[Music] [Music] [Music]
good evening and welcome to the February 12th meeting of the Falmouth Conservation Commission this meeting is being held virtually via Zoom video conference and is also being broadcast by fctv on cable channel 9 as this meeting is being recorded by
zoom and broadcast by fctv please be cognizant of what you say how you say it and what can be seen and heard in your background we're missing one commissioner tonight however we have a quarum we're moving forward as a
reminder Jamie did we start recording yes yes okay usually they tell us they did okay thanks um as a reminder to not interrupt other people um commenting
I'll call on each of you at the appropriate time and that all votes done by roll call when I call your name please state your name and your vote for the record even if you've made the motion or the second to our public attendees at any time during this
meeting you may enter any comments or questions via the chat function at the appropriate time they will be read into the record if as an attend you'd like to participate in a particular hearing let us know via the chat function then at the appropriate time you will be
promoted into the hearing as a participant when you are selected you must have your video enabled be succinct and respectful of others public comments will be limited to three minutes each for rdas under a request for
determination of applicability the applicant is asking the commission to determine if the provision of the Massachusetts Wetlands protection act and or the fouth wetlands bylaw apply to their proposed project a negative determination is that the provisions of
the act and or the bylaw do not apply therefore the project May proceed as proposed a positive determination means the provisions of the act and or the bylaw do in fact apply Andor may require some conditions therefore the project
would require notice vent app application so as an applicant you actually want us want to hear a negative determination for the benefit of anyone waiting for a particular hearing tonight so that you're not waiting unnecessarily the following hearing is
expected to be continued 402 wild Harbor Road first up tonight vote minutes January 29 2025 anyone Mr chairman I'd like to move approval of the minutes as written Patton word
second all right we have a motion and a second to accept the minutes as submitted for 129 questions or comments we're voting to accept the minutes Psy BL pter ey Courtney bird ey Matthew's ey Kevin
O'Brien I Russ Robins ey Steve m i it is unanimous we have accepted the minutes of one 29 next up is to vote minutes of February 5th
2025 Mr chairman I make a motion to approve the minutes as written P thir second all right we have a motion in a second to accept the minutes of February 5th questions or comments we're voting to accept the
minutes of February 5th Betsy fter ey Courtney bird ey Matthews ey Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robin Z Steve m i it is unanimous we have accepted the minutes of February
5th thank you Kristen next up is a request for continuance under a notice of intent Susan Moran trustee Charles E Moran qualified personal residence trust 402 wild h Road found with mass for
permission to replace an existing concrete bulkhead with a vinyl sheet piling and to conduct inas invasive species management and restoration Jen yes Mr chairman we met with the applicants Representatives a few weeks
ago uh they just need a bit more time putting the plan together so they are requesting an additional continuance until February 26th where so move filter second all right we have a motion in a second
to continue this until February 26 questions or comments we're voting on the continuance Psy R Courtney bird I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robins I Steve Bon I it
is unanimous we have continued this until 226 next up is a request for a continuance under an enforcement order Steven Augusta 33 oyster shell Lane East fou Mass unpermitted removal of mitigation
plantings and unpermitted installation of Hardscape within conservation jurisdiction Jen which uh oh they are requesting a continuance until April 16 we'll be meeting with the um with their
representative in the coming weeks to um go over everything no April 16 correct so move so move bird second all right we have a motion and a second to continue this enforcement
hearing until April 16 questions or comments we're voting on the continuance Betsy BL felter ey Courtney bir ey Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robins I
Steve p i it is unanimous we have continued this till 416 next up are requests for determination of applicability first up John grassy 320 Walker Street bouth mass
for permission to repair and expand an existing deck and to construct a new second level deck Alissa staff recommends a negative -2 under the state and byla resource are boundaries are not confirmed and this project slowly takes place at an a
Flo so move P second thank you we have a motion on a second to accept staff's recommendation questions or comments we're voting sorry Steve didn't mean to interrupt Betsy
BL felter I Courtney third I Matthews ey Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robin I Steve b i it is unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation next up Peter Langan 381
SEO shs Boulevard and zero IP switch Drive map and parcel ID 41- 06-00 -97 fou mass for permission to raise ra a Ze
and rebuild a single family dwelling expand and pave a driveway install a new title 5 sewage Disposal system remove vegetation and conduct Associated gring Alissa staff recommends a negative3 under the state and a negative2 under
the bylaw resource boundaries are not confirmed bir so move that second all right we have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation questions or comments all right we're voting Betsy
well I felt her I Courtney I Matthew's I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robin's I Steve Patton I it is unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation next up James Weiss
trustee James V Weiss 09 revocable trust 17 cyark Road Pou mass for permission to replace a failed sewage Disposal system and install a new title five sewage Disposal system Alissa staff recommends
a negative -2 under the state and bylaw resourc are boundaries are not confirmed and this project Solly takes place in an AE flood zone heard so move P second we have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation questions or comments we're voting that's a
tter I Courtney bird ey Matthews Z Kevin O'Brien i r Robin Sai Steve b i it is unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation next up quet Harbor House
Land Trust Inc 18 Carry Lane and 71 quet Harbor Road fou mass for permission to conduct invasive species management and annual m ing in accordance with mass D number
25- 4396 Alissa staff recommends a negative3 under the state and a negative2 under the bylaw resource are boundaries are not confirmed or so move had second Alissa please expand on the
annual mowing um so this is originally a project at the commission saw many many years ago this is um when you're just driving in on Cary Lane it's the property to the left overlooking the water where um I believe it was Crawford
originally who did a very large invasive species removal and restoration project um we had brought it to you guys for compliance as there were some shrubs that didn't make it um so when the project was approved it called for
annual mowing um the staff recommended against it because we were concerned about the shrubs out there um but it had been approved so now they're just looking to continue on this maintenance so is this in perpetuity this is something we expect
them to come back every three years to renew okay duly noted we have a motion in a second to accept staff's recommendation questions or comments we're voting Betsy blad pter ey Courtney
bird ey Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Rob ey Steve b i it is unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation next up David and Kathy Bryson for Cottage Lane fouth mass for
permission to maintain an existing View Corridor and to remove two trees Alissa staff recommends a negative3 under the state and a negative2 under the bylaw resource area boundaries are not confirmed bird move p in second right we have a motion in a
second to accept staff's recommendation questions or comments we're voting Betsy ey Courtney I Matthews Z Kevin O'Brian I
Russ Robin Z Steve and I it is unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation next up William and Elizabeth scel 314 quet Avenue found with mass for permission to install new
title five IIA sewage Disposal system Alissa staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative2 under the bylaw resourc boundaries are not confirmed word so move Patton second all right we have a
motion in a second to accept staff's recommendation questions or comments we're voting Betsy ey Courtney bird eye with a gold star Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robins I
Steve Patton I it is unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation next up Ellen Peebles 91 quanset Road found with mass for permission to install a new title 5 sewage Disposal
system Alissa staff recommend a negative3 under the state and negative2 under the bylaw resource boundaries are not confirmed so move second we have a motion in a second to
accept staff's recommendation questions or comments we're voting Betsy black I Courtney bird ey Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Rob and I Steve m i is unanimous we
have accepted staff recommendation thank you to Alysa and Fallon next up are requests for hearing under a notice of intent all hearings of the family Conservation Commission are held simultaneously under the authorities of
the Massachusetts Wetlands protection act and the fouth wetlands bylaw although a single decision of the commission is issued it represents a separate decision under each Authority as a reminder public commenting is limited to 3 minutes so I encourage you
to stay within the purview of this board which are the rules and regulations of the Wetland protection act and the fam with Wetlands bylaw and how they pertain to a particular application the chair reserves the right to stop any commenting that is disparaging or
inconsequential to the hearing first up Katherine M Truman 78 Benjamin NIS Lane North fouth m full permission to install Stone patios walkways and mitigation plantings and to
conduct invasive species management Jen yes Mr chairman I have promoted Mike Borelli and I'm attempting to promote Lindsay Cook up to present their projects Mike am I promoting Lindsay is it Lindsay yes what I thought and I
think Annie Griffin may also be here oh yep I see okay and an Annie Griffin Berg and there's a Katherine Truman the applicant with their hand raised am I promoting the uh property owner as well
um there's no need to promote her but if there's issues or questions or something she wants to elaborate on she can certainly be um promoted at that time unless she okay excellent well her hands down so okay you're up sir thank you Mr chairman
members of the commission for the record Mike belli filmou engineering I represent the applicant along with Lindsay Cook and Annie Griffin Berg we represent Katherine Truman the property owner at 78 Benjamin n
Lane uh the property um is uh on um a 95,000 foot lot with a wetland to the
Northeast Mike excuse me you're not sharing if you intended to yes I do intend to share yep um and uh I just giving you a little background sorry um we have a few plans to share um I'm gonna share my plan at this
time with your permission Mr chairman yes sir and then um Lindsay's going to share some other more detailed plans my plan is an overall uh site plan showing the property the lot as I said
is um rather large so I've inserted a key map but I've zoomed in on the area of of interest on on the top left side of the site plan so this
property has a bordering vegetated Wetland to the northwest across Benjamin's Benjamin NY Lane to the east Northeast is uh also bordering vegetated Wetlands that we believe these are old um I think these are old
cranberry bugs that have been reclaimed over time also on the property is um the boundary of um flood zone ae15 it's shown as a blue line on my plan from
this blue line this direction is flood zone ae15 and because the land slopes it also meets the definition of Coastal Bank so even though we're really nowhere near
the coast line we're in a um Coastal flood zone and we have sloping landform so there is in fact by definition a Coastal Bank and we've identified the top of the Coastal Bank as well with this Orange Line the property's previously developed
um there's two structures on the property um the main house which I'm circling here and then a smaller building over here there's a common teardrop shaped driveway lawn areas um it's been developed for a very very long
time it's I think one of the original houses in North Falmouth it's that old um and um the applicants uh has acquired it and done some improvements to to the house um and
wants to do some improvements to the grounds that include um restoration areas of the buffer and then enhancement with mitigation planting some uh improvements to outside living areas with patios and
things like that and a a small Improvement to parking to help ease the driveway uh traffic flow uh there's a proposal for a parking area next to this building
here um since the bulk of this work entails um restoration areas in the buffer in proposed mitigation my plan is mainly the base plan that all the other
design was uh developed off of and the areas of expertise are both Annie Griffin BG and lindzie cook so um with that I'm going to turn it over to uh I guess Annie
um and I'm GNA be in the background to answer any questions thanks Mike um so I'm Annie Griffin BG with huchi Seline landscape architex and um we're working with the client on um the
spaces the the outdoor Living Spaces up around the house um and I guess Lindsay if you can just share your plan I can maybe speak to that um and I'm just going to very quickly go over what The Hardscape
changes that we've made around the house um and uh then I'll turn it over to Lindsay um so we have added a couple of walkways I'm not sure can you see my cursor moving
not if she's sharing ah okay well then on the on the east side of the house and on the south side of the house we have added um Stepping Stones leading to the main doors of the house um on the north side of the house there is an existing gravel Terrace that
we are actually removing and replacing with stone Paving in lawn um and then on the south side of the house there is a small existing Terrace of stone pavers in planting and we're going to be expanding that very
slightly um and just below that on the north side of the driveway we are planning to just extend the existing retaining wall so that when guests arrive they know which door to go to um and then on as Mike already mentioned on the south side of the
driveway we're going to be adding a couple of parking spaces and in order to do that we need to add a retaining wall and do a little bit of grading there um and then moving over to Benjamin I Lane
uh there is a sort of crumbling existing retaining wall that kind of runs along the road and we are going to actually remove that and then do a gradual grade down to the street um which will be planted there is
an area just to the north portion of that where the grade gets a little bit Steep and so we're not entirely sure but think we may need to place a few Boulders there just to help us hold the grade so we'll be taking Boulders out in some places with this sort of crumbling
wall but then adding potentially a couple up at that Northern portion um and then at the sort of northwest corner of the house we are adding some Boulders and some stepping stones which will be in planting um a
ground cover that allows the client to access some hammocks that are going to be uh stretched between the trees there um so that's the extent really of The Hardscape um that we are uh modifying on
the site and all of this has been taken um into account for the mitigation planting that um is being handled by parer ecological and so uh unless there are any questions about that I'll just turn it over to Lindsay to talk about
the mitigation planting that she's been handling and designing okay thank you Annie yep thank you thank you um Lindsay Cook from parter eological and I'm here to answer any questions about um the restoration
and the mitigation so I should probably start by saying this project is broken up into two pieces we have the mitigation area is this yellow um where we have Meadow called for and all of these are shrubs that are within the
meadow that total square footage is enough to cover these landscape improvements that Annie was just speaking of as a separate piece to this project um the homeowner is interested in doing a restoring this Wetland buffer
so we have 15,000 square feet of area where we are removing invasive species it extends over here as well and we want to replace basically we're trying to heal that ecosystem there's quite a lot of invasives in there and we'd like to
remove the invasives hopefully get a lot of natives coming back in after that invasive pressure has been released but also planting back Nursery stock where it needed to fill in um to 100% plant
cover so I can run through we had some staff comments that I would like to address at this time I'm just going to um run through them and if you have any additional questions just feel free to stop me and ask we had a request quest
for we need this measurement from the closest part of the Coastal Bank to the structure that will be added in the revised plan we also there was a request for these two witch hazel to not be counted as our mitigation trees right now we
have a white fringe tree here and the two witch hazel we are going to add two other trees another white fringe and a red bud and these will no longer count as mitigation plants although I think they will stay as part of the design we are going to add um some witch hazel in
this area as well the Annie explained there was a question about what these were these are Boulders and they are possibly needed to hold the grate and they already have been added in as a calculation for the
mitigation we were requested to replace the Oakleaf hydrangea with an alternative species which we will do in the updated plan there was a request for the mitigation area not to be mowed and I did want to address that I recognize
in the notes that it's not clear that what we're planning on doing is a very we want to keep the meadow meadow um the the homeowner is really interested in having this be a diverse ecological property so we would like to
have the different um areas Meadow Woodland shrubland all in this property if we don't ever the meadow succession will eventually take it into a forest again so we'd like to hold the meadow in that early successional phase by
carefully mowing in the spring after the plant break dorm or before the plant break dormy I'm sorry around the mitigation shrubs with like a string trimmer we we have no intention of bringing in big equipment or mowing anything down or touching the reason
these shrubs have been have been planned to be planted this way is to keep them in clusters so that we can mow that keep it as Meadow but not hurt these shrubs that are in here so that I'm hoping will be okay in our updated plan if I just
change the language to make sure it's very clear that we're not going to come in with a brush mower and knock this all down this is a really specific effort to keep this area as Meadow there was a comment about this
additional 281 square feet that we need to um be that needs to be accounted for in the mitigation so we will add that 280 one square feet to the updated plan the trees that are going to be
removed we started to get really busy looking plan with the existing trees and the new trees so we didn't have these on there they are there's a separate document in the Land Management plan that shows all the trees proposed for removal we can go in and add those as um
onto this plan so that everything is right there we can overlay that layer that will be in our updated plan remove switch grass from the conservation Wildlife seed mix this can absolutely be done I'm assuming it's because um it can
be aggressive in Meadows it's not specked for the meadow it's specked for the wooded area I don't think it will be aggressive in that situation but I also don't mind removing it from that mix and creating custom mix without
it um the most strip should be extended I'm assuming that this means here just to keep any there will still be invasive species over here we are doing one chunk at a time here so if this to keep the invasives out of the meadow if that is
what the staff meant by um extending the mo trip we can update the plan to have the most strip come all the way around the mitigation area and there was a question about I said we are looking for 100% to plant cover that
is including ground cover that was the question is does that include ground cover because there are these perennial areas this is a perennial concentration area where we plan to put a lot of perennials there are shrubs in here but in certain areas like especially very close to the mitigation area here I
expect it will be shrubs and ground cover to get to our 100% back here it's heavily wooded I don't expect a lot of ground cover back here I think we'll have some good um shrubs coming back once we've removed the invasive species
but at that place it would be 100% of trees and shrubs so throughout the property it will be varied what our layers are but I I'm shooting for 100% everywhere and then the staff was hoping
that we would add more plants the reason I didn't start with two as many natives as I did over here there was also a question about why this wasn't shaded this isn't receiving a seed mix so in this key this color is our Woodland seed
mix I wasn't going to put it down here by the driveway this area is being regraded there is nothing native there that's going to make it um so we really wanted to start fresh so these shrubs I have placed pretty tightly in here and I don't think we need a seed mix there
over here where I'm expecting more native recruitment and we have a seed mix going in I'd like to see what moves in first and then fill in the gaps with Nursery stock so especially in this area I see we have an opening there's it's
pretty much 100% invasive invasive species in here so we we have decided to add some witch hazel in here and to slightly shift these trees so they're they'll be a little bit more staggered and fill this space a little bit better
so that would be part of the updated plan are there any other questions we'll get the questions after your presentation if you don't mind any Lindsay sorry okay Mr chairman I just wanted to add one thing
Mr chairman we have this is in priority habitat and we filed with uh natural heritage they have not yet commented um we we're because of that we're unable to close tonight but we wanted to make sure
we presented the project in its entirety uh take into account the staff's comments revises the plan work with your staff to address these comments that ly Lindsay just um went through then continue and hopefully have
the um letter back from um natural heritage uh which we anticipate will be a no take letter okay you good Mike yes thank you Lindsay you good yes for now okay please stop sharing
then thank you Jen already I know sorry about that um thank you for going through uh staff comments Lindsay I think our just our concern is with your um your lighter
green area where it doesn't show a lot of shrubs you say it's like 100% or up to 100% invaded and I think we just wanted to see more and I know we spoke about this when we met on Zoom about how you want to go in there see what comes back and then we may add some
plants but we may require plant to be added because when they do when the board does have removal of um invasives they usually don't count ground cover as you know a one like as part of your
total uh vegetation cover they want to see that shrub layer back but we can we can work more with you as you revise the plan to address some of our concerns the only other thing I wanted to add is um thank you for switching out those witch
hazel um for the red bud and the other what did you say white fringe but are they still going to be that close to the house because they are pretty close to the house so so we were going to leave the witch hazel where they were but move
the red butt in the white fringe so they would be further away from the house okay and you think the witch hazel will be okay that close to the house we may rethink it we just but it it will no longer be counting as part of the mitigation plan okay yeah all right we
just were we were just concerned that once it grows it'll either impact the house or you know Force the homeowner to want to like trim it or yeah so just something we want you to think about that's all I have for right now Mr
chairman thank you Alissa thank you uh just two quick comments Lindsay yes that's where I'm talking about the most strip uh might just be helpful to keep the mitigation safe from the invasives that are still on that untouched part of the property
um and to the commission if everyone finds it acceptable to allow the mowing of the mitigation area perhaps at least a single rail France that delineates the mode area from the lawn would be helpful that's all thank you all
right so Lindsay and Annie I haven't seen you before so just information for you protocol we usually have the applicants and or the representatives you know present the project you know in in alt together and then we go back through for comments so
sometimes it's a little seems like we bounce back and forth and don't be annoyed when we ask you to share your plan again but it's the way we do things go to bad all right commissioner comments
Betsy I I have no questions but my comment is I like the idea of having a mosaic of habitats to increase the biodiversity in the area that's all Jamie all right Courtney uh two things um I I concur with Jen's
concerns about the proximity of the witch hazel to the house I think he should think about that and make sure that you know you allow enough room so it reaches full height that's not crowding the house and becoming an issue of Maintenance and that kind of stuff
the second thing is uh what's the methodology that you're planning to employ to control the invasives so um we're going to use a a numerous techniques because we have quite a few invasives there we actually have some Japanese knotweed so we will
be cutting that and dripping it um we have everything is going to be so we have a lot of trees getting removed first those invasive trees those probably um are getting removed by a subcontractor but I don't think we will
everything we're doing will be done by hand so just cutting all the invasives and then wiping the stump with herbicide and removing them from the area where where would you dispose of the
stuff like Japanese not weed where's it going I don't honestly I would have to check on that so yeah I mean you don't want it going back into a landfill where it can spread to somewhere else absolutely not see I would like to see
where that's going okay and and then we'll condition you know where where it's going and we want to make sure that whoever's receiving it is giving their permission so that's nasty stuff we don't want to spread that around AB so
you're using a combination of mechanical means and uh and herbic is that correct and so you wouldn't how long will it take you to do do that control and know that it's done sufficiently that you can replay it
there um it depends on the area so where we have the Japanese knotweed it's typically a three to five year plan before it's pretty Limited in where it is right now um well I guess I'm not sharing my screen but it's right around that rododendron patch and then we have
another small SWA on the edge of the Wetland and on the edge of the road those areas probably are going to need some time before we can plant anything back there other than the ground cover mix just because we want to make sure we get a handle everything else I feel like we should probably have complete control
within the year and we could be planting back in the spring or or in the fall if we have a really good um result with the herbicide we might be able to plant as early as the fall okay uh I in particularly with a Japanese not we
that's nasty stubborn stuff and it's does it it likes it seems to thrive on on Roundup and that kind of stuff it just seems to like it and Gulf it down and smile at you so um you know that's why I'm concerned about the methodology
here okay I have no other questions I think conceptually it's a good project excellent thanks Kevin no questions Mr chairman thank you all right Russ I'm good Mr chair all right
Steve um I think this project will make a dramatic impact on this property of it's really amazing to think about your plan and your descriptions of the your work or substantial the only thing I couldn't find is I can't find the
mitigation calculations we talked about it a lot but I can't find the pluses and minuses you usually see you know what I mean yes I've gone through all the plans and I'm pretty sure it's not
there okay I will make sure that that is in the updated plan so what was the what were the addition in in zone a
hardap excuse me you're muted Annie I'll see if I can get to them quickly um it was all the hardscaping Steve it was the I assume their mation was at least
substantial enough to cover it I just like to see the numbers yeah looks like we had 738 of new Hardscape and it's all Zone a because of the box turtle habitat so so that would be a three times that would kep would
give us the 284 shrubs great thank you that's all Mr chairman thank you all right Jan is there anything on the public chat function please nothing
in the public chat Mr chairman all right um is that are you guys clear what you want on a on a revised plan you feel it's necessary to continue because of that no we
yes no we have a they they need a natural heritage letter can't y yeah unfortunately they they have 30 days to comment and you you're holding hearings less than 30 days so this happens now and then trying to help you out Mike what
can I say I'm trying to show how efficient you are in holding your hearings isn't it a statutory requirement to hold it oh yeah that's true too Courtney uh I I would like to see a letter showing where they're going to
dispose of it and that the recipient is giving permission I'd like to see that before the orders and conditions are issued we we're not closing the hearing yet Courtney no no but I mean if you're going to close it then that's what I want if you're not
going to close it then I'll wait we're not we know we're not g to close it okay he's simply asking for that so if if Lindsay Andor Annie if you would include that information in your in the revisions that would be
helpful we the date March 5th is the next available that's the next available that's what we're asking for at the request of the applicant I make a motion to continue this to March 5th for
second all right we have a motion in a second to continue this until March 5th last call questions or comments we voting on the continuance Betsy black hter ey Courtney her ey
Matthews ey Kevin O'Brian I Russ Robin I Steve I it is unanimous we have contined this until March 5th thank you Mike thank you Annie thank you Lindsay thank
you thank you thank you you very much all right next up our continued request for hearing under noce of intent the first one's been previously continued to 226 so what brings us to Thomas and
maranne verlo 43 South VI Way East FMA pass for permission to construct a dock Jim yes Mr chairman the applicant is requesting a continuance until February um 26 they're still waiting for that
natural Heritage letter speaking of natural heritage Birds no move GL filter second all right we have a motion 26 yes we are Kevin I've already looked
at it okay thank you we're good we have a motion in a second to continue this until February 26 we're voting on the continuent Betsy BL filter ey Courtney bird ey Matthews
ey Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robin Z Steve p i it is unanimous we have continued this until 226 next up Jeffrey vogle 47 Lakeshore Drive he's found with mass for
permission to con construct a deck install a flagstone walkway and construct a staircase to the pond I am promoting Jeffrey vogle up to present his project his continued
project Mr vgo you're up sir can you hear me they are hello you're up hello yep we can hear you and it says on my end it says my speaker is not working for some reason so I'm not sure I can't hear anything we can hear you
oh there we go that seems to be working can hear you we can see you I'm good now thank you sorry for the uh the glitch on my end um so I'm happy to um share my screen
and go over changes that I've made since the the last time we met a few weeks ago um there were a few small changes and and just discrepancies to pick up on my end um things that weren't corresponding between the plan and the narrative okay
so I will share that thank you of course um so just to remind you all this is the property um on Jenkins pond it's a fairly steep slope going down so um starting at the top of the slope to address the staff's comments and
questions from the previous hearing um we've made a few changes um the red is what was previously proposed uh the location of the staircase and flagstone walkway um and blue is is text that has
changed since the previous proposal um so the two big changes to the staircase are um one was to relocate away from the shed uh south on the page to avoid what is not shown on the survey
but is a uh Cedar right next to the shed there um so relocating the staircase would avoid that cedar it also reduces the run the total coverage of the stairs by a little bit um we also rearranged the flagstone
walkway uh it's the same square footage as it was before um the shapes are all just approximate but connecting both the shed and the house to the deck so just slightly bigger spacing between what we're showing um moving down the stairs one of the
staff comments previously was that the um fence proposed along the back of mitigation Zone 3 here um was budding into the mitigation zone so we amended those two to show the fence outside of
the mitigation Zone uh and also by moving the staircase that mitigation Zone got slightly smaller I think it went down about 15 or 20 sare ft um and that's noted here we also noted that the ivy that's currently present there is all to be removed um to make way for the
new plantings and then the other two changes are at the bottom of the slope we pulled the stair back away from the Inland Bank a little bit um it's shown in red here we had it kind of coming closer to the
Inland Bank line and landing on a larger Landing we've reduced the size of that Landing um by a couple feet so that's a little bit smaller as well well um the last piece that I believe was addressed was the we previously showed
Filter Fabric rip wrap soil retention beneath the stair that the staff requested we we remove so we've removed that from the plants as well um we've also removed the note that caused some confusion last time about a concrete
retaining wall uh there's nothing new proposed there's only this existing retaining wall uh concrete wall That's proposed to remain we're not going to touch it it's going to stay exactly where it is and I think that covers everything um are there any other
questions concerns that I missed well let's turn it over to staff if you don't mind stop sharing for the moment please of course thank you all right Jen yes Mr chairman I think our only um
concern at this time just um from the hold over from the last that terminal landing at the end almost like it's like it's going to be like a little deck extension and we just I although Mr Bogle did reduce it
in size it's still more deck like than we would like to see on a staircase but that'll be up to the board that's all I have thank you Alo um yep just the second comment I had Mr Vogel I can't recall if you had addressed this at the last hearing um
just wondering considering the steepness of the slope what your plans are for installing the mitigation maintaining it um traversing to water it make sure it's doing well um I I mean I think as much of the
mitigation as we can locate up slope the better this kind of area um closer to the bottom of the slope is a little bit easier to access so I think kind of picking those two as the primary spots where the plantings are going to go um is would be the first part of it
but um I think having the staircase there would provide access to water the plants um if that's not sufficient you know we could run some you know temporary drip irrigation lines to get things started if that's something that
the um commission would like to see um you know to make sure it's getting ample water while it's it's getting off the ground um I'm open to recommendations there as far as best strategies to to keep it you know intact we want stuff
there to keep the slope where it is we don't want things moving so the the more the better as far as I'm concerned yeah absolutely I mean and we see drip irrigation versus you know hand watering all the time so it's probably going to be whatever is most viable for you and
um what um helps you reach as many of the plays as possible yeah personally I I would prefer F drip irrigation I think it would make it just easier for me I don't have to keep going up and down but yeah yeah that works thank you so much yep all right that and some repelling
gear you'll be all set all right commissioner comments Courtney uh I don't have a problem with the The Landing areas of sort of deck being old the idea of going up alongside of stairs and having a place to rest my
weary bones and way up as a good idea anyway I have no other comments I think it's a well thought out project thank you all right yeah I like the revisions you made Mr vle I think the the everything just looks a lot more I don't
know efficient um I don't have a problem with the with the the whatever you want to The Landing at the bottom either just so you know Kevin no additional promise thank you Mr chair all right
Ross I'm good Mr chairman Steve I'm good as well Mr chairman I think it Blends well into the existing habitat thank you excellent py nope things look great it's a nice nice
revision very clear clearly laid out thank you we appreciate clear plans yes we do yes we do I work for an architecture office so clear plans are means I'm doing my job right good so um
point of order Mr chairman what what's the Quorum for tonight's meeting for this hearing is it everybody it's everybody that's here yeah yeah I just want to make sure are you afraid that Alysa and I are not doing our
jobs no I just I didn't know I hadn't heard anything about the Quorum so I'm raising the issue sorry all right under under other business for next week we'll have a vote for uh new chairpersons all right Jen is there
anything in the public chat function please not the nothing in the public chat Mr chairman make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement third second all right we have a motion in a second to close the hearing last call
questions or comments we're voting to close the hearing Betsy by Courtney bird ey Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Russ
Steve it is unanimous we have closed this hearing thank you Mr vogo thank you all I appreciate it good night good good evening I usually only call out Quorum when there's a know to use a word an
issue you know if there's somebody that's not included that's here yeah I would just I would normally that get called on I just yeah I'm sorry okay oh it's fine it's all good next up request to amend an
existing order of conditions Joseph G marzola trustee Joseph G marzola revocable trust 2018 15 Moses Road f with mass request to amend the order of conditions for
Mass D number 25- 4826 to permit the ASB built location of the deck stairs uh Jen yes Mr chairman this um there was a
a slight um mix up when we advertised this so we do need to read vertise it we'll be read advertising it for March 5th we were going to do it on the 26th but you tend to don't want anything else on the 26
so um so that's it's my fault we'll go on the we'll go on the um March 5th we'll be re advertising it for March 5th excuse me so we need to vote on the continuance to to March
yeah um yeah I mean it wouldn't hurt even though we're going to rea I it it's fine I'll make a then Mr bird is gonna have my head so not we're not opening it Jamie so how
can we continue it okay that's fine you don't need to continue we're just going to re-advertise it for the fifth so we won't take any action har it's good all right all right next up continued requests to
amend an existing order of conditions Donna habber cornberg trustee Donna habber cornberg 2021 revocable living trust 70 Cary Lane found with mass request to amend the order of conditions for Mass D number
25- 4742 to permit a field stone wall ramps and a relocated re wall after the fact Ken yes Mr chairman I have promoted Raul
from Cen Islands to uh present this uh amended request Raul I see the rest of the team in the attendees am I put it pulling anybody else up or is it just you um yes please if we can um bring
them all up everyone okay Mr chairman I am promoting Jeff oppenheim who represents the uh property owner and I'm also promoting Tommy V from V Builders and Paul musovski from
musovski landscaping and the Quorum is all of us here tonight correct thank you this hasn't been previously opened all right R you're up sir thank you um good evening for the record rul lardi
from cap and Islands engineering and as Jennifer um just noted we have Jeff oppenheim um Tom Bose and Paul MOSI also representing the app for for this amendment um if I could
share my screen yes sir yes so the project is to amend order of condition 2547 42 it was issued in 2022 um for the construction of a pool and pool deck and retaining
walls the project is located in quet Harbor or pet Village um in the way to Woods Hall in 2022 this was the S plan that was presented to the board that eventually got approvals um this was the second
iteration of the site plan that the second hearing from conservation finally approved the project for the proposed pool pool deck and retaining walls um the project was constructed however um it was not constructed in the exact
location that it was per and it was designed according to this plans so we are asking to amend the permit to keep some of the existing features
that were as built but also to cut back some of the other features um to more closely to what was approved in 2022 so this new plan that we file for this amendment um shows what we're proposing to do but it also comp
Compares it to what was um approved in 2022 if I go in specifics um with some some of the photographs hopefully um everyone can see these photographs and I'm going to zoom into one of these
pictures so hopefully everyone can see there is a row of fil Stone um wall or fil stone that were used as a wall in this location that is roughly the location
that was designated the limit of work the original order of condition um asked for a 10- foot setback from the limit of work for the deck and the retaining wall so the deck and the retaining wall was proposed somewhere back here 10 feet
away from the limit of work um of course the fill stone wall is at the limit of work and slightly um beyond the limit of work um this portion over here was slightly filled in um as
they were building the Fieldstone wall and the block retaining wall the block retaining wall is actually about 5 feet from the location of the limit of work that was approved and the deck that's built on top of it is roughly at that same
elevation um looking at another uh of the pictures this is is the area going up around the retaining wall the wall is roughly some 6 feet at the highest point um but it was proposed to be further in
another five feet further in from the current location this field Stone um was not intended to be here in going back to what was approved we prepared this graphic and we shared it with staff originally this is
the limit of work that was approved however this was the buffer zone a now what we have in this property is a site that has a completely vegetated naturally vegetated buffer zone a so
there was no requirement of mitigation planting so long as we do some improvements to the site one of the improvements that we originally U proposed was was this green area of mitigation or restoration plantings even though it was located within 10 ft of
the limit of work an alternative that we could have done is that we could have cleared all the way down to buffer zone a put the limit of work at that location and show a 10- foot setback which would have been this green
dash line that I depict on this view that was not the original plan but in this amendment what we're trying to show is that some of these features could have still um complied with the regulations of no disturbance to the
buffer zone a providing a 10- foot offset um and still do some improvement in the form of mitigation planting or restoration plantings in some of the proposed um cleared areas that would have been like this area right
here um so one of the items that we still want to be able to keep is an access accessible ramp um this accessible ramp would have technically meet the set back to 10 ft to buffer zone a um if we would have put
the buffer zone the limit of work at the buffer zone a right here this ramp and Landing for a ramp would still meet that 10 foot setback um the wall and the deck at this location would not be able to meet that um
requirement so what we propos to do instead is this graphic that is shown on the application drawings the kind of yellowish area right here is a proposed cut back of the existing deck
five feet back to put the edge of the deck at the edge of the original deck as it was proposed in 2022 we are asking to keep the existing Ada ramp system and Landing the homeowner has some um problems with M
Mobility some disabilities so this is a feature that we want to keep um in this graphic on the top right corner we show what it compares to what was approved and what exists today so
what was approved was the wall at this location in 2022 what it sees today is a deck and a wall that extended five feet um to the to the east so that's the
areas of concern right now what we're proposing is just to move the deck but to keep the existing wall in its location remove the Fieldstone wall that was built along the limit of work and all the space between the existing block
wall and the limit of work would all be given up as um restoration plantings with Native species all of the poos work is still more than um 75 ft to to the Inland Bank so it protects the buffer zone a it
still provides some vegetation and some improvements in vegetation in buffer zone B um and we feel that a 10 foot setback for maintenance of this retaining wall is not really necessary this wall is probably going to outlast
most of the other improvements on the property so 10 foot setback is not something that will be um a necessity to really maintain this wall um but I'll leave it up to the commission for any
comments and I'll stop sharing and we have the contractor um joining us um in case there's any specific questions for them thank you all right thank you R you Ro T Jeffrey or Paul do you have
anything you want to add at this point before commissioner and staff comments I don't think so excellent Jen yes Mr chairman um this came to light
because one of the team brought it to to our attention um unfortunately um during the hearing process the board did require the applicant to submit a revised plan because the board did want to see that 10- foot no structure Zone um
unfortunately it was built in accordance with the original plan and not the revised plan that the board required um so staff we have no other choice but to say that we feel that the wall the deck the field Stonewall and
all of the fill should be removed and the project should be built in accordance with the approved order of conditions that's all Mr chairman all right Alysa um I just had a question regarding the
invasive species removal that was previously proposed on the bank um in visiting the site I did notice that there were shrubs installed but there was still um ivy on the ground um I wasn't sure who was um actively
maintaining the area and if they were still um treating and kind of chasing the IV um my name is Paul movi and uh Melissa we actually at one point we removed the IV but we didn't you know we
didn't uh spray it and we didn't put a machine on it but we dug it as best we could and then we replanted at the time per the plan um as with any Baltic Ivy uh it's going to come back and uh unless
we you know really go at it with uh you know with chemicals and uh and it's a steep slope so I you know I was a bit hesitant to do anything aside from what we did and I was hoping that the aelas and and some of the other plants that we
put in there were eventually going to outgrow and maybe shade them a bit so but we've had no absolutely no erosion on that site okay thank you thank you all right commissioner comments I'm
going to start rul just for for to be clear you're proposing to remove five feet of deck but leave that manufactured retaining wall right
we plan to we're asking to keep the the main retaining wall remove the Fieldstone wall remove the fill and move back the deck but also keeping the Ada ramp system okay that's going to be a project
getting in there to support that deck that's already on site it's already existing okay so your your plan is to go 10 ft a zone line versus the Fieldstone wall because you're taking the
Fieldstone wall down you just said okay thank you all right excuse me Kevin kind of nervous I mean it seems as though we're going to be approving something
that they just decided to do it differently on their own but I'll go along I'll keep my mouth shut thank you Mr chairman thank you Ross I'm okay with
it all right Steve St M I'm concurring with Kevin at the moment all right Betsy I'll go a step further than Kevin and Steve say that I think it should be built the way it was
approved approved courney so if I understand right what um what uh Jen is recommending is that essentially they reconfigure everything so it's built to be as it was approved
am I correct in that correct yes so and I think I mean I'm okay with that I just uh what I would like to see as a methodology for supporting that um that block wall that supports the
deck because that's um that's going to be a major operation and I I I mean I the the disturbance to accomplish this is going to be significant and I'd like to see sufficient controls in there and I'd like to see a good methodology
outlined you can appreciate that Tom as a builder and and Paul you know because I you know it's that's going to be a tricky operation to do and I think everybody's got to be on the same Pages how to how it's going to be
done to not make it too um intrusive in other words we don't want the B the bite worse than the bark that's all I have all right Jen is there anything in the public chat function please nothing in the public chat
function Mr chairman but attorney oppenheim had his uh I think wants to address the board okay Mr opheim you're upic sir thank you Mr chairman um on behalf of my client who um is
obviously uh not happy to be in this position not happy to have their uh engineer making such a presentation um I would just ask the board to
consider the uh impact on the entire project if we are are compelled to move this wall back 5 feet uh letters have been submitted by um our general contractor uh Paul
musovski that discuss the impact that would occur on the pool that is in place um this uh uh this location of the wall was not
something that my client um intended or approved um and she is disabled and she is a woman of a certain
age and the disrupt the disruption that you know the fix would cause would be be rather dramatic and um I would just ask uh the let the commission consider
these things um in their discussions and uh if in their rulings um it it's not a you know it's not a
easy position to be in obviously and um we wish we were not having to present a compromise uh to the commission but all total it's you know it's a five- foot
issue and I hope that the commission uh would be able to approve the amended plan thank you so to be clear you just said your client didn't approve these changes so somebody
just straight follow the plan did not approve the location of the wall where it is so who did it miskovsky built the wall based on the
first plan the first stamp plan that we were given work for Donna at the time it was a disconnect yeah I guess let see yes sir I'm not sympathetic at all with the
disconnect I mean why why why do we bother H listening to projects yeah and then and then have some concerns and then people come back once sometimes two sometimes three times until we're all
comfortable with what's going to be put there with the expectation that they're going to build what the final approved plan was so I'm not sympathetic and Jeff I I appreciate you're advocating for your client but I'm a movement of a
certain age also and projects are not built are not approved based on the people who are going to be living there and what they're going to do they're approved on the effect they have on the environment and we're we try to be very consistent so that people know when
people come in to us they they spend a lot of time with our staff who are very very good at giving them guidance and they know what's expected they know what the building envelope is and there's a reason why we have have these we there's
a reason why we have this 10- foot limit everybody knows that Courtney knows it because he had to deal with it before he even got on the board why why you want to have be consistent with this so I'm not sympathetic at
all if you were able to put it in you're going to be able to take it out and build it the correct way and that's my position on this this thank you all right any other questions or
comments I may you're up Sir hi uh Tom Vos U I'm the contractor of record for the building permit for the retaining wall because it exceeded six feet um and I don't like this position I
don't any more than any of you do uh I would just say that uh there's no more increase of impervious area I do believe that this was placed in error I don't think this was trying to get one by on the commission oh no uh and I think that
if there were ever a scenario that deserved relief this would be it I think um that it would be catastrophic to remove that wall I think the pool will have to be replaced if that happens I think it will be I if there were any time never a time
for Relief I think this might be the scenario so I would ask the board for that that's all thank you okay thank you excuse me Mr chairman it was there was no benefit to me movy to Build That
Wall in the wrong place okay there was a disconnect between myself and the engineers which the engineers didn't in fact I had five Engineers that worked on this project all of which have signed off on
the project as complete and done to spec the problem is we built the wrong plan and it wasn't intentional there's absolutely no gain for me to do that job in that the way it turned out so I
apologize did you have an order of conditions that referenced the plan that was approved there was an order of conditions and at one point we got the order conditions yes and it and it references several references a a
particular plan that was approved Betsy I there were several iterations of that plan of which I was not involved in any of those writings excuse me okay I just want to make sure you didn't get cut off Betsy
oh I'm just yeah this is what the procedure is Tom Tom and Paul have worked with the Conservation Commission before um and you know that you're
supposed to follow the plan of record and before you start a job you should compare what it says in the order of conditions with the plan that you're going to be working on Betsy I understand that and there were at at the point that when
we started this there were several iterations that were going around between Donna Mrs cornberg the the pool contractor and the engineering firm okay and at the end of the day we
didn't get the plan that was supposed to be built yep and and that's the gist of it all the other engineering was based on the plan that I worked on including the stone the block wall retaining wall
the deck engineer built that the soil compaction engineer and the overall site engineer for the soil compaction we all worked together there wasn't a single oper there wasn't a single moment when
anybody from Capen Islands came to me and said hey your your walls in the wrong place they were the engineer of record none of those Engineers looked at the order of conditions no they didn't look at the order conditions no they
look plan well I yeah I I I I don't know I can't explain that all these Engineers worked in harmony to build what we built and the the at least two reports that I that I have one from the pool company
and one from the engineering firm that designed the block wall system that has been approved at you know to spec have said if we move that wall the pool is going to go
period there's not enough room to Build That Wall oh all right R you have your hand up yeah I just wanted to add so when we get the other condition we did review
the order condition and we do forward the order condition along with the approved plan to the applicant um we do not know once an order or a project is approved who eventually is going to do the work so we just provide the information to the
applicant um and that's where we sent the approved plan with the order condition now that that's irrelevant at this point um but something that I wanted to touch is um it was mentioned that if the wall the entire wall has to be relocated the entire pool has to be
rebuilt um the wall is actually deeper in the ground than the pool to relocate the whole wall you have to dig deeper than the pull so we can't keep the pull um or structurally supported in place to
move the wall um that extra five feet um so one of the engineers that provided a letter to Paul MOSI says that um they don't recommend moving the wall um unless everything gets
rebuilt um so that's where where we're standing that's why we're asking we're moving the deck we asking to keep the wall where it's at okay commissioner comments question I'm
sorry Jen when the staff signed off on the building permit the building permit reflected the revised plan so the building permit that was submitted reflected the approved
plan that is what the staff signed off on when we approved the building permit just to let you know the approved plan or what was built the approved plan Kevin the one you approved
okay so Jen the hold on Courtney the the um the 10- foot limit of work to follow me here the 10 foot limit of work that we want is going to remain unvegetated correct well the the the 10 foot no structure Zone that the board
wanted you know 5et of it is is going to be vegetated because what they're proposing is to keep the wall that encroaches into yeah that's not where I'm going with that though they want to use a Pon no so they are going to vegetate the
remaining part of that no structure Zone up into the wall is that what you're asking Jamie I might not be following you yes and no so risk of sounding like I'm telling those how to do his job if
that manfactured wall was taken down to the lower grade in other words not not excavated completely um you know he could pour footings and support that that deck that's sticking
that's can Levering now um I'm not sure that really gets us where we want to be though I mean it just shouldn't have been touched but how do we get a middle ground here um I I'm just kind of thinking out
loud cour you add your hand up yeah um along the lines of what you're saying Jamie I'm sort of trying to think along the same line um perhaps pouring a um
concrete wall That's adjacent to um the block wall that supports the deck but it's all almost in the same plane as close as you can get um it' be an8 or 10 in wall it would extend from
the edge of the of that manufactured block to out 10 in and that would be that would support the the retaining wall and it would get rid of the wall so we'd get that so that that would be
something I'd like to see work through you know I don't want to design it sitting here right right right um but um in other words there are some solutions here that need to be done and I I don't think we can let it go and the other
question which is I have for Jen on that building P permit it cites the plan of record does that site what's the specific languages it say the plan of such and such a date with a revision date of so and so how is that
worded Courtney I can get that information for you we can show you the building permit plan the building permit plan basically had and Alysa help me out here it basically had
a kind of um like a cutout of cap and Island's plan showing the distances so it had the the plan the the the plan that was put into the building department I believe and I haven't
looked at it for few court so forgive me we can get you the information we can show it to you it had the block wall um what's the word I'm looking for Jamie Courtney um I guess the specs the specifications for
the block wall right but where the block wall was supposed to be installed was the little kind of cutout of cape and Islands plan that showed the correct distances off of our Zone a
but I we can we can provide that information to you Courtney okay so you can see it so that that feels with the building permit now the order of conditions that you issued I assume it's cited the correct specific plan with a
specific revision date it did that correct yes okay but they're not denying that my mindes the train yeah we're not I'm not we're not denying of that the problem I just want to be clear about that yes another another part to this problem
Courtney is with the pool itself is not only the bonding which is a copper wire that circulates in and throughout the pool which was done by fronius and then the the the pool water system which is
out from the pool at least 5T closer to six which there is some photographic you you should have that in your hands or not we don't Paul we don't have any all right well I any documentation from you regarding the
poll so Jeff when you said that there was a letter provided to Paul we don't have that letter so whatever the poll company provided to Paul we don't have that okay so Jeff oppenheim didn't get that to you I because I I got it got
sent back to me from your email address when I sent it Jeff did you send that to us no I asked Paul to send it to you no I didn't have her address no you didn't We're not gonna listen to YouTube bicker all night
so don't even go there Mr Mr V you had your hand up question comment uh I I think I'm I'm good now I was just gonna repeat myself sorry thank you for the opportunity you know it's it's a tough
situation but you know Paul to your comment about you know Excavating you know you you're five or six feet out still has to find a way to get footings in there to support that deck well it's a so don't interrupt me
excuse me I thought you were done be a way to support that deck no matter what so I don't think that's an issue for us anyway um the stand I mean your application stands I mean it it's
you're asking to keep what was put in incorrectly so it's something that we've got to consider I guess all right any other commissioner comments or questions staff
Steve Mr chairman my position is we ought to rethink this plan maybe come up with a different solution otherwise I'm going to deny it okay all right Mr opheim I saw your hand up Mr chairman I I would defer to our
our engineer on um the wisdom of continuing this to see if we can come up with a solution that uh the commission might approve okay so from what I I'm sorry
Kurt oh R you're up okay um so from what I'm hearing um if the commission position is to revert back to what was approved then it doesn't help to continue because going back to what was
approved was just sticking with the current order of condition um if the commission is willing to allow some modification to this amendment um would the commission allow
at least the Ada access ramp that still meets the 10 foot setb back to buffer zone a to be the amendment and we propose the wall and the deck the rest of the wall and
the deck to be relocated per the original plan because at this point if if everything is going to go back to the original permit from 2022 then there is no value in continuing this amendment
because there's there's nothing to approve that's different than what was approved I I'm willing to approve the Ada ramp yes I mean that's something that could have been approved if had it been presented initially but if you if you want to
continue it then to come back with another engineering I'm I'm not convinced that there isn't another engineering solution that you could remove that big wall that's there and still retain what
you've done with the pool I mean I'm not an engineer but I've seen Engineers do amazing things so I think it's a little bit of imagination on on your part you
you you specifically Raul and you and your engineering colleagues R we would need a revised plan anyway keeping the ramp and then showing the wall being push um back into
uh its previously approved um location so we'll need a revised plan showing that so I do think a continuance might be in your best interest so right I I do want to hear from the contractors to see if they they
want to Su proed that route um because I see the value and at least amending the permit to keep the the Ada but um I like to hear from Tom and Paul maybe you should do that after this meeting yeah yeah let's do that Courtney
so you know this is one of these very much unfortunate things I don't think anybody my own feeling is I don't think anyone here acted with intentional malice it was one of those screw-ups but there's object list and you guys are got to be damn sure that you know which plan
you're supposed to be working with and if you have any questions rather than proceed you ask I mean that's the object lesson here now we've got a tough problem to resolve by CH but normally we would turn around and say as Jen suggested take it
out because if you didn't do it the right way we realize that I realize at least I'm not going to speak for the rest of the commission I realize that um that presents some real technical challenges however I think there are
some engineering solutions that could be worked out and I think I think we if we continue this I think it's incumbent on you to work with staff and with your engineers and come up with a a plan that
that um brings the brings what's on site and what's actually built more in line with what the original plan was approved and if there has to be a variance for um structural issues and I'm speaking only for myself now um then you know the
commission can consider that um I I don't think we just we can't solve it tonight I mean obviously there's a that you guys got to got to continue it but I I think there's an engineering solution that um can be worked out that that
meets our concerns and brings the plan more in line with what was originally improved maybe it's not exactly but you know um we'll get we'll get a far enough so that everybody's comfortable that's my two
cents that was like $4 worth R what are you thinking um so yeah I I I think I want to ask for a continuance um I believe there's there's some room for an amendment um and I'll review this with with the
contractors to to the next available hearing I'm hearing correctly that will be March 5th correct so I request to continue um to March 5th at the request of the applicant I make a motion to
continue this hearing to March fth bird second all right we have a motion in a second to continue this till March F last call questions or comments sorry did you guys hear me my screen just flashed so we have a motion in a
second to to continue this hearing till March 5th last call for any questions or comments all right we're voting on the continuance Betsy BL fter ey Courtney bir ey Matthew's ey Kevin O'Brien I Russ
Robin's ey Steve p i it is unanimous we have continue this until March 5th thank you everyone thank you thank you Mr [Music] chairman all right next up hearings
under an enforcement order been previously [Music] continued j a second well I think we made a few people unhappy tonight next up vote orders of conditions first up William and
Elizabeth's scel 314 quet Avenue found with mass the Quorum is all of us here tonight yes Mr chairman let me get caught up
314 quet just rebuilding the dock at the National Academy of Sciences now private residence so you just put the normal things in about yeah I mean there was um right what are dep the only thing the only question we have
was um over the salt marsh they were just proposing some spacing between the boards um given the fact that the dock is so elevated above the the the salt marsh um our only concern from a staff
standpoint was is that going to be enough light for the salt marsh and Betsy I do believe at the hearing you said that you weren't concerned that there should be enough light the way it's oriented and everything like that Sal March has been there for a long time I think yeah changing it isn't gonna
reinvigorate perfect all right anything anybody else have I'll make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed heard second all right we have a motion and a second issue an order of conditions last
call questions or comments we're voting Betsy welder ey Courtney bird ey Matthews ey Kevin Brian I Ross Robin ey Steve it is unanimous we have issued an order
of conditions I got to tell you I I did a dock recently where we used the 50% light penetration on the entirety for consistency and you know some of the new products out there are kind of nice you know they look decent but you know what
I like about it it's easy to caim you know with all the birds and everything I mean and it it's not uncomfortable or anything I I I know why more people don't you know are opposed to it anyway because you know it looks
silly to go you know 22 feet with 50% and then go the rest of the you know 80 feet with with solid it just to me it just doesn't look right do the cost the same Jamie no it's more money but you know yeah Dock's 100 Grand what's what
what's the difference if it's 106 Jamie if you wouldn't mind giving us that like a spec for that product or just letting us know that would be great yeah but and there's different manufacturers well I'm not trying to sell a product I'm just you know oh yeah
yeah just I don't know like a wood deck to TRS or TRS like something you know there's different ones you know yeah um because some of the first ones that came out were um I want to say it was it was it was punctured uh what do they call
that punch metal so it had like the size of quarters like like raised I don't know how to say it dimples so it it was tough on your feet you know if you're Barefoot or or wearing only thin neoprene shoes or
something but the new stuff you know it's as the guy that has to clean it I'd like it a lot better anyway that's my sales pitch so you can reach me at800 all right next up
Joseph and Lucia Gian Grasso 55 Little Island Road West pal of mass so this was the pool that the the patio was constructed and then they removed the patio because it wasn't permitted they're coming back
with a pervious patio in the zone B which technically according to your regulations doesn't require mitigation but I mean um does the board feel that what was proposed that kind of system where it was those different layers with
the piping underneath Jamie does the board consider that to be truly pervious that's manufactur you know yeah thing um but they were offering mitigation anyway weren't they not for the new patio it was just the mitigation
that was previously required that they ripped out okay yeah all right Courtney you one of the concerns that I had raised in the hearing is that essentially it's pavers sitting on top of this perious surface
underneath and there are spaces of about a half an inch between each each brick so that that is where the water flows through the problem I see with that is it's a great idea until the leaves fall
off the trees and so on and clog up those those uh cracks between the the gaps between the bricks then it's no longer a pervious surface and so I'm not that's the only catch I have now can you
require them to maintain that um that's a good question and I I think that's something we need to consider in terms of the order conditions that's my only comment on this well it's not a lot different than grass papers or or pervious asphalt right I mean according
to manufactur works just fine and you know nature takes its course I mean but but it requires M no all it doesn't work just fine it works just fine if it's maintained properly yeah so we put a condition in
there that they have to maintain it for the manufacturer effects well yeah because the actual P the brick itself is not pervious it's where the comes is in the spaces between
the so if that gets clogged up it it you've defeated the whole purpose of the thing y we we we all understand we all understand what the issue is so I agree I agree that it's
we they want I'm happy with that perious no in in theory this is one of the things we're working on in the regulations but right now this is
allowed and so I agree that something should be put in there that this is what the system is and a special condition that it needs to be maintained you can put that in I just don't know how you're going to enforce it but we you're not you're not yeah
which is why we're looking to change that rag right correct so I'll make a motion to issue an order of conditions as not yet I'm not going to issue I'm not going to make the order yet until Alyssa
tells us what she needs thank you um just based on the last discussion considering we have um lost some mitigation requiring a single ra offense might be prudent um also considering it's a violation having the
plants installed by a DAT certain um perhaps sometime in the spring y yep yes Jen and Alissa is it a single ra fence is not standard conditions No it should be okay
I mean I I always understood that there was something was required whether single rail fence I know on one project we allowed some small Boulders and I don't know there was else um I don't know I think we should always have that in there because you know I
mean they sorry but they blatantly pulled it all out but there's some people that just simply creep you know um all right Courtney yeah can I come back to this patio for a second no the
you're right putting a condition in there that it's going to be maintained as impossible to enforce I think what we put in there is that they got mitigate for the patio and if they don't like it they got to come back and amend it there's no room to mitigate for the patio according there's absolutely
absolutely no room the patio is too big it there's no room for any mitigation for the any patio which is why they originally didn't propose a patio because they couldn't mitigate for it and then they got yeah I I'm not
comfortable approving it unless we can figure out how to make sure they can maintain it because it works as long as it's maintained but I also agree that's unenforcable that's the problem this we're caught between a rock and a hard place well it's just like any other
project I mean we approve stuff every every Wednesday night and yeah some of some of the stuff isn't enforcable and some of it comes back to us for an enforcement order some of it comes back for amendments like the hearing we just had so I don't know anything
else all right Betsy well I don't think I finished I I don't think I finished my my initial uh motion which is to approve as discussed
second all right we have a motion in a second to issue an order of conditions as extensively discussed last call questions or comments we're voting to issue an order of conditions Betsy told R Courtney bird no
Matthews ey Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robins ey Steve all right it is 51 motion passes we have issued an order of [Music] conditions next up Chris Smith Clancy
construction 318 CET Road fouth Mass and the Quorum is excludes Russ tonight sorry Russ and we still have five so we're good uh this is the raisin rebuild off a
sipis it road kind of a going to be doing a new house patio um the question was whether or not the board felt that they overcame the presumptions of significance in regards to the Coastal
Bank and I believe the board did um so in that case we'll need a revised plan because their mitigation calculations are going to change drastically um to the point where Alysa
are they even going to require mitigation I don't think so it won't it won't require any mitigation so we'll um if the board decides that they overcame the presumption of significance in regards to the Coastal Bank then we will
request a revised plan with no mitigation or they could choose to leave it or they could choose to leave it that would be nice if they're listening okay questions or comments all right what are you thinking
um I'll make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed second and Jen can call these people and give them the option we'll
uh we'll strike a deal how about that what we'll strike a deal how about that perfect okay so we're we're gonna issue with a with a variation here that either way they do this I'm confused as
to what we're approving well you're approving the the raise and the rebuilt Courtney yeah the issue the issue at hand was if the board felt that they did not overcome the sub uh presumption of
significance in regards to that Coastal Bank now remember I showed you a picture yeah yeah yeah Buzzard's Bay it goes through a wetland into a pond underneath CPA whet Road into another Wetland and it's up here it is at the very landward
reaches of that flood zone um it is separated from Bard's Bay and Flume Pond and everything by cisit Road um the Wetland scientist um made a presentation that he
doesn't believe there's a hydraulic connection because the Culvert is actually at a higher elevation than the Wetland itself so um if the board and I do believe at the at the hearing you did decide that
you felt that they overcame the presumption of significance in regards to that that's what I thought postal bank then they do not under your calculations require any mitigation okay so that's what we should
approve that's what I'm saying that's what we're we are approve wasn't sure based on as discussed what it was we were actually approving that's we we were just saying that if they wanted to add that extra planning they were
welcome to and they could I would certainly welcome that to all right now I understand what I'm voting for thank you I'll if there's a second required I'll do it already set we have a motion on a second issue in order of conditions as extensively now discussed any other
questions or comments we're voting to issue an order of conditions Betsy B filter ey Courtney bir ey Matthew's eye Kevin orrian Ross oh sorry Ross Steve
I is it's not yeah it's unanimous with this Quorum we have issued an order of conditions heuss I'm just trying to keep you engaged yeah you know all right next up Michael Bard 27 Sycamore
LLC 27 Sycamore Street P of mass and the Quorum is all of us here tonight raise and rebuild and then the mitigation need to be more kind of towards the wetter F wet
species because there's a load depression in the area where they want to put the plants stop cutting on great ponds Coastal Bank and I think that was it there was a
question about there's two driveways or two garages there three garages there two driveways and three garages garages yeah and but the question was how many driveways and there were no
driveways to start with but now there are two driveways and three garages got it I'm more interested in the fact wet plants so raise rebuild fact wet plants yeah it was pretty straightforward project it
is anything anybody want to see in there all right Alissa thank make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed third second all right we have a motion and a second to issue an order of conditions last
call questions or comments we're voting to issue an order of conditions Betsy what R Courtney bir ey Matthews Z Kevin Brian I Russ Robin i s Steve mat and
I it is unanimous we have issued an order of conditions GRE ly next up last up vote second on the last up vote amended order of conditions Gano Fedora 258 Edgewater Drive East
East fouth Mass second Mr chairman I just saw my paperwork on this one and I lo it right here stone wall in place of a wooden wall yeah a wall but there was some other Alyssa did we need a revised plan
for Mike to show that extra P next to the house yes he did need to update the plan um based on the photos in the staff report that sort of just back deck man-made wall feature was extended with more impervious surface
and originally approved so that that will require mitigation and he's also going to be submitting just a general um mitigation calculation just so we can confirm that the right amount will be reinstalled yep okay all right questions comments
anything anybody want to see in there make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed word second all right last call questions or comments we're voting to issue an order of conditions an amended order
commissions Betsy what ey Courtney bir ey Matthews ey Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robins I Steve I it is unanimous we
have issued an amended order of conditions thank you everyone last motion who wants it and move to motion toour second blood fter ey thir ey
I Pat and I it is unanimous we are a germ thank you everyone [Music]