[Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music] Good evening and welcome to the October
8th, 2025 meeting of the FA 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. Um, we have a full complement of commissioners tonight. Thank you all for your dedication. Um, I'd like to uh remind the
commissioners that for commenting, I will call on each one of you um 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 in your vote uh
for the record, even if you've made the motion or seconded it. Um to our public attendees, at any time during this meeting, you may enter any comment or question via the chat function. At the appropriate time, uh they will be read
into the record. If the attendee uh 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. Uh when you are selected uh you must uh
have your video enabled, be succinct, respectful of others. Public comment will be limited to 3 minutes each. RDAS under a request for determination of applicability. The applicant is
asking for the commission to determine if the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act and or the Falmouth Wetlands bylaw apply to their proposed project. A negative determination is that the provision of the act and/or the bylaw do not apply. Therefore, the project may
proceed as proposed. A positive determination means the provisions of the act and/or the bylaw do in fact apply andor may require some conditions. Therefore, the project uh would require a notice of intent application. So, as
an applicant, you want to hear a negative determination. All right. So, first thing on the agenda tonight uh is we have to go into executive session for uh a brief period and we will be back as soon as we can.
Um for that, I'm going to need a motion and a second um to leave this hearing and go into executive session. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to leave this hearing and go into executive session. >> I'll second.
>> Okay, we got a second. I got a motion by Courtney and a second by Ron to go into executive session. And I'll call the role. Um, Courtney. >> Bird. Eye. >> Steve. >> Batty. >> Ron.
>> Bris. Eye. >> Ronnie. Balman I >> Dave >> K I >> Bill >> Duffy I >> and Robbins is an I. Okay. Unanimous to
go into executive session. So we'll see you in a few minutes. All right. So the next uh we're back in regular session here. Um, other business was up next and that's a naming proposal for Little Pond Conservation Area. Uh,
Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am promoting Will Purier. He is the land steward for the 300 committee and he actually I think you need to promote Oh, no. I promote Will
um from the 300 committee. He's land steward uh ship coordinator there and he has a proposal that he would like to talk to the conservation commission about. >> All right. Good evening, Will. >> Hello. >> Well, you're going to have to turn on
your camera and your audio for us, please. >> Okay, we got the audio. Good evening. Well, He's having trouble with his audio. Oh, there we go. >> There he is. >> There we go. >> Hello, Will. >> Hi, everyone. Thanks for having me. As
Jen said, I'm the director of stewardship for the 300 committee. Um, here it goes. The 300 committee land trust is asking the conservation commission to co-sponsor the naming of Little Pond Conservation Area for Mark Casper sick. The Little Pond land
purchase was made possible by a host of community partners and a ground swell of support from the Ticket Civic Association, Save Little Pond organization, the Community Preservation Committee and Town Meeting. All of us going into this acquisition in
2010 had our eyes fully open knowing that a significant restoration effort was needed to turn the parcel around and improve it for conservation and public access. Once we reached the point where Mark Casper got a hold of this project, there
was no turning back. The on the ground progress was visible and meaningful. His role overseeing this project ensured success for invasive species management. habitat restoration and public access improvements. This is the latest of his many
accomplishments as an ardent supporter of the cons of conservation in Falmouth throughout his career. With the concom support, we would like to advance this proposal to the select board for their consideration. >> Thank you. >> Right. Thanks, Will.
>> Thank you, Will. >> I think that's a great idea. Um, botney. >> Yeah, I I've worked with Mark for years and years and years, probably since Methusela was a kid. And this he's one of these unsung
heroes in the town as far as conservationist concerned. And I just think this is a a great gesture to honor him and I fully support it. >> Mr. Chairman, may I?
>> Yes. for those, you know, Mark has >> been with the town for 27 years. He is um scheduled to retire on November 7th. So, this would be um really meaningful because the select
board has a process where they require a one-year wait period before you name something um a parcel or building after someone in town. We wouldn't be able to get before the select board till November 3rd. So, it
would fall almost right around the one-year anniversary of Mark's retirement when we would have a naming celebration for this parcel. Um, for those that don't know, and Russell is well aware, as is well, this parcel was
a barren kind of industrial site when the town acquired it. Um, and we've spent oh god I don't know how many years attempting to to restore it through community preservation funding.
Um, but Mark and his boots on the ground, literally on the ground. um was basically the driving force to get this this parcel open for public access to
combat the um just a sea of invasives out there and try to turn it into a um a a community uh asset. So, I would be really honored if this board would
co-sponsor that um naming um proposal with the 300 committee. >> I'll make a motion to approve um naming the Little Pond Conservation Area for Mark Casper.
>> Fiscal second. >> One more time. Um, Courtney, that was support. You said supporting, right? >> Yeah. >> I kind of You broke up. Okay. So, we have a motion to support um Steve. Yes.
Steve. Steve, >> you're on mute. Steve, >> still on mute. Steve. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Um, I agree entirely with this this award,
but I have we talked to the people that live in the Little Pond area that have worked on this. I'm thinking of Sandy Cooney and some other people that have worked on this for 20 years. I'm just curious.
>> This proposal came to us from the the the 300 committee. I don't know who the 300 committee has reached out to, Steve. Okay. >> I certainly think Mark's, you know, worthy, but um I didn't get a chance to
call Sandy today and I wish I had. >> Okay. >> It's a landlocked lake. I mean, you know, so it's all residents. This would be the only public access. So, I don't know whether I would prefer
to have a chance to talk to at least somebody in the neighborhood or find out who they talked to. Do we continue it to next week? >> We could. That's fine. >> Okay. Would that be okay? I don't want to make any Mark uncomfortable or anybody else.
>> No, not at all. >> We're halfway through a motion. So, courts made a motion. Um, >> yeah, I had a motion. So, I can withdraw it if the consensus is we continue it. >> How does everybody feel about that? >> Sure.
>> You want to want to give it one week? >> Give it a week. >> I mean, I'm going ahead now, but that's >> Dave, I see you got your hand up. Uh well, Steve, I don't I don't quite understand
the nature what concern there could be with with the neighbors. What what what might their concern be, Steve? >> I have no idea, Dave. I haven't talked. >> You don't know. Okay. You just you just know there might be one. Okay. Okay. I got you. All right. That's fine. >> I just you know you know I don't want to
put the will of government on them without you know their >> I got you. Okay. >> A little common courtesy. Yeah, that's what it is. more or less. >> Yeah. >> Thank Thanks. >> I make a motion to continue to next week until Steve. Uh Steve, you're going to
do that this week, correct? >> Uh I'll be with Sandy tomorrow night and some other people from that area. >> Okay. Can I get a second on Ron? >> You withdrew, right, Courtney? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. So Ronnie made a motion
um to continue for a week. Can we hear a second? Is that Ron? >> Hi Driscoll. >> Ron Driscoll seconded. >> Thank you. So any other comments and questions hearing um hearing none. I'm going to call a role. Courtney
I battal. Dave >> I >> Bill >> Duffy I >> and um Robins is an I. So it's unanimous to
continue for one week. >> Thank you. >> All right. We'll move on. >> Thanks. >> We'll move on to the next >> um vote minutes of September 24th, 2025.
Chairman, I move approval of the minutes. >> Driscoll second. >> Okay. So, we have a motion by Steve and a second by Ron to approve the minutes of September 24th. Any comments or questions, corrections?
Hearing none, I'll call a roll. Courtney >> Bird Eye. >> Steve >> Ben. >> Ron. >> Bris. >> Ronnie. >> Bulman. I >> Dave >> Kent I >> Bill
>> Duffy I >> and Robins is an I. It's a to accept the minutes of September 24th. Next up is a request for continuance for determination of applicability. Ben Carson, 265 Wild Harbor Road, North
F, Mass for permission to replace two piles and a float deck decking on an existing pier. Uh, Jen, >> I'll toss this over to Alyssa. >> Oh, thank you.
>> Uh, the applicant has requested a continuence until October 22nd. And the reason >> um they need to look into some additional information uh regarding the current pier configuration. >> Okay. Birds move.
>> Driscoll second. >> Okay. So we have a motion by Courtney and a second by Ron to continue to October 22nd. Any comments or questions? Hearing none. I'll call the roll. Courtney
>> I >> Steve >> and I >> Ron >> Chris I >> Ronnie >> Mman I >> Dave >> J I >> Bill >> Duffy I
>> and Robins is an I. Okay, that hearing is continued until October 22nd. Next up is uh Richard A and Kelly A. Celely trustee Celely Realy Trust 39 Old Homestead Road West with Mass for
permission to enlarge an existing deck, add gravel for drainage, and install mitigation plantings. Um, Alyssa, >> yes, the applicant has requested a continuence until October 15th. >> Birds move. And the reason, >> um, they have a couple tweaks to make to
the plan. We've already discussed it. >> Okay. >> Fiscal second. Okay. Uh motion by Courtney, seconded by um Ron Driscoll to continue to August 15th. Um call a roll. Any other comments, questions? Hearing
none, I'll call a roll. Courtney >> I. >> Steve >> and I. >> Ronnie >> I. >> Dave >> Kent I. >> Bill >> Duffy I.
and Robins is an I unanimous continued until October 15th. All right. Um request for continuance under a notice of intent. William
Brandon 142 Pinerest Beach Drive, Hatchville, Mass for permission to remove an unpermitted gravel driveway. Install a shed. install a gravel walkway after the fact and install mitigation
and restoration plantings. Alyssa or is that Jen? >> I'll take it. Mr. >> Either way, >> um the applicant's requesting a continuence until October 15th, Mr. Chair. >> And the reason >> tweaks to the plan, Courtney. Oh, no.
Actually, this one was staking. Um this one was staking. >> Okay. Thank you. So move. Chris second. >> Okay, we have a motion by Courtney, a second by Ron to um
>> Any other comments or questions? Okay, hearing none, I'll call a roll. Courtney Bird I. Steve >> P. I >> Ron. >> Ronnie >> Bman. I
>> Dave >> J. I >> Bill >> Duffy I >> is an I. It's unanimous. That hearing is continued until October 15th. Next up is
um John in Atlanta Peta 218 Meadowg Road Woy Mass for permission to raise RAZ an existing uh single family dwelling. Construct a new single family dwelling
with garage patio retaining walls. Install a new title 5 sewage disposal system. construct access stairs down to the coastal bank down the coastal bank and install mitigation plantings. Um, Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, the applicant is
requesting a continuence in until October 22nd. And Mr. Bird, this is to address some concerns the um staff has had. So, we're hoping um our comments and concerns are are going to be addressed.
>> Wonderful. Thank you. I'll move to continue it to the >> second. >> All right. So, we have a motion by Courtney and a second by Ron. Any other comments or questions? Hearing none, I'll call a roll. Courtney
>> Bird eye. >> Steve and I. Ron >> Escali, >> Bowman, I >> Ronnie, >> Dave, >> I Bill >> Duffy, I
>> and Robins is I in continued until October 22nd. Re request for a continuence under an enforcement order. Robert and Teresa Mclofflin, trustees, 65 North Bourne Pond Road, eastbound of Mass.
unpermitted cutting, removal of a buffazone vegetation and installation of hardscape with conserv within that should be within conservation jurisdiction. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, the applicants
requesting a continuence or we're recommending a continuence until October 22nd. They are doing um uh Tom Bunker BSS design needs to do a few updates to the plan. Wonderful birds. I'll move >> fiscal second.
Okay. >> Any other com comments, questions? Hearing none, I'll call the roll. Courtney >> Bird I. >> Steve I. >> Ron >> I. >> Bman I. >> Ronnie. >> Dave >> I.
>> Bill >> Duffy I. >> And Robins is an I. Unanimous continued till October 22nd. All right. Uh, next is um David and MSI Bonds 38 Drive, East Forth, Mass.
unpermitted construction of retaining walls, steps, and a patio, replacement of decking, and alteration of a coastal bank. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. The staff is recommending a continuence until
November 5th uh to give um the property owner um time to um contract with an engineer. >> Okay. So move >> fiscal second motion by coordin
um any comments any other comments questions? Okay. Hearing none, I'll call the role to uh continue this enforcement hearing. Um Courtney >> Bird I. >> Steve I. >> Ron
>> Crystal I. >> Ronnie >> an I. >> Dave >> Kent I. >> Bill >> Duffy I >> and Robins is an I. So it's unanimous continued to 115.
All right. the uh request for determination of applicability. All hearings of the Felmouth Conservation Commission are held simultaneously under the authorities of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act in the Falmouth wetlands bylaw. Although
a single decision of the commission is issued, it represents a seven a separate decision under each authority. And first up is uh been continued. That would be 265 Wild Harbor Road. That was
previously continued hit. Next up is um John Mine Divine 150 Mil Road Bmouth Mass for permission to install an ingground pool and associated
P patio and to construct a pool house. >> Uh 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. to move >> fiscal second.
>> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Um, >> comments or questions? Hearing? None. I'll call a roll. Courtney, >> I >> Steve I. >> Ron >> I Ronnie.
>> Ronnie Bowman. I >> Thank you, Bill. Duffy >> I >> and Robins is an I. So unanimous. All right. [Music] All right. GNK Development Corp 10
Vesper a Falmouth and ask for permission to install a new title 5 sewer walls system and construct an addition. Jen, I'm sorry, Alyssa. >> Staff recommends a negative two under the state and bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed and this
project solely takes place in an AE flood zone. >> So move second. >> Okay, we got a motion to second. Any other comments, questions? Hearing none, I'll call a roll. Courtney >> I. >> Steve
>> and I. >> Ron >> Driscoll. I >> Ronnie >> Homeman I >> Dave >> I >> Bill >> Duffy I >> and Robins is an I unanimous
to accept staff's recommendation. Uh Christosonius Peronius 21 Hannes a fam with mass for permission to install a new title 5 sew disposal system and Alyssa >> staff recommends a negative three under
the state and a negative two under the bylaw resource area boundaries are not confirmed >> move second >> comments questions hearing none I'll call a roll I >> Steve I
>> Ron >> Easy I >> Ronnie >> Bman I >> Dave >> Can I >> Bill >> Duffy I >> and Robins is an I unanimous.
Next up is um Ronald Fernandez 192 Crystal Springs A Northbound with mass for permission to reconstruct a deck and a rinse station. Uh Alyssa >> staff recommends a negative two under the state and bylaw resource area
boundaries are not confirmed and this project solely takes place in an AE flood zone. >> So move >> fiscal second a motion and a second. Any other comments or questions? Hearing none, I'll call a roll. Courtney >> Bird I.
>> Patton I. >> Steve. >> Ron >> I. >> Ronnie >> I >> David >> Kent I >> Bill >> Duffy I
>> and Robin and that makes it unanimous. So let's do accept staff's recommendation. Next up is uh College Light Opera Company, Inc. care of Mark Pearson, executive director, 54 Chapel Quay Road,
Falmouth uh Mass for permission to construct the utility room and install water service lines to install water service lines. Uh Alyssa, >> staff recommends a negative three under the state and negative two under the
bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. So move >> fiscal second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation. Any other comments or questions? Hearing none. Um I'll call a roll. Courtney
>> I. >> Steve I. Ron >> I >> Ronnie >> Coleman I >> Dave >> Kent I >> Bill
>> Duffy I >> and Robins is United is an I it's unanimous to accept staff recommendations. Uh next up is Richard and Kaylee A. Celely um trustees Celely Realy Trust 39 Old um
Homestead Road West Almouth for permission to enlarge an existing deck, add gravel for drainage, and install mitigation plantings. This one's a continuence. Is that right? >> Okay. >> Yes. Did we have um do we have a date on this
one, Jen? Or >> uh this is just to next week 10:15. >> Yeah. Is it next week? >> I think I called this one out earlier. So So it's all right. So we still uh we already made a motion to continue on that. So
we'll move on. I already read the preamble on the no on the NOI. So, um, first up for a request for a notice uh for a hearing under a notice of intent, William and Brandon, 142
Pinerest Beach Drive is continued. Is it earlier? Um, next is um, Kelly Hike, 168 Cliffwood Lane, westbound with mass for permission to construct a rinse station, balcony, porch addition, and deck additions to
install mitigations and mitigation and restoration plantings. Uh, Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, I have promoted Jake Fky from Capen Islands Engineering to present his project. Good evening, Jake. The floor is yours.
>> Good evening. Uh, I think I think you guys should be able to see and hear me now. Uh, all right. So, uh, good evening. My name is Jake Fricky. For the record, I'm a professional land surveyor with Caven Islands Engineering representing Kelly
Hike for a project on Cliffwood. We filed this notice of intent application which has D file number 25-5106 to add a second story to the existing garage and another few um modifications to the house. With your permission, I
would like to share my screen. >> Please do the street. Let's see. But should be on the bottom, Jake. Yeah, it's it's telling me that
um I don't have See. Wow. Aha. Okay. Sorry about that. I had some setting was preventing me from sharing my screen but now you should be able to see the PDF.
>> Yes. Yeah. >> Excellent. >> Yep. >> Um okay. So um uh this project is proposed in a uh residential development on a in a developed parcel which is on the far
easterly end of of Cliffwood Lane. Uh the surrounding resources include a coastal bank which which runs across the back of the lot here uh which is precipitated by uh AE15 flood zone which runs along the same contour line
primarily which transitions to X. We also have a isolated freshwater wetland. And then there is a 50-foot a FWR A zone from the coastal bank and then a 50ft or
100 foot FWRB zone from the coastal bank as well. This lot contains a single family dwelling with an existing garage, decks, steps, porch, stone driveway with a
cobblestone edging, apron, brick walks, various retaining walls and on there is a uh a septic system on the site already, AC generator, manicured lawn, etc. Uh the project consists of
enclosing the uh existing front porch and then adding a porch in front of the now enclosed porch. expanding the back deck to uh to the east to somewhat um adding
a second floor addition onto the garage and uh a rinse station on the south side of that garage. Additionally, we are we're adding a uh a small stockade fence
in this area. And um we will be removing a existing unpermitted walkway on the uh oh, sorry about that. On that leads to the front porch here. Uh we're going to be removing some stairs that come off of
the existing back deck. Uh and we will be installing uh around 1,00,063 square ft of mitigation planting/restoration planting uh which includes one tree and uh some
dry wells to collect the the runoff from the site. We'll have temporary staging area. We're proposing to be out in the driveway in this area away from the resource areas. Um and we've got limit of work which encapsulates the the zone
of the work to be completed not not including the mitigation area. Um we did receive some staff comments earlier this week uh and I will address those. Uh the first comment is with regards to the
trees that are in this area. there was some uh unpermitted clearing which which is shown by this lighter line here. Uh the new existing edge of clearing is there and this is based on best available aerial imagery. We don't have
a survey of that line but that's approximately where we think it is where it was in the 2018 time frame. And then this area in here was cleaned up to somewhat and was also planted. And so staff has asked that we locate and identify the trees which have been
planted in this area and then they want to discuss related to those what the species of those trees are whether they should be replaced. We're already identifying uh any existing roodendrrons in that vicinity to be relocated out of the Azone and replaced with native
plants. Um and secondarily, there was a comments about the uh the mitigation planting note. Um and uh they're they're asking that we remove uh some language at the end of this comment that um the plants be
retained for three growing seasons. Um to just so that the plants be maintained in good health period. and uh and also entirely removing this comment at the the last the whole last sentence there. So um we can make those changes. We can
certainly go to the site and locate the uh the trees in this area and have discussions with staff once we have a better sense of actually what's uh what the species composition is. Um we believe this project complies with fmouth wetland bylaw and consists and is
consistent with prior projects. Um, at this point I'll stop sharing my screen and answer any questions. >> Thank you, Jake. Um, Jen, >> so Jake, you said you're going to add the trees to the survey for us. >> That's correct. >> All right. Thank you. I have no other
comments. Thank you for addressing the staff's comments, Jake. >> Certainly. >> Alyssa, >> no comments. Thank you. >> Uh, Courtney, why don't you start us off? >> Yeah. Uh, real quick, when when was the
original house built? >> I don't have an answer to that question. >> I think in the 70s probably. >> Um, so, uh, my my question really is will the foundation support that second story?
You done any engineering on it? >> Uh, no. And we are not structural engineers. Um the for some context, the applicant's um brother-in-law is uh Chris Harris of Salt Architecture and um
and he and his team are certainly capable of determining whether or not the foundation is able to hold a second story. >> Um I do believe >> Courtney, I do believe it's a garage slab. I think it's just a slab, isn't it? Um
Jake, I think the plan says on cuz we looked at that and I think it just says garage on slab. >> Just a slab. >> Yeah. >> So presumably it has a four 4ft frost wall going around the outside,
>> you know. And the the only reason I this is one of my pet pet deals uh is that you know if if it turns out once they get into the project that the foundation isn't adequate to support the
second floor. um then that stops the project cuz they have to come back and get an amendment because the scope of work increases, the potential for exceeding the limit of work, all of these things. And so my goal here is to
make sure that those issues are already addressed in the preliminary thing so your project can move forward in the and we don't have to worry about it again other than staff coming out and making sure you did your job.
So that's why my question and I would like to see uh uh something from an engineer saying that that um that that foundation will support a second floor. >> Courtney, you've accepted uh engineers
who's also accepted um a a statement from an architect as well. >> Either or. Well, is the is it a is he an AIA architect or is he an architectural designer? There's a difference.
And if they're an architectural designer, they may or may not have um the engineering qualifications. >> The structural engineer would have to be hired by the architect to provide the building plans, the framing plans, all
that would be under that umbrella. Courtney. >> Yeah. Well, that's that's why I want to see it. That's all, you know, that's my only that's my only question or my only issue here. Looks like a good project.
>> Okay, Steve, >> thank you. Yeah, I thought u it I didn't see any impact. I thought the improvements were improvements. So, I have no questions. Ron, >> no. I The only notice is there's no
egress off the deck. >> Yeah. >> You remove those stairs. >> I know that's not not purview, but I noticed that >> it's uh if I if I may step in here, it's it's underneath the the balcony. I can share my screen again if you want to see
it. Uh, so this is the deck that these are the steps being removed and this the steps are now underneath what is going to be a balcony off of the back of the garage. >> Okay. The second floor balcony. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay, that's all. >> Thanks, Ron. Ronnie, >> I'm all set. Good luck. Jake, I'm looking at the uh restoration the mitigation notes. Could you remind me where the area that was cleared in 2018 is? Was that was that on the left
hand side of the map? >> Yeah, that that's correct. Uh hang on, let me let me share it again. So, uh, if you can if you can see I don't know if you can see my cursor, but um, this this this
lighter gray line here >> is the is our best guess of where the edge of clearing was in 2017. And it actually goes beyond the current edge of clearing over here and is inside
over here. Um and so so that's the that area um is is being restored as part of this thousand square feet of mitigation. >> I got you. Thanks. Thanks. That's it. >> Thanks.
>> I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >> Thank you. And I'm I'm good. All right. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, do you want to see a statement from an from an architect or an engineer? It's usually uh your
practice. Jake, do you think Miss Hike might be able to get her um brother-in-law to look at the foundation? >> I I suspect that this has been uh reviewed, but as I am not an architect, I can't I can't fully confirm that. But
I'm I'm sure that we can get a statement um to be made by either the architect or by the structural engineer that reviewed the plans uh with regards to that foundation. That does not seem like a heavy lift. >> Okay. Courtney, would you be satisfied
if we condition that prior to signing off on the building permit or >> Sure. That that's fine. I don't want to I don't want to hold the project up, but I don't want to have a problem later on that holds holds the project up. I'm not trying to be a a major pain, just a
small pain. Um, >> no, it makes sense just to hold it off until I mean before Jen signs off on the building permit issuance, you know, in if the person that's that if the architect is
an AIA certified architect, then I'm okay with a letter from him. If if it's an architectural designer who probably doesn't have a structural engineering license, then it needs to be a licensed engineer. Structural engineer
>> Gary would require a stamp from the engineer for structurals. There would have to be >> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I know. But I want to see him, too. >> Okay. because and the reason is that um the impacts are different from the building
standpoint and from the our standpoint and what what I'm concerned about is that if for example the assumption is that the existing foundation will bear the weight of the second floor then the
scope work is one thing and that's as proposed but if if they have to start digging up. They have to demo the garage and put a whole new foundation in. That means that the scope of work around that
project and its potential impact is changed. And that would require them if they're following the rule to stop the project, get a structural engineer to certify it for us to meet and amend the permit in order to change the limits of
work and the different conditions. And I want to try to avoid that. >> That's all >> when we Courtney, I understand where you're coming from. I think we got the solution to it. We'll just allow allow the staff to administratively do that
before they sign off on any building permit. It's >> No, I'm happy to submit it >> later. I I just need it there. >> Gone through it before. You know, next thing you know is the foundation is no good. They want to put another F. I I
know where you're coming from. So, um >> So, as long as they submit it before before we vote the order conditions, I'm fine. >> Okay. >> I'll second that motion.
>> Did who who made the motion to close the hearing? >> Well, I'll make the motion to close it in case nobody did. >> I'll second. But we got a motion to close by Courtney and seconded by Ronnie. Any any other comments or questions? Okay. Hearing none, I'm going to call
for the vote hearing. Um >> bird eye. >> Steve, give me a thumbs up. >> Ron, >> I bite. I
>> Bill >> Duffy I >> Robins is an I unanimous to close the hearing take it under advisement. Uh the next um next one was um 218 Netome Netto Meadow Neck Road which has been
continued. So now we'll move on to continued request for hearing under notice of intent. Um Allan and Janet Sun 188 C Pit Road walkway mass for permission to
remove an unpermitted dock and to construct a landing with access stairs. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, this project has not been open, so you are all on the quorum. And Jake Fricky continues to be with us
this evening for 188. >> Indeed. Uh hang on. Let me get my get my plan open here. All right. Uh, good evening. Uh, again, my name is Jake
Frigy. For the record, I'm professional land surveyor with Caven Islands Engineering representing Allan and Janet Sun for a project on Capit Road. This has been filed uh for a notice of intent application under D file number 25-51000
to construct access steps down to the seat river on the property and with your permission chairman I would like to share my screen. >> Absolutely. >> All right. So um everybody should be able to see this
now. Um this this project is being proposed on a uh developed residential parcel on the southerntherly portion of sepo bay environment. Um the surrounding
resources for this include land under the ocean, land containing shellfish of the sea pit river. There is some salt marsh at the bottom of the rip wrap. Then we have a coastal bank which leads up the gently sloping lawn. Uh we also
have land subject to coastal storm flowage. This is a AE13 in this area transitioning to X. Um and we have a 100 ft FWR from the salt marsh and a 100 ft
FWRB from the coastal bank. This project is um it's a 1,200,000 square foot residential lot with a a development the residential house up in the uh upland portion of the
lot that runs down to a very steep rip wrap down by the water's edge. Um there was a set of wooden steps that has existed in the general vicinity of this existing structure uh for quite some
time. Um and the the former steps were removed by the applicant uh and improved upon without gaining any of the required permits. And that resulted in a dock like structure
um that as it were extends below mean low water but does not have sufficient water depth at its terminal end to meet the current water depth regulations. In this case, we're proposing to reconfigure and permit this structure as
a set of access steps that has a landing most of the way down and as a terminal end above mean low water. The existing 8x6 deck will be shortened to 5 ft and the existing set of steps on
the south side here will be removed and a new set of stairs will be installed on the end of the small landing. The existing decking on the landing will be removed and replaced with throughflow decking and a new the new steps will
also utilize uh the throughflow decking. The overall length of the access steps and landing will be reduced to 24 feet from the existing uh 28 feet of overall length. Um this this small landing is a
really important feature to the client. Um we've gone back and forth with him a lot about this. Um, he uses this as a place to unload his dinghy um without having to pile his ore and his bags and his buckets of clams and whatnot onto
the steps themselves and uh and preventing it from just being sort of like an avalanche of gear on the steps when he's trying to go up and down. We did uh we did receive a letter of support for this project from Dave Ryan who's the president of Cape Cod Oyster
Company. KitKat Oyster Company operates the shellfish grant which encompasses the entire width of the Seit River in this vicinity. Um and so uh so while we we had this is a continued hearing um
and in the initial review by staff it was brought to light that prior to the uh acquisition of the property that there was some mitigation planting which had been installed and approved for a
2005 certificate of compliance and that mitigation planting had had disappeared. Um, we don't really know when it disappeared, but it was prior to 2018 when our client purchased the property. Uh, part of our proposal today is to
restore that 750 square ft of mitigation. Um, and and additionally, we're showing a small amount of mitigation for the stone landing which is above the uh the wood landing right here for a for a total of 792 square ft
of mitigation planting. Uh I will now address the staff comments that we received. Um DMF comments with regards to this project are that uh winter flounder spawn in this area and so they recommend we work outside of
spawning season and we accept that comment. DMF also comments that any structure which is above a salt marsh should be elevated to a height of 1 and a half to one height to width ratio. Uh it is our position that uh that there is
not a salt marsh underneath this and um there has been there prior to this landing there was another landing um which which had a step this set of steps ran all the way down to the water and then the platform was basically at grade
and led out to to the water. I have an aerial photograph of that from 2018 which I can show in a moment. Um and uh furthermore, we feel that uh leaving as much of this structure in existence as
possible um will minimize the impact to the uh to the salt marsh. Uh the the current structure being elevated off the S marsh is actually better than the former structure which went all the way down to grade and ran across the ground.
Um and so uh so we are we are leaving the proposed to to leave the existing as it stands. Um per DMF comments uh they're they're also asking that any posts which are abandoned in this removal process to be removed rather
than cut flush and we accept that comment. Um and it is our understanding that this remaining structure will still require a chapter 91 license and the client has been advised of that. Um we accept the recommendation that clients
will use nonCCA materials for this and um and finally uh we understand that this landing is not to be used uh for storage of any kind. Um, but we do take exception to the position that no boats are to be tied to the landing for any
period of time. During all but the lowest tides, a small boat would be floating if adjacent to these steps. And if the occupant wished to disembark from that small boat and then unload the condents, it would be poor seammanship to not tie the boat to the set of steps. Walking up the steps to put something
down would give the wind and tide more than enough time to carry the boat away and down the river. and it it just seems foolish. So So we you know we recommend some language in there being that uh a
small unmotorized vessels could be tied for loading and unloading purposes only or some some you know small caveat there because otherwise you're you're you're basically forcing the guy to play hopscotch back and forth holding the boat and then run up the stairs and then
run back down and grab the boat. Um it just it just seems um sort of like an overburden to say that you can't tie anything to it at all ever. Um we uh in conclusion we believe that this project uh complies with Fmouth wet leg
regulations bylaw and is consistent with other access step projects uh in this area. Um at this point I'll stop sharing my screen and be happy to answer any questions. Um, and I'm going to share that photo of the prior dock. Um, give me one.
>> It wasn't a dock. It was a stair. >> Oh, excuse me. The the prior uh the prior set of of steps which >> then I have a photo to show too, Jake. >> All right. Well, we can >> we can we can share.
Uh so this this is the uh this is a aerial photo from 2018 and it shows this this this set of steps which comes down and then and then it has a a flat run which extends all the way out uh to the
water's edge here. Um and that this is what was removed and replaced with what is now shown in our site plan. And in this photo, you can tell that the mitigation planting was already gone. Again, we're not sure exactly when it
disappeared, but it did. >> Jake, one quick thing, that was from 2020, just to let you know, not 2018. >> Oh, >> just correction. >> Thank you. I I corrected that. That photo was from 2020.
>> All right, Jen, what do you got? >> Um, okay. So, I'm going to start with DMF comments. Um, Jake, how would the structure change if you had to address DH DF DMF comments
and and and make the structure ratio of one and a half to one? >> So, there's there's a couple of different ways that you could try to slice this apple. Um because it is a set of steps, there is
going to be a a point here where it is coming down to the ground which is unavoidable and you you can't really get to the ground without a one and a half to one ratio. No matter how you do it, if the landing um if the landing in its
current width uh was set at 1 and a half to one, um it the landing would need to be up at the elevation of the top of the rip wrap. And so you could you could come down the existing steps and then go
back up to a landing or you could uh you could make the landing very very narrow which would um in width uh but it would then be narrower than the set of steps in order to meet the one and a half to one at the lo in the location
that it is. It's it's only about uh 3 ft from the ground uh in that in that area. And so, you know, you're looking at a a a very narrow landing uh you know, which would be narrower than the existing
steps. Um so, we we we read these comments. Um, you know, as you know, Jen, you know, you and I and Fallon uh talked through this and we sort of struggled with how to meet these requirements. And >> um it's it's this is it's not it's not
there's no cookie cutter solution. If this was a long dock headed out to deep water, it would be easy. You could just sky ride over the whole thing. Um but but that's that's not what we're doing. We're trying to get down to the ground before we get to mean low water.
No ground. Um DMF is not convinced that this was um that this isn't going to have an impact. The salt marsh is missing in that area because it's been shaded out and
smothered over the years. There was a set of steps previously down to the water. What Jake showed was a set of steps. Um, so you know, we have concerns that we're adding a platform to this.
Um, there was a landing at the bottom of those steps. >> Okay. Well, it's not really clear but anyway DMF the staff always has to
support DMF's comments they don't feel that the grading is going to be sufficient in order to um not impact the salt marsh and the reason there is no salt marsh underneath the dock is because the prior structure and the current structure which we remind the
board was constructed without a permit. Um has smothered and continued to smother the dock. Um the unpermitted structure was installed between
Jake's photo of April of 2020 and March 30th of 2021. So again, it's staff's um you know recommendation that it meet DMF's comment as as much as it can and to allow that
salt margraph. Um, we also think that this the the current structure because it's unpermitted and should be removed by a date certain.
Um, as far as the dog, I mean the boat language, uh, Jake Mr. Chairman, I'm going to share my screen to show the board exactly how the songs use this structure. Go ahead.
>> This is the ill the unpermitted structure. We have a kayak on it, a kayak on salt marsh, and a boat that's securely tied up to it. So, this isn't taking a bucket of clams out of someone's dinghy and tying it up to a
um tying it up so it can be secured. This thing was docked at the end of this structure. So we have concerns with continued usage of this of this type of activity. It
this is not a dinghy. >> This is a a fairly substantial outboard. So we do have concerns with that and that's why there should be some language in there restricting the tying up of a
boat because boat shouldn't be there. This is not a dock. that says access to the water to go clamming. Um, we do think there should be uh a bit of
increased mitigation for some platform on uh the landward side. Jake, who's doing the work? Is the home the homeowner constructed it? I'm assuming he's going to be reconstructing it. >> That's that's correct. Allan is is
planning to do the the construction on this as and as you indicated. did the original project. >> Yeah. I mean, we're trying to work with the homeowners to get them something some access. Um but but I do I do have concerns. Jake,
are is there through flow right now on the steps or is it just that platform >> there? There's no throughflow at all currently. It's all it's all decked. And so we're proposing to to replace the decking with throughflow.
>> Okay. I don't care what's out there. It shouldn't be out there. It was unpermitted. So what I'm asking you is you're you're replacing the step the steps the proposed steps are going to be through through flow, right? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Okay.
All right. Unfortunately, again, staff has always had to recommend the recommendations of the division of marine fisheries. They feel that through flow in this situation does just not
provide enough light for um um the salt marsh to exist um or come back in this case. I mean, you've got healthy salt marsh if you've been out there on either side of that structure. So, um it's kind of suspect that we just
have this hole in the salt marsh and that clearly is a result of shading and or um smothering of the marsh in that area. Um I I'm still concerned about the boat users over there, Jake, and the argument
of poor seammanship. I I'm I'm sorry. That is not a dinghy. That is an outboard. If that is what Mr. Song is using to go clamming, which I suspect it is to get out to a quite bay because he can't clam right off the property because that is an active shellfish uh
grant run by a company. Um then I'm going to have some concerns with it. That is not a dinghy. >> I I I hear I hear what you're saying, Jennifer. Um you've ensured that he can't tie his boat up to this by having us put the steps on the end of this
platform. You can't tie a boat to this thing anymore. It's it's not it's just not friendly anymore. Um he >> well it wasn't friendly to the environment when it was built. >> Anyway, that's that's all I have. Mr. Chairman, we we would like to add some
additional mitigation. We do have concerns with the one and a half to one um not meeting that one and a half to one. Although I do recognize the um challenges in that. We don't want something to go up to have to go down. Um but then it it would be fairly
narrow. So that will have the board decide and I do feel strongly about you know adding some language to ensure that there's no vessels tied to this very very unfriendly structure. Um
that's all for right now. Russly >> thank you. Um Jake, I know you've been working with Fallon and Jen on this, but and you might have already discussed it with them, but um and I know your position is not to comply with the one and a half to one suggestion from the
state. If the landing was removed, could the stairs be constructed in an accessible way to meet the one and a half to one and without going up and back down? I I I I I my understanding is that the only part that can possibly be
one and a half to one is in fact uh some sort of flat structure cuz stairs have to reach the ground. So there's going to be a point where you can't you just can't be one and a half to one because you're touching the ground. Um, and so I
I don't really know how uh how you would get a one and a half to one set of steps even, >> right? Okay. So, it seems like the landing is the thing that is complicating the matter. And I know that's a thong's preference, but um the potential for just a singular stairway
would still provide access to the water. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Elsa. Uh Steve, why don't you start us off? >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I um
was enjoying the discussion of the landing. Um but I don't have any other questions. I support uh staff's uh discussion points there. >> Thanks. Thanks, Steve. Ron, >> welcome. Yeah, I think if we're going
to, you know, try and provide some access to these the applicants to to make it to the river, I mean, we might have to give a little on this. Um, and I think with, you know, the boat once we remove the 10 or 15 feet of the the current not dock
to tie the boat up to. Plus, there's not going to be enough water in there to get it that size boat into the dock. Um, he's whatever he's going to have to use. cuz I know he was he was the boat 15 20 as land out of the mooring. Um he's just going to have to either walk out there
or um use a small boat, a kayak or something, something that's not motorized. And I think if we put that language of not a motori, you know, non-motorized boat only can get in get in that area. I think that would take care of the the problem with the bigger boat.
So it's all I have. Thanks. Thank you, Ron. Ronnie, >> thank you, Jake. Uh, I'm in agreement with Ron as well, and I think it makes most sense to have the landing down at the water and stairs going to them. And
and and that other picture you Jen, you're saying you couldn't clearly see a landing from the 2020. >> Show you guys. I mean, it's there's something there. >> Looked like a landing. >> We know there was something there. We see it on a plan from 2006.
Whether or not from six to to 2020 it was improved at all. We just I don't think we can tell. But I will let you guys try to decide here. I'm going to share my screen one more time for you guys to see.
Share. Sorry, guys. Can you guys see that? >> Mhm. >> Yeah. So, this there's something there. This is this is 17. This is near map. >> Um that's 18
19. This is the one that Jake showed with the little boat there. That's how come I knew it wasn't 18, Jake. This guy was there. >> Yeah, it looks it looks to me as the stairs went down into the landing is what it looks like. >> Something's there. >> That definitely looks like a landing to
me. I think that's >> and then that's the new structure. >> Yeah. And as Ron pointed out, you're not going to be a draft for a motorized boat inland isn't going to isn't going to fly. But you can I think we can word that. So,
>> we can work on the language. That's fine. >> Yeah, I think it's good. Thank you. >> Thanks, Ronnie. Uh Dave, >> no questions. >> Bill, >> uh no questions.
>> Okay. Uh Jake, just to help me to understand the the clam pot, the the landing needs to be larger for his clamming baskets. Is that is that that what he was talking about? I I don't understand that. >> So, uh so you know when you uh when you
get home from work and you got an arm full of stuff and and you put it on the steps and you put one too many things on that pile of stuff on the steps and it all comes down. Um that's that's exactly what we're talking about. Um, he wants to have a place where he can he can put,
you know, a a bag, a bucket of clams, some ores, you know, something on an area that's bigger than a 1 foot wide by 4 foot long step and not and not just immediately expect it all to come crashing down. >> He's looking for a staging platform at
the bottom when he get unloads the boat. Correct. >> No boat, Ronnie. Remember, we're not putting a boat there. >> He's not going to keep one there. But if you access the interop standing in the middle is what I'm talking about. Yeah. I was just curious not not storing anything there. Correct.
>> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. And it's it's it's uh it's like four it's like four steps up. So it's high enough that even at high tide it's above the water. So it's so you know that that you don't want that platform to go underwater because that again defeats the whole staging
purpose of it. Oh, >> yeah. Okay. Just curious. And definitely I could I don't know how you could say there was no marsh underneath there prior to cuz it's contiguous along there
and then that one spot it's gone. So I think there was marsh under there at one point. All right, that's it for me. Um Courtney. Um, Jake, I appreciate you're trying to make
a silk purse out of a SA's ear. Um, but you know, it's uh it's it looks to me like a case of a doc group. And you know, I think the question really is, would it be feasible for you to actually
apply for a real doc or are there a lot of site conditions there to preclude the >> So Courtney, you do you ask a very compelling question and I appreciate that. Um, this there's no question that the that the Psalms would really like to
have a dock. Um and the there are there are some potential impediments to that um which could perhaps be uh left over. One of which is the existence of a very productive
shellfish bed in this area. Obviously, uh the the fact that this is also a a a shellfish farm where they've got 5 million oysters growing on the other side of the river, that that may be a
hurdle that could be leapt by staff, but >> or by uh by the board, but from a from a regulation perspective, there there's a you know, there's something to seriously be considered there. Um, so that that is one of the potential hurdles that needs to be left is could you could you get
consideration for the fact that this is a shellfish farm. I know that Dave Ryan would absolutely support them building a dock in this area. He has said it before. He will say it again. Um, but but could could you get through that regulatory hoop? I'm not sure. And uh
the other, you know, that's something that we certainly could explore. The other uh potential issue is with relation to the moorings that do exist out in the water and can you get enough length but still allow for the appropriate swing to those moorings. There'd have to be some discussion with
the harbor master that kind of thing. Um I think that that is all you know something that they would like to explore. Obviously, um, you know, the in the short term, we're trying to remedy a situation where, you know, they have an unpermitted structure and it needs to it
needs to be able to remain for long enough for them to maybe work through that second process of getting a real doc, but that that isn't going to happen immediately. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. I don't you know, I think you got some real problems there to try to
overcome based on staff's comments. That's all. I have no other questions. >> All right. >> What's your pleasure? >> Would you like want to close this and take it under advisor? >> A motion make a motion to close the
hearing. Driscoll taken under. >> Okay, we got a motion to close in a second by Courtney. Thanks, Ron. Any any other comments or questions? Bill, did you have something? I don't Did I skip over you? >> No, you asked. I was all set.
>> Sorry about that, but um >> so no other comments or questions. So I'm going to call a role to close the hear and take it under advisement. Courtney >> I. >> Steve >> Patton I. Ron >> I
>> Ronnie >> M I Dave >> K I >> Bill >> Duffy I >> and Robins is an I so unanimous to close the hearing and take it under advisement. >> Thank you Jake.
>> Thank you all. Have a good evening. >> Thank you Jake. Have a good night. >> Next up is uh Lara M. Mcweeny and William Mcdana. two Lawrence Street East with Mass for permission to construct a
second second story and install mitigation plantings and for after the fact permission for construction of a shed, elevated stone patio and rinse station. Jen,
>> yes, Mr. Chairman, I am promoting Mike Borelli up to present his continued project. >> Good evening, Mike. >> There he is. Hi, Mike. Well, hello. How are you all?
>> Fine, Mike. How are you? >> Good, thanks. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Mike Borceli, Felmouth Engineering, and I represent the applicant, Laura Maxweeny and William Mcdana. This is a continued hearing.
Um, we went through the whole project with you originally at the last hearing. There was some discussion about the um little bay street being a paper road and rights in it and discussion about
providing the mitigation planting that was required after the fact for some um impervious surfaces on the lot. Uh your staff wasn't supporting that. It was unclear to me
even though I tried to get clarity as to whether or not the commission supported it. And um we continued the hearing again. Um, I had a meetings with my client and
um, a decision was made to uh, submit a plan to you that shows all the mitigation planting on the subject lot, not within Little Bay Street. Um and the way we were able to do that
was uh the applicant is removing a portion of the unpermitted patio to reduce the overall area of required mitigation. So that's all identified on the plan and
I can share it briefly Mr. Chairman if with your permission. >> Please do Mike. Zoom in a bit here. So the um green area represents the required mitigation. The blue areas represent um unpermitted
impervious surfaces. Um this used to be blue as well um on a lot previous plan but this is now identified to be removed so that only this portion that shaded blue will remain. all all the all the math
area calculations um are identified with notes and there's a there's a summary on the bottom of the plan that demonstrates the need for 855 square ft of mitigation.
Um, we're proposing it in areas that are still within an A zone and not within 10 ft of the house or deck or patio. Um, so um the the mitigation planting is in
areas that are um currently ornamental plantings, but that's the way it is. We we don't have another alternative unless we were to go plant into the paper road. So, uh, I think this satisfies your
staff. This latest staff report. Didn't have any comments to speak of, which I'll take as um support in this case. And um I'm here to answer questions and hopefully close the
hearing. >> All right, Mike. Thank you. Uh, Jen, >> no comments, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mike. Elissa, >> no comments. Thank you. >> And Ron Driscoll, why don't you start us off? >> Yeah, Mike, again, just want to thank
you for working with the staff and and the applicant for giving up um giving it up and making putting everything in the in the proper zone so that we can approve it. That's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Ron. Uh Ronnie, >> is this the paper road, Mike?
>> Yes. >> What about it? >> Is that the paper road? Is that what we was discussing last time? >> Last time. >> Yes. >> And you g you guys abboarded that mission? >> Yes, we did. >> Okay. I would have liked to seen the plants down by the recess area but area,
but we'll move forward. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Dave. >> Oh, just one question, Mike. Uh, this is a lot of removal of deck in the back, isn't it? SM most of most of that deck is going away. I'm just I'm just
observing. Yeah. Wow. Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, they had to make some difficult decisions on what to remove and and keep in mind, believe it or not, we're here to get permission to put a second story on the house. That was why we were here originally. >> Yeah. >> And these things all came to light. So,
they did some um hard thinking and they analyzed how they used that patio and and what they were willing to remove is what we what we removed. Well, thanks for thanks for facilitating that.
>> You're welcome. >> I'm all set. >> Thanks, Steve. Bill, >> I got no questions. Thanks, guys. Thanks, Mike. >> Courtney, >> good job, Mike. No further questions,
>> Steve. >> Excuse me. Thanks, Mike. I um again will remind everyone that in a former life I was a zoning commissioner and uh we always got the fire department to approve use of a paper street but this
is the most paper street I've ever experienced so far. So I won't ask that we check with the fire department >> since they're already out of it anyway. >> Thank you, Mike. Yep. >> All right. What? What's your pleasure?
>> Make a motion to close the hearing under adisement. Driscoll >> bird second. >> Thank you, Ron. Thank you, Court. Any other comments or questions from the board? Um, anything in the chat, Jen? I've been remit doing that. I don't
>> It's okay, Mr. Chairman. Nothing in the public chat. I'll try to remind you Russ. >> Yeah, I've been keeping an eye on it, too, since I haven't seen anything. So, okay. So, we have a motion and a second to close it here and take it under advisement. And since there's no other
questions or comments, I'm going to call a roll. Courtney >> Bird I. >> Steve, >> I Ron >> I >> Ronnie >> Bman I >> Dave >> K I >> Bill
>> Duffy I >> and Robins's eye. That's unanimous to close the hear and take it under advisement. Thank you, Mike. >> Thank you. >> Okay, next up is um 202 Edgewater Drive East, which is I
read that earlier and it's been continued. >> Actually, I don't believe you did read it earlier, Russ. This is the late continuence. It wasn't on at the beginning. >> You're right. I better read it in. Yep. Okay. Okay. So, Mike and Marne Ferrell,
202 Edgewater Drive East, LLC, 202 Edgewater Drive East, uh, East Falmouth, Mass for permission to construct a dock. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, the applicant is requesting a continuence until November
5th. >> Birds move. >> Driscoll second. >> Okay. So, we got a request to continue to November 1st. Any other comments, questions? >> Fifth, Mr. Chairman. Fifth. >> Fifth. I'm sorry. November 5th.
Um, any other comments, questions from the board. Okay. Hearing none, I will call a roll. Courtney >> Bird I. >> Steve. >> Pat. >> I. >> Ronnie. >> No. >> Bulma. >> Ronnie.
>> Bulman. I >> Dave >> and I >> Bill >> Duffy I >> and Robins uh I unanimous to continue until November 5th. Um next
up is Cliff Dwellers Association Inc. Zero Northshore Circle North Balmouth for permission to um repair an existing stone groin. And I have to pass the chairmanship over to Courtney.
>> Okay. >> This >> All right. So, what what is it that we're waiting for on this one? Is it a >> number? D number. >> Yes, Miss Courtney. We were waiting for a D number. We received that D number.
Um what we did not receive but we can condition is we had asked um Mr. Burcelli to provide a calculation of the area of disturbance within the construction access but we can condition that so that we can get it replanted
appropriately. >> Okay. So um are there any comments from the commissioners? I'll start with Ron Bowman. >> Nope. >> Uh Ron Driscoll.
>> No, I'm all set. Thank you. >> Dave Ken. All set. >> Uh, and uh, Steve Patton, >> no comments. Thank you. >> Bill, >> no comments. Thank you. >> Do I miss anybody? >> No, >> I don't. I have no further comments
either. So, what's our pleasure? >> Make a motion to close the hearing taken under advisement. Driscoll. >> Okay. Do we have a second? Second. >> Okay. Is there any comments in the chat room? >> Nothing in the chat.
Okay. Any anybody that wants to speak from the um audience? >> There's nothing, Corny. >> Okay. So, I'll call for the vote. Um what we're closing this, so I'll call for the vote. Um
uh let's see. Um Ron Bowman. >> Bowman. I >> Driscoll. I >> uh Dave >> I >> and Steve >> Brad and I. Duffy. >> Duffy. I >> Bird eye. Uh, did I miss anybody? Okay.
The hearing is closed. I'll turn the chair back to Mr. Robbins. >> Good job, Courtney. >> Thank you, Court. Good job. >> All right. Hearings under a um enforcement order.
Robert and Teresa Mclofflin. Trustee 65 North Bonds Pawn Road. This is continued too, right, Jen? >> Correct, Mr. Chairman? >> We read this in already. >> Yeah, we read this one in already. This
one is continued till Give me one sec. 22nd. >> Okay. And then the next one is David and Marcy Barnes, 38 Squiba Drive, East Falmouth. And that is also being
continued. Correct. November 5th. >> November 5th. Got it. All right. We read that one already. Okay. So, continued hearings under enforcement order. Um, Joseph G.
Marisola Trustee Joseph G. Marisol Revocable Trust 2018 15 Moses Road found with mass unpermitted enclosure of a rinse uh station in a velocity zone. Jen.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mola is with us this evening. I've promoted him out to a panelist and I am going to toss this one over to Alyssa Berson to recap where we are. >> Thank you, Alyssa. >> Thank you. Yes, I'm looking at the
quorum sheet. Everyone's on the quorum for this one. Um, so we had last continued a hearing in order for Mr. Marisola to provide the commission with a proposed design. Um, I did forward that to everyone. Um, the design, and
Mr. Mir Solah can elaborate on it is uh basically to use removable panels and to hang them when in use and I'm assuming remove them at the end of the season or should there be a a storm or other event coming through. Um the board was very
interested in seeing a proposal so that's why this was submitted. Uh, as Jen and I have noted in the past, just to recap again, there there was a rinse station proposed on the property the whole time, um, it was supposed to be
open air, not enclosed. That's where the staff's concern is. We understand that the sail cloth, um, did not work on the property. Um, so that's why Mr. of Marola has been pursuing some sort of system where it wouldn't be contiguous
paneling and be um solid and enclosed, but rather have these panels uh be able to be removed, like I said, in a storm event or at the end of the season. Um staff still has concerns just because of the conditions that were set. And
that's really it. >> All right. Thank you, Alyssa. Mr. Minnesota. The floor is yours. >> Uh yeah. So that was a good description by Alyssa. I think you know this was really uh inspiration for the design was really from Courtney. Uh we took his
kind of considerations under advi or his ideas under advisement um from our last call. Um so we decided to explore uh you know removable panels and we're using um what's called uh seaw wall hook and eye
brackets. They're basically, you know, hooks. The hooks would be on the posts. The um uh female piece would be on the uh panels and there would be about a quarter inch to an inch gap on each panel and they would just simply require
no tools to lift on and off. Um and we submitted a few different uh you know pages of a PDF to give you guys some idea of what we're proposing. And that's uh that's it. All right,
Melissa, do you have that um You don't have those PDFs, do you? Could you put them up on the screen? >> I could show them, too, if you want. >> Sure. If if you have them up, that might be easiest. Or I can find them in my email. >> Sure, I have them up if you want me to show you.
>> Thank you. All right. Um, so this is just a written um, you know, summary of what would be done and I think these are probably the best drawings. So um, you can see here this is the post bracket. This is the,
uh, seaw wall I hook and this is the panel edge where it could be picked up and put back onto the bracket. Um, and you know, it's basically a square shower. So, you'd have um one on each corner and for the door and um there'd
be one at the top and one at the bottom. Um, so there'd be four on each panel on the left, right side, top and bottom. And this is kind of what it would look like um if you were looking at it. So, you get one, two, three, four on each side.
>> Very good. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to remind the board that, >> you know, you've held >> several other applicants to the standard of either sailcloth or some other kind
of softener solution. I'm going to remind the board again that when this project was first presented to you, it was presented in numerous plans that this was an open air rinse station to rinse your feet off from the sand from the beach and was never intended to be a
shower. And that is what it's turning into. And that is additional paneling in a Vzone. this property had uh you approved I believe more than you wanted to in enclosed space and this is just adding more structure in a vzone. So I'd like
to caution the board moving forward you approve this and then we're going to see additional paneling in Vzones um in showers. I don't think this ever was intended to be an open air shower. It was just presented that way and then next thing you know we found an
enclosure. So, um, I really do have some concerns with this and the way this came about. That's all. >> Yeah, respectfully, I just I don't agree with that. We fully intended to enclose it in salecloth. That's why the posts were put there in the first place. Um,
and like I've said in prior hearings, the sail cloth just didn't work. I would argue that my house has probably the highest exposure of southwest winds in all of Falmouth. Um, we have no there's nothing breaking the wind. Even if you
go uh, you know, maybe a quarter mile to our south in Wild Harbor, they have that neck where the searest is protecting them. Um, in addition to that, it was supposed to be a rinse station. Yes. Primarily for my kids. I barely use it.
Um, and I think they deserve some privacy where we have uh public access about five to six feet from the open air shower. So, um, that is the goal is to just not use this as, you know, hey,
everyone get ready to go out to dinner and go out and overflow the, you know, outside and take showers. This is for my kids to rinse off. They probably use it once a day at the end of the day. And um we're fully on board with uh taking them up and putting them down um you know
when there's an incoming storm should there be. There hasn't been one in the six years that I've owned the property. Um or uh if uh you know at the end of the season obviously >> if you were always intending it to be enclosed with sale clusters then why didn't on every plan does it say open
air shower >> on the architecturals on the site plan? Yeah, I because I I saw sailcloth in the order of conditions. Maybe that was a misstep by me, but that was always our intent whether that was formally done. I'm not an expert in, you know, all of
this. This is my first time >> presented. Yep. No, but it was presented to the board one way and we're changing the rules as we go along. >> Well, cloth and the contract that you entered into with the town. >> Was sailcloth allowed though? >> It was. >> We did give you the option, but paneling
is not. It was not. Right. >> And now you're pushing the issue now because you're saying the sail cloth didn't work. If it didn't work, then go back to the original design of an open air shower, which was again on your site plant and on your architecturals to rinse feet off from the sand, not to
be an enclosed shower space. That's all. >> All right, Ronnie, why don't you start us off? >> Thank you, Mr. for our solar for uh getting this squared away. I know it's been a process here. I'm I'm okay with
it and I'm hoping that you could probably reuse some of the panels when you're uh altering it. That's it. >> Thank you, Ronnie. Dave, >> I'm okay with it. >> What's that? Uh Dave, I'm sorry.
>> I'm fine. >> Oh, you're all set. Okay. Bill, >> I don't have any questions. Thank you, >> Courtney. >> Um,
the only question I have on this is, uh, where are you planning to store these panels? >> That's a great question. Uh, storage is very limited. Um, they can fit in the storage room that is on the plan. That's I don't think you've ever been in it,
but it's very high uh ceilings. They're like almost 9 or 10 foot ceilings because we are 15 ft in the air from the flood zone. So, they could be stored there or um my wife and I have talked about getting a storage unit uh up on 28A um to store them, but we will not
just have them laying around. You if you if you go to the property now, I actually had a I had a sectional couch. Uh, I had a sixperson table and uh multiple kayaks there all summer and I actually took those and removed them from the property for the winter and
they're being stored at at a friend's house. Um, so I'm very I'm a fisherman. I'm a clammer. Uh, I love Balmouth. I love New Silver Beach. I'm very cognizant of uh keeping stuff down there over the winter so everything will be stored properly.
That's a in my mind a very big concern with this is that those you know if there's a what are you going to do? Are you going to take it down anytime you leave? Are you there all summer? I mean talk to us a little bit. >> We do we live there full-time um about
Memorial Day through Labor Day. >> Okay. There's never a period in that time when you're away your whole family's away. >> No, we don't. We save our vacations for the winter. And I have, you know, some great neighbors and friends that if
there was a storm, I would I would be doing other stuff to the house if I was away, like, you know, maybe putting plywood on windows or something. So, you know, I have capabilities to react if a storm is coming in. And, uh, I have a
few days notice, obviously. >> Yeah. those sort of little housekeeping details that relate secondarily to this is my biggest concern. And I, you know, I I don't have that much of a problem
with it. I recognize Jen's position and I normally would support you and her on this because, you know, I think she's she has a the advantage of a big picture that some of us don't have. And but I
think in this case there could be a finding made that would would be make it specific to this particular project. So personally I'm okay with with what you've done. No other comments.
>> Thank you Court Steve. >> Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. I understand the the the uh the issue very well. Um but I've seen a a large number of of proposed
creeps into this guideline. If the question is whether our guideline is correct assuming and supporting the guideline is my position with this. We it's it's um it's not see what they did
I got to do it too. It's It's already being done and I think we I I don't think we can let it continue. >> Thank you. >> All right. Ron. >> Yeah. Mzo, what are the u what's the
material made the material of the the panels? What >> uh it's all it's all cedar. We're hoping to uh reuse the existing uh cedar panels. >> Yeah. How much is it going to weigh? Each panel is going to weigh? O I I do not know the answer to that.
>> One person pick it up over those hooks and and move it or >> No, I I think it's probably two, but I think my wife and I could do it. I don't think it's anything significant. >> Well, two people maybe as I get older. >> I wouldn't call it significant. It's not
something that you're going to be able to >> I could pro honestly >> if you know you get the call that there's a stone coming. >> I think he could remove it. It's just awkward. It would be easier to take it off. >> Yeah, it's it's because I would have to bear hug it. I I can physically lift one
myself. I always just need help just lifting it, you know, about a quarter inch to an half an inch off the the hook to get it on the ground. So, um but yeah, I mean I think you know I hear you. I I there's I don't foresee an
issue um having some help either from my wife if I have, you know, if I'm uh I don't know, bedridden or something. There's people that can help. and my boys will hopefully be of age in a few years where they'll be able to lift these things and I won't have to worry about it. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all,
Mr. Chairman. >> All right. Thanks, Ron. >> All right, John. Um, what do we do? Close this u vote. >> Yep. You're going to have to close this and determine what you'd like to do with the enforcement order because this is
not a notice. This is an enforcement order. So, do we do we need to close it and then consider it later or can we do this now? >> It's up to you. If the board wants to take some time and consider it, you can
consider it or you can vote today um to either have them remove them or allow them him to keep them. It's completely up to the board. All right. >> I'd like to put this to bed. So, I I I'd like to make a motion to uh close this.
>> And so, we consider it a week or so. >> Yeah, >> we can put it on it next week for you guys to consider. >> Yeah. >> Oh, so we have a motion by Ronnie to close the hearing a second. Seconded by Courtney. Any other comments or
questions from the board? Hey, Jen, is anything in the chat? Do we need to I don't see anything. >> Nothing in the public chat, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. All right. So, we have a motion
and a second to close the hearing uh to close this enforcement order. Um I'm going to call the role to close. Courtney >> burn. I >> Steve, >> no. Pat, no.
>> No. Okay. Although it doesn't make sense to vote no to close the hearing. I'm voting no on the issue. I don't know why we would wait a week to decide this, but I'm going to vote no. Thank you.
>> Ron, >> I Ronnie >> Bman I can't I >> just to clarify Steve's point of we closing it and then still considering it next week.
Yes, that's what the board is voting to do. >> All right. I Duffy. >> All right. And Robins says I So, um, vote does, uh, so six to one to close the hearing. Take
it under advisory. So, that motion passed. Okay. Next up. >> Thank you everyone. Have a good night. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um, is it Arvani
Jen >> Aini? I believe I could be wrong though. >> Anthony Aini Jr. and Elaine Aini. Um, Aini of 42 Squib Knocka Drive eastbound of Mass. Unpermitted reconstruction of
the deck, enlargement of the patio, installation of retaining features in uh with and clearing within conservation jurisdiction. agend. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mike Burcelli is here to give the board a brief update of
where we are. We have met with Mike. We have met with the property owners. Uh Mike has prepared a plan. We just need to figure out um what needs to be done to bring the
property into compliance. Um, but I think Mike is here just to briefly address the board. Mike, um, are you should uh I do see your client in the attendees. Am I promoting them up as well or
>> um, if he wants to be promoted, he can raise his hand. I don't know that he needs to be. Um, because I want to be brief, but if there's something you want to ask him, he's he's here. >> Um, >> that's fine. >> Okay. So, well, thank you, Mr. Chim and members of the commission. Mike Borceli,
Felmouth Engineering. I represent uh Mr. Aini on this matter. Um I just thought it would be best to update you in person. Uh we need a continuence. There's a lot that needs to be done here. This
is a significant um issue and frankly I've got to figure out with my client how to uh remedy the situation. There was unpermitted construction that went close to a well
and resource. It's significant in that it's hardcapes and stone retaining walls. um my workload is such that I'm gonna I got to find time to deal with this. But uh what we have done
um is we had baseline information prior to the improvements being done because uh you reviewed and approved some plans that uh under RDAs previously there's records of this of plans of
existing conditions. Um there's aerial photos. Uh we have subsequently um performed an asbuilt survey of the current conditions. So we have the ability to uh compare, overlay, contrast
what was to what is. We looked at this together with your staff and Mr. Abini on the property a couple weeks ago. Uh, everyone understands that work has to happen that's going to require significant
removal of hardscaping. And the question becomes what you remove and what you there's obvious things that must be removed and then there's things that maybe can remain or maybe not depending on if there's enough room for mitigation planting. So, we have to do
all this analysis and it's uh it's just going to take some time. So, I I was just looking at the calendar while I was waiting my turn. Um and it sounds like a long way out, but time flies when you're having fun.
So, I was going to ask for December December 3rd. And I I come to that conclusion because and frankly I don't know if that's enough time, but um I came to that date because um
today's the 8th of October. Clearly next week's not enough time, the 12th, and clearly the 19th is not enough time. Uh did I do that right? Um I'm sorry. the 8th. Today's the 8th to
15th is not enough time. 22nd is only a week after that. Uh October 29th, you're not meeting. >> I'm sorry, I'm confusing myself here. So, >> Dan, are you okay with December 3rd?
>> Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, they're going to I'm I'm listening. >> Mike, can we get it done a little sooner? Well, >> and the reason and the reason I'm saying this is I'm thinking of the, you know, the the the the issues we have over
there. And, you know, we issue an enforcement order. you know, we're running up against like let's say we if you can get the analysis done in November, we can issue something early December. You know, it's going to, you know, we're
going to put time frames on there and obviously we're running up into the holidays, so we don't want anything done that time. I just want to make sure that we get plants in the ground this spring. >> So, I don't want this to go too far.
Well, just if I just finish this out, if you're you're not you're not meeting on the 29th of October, I think, which was way too soon. The 5th of November and the 12th of November, in my mind, are too soon. Um, you you're not meeting on
the 19th of November or the 26th of November. So, I don't I can't have something to you by November 12th. That's just not possible. When did this first appear on our
agenda? Melissa, do we know >> August 13th. >> So, this is my this is the issue. I understand your workload, Mike, but um December 3rd, but you're gonna we're gonna have to have something. I mean,
August, it's been in August 13th. We're almost two months later, and I know you have the plan. Um, so we're going to have to see something,
you know, barely complete by December 3rd. >> I'll do my best. I can't I can't promise >> cuz then if not we're going to have to start just some putting some timelines on and that's that's not going to be
good. So um you know like you said these are these are substantial issues on some of these properties over there and they they do need to be um addressed. Um, let's see what you can get to us on
December 3rd, Mike, but I I I stress that it probably has to be something. Yeah. Well, what I'm hoping to get to you by the 3rd is to show you what used to be and what that area was of imperous surface compared to what is currently
and then what we're proposing to remove. Um, >> well, you already have that information. So, it's what's proposing to be removed. That's the next step. I have the overlay plans. We've seen them. >> I haven't submitted it officially to the record thing. I shared it with the commission.
>> Yeah. >> I shared it with you on on site. So, >> yeah. So, we know it exists. So, um just see what you can do by December 3rd. >> I'll do my best as I said. >> Okay. >> All right.
Third is on the table. request to continue the hearing till no December 3rd. Driscoll patent second motion second to continue to December 3rd. Any other comments, questions by
>> I I would really like to see this sooner than that, but um I understand your workload, Mike. It's just that doesn't give us a lot of room for maneuver. If there are things that we're concerned about on the 3rd of September and that
puts it off even more, that's where my concern is. I'm okay with the third if you can make sure that you visit extensively with staff prior to that so
that when we when when when we have that hearing on the 3, you know, the homework's been done and it it's possible for us to give it our blessing so you can move forward. In other words, I don't want to have a
continuence because we're looking for more information. That's my big concern. >> I I hear you and I'll do my best. >> Just one more thing to add, Mr. Chairman, and not to prolong it. the
further the the the the hearing process drags out, the less time property owner is going to have to complete the the the needed the needed
um uh repairs on the property. So, >> you know, if we need to plant, it is going in this spring. Um there will be no delays in that. And um so >> Jen
again, >> it's got to go out the bid. You got to get contractors. I I I I think that might be a reach. I really do >> this spring. >> Yeah. I I mean I think I think if you're
going to have the hearing on the 3, >> you got to have all your contractors lined up and come in, >> you know, >> and the methodology all worked out so that you can hit essentially hit the ground running on the fourth.
>> There's a lot to do here. So >> yeah, there is a lot to do. Do what you can, Mike. Let's we'll regroup on the December 3rd. >> Yeah, I'll certainly meet with you. >> Yeah, and Alyssa before then. Yeah, we'll see what we can come up with. >> All right, >> we know how to reach you, Mike. We'll
>> I mean, it would just be foolhardy to continue to November 12th and come back and say, "Hey, yeah, we're still working on it." You know? >> Yeah, that's December 3rd. >> You got it. >> Okay. >> All right. Somebody give me a motion on that or can somebody give me a motion on that, please?
>> Did Bronn make a motion? >> Yeah, we were already in the middle of waiting for a vote, right? Yeah. Ron had a motion. So Ronnie seconded. Um I'm going to go ahead and call the court.
>> So are we ready to vote? Bird. and I >> Bman I >> so unanimous. >> Thank you very much. >> Good night. >> All right. Okay, next up is vote orders
and conditions. Um, Seth Adams, trustee uh S Pond Realy Trust 265 Thomas Blanders Road, uh, Felmouth with Mass. Jen, >> do you hear me, Mr. Chairman? Yeah, I'm just trying to find the plan real quick.
>> This was the me they had a meadow was p meadow or something and >> Yeah. Why don't I have my plan is because my plan is with the chase road problem. Um,
yep. This was Melissa. He had all the he had all the room to plant the mitigation required. >> Um yeah, so I can I can recap here. Basically, a lot of the work that was being proposed is proposed after the fact with its corresponding mitigation.
Um as I noted throughout the process though, they did propose mitigation in an existing lawn area. That lawn had previously been required to be meadow for the actual construction of the house. So, it's almost like double dipping. That was the old before there
was mitigation planting requirement. Um, so we worked with the engineer to determine how big that meadow was and is there still room for all this mitigation or do some of these unpermitted structures need to be removed? Um, Tim did the
math. It turns out there's 131 square ft of mitigation still required. He believes there is room on the property for that. We just haven't seen an updated site plan yet. So, we'll need to confirm that. Um, and if not, some of those unpermitted structures will need to be removed. They were proposing pass
through the meadow, which uh we had concerns with, so that's no longer proposed. The garden was proposed to be relocated. Now, it's not. It's just going to be removed. Um they do need to add additional mitigation for the unpermitted
um stone wall towards the the north I think it's north of the property. Um they also need to do some restoration and a clearing that was north of the garden. So there are many facets to make corrections to on the plan but they were
um in agreeance with all of them and um I don't mind reviewing those when the time comes. Considering what has occurred to the meadow, we would also recommend the installation of a single rail fence and monitoring reports. >> Thank you, Lisa.
Comments for the bullet. >> Everybody like what they're hearing? >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> All right. So what's your pleasure? >> An order of conditions as sensibly discussed. Driscoll >> third and second.
>> Courtney, we have a motion and a second to close as discussed. One more time for comments. Nope. Seeing none, I'm going to call a roll. Courtney >> I >> Balman I
>> can't I >> Bill >> Duffy I unanimous opposed this hearing. Okay. Um 42 uh Susan Garland 42 Chase Road west
found with mass chen >> I need to excuse myself you chairman >> you're excused Ronnie thank you you can take off if you want >> good night all >> good night Ronnie >> this started off as a fragmented
remediation project um and uh staff discovered several um unpermitted um features on the property. We work with Tyler to come up with a mitigation plan. He has done that. Uh you saw
several changes to it that the staff wanted. He's made those changes and we have already worked with Tyler to authorize his um start of work for the Fragmitees removal project because that actually is time constrained to the
fall. Um so we have authorized as we said in the hearing for him to begin that portion of the project. Um this portion I think we should put a date certain on the planting aspect of it since all all the features are already there. Correct Alyssa? She's not
proposing uh a new deck or anything. So all the features are already there. So I would definitely put a planting timeline requirement on this uh on the project and it should be next spring. Any concerns with that, guys?
>> No. >> What? >> Nope. >> Oh, thought Steve said, "Yep." And I'm like, "What? What's What's the concern?" Okay. Um, do >> get the plants in the ground by the end of May.
>> No. Okay. Okay. >> Okay. All right. >> Anything else? >> I'll make a motion to uh issue an order conditions as discussed.
>> Second. >> We have a motion to issue order conditions as discussed. Any other comments, questions? Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. Um Courtney >> bird eye
>> if he's cruised. >> Oh that trace. Thank you Dave >> K. I >> Bill >> Duffy I >> Robins is an I. So we've issued an order conditions for 42 Chase Road. Anything
else? Okay, I'm looking for one more motion. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Second bird. >> I >> Duffy I
>> I think we got it. We're journed. [Music]