Heat. Heat. Good evening. Welcome to the February 4th, 2026 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 and how you say it and what can be seen and heard in your background. We have a full complement of commissioners tonight. Thank you all for your dedication. I'd like to remind the commissioners
that for commenting, I will call on each of you in turn. So, please refrain from speaking over each other. Also, all votes are done by roll call. So, when I call your name, please state your name and your vote for the record, even if you've made the motion or second. To our public attendees, at any time during
this meeting, you may enter any comments or questions via the chat function. At the appropriate time, they will be read into the record. If as an attendee you like to participate in a particular hearing, let us know via the chat function 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
determine if the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act and or the Falmouth Wetlands bylaw apply to the proposed project. A negative determination is that the provisions of the act and/or bylaws do not apply. Therefore, the project may proceed as
proposed. A positive determination means the provision of the act and or bylaw do in fact apply and or may require some conditions. Therefore, the project would require a notice of intent application. So, as an applicant, you want to hear a negative termination.
For the benefit of anybody waiting for a particular hearing tonight and so you'll not be waiting unnecessarily, the following hearings are expected to be continued. Zero Davisville Road East Falmouth 77 San Tuit Road Falmouth Mass 58 Westward Road Falmouth Mass for
Whitmore Road of Whitmore A Falmouth Mass. All right. So, first on the agenda, we want to vote for the minutes of January 14th, 2026. >> Chairman, I make a motion to approve the
minutes of Patton. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any questions hearing? None. I'll call the role. >> Ron, >> I. >> Dave, >> I. >> Jim,
>> I. >> Ronnie >> Bulman. I >> Courtney >> I. >> Steve >> Patton I. >> Duffy. I. Minutes for January 14th, 2026 have been voted in. Next. The minutes for January 21st, 2026.
>> Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the minutes of January 21st. Patent >> bird second. >> Motion in a second. Any questions? Hearing none, I'll call the role. Ron, >> I. >> Dave,
>> I. >> Jim, >> I >> Ronnie, >> Bulman, I >> Courtney >> Birdie, >> Steve, >> I >> Duffy. I minutes for January, 2026 are in.
Next up, we have a request for continuence under enforcement order. Sea Shell Lane Community Associates, Inc. 0 Davisville Road, map parcel 40-11-013-0000, East Felmouth, Mass. unpermitted clearing cutting instruction while the
flood zone and within the buffer to assault marsh. again. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, this matter is being continued or being requested continued to February 11th. We had hoped the commission might be able to see
something out there. Um but um so yeah, February 11th. >> So bird so move continue to uh the 11th >> patent second. All right, we have a motion and a second to continue to
February 11th. Questions hearing? Seeing none, I'll call the role. Ron, >> Jess, I >> Dave, >> I. >> Jim, >> I, >> Ronnie, >> Bowman, I >> Courtney >> I, >> Steve,
>> Ben, >> and Duffy, I request for continues granted till February 11th. Request for determination of applicability. The first one on the agenda, J. David and HJ Jane Preston 50
Weather Glass Lane Falmouth mask for permission to remove a float and enlarge the existing ramp. Salissa >> staff recommends a negative two under the state and bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. >> So second,
>> we have a motion and a second to approve. Any questions? Seeing none, I'll call the roll. Ron >> I >> Dave >> D I. >> Jim >> Rath I. >> Ronnie >> Bowman. I >> Courtney
>> I. >> Steve >> Patton I >> and Duffy I. Motion passes. Next we have Foley a revocable trust 15 Oington Drive Falmouth Mass for permission to install a new Title 5
sewage disposal system. Melissa >> staff recommends a negative two. Under the state and bylaw, resourceary boundaries are not confirmed and this project solely takes place in an AE flood zone. >> So move second.
>> Have a motion on a second. Any questions? >> Hearing and seeing none, I'll call the role. Ron >> Driscoll. >> Dave. >> Jim McGrath. >> Ronnie >> Bowman. I >> Courtney >> Bird I
>> Steve >> I >> and >> Duffy I motion passes. Next Carol Leger 247 Lakeshore Drive Falmouth Mass for permission to extend an existing deck. Alyssa
>> staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative two under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. >> Birds move. Patton second. >> Driscoll second. >> Got a motion and a second. Any questions?
>> Hearing seeing none, I will call the role. Ron >> Piscoli, >> Dave, >> I, >> Jim, >> I, >> Ronnie, >> Bulvin, I, >> Courtney, >> I, >> Steve, >> Patton, I,
>> and Duffy. I motion passes. Next we have Scott Massie 298 Acapescuit Road, Falmouth, Mass. Did I just say that one? No. For permission to install a new title 5 sewage disposal system.
>> Uh staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative two under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. >> So move second. >> Hearing a motion second. Any questions? Seeing none, I call the roll. Ron
>> Driscoll I >> Dave >> Dent I >> Jim >> I >> Ronnie >> V and I >> Courtney >> I >> Steve >> and I >> and Duffy I
motion passes next we have Keith Debcort 77 Stuart Road found with Mass for permission to install new title 5 sewage disposal system. >> The applicant has requested >> Oh, sorry. >> Continuence until March 4th.
>> Sorry, I didn't hear you. So, I just started. Um, the applicant has requested a significant >> a continuence. >> Did I freeze? >> Yes. Till March 4th. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. >> So, move second. We have a motion and a second to
continue this RDA till March 4th. Any questions, comments? Seeing none, call the role. Ron, >> I, >> Dave, >> I, >> Jim, >> McGrath, I, >> Ronnie, >> Bman, I, >> Courtney,
>> I, >> Steve, >> and I, >> and Duffy, I motion passes. Lyn Riley of 100 Gale Avenue, Felmouth, Mass for permission to install an ingground pool with an associated patio
and fence conduct minor urating and for after the fact permission to construct a shed. Melissa >> staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative two under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. Is >> this in a flood zone?
>> Um, it is in a flood zone. this particular project when it was constructed um it was an undeveloped lot so the zone A is fully vegetated so there's no mitigation or anything required >> okay heard so move >> second
a motion a second any other questions hearing seeing none I'll call roll >> I Dave I >> Jim McGrath I >> Ron I >> Courtney I >> Steve
>> and Duffy I motion passes. Next we have Sean Anderson 252 Manat road fmouth mass for permission to raise and rebuild an existing single family dwelling reconfigure a driveway and install a new title 5 sewage disposal
system. Melissa >> 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.
>> A motion and a second. Any questions? >> Hearing and seeing none. I'll call the role. >> Ron >> fiscal. I >> Dave >> Kent I. >> Jim >> McGrath I. >> Ronnie >> Bulman. I >> Courtney >> Bird I. >> Steve
>> and I >> and Duffy I. Motion passes. Next we have a continued request for determination of applicability. Scott Mile 75 Reynolds Street Fmouth Mass form to construct an addition in porch and
reconstructed a deck. >> Melissa >> staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative two under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. >> Is this a flood zone thing? >> Um it's not. Most of the reconstruction
is in the same footprint. There's very minor mitigation required. >> Okay. Birds move. >> Risk second. >> We have a motion on a second. Any questions? Hearing and seeing none, I will call the
role. Ron >> Escali. >> Dave >> Dan I. >> Jim >> McGrath I >> Ronnie >> moment I >> Courtney >> I >> Steve >> I
>> and Duffy I motion passes. All right for notices of intents. All hearings of the Falmouth Conservation Commission are held simultaneously under the authorities of the Massachusetts Wetland Protecting Act and the Falmouth Wetland bylaws. 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 falmouth wetlands bylaws and how they pertain to a particular application. The chair reserves the right to stop any commenting that is disparaging or inconsequential to the healing hearing. Please know that all correspondence received by the conservation department is forwarded to
all commissioners and become part of the record. We will not read each and every letter we receive at a hearing. Remember, our jurisdiction is that of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act in the Falmouth Wetlands bylaw, not zoning, health, or building.
So, we have a notice intent. TS Grove PT Marinas HM LLC 366 Manut Road and 470 Acapesca Road, Falmouth, Mass for permission to conduct improved dredging.
again. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have promoted Raul Lardi up from Capeen Islands Engineering to present his project. Good evening, Raul. >> Good evening, everyone. Um, Raul Lisardi for the record from Cape Islands
Engineering. We are the engineers and Lancers for for this project and this application. With your permission, I would like to share my screen. >> Go ahead. So hopefully I am successful in sharing.
Um so this notice of intent was filed for improvement dredging. Um there is an existing marina at the site. Um and there is shallow water at the uh for the past few years there's been shallow water within the marina. So just to orientate everyone this is
down in the peninsula between Green Pond and Great Pond. um right on the west side of the Manat um bridge. Um the property um has been developed as a marina for several decades. This view
that I'm showing right now is an aerial from 1971 where the marina mainly consisted of one straight through float with several finger floats and a series of moings um
throughout the water. Um then later um I think I skipped one of the uh I believe I skipped one of the images but the marina eventually expanded to the configuration that is there today um
which has um the original um line of floats and then an additional L shape that was added sometime in the 1980s and that constituted the current marina. Um what has happened on the site um is
that currently there's a lot of accumulation of sediments within this area from this point in this direction is where the men um bridge exist. So there's been a lot of accumulation of sediments in this little corner this
triangle piece. Um and then at low tide um the boats within this section of the marina are bottoming out and causing problems. Um the site has been under new ownership
since the end of 2024. Um the current owners have not done any changes um to this marina. What we're looking to do is to get permission to dredge the site. Um this section of the
marina we're calling to be dredged down to elevation minus4 um measured from mean high water and then this section we are proposing to dredge um to minus three. So there will be a transition point somewhere in the middle between
elevation three and elevation um four. Um the intent is to get adequate water depth to use the marina properly and not cause too much problem both for the boers the marina but also for the environment. Right now during low um
water levels if anybody tries to boat out of here um there's a lot of suspension of sediments um and it's detrimental for for the environment and and the system the shoreline system at this location. Um in average um if we go to
this um cross-section that we have at this uh on the plan um the cross-section was kind of um an exaggerated vertical um scale. So the vertical scale is really 10 times um of the design but it
averages roughly one and a half feet of of dredging within this footprint. So, it's not a massive um dredge project that we're doing, but it does cover um quite an extensive area. It is 35,200
plus square feet. The total volume of dredge material is roughly 1,900 cubic yards. Um the intent is to dredge the material. the water on site. And if I zoom back to to my plan,
um there is an existing boat ramp at this location. What we propose to do is um on the upper side of that boat ramp um installed at the watering basin. The material gets um dropped into that dewater basin. Once
the watering has happened, trucks will be delivering that material off to an offsite destination um for disposal. We believe the final disposal is going to be the born transfer station. Um and once all of the dredging is done um all
the temporary sediment controls will be removed. The temporary dewatering basing will be removed. um for protection during construction. What we propose is a seal current that completely encompasses the erosion
area. I mean the the dredge area. Um we did receive comments from DMF. We received comments from natural heritage. The site is partially um from this point towards the pond is within estimated
habitat. um natural heritage um determination says that this project does not constitute a prohibited take of habitat. Um DMF letter does recommend a time of year restriction which is
typical for this um dredge projects. We also received comments from the harbor master stating that this project does not result in impediments to navigation or hazards to navigation. We did receive also comments from um the town's
shelfish constable. Um there are some recommendations for mitigation and in the application we described one of the mitigations that we're proposing is to donate um some of the seeds of shellfish um or the propagation of shellfish um
animals in the areas that the shellfish constable seems appropriate. Um the shelfish constable also recommends some supervision by the shelfish constable for the relocating of any animals that are encountered during the process and
the relocation is going to be based on directions from from the harbor um the shelfish constable um not at the expense cost of the of the town. It'll be at the expense of the applicant. Um we did receive comments from staff on this
project and this application. um we didn't get a chance to actually submit any response um in detail for this but I do want to take some a couple of minutes to to talk about um some of the the comments. Um the main comment regarding
the proposed dredge was related to the section 5.3 of the bylaws uh I'm sorry of um section 10.25 25 five of the regulations in the in the town of Amouth and that was briefly talked about in our
narrative under section 5.3. This all has to do with um performance standards for land under the ocean. So all of the work is happening in land under the ocean for dredging and there are four um subsections within the parouth
regulation um specific for activities in land under the ocean. Section A um talks about the project does not create additional erosion or flooding. Um and this project what we're proposing to do
is uh roughly an average of 1.5 ft of dredging within this 35,000 foot area. Um that is not a significant volume um compared to the massive um body of water that is Green Pond that will enlarge or
increase um plotting problems within the shoreline or within the property. um is also worth mentioning this marina is directly north of the bridge appro approachment to the man bridge. Um so
it's pretty well protected from the main sound impact of the waters coming from the sound um crossing the bridge. Um so we don't believe that this project is going to cause increases in um flooding or erosion um within the shoreline. Um
section B or subsection B talks about sediment transports. Again, this is a a site that is currently accumulating um sediments. Um when Green Pond is um discharging flow into the sound, the the
flow is going in a southward direction because the flow has to go through the opening of the of the bridge. The flow kind of flows that way. Um so this side is really not changing that pattern. this side. In effect, what's been happening over the years is accumulating
um sediments at the bottom of the marina. So, we don't believe this is a project that's going to change the transport of sediments that is feeding some downstream beaches or coastal um shorelines.
Subsection C um has to do with water circulation. Again, most of the circulation of water for Green Pond at this location is restricted by the bridge opening. um this project is not um going to affect the existing um circulation of water or the temperature
of the water um within the vicinity of this of the site. Um subsection B has to do with marine productivity and protection of of marine environments for the duration of of the dredge
project. We do propose this silk curtain completely encompassing the dredge area. So that's going to protect um siltation from exiting the the dredge areas. Um once the project is completed and sediments have um settled to the bottom
of the um of the pond, then the sealed sediments will be removed. There is a time of year restriction that this has to be in place. Um we are allowed to do the work during the time of year restriction so long as the sediment um the sour is in place. So, this project
does aim at protecting um the shellfish and the wildlife within Green Green Pond. Um one of the things that we're proposing to do is that any animals that are recovered during the dredge process, they're going to be replanted elsewhere in the direction of uh as directed by
the f shellfish constable. Um a couple other um comments that were brought up by staff report um they're not really relate to this project. um it relates to past conditions on the property or past permits for for the
site. Um it took me a while to dig back into permits and the sorts. Um so one of the comments staff had is that the terminal float seem to be bigger than
past permits. Um what I found is that in 2007 through 2009 there was a modification to the float marina. Um there was communications back and forth with conservation. There was also communications with um waterways and
chapter 91 that 2009 modifications were approved. I'm not specific on what the mic modification included, but I know that there were some approved modifications to the float floating marina back in 2009. There was
additional modifications in 2019. Um, that one did talked about some size of the of the floats. Um, overall the comparison was saying that the 4400 square ft of float surface area that was
originally proposed was still being maintained. although it was being reconfigured within a reconfiguration zone. Again, I'm not too sure on the details of that reconfiguration. Um, but I do know that there's been some past permits that reconfigure the the
float. Um, the question that staff had was something to do about three three feet or something like that. Um, on the sides of the floats, there was uh another comment regarding mitigation plantings from past permits.
Uh there was a specific permit that was referenced in in the um not really referenced in the um the comments from staff, but the comments from staff included um some past drawings or or or approved plans that were related to a
specific um permit and I was I went back to that permit. That permit approved mitigation in this area and based on the information that I found in 2008
or 2007, um, a compliance was issued for that permit and all the plans were proposed at this location um, dating back to a plan I believe from 2002. There was an older plan from 2000 that
showed additional plantings at this location, but that was not the plan that was referenced in in the order or the the compliance. The only plans that were called out were in this location. Uh but nevertheless, um if there's plantings required for mitigation in this
locations, those plantings um should be there. Um and if not, they can be restored. So, so that's the project we have before you and I will stop sharing for now and I'll take any questions you may have.
>> Thank you, Raul. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Raul. Can you put your comments regarding 10.25 in writing, Raul? Um, we just I know you had mentioned it was in the notice, but
it was all five were discussed in half a sentence. So, if you could just expand on that, that would be great. I I you know, I do agree with your your analysis there. I just I need it for the record and I need a little something more
substantial than what was submitted. So, that would be great. um will uh condition the replanting of that bank. It it does need to be done. Um Alyssa, when you were talking about the terminal floats, were you talk I thought
you were talking about the interior ones, not the ones Raul was mentioning. >> Nope, it was those ones. >> It was those ones. Yeah. Per the plan of reference and the license. That's what I found. I I do know there were I think you referenced modifications, Raul. I
don't know if that was at the chapter 91 level. I couldn't find anything at the local level, but we could be missing it. So, if you could send that over, that would be helpful. Maybe we can all put the pieces together. And then, Raul, I do have a couple of questions on your dewatering. Now, I've
been thinking of it. The dewatering area is not very large and you're watering, 1900 cubic yards. How long is that going to take you? >> Um, honestly, I have not calculated
um duration of of how long that's going to take, but um looking at the plan, um if I go back to the plan, um we do call out an area of 80t long by 18t wide. >> What is this? The one
>> the ramp. >> Um the ramp, right? Um so it will take it will take a while. Um, uh, I don't know if this is a two-eek process, um, to actually dewater the material that we're digging out, um, using this, um,
dewatering basing, but we don't have much room elsewhere. Um, this is going to be something that's going to happen during the offse, and as everybody know, during the offseason, the parking lot is being used for boat storage. >> Um, so we only have that limited area
for for dewatering. So most of the water some of the dewatering happens on the on the barge as it's being transported over to the deatering basin and then the final dewatering happens at the basin. So the the duration is going to depend
on how much material gets transported off so that it cleans clears up the dewatering basin so that another pile can be um deposited there and then the water and so on. So, I don't have a specific um duration.
>> Okay. And we got 1,900 cubic yards being trucked out of there. Ronnie Bowman the size of a normal dump truck. They're 20 cubic yards, 30 cubic yards. >> Probably probably have triacles. I would
think probably 22 tons. >> So, how many how many cubic yards is that? 20 cubic yards. I'd have to do the math on it, but they're going to be 10 wheelers. They're not going to be having a small truck in
there. It'll definitely be triacles going in and out of there. >> It was noted in the narrative that 30 to 50 trips are estimated. That seems a little low when I was calculating out my estimate between 20 and
Okay, it might be a little bit more than that, but okay. I'm just curious. And one other question. Thank you, Ronnie. One other I didn't mean to put you on the spot there, Ronnie. >> No. >> Um, one other question, Raul. How you
getting the dredge over there? How you getting it under or over that bridge? So the dredge material doesn't get under the bridge. >> No, no, no. The dredge itself. >> Dredge. >> The actual dredge.
>> You mean the barge? >> So, so the site currently has a a boat ramp. Um, so um the boat ramp during high water levels um has some water. Um, I know that during low tide it's mud, so
we can't really use it. The floats can be um detached and move it around. So, there is some mobility that is possible, but we did reach out to a marine contractor. Um, their barge can access the site. Um I don't know if the barge
accesses the site underneath the the bridge comfortably but any crane or any material or any equipment that is probably on the barge will probably if not possible to get it under the bridge can access the barge from within the
site using the existing um boat ramp. >> Okay. So, we'll have to do a preconstruction just to see how they're getting this this this barge and all the all the equipment on that side of the bridge.
They just was it a year or two ago we had to do inside Great Harbor and something went under the bridge and then they lifted something over the bridge.
So, I mean, it can be done. We can get it in there. It's just going to be what they have to do to get the equipment north of that bridge. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, so there is a there's a onsite concrete boat ramp. Um, and that was
something that was extended back in 2012, I believe. >> Um, so so there is something. >> Okay. Um, I think that's all I have. Raul, we will probably condition the replanting
and then send us what you have on the floats and we'll double check that and we'll have to condition whether or not those need to be adjusted or um just send us what you have on that. >> I will. And I did reach out to the to
the new owners and they have not done any changes to the floats. Um so if something has changed um >> something was done before. Yeah. >> Okay. >> That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. >> Melissa, do you have anything to add?
>> Not at this time. Thank you. >> All right. I'll take questions from commissioners. Jim, >> my only question is what happens to the um to the floats during the dredging? >> So, yes, the floats can be detached. Um,
so as the the the barge gets moved around to dredge certain areas, the floats will be shifted around and tied to the other floats so that the the barge can move around and do the the work. Um, and as he moves along, then the floats get moved back and
repositioned. Um, so yeah, there there is they will have to be u moved around because the dredging cannot happen with the marina as it sits. >> Okay. So they're not being removed for the for the dredging. Okay. Thank you,
>> Dave. >> Uh yeah, Ro, when are you planning to do this and what tell me about your you mentioned a time of year restriction. Maybe you could expand on that a bit. >> So right um there is still more permitting that will take place right
after um any local permitting is completed. Um this requires a new um water quality with waterways at D. It also requires a new chapter 91 license again with D waterways. Um so there is a
lengthy permitting process that this project will likely not not even start probably till um next winter season if anything December. Um, the time of year restriction, it is in the the letter
from DMF. And if I quickly jump to that letter, I know that conservation received a copy. Um, and the time of year restriction they place is January 15 to May 31st, which
is typical. Um, it is for for the flunders. Um, and what they they say if we have the siltation curtain in place, then we're allowed to to do some of this work. Um, but then the seal curtain has to be remain in place um until after May
31st. If all the work happens before January 15, then then yes, everything can can take place outside of the time of year restriction. Um, as far as how deep you're going, are you are you aiming to go back to a previous depth from previous years at
some point in the past or um what's what's guiding how deep you're going? >> So, right. Um, the the furthest license that we found that had information about water depths was from 1968 and it called
out that the the shore or the closest section to the shore was water depths of 2.4t four feet below low water. Right now, that section is 1.0 roughly in average. We don't have a lot of details of what the the soundings were further
out into the the pier to compare with with what's there today. What we know is that along the shoreline, um it was closer to 2.4 and now is roughly one foot. Um, we know that the the the preference from the Fmouth regulation is
for marinas to have four feet of water depth. We are getting we're proposing to get to the 4T or the outer half of the marina and then transition from 4T to two to three feet in the inner half. So even though we're not going to the
recommended four feet by the farmouth regulation, we are doing an improvement and getting closer to what was at least there in 1966 68. We believe if it was 2.4 along the shore or closest to the shore, it was
much deeper further out. So I think it was closer to four back in the 1960s. >> Okay. Um when you were you mentioned uh recovering animals, I guess that means shellfish. How is that is that done after after you pour the sediment into
that basin? Do you somehow save the shellfish at that point or what do you do? >> Typically what what the contractors do under the direction of the shellfish conible is that once they set the perimeter with the silk current um they
they rake the bottom um just as if they were shellfishing. >> Oh, I see. Okay. >> And any animals that that they're capturing, they move them out. The thing in this location, it is very muddy. Um, so the shellfish animals don't really um like to go into muddy areas. They like
the the sandy areas. >> Um, but yeah, that that's usually what they do. They they break them and they relocate anything they find. >> So, just one one last question. This maybe for for Jenn. Uh, so that that mitigation that L-shaped area is required. Is it we think?
>> What do you mean is required for what? We're are we going to require some mitigation >> for the L-shaped area? >> They are proposing they are proposing to >> um make and this is this is routine when
there's shellfish involved in certain things to purchase seed for the town as mitigation for disturbance of shellfish. So what they'll do is they will Um, if I can interject, I think Kent,
you're talking about the plantings. Yes, plantings. Okay. I'm sorry. There was some plantings from past um orders of conditions from I think the year 2002. Uh, and it was um some shrubs that were required to be planted on the upland
side. And that's where Jen said that those plantings because of those past orders have to be there. Um there's there's no question about it. that that's so >> that's a a project that Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks for all the information.
>> Courtney, >> um first question is, do you know what the sediment source is that's filling in that marina? In other words, are you getting sediment coming under the bridge and then getting an eddy effect that
deposits the silt that in that area? Um, so the environment and the dynamics when there's a bridge like Kernney is kind of referring to, uh, the choking point of the bridge causes the the velocity of
the flow both going in and out to accelerate. And yes, there is when when the flow is coming in by either a big quick surge of high tides, um there could be an Eddie effect and sediments
could be deposited. We have not been uh monitoring the conditions to see what what is really causing it. the the amount that's being deposited, I have a feeling is more of sediments that are being transported
um when the the pond is really flushing out. Um I think that is mostly what is happening. The sediment is mostly um muddy at least on the surface which indicates of fine particles that have enough time of slowm moving or stagnant
water for them to actually settle to the bottom. If it's if it's coarser particles, um you know, they they they get to move freely. If it's fine particles, they need the water to kind
of be more still to actually um >> get get to the bottom. >> Yeah. Um, you also, I think, because of a previous question, address the the my logical question is if you're going to
go to the trouble of dredging this, why aren't you going to four feet all the way in? But I think you've answered that question. >> But Cordy, if you want, I I can go a little further. Um, one of the things we want to do is avoid getting too close to the rip wrap, protecting the bridge. Um,
so we're keeping away from that. We're also wanting to not undermine the the shoreline which is a salt marsh and the boat ramp. U the boat ramp could still provide some benefits for for the facility and we do not want to get too close to that with with 4ft water
depths. >> Understood. I' you've answered all my questions. It's a good project. Thank you, >> Ronnie. >> Thank you, Raul. Uh well presented. Uh most of my questions were answered by the my fellow commissioners. Do we know
when the last time this area was dredged? >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. So it has not >> it has not um ever since I've been working and knowing of this project in 2001. >> Um there has not been a dredge on on the
site. There was an attempt um about five six years ago, but it didn't go anywhere. It didn't even go to the process of permitting. Um but the accumulation of sediments has been known has been happening but no dredge permit no license that calls out any dredging
has been um found. >> Okay. So it's long overdue. That's all I got. Thank you. >> Alyssa, you had your hand raised. >> Yeah. Just a point of clarification for the newer commissioners who might not have seen dredging projects yet. There are two types of dredging listed under your regulations called maintenance
dredging or improvement dredging. Maintenance is a request to continue previously permitted dredging in a previously permitted era area and to a certain depth. Improvement dredging is a request to dredge in a brand new
location or to perhaps take an old dredge footprint and either dredge deeper or slightly expand it. So in turn, by this being improvement, nothing's ever been done before. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks, Lisa. Steve.
Yeah, I think everything's been covered. Thank you. Nice presentation, >> Ron. Hey, Steve, you think everything's been covered, but a couple simple questions, Raul. Um, the filtered water is going back into Green Pond, correct? >> I'm sorry. The what water? >> The filtered water when you're
dewatering the sludge, it's that you're essentially filtering it. Water's going back into the pond, right down right down the ramp. >> That's correct. And and that's the reason why we have the the S current for any suspended um sediments to be controlled. >> Yeah. And secondly, once the barge is
inside the silt curtain, it stays in there, right? >> That is correct. >> All right. So this curtain stays the curtain stays in place all the time. >> Yeah. >> And uh and third, just in general, if this is the easiest way to take care of shellfish issues, let them let the
people to rake them up and put new seeds in. We don't have to worry about testing and who did what when. Just a comment. Thank you. That's all. >> Thanks, Ron. Um, every question I had has been answered. Um, Jen,
one quick question. Raul, you kind of made a statement that if you have your dredge, if you have that turbidity curtain in place, you can dredge within the time of year restriction. That is not what DMF letter says. So I think you
need clarification from DMF. I have seen it written that if the turbidity curtain is in place then inwater activities can occur, but that's not what it says in DMF's letter. So
I was going to say close this, but I think it's important for your client to determine whether or not they're going to be able to dredge in that window. So I think you need if you are assuming that once the tubidity curtain is in
place you can dredge. I'm not I'm not seeing that. And I have seen past letters from DMF that has specifically stated if the curtains in place you can do inwater activity. So, I think it's important for
your client, if that's what you were saying and implying, I think it's important for your client to reach back out to DMF and determine if that is the case and then we can write the order of conditions up um like that.
Do you understand what I'm saying? You understand what I'm saying, R? >> Yeah, I I do and I I do stand corrected. I'm reading the the letter now carefully, and you're correct. that the the letter does say no inwater seal producing activity including dredging or placing a tubility curtain should take
place between January 15 and and May 31st. So so we can agree that you can adopt this as a condition right now and should the the contractor required to go into that site we can reach back to the MF involve conservation again to see if
we can modify that specific condition. >> Okay. And what about the floats on the end? Rael, I I've just pulled up the order of conditions for that. It did say 6x 38, not 6x41. And that was that 2000
and that later 2000, the one that Alyssa cited that 200 what 2005 order of conditions went to 38, not 41. Uh you're saying you have
additional information beyond that that allowed it to go from 31 to 38 to 41, >> right? I I don't know that the modifications were specific about that flow. I do know that there were modifications to the flow in 2009 and
another one in 2019 and that I will forward that information along. I don't know the specifics of what was being modified. >> Okay. So, can you get that that information like by the end of the week? >> Uh, I have it. Uh, I'll send it along.
>> Um, okay. So, let me look at something real quick where I will. >> Why don't we continue it till next week? send that along so we at least can come to some agreement staff in in Cape and Islands of what size floats that that's going to be and then maybe you can reach
out to DMF and they can get some clarification by that time for you so you don't have to come back and amend or whatever >> but >> it's only one week. >> Yeah, but but the the float is is not part of this application. Um, I know.
>> Yeah. But if the float is in violation of the orders of conditions, then we need to know. >> So, we're asking a continued. I mean, if I provide that information and even the information that I provide doesn't really clarify what what was being
modified. Um, what do we do next week? >> Close it. And then we'll condition that the terminal floats have to go back to their previously um permitted size. That's all. >> All right. Um
>> if you want to close it tonight, Rival, we'll close it and we'll just say that it has to go back to the previously permitted sites. It doesn't matter to me. I'm just giving you like a chance for us to just talk it out since we haven't had a chance. That's all. I mean, if if I provide the information
at any time, regardless of the condition of this current permit, um if it's going to be a condition on this project, um it may be an issue with the the applicant. The applicant may not have um intended to do any changes to the float. And I
don't know that in 2019 the the floats were changed and that was the modification, but it's just sending um the applicant to review additional permits that he was not involved with and kind of tied in this project a
little further than than needed. >> Well, Raul, we do it all the time where we clean up past issues with new notices and everything. We can do this two ways. we can issue an order of conditions for this project and not allow those
terminal floats to go back in until or be reattached because you're going to be moving them around to dredge. We're asking for one week. If that's going to be a problem, fine. Close the hearing. We'll condition it accordingly. >> I guess um could the board do a straw
vote to say >> no? Um, all right. I'll I'll ask for a continuous to to one week um to come back. >> I'm just asking for one week. >> Um, I'll submit the information. I I don't know what the information really is going to solve with the size of the
floats. It's just the information I was coming through. There is 4,400 square feet of float u um permitted >> and there's a reconfiguration zone and the floats move around. Um so that's
that's what I'll be able to submit. Um and I mean I a three three foot change. I don't know. I don't know what that is. >> I know R. We just need to get it clarified. You know how thorough we are and I know what you're saying. You're
trying to the You're invoking uh what we did down at um what's it called down the road? Uh Bzens, you've gotten your footprint and you're moving things around in your footprint. I get that,
but that's not what you asked for here. So, we're just asking for clarification so we can write you an order of conditions and maybe maybe we do that. Maybe if we can't do it, we say these floats are this size. It's within the judge footprint. It's within the footprint of the marina and we approve
it. But we do need to approve it and we have to have a mechanism to do that. So all I'm asking for is one week to allow us to figure that out. If you force my hand, then we'll have to, you know, I'm just let's figure this
out. That's all we're asking for. R >> I can be here again next week. Uh I can provide all that information tomorrow. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> I appreciate it. Rel, >> you had a question real quick? >> Well, I just was my comment was Raul,
you think you have enough time in a week >> or would it be better to go out two weeks? I mean, >> you did a good project here, but you got some loose ends that need to be cleaned up. >> So, the information that I'm being asked for is to submit what has been um already received in the past. So, we I
already went through those documents. Um, I just didn't have time to formally submit it to the town. Um, I >> What about my question? Really, you got a DMF thing about the when you can dredge and when you can't. Does that matter to you? >> So, so right. My my recommendation for
that is that we adopt the um condition for that time of year restriction and if once the contractor defines a a construction time period and that time of year restriction is in conflict, we can reach back to DMF, confirm with DMF
if we can work with the time of year restriction. If DMS agrees with that, then we come back to conservation to modify that specific condition. But we we we also have about six to nine months of state permitting and and we just
don't want to lose that ability to get a license. >> Okay. I mean, you're the as long as you're happy with a week, we're happy with a week. >> I can do it in a week. Yes. >> All right. So, I will uh take a motion.
>> Make a move to continue this hearing for one week at the request of the applicant. Driscoll. >> Moment. >> All right. I hear a motion second. questions. Jed, anything in the chat? >> Nothing in the public chat. And thank
you, Raul. >> Thanks. >> Okay, we'll call it uh Jim >> McGrath I, >> Dave, >> I, >> Courtney, >> Bird, I, >> Ronnie, >> I, >> Steve, >> Patton, I, >> Ron, >> Driscoll, I,
>> and Duffy. I motion is granted to continue this for one week. Thank you, Arl. Thanks. >> Next on the agenda, we have Donna Habber Cornberg, trustee 70 Kerry Lane,
Falmouth, Mass for permission to remove a field stone wall to remove Phil to install native plannings and to permit the after the fact location of a pool, pool deck, ramp, and masonary wall. Jen,
>> yes, Mr. Chairman Raul is still with us. >> Yay. >> From Capen Islands, I am promoting Jeff Nickerson. Um, and Rob promoting Brian as well, >> please.
>> Okay. And Jeff Nickerson is the attorney representing the applicant. Correct, Jeff? >> Correct. But I think Brian >> Okay. And then I'm uh promoting attorney
Brian Wall as well. Anybody else, Raul? I don't see anybody else affiliated with the project. Oh, I do. Um am I promoting Paul Muskovski up Raul or yes or no? >> You can promote him. Um I think most of the discussion is between um Brian Wall
and myself. >> Oh, okay. Let's just promote Paul and we'll have a big party. How about that? He's here just to answer questions. >> No, he declined to be promoted. I think Paul just wants to be in the background. Paul, if you do at any point would like to be promoted, just please use the
raise hand function and I will promote you to address the board. I'm all set, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. Thanks. Um, let's get started. Is that you, Brian, or you all? >> Actually, if it's okay with you, Mr.
Chairman um Re and I discussed this ahead of time and he would like to go first. >> Excellent. >> Thank you. For the record, Ra Lisardi from Capen Islands Engineering representing the applicant. Um we're the engineers and land surveyors for this project. Um and again like mentioned um
we have a couple attorneys also representing the applicant and the contractor for this project and for this application. Um with your permission, I would like to share my screen again. >> You have it. So this notice of intent is actually
um an after the fact um notice of in no notice of intent filing for as built conditions of a project. So for a little bit of history, um the project located at 70 Carry Lane um
received a order of conditions from 2022 for the construction of of a pool, a pool deck and retaining walls and associated landscaping and mitigation. The project is located in Quisit. Um
this is the USGS map of the site. um the propert property above flax spawn. There's a couple of flax pawns on in FMA. So this is the little flax pawn in Woodsole. Um this is the application drawings that
were filed with this application. Um this same plan was submitted um last year uh probably now um two years ago or a year a little more than a year ago with the attempt of amending the active order of condition that permitted the
original project. What we're doing with this notice of intent um filing is to present the project again to this commission and present it that it is a project that could be approved under the regulation um and still protect the wetland
resources and also protect the buffer zone A. Um the wetlands like I mentioned there is Flax Pond which is this little pond at the back portion of the of the pond is part of the property. There's an inland bank associated with flax spawn.
There's a little bordering fringe of BBW and then there's a buffer zone A and a buffer zone B associated to these resources. The most restrictive buffer zone A is the 75 ft setback from the inland bank.
Um then there's a a buffer zone B that is associated with the combination of the inland bank and BVW which is 100 ft away um from those resources. Um the whole project was permitted in if
I go to this other drawing for some reason my drawing now is just not zooming up to the level that I want it. So, the original order condition
approved this pink line that I just um kind of color in blue. And what was as built in 2023 um I mean 2024 was this deck.
A couple of things were different um from the approved drawings to what is as built and what exists on the site today. There's a five-foot bumpout of the deck and underneath this deck there is a masonry retaining wall that is a
different by 5t locationwise from what was approved. There is also an accessible ADA ramp system at this location also within this location. However, this location falls within the previously existing deck. This location
of the ramp um is an additional bumpout that was not um shown in past um permit drawings. The whole project um was approved and designed originally so that we did not disturbed the Azone which is at this
location. We had a limit of work that was even further inland from from that a zone and we had a 10-ft original setback. The existing condition is that
the deck at the closest point is roughly 5.9 ft from buffer zone A. The regulations contain um some wording about a no structure zone from buffer zone A's when the buffer zone A is
completely vegetated. This buffer zone A is completely vegetated although there are some invasive species. Um the site has a fully vegetated buffer zone A and the only activity that was approved and
still um kind of underway is the invasive removal um which is this label here within some of the pockets in the vegetated over zone A that contain porcelain um
shrubs and honeysuckle and there was some English ivy growing on the tank. Um so all that is part of the removal for invasive and restoration with native plants. Um some of those plants have been already um removed from the site and
replaced. There is some um English ivy that is still um persistent along this fringe and is still proposed for for the removal and restoration with native plants. In addition to some of the items that
were constructed not permit is this stone um retaining wall right at the area where we had um the limit of work um that is right at the edge and slightly inside the limit of work and slightly
inside the zone A by roughly one foot at this location. So this application what is asking this commission to do is to approve the asbuilt conditions because we believe that the asbuilt conditions with a separation of roughly 6 ft 5.9 ft at the
closest point to buffer zone is still adequate for any potential maintenance that we need um for this deck and for the walls and it also provides um enough protection for buffer zone 8. Um this pipe put um is plenty enough for any
maintenance that will be required in the distant future. Um the retaining wall, the masonry retaining wall would not need any work in probably the next 30 or so years. And unlike some other structures that require routine maintenance, um this is
a deck that is open to the air. Um so any access through this um deck would actually provide access through the back of the property without actually needing to go and interfere with the buffer zone 8. the project. Um what is um asking
this board is to approve the as build location of this masonry wall of this deck. Approve the removal of this stone field stone retaining wall and restoring this area this 5 foot to six foot area
between buffer zone A and the the masonry wall. We also are asking for the accessible ADA ramp to remain. Um it is more than 10 ft away um from the buffer zone A. In fact, this is the closest
point um on this corner of the existing retaining wall, masonry wall to the buffer zone A which is 9.4 ft. The access ramp is in excess of 10 feet. Um so what we present to this commission
is that trying to remove and reconstruct this pool, the retaining wall and all the landscape that already took place is more um activity that is prone to have more um adverse effect to the resources
or the buffer zone A than allowing this as build conditions to remain with the little modifications on removing this field stone wall um and planting this area. Originally the application um was proposing to plant 50 square ft of
native species within the buffer zone B somewhere in this area. What we propose to do with this project is augment that um mitigation to 318 square feet which will be mitigations all throughout um
this area right here. And we believe that with that additional mitigation, with no additional heavy construction equipment um on the site, um the wetland resources are better protected. They're definitely not being
any um there's not any adverse effects to the wetland resources of buffer zone A with this design or with the original design that would have been 5 ft further back. So, we believe that this project could be approved um under this new
notice of intent with adequate um additional plantings and removal of that fieldstone. The removal of the field stone um wall is the only item that that we're really proposing to do that kind of fringes on the buffer zone A.
um to just run through some numbers. The distance from the existing retaining wall to the BVW is currently 75 ft. The original design was 81 ft. So there's just a 5.96 ft um difference in that
setback. The block wall and the deck from the inland bank was proposed at 82 feet is located 87 ft. So that's the five- foot shift that we have here at this location. Um and then the the proposed additional
mitigation from 50 to 318 ft um will further improve the natural setting at the site in addition to the continue mitigation by removal of the English ivy that is still persistent. Um, something we don't want to do is rip all of the
vegetation invasive that is there and and kind of cause a disabilization of the site. The site was found to be stable. There was no erosion um when we did the aspill. Um there's no erosion erosion right now at the site. The site
did remove some former um stone walls that were located on the site. And if I can just probably pan over to a couple of images. Uh this is an image of what the site looked on the back of the property
before any construction. You can see that there were some field stone walls at the site um already in place. Those field stone walls were removed. There was a stone patio with some landscape
hardscapes features. Those were removed. This is another view of the site before construction. There were field stone walls at the site. Um, again the same idea. There were field stone walls even down the bank.
There were some placement of stones down the top side of the of the slope towards the pond. Um, all of that got disturbed when the pool was constructed. These are some photographs um of the construction of the pool. The pool is at this
location. The masonry walls at this location. This conduit system um is the one that goes and feeds and purifies the water for the pool. This is the area that used to have a stone patio and used to have a couple of the field stone
walls that were removed. This is another view in the different direction of the same activity during construction. And this is what exists on the site today. This is a portion of the ADA ramp that was constructed. All of this is
more than 10 ft away from the buffer zone A. Um this right here is what corresponds to about the 5-ft extension of the deck. And this that we see below is the masonry retaining wall.
This right here is the additional fieldstone wall that was constructed. Um we propose for this fieldstone wall to be removed. The field between that wall and the masonry wall will be removed and this area will be restored with native
plantings. Um in this picture you can see some of the English ivy that that is still persistent on the site even crawling up some of the trees on site. Um so that's the project. We believe this is a a better project than trying to completely demolish the site and
reconstruct um this pool and pool um retaining wall. Um the area between this wall and the pool wall is actually structural fill. So we cannot remove this wall and keep the pool at the same time because that structural fill is
essential for the stability of that pool. Um, with that I will stop sharing and I'll pass it over to to attorney attorney wall um to provide his comments. >> Um, thank you Raul and with the chair's
permission I'd like to say a few words as well. Um, so first of all for the record my name is Brian Wall. I'm an attorney and I have an office in Sandwich. And tonight I'm representing both the applicant uh Donna Haber Kornberg who is the owner of the property and Jeff Nickerson is here
tonight too. He would like to say a few words on her behalf as well. And I also represent the contractor who installed the masonary wall and did all the work that um Raul just went through. Um what I'd like to say is I would suggest to you that Raul has made a case
um in his note not notice of intent narrative and with his presentation that the proposed project provides an undisturbed zone A buffer once that field st field stone wall is removed and with an adjacent no structure zone of approximately 6 ft and therefore the
project meets all of your performance standards. There's no request for waiverss or variances here. this project meets your performance standards. Um, and I would suggest that that is sufficient to approve the project. But I would like to provide some additional argument both factually and legally why
this project should be approved. The factual reasons that I'd like to give come straight out of the narrative. Will mention some of these, but I suggest that the following bear repeating and emphasizing, and there are four bullet points I want to read from my notes. The first is from page four of the narrative
and I quote or or closely paraphrase to make it go quicker what Raul said. Quote, "The asbuilt location of the deck and block wall do not in any way impact wetland resource areas and represent no
additional impact to the FWR buffer zone A compared to the approved locations. Second from page five, the project for which approval is sought does not adversely impact the wetland resources and has an insignificant effect within
buffer zone A. Third, under current asbuilt conditions, the site is found to be stable with no erosion or sedimentation concerns throughout the project work zone area. And fourth and last, the wetland resources and buffer zone A are protected the same or better
if the asbuilt conditions are permitted. I would suggest to you that these statements that rule made in notice of intent show that there'll be no adverse effect um if the ad as built is approved. As far as legal reasons go, I'd like to say the following. So what's at issue in
this particular case is your buffer zone regulation and I know the commission is very well familiar with it. It's at 10:18 and it requires a 100 ft buffer zone. That 100t buffer zone is divided into a zone A and a zone B. the zone A,
they always add up to 100, but the zone A varies based upon the resource that is adjacent to it. So, for example, when it's salt marsh, the zone A is 100 ft. If it's top of a coastal bank, it's 50 ft. In this case, it's the 75 ft buffer
that's at issue. The zone A here is 75 ft. In this particular case, once the stone field stone, the field stone wall is removed, the zone A will be completely undisturbed and naturally vegetated.
In the preamble, which is kind of the statement of reasons for the regulation, there is some language that says when the zone A is fully vegetated, such as it is here, the commission may impose what's called a no structure zone adjacent to the zone A. And in the and
the commission has a practice of imposing a 10-foot setback, which is what it did in this first case. But I would suggest to you that that is a custom and a practice. It is not a regulatory requirement. Indeed, if you go look through 1018 through its
entirety, there is no performance standard and there is no criteria that says that the no structure zone has to be a certain number of feet or it has to be a certain number of feet based upon what it's next to. It just says in the preamble there may be a no structure
zone when the zone A is fully vegetated. Um so in this case the first permit required it to be 10 ft. As Rul pointed out it's 5.9. I'm going to just say six because it's easier to say. So although
the 10 feet was not provided there still is a no structure zone and it's six feet. So essentially the wall is four feet out of place from where it was. supposed to be, but there still is a 6 ft separation between the masonary wall
and the and the fully vegetated zone A. I would suggest to you that since there's no specific distance required, the commission can find that a 6-ft no structure zone complies with its requirements because again there's no specific requirement. Set another way,
there is no regulatory basis to say that 6 feet does not comply and 10 does. And I would suggest to you that if the commission were to require 10 and nothing less, that would be arbitrary. And I would suggest that if the commission does not approve the project
as built, it would be arbitrary. I also want to go beyond just a technical argument about what is and what is not in your regulations, but I wanted to look at the reasons why it says for no structure zone. And again, it's in the preamble. There are no performance
standards, but what the preamble says is that the commission is concerned when there's a fully protected zone A that there can be impacts from what's adjacent to that zone A. And it breaks the impacts into two different kinds. The first is potential construction
impacts which the preamble talks about siltation and construction debris being put into zone A. Those are not of concern here because the structure is already there. It's already built. The preamble does also talk about post construction impacts and it cites things
like increased nutrient loading due to a change in the land use adjacent to the zone A or unregulated cutting of vegetation or extensions of lawn. And the commission is well familiar with projects. I think the commission's the preamble is concerned with having
someone having lawn let's say at 76 feet and over time they might mow a little further etc. Um, I've also seen, it's not in the preamble, but I've seen the commission address this requirement or this this preamble issue many times. And
what I've seen the commission talk about is kind of the common sense fact and knowledge that when you have a structure, it requires maintenance. I've seen the commission talk about you might have to reshingle or paint that structure, therefore you might have to
put ladders. And so if you had a structure right at 75.5 ft, clearly those maintenance activities would require intrusion into the zone A. Um, but I would suggest to you that
under the circumstances, these post construction related concerns are also not a concern here at this site for the following reasons. One is we have provided a 6ft no structure zone. This is not a case where there's no no structure zone. We're providing 6 ft.
The structure that you saw in the in the photos that RA will put up is an inert masonary wall. It's not going to need any maintenance. It's not going to need stripping and painting or ladders or anything like that. And given the grades that are at issue, if you've been out to
the site, the photos didn't quite show this really super clearly, but it drops off quite significantly from where that field stone wall is. So once that field stone wall is removed and that fill is removed and it's graded and planted, no one's going to go back there because it
drops off very very quickly. So given the site conditions and given the type of structure at issue, an inert masonary wall, the 6 ft that's provided addresses all of the concerns why the commission requires the no structure zone in the
first place. So under the circumstances, it's approvable. So in summary, just like to finish by saying one, the notice of intent demonstrates compliance with your regulations. Two, the wetland resources and the buffer zone A are protected the
same or better if the as condition as built conditions are approved. Three, the reason why the commission imposes a no structure zone are not a concern here are and are adequately addressed by the six-foot setback. And lastly, as I said,
there's no performance standard or regulatory requirement to point to that says that more than six feet is required. So, I I I know the commission is probably not happy that this did not get built where it was supposed to be, but I think we've made a compelling case
that it can be approved where it is. And I'd like to turn it over to Jeff Nickerson because the commission's decision will have realworld impacts. Raul alluded to it, but I would suggest to you this. The evidence, and it's included in my letter, if the wall has
to be removed, the entire project has to be redone. The pool is of such a type that removal of the wall will require that it be replaced entirely. And again, there's a a person who lives in this house that has to undergo all of this. And with that being said, Mr. Chairman,
I am available for questions, but I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Nickerson for a brief statement on behalf of Mrs. Kornberg. Go ahead, Mr. Nickerson. >> Thank you. Um, so commission uh staff, thanks for hearing this matter tonight.
On behalf of the applicant, Mrs. Kberg is a longtime resident in our community. She cares deeply about the community, not just um by her presence here, but she's very active in a lot of nonprofit causes and cares deeply about the town
of Falmouth. As Brian mentioned, um, if as a result of this hearing or an enforcement action subsequently, the pool would need to be removed, it would be really deletious to Miss Kornberg's enjoyment of her property. The accessibility component of the structure
is important to her so that she can get outside and enjoy the natural outdoor environment. And without that accessibility component and the associated structure, it will be difficult for her to age in place and really enjoy the house and the outdoor surroundings the way she would like. And
so with that, we would hope that uh the board would consider that and allow the structure to remain as constructed. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jeff. >> All right. Um Jen, let you start it off. or Ro, did
you have anything else before I bring it to the staffing commission? >> Yeah. Um, so one point that I I missed mentioning, um, we did receive a couple of calls at our office from abotterers. Um, and I believe there was some, um, documentation or or letters submitted to
to this application in favor of of this application. Um, because also the the abotterers don't want to go through the trouble of having major reconstruction or major construction again um, within their neighborhood. Thanks. >> Thank you, Jen.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Raul, you mentioned mitigation up when you take the second unpermitted wall out, the field stone wall in the fill, and you said you were going to
restore or mitigate that area. >> So, right, >> that's within 10 that's within 10 ft of the structure. You can't put plants within 10 ft of the structure or mitigation within 10 ft of the structure. >> So in the original application from a few years ago um
>> what was um approved was 50 square ft of native plantings as a improvement. So it is not mitigation requirements because the the buffer zone A is fully vegetated. So it was required to have an improvement and 50 square ft was
proposed between the limit of work and the retaining wall. What we're doing is that now we're proposing to do 318 ft uh 318 square feet that will cover um the whole area that's disturbed um kind of
east of the masonry wall, >> but it's too close. >> East of the masonry wall. So, you're going to go from the wall >> or >> to the zone A buffer and fill it with plants. So, you're not going to have any any circulation around that house around
that pool. >> Um, there's already pedestrian circulation through the deck, >> but nothing if you have to perform any sort of maintenance on that wall, >> right? And we don't believe we need it. >> You believe and don't believe a lot of
things. I don't know if we agree with you on that one, Raul. Okay. So, I just wanted to make sure I was clear about that. So, this area of dark green, you're going to put native plants there. >> That's the intent. >> And then all the other little areas on
the bank, this 900 that you're going to remove the ivy down on the bank. Is that still proposed? >> Right. And that already part of it already took place. Um >> Oh, did it? Some of the mitigation that was found was um honeysuckle and
porcelain berry. Um the contractor already removed some of that. Um native plantings were already installed. Um there is still some more English ivy. >> I don't think the staff has much to say. This um this project was not constructed
the way that it was uh presented to the board. That is no fault of this board. Um the plan was requested to be amended to meet your uh regulations and conditions. It was and those conditions weren't followed.
The applicants requested from this board an amendment to keep this uh pool where it is and this board denied that amendment. Um it's a difficult situation. It's an unfortunate situation, but none of this is the
result of this board's actions at all. Um, I think the board made the right decision when it denied the order uh the amended request for an order of conditions. We cannot issue orders of conditions and have them not followed.
Um, that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Alyssa, did you have anything to add? >> Not at this time. Thank you. >> All right. I will start with commissioners Courtourtney. This is a very difficult situation. Um,
a lot there have been a lot of people involved in this project outside of this commission and the more mistakes made. I think everybody recognizes that there is a process. I've been on this
commission for 20ome years and there is a process. The process is if you as an applicant want to uh change the conditions that
were issued under a a notice of intent, you file an amendment and in advance of the work and you get approval for the changes that you propose.
You don't build pools and retaining walls and stone walls and stuff and then come and ask. That's taking a huge risk.
Our job is to uh uphold the regulations. We issued a valid order of condition on the original notice of intent that specified where the wall and the pool
and everything else was supposed to go. No objections were raised by anyone. When those orders were condition of conditions were issued,
Mr. Wall didn't apply for an amendment. Nor did Mr. Nickerson, nor did the homeowner. The homeowner ultimately in this thing sadly is the responsible party and now somebody took it upon themselves
to construct the thing without getting permission from this commission. Yeah, we can talk about 10-ft setbacks or two-foot setbacks and all of that, but what was a told asked for was a 10-foot set setback.
And Mr. Wall, you can say what you want about it, and it isn't in our regulations, but it's customary that we require it. You could have challenged that, but you didn't. And we had an a contractor who chose
to build a wall where it wasn't supposed to be. Did he get a building permit for that? When I look at that site, that wall is over 4t high in places and
there's no handrail on on that deck. That's a violation of the building code. Does that mean there was no permit pulled for that deck? The consequences are huge and they're going to cost a lot of money and I feel
very badly for the homeowner and I respect the work that you, Mr. Wall, do and you do too, Jeff. You guys have got a t tough nut to crack. But it's not our problem. Our problem is
to uphold the orders and conditions. We issued an order, a valid order. You've come to amend this. I can tell you straight up when it comes time to deliberate, I will not approve vote to approve it. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Courtney. Jen, you look like you
had something to comment about. um only that the building the building permit that the the that the town staff signed off on myself um the building commissioner everyone
was the approved plan of reference issued by this board. It was not this plan. Um, and I do not believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff or Brian, that it actually has obtained a building
permit for this particular design yet. I don't believe it has. I could be mistaken, but I don't believe it has given the issues with conservation. So, the building permit that was signed by conservation staff, building
commissioner, all of that was the approved plan of reference um by this board and not the plan you currently see. >> Thank you for that clarification, Jen. >> Yep. >> Dave,
>> I'm surprised that um that court hasn't mentioned something you always mention that's precedent. And if we would approve this, we would be setting a precedent for doing a certain plan, getting it approved, doing it differently, and then backing in and using some of the justification we've
heard tonight. Uh that would be a precedent, and we don't do business that way. So, um it's it's uh bad for us from that regard as well. And I am in quite a strong agreement with court. Thank you. >> Thanks, Dan. Jim,
>> I have I have no questions. It's a difficult situation. Um, but no further questions on my end. >> Ronnie, >> I have no questions. Sir, >> thank you. Steve, >> does somebody know how this actually happened? How how the incorrect
construction occurred? Is there an answer? >> Um, if I may. >> Yep. >> Just want to make sure I'm not muted. Um, I'd like to answer Mr. Patton's question in two ways. Um, there clearly
was a mistake made here, but I don't think how it happened is relevant. Um, and I would also suggest to you that if this is not resolved through this process, there will probably be lawsuits by everybody that was involved against
everybody that was involved. Um, it's that kind of seriousness. So, I'd like to kind of stay away from why it happened. Um, I would just suggest to you strongly that a mistake was made. >> Me, Brian.
>> Okay, fine. But it makes a great deal of difference to me. Uh, if it was intentional, I I don't want any part of it. if uh if it was unintentional uh your Emil efforts you've made to
give back so to speak have been impressive and worth my consideration. So it is an important factor for me and I don't have any other questions. Thank you. >> I will try to answer that a little bit more than Mr. Patton. I'd like to
persuade your vote on this one. Um, I I'm I'm concerned about saying too much because statements can be then later used in subsequent litigation, but I think that there were several different iterations of the plan and the wrong
plan was built in the field. Um, I would also suggest to you too, there was talk about the building permit. There were multiple follow-up inspections the way that it always happens with construction. And my client tells me that the subsequent inspections were all signed off on by
the building department. So, you know, the the safety requirements, etc. are all signed off. It came to our attention later when we went for compliance that the wall is in the wrong place. >> Thank you, Brian.
>> I think so. >> Steve, did you follow up real quick? >> No, thank you. I was just going to thank for the explanation. >> Okay, Ron. >> No, I know it's a very difficult situation here. It'd be easier for all
of us to just close our eyes and let it go, but we can't do that. We have to abide by the regulations. Uh that's our job and Courtney has said it nice and Dave Kent has also agreed to with that and uh I'm in agreement with those two. Thank you.
>> All right. I'm sort of in the same boat. Um yeah, I you know I understand why you don't want to go for specifics. Almost seems like a pool was built um based on some of the explanation about removing hardscape that the pool will be have to
be dismantled. Um I don't know what was built first if a pool was built and they realized I had to go further out to stabilize it or not. Um but yeah um those are my thoughts and just basically
you know th the this structure then to you clarify it was um we did not accept the amended order conditions for these for the structure as is right now. >> Correct. >> Right. All right. Um thank you very
much. >> Mr. Chairman, may I just before you close the hearing, could I just say one more thing? >> Yes. Uh, yeah. One second. I'll give you the final word. Brian, um, Jen or Alyssa, did you have anything to follow up first? So, anything in the comments about this
issue real quick? >> Um, there was someone that had their hand raised. Mr. Windgrove, if you would like to address the board, can you use your raise hands feature again?
There is someone I do believe it is a neighbor. Mr. Chairman, I am going to promote uh Douglas Windgrove as a panelist so he can address the board. >> All right, >> Mr. Windgrove, when you please turn your camera on if you have one and volume so
we can hear you, sir. >> Hello. Can you hear me now? >> We can hear you, sir. Do you have a camera? Yeah, here we go. There we go. >> Perfect. Thank you very much, sir. >> I just want to say something on behalf of Donna. Um, I don't know how well anybody on the panel knows her. Um,
she's a neighbor of ours. She's 84 years old. She's widowed. Um, she is a widow and, um, she's disabled. She doesn't get out much. And this pool and patio are two of the things that she's able to use, at least in the nicer
weather. any prolonged reconstruction of this is going to deprive her of that. And I honestly don't know how much longer she's going to be living. So I I think going through whole another year or two of reconstructing this structure is
really a cruel thing to do to this poor old lady. >> No, it's not. >> Yes, it is, sir. >> Okay. And that's the only comment I want to make at this point. >> Thank you, sir. All right, Brian. I said I'd give you the last word. Go for it. >> Thank you. This will just take one
minute, Mr. Chairman. >> So clearly there was a permit for this project and clearly the permit was deviated from. That's not in dispute, but that's not the standard that the commission needs to apply. The standard
is whether or not the regulations were complied with and the performance standards were met. And I've heard words like fault, mistake, etc. I've heard words about precedent, but actually in Courtney's dissertation
about this, he said something that actually I agree with. Our job is to uphold the regulations. That means that your job is to determine whether the Y asbuilt structure meets the regulations or not. I would ask the commission to put aside all of these
feelings that the prior permit wasn't complied with. That's not the standard that you have to apply tonight. And I think if you look at what the regulations say, a very compelling case has been made for approval of this asbuilt project.
I would ask that you approve it. >> Thank you. What is your pleasure on the commission, Courtney? Yeah, I I hear what you're saying, David, and this is through the chair.
I'm sorry, uh, Brian, but I we cannot divorce the fact that this order of conditions or this application is similar to the other one and affect
is an attempt to remedy what was previously denied and attempt to remedy uh a situation. And nothing nothing in this new order has really changed you. It's it's asking
us to accept what what was done. And what I'm saying is that this is an issue and I feel very badly for the homeowner. Um particularly I can relate to the
issue being that I'm 85 going on 86. you know, we slow down a little bit and we want to live out our life and do our things that we, you know, we want to enjoy the last few years. And I'm sure
that the homeowner wanted to enjoy her pool and all of those things. And it's a very, very sad situation. Believe me, I know I sound sort of um
uh I guess the word is heartless by taking the position that I did. But I and I really feel for the homeowner. I can relate to her age. I can relate to her infirmities.
And I would I hate to see her go through all this, but unfortunately um all of this could have been averted. All of it had one thing been done
prior to moving that wall 5T closer, prior to building that stone wall, field stone wall. Prior to doing all of the construction related to it,
the owner could have done a simple thing, come before the commission and filed for an amendment to move the wall and so forth. That's the fly in the ointment here because it wasn't done.
And now to fix it is going to be expensive. There's no question. And I'm glad I'm not faced with that. But we have to do our job.
>> Thank you, Courtney. >> Thank you, Court. >> All right. >> I take motion to uh close the hearing and patent >> bird second. Motion has been raised and second. Any
questions? All right. >> Yes. I I have a question, >> Dave. >> So, if we just close this uh do we need to discuss next steps tonight or do we what are the next steps? I don't If we close
>> No, Dave. If you you close the hearing and next week you vote whether or not to issue an order of conditions. Okay. >> Okay. >> You can either issue the order of conditions approving the pool in its place or issue a denial order of
conditions and we can discuss next steps at that point. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Not a problem. >> Got a motion in a second. Courtney, >> I I you ask me to vote now. >> Yeah. >> No. Courtney, I to close the hearing.
>> I'll I to close the hearing. A mot make a what is it we need to >> it's already been made and passed to close the hearing so I'm calling the role >> okay bird eye I >> thank you Dave >> Kent I >> Jim >> I >> Ronnie
>> M I >> Steve >> I >> Ron >> Bisclly >> and Duffy motion to close the hearing and take up advisement it's passed >> thank you everyone for your time tonight we >> thank you Brian thank you Jeeoff good
>> thank you Good night everyone. >> Thanks everybody. >> All right, next up we got Robert and Cara Martin trustees 58 Westward Road LLC 58 Westward Road found with Mass for
permission to conduct invasive species removal and stall restoration plantings. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, we were waiting on a natural heritage letter. I believe we have received that. So, we can close
this hearing >> for 58 Westwood. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I jumped one over. I'm sorry. 58 Westwood. We are continuing to March 4th. Um uh we did meet with the applicant. They
the board had asked the applicant to to to work with staff. Uh we met with them yesterday after we received a revised plan. We've asked for additional changes. Um we are conducting a site visit with them as well. Um and
we should be able to hopefully um close this on March 4th. >> Excellent. >> Do you uh do we have a motion to continue this hearing till the 4th of March?
second. >> All right, we got a >> I guess I have one more question if you don't mind. >> Yeah, Dave, go. >> Hey, Jen, can we go out and do a proper site visit with all the snow? >> I think you can. The backside of the dune might be hard to see between the
dune and the beach. Um, but a lot of the invasives are full grown and a lot of the plantings are full grown, so you'd be able to see it. And um the applicants representative have flagged all of the invasives as you seen in your submitt.
So they did flag quite a few. So it is I think it'll be fairly easy to see. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Not a problem. >> All right. So we got a motion to continue to March 4th and second. No more questions. Call the RO. Courtney
Ry. >> Dave Panti. >> Jim R. I >> Ronnie >> I >> Steve >> I >> Ron >> Piscll I >> and Duffy I motion to continue to March 4th is approved. Next we got William
Elizabeth Scanel 314 Quiset Avenue Fmouth Mass for permission to conduct invasive species manage and install recreational plantings. Now Jen, >> now we've re received natural heritage. Oh, Nick Crawford's here. I think he wants to say something. He's Crawford
land management. I'm going to promote him up. We did receive Natural Heritage's comments. So, we um from a staff level are prepared for the board to close the hearing, but I think Nick wants to say a few words. >> Uh not promoting Mike Borceli up as
well. >> Uh I don't I mean, you can, but um I didn't really have much to say. I was just going to say what you said. We got the letter and uh they weren't opposed. I don't have my camera on because I'm hiding from five kids in my bedroom, but
uh yeah. Uh >> okay. >> If if anyone has any other questions from the last time, happy to answer them. Otherwise, uh that's it. >> Okay, great. Thank you, Nick. >> Thanks, Nick. Any questions from any members of the board?
>> All right, we need a motion. >> We do. >> I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under adisement. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. questions. Alyssa. >> Ronnie, you're not on the squ. >> Ronnie out. All right. Courtney
>> I >> Dave >> I >> Jim >> McGrath I >> Steve >> and I >> Roni and Duffy I motion passes to close and take an under advisement. Thanks Nick.
>> Thank you. All right. >> Next, we have request to amend an existing order of conditions. Michael N. Smith and Ivon Ye Chang for Whitmore Avenue, Felmouth, Mass. request to amend the order of conditions for mass DP
number 25-5003 to conduct invasive species management, remove and replace several trees, and to plant a role of screening trees. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. this applicant's requesting a continuence until March
4th. Um we do have some questions regarding the invasive species management and we are setting up a um Zoom call or meeting with the contractor involved with that. >> At the request of the applicant, I will
make a motion to continue this till the 4th of March. >> Chris second. >> Motion in a second. Any questions? Hearing none. Call the role. Courtney >> Bird I. >> Dave. >> Kent. >> I. >> Jim. >> R. I.
>> Ronnie. >> Moment. I. >> Steve. >> I. >> Ron. >> Chris. I >> And Duffy. I motion to continue to March 4th has been granted. Next. Request to extend an existing
order of conditions. U. Sarah Kumagus Young and Leighton Fulkar Young III 10 Khog Pawn Lane Falmouth Mass D number 25-4607 request for a one-year extension Jen.
>> Yes, the staff recommends a one-year extension on this. Mr. Chairman the reason >> just continuing to do work out there. Oh, >> okay. There is a Dylan Lance from I'm assuming Crawford. Hang on.
>> And I'm here again. >> I logged off like two seconds too soon. Uh yeah, the reason for the extension is basically just to um make sure the work is in compliance. I think we ran out of a little bit of time to replace some
plantings and things like that. So, we we just need a little more time. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to grant a one-year extension. Frisco second. >> Motion in a second. Any questions? Hearing and seeing none, I'll call the
role. Courtney >> I. >> Dave >> Kent Eye. >> Jim I. >> Ronnie I. >> Steve >> I. >> Ron. >> Pisc. >> And Duffy. I request for one-year
extension granted. >> Thanks again >> Nick. Yes. All right. >> Thank you, Nick. Next we have continued hearings under an enforcement order. First up Sea Shell Lane Community Associates, Inc. 0 Davisville Road, map parcel
40-11-013-0000 East Falmouth, Mass unpermitted clearing cutting instruction within the flood zone and with the buffer to a salt marsh. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Mr. Chairman, that has been continued until February 11th.
>> We continued at Seal. >> Yes. >> We continued at the beginning of the hearing till February 11th. >> Okay. >> Should we just move on? >> Yes. >> Oh, we've already done that. Sorry. Yeah, you've already done that. >> Very beginning. I thought this was going
to be a quicker meeting. Um, next we have John G. But and Mary Ellen Butt. 41 Mary Emanuel Way, Felmouth, Mass, unpermitted construction of a deck and fence, removal of trees, and clearing vegetation within conservation jurisdiction.
Jen, >> yes. So, we received an email from Mr. Bud at 4:30. I think Fallon had forwarded it to you all. He wasn't going to be able to make it tonight. Says, "I am not ma able to make the meeting tonight. I do not know if any of the
commissioners stopped by this week with all the snow. Not sure if you could see anything or walk the grounds as per preparing a site plan. I don't think it's necessary as I have no plans to put on a deck and I have ex significant expenses with a personal issue. More
than happy to have any of the commissioners stop by. Just let me know when. Thanks again for your patience and understanding. My ask is that I put forward for discussion a review whether to keep the fence where it's installed so not to incur any fe further expenses.
I am not far outside the zone A and I hope that when you stop by you will see that I am outside the 100 foot buffer from the marsh and uh pawn's edge to paraphrase real quick the board we can continue this out again
but this has been out there for quite a while the original letter was sent in I want to say 2024 we met with them in April April of 25. We didn't hear anything else after we
met with the Butts and Tom Bunker that April. We had to send the enforcement letter in August. So, we're several several months out from that initial enforcement hearing and well over a year and a half from when this issue was
first brought to light. Um, I don't know if the commission wants to continue it to allow Mr. but to um attend and say I think his biggest issue is um requiring an updated site plan and
I'd like to show the board, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, why that is going to be important. >> Okay. >> So, what I'm going to do is share my plan real quick with the
board. Oops. >> So, the board sees the plan, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. If you follow my cursor right here, this is a zone A buffer zone. Right there.
Oh, where is it? Right here. Oh, I wish I could draw on it. Probably could. Right, there's a zone A buffer. There's your limit of work. Now, I'm going to show you an aerial of when the house was being constructed and
one from September. So, this is a nearmap photo of what of April 8th of 2023 when the house was under construction. This is the limit of work that was set up at that time.
I'm now going to toggle over oops over to September 11th of 2025. And as you can see, I mean, the houses aren't lined up perfectly. They're
aerials. But as you can see, where this line was was your zone A. So all of this area in your zone A buffer plus over in here has been altered. I do think it's important
that the board have an updated site plan so that we determine the square footage that was disturbed, what we need to replant. And there were several several
large trees down by the salt marsh over in this area that were um dropped and just left right in the the zone a buffer of the salt marsh. We have photos of them. So again, the board
can continue it to allow Mr. Bot to to attend. We have extended this multiple multiple times. I understand there's some um personal things going on in in the resident's life. So, if the board feels, you know, you want to give them
one more chance to attend, that's fine. If not, we can just close this hearing and issue an enforcement order. And if the board uh wants that updated site plan, um we can require that
>> as part of the enforcement >> as part of the enforcement order. I'll make a motion to issue an enforcement order and require an updated site plan with the resources clearly marked on it. >> Alyssa, you had something to say. I'm
sorry, Mr. Chairman. I just saw Lissa raise your hand. >> Um, yeah, just to add a clarifying point. Um, I do believe Mr. But made his um, statement in that email based on our conversations. I think one of his biggest concerns was obtaining an
updated site plan and the services of an engineering surveying group. Again, um, it will be necessary for the COC process. We will need a plan at some point. Um, so obtaining it now can at least bring clarity as to how much square footage of the zone A that's
required to be vegetated is now unveated. So we can require a restoration and we're back to your no structure zone that we just heard at um a previous hearing where that fence is located. Um so having an updated site plan will help
us figure out exactly how much that will need to be relocated. Um, so I I do think a plan is necessary and um will only provide more clarity for your decision-m.
>> Thank you. by the u my count from something that I get is this is the this would be the eighth continuence if we offered another continuence for this and I understand there's some personal health um but and I'd really like to
have the applicant say their piece but in the email it's very clearly stated of how the applicant feels. Um so that's my piece. Dave, I see your hand raised. >> Um, so we have an existing enforcement
order. Um, court's motion. We're going to ask for a plan. Is that the only I mean, is is that something new in in in the enforcement order? Is that previously asked for? What's what's new about if we if we close this under
under court's um motion? What will we have done new? Anything new? >> Well, you would issue the enforcement order, Dave. you have you're you're in an enforcement hearing. You haven't actually issued an enforcement order yet. >> Oh.
>> So, if you close this hearing hearing, we can draft up an enforcement order for your review. Um and and then you can vote on it either next week or the week after and
we can um add any sort of revisions that the board would like. And then you vote the enforcement order and we'll issue it. >> Yeah. I thought there was already an existing >> No, no, no. You're just in the hearing process still. >> Yeah, that makes sense. I Thanks a lot. >> There's an existing order of conditions,
an existing amended order of conditions. The permits are still valid. So even if you know, if you wanted your enforcement order to require work, it can be done under the open permit, too. Um >> well, it would need to be required under
an amended. So instead of instead of as we have been doing require them to file a notice of intent, we would require the applicant to file an amended order of conditions for the restoration. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Okay. But he's >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So >> we can write it up so it's very clear, Dave, and it it'll get step by step and we can discuss it with you. >> It's just the in the agenda under enforcement order. That's that's >> Yeah, it's an enforcement hearing. >> That misled me. Yes. >> So, >> yeah,
>> I I think what we're talking about is a technical issue, a procedural issue. I'm order I'm making a motion to issue an enforcement order, which we haven't done before. >> Well, I would in this case, so the board can read it. If everybody just gives me one second, I would just vote to close
the hearing and we will bring you an enforcement order in the next week or two to vote on. >> All right. So, I'll withdraw my motion. I'm making a motion to close the hearing. Driscoll second. >> Second. >> All right. We have an amendment, a motion to close the hearing and a
second. Any other questions? Hearing and seeing none. Uh Courtney >> Bird. I >> Jim >> McGrath I >> Ronnie >> moment I >> Dave >> Kent >> I >> Steve >> Matt I
>> Ron >> Priscal I >> and Duffy I motion to close the hearing is uh passed. Now vote orders of conditions. CH Newton Builders 52 Oyster Shell Lane East with
Mass for permission to enlarge the existing deck and install assist associated mitigation. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, this was to put a deck partially over an existing gravel
area. There's mitigation and there's also restoration plantings involved. Um, so we do have a plan from Mike Alissa. We didn't need any revised plans from him, did we? >> I'm double checking.
>> Yeah, I don't think we did. I do see there's an area of his restoration plantings that looks like it's in a naturally vegetated area. Um, and he's got restoration plantings and um, mitigation plantings up along the
hedge row. Um it would have been pretty straightforward had we not discovered the the unpermitted clearing. So they are doing that. What I would suggest is that the unpermitted clearing we at
least get that planted um prior to us um authorizing approval of a building permit from Kong. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, the plantings go in before permit.
>> Plantings go in before Hong Kong sign approves the building permit. >> Okay. >> Because we do have a sign off. We have to sign off on the building permit, Courtney. And this will >> no be a check and balance. I think the only feature that wasn't
corrected on the plan that was discussed at the last hearing um was my recommendation of some delineating feature of the vegetated buffer from the usable backyard space. Um I know one was implemented in the past and was
unsuccessful. Um >> oh yeah, little split rail or something. I mean, I'm open to suggestion from, you know, the property owner, something that would last more than what was put out there before. Um, but I think something needs to go out there.
>> Yeah, we can write that in. >> All right, I'll entertain a motion. >> Motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed. >> Bird second. >> Driscoll. All right. A motion to accept the motions of conditions as discussed has been made and seconded. Any
questions? Hearing and seeing none, we'll call the role. Courtney >> Bird I. >> Jim >> Rapi, >> Ronnie, >> I, >> Dave, >> and I, >> Steve, >> I, >> Ron,
>> Priscal, I >> and Duffy. I uh motion to vote and order conditions as discussed is passed. Well, that was fun. >> I'll miss you guys next week. Uh Steve,
good job. Next week. Good luck. Good luck, Steve. >> Yes. >> Well, I'm sitting in 88 degree weather, so >> where you going? >> Where you going? >> Yeah. So,
>> motion to adjourn. does it for me. >> Second. >> Motion made. >> Enjoy.