property owner present and just give him one more chance to come. Um, >> okay. >> So, uh, I recommend a continuence until next week. >> All right. In the absence of the applicant, um, I move to continue the
hearing until the 21st of January. Driscoll. >> Second. >> All right. We do have a question, Dave. >> I'm not sure of the quorum on this. I think this is this is before my time, so I may not be on it. >> We haven't opened it yet. >> Oh, okay. That's fine. Okay. Thanks.
>> Excellent. So we have a motion to continue till next week and seconded. Call roll. Ron >> Driscoll I. >> Jim >> McGrath I >> Dave >> Kent I. >> Courtourtney >> Bird I. >> Steve >> Bton I.
>> McDuffy I. Motion passes to continue till next week. All right. Next we have vote orders of conditions. First, Michael Okconor, 73 Lakeshore
Drive, Falmouth, Mass. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is the property where we are um permitting restoration of the zone A, a retaining wall in zone B, not to be confused with retaining
walls in zone A. Um some I think we've already done the tree work. So I think it's just the retaining wall and then replanting uh reveating that existing zone A. There
is a small portion of the deck. I do believe that's in zone B. Um but so it would be the deck. Small clearing for a yard, leveling it out, creating a flat space, retaining wall in zone B.
not to be repetitive. Um, and then restoring that zone A fully. >> Okay. Thank you, Lisa. >> Um, I had a note that we're still waiting on the cut and fill calculations from the engineers.
>> Um, there is some debris in the zone A that needs to be cleared. >> Um, and tree replacement. Looks like >> the tree replacement. Is that in the zone A or is that in zone B?
>> I know he's got to replace some of the shade trees. That >> Yeah, that would be out of jurisdiction. >> Yeah, it's out of our jurisdiction. >> It says here that four came down under an AR. Um staff recommended that at least one was replanted. I do know that
the zone A is forested. Um, since I wasn't out there, I I don't know exactly where it would be placed, but if there's an opening to >> we'll figure it out. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Move to make an issue in order of
conditions as extensively discussed. >> Second. >> First and second. Any questions? Not hearing any. I'll call the role. Ron Driscolli. >> Jim McGrath. I >> Dave >> H. I
>> Courtney >> Bird I >> Steve >> I >> Duffy I motion passes to issue an order of conditions as extensively discussed. Next we have Wendy Y. Hill Trustee 75
Nashina Street Nominee Trust 0 Nashina Street Map Parcel 24-20-00001-0000 F with Mass Jen. >> Yes, >> Courtney, you're not on this quorum. >> You're not on this one.
>> I'm not on the quorum. Okay. No. >> Um, this is to um raised as an heightened the pier the concrete pier that's been out there for probably well over a hundred years. Um
they're just going to be forming it up raising it about 18 in I think. Um and then depending on um the the the ramp they may switch the the
the existing ramp to steps. Um this is because >> given sea level rise there are times that that structure is underwater. Um during high tide it's definitely underwater during the king
tides we've been having. Um, so they just want it to be usable during those periods of time. >> That's it. >> Walk through the water to get to a dock or a cement pier that's above the water. >> Yeah.
>> I mean, it goes down and then Yeah. I mean, it it's it's pretty low in there. It's all salt ocean. Yeah. >> But I mean, again, this thing's probably been there for like a hundred plus years. So, >> yeah. All right. If that's it, I'll make a
motion to issue our conditions as briefly discussed. >> Grass second. >> An order and a second. Any comments? I don't see any. I call the roll. Ron. >> Driscoll. >> I. >> Jim. I.
>> Dave. >> Kent. >> I. >> Steve. >> I. >> Duffy. I uh you know go to order of conditioned as briefly discussed. >> Well that's it.
>> Make the final motion. >> Driscoll second. >> Bird eye. >> McGrath I Driscoll I and Duffy I. Thank you all very much.