Heat. Heat. Good evening and welcome to the May 14th meeting of the Falmouth Conservation Commission. This meeting is being held virtually via Zoom video conference and is also being broadcast by FCTV on cable channel 9. As this meeting is being
recorded by Zoom and broadcast by FCTV, please be cognizant of what you say, how you say it, and what can be seen and heard in your background. We're missing one commissioner tonight. U we're expecting one coming in late.
However, the uh appointed alternate tonight is our newest member. Welcome, Ronnie Bowman. Like to remind you guys that for commenting, I'll 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 the second. to our public attendees. At any time during this meeting, you may enter any comments or questions via the chat function. At the
appropriate time, they will be read into the record. If, as an attendee, you'd like to participate in a particular hearing, let us know via the chat function. Then, at the appropriate time, you'll be promoted into the hearing as a participant. When you are selected, you
must have your video enabled. Be succinct and respectful of others. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. Regarding RDAs, under a request for determination of applicability, the applicant is asking the commission to
determine if the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act andor the Falmouth wetlands bylaw apply to their proposed project. A negative determination is that the provisions of the act and or the bylaw do not apply. Therefore, the project may proceed as
proposed. A positive determination means that the provisions of the act and or the bylaw do in fact apply andor may require some conditions. Therefore, the project would require a notice of intent application. So, as an applicant, you
actually want to hear a negative determination. And for the benefit of anyone waiting for a particular hearing tonight and so that you're not waiting unnecessarily, the following hearings are expected to be continued. 84 Old
Dark Road, zero Davisville Road, and 40 Man Mary Emanuel Way. And hold on to start before we start tonight, I just want to welcome our newest commissioner, Ronnie Bowman. Thank you for participating,
Ronnie. Look forward to to having you serve and look forward to more people. Courtney, before your finger falls off, just a question of procedure. Uh because we have a missing missing commissioner. Uh are you going to is is Ron moved up
to be a full voting member tonight? Well, you weren't paying attention because that was the third thing that I said. Okay. So, yes, he's been promoted as as the uh I stand corrective and we have a quorum anyway.
So, and there'll be some some items that he's not on the quorum yet, Ronnie. That is um because he hasn't heard him before. So, I'll point that out just for posterity. So, if there's nothing else, we're going to move forward. First up
tonight is the vote minutes of April 23rd, 2025. Anyone? Mr. Chairman, I'd move approval of the minutes. Sorry for the delay. Third second. All right. And again, Ronnie, this is
the kind of thing that that I'm going to skip over you because you haven't you weren't at those meetings, so would be appropriate for you to vote on. All right. We have a motion and a second to accept the minutes of April 23rd. We're voting. Courtney Bird I, Matthews, I Russ,
Robin's eye, Steve, Ben. It is unanimous with this quorum. We have accepted the minutes of April 23rd. Next up is to vote minutes of April 30th, 2025. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the minutes. I've reviewed them. Patent
bird. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second to accept the minutes of April 30th. Questions or comments or input? We're voting. Courtney Bird I. Matthews I. Russ. Robin's eye. Steve and I again it is
unanimous with this quorum we have accepted the minutes of April 30th. Thank you Kristen. Next up are request for a continuence under notice of intent and Ronnie you can vote on these because we're this is only for to
continue these hearings or you can abstain if you're uncomfortable. First up, David Flareity, Flareity Environmental Services, 84 Old Dock Road, Valmouth, Mass, for after the-act permission for the installation of Heartscape and for permission to
install the associated mitigation. Jen, yes, Mr. Chairman, the applicant is requesting a continuence until June 25th. Robin, we have a motion and a second to continue to 6:25.
Questions or comments for voting on the continuence? Courtney Bird I Matthews I Ronnie Driscoll I I Ron popped in on me Russ.
All right. Sorry about that. That's all right. Steve, it is unanimous. We have continued this till 6:25. We'll get there. Next up, Wayne Van Wart, the Sea Shell Lane Community Association, Inc. Zero Davisville Road. Map and parcel ID
is 40-11-013-0000, Balmouth, Mass for permission to reconstruct and enlarge an existing licensed community dock system. Jen, yes, Mr. Chairman, this uh the applicant is requesting a continuence until June 11th.
So move Robin second. All right, we have a motion and a second to continue this until June 11th. It's been continued many
times. Think we're getting there. Never mind. All right, we have a motion in a second to continue this to 611. We're voting Courtney. I Matthews I Ron Fiscal eye. Ronnie,
man, I Russ. Robins. I Steve and I. It is unanimous. We have continued this until June 11. Next up, Joshua Cardardoza 40 Mary Emanuel Way found with Mass for
permission to construct a single family dwelling with attached garage and title five sewage disposal system. Jen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The album is requesting a continuence until June 25th. Heard so move.
Pat and second. All right. Are we getting uh busy on 625? No. Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second to continue this hearing until 6:25. Questions or comments? We're voting on the continuence. Courtney Bird
I. Matthews I Ron Driscoll I Ronnie Bowman I Russ Robins I Steve Patton I it is unanimous we have continued this to 625. Next up are requests for
determination of applicability. First up Matthew Philick 17 Foster Road Felmouth Mass for permission to reconstruct two decks. Alissa staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative two under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. Heard
so move. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation. Questions or comments. We're voting. Courtney Bird I. Matthew's eye. Ron. Driscoll. I Ronnie.
Bullman. I Russ. Ron's eye. Steve Patton. It is unanimous. We have accepted staff's recommendation. Next up, Alice Elizabeth Jones Crawford, Trustee 0 Associates
Road, Map and Parcel ID 24-05-00009- Z00 I'm sorry, 022D as in David with Mask for permission to conduct minor invasive species management and restoration. Melissa staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative two
under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. So move fiscal second. We have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation. Questions or comments? We're voting. Courtney Bird I.
Matthews I. Ron Bistol I. Ronnie Bowman I. Russ. Robins I. Steve Benton I. It is unanimous. We have accepted staff's recommendation. Next up, Larry Budnick,
331 Menard Road, found with Mass for permission to install a pool, patio, and equipment pad. Alyssa staff recommends a negative two under the state and bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed and this project solely takes place in an AE flood zone.
So move. Fiscal second. All right, we have a motion and a second to accept staff recommendation. Questions or comments? We're voting. Courtney Bird I. Matthews I. Ron
Briscoll I. Ronnie Homeman I Russ. Steve I. It is unanimous. We have accepted staff's recommendation. Next up Joan Elizabeth Doyle 10 Montgomery Court Palm Mass for
permission to reconstruct a deck. Alissa staff recommends a negative two under the state and bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed and this project solely takes place in an AE flood zone. So move fiscal second. We have a motion and a second to accept
staff's recommendation, questions or comments. All right, we're voting. Courtney Bird I. Matthews I. Ron Biscal I. Ronnie Lman I. Russ. Robins I. Steve Matt and I it is
unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation. Next up more 29 Hunt Street Mass for permission to construct an addition and install a dry well. Alyssa staff recommends a negative two under the state and bylaw resource area
boundaries are not confirmed and this project solely takes place in an AE flood zone. So move second. We have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation. Questions or comments? We're voting. Courtney Bird I.
Matthew I. Ron Chrislly I. Ronnie Bowman. I Russ. Steve I is unanimous. We have accepted staff's recommendation.
Next up, TSM Realy Holdings LLC 32 Chap Road of Mass for permission to install a new title 5 sewage disposal system and four dry wells. Alyssa staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative two under the bylaw. Resource
area boundaries are not confirmed. So move second. We have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation. Questions or comments? We're voting. Courtney Bird I Matthews I Ron Escali Ronnie Bowman I
Russ Robins I Steve Ben I It is unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation next up Sam Holloway Bellingham Marine 278 Scranton Avenue found with Mass for permission to
establish landbased geotechnical testings. Melissa staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative -2 under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. So move second. We have a motion and a second to accept
staff's recommendation. Questions or comments. We're voting. Courtney Bird I. Matthews I. Ron Pisclly. Ronnie. Balman. I Russ. Robins I. Steve Matt and I. It is
unanimous. We have accepted staff's recommendation. Next up, our continued request for determination of applicability. Patrick Burke, 158 Church Street, Palmouth, Mass, for permission to reinstall mitigation plantings in
accordance with Mass D-4051. Alyssa. Yes. The applicant's representative has requested a continuance until June 4th. Uh Birds move fiscal second. We have a motion and a second to
continue this until June 4th. Questions or comments? We're voting on the continuence. Courtney Bird I. Matthews I. Ron I. Ronnie. Bulman. I Russ.
Steve, it is unanimous. We have continued this until June 4th. That's it for RDAs. Thank you to the staff for all that. Next up, our request for hearing under notice of intent. All hearings of the Falmouth
Conservation Commission are held simultaneously under the authorities of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Falmouth Wetlands bylaw. Although a single decision of the commission is issued, it represents a separate decision under each authority.
As a reminder, public commenting is limited to three minutes. So I encourage you to stay within the purview of this board, which are the rules and regulations of the wetlands protection act and the fmouth wetlands bylaw and how they pertain to a particular application. The chair reserves the
right to stop any commenting that is disparaging or inconsequential to the hearing. First up tonight, Jim Mclofflin, town of Felmouth, Department of Public Works, Chapaquite Road, Felmouth, Mass. for permission to repair a sinkhole,
undersheet the seaw wall, and install guard rails. Jen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I promoted Jim Mlofflin, the town's engineer, and I'm attempting to pull up Trey Ruven, but I
guess I promoted Tyler instead. Tyler, I'm going to put you back in attendees. Sorry about that. And Trey Ruen is promoted and he is from Sustainable Coastal Solutions. Okay, everybody has stop. All
right, Mr. Mclofflin, you're up, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I'm James McLaclin, town engineer in Felmouth, and we're here tonight to request a uh order of conditions for repairs to Chapoy
Road. Uh, Chapoy Road is a public way which runs from uh West Falmouth Highway to Chapquite Beach. um where it's between that distance. It's uh either a
40 or a 50ft rideway until you get past the beach. There's a turnaround that's uh gravel and sand. Uh and that that's about the end of the 50ft wide priv private way. Um public way, I'm sorry.
Uh from there it continues again as a public way. Uh but it's much narrower. It's only 25 ft and it goes from the culde-sac area up to uh a pair of granite pillars and that's where the public
right ofway ends. The street continues in in and around Chapoy Island, but uh that's all private. So the public section of the roadway that we're talking about is uh ends right at those pillars and there's also a small guard shack there.
Um, we've the the length of the 25 ft wide private way is about uh 950 ft more or less from the end of the the end of the beach up to the up to the pillars. In the past, we've had order of conditions and made improvements to
other sections of this roadway that uh have experienced uh erosion and sink holes. And um beginning in 2012 up until uh just a few years ago, we've done several sections with sheeting and
revetment replacement. Uh this is the last piece in of the public way that we have not repaired. Um and the the approach that we're taking on this piece is a little bit different than the
others. uh at the initial stage uh which is right now what we're proposing to do is install sheeting to protect the uh the roadway that is is and has been experiencing uh undermining and and sink
holes uh limiting it to uh one section to oneway traffic. It's a small area but uh it's oneway traffic nonetheless. So to uh restore it back to the two-way traffic, we're proposing to sheet that area well the entire length that hasn't
been repaired to date, which is about 265 ft. Um at a at a later date, we come back and look at uh uh continuing with the armoring, which we've done on on the other sections, but uh just to get get
the road protected at this point in time, we're looking at sheeting it as a first step. And uh as Jen mentioned, Trey Ruthin is here from Sustainable Coastal Solutions. He has a presentation that will go through all the details on
on his project and he's uh also done all the design work uh on the previous sections as well. So he's very familiar with it. So I'd like to turn it over to Trey. Uh good evening. Uh Trey Ruthman from Sustainable Coastal Solutions. Uh if you
don't mind uh may I present uh the project to you uh through sharing? Yes sir. Let's see. Oh, here we go. So, as Jim kind of alluded to, uh this project has been going on for the town
since 2012 from the first section immediately north of the public, uh beach parking lot, uh failed. Uh there was another section that was done uh northward of that uh a few years later.
Uh but this has all been going on since this uh revetment was put in place in the 1960s. And what you'll see shortly in a series of aerial photographs is how quickly the beaches eroded. Uh and as the beach erodess and drops in elevation, what we're doing is exposing the bottom of
the concrete seaw wall. And as that happens, we're able to scour out material from the roadway base, which is generating the sink holes. Uh as it destabilizes, there's large cracks in the seaw wall. The revetman is also dropping in elevation. Uh basically
typical coastal erosion problems. Uh in our current project area, there is a sinkhole. We've lost one lane of the roadway. Uh and so our goal is to repair that as quickly as possible to return Chapoy Road to two lanes. Uh just quick
kind of background on the coastal processes going on here. Here's a photo from 1968. You can see the roadway here down here or the wide beach. And we'll quickly go through time here. 1975, you can see how quickly the beaches started eroding, especially down here by the
town parking lot section. 1986 and 2024 where there's really no beach left in front of that seaw wall and revampment. Uh this is what we have today. Uh you can see the concrete ballards out protecting uh the hole in
the roadway to prevent traffic from driving through. Um, if you're looking to the north, this is where the end of the town section of road goes. And what you're seeing here is gravel the town has been filling in. So, we're getting additional sink holes. Uh, we're losing material from the roadway. And larger
sink holes are just a matter of time. It's not if, it is time. So, we're going to lose the entire roadway section from there uh northward if we do not act. What we're proposing, as Jim said, is to
drive steel sheeting right here landward to the concrete seaw wall. What that will do will isolate the roadway base uh from the Buzzers Bay and the ocean. That means our roadway will no longer be sinking in and then eroding out to the
beach. Uh we'll add a timber guard rail along this section which will match the timber guardrail that is on the lower sections that we put in uh when we started. Most of this roadway didn't have a guardrail. There were some concrete ballards, but uh not enough to really
prevent anybody from u driving off the roadway. Uh at the moment, there is no work proposed on the concrete seaw wall or the stone reventment seawward of the roadway. Uh and once we're done with the sheeting, repaired the roadway base, we
will resurface the roadway uh at the same width as it is now. So in reality, we're not changing much. for just actually fixing the problem. Uh for these you can see here here's the extension it's 265 ft. Uh here to the
north which is on the left hand side that's where the conc or granite pillars are where it becomes a private roadway. Uh here at the southern end was the last section that we had done uh about what was it I think six years ago. Uh so
continue the sheeting that's been driven uh northward to the end of the town limit. Um this is just for reference. Uh 211 and 214 Chapo Road. Uh again just cross-sections showing the same thing. Uh nothing in
particular. Uh just sheeting repairing the roadway and paving along with guardrail. Uh the resource areas that we'll be impacting are uh the buffer zone uh which in reality our project is entirely contained within the other resource
areas. Uh so we're really not impacting uh the buffer area. Uh we are adjacent to land under the ocean with the revetment uh and seaw wall but we're not doing any work on those. So we're not impacting that. Uh coastal beach uh that would be seawward of the coastal bank
which is the concrete seaw wall. So we're not doing any work seawward to the concrete seaw wall. So we're not having any impact there. Uh our largest areas of impact are the coastal dune and barrier beach. The two resource areas overlap exactly. Uh the roadway is actually constructed on top of the
coastal dune which would also be a barrier beach. Uh the coastal bank that's actually represents the coastal engineering structure. So that would be the concrete seaw wall and revetment. Uh and obviously we're impacting 265 linear feet uh on the landlord side and land
subject to coastal storm flowage is the same area that we've been impacting. Um as I mentioned so the project's contained entirely within the town roadway. So there's going to be no significant impact on any of the buffer resource areas and actually no impacts on land under the ocean or coastal
beaches. Uh again coastal dunes our impacts are contained to the surface. uh we're not actually changing the current function of the dune or uh the impairments to it. We are just resurfacing the road and actually putting material back in. Uh so there'll
be no change in the resource areas functions as they currently exist. Uh along with coastal bank we're not changing how the coastal engineering structures uh operate or repairing them. Uh we're just working uh immediately adjacent to them. uh in the future if we come back
in we'll obviously be impacting those as we repair those structures. Uh for the state there is no regulations for elig for land sub coastal storm flowage uh for the town. We're not destroying or impairing any existing functions of the land form. Uh
so there's no further impact to the wetland resources. uh the town uh wetland regulations advocate for in the VE zone which we are in um that we plan for 2 ft of sea level elevation uh over the next
100 years. However, there's no practical way of actually raising uh Chapoy Road without significant impacts to the wetlands uh and the coastal resource areas and a project like that is obviously going to be a much larger project for the town as we consider how
to move forward into the future. Uh but kind of beyond the simple repairs that we need to get done to keep Chapoquite Road open. Um that's largely it for tonight. If the commissioner has any questions for me. Okay, you can stop
sharing. Thanks, Ken. Uh, no comments, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Alyssa. No comments. Thank you. All right. Commissioner comments or questions? Courtney.
Um, Trey, what's the uh substrate like there? I mean are you the reason for my question is are there going to be impediments to driving the sheet piling like huge erratic boulders and stuff like that? Uh we've done borings and we've not found any uh erratic boulders.
It's largely just uh sand medium core sand uh largely because the roadway was built on the dune and then the coastal engineering structures were added later. Okay, that's good. Thank you. No other questions. Thank you, Ron. No, I'm all
set. Thank you. Good luck with that project. Thank you. All right, Ronnie. I was down at the site and uh it's definitely a huge hazard, a liability, and I think we need to move fast on this. That's it.
Agreed. Russ, no comments. All right, Steve. No comments. Thank you, sir. All right, Jen. Is there anything in the public chat function, please? Nothing in the public chat, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement. Fiscal second. All right, we have a motion and a second to close the hearing. Last call. Questions or comments? All right, we're voting to
close the hearing. Courtney, I Ron Driscoll. Ronnie Bman and I Russman's eye. Steve, Matt and I. It is unanimous. We have closed this hearing.
Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Trey. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thanks, Jim. Thank you. Good night. Good night, Jen. Night, guys. All right, next up, Mark Stewart and Marina
Urban, three Providence Street and 0 Little Bay Street, map and parcel ID 46A-18-0000-00 as in North Palmouth Mass for permission to replace a deteriorated concrete wall with a vinyl sheet piling
And yes, Mr. Chairman, I accidentally my screen is bouncing. I accidentally put Steve back in attendees. Steve, I'm trying to get you back in and then I'm bringing in Raul. Um, don't know why Steve is not Come on
already. H. And then I'm uh promoting Ro Lazardi from Capen Islands Engineering. I don't know why Steve isn't coming back in. I accidentally Yep, here comes Steve. Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman.
Good evening, Raul. Sorry, Steve. Let's have to wait a second. See if Steve gets gets in. Sometimes my little people jump and I or do this. There he is. Welcome back, Steve. We
missed you. Thank you. I'm the wrong person to do that to. Sorry about that, Steve. I'll try to make sure I don't do it again. Yeah, Mr. Lazardi, you're up, sir. Good evening. For the record, Ra Sardi
from Capen Islands Engineering representing the applicants for this project at number three and number zero Little Bay Street. Um, if I could share my screen. Yes, sir. So this application is we're seeking a
not of condition um for proposed bulkhead reconstruction. Um the site and I'll go um in in depth detail later about the two different addresses but the site is along the midpoint along the the eastern
shorelines of Little Pond. Um the site plan that was submitted um is this plan and in particular the section of interest is an existing concrete wall at this location. That wall was permitted back
in 1982 under order of condition 25-399. uh certificate of compliance was issued for that concrete wall back in 1993. And if I show a couple of photographs, um the reasoning for this
application is that the concrete wall is starting to break apart and slumping towards Little Pawn. So, the wall is failing. It hasn't completely collapsed, but it's just a matter of time before it does collapse.
The property of um three Providence Street is actually this lot right here. Little Bay Street is this section of land and water. And then lot
N is this section right here which is title um title land. So that this the reason we have the two properties listed as uh property owners is because the wall is constructed in the paper road
layout. It's a private road. So we have both property owners signing on this notice of intent but the applicant is solely the bene the the the one property that benefits from this wall which is um three Providence Street.
So the work as I mentioned is to replace the wall but not in the same type of material. The existing wall is concrete. What we propose to do is remove the wall by excavating behind the wall to kind of loosen up or relieve the earth pressure
that's currently applied to that wall. Remove portion of of walls and install sheet piling in sections um along the way. The resources that we're dealing with is of course little pond, land under the ocean, land containing shellfish.
There's a marsh at this location. The wall itself constitutes a coastal bank and the entire property is land subject to to coastal stone flowish. All of the work happens within um the buffer
zones and within land coal stone flowish. A close-up look included on the plan is these two uh plan views. The top view is the existing wall, the existing concrete wall, and the bottom view is what we're proposing with the vinyl
sheet pile wall. Um, which is going to be anchored back with several tiebacks. Um so there will be excavation approximately 10 ft back from the wall to be able to install um these
tiebacks that are being proposed. In terms of footprint um the wall along this side stays in the same location. It is not projecting any further seawward. Um there is this wing extension that was not at least has not
been physically um identified that exist uh concrete exists there. So this extension will be just the return of the sheet pile wall. If there if there happens to be an existing return from the concrete wall in this location that will be
removed. Um we did receive comments from staff. Um and I wanted to go over a couple of those comments. Um the one first comment was does the wall represent a coastal bank? And yes, by definitions of the town of FMouth
conservation commission regulations, it it is a man-made coastal bank. Um, how will the salt marsh be protected? What we anticipate is that as sections of the wall get removed, a temporary sheathing is installed at the
face of this um salt marsh to prevent the salt marsh from collapse collapsing as the wall is being removed. Um there is a pipe um that kind of comes through the existing
wall. I hope everybody can see it, but there is a pipe at this location of the wall. Um at the time we didn't know what this pipe was. We reached out to the homeowner to find out what this pipe is is for. And it looks like this is the discharge from a sump pump in the
basement of the house. The applicant understands that um this is not an ideal condition for the property and the wetlands. So he is going to engage um with the person who services the sump pump in the basement to have this
discharge um on the land instead of directly onto the pond. There was another question regarding um what will happen with the disturbed vegetation when the wall the cheap pile
wall gets installed in this location. That vegetation I'm going to show a couple of clipped images of what that vegetation is. You will probably not really realize what this vegetation is. what we identify here there's some
bittersweet and there's multif flora in this area. Um so what we um agreed to is that any vegetation that gets removed whether it's native or invasives gets replanted with native species. Um but
from the pictures that that I have and the conditions that I saw on site it's it's a lot of invasives. So it will be a benefit if anything gets removed gets replanted with some native
plants. Another question was regarding um the area underneath the deck. This is a photograph that staff provided to us from conservation file records. Um the existing deck on the house was rebuilt
sometime in 2015. This picture is from 2004. Um this is likely at the time um when some other work was happening uh in relation to the septic system. In 2004 septic system back here was upgraded. Um
but today the the deck has been improved or redecked or reconstructed. And what happened is um at the time in 2004 there was this floating little deck here on top of the concrete pad. The new deck actually has all of this covered on that
floating deck. Underneath that floating deck is still the concrete pad. There is no increase in in the footprint of it. Um what staff says is that that lower deck cannot be used in the future. I presume is what they're meaning. It cannot be used as part of the primary
structure for any potential increase in habitable spaces. And another question um conservation staff had was that they noticed um and I think I just messed up this
image, but they noticed that the front yard um the front driveway, if I go back to the plans, the front driveway at this location and the existing walkway at
this location are different than what appeared to be there in 2022. 2022 it looked like the driveway was just something like this and the walkway was over here and staff comments
says that this modification for the applicant to calculate what mitigation would be required for the changes and increase in in the heartscape. We did the calculations and and we provided it to staff. Um it comes out to
about 300 313 square ft um of the increase in hardscape surfaces. The increase happens both in A and B zone. The majority
happens in the A zone. Um and this because we don't really have a a survey of what the walkway and the driveway was at that time in 2020. um or or earlier, all we could do is just sketch the
footprint from the aerial image that the staff provided us. Um so based on that comparison, there was an increase in development unrelated to the wall that we're proposing. Um but it comes out to roughly 313 square ft. um the applicant
agrees that um that mitigation could go at this location to enhance the buffering um that exist um on that side of the project. Um with that I will stop sharing and I'll pass it to the
commissioners for questions. So well just for cl my clarification the 313 square feet is the mitigation not the increase in in uh pavers that is correct and that is going to be buffered on the vegetation the native vegetation you replace when the wall is replaced
that will be in addition to any replacement so replacement and mitigation are yes perfect thank you Marlo that's all I have all right so No comments. Thank you. All right,
commissioner comments and questions. Oh, we're going to start with me. Um R, that lot N looks like it's uh underwater, right? Yes, it's still an assessor's lot, but it is underwater.
Okay. So, so the wall is actually in the in the road layout. No, it is because it is a private road. the the ownership fees goes to the center line. So, lot N has some fees to it, which is why you have both owners
listed. My question is, um, do you need permission from the board of selectment? Do you need town approval for this? It's a private paper road. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Ron. Hey, can we put the sound pump into some dry wells? instead of just running it on the
ground. Um the backyard elevation wise is roughly four. Any dry well will likely be very close to groundwater. Yeah. Um maybe one of the things that we can reach out to to the applicant is
that we are proposing some drainage improvement behind the new sheet pie. Is the typical type of stone trench that we do behind drywalls. I mean um sheep pile walls with weep holes through the walls. Um is that maybe that could be enlarged
to to capture some of that um dewatering that takes place in the basement. Okay, that's it. Thank you. All right, Ronnie, no comment. Russ,
I'm good. Mr. Steve, I just want to get back to staff and see if they were comfortable with uh Raul's comments on on your earlier points in your written points, not in your comments this evening.
Yes. Okay. Fine. I'm I'm good then, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right, Courtney. Um I just want to follow up on a point you made, Jamie, and that is it's not a town road. It's a private way. Is there an association that
governs it? And if so, is any of their permission required for these activities? Jen Raul is correct. The two properties onto the center line. So, we always always hand jack up your mic.
That better guys? Yeah. Okay. Sorry about that. Um Raul is correct. The two properties owned to the center line. Courtney, there is no associ association over there that needs permission. Got it. Thank you. No problem. All right,
Jen. Is there anything in the public chat function, please? Nothing in the public chat. All right. What are you thinking? I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisor. Fiscal second. We have a motion and a second to close
the hearing. Last call. Questions or comments? We're voting to close the hearing. Courtney Bird I. Matthews I. Ron. Driscoll. I Ronnie. Bowman. I Russ.
Steve I. It is unanimous. We have closed this hearing. Thank you, Raul. Thank you. Hey, R. Got a couple more later. Yep. I'm going to put you back into attendees right now.
All right. Next up are continued requests for hearing under a notice of intent. The first one had been previously continued. The next one had been previously continued and the next one had been
previously continued. However, we have some more. Don't worry, all is not lost. Next up, Richard Romano, 10 Fiddler's Cove Road, Felmouth, Mass. for permission to remove an existing screen
porch, construct an addition and install mitigation plantings. Jen and Alyssa, this is not have not been previously open. So, the quorum is all of us here tonight. That's the way I have it. I don't
remember. Mike, we haven't opened this, right? No, we have not opened this becau uh we have not opened this. I can't remember the reason. I think it was um advertising issue or something. That's right. So the quorum is everyone here tonight. Thank you.
Mr. Borelli, you're up, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. For the record, Mike Borelli, Felmouth Engineering, and I represent the applicant, Richard Romano. With your permission, I'd like to share my screen. I'm sharing with you the site plan. Uh
this is lot 159, number 10, Fiddler's Cove Road. This lot contains just over 26,000 square ft of land. It has frontage on a man-made canal.
Um on the southwest side there is a uh stone revetment bordering the edge of the property at the man-made canal's edge. This has a slope to it. So it's meets the definition of coastal bank. So we've
identified it as a coastal bank and we've shown the top of the coastal bank. We've shown the 50-foot uh no disturbance zone A and the 50oot outer buffer zone B on the plan as well. There's an existing
house on the property deck, typical landscaping features, driveway. The project is uh a renovation that has two elements. First on the south side shaded in a tan color is a proposed sun room
office addition that will that will replace um if you look closely you can see it in the background. I'll I'll zoom in here. You can see the outlines of a screen in porch. A portion of it's going to occupy
the existing deck. So those impervious surfaces are already accounted for. But this back section um is uh partially in the outer buffer zone uh B this sliver between this red
line and the boundary of the outer buffer zone B. So that's 40 square ft. And we're proposing um 2:1 uh mitigation in the form of uh 80 square ft here shaded green. and we
specify the the plant species size and spacing. The second element is uh over the existing house in this larger shaded area. This shaded portion of the existing house is to be modified to include a second story dormer. All that
work is within the footprint of the existing house. Um that sums up the project. There were comments uh from staff and I'll just touch on those. Um I believe
back in like 2011 or 2012 there was a um plan in a review by conservation commission that required certain mitigation elements and it appears that some of these are not in place or they died and were not replaced.
Uh the first one is there were there were three uh cedars proposed in this area that I'm circling just above the words beach grass. Um when I got the staff report I looked I saw them on an older plan that I
concur they're not there. I've spoken to the client and he says they died. He never replaced them. So I advised them they had to be replaced. Um second uh there's an area uh
um over here that um was a previously required bay berry that was to be installed around some existing ink berry. Uh that looks like it most if not all of the bay berry
isn't there and the y in berry's been um been being pruned through the years and your staff points out that that has to be reinstalled and that the pruning of the ink berry needs to cease and of
course the any new baby that's installed shouldn't be pruned either. So I I will I will advise my client on that. Uh there's some uh raised garden beds. I'll have to look at uh talk to staff about where those are that they
requested we show on the plan. And finally, um back back in 2012, there there was a different orientation of this dock. I have to check that. There's a note to please revise the survey of the dock to
match the site plan. So I have to check that. This is a flow that might have shifted around, but I can I can submit a revised plan that shows that more accurately as well. So, that sums up the project. I'm hopeful there won't be any significant
other issues or concerns and that these staff comments can be handled under conditions and that you could vote to close tonight. With that, I'll stop sharing and I'm here for questions. Thanks, Mike. Jen.
Yes, Mr. Chairman. If the board is comfortable, I'm I'm sure we can handle the proposed revisions to the plan under um conditions. I don't think it warrants a continued hearing. That's all. All right, Alyssa. No comments. Thank you. All
right, commissioner comments and questions. Ron, Mike, we trust. Uh, thank you. That's all. Thank you, Ronnie. No comment. Russ, I'm good, Mr. Chairman.
Steve? Yeah, I'm all set. Thank you. All right, Courtney. No comments. All right. I'm good. Jen, is there anything in the public chat function, please? Nothing in the public chat. Mr. Chairman,
I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement. Driscoll second. All right, we have a motion and a second to close the hearing. Last call. Questions or comments? All right, we're voting to
close the hearing. Courtney I. Matthews I. Ron Priscal I. Ronnie Coleman I. Russ. Steve and I. It is unanimous. We have closed this
hearing. Thank you, Mike. Thank you. All right. Next up, Second Esset Hills Association, Inc. 200 second exit road balance mass for permission to reconstruct a set of access stairs, replace decking on a walkway and conduct
beach nourishment and the quorum is all of us here tonight. Jen, uh yes, Mr. Chairman, we continue this hearing for um receipt of natural heritage comments. We did receive those.
Um, Mike, did you notice they put a hard time of year restriction on that? Yes. Um, I was surprised they were not even going to let you nourish the dune with like a monitor, but there was no provision for that. It's it's a hard time of year restriction. Yep. We get
it. I've I've spoke to the um committee chairman that's responsible for this. They understand it's a double-edged sword. It's everything is uh can function for this summer. um they wouldn't really want to get into
like heavy construction from this point on anyway. So the the window I think it's April to August is workable and we'll they'd stop the work after probably Labor Day. Like I said, usually we see them with you know you can hire a monitor if there's no bird activity you
can proceed and they just left that out of this one. So we'll have to write it in like they it's fine. It's probably good to go through another summer in case anything happens. They'll they can do all they can do the work. Okay. After the season. Okay. That's all, Mr. Chairman.
Alyssa busted. Sorry, I'm off my game. I have no comments. Thank you. All right. Uh, let's see. Ronnie, on this quorum, is it was it continued hearing? So, I'm going to skip you, Russ. I'm
good, Mr. Chair. All right, Steve. No comments. Thank you. All right, Courtney. No comments. All right, I'm good. Ron, I'm good, too. Thank you. All right. Uh, Jen, is there anything in the public chat function, please? Nothing in
the public chat function, Mr. Chairman. I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisor. Fiscal second. All right. We have a motion and a second with this quorum to close this hearing. Last call. Questions or comments?
All right, we're voting. Courtney bird eye. Matthew's eye. Ron Driscoll I Russ's eye. Steve and I. It is unanimous with this quorum. We have closed this hearing. Thank you
Mike. Thank you. This the Mike Borelli show. I think it is. Next up, request to amend an existing order of conditions. First up, Pins and All Builders 362 Aapescate Road, Tomoth,
Mass. request to amend the order of conditions for Mass C number 25-4831 to revise the planting plan. J. Yes. Mike, are you staying on for this one since you were the engineer
on record? I'm just going to open it up and turn it over to Ian. Okay. And then I promoted Ian Warner from um Acer Landscape Design. Thank you. Sorry about that. Ian Acer Landscape Design to present their projects. Mr. Chairman.
All right. Mr. Moelli. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. Mike Boriselli, Felmouth Engineering. I represent the Appan along with Ian Warner. And Ian, do you want me to share the plan or do you have it? No, that would be great if you
could. Thank you. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'll share my screen. Yes, sir. Thank you. Um, basically, we received an order of conditions to do um uh work on this property, including uh a raise and
reconstruct of the house, a raise and uh reconstruct of a beach cabana, and all of the associated uh required mitigation planting. The um applicant has been working with
Ian on the design. The original design uh was taken from the model and uh by that I mean the plant types and species that were originally designed for a different applicant. Uh so when we filed
the the subsequent notice of intent for the the now current owner of the property uh we kept with that theme but they've done some work and and looked at the plant varieties and species and work
with Ian and they they have a different plant pallet basically that they want to propose. Um I don't often use the terms plant pallet so I'm out of my league. I'm going to turn it over to Ian. Ian, I'm here for questions.
Thanks, Mike. Ian, you're up, sir. Uh, thank you, Mike. Um, my name is Ian Warner. I am from Acer Landscape Design. I'm representing the clients. Uh, I've uh worked uh hard with the clients to try and increase uh the variety of
plants uh with this planting. I think originally there was only six different species covering the whole of the 8,200 uh square feet of planting. And so along with the trees um we've in upped that to
about nine species all of which um are native to the area and also um can handle both uh the hot sunny site that we have here on the slope and um also there's there is some shade
um provided by a big oak existing oak tree that is uh just above the pool cabana. kind of there. We've gone back and forth a few times with um staff and uh they in the hopes that we were going to
be able to do this um through just an administrative, but um they wanted us to be able to come to you guys. So, with that, I'll just open it up to any questions that anybody may have. All right. Thank you, Mike, if you would
stop sharing. Y Jen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh, we just have concerns with the the the use of the the blueberry sod on the bank itself. I
mean, there's no reason why we couldn't have more substantial shrubs on the bank. Um, we have noticed for the last several um projects the use of huckleberry saw has not done well. So, we do have concerns with making that
entire slope low bush blueberry and there's no there's no real reason for it. It won't obstruct the view from the pool. Um there could be more substantial um a more substantial shrub layer um on
that slope. I'd like to remind the board that this this house the footprint of this house increased significantly on this lot which required the mitigation and we've been going back and forth with the m mitigation pallet on this property since day one. Um so we
do we do have concerns with the use of just blanketing that fairly steep bank with with low bush blueberry. Um um especially with the blueberry sod um again so just to uh excuse me sorry
the use of huckleberry sod has not done well on various sites around town so again there would be a little bit concern with the blueberry sod um and that's all I have Mr. Chairman. All right Mr. Warner. Uh, sorry about
that. I was um thinking that Jen was done there. Um, uh, one thing that I did want to say is that we were hoping um to interplant uh many of the other shrub species within that blueberry sod. So,
it's not necessarily a uh a a full only blueberry covering that entirety of the slope. Um the previous plan that was approved um did not have specific layouts of any of the plants. So we were
just going with a representation that was the same as the previous one. Well, that's not what your plan shows, Ian. It shows a big, you know, circle of blueberry sod. So if you want to intersperse,
that's when see that represented on plan. Can we do that when we're planting? It's really um and not particularly fair to the staff or the commission to sit there and say I'll do this in the field. We've been going back and forth and back and forth with the
the the team on this project to try to get the mitigation, you know, to a place where staff can support it. and we we keep receiving push back. So, I'm right now uncomfortable saying that, you know, we could do it in the field because I'm
not quite sure how much cooperation we would have in the field and I don't want to have to bring this back to the board. So, if you'd like to intersperse that, I would like to see that on a plan or at least give us a percentage or a quantity of the additional shrubs that you're
going to plant in the blueberry sod. So, okay. So, we were we were considering that the the plant list that we sent over to you showing all of the quantities um that those plants would be
interspersed. So, there wouldn't be necessarily additional ones than we're already proposing. They're just pocketed within that blueberry sod. Melissa, do we have the quantities?
There is another sheet. Um Jen, there's um in your packet there was a letter and then there was a separate sheet with quantities. Um if I may, like Jen was saying, um this first came up about a year ago to change the planting plan. We've worked
with um Mr. Limon throughout the process with um two or three variations of the plan. And at the staff level, the sheer square footage of very low growing shrubs that are typically not approved by this commission were quite dominant
in the planting plan. So staff was uncomfortable approving it. We did offer um sort of a compromise where the area around the pool, you know, as the focal lookout point um could be planted with the lower growing species. Um, but the
plan before you today shows an intermix and it's still a very large portion of lower growing species. So that's why the staff wanted to bring it to the commission tonight. Majority of that area that is proposed to be low bush blueberry is
also underneath a very large oak tree that is on site. Um, so it's it's a an area that doesn't really have a lot of height availability to it and it's a deep dark
shade for which the low bush blueberry can handle. Jen, if I may, I'm going to be the bad guy. This plan is like so vague. This it's nothing is placed. You're just you just listed everything and your plan
only says low bush blueberry saw in that area. It does says nothing about interpersing anything else. So I for one would not accept this plan the way it is just to say
it. So okay. Anything else? We were just uh putting it as it was drawn previously and it was only called out as different areas that had a um you don't even refer to that. So no Jen, anything else?
Not for me, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Alyssa, not at this time. Thank you. All right, Russ, we're going to start with you for commissioner comments. Yeah, I'm going to support what the staff wants to do there. Let's get it listed out properly and I think it'll
make everybody happy. But other than that, I can't support it unless you do that. Thank you, Steve. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I'm set to Thank you, Courtney. Um, I can concur as
well. I I think we need to see a defined plan that staff is comfortable with, then they can build it and there no questions. You don't you don't just tell somebody to go ahead and build a house and no plans. It just opens the door to
horror shows. So, I'd like to see it defined for the comfort of the commission, for your comfort, your client's comfort. Everybody knows and on the same page. Yeah. So,
if you're going to take, excuse me, if you're going to take plants from somewhere else in this mitigation area to put them in there, then are the other areas going to be covered adequately? That's rhetorical. I'm just throwing that out there. Let me finish with commissioner comments, Mike. Sorry, Ron.
Yeah, I agree with the previous comments. Thank you. Okay, Ronnie, I agree as well. Mr. Wasel, you were saying, um, so it sounds like what I'm hearing is you want more of a specific landscape plan with the plant materials that were showing uh
that were shown on this plan, um, superimposed and listed out just as species, but not identified in where they specifically were in those shaded areas. You want that more detailed plan. So that's something that can be done.
There's no issue with that. So um kind of standard Mike. I mean I don't know it's you know there's no spacing listed. Um there's no note about the plants being taken from A to put into B. So yeah, I hear you loud and clear.
So I think I think I think we need a continuence so that that plan can be provided. But I mean the I I I mean if you look at listen or read the staff report, it generally was wellreceived as far as the plant types and varieties. It's just not that there there's no spec
specificity about where they're planted in the spacing. And of course the low bush blueberry area needs to be u worked out and and not just be the low bush blueberry side. That's what I'm hearing. So I don't think we're going to convince
you otherwise. So, we have to provide you with a plan that responds to that. Jen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mike. Thank you again. Um, I know that Alyssa had given I believe Mr. Libin some guidance about, you know, we understand
the pools at that area. Plant the smaller plants near the pool. That's fine. The sweet firm, the low bush, um the even the New Jersey tea up by the pool. Give them a little like breathing space on that pool. But as soon as you start to dive down that slope, um we'd
like to see something a little bit more substantial. I understand about the oak tree, um but we have planted several shaded areas in town with with shrubs and we just don't feel that they're going to be a um an impediment to the view or or
anything else. So, we can work with the applicants uh team, Mr. Chairman, to to try to bring a plan to you. um that will work. It's fine, but the burden's on them to to come up with a plan. I mean, this plan is just I mean, it's vague. It
doesn't even show that oak tree or if it does, it's it's like in the background. Anyway, undone. Mike, how how much how long do you think you'll your team will need? That's really a question for Ian.
Um my I don't there's I have no there's no effort on my part on this. I was just trying to facilitate the hearing. Okay. And um so we generally like things in in um in our office a week in advance. So
the we could do June June 4th if you could get us a plan by the 28th. We could work with you maybe next week. Okay. That's Too is that too tight of a timeline if our next hearing would be 11 minute out. Okay.
The fourth. Yeah. Okay. All right. Hold on. Jen, do we have uh uh is there anything in the public chat function, please? Nothing in the public chat, Mr. Chairman. Okay. All right, Courtney. I'll make a motion to continue this hearing until what?
June 4. June 4th. Y second Robins. Yeah. Thank you. All right. We have a motion and a second to continue this till June 4th. Last call. Questions or comments? All right. We're voting on the
continuence. Courtney third. I Matthews I Ron M I. Ronnie I Russ Robin's eye. Steve and I. It is unanimous. We have continued this till June 4th. Thank you,
Mike. Thank you, Ian. Thank you. Thank you. You have a good night. Next up, Friends of Knobsite, Inc. 233 Knobska Road, Falmouth, Mass. request to amend the order of conditions for mass
DP number 25-4897 to revise the planting plan. I sense a theme Jen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me. I am promoting Tyler Jendro to present his
project. This was continued to June 4th. Tyler's coming. Um, good evening, commissioners. For the record, Tyler Gutro, Environmental Landscape Solutions on behalf of the applicant friends Lighthouse. Um, I'd like to just give a
a brief background and kind of update on the project. So, originally we came before you um for invasive species removal. We have since uh completed two to three applications. Um following that hearing, uh we worked with Capen Islands
Engineering to uh permit some subsurface drainage that has since been installed as well. Uh and currently we're in a maintenance and monitoring phase. So we're uh checking in on reemergence of specifically the knotweed, especially after excavation. Um sometimes we can
have some new shoots popping up. Uh but this application if I can share my screen. Um uh the areas that we are proposing um some some changes in plant species are pertaining to sight lines. And there's a
lot of traffic that comes off this road with parking with the the lighthouse. So, the first area we proposed was um the removal of some shrubs. There were 20 shrubs that were in this area and we're proposing 24. Um we're
supplementing with the same uh native meadow mix that we're doing across the uh the aisle. Um based on staff comments, uh there were 20 shrubs that were removed from this area. they had mentioned uh pushing them landward. Um
we were thinking uh the possibility of locating them in this meadow area as there's not many shrubs that were proposed here, but would be happy to discuss with staff and the commission if they were amendable to that. Uh the second area where there were proposed
changes where there were some shrubs in this area that we um located shrubs along the edge in order to define that border and we actually extended that pollinator garden um to fill in those gaps. The right-hand meadow uh has
remained the same. Uh but again going back to my previous statement, we'd like to source those 20 shrubs in that area and work with staff if you are amendable to that. Uh but be happy to answer any comments.
Thank you. You can stop sharing, please. Jen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd be a MAB working with Tyler to replace those shrubs. We just want to have that shrub material on site. We've seen um various versions of the planting plan out there and each
version less and less shrubs are being proposed. So the increase in the meadow over the last I think we've seen this what this is the third time we've seen this Tyler this this area. Yeah there's a lot of there's a lot of there's been a
lot of revisions and amendments to this and each time that meadow area just gets larger and larger. We do need to compensate for the hardcape that went there, but we will we will work with you to relocate those 20 shrubs to a different area on the property within
the buffer. Great. That's all, Mr. Chairman. Alyssa, no comments. Thank you. All right. Commissioner comments or questions. Steve, I don't have any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, Courtney.
No questions. All right. So, Jen, should there be more plants with what they're proposing? If they reclo relocate the 20 shrubs and don't remove them from the site and put
them in another established meadow area, I would be happy with that. Okay. Thank you, Ron. No, I'm all set. Thank you. Okay, Ronnie. No comment. Okay, Russ. I'll send this chair. All right, Jen, is
there anything in the public chat function, please? Nothing in the public chat regarding this project, Mr. Chairman. Oh, now you're scaring me. You haven't said that all night. I've been waiting. All right. What are you thinking? We're
ready to close it. I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisor. Second. We have a motion and a second to close the hearing. Last call. Questions or comments? We're voting to close the hearing. Courtney Bird I. Matthews I.
Ron Chris I. Ronnie Bowman I. Russ. Robin's eye. Steve I. It is unanimous. We have closed this hearing. Thank you Tyler. Thank you all very much.
Thank you, T. Next up, Man Yach Club 68 Yacht Club Road, Com Mass request to amend the order of conditions for Mass DP number 25-4963 to reconfigure an existing
licensed dog. Jen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have promoted R Lazardi from Cape Islands Engineering to uh present his amendment. Welcome back, Raul. Mr. Lazardi, you're up, sir. Good evening. For the record, Rahul
Lisardi from Cape Panas Engineering. Um, representing this application, um, if I could share my screen. Yes, sir. So this application is to amend the order of condition that was received last year. Um order of condition number
25-4963. That permit was for the construction or installation of a steel sheet pile wall behind the existing stone revetment. Um, the property is located at 68 Menot, I'm sorry, 68 Yak
Club and the property is owned by the Menot Yak Club. The project is located at the east western shores of Eel Pond, right at the mouth of Eel Pond to to the sound. And if we look at an aerial
image, this is the site in question. Um so the project last year was to permit a steel bulkhead installed behind the existing stone revetment. The reason that was proposed is because the flow
that's um flowing through this opening of the or this mouth um has been eroding the the base of the of the channel at this location and the stones of the revetment have been slowly slumping into
that void and it has created um sinkholes behind the revetment similar to what's happening and what the town of Famouth um presented to this board just a few um probably an hour ago. So the
application is to amend um the permit. The permit um submitted a plan the proposed this sheet pile for the installation of that sheet pile. This existing and licensed pier had to be
removed. The the timber structure had to be removed to install the sheet piles. And the project last last year was proposed to rebuild the the pier in kind. However, when the structure was removed and the sheep pile was being
installed, um this is what happened with those two piles that were holding the fixed pier. There was not enough penetration in the substratum to hold the piles in place
and the piles suddenly floated away. So thankfully it happened during construction and it's something that could be remedyed at this point. Um but in time with the erosion that's happening at the bottom of this channel
less and less of those piles will be actually supporting any structure. So because there has to be new piles to replace this new longer piles, what the applicant wants to take advantage is to
redesign the pier. So since they have that um new steel sheet pile at this location, instead of rebuilding the pier at this location, they want to take advantage and rebuild the pier here. But
instead of building a fixed pier, they would rather bridge from the face of the existing steel sheet pile to the float with a ramp. The two piles that kind of floated away here will be used at this
location and the three floating peers will be realigned in this location to use a ramp that's roughly 32 ft long. We did reached out to um D waterways and
this modification using the existing floats um and not going any further into the channel would be approvable for the license under a minor modification. Um so I believe that is the same case with this board. It will
be a simple modification um to what's already been permitted in the past. um there's actually more kind of bridging over the resources. So instead of having a fixed structure that stays in place year round, this entire structure is
seasonal. So gets removed at all times whereas before approximately 25 ft of of the pier was always permanent. So that's the amendment that we are proposing and I'll stop sharing and I'll be taking any questions.
Thanks, R. Jen. Ro, are you roughly in the same square footage area? So, in terms of square footage, we're actually reducing um the there was a project statistics
shown. Um if you're reducing it, Raul, that makes me happy. And a vis. going from 560 square ft footprint wise to 569. So there's a there's a 9 ft increase um and I'll explain it was the
existing ramp traverses over roughly 10 ft of one of the floats and the traversing is now less. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. All set, Mr. Chairman. All right, also no comments. Thank you. All right,
commissioner comments and questions. Courtney, so if there were a hurricane, can this thing be removed? So, yes. Um, this time the entire structure is seasonal. So, if there is a um a warning for such an event, the the
yach club can proactively get the structures out of the water and they'll be restored on the high ground on the yacht club site. Is that the So, right. Um, the site the pay parking area is where they they move the the structures
to. Okay. Thank you. No other questions. All right. Ron. Well, do the uh the work on Washurn Island have any effect on this work? We hope it's a positive effect.
the town did that that um kind of like dredging and cutting up the nose or the tip of Washurn Island because it's been bottlenecking the flow into Eel River and it's been causing a lot of erosion along the west the the
the western shores of Eopon and that was one of the problems with with this site the the stones the reetments were falling off because of the erosion underwater. So hopefully what the town has done is an improvement and this
additional change to the flow which is not much but it is still 10 feet that we're kind of taking away from the channel. Um so it allows more room for people to navigate the channel. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's
all I have. Ronnie, no comment. Russ, I'm good with it. Mr. road to Steve. I don't have any comments, but um while I was visiting frequently at this site, people come up to find out
why you're there, which is not so bad. But this one guy walks up and tells me that he's going to dinner with Ron Driscoll's wife. I thought, okay, all right, I'm out. Thank you.
He was walking two big dogs, wasn't he? Yeah, he was. We digress. Yes. I'm sorry, sir. Need the levity sometimes. I mean, you know, that's what we're here for, right? Once in a while, we have a hearing, but you know, let's cover our social stuff,
too. I mean, geez, we don't get together that often. All right, Jen, is there anything in the public chat function, please? Nothing in the public chat. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under adisement. Disc.
All right, we have a motion and a second to close the hearing. Last call. Questions or comments? We're voting to close the hearing. Courtney Bird I. Matthews I. Ron Driscoll I. Ronnie I Russ.
Steve. It is unanimous. We have closed this hearing. Thank you, Raul. Thank you. All right. Next up are continued requests to amend an existing order of conditions. First up, Donna Habber
Cornberg, trustee. Donna Haber Cornberg 2021 revokable living trust 70 Kerry Lane Felmouth Mass request to amend the order of conditions for mass DP number 25-4742 to permit a fieldstone wall
ramps and a re relocated masonry wall after the fact. Jen yes Mr. Chairman Raul Lazardi from Capeen Islands is remaining with us for this one. I have also promoted Jeff Oenheim representing the property owner
and Brian Wall representing I believe Paul Brian you were representing uh Paul Muskovski Muscowski landscape. Okay. Yep. And um am I promoting Paul Muskovski up? I just tried. He declined to become a panelist. Um, I think if you
can promote him and he accepts, he should be here in case there are any factual questions. You hear that? He's telling you to to accept. So, yep, he's coming now. There he is. All right. Before anybody starts, Alyssa, just to clarify, the quorum
excludes Ron and Ronnie. Correct. Thank you. Oh, so the quorum tonight is Courtney, myself, Russ, and Steve. Just for clarity. All right, Ro, you're up, sir.
Good evening. For the record, representing the applicant, Rowley Sardi from Cape Engineering. And as Jen mentioned, Brian Wall, Jeff Oppenheim, and Paul Mscowski also um representing this project. Um the project was open at
one public hearing um and then one site meeting. Um the project is at 70 Carry Lane and it is for an after the fact amendment to the ter the permit that was obtained
to build a pool, build a retaining wall to hold the pool. um and some plantings and invasives removal. At the time, after the last site visit we had,
um it looked like the feedback we received from the commissioners is that the project should go back to the original footprint that was permitted a couple of years ago um instead of um the amendment that we are requesting. Um
just for kind of refreshing our minds on what the project was, I'm going to start sharing a couple of photographs from the site from the original um hearing.
Um so the project in question uh mainly has to do with portion of the deck and wall that were constructed within 10
ft of of zone A and the limit of work. So roughly this section was built inside the 10-ft setback to the limit of work. this field stone and the fill between the two retaining walls, the field stone
and the retaining wall um is within the 10-ft setback. What we offered to propose was um cut back the deck but keep the wall because the wall is integral now to um
the pool. The contractor has not secured an engineer who has been able to redesign a wall that is five foot closer to the retain the the pool without the pool being completely rebuilt. Um so
based on the extent of um finances that has to go into rebuilding the entire pool and pool wall um we're still trying to seek approval of this amendment to keep the wall at this location. Um when we visited the site um we could tell
that the asbuilt locations is not causing any erosion or any problems within the buffer zone A which is at this location. It is completely vegetated and we can all walk around the existing wall
without having to actually encroach onto the buffer zone A. We do agree that the field stone wall that is in this location um should come out and it can come out. The contractor believes they can remove that wall without interfering
with um anything else with the project or with the wall. Um so I'll pass it on to Brian Wall. Banwell submitted a letter for this application um kind of reinforcing that the existing
conditions of site is not harming um the buffer zones and is not causing any harm to the resources in question. So Brian if you can take it from here. Um thank you Raul Mr. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, um, as uh, Jen asked me at the beginning of this, I'm part of
the team representing Mskovski landscape, who was the contractor that did most of this work and oversaw most of the work. And we do agree with what Raul said um, about the field stone wall and the the the leveling or the fill of that area. My comments are focused
primarily on attempting to persuade the commission to grant after the-act approval for um the block retaining wall to remain. And so having said that, I did review the prior hearing and I did talk with Raul and I do understand that
there seems to be kind of a a feeling that uh the plan should be conformed to. And so what I'd like to do is focus on that. And I'd like to begin by saying the following that when the commission is presented with uh a request for grant of after the fact permission, the
relevant question that I would suggest the commission should be reviewing is whether or not permission can be granted um for the proposed project as built um and whether it complies with the regulations and meets the performance standards. And if it does, then the
commission can grant the after-act permission. And if it does not comply, then obviously the commission must require that the applicant um remove the wall and replace it where the where the plan says. And I would suggest to you that this particular project falls into
the former category. This asbuilt wall complies with all of your regulations and meets all of your performance standards and therefore can you you can grant permission for this. I'm going to make that point in a little bit more detail. And just as foreshadowing, I
have two other additional points that I'm going to make tonight. And the first is that there are significant equitable reasons that uh support this request. And lastly is there are significant reasons why you should not require removal and reconstruction. So let me turn to meeting the
regulations. The most restrictive zone A no disturbance zone at issue here is the 75 ft uh to the the 75 ft no disturb buffer to the inland bank. The project plan approved the limit of work just landward of this zone and Raul will show
that when he when he showed the the photos. The wall at issue was approved 87 ft from the inland bank as built. The wall is approximately 81 ft from the inland bank. It's 6 ft closer than the
approved location, but it's still 6 ft inside of the line of the zone A. And and let me restate that the wall is not inside of the zone A at all. In other words, your zone A no disturb zone is fully presented by the
project. The wall is 6 ft further landward than the most landward edge of the 75 ft no disturb zone. So your buffer zone is complied with. The issue here is that in the preamble to the buffer zone regulations, there's a
requirement that when there's a fully non-disturbed or a fully naturally vegetated zone A, there's a sentence that says that the commission will also include as part of the project a so-called no structure zone. And that's that all has capital letters. The N, the
S, and the Z are capitalized. So the preamble says that a no structure zone is to be imposed adjacent to the no disturb zone and the comm and the preamble explains why. It says that a setback is required because alteration
of the area adjacent to the no disturb zone and I'm quoting invariably results in alterations of the no disturb zone. However, having said that, I want to bring to your attention there's no regulation whatsoever in 1018 that
specifies the size of this no structure zone. Having practiced before this commission for many years, it's my experience that you have historically required a 10-ft setback, but again, there's nowhere in the regulation that says it has to be 10 or it has to be 15
or five. Um the commission I have seen many times explain the reason why it asks for 10 and I've heard them say many times it's because when structures are um permitted near the no disturb zone they often require maintenance and
maintenance activities require space around the building for such things as access and putting up a ladder that kind of thing. So in this particular case, the structure at issue is a block retaining wall that is 6 feet set back
from the no disturb zone. The retaining wall doesn't require any maintenance and it's not going to require any maintenance. And so thus the reasons that the commission usually imposes the 10 ft don't exist at this particular site and aren't pertinent to this
particular project. So given all that information about the preamble, the lack of a specified setback and the this particular structure not requiring maintenance, I would suggest um to the commission that you could draw the following
conclusions. One is the no structure zone is not a regulation. The size of the no structure zone is not specified. The asbuilt project therefore is not precluded by any of your regulations. And lastly, there is a
six-foot setback to the 75- ft buffer and therefore there is a setback that exists that we would suggest to you is appropriate under the circumstances given the structure that's at issue. So in summary, this project as built is not precluded and meets the spirit and
intent in the letter of your regulations. The other two matters I want to raise briefly are the first is about the equitable reasons as Raul alluded to. Um the supplier of the pool has been consulted about this and I submitted a
letter uh with my letter. It's an enclosure with my letter. The supplier has said that if the retaining wall has to be dismantled and rebuilt, the integrity of the pool is going to be irreparably compromised. And as a result, the project was going to require
the pool to be removed and entirely replaced. And we would suggest to you that that's going to cause a very very significant expense. And since this complies with all the regulations, there's really no reason to require this to be done and for this expense to be
incurred. Furthermore, a related point to that is if the wall is to be removed and replaced, you're going to gain 4 feet. And so I would argue to you respectfully that that
4T farther from the no disturb zone, which is fully preserved, is not going to result in any appreciable or significant increase in protection to the resource. And so therefore, when you weigh that fact that there's no increase in protection versus the expense that's
going to be incurred, it makes that expense um it makes that condition look unreasonable, respectfully. And lastly, there there's some real world consequences to think about. If the project has to be done,
the wall has to be removed, there is going to be a significant amount of work that's going to be undertaken in this particular site. And for those of that you have gone out there, you know that the slope at issue is very very steep and significant and even under the best
circumstances when staked hay bales are put in and sedimentation barriers are put in sometimes there can be something that goes wrong with the project or there can be a significant storm event that comes at the wrong time and causes the project to be washed out. And I
would just suggest to you for the reasons that I've said that that is no appreciable increase in protection compliance with your regulations. There's just no reason why to require this wall to be taken out and replaced 4 ft farther away and risk the resources
um from from all of the work that's going to have to be done. So, having said all of that, um I would I would respectfully request that the commission consider the request in grant after the fact approval for the project. Good, Mr. Wall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And here to ask answer any questions. And again, Mr. Mscowski is online as well. All right, Mr. Open, do you have anything you'd like to add at this point? Mr. Oenheim, I think he's trying to Thank you, Mr. uh chairman. Um I I would just
like to speak in support of uh my colleagues presentation. Uh I think it's very cogent. It's sensible. I think the commission has a discretion to uh do uh an amendment uh to the original order
and I would urge you to do that because it does not take a lot of imagination to appreciate if you do not follow the suggestion what uh issues will be presented uh to my
disabled elderly client who lives at the property. So, um I would urge you to approve uh what attorney Wall is requesting on behalf of my client. Thank you.
All right, Mr. Muskovski, you're off in the distance somewhere. Do you have anything you'd like to add at this point? All right, never mind. Jen, yes, Mr. Chairman, the staff's comment remain unchanged. We feel the
wall uh the wall and the pool should be relocated to the previously approved location, and I have no concerns that if that had to happen that the resource areas couldn't be fully protected. That's all. As per normal, right,
Melissa, I support Jen's comments. Thank you. All right, commissioner comments and questions. Uh, I think I'm going to start. Mr. Wall, you I'm I'm not sure I
got this right. You said that four feet would not be an appreciable difference. However, we're talking about six feet, are we not? Well, let me disclose to the chairman that um I went to law school because I'm
not good at math. So, uh I Raul wants to and that's no joke. Um if Raul needs to correct me, um that's the ca, you know, I stand corrected. But the way I looked at the plan was that the approved location was 87 ft from the uh inland
bank and there's a line on the plan that shows that. Um, and then the asbuilt location is 81 ft. So, if I do the math, that means the wall is closer by 6 ft. And if it was um 10 ft back from the
limit of work, moving it 6 ft uh out of place means that it's, you know, four 4t back would would put it at 10 ft. Um, but Rebel Rebel's better at that than me. So, I understand what you're saying. Okay.
All right. In other words, Mr. Chairman, when it's out of place, but there's still a 6ft set back to the no disturb zone. And so, if we make it go back to where it's supposed to be under the plan, it's not um it's only 4T from
where it is now. And Raul, please correct me if I've got that math wrong. Am I off by a foot? Um, no. I think what what is a little bit confusing is that the 10 foot was measured from the limit of work. the limit of work was a foot
away from the buffer zone A. So if we are um calling out the distance from the buffer zone A, there is another foot that gets incorporated smoke and mirrors. All right, so only four feet, but it just only
wasn't built where it was approved to be built. So here we are. All right, moving on. Russ, I get nothing at this time. Mr. Chairman Steve. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I I don't know how
to comment again. Um, we we approved the plan. It wasn't followed. Um, at this point, I'm assuming it wasn't malicious or, you know, just ignorance of the regulation.
That's a mistake and um I'm trying to figure out how to deal with that. Thank you. Well put Courtney. Um a question first for Wall.
Um the wall as built I'm talking now about the concrete block wall. How far is that from the edge of zone A? Six feet. It's 6 feet to zone A.
Yes. And how far is the uh fieldstone wall from zone A? It's right at zone A. It's right on zone A. So to remove to remove that rock wall as you were
proposing and grade up the grade, you will be in the AO. Am I correct? Or in the no disturbance zone? Well, I'm not sure what you mean, Courtney. I mean, does someone have I am
The wall is right on the edge. They're going to take that wall down, right? Do it with skyhooks. No, they're going to be down there with men moving around. They'll be in the middle. They'll be in zone A. I'm already I'm already opposed.
It's I think we you guys got to live with what was approved and you got to take it out. But just for clarity that we do definitely agree that that fieldstone wall will come out. it can be and that area will be planted and it's important
to note that your your presentation Brian talked about you know a buffer and that their things wouldn't be disturbed but the point is to remove that wall it's going to disturb things and it build it it was going to disturb
things so you know the I think the damage has already been done and I think the correct solution And from my mind, and I'm only one commissioner, is that I fully support T staff's contention has to come out and
redo it. It's it's I understand there's going to be a lot of expense and I having been in the contra contracting business for 45 years, I know what happens with mistakes. And sometimes you sit there
and try to do as many things as you can possibly do to figure out ways of not having to incur the dut expense of doing it right. But in the end you that's sometimes you end up
spending a lot less money to suck it up and do it right. So if I may Mr. Chairman don't have my support on this amendment just very very briefly to be cl a clarifying point is the field stone wall is agreed to come
out and I believe that Raul said that then the area will be planted with native plants so the area will be restored and the second point is that if Mr. Bird's contention is is that removing and replacing the wall is going
to adversely affect the um area. I said that wrong. If he's saying that removing the fieldstone wall is going to adversely affect the no disturb zone, that is part of the project to remove the other wall, too. So, it's going to happen one way or the other, and we're going to restore it. Yeah, it's going to
involve a lot of care. It's going to be a surgical operation, but it has to be done and it can be done. All right, Mr. Lazari. So, yeah. Um I would like to share one
of the pictures again because I believe the field stone wall which is not cemented in or or mortared in and the fill between that field stone and the block wall the removal of that could be done without encroaching
um onto the buffer zone A. So sections can be removed as as the contractor comes in only using the space between the two walls. Again, this is a
fill stone wall. Um it's just rounded stones that are stacked on top of each other and there's fill behind it. That could be done from in between the walls. Um and Paul can correct me if I'm wrong.
Um the only work that is still needed to be done within buffer zone A is the invasive removal. There is still some English ivy that is still persistent on buffer buffer zone A that the current
permit requires the removal and any void areas to be restored or replaced with native plants. So there is still some work to take place in the buffer zone A. But the removal of this field stone and the fill in between the stone I believe
can be done without the need of using or staging in buffer zone A. Um but Paul could probably correct me if he says that he needs to be accessing the buffer zone A.
Hey, that's correct. Um Paul Muskovski here that is correct. We don't need to disturb the buffer zone A whatsoever to remove that stone wall andor the fill and that can be restored. All
right, Jim. Anything else? Okay, Raul, Mr. Wall, Mr. Openheim. Anything else? No, Mr. Chairman. Nope. No. All right.
Um, Jen, is there anything in the public chat function, please? Nothing in the public chat, Mr. Chairman. All right. What are you thinking? I will uh put a positive motion on the table. Um, Courtney, you close the
hearing and take it under the hearing. Yeah. Close the hearing and take it under advisement. Pat and second. All right. We have a motion and a second to close the hearing. Last call. Questions or comments? We're voting to close the hearing. Courtney third eye. Matthews I.
Russ. Robin's eye. Steve. And I. It is unanimous. With this quorum, we have closed this hearing. Thank you everyone. Thank you very much. do one thing. Bear with
me. All right. Next up, continued hearings under an enforcement order. Jane Fur 2622 and zero Shore View Avenue map and parcel ID is 39-02C 000504 Bmouth Mass unpermitted removal
of salt marsh vegetation and unpermitted reconstruction of a deck within conservation jurisdiction. Jen um Alyssa, is this one being continued? Mr. Fair. Yes. The applicant's representative has
requested a continuence until June 4th. Birds. So move. Just second. All right. All right. We have a motion and a second to continue this to 64. You said correct.
All right. Questions or comments? We're voting on the continuence. Courtney. Matthews I Ron Pisclly Ronnie Homeman I Russman's eye Steve and
I unanimous we have continued this to June 4 bear with me one second please lost Church Street Trust 158 Church Street with mass unpermitted removal of vegetation within the buffer to a
coastal bank. Jen Lissa, she's doing the enforcements. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Alyssa, thank you. Uh, the representative for the Church Street Treat Enforcements has requested a continuence until July 23rd.
Crystal second. All right, we have a motion and a second to continue this till July 23rd. Ronnie, you're not on this forum, so I won't be asking. Courtney I Matthews I Ron Driscoll I Russ I
Steve I it is unanimous we have continued this to July 23rd. H I should have put these together. I'm going to have to do this separate. John Cook trustee John C. Cook 2009 Trust 170 Church Street, Felmouth, Mass.
Unpermitted removal of vegetation within the buffer to a coastal bank. Alyssa, did you guys hear me? Sorry, that was on me. Um, we also requested a continuance for this one until July 23rd. Uh, birds move. Fiscal
second. Yeah. Sorry, I wasn't on my game. I should have had these together. We have a motion and a second to continue this to 723. We're voting on the continuence. Courtney I. Matthews I. Ron I Russ.
Steve Ron I. It is unanimous. We have continued this one as well to 723. Next up Margaret Foffenoff 30 Woodneck Road Felmouth Mass. unpermitted construction of a deck, patio, and a fence. Reconstruction of a driveway and
associated clearing of vegetation and altering vegetation within a resource area buffer. Janick, I'll take this one, Mr. Chair. We're bouncing back and forth. Um, the plantings did go in on this one. We just want to wait until the fall um to make
sure they survive. uh Fallon went out and did a compliance check. Um but again, we'd like to just give them the summer before we close out this enforcement. So we could move this to the fall. I would suggest one second. Mr. Chairman, Labor
Day is that week, September 10th. The requesting till September 10th. This is an enforcement u yeah I'll move to continue this till September 10th fiscal second.
All right we have a motion and a second to continue this until September 10th. Questions or comments? We're voting on the continuence. Courtney Bird I. Matthews I Ron I Ronnie Ronnie you with me? Yeah Bowman I
I didn't know I was in this room. Yeah, it's just for continuance. So, you're good. Russ Steve, it is unanimous with this quorum. We have continued this to September 10th. This is a new enforcement order,
right? Just to be clear, no, it was the enforcement. Um it's the enforcement that's been on for the wood neck property, the one with the patio and the little deck on the uh out building. Uh the fence to be removed.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So So Ronnie, you weren't on this. That's fine though because we're only voting on the continuence. I'm only at I was only clarifying that so that when it comes back in September, you know who's on the forum at that point. Sorry about
that. All right. Next up, vote orders of conditions. First up, Michael No. MCN Construction, 205 Lakeshore Drive, East Falmouth, Mass. And Ronnie, you weren't on any of these because these are closed hearings. So, you you won't get to vote
on them, but if you don't mind, hang out. We do have something for you to vote on a little in a couple minutes. Uh the quorum is all of us here except for Ronnie. So, um, Jen, yes, this was the, um, plan. It
was presented by Mike Burcelli. The plan was done by Richard Hood. It's for, uh, retaining wall, removal of pavement, um, landscape. They were, um, I think reconstructing
the deck. They wanted to put um a little bit of fill in the back, kind of flatten that area out, put a patio under the deck. Uh there was a dock on site that wasn't permitted. We had closed the hearing. We have findings on the deck
and the patio dock removed prior to issuing a building permit for the reconstruction of the deck, which I do believe they've already taken off the house along with the pavement on each side. and then a
revised plan for the mitigation of the stairs and um and just to clarify the size of the deck. So, all right, Alyssa, uh just one other note for the revised plan to show the edge of natural
vegetation on the site um because they will need to mitigate um landlord of that. Yep. All right. Make a make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed. Discal second. All right, we have a motion and a second
to issue an order of conditions. Last call. Questions or comments? We're voting to issue an order of conditions. Courtney I. Matthew I. Ron I. Russ.
Steve. It is unanimous. We have issued an order of conditions. Next up, Chris Lman, Barleta, Cape Properties, 19 Non Circle, Falmouth, Mass.
Um, this was just for the re reconstruction of the little tiny timber pier located on that large stone um groin. Pretty straightforward.
questions or comments? All right. What are you thinking? I'll um I'll I'll I'll make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed. Discal second. All right. We have a motion and a second to issue an order of conditions.
Questions or comments? We're voting to issue an order of conditions. Courtney I. Matthews I. Ron Crystal. I Russ. Steve and I is unanimous. We have issued an order of
conditions. Next up, Linda Quinnell, 44 Shaker Lane, Felmouth, Mass. Jen. Yes. This is for the um installation of a um title 5 septic
system. Uh we have them here. Did we receive a revised plan on this one, Alyssa? We did. Yes. Okay, perfect. I think that then all of our um outstanding issues were addressed in that. It's just the
installation of the title 5 septic system. Um yeah, and the board of board of health approved this nitro system. So that's Yes. This is when Mr. Harrington was we were kind of asking him what changed um
over on that coastal bank area. He was working with John Doyle on the installation. We wanted to see how the bank would change, but everything else was addressed. Okay. All right. Questions or comments? All right. What are you thinking? I'll make a motion to issue an
order of conditions as discussed. Just second. All right. We have a motion and a second to issue an order of conditions. Last call. Questions or comments? We're voting. Courtney third eye. Matthews I Ron Driscoll I Russ.
Steve Ben. It is unanimous. We have issued an order of conditions. Next up, Donald and Nancy Colerin, 11 Foster Road, East Felmouth,
Mass. And I have the quorum excludes Russ. Yep. This is to install the core fiber rolls um at that eroding severely eroding coastal bank add compatible stand. Um and then there were a few
minor um changes on the property that Mike picked up and did a revised plan for us. Um and there was an increase in square footage as a result of that. So
he is proposing um some um uh small mitigation 580 ft. Anything anybody want to see in there? Questions or comments?
All right. What are you thinking? Uh, I'll make a motion to issue an order conditions as discussed. Just a second. We have a motion and a second to issue an order of conditions. Last call. Questions or comments? We're voting.
Courtney I. Matthew's eye. Ron Bisclly. Steve. Batten. I. It is unanimous with this quorum. We have issued an order of conditions. Next up uh is to vote amended order of conditions. First up,
Elizabeth Catz, 190 Associates Road Realy Trust, 190 Associates Road, Palma Pass. Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is to con uh amend an existing owner conditions to add a pool, decking, a hot tub,
mitigation area. Um I think we need to adjust the mitigation area because of a um kind of a stone wall on the property. Um but that's about it was presented by BSS
design and Chris Heriti. All right. Uh the other note that I have is some mitigation is currently proposed in zone B. Uh so the commission will need to determine if that is acceptable in this case. Thank you.
I think Tom said they can move that mitigation into the zone A. I believe you did. It's a condition. Right. All right. Anything else? All right. What are you thinking? I'll make a motion to close the hearing
and take it under adisement. Disresco second. I'm sorry. Uh to issue an order conditions as discussed. Just still seconded. Okay. Nobody picked up on that one. Yeah, we're we're all tired.
All right. We have a motion, a second to issue an order of conditions. Last call. Questions or comments? We're voting. Courtney Bird I. Matthew I. Ron. Discol I Russ Steve and I
as unanimous with this quum we have issued an order of conditions. Next up, Jeffrey and Cynthia Andrews, 34 Wigwammer Road, Falmouth, Mass. Jen. Uh, this is an amendment to just move
around some mitigation, restoration, um, plantings as well as restore an area that was, uh, removed um, that wasn't part of the original plan. All right, Alyssa.
Nothing to add. Thank you. All right. Questions or comments? Anything anybody want in there? All right. What are you thinking? Well, I make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed. Fiscal second. All right. We have a motion and a second
to issue an order of conditions. Last call. We're voting. Courtney third eye. Matthews I. Ron Bisclly. Russ. Robin's eye. Steve. Patton I it is unanimous we
have issued an order of conditions. One more one piece of business. Other business vote signature vote to authorize conservation administrator to sign on behalf of the commission. I'll let Jan explain.
So during COVID when we were all in lockdown, the board took a vote because you were unable to come into town hall to sign the multiple orders of conditions um that you issue. This board
took a vote, recorded it at the registry of deeds that authorized me as your administrator to sign you uh basically sign on your behalf. What we do is put your name and then I sign my name next to it. Um, that authorization has since
expired and if the board would like to continue to authorize me to sign on your behalf. So, you do not have to come into town hall and sign all of the orders of conditions, I'd be happy to continue that. But that is completely up to the board. This vote would be recorded in
land court and would be a binding legal document. How does that work where Betsyy's not in here tonight? Still majority, right? Yeah, it's a majority. It's fine. Okay. All right. I'll make a motion to um uh authorize the conservation
commissioner to assign on our behalf on orders and conditions and to record it within the deed uh record it um in the Barsville County uh registry of deed land court. Land court. Yeah. And it would be the conservation administrator,
Courtney, not commissioner. Yeah. Conservation administrator. Um, I'll get all set. All right, have a motion and a second for what Jen said. Questions or
comments? All right, we're voting to accept that the administrator would sign on our behalf. Courtney Bird I. Matthews, I Ron Crystal I. Ronnie, I Russ. Robin's eye. Steve and N. It is
unanimous. We have authorized vote signatures. All right. Last motion. Who? Actually, before we go, just uh again, welcome Ronnie. Thanks. Um that wasn't too bad. Um so hopefully we'll see
again. Who wants the last motion? Are we online right now? Yes. Make a motion to adjourn. Bird. Second bird eye. Matthew's eye. Fiscal eye.
Robin's eye. Batty. He's skipp Ronnie. Bman. I All right, we're journed. Thank you everyone.