Heat. Heat. Good evening and welcome to the March 4th, 2026 meeting of the Fmouth Conservation Commission. The M 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 please uh be cognizant of what you say, how you say it, what can be seen and heard in your background.
Uh we are missing one uh commissioner this evening, but we can move ahead with this quarum. The chair acknowledges the absent of commissioner. Never mind. I'd like to remind the commissioners
that for commenting you will call on each of you in turn. 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 recorded will be made on the motion of the second.
Even if you made the motion in a second to public attendees at any time during the meeting, you may enter any comments or questions in the chat function at the appropriate time. They will be read into the record. If an attendee you'd like to participate in a particular hearing, let us know in
the chat function. Then at the appropriate time, you will be prompted into the hearing as a participant. When you are selected, you must have your video enabled and must uh be succinct and respectful of others. Public comments will be limited to three minutes.
Regarding RDAs, I think we don't have any tonight. So, um I will skip that part. All right. So we have a full complement minus one
commissioner and if I can move to the agenda. First item of business is other business. Vote to support the municipal vulner vulnerability preparedness MVP planning grant. Jen.
>> Yes Mr. Chairman. I am promoting Josh Wrigley up. Josh is the town of Falmouth's coastal resiliency specialist and he's here to talk a little bit about the MVP grant and ask for the board's support. >> Hi Josh. >> Hi Jen. Good evening Mr. Chairman and
commissioners. Uh thank you for having me this evening. Um, I come before you tonight because I've uh I've submitted a draft uh letter of support for an MVP grant that I'm
currently writing and hope to submit in this uh funding cycle for water mane resilience adaptations uh in the surf drive area. Um I'm sure as you're all aware um Surf Drive is a low-lying uh
erosionprone uh coastal roadway and um there are ongoing planning efforts for the future of this area. But one of the challenges that um you know we're facing is that there are utilities that um
serve an important function for the town and also run beneath some of these um you know vulnerable stretches of um uh Barrier Beach and Coastal Dune. And so what the grant would do is to um fund
resilience adaptations that would include the construction of a new 12-in uh water mane um running from Surf Drive and Oyster Pond Road to um Oyster Pond and Woods Hole Road uh from Surf Drive
and Elm up to um Elm and Woods Hole Road and also include the installation of a 10-in gate valve at the corner of um Mill and Surf Drive. And what that would help to do is uh give the town some more
options when it comes to um planning in response to any catastrophic storm damage in the future. um for Surf Drive. Um with the water man right now that runs underneath the roadway, um if that
were shut off, then uh it would create a um decrease in water pressures and flows uh along the uh roadways, Oyster Pond Road and Elm. Um and would also have further reaching effects as well east of
Mill um and uh toward Shore Street. Um and so these uh adaptations would um make it so that if that water man were to be shut off um you know by necessity someday in the future then uh then that
would be possible without uh depriving those uh residential areas of the water pressures that they have now. um and would thereby avoid creating um any water insecurity and would allow those areas um to have water pressures where
the Fmouth Fire Department could effectively fight fires. So, it's a it's a public safety issue. Um it's a resilience issue. Um it's a couple things wrapped into one. >> Great. Thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions? Jennifer,
>> I have one quick question. Josh, are is this the planning grant or is this an action grant? Are you doing a planning and an action simultaneously? >> Yes. Uh two grant processes right now going on um simultaneously. We just
received our award of $103,000 for the MVP 2.0 >> uh program that I had applied for and um we're now embarking on that and then uh this this action grant is separate. >> Okay. Excellent. Thank you for clarifying that for me, Josh.
>> Certainly. >> So, Josh, is this So, the other grant was a plan around the sewer in the same area. This is a grant around the water in the same area. >> So, this Yeah, this is a grant that's focusing on resilience adaptations for the water main specifically.
>> And it's moving it's putting it back up to the to the main that runs down Surf Drive and moving it north basically. >> That's right. Yeah. It's it's you could think of it as uh as contingency planning. that's contributing to um future planning efforts for the future of Surf Drive.
>> U so that if the Surf Drive water man had to be shut off at some point, then you wouldn't have negative impact on uh areas on Oyster Pond Road, Elm, and then east of Mill. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Are there any other questions?
Can I get a motion to support the planning grant? >> Support the MVP plan action grant. Driscoll >> Bman second. Okay, I have a motion and a second to support the municipal vonerary planning grant. Should we also say action grant?
>> Please say action grant as well. >> Planning and action grant. If I could amend your order, Mr. Driscoll. Thank you. Um, so we have a motion to second. I'll call the role. Ron >> Driscoll I. >> Ronnie Bman I.
>> Dave I. >> Jim >> McGrath I. Dan Paul Shai and Pat. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Josh. >> Good luck, Josh. >> Thank you, Josh. >> Thank you very much, commissioners. I appreciate your support.
>> Thank you. >> Have a great night. >> Okay, now we'll move to voting minutes. Uh the first one is February 11th, 2026. Anyone have a chance to review it? >> I reviewed the minutes. I' if with your
indulgence I'd make a motion to approve the minutes of February 11th. If I could get a second >> Bman second. >> Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh with a motion and a second approve the minutes of February 11th. I'll call the role. Ron >> recuse Driscoll.
>> Oh yeah. Thank you. Ronnie >> Walman I. >> Dave >> Tai. Jim >> McGrath I >> Dan >> Paul Shai >> and Patton I and again vote the minutes of February 18th.
>> Again I reviewed the minutes and I'd make a motion to approve the minutes of February 18th with your indulgence. >> Patman second. >> I have a motion a second to approve the minutes of February 18th. All in favor say I. >> Nope. I call the roll.
>> Ronnie Ron I. Ron's excused. Ronnie Dave >> ti. >> Jim >> McGrath recused. >> Okay. Dan >> Walsh. >> Pat and I. Uh uh with this quorum uh we
approve the minutes of February 18th. Now we're going into a number of uh continuences. A request for continuance for determination of applicability. Uh Devon Court 77 Suit Road Famouth mass
for permission to install a new Title 5 septics sewage disposal system. Jen Alyssa. Alyssa. >> Alyssa will take it. >> Yes. The applicant has requested a continuence until March 25th. >> Okay.
>> So moved. Driscoll second. >> Okay. I have a motion to second to continue this item until March 25th. Ron >> Driscolli, >> Ronnie >> Bulman, I >> Dave >> Danti, >> Jim
>> McGrath I >> Dan >> Bshai >> and Patton eye. Thank you very much. Uh the next item is uh Michael Lasi, excuse me, 30 Bever Berkeley Drive,
Famouth, Mass form permission to reconstruct a deck and construct a roof over the entryway. Melissa, >> the applicant has requested a continuence until March 11th. >> March 11th. So moved. >> Bman second.
>> Great. So I have a motion, a second to continue this until March 11th. Ron >> Discali, >> Ronnie >> Bulmani, >> Dave >> Panti, >> Jim >> McGrath, >> Dan >> Shai,
>> and Patton I. Thank you very much. Now we have a request for continuence of notice of intent. Brian McLaclin, Famouth Pier 37, Inc. 101 Scranton Avenue, Famouth, Mass form,
replace and relocate the bulkhead. remove a portion of filled title lands and expand the existing dock system. >> Mr. Chairman, this the applicant is requesting a continuence until March 11th. We've received the plans and we
have submitted them to all of you. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> This was so moved. >> Bman second. >> Great. So, I have a motion and a second to continue this until March 11th, having received the plans. Ron >> Escali, >> Ronnie,
>> Bulmani, >> Dave, >> Tanti, >> Jim, >> McGrath, >> Dan, >> Walsh, Shine, >> and Patton. The next we have a request for a continuence under notice of intent from
Robert and Carara Martin trustees 58 Westwood Road LLC 58 Westwood Road Famouth Mass for permission to conduct invasive species removal and install restorative plantings.
Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. The applicant is requesting a continuence until March 25th. We did meet with the project team out on site. They have submitted a revised plan. We are meeting with them again uh over Zoom next week to to
fine-tune the plan and we will hopefully be presenting to you uh they will be presenting to you on March 25th. >> All right, Driscoll. So moved. Bman second. >> Thank you. So I have a motion and a
second to continue until 3:25. Ron, >> Mr. Chairman, Dave has a question. Can I ask one question? >> I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, David. >> This is a complex project. Last time we had it. Can you characterize the progress? How are things going? >> They're going
a tough one as I recall. A lot going on there. >> There's a lot going on. We're hoping to to make some additional um adjustments to the plan when we meet we meet next week, but um
we'll see. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Uh, Ron >> Driscolli, >> Ronnie Wai, >> Dave Kai, >> Jim,
>> Graphi, >> Dan >> Walshy, >> and Pat and I. Thank you. All right. U, we've done the two continued requests for determination of applicability. I don't have to read them again, do I? >> Um, you you should, Mr. Chairman. Uh,
well, >> we already did it. >> Just call them off and you don't have to read the whole thing. Steenport continue request uh 77 road has been continued until 3:25 >> correct
>> Michael Lessie 30 Berkeley Drive found with Mass has been continued till 311. The next item is a request for hearing under notice of intent. Um oh here we go. I got to get this.
All hearings of the Fmouth Conservation Commission are held simultaneously under the authorities of the Mass Wetlands Protection Act and the Fmouth Wetlands bylaw. Although a single decision of the commission is issued, it represents a
separate decision under each authority. Um, so the item is Steven Augusta 33 Oyster Shell Lane, East Smouth, Mass form to install mitigation plantings. Chen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I promoted Mike
Gorellia from Felmouth Engineering, Angela Tanner from Crawford Land Management to present their notice. >> Welcome. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the commission, for the record, Mike Borcelli, Felmouth Engineering, and I represent the applicant
along with Angela Tanner of Crawford Land Management. This is a notice of intent application that was filed in response to an enforcement order issued against the property at number 33 Oyster Shell Lane. Some of you may remember the
property. We had have been before you to talk about it under the enforcement order uh process. Uh we've also had a a series two or three meetings with your staff
uh about various uh items and we uh submitted the plan and notice of intent that's before you tonight. Just for a real basic brief history, an order of conditions was issued for the property to construct a single family
dwelling. Uh the work proceeded. It required mitigation planting as part of it. Um the mitigation planting had been installed. Um time went by. Uh a certificate of
compliance was never uh submitted after the work was complete. Um the required mitigation planting at the time um was flooded by um some significant
storm tides and um basically all of the plant material um did not survive and it was never uh replanted. So, um, the plan I'm about to share with you is going to go through, um, where
where we are now and how we got to that, uh, place after having, um, the meetings with your staff. So, with your permission, I'd like to share my screen, >> please. >> I'm sharing with you
the Felmouth engineering plan. is an accompanying plan by Crawford Land Management that uh Angela can share or I have it here as well. After I make my uh presentation, I'll turn it over to Angela. Properties at um 33 Oyster
Shell. It's kn also known as lot three um with frontage on Bourne's Cove Lane. It has water frontage on Bourne's Pond. There's an existing dock. is uh an expansive lawn area. On the southern
side, just south of the lawn area, it are wetland resources, including a BVW and salt marsh. There's a non-eroding coastal bank that runs through the property. In the associated notice driven zone A's and out of buffer zone
B's are also um on the plan. um during the review process for the uh lack of mitigation planting being in place. Uh in addition to that
deficiency, um other deficiencies were discovered by your staff that we we attempted to address in the notice of intent. Um we've and I'd like to go through those with you, but first
um we've itemized the imperous surfaces um and we've proposed to remove some impervious surfaces which uh results in um a reduction in the required mitigation planting. We've shown that in
blue it's just under 2500 square ft. The details of the mitigation planting are shown on the Crawford plan. We're also showing an area in green which we've characterized as uh mitigation planting
uh in the form of shrubs to re uh take the place of some previously required trees uh from the original um permit application. Part of that application
um required a series of trees to be scattered through the existing woodland. Um they are not there. Um and at during our discussions with staff there was a logical uh alternative to
that that made more sense and that in was shrub mitigation that we were proposing on the coastal bank. And this uh location. Um the net result of all of this is um
20 just under 2500 square feet of mitigation in blue and then ju uh just over,300 square ft of mitigation for the tree um mitigation. the um staff report
uh I received last week um had some issues that I can walk you through. I don't think they're too too significant. Um there is one to
really consider with some in some detail and I'll talk to you about that in a minute. Um so just briefly the staff comments.
Um the first one um says oh it's a question did we include the generator um in the mitigation calculation and the answer is yes. It's hard to tell
because the shading is so faint but this this is the generator this small area and it was counted. It's it is shaded. it's in the it's in the um outer buffer zone B. So that was part of the calculation. And then there was a
comment about an area of reinforced grass >> that I am going to um trace with my mouse here. This dashed line, this this entire
area is grass. Um there's a driveway that leads to the grass. And this building has garage doors. And they're not daily use um garage doors.
They're um boat there's a boat stored in here. There's some uh maintenance equipment like uh lawnmowers and things stored in the lower level. But on occasion, uh, access to those
garage doors by a vehicle, in this case, a pickup truck, was necessary. So, um, this area that was grass, the applicant modified the grass to what we're calling
reinforce grass area. And there are different products on the market, but it's basically a reinforcing grid um with what I'm going to call like a honeycomb
uh surface that top soil is put in and lawn seed and it's basically grows grass and it reinforces the turf so it doesn't get um eroded away if it
gets soft from rain um in vehicles can more easily traverse it without causing um it to get degraded and eroded away. So it's basically
like 2/3 of the surface is actually grass and about one/ird is this honeycomb system in this case which is like concrete blocks. But if it were growing in grass and not snow
covered uh depending on the time of year I would I would challenge you to even know it was there depending on how close you were to it looking at it. but it effectively is like grass. Um, and I believe it's permeable.
Uh, your staff's going to have a different opinion about that. And their concern was that that is not impervious. It's technically not pvious. It's technically impervious
and it's it's moving closer to the resource area. It's within 100 ft of the salt marsh. its overall area is just approximately 1,300 square ft.
Um, so there's a staff comment that's questioning why we said it's only 430 square ft. And the reason is that we calculated it to be only onethird of it is actually technically impervious. The
other two/3 is grass. So, we didn't count the whole thing as impervious. That's that's to respond to the sta that staff comment. Um, there was a staff comment that um
the existing edge of vegetation wasn't shown. I agree. For whatever reason, here's a here's an existing edge of vegetation and for some reason it dropped off over here. I can add that back to the plan.
Um, there's a question about where the edge is over here. I might have to I will have to field survey this edge and double check it, which I can't do quite yet because of the snow, but I'm hoping that we keep getting melt and I I will be able to do
that in the not too distant future. So, there was a comment about that. Um that segueed into a reference to a um a previously required buffer strip, a 5- foot wide buffer strip that was
associated with a permit for this dock that I wasn't involved with. So I need to get a little clarity from your staff about that. I have to show that clearing line and I think I can I can deal with that and solve that problem um
relatively easily. There's a comment about topography not being on uh adding the topography to the plan. I I think it's on there, but I I want to get a some clarity from your staff on that because the contours are shown on here, but I don't want to bog
you down with the minutiae of that. I can go through that with your staff and get that clarified. There's an unpermitted float. this outer float is not permitted and there's there's a a comment that it
can't remain and we we won't argue about that. Um if if we want to explore that in the future, we'll explore that separately or attempt to permit that separately. There's there's a comment about the spacing on the required mitigation 4T on
center. Then there's two other um comments that I can zoom in on to give you a little bit more clarity. Uh one is relative to this driveway.
If you look closely on here, I know there's a lot of lines. Um, this green line that I'm tracing is the 100 foot no disturbance zone A. And your staff noted that
a portion of the driveway creeps over the 100 foot no disturbance zone line that I'm tracing here. There's a little bit of driveway. There's actually a drain pipe, a French drain here to to to
intercept the water. and that is uh 37 square feet. They think it needs the staff thinks it should be removed. There's also a reference to a portion of a patio
that is underneath the deck associated with this house. Uh, if you recall, this is a garage under building. So, you actually can drive under the deck into the garage
doors, so the deck is above your head. Um, there's a blue stone surface under the deck, and when it was constructed, a strip of it creeped over the line, and I calculated that to be about 25
square ft. uh your staff thinks that should be removed as well. So, I'd like to make a case that um I'm hoping you could allow these two strips to remain.
I'm not going to argue vehemently about it. Technically, I suppose um they are within the 100 foot no disturbance zone and should be removed, but in my mind, they're dimminimous areas, but if you think they need to be
removed, we would it could be a condition of your of your order of conditions to have them removed. It would be unfortunate because it's so minor. This drain would have to be dug out and reset and we'd have to saw cut out this bit of pavement and
this little bit of blue stone to do it. I'm just looking at the staff report as I'm talking to you and I think that sums it up. I really think it comes down to
um reestablishing the mitigation plant thing um and and hoping you can consider allowing the reinforced grass to stay in those two minor um infringements.
I do need a I will be requesting a continuance so that I can sort out a couple of details in the staff report. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Angela and then we're both available to take questions.
>> Mike, oh, I was just going to say since you had it up, if you wanted to share my plans. >> Oh, I'm happy to. Yeah, I can do that. Okay. >> One second. >> Might be easier. Um, I'm Angela Tanner from Crawford Land Management and we did
the planting plan for the two mitigation areas that Mike had mentioned. >> Are you seeing it now? >> Uh, yes. So the area that is um at the top of the
plan that's immediately adjacent to the existing woodland was the proposed tree replacement area. We did the um ratio of shrubs that were um that was stated in the enforcement order um which we had
helped come up with was basically 3.75 shrubs per every tree that had been required. And it's a mix of various species that should provide some biodiversity and wildlife support. And
then the area toward to the bottom of the plan is the required mitigation area which we will need to adjust the shape of that slightly once Mike is able to update the plan with that existing vegetation that's over in the corner.
And um the quantity of shrubs there was just based on the previous permitted plan. Um the it was proportionally the same number of shrubs per square feet. There was a staff comment that said that
that will need to be 4 feet on center. So um we felt like the shrub species that are in there, they're all shrubs that colonize and they all um get fairly wide. So, we felt comfortable with the quantity um and the spacing as shown,
but if it needs to get tighter to fulfill um a requirement, then we can we can add some more plants in there pretty easily. Um and that I think that pretty much sums up our strategy, our planting
strategy. >> Thank you, >> Jen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Angela. Few questions and comments.
Um, I would like to share my screen, Mr. Chairman. Uh, what I'm going to show you is an aerial photo from April of 2025 of that paper system. Mike, you know, we
you know, we're going to try to try to our, you know, kind of concerned about the paper system. So, I just want to show you a few things. And then the second, uh, the second one I'm going to show you as well. >> Um,
can everybody see that? >> No. So this this is from this to me looks a little bit more than one quarter of of hardscape to to pvious surface Mike. Now I will go to the next one which is
September. Looks better. It looks better. Grass is coming in. Um but if you do look at it without the grass growing I do think it's a little bit more um than that one quarter. I'd also like to draw the board's attention to this.
Part of the mitigation strategy is to remove this shell path which is clearly providing the applicant tr uh a way to tr to get to the dock which I just measured and is 395 ft away from this
point. The applicant was concerned when he was moving his trucks and his equipment that that that he had to have this pa area because it got all muddy and the and the grass wouldn't grow because it got all
muddy and driven on. How is the applicant going to if they utilize a little golf cart type thing going to drive over the grass to get to the dock? So that's one concern I have that it's
one not practical for the applicant and two um you know uh might see a shell path in the future. I I don't know. So I have some concerns with the mitigation strategy about removing that shell path.
It's clearly used. It's clearly there for a purpose. Removing it is just probably not practical for the applicant. Um and again the paper system was moving closer. It was very clear in the first hearing that line that's why
that deck is angled the way it is is that that was that 100 ft um no disturbance zone to the salt marsh and it shouldn't be crossed and it was crossed you know without regard. Um
the float does need to go Mike. Um it it just can't meet the regulations. Um there just no way around it. If you'd like to come back and try unfortunately the the regulations are clear on that one. >> Um >> Yep.
>> Yeah. Um yeah, we're going to think hopefully the snow will melt and you're the survey crew will be able to go back out. >> Yeah. >> Um and we'll provide some clarity on the the topography and the minutia of that. I think our biggest concern was one the paver system, the moving closer with the
impervious surface. Um my concern with the shell path, I I I just don't see how realistic it's going to be to remove that. Um and then all the rest of the staff comments pre-construction and things
like that. But um I think you're getting we're getting there. Um we just need to do a few more tweaks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Chairman, could I like just comment on one thing that Jen brought up, >> please?
>> Okay. Um, so I I had a heart-to-heart with the client about the mitigation. Um, he his grass is been there forever. Um, he whether some people like grass or not, it's a
it's a Cape Cod lawn. It's not fertilized, but he likes the view improvements. He wanted to do anything he could. It was more important to him to try to reduce the required mitigation than to have the shell path. Now, the shell path,
the purpose of it is to have a golf cart. It defines a path to the dock, but it's a it's unlike going to the garage. It's simply a golf cart. And I think we all know that golf carts traverse lawn
on a daily basis at golf courses. That's why I persuaded him if he wanted to reduce the amount of mitigation planting, he needed to find something to give up. He happened to have the
ability to give up a pre-existing uh what you characterize in an AON as an impervious surface. So he elected to do that to reduce the impervious surfaces. A golf cart can traverse over lawn. It's
like done every day at golf courses. The only other way to do it would be to demolish and remove the paved driveway and make it crush stone, which would be another way, but he made a decision to give up
the shell path instead. So I I understand what Shen's saying, but I think that you can traverse a a lawn with golf cart and and and do it. He just he liked the shell path that it
wasn't like it needed to be there and he was willing to give it up. That that's all I have to say about that. >> Thank you, Melissa. >> Thank you. Uh just one note on a staff report comment for the commission. Uh just drawing your attention to that
reinforced PA system area. Um that is moving closer. A portion of that is located on the bank. So an actual resource area was altered for its installation. Um so that or your regulation should be restored to its
original uh condition. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, commissioner comments. Ron, >> yeah, a couple things. M Mike, I know the golf carts go over grass, but that's such a wet area and uh at my golf course when it rains, you don't take the carts
out because it'll just wreck the place. Um I don't know. And second, the mitigation area that's just so long and straight. Why is it so long and straight? Couldn't you make couldn't you make that a little bit squarer or rectangular or um would that help at
all? Um well the edge of the resource area is long. Um so that was one reason and also the homeowner was um they they use that area for their grandkids playing and they were hoping to preserve
as much of the flat usable area as possible. So it was a it was a combined, you know, way of kind of edging the whole resource area and then also still allowing them some usable space. >> Okay. Just just a question. That's all I
have. Mr. Chairman, thank you, >> Ronnie. >> Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Angela. Uh, touching on that the mitigation area to the south in blue. What was planted there before that he lost Mr. Augusta loss? What type of plants were there? Do
you know? >> Um, yeah, it was it was the your typical mitigation plants. Um, I don't think any of the plants that were in there were inappropriate necessarily. Um, if I had to guess, I
would guess that because the plants were not irrigated, they probably experienced severe drought before they got flooded. That would be my best guess. >> Okay. I'm just a little concerned about Mr. Augusta trying to put this to bed and spending more money on all that
mitigation than losing it. We have a lot of um salt marsh um plants in there. We have the hide bush and rose mow which all should >> I mean nothing is going to tolerate
um indefinite flooding but um they should withstand some pretty tough conditions. >> And I guess you already answered I was just concerned the elevation there. Would it make more sense to go north? But he wants to kind of hold on to the lawn. Obviously, we want mitigation
closer to the resource area, so that's covered. Uh the path I I think with a golf cart would be fine. A truck go going across the grass, I think, would be an issue. Um and I'm still up in the air about the impervious and pvious of
the the reinforced grass area. To me, it seems pvious to me. Um, and then the encroachment, obviously they're going to have to get outside that 100 feet, so something's going to have to be done there. So that's all I got for now. Thanks.
>> Very succinct. Thank you. Uh Dave, hey Mike, do you by any chance have a picture of that reinforced area, a closer picture? I think many of the people on the some of the new members haven't actually seen it. I've seen it. You've seen it from a from a from a hype in the air. Do you don't have a closer picture of it, do you, to explain it to
the newer members? I wish I did. I do not have any close-up pictures of it. >> I guess maybe I would I would encourage you next time we we meet again, maybe you could bring a picture of that. I know you can't, but you can't take one now, can you? >> Well, maybe I will by the time that maybe I can before the hearing. >> If you could get one, I think because I
know there are some members who haven't actually seen it, you know, and that could probably help. I'm just going to say, generally speaking, to me that seems like the dominant issue here because I remember in the last meeting we took this very seriously. We had a long conversation about it. If if my memory is correct, the uh the spirit or
opinion of of the committee commission including our staff was quite negative on that and it did go closer. Angel does now remind us that it was on a coastal bank. So your presentation, Mike, I think you made quite light of it, but I don't think that jes with the attitude
we had in our last meeting. So this seems like the dominant issue to me. I don't know if anyone else everyone else here agrees. And I don't speaking for myself, I don't think the commission is with you, Mike, on that yet. I don't think so. So, it seems to me as far as going forward in working staff and such and for our next meeting, I think that
that particular issue needs to be addressed. I don't know if other commissioners would agree or disagree with me on that, but that's the way I read it. >> I hear you a lot and clear and I would I that that's why this is a hearing to get your points of view. If you as a
commission feel strongly about it, then it can be a condition that it be removed. >> Well, I don't express that opinion. I don't know if any other commissioners want to want to agree with me or disagree with me. Seems like that's a serious issue for us. I believe >> I agree that that's the dominant issue. Yes. As far as the shell path goes, he's
electing to remove it. Whether it's >> Yeah, that's not a big deal. >> It's muddy or not. I mean, that's his prerogative to remove an impervious surface. I >> I I I one quick question on the on that path. Doesn't that start on on the neighboring property? Doesn't that path start next door,
>> which he happens to own? Yes. Oh, he owns that as well. Oh, I see. Gotcha. Okay. >> Um I guess so. Um Angela, I guess what you're saying is that um that lower mitigation area if they keep it watered should be robust enough to handle the kind of tides that heard it last time.
That that's kind of what you're saying. >> Um I would say yes, that um it needs irrigation for the plants to become established. If they're not well established and they don't have a good root system, they're not going to survive flooding. It's it, you know,
it's not a guarantee that anything in there, you know, we could have a catastrophic storm event that just comes in and wipes everything out, but they'll generally be more established and resilient if they have. >> So, maybe Jen, should we put in our order of conditions eventually to to to
revisit that, make sure it was it was irrigated and is doing well, do you think? >> Because like Ronnie said, >> we can we can address that in the order of conditions. I mean, I think Angela's plan calls for an above ground irrigation system, does it not, Angela? does. >> Yeah, it does. >> I'm sorry, Angela. I missed that. Okay,
got my questions. That's fine then. >> And if I could remind the commission that there will most certainly be a condition about monitoring reports. >> So, don't don't don't forget the reason that mitigation died. It it wasn't like
an everyday occurrence. It was an extraordinary event. And it was a it was a king tide storm that flooded the ground surface is only elevation on average three and it it it breached that elevation. Um
and it was sort of like disheartening to the applicant to have all that just die and he he never replanted it. That doesn't make it right, but that that could happen again. But we're trying to be uh proactive in the type of plant
material. And if it had been irrigated and maintained and a little bit more uh uh you know had more strength and vitality, it might have been more resilient to the flooding. >> It sounds to me like Angel's irrigation system, which I'm sorry I missed that
Angela is going to address this. So, thank you. I guess I'll end now and just say I really think we need to focus on this um this area right behind the garage. That's the big issue going forward. I think >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Jim. >> Yeah, I kind of agree with Ronnie. I I I
think the car path is, you know, removing that is fine. I don't think there'll be an issue with going back and forth. How many times are they they're going to do that on a rainy day? And I've seen these pavers before. They are pretty pvious. um grass does grow up through them and
at some point the the grass kind of takes over. You barely see them. So the fact that it goes on to the coastal bank I've got an issue with but other than that I think it's okay. >> Thank you Dan.
>> So am I Hang on a second. Am I on the quorum on this one? >> Yes. >> Okay. So >> this is a new item tonight. Correct. >> Yes. Yes, >> the notice of intent is a new item. >> Thanks for the question, Dan. I appreciate it.
>> Mike, is there a base underneath those essentially the the the reinforced grass or is it just dirt? >> It's just dirt to my knowledge. There may be. I didn't I didn't uh witness its installation.
>> Um I expect it's uh compacted virgin material. There might be some crushed stone under it. I don't know. >> Okay. I the reason I ask is I have the same ones in my yard and I know that when you go over them with a vehicle they don't stay stable. So if they stay
stable they probably do have a base underneath them. But if he's putting a boat in there I bet that there's a base underneath it that's making it impervious. So I think that they probably need to come out. So that's that's where I'm at.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, and I am am more on I I believe these are impervious. We've had this discussion in our forums um outside of the council formal meetings, but I believe these are uh
pvious potentially material and I think we ought to have a further discussion about that when we get the final plan together. But um I I think I think we should trim back
the areas that exceeded into a and deal with the coastal bank issue. So I agree with many of the comments tonight. So uh what date are you considering continuing this to Mr. Burcelli? >> Um
>> did you want to ask for a continuence? I'm sorry. >> Yes, I do. Uh I did say that at the beginning. Um, >> I thought you could have changed your mind, but >> uh I know you weren't putting words in my mouth, Mr. Chairman. I did say it. >> Um
Um >> a little bit. I would think >> the 25th might be a good option. Um or the 1st of April. Uh maybe the 1 of April to hedge our bet against the snow melt. >> Yeah, I'd love to get out there.
>> Yeah. Yeah. see it. >> I think first of April would be a good >> at the request of the applicant. I have um a request to continue this hearing um until April 1st. >> It is April Fool's Day. I don't know if that means anything, but
>> it's my lucky day. So, >> I make a motion. I make a motion to continue to 41. Is that what we're doing? >> Yes, we are. >> Yes. >> I'll second it. Driscoll second. >> Okay. Okay. So, I have a motion and a second to continue this item until April
1st. So, I'll call the role. Ron >> I, >> Ronnie, >> M. I, >> Dave, >> Tai, >> Jim, >> Grath, I >> Dan >> Walsh, >> Patton I. So, we have a unanimously
approved continuance until April 1st. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Mike. Thank you, Angel. >> Mike. Night Angel. >> Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Angela. Uh, the next two items, uh, continued requests for hearings have previously
been continued. Brian McLaclin, uh, Falmouth Pier 37110 Scranton Avenue. Uh, this item has been continued until March 11th. U, the next item, Robert and Cara
Martin, trustees, 58 Westwood Road LLC, Westwood Road, Bmouth Math. Uh this item has been continued to March 11th. Um the next item is U Mike Jackson, excuse me, Chapoy Yacht Club, Inc.
501c3, West Fmouth Harbor, West Fmouth, Mass for permission to install three seasonal floats in West Fmouth Harbor. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jackson is here um to I think give you kind of a
progress report of where he is. Mr. Jackson, if you have problems sharing your screen, I have your slides up for you um if you need me to assist. >> Thank you. >> And you're on mute, sir. >> Mr. Jackson, you're on mute, sir. We had
We cannot hear you. >> There we go. Thank you. >> There you go, sir. Okay, thank you. And and commissioners, I appreciate your time. Um, can I what I'll do, Jen, is just quickly uh level set kind of where we were and the
priorities as we left the last hearing. Um, and I'll use this slide that we used in the last hearing which shows our proposed moing area. Uh, the West Falmouth dock, the main channel coming into the harbor and the channel going into the upper harbor because I know
there's been some concern that we're potentially interfering with that channel. Um the two primary issues that I took away from the last meeting were one uh detailed depth information um and
two uh input direct input from the harbor master and the shelfish constable. Um we've made progress on both and I'll give you a quick update on those um and our plans going forward. Okay. So this next slide is uh
the update on the the uh survey data. Um I recognize that this data is older than uh staff's uh looking for and we're prepared to do detailed infill data um on that. Um, but let me just explain what we've got and and what we've done
working closely with uh uh CR Environmental uh who was a contractor to Buzzards Bay Coalition in producing this uh very detailed baometric survey of the harbor. The original survey which came out in April 22 used a um vertical datim uh
that was a standard North American vertical data 88. Um and what uh CR environmental did for us and produced uh on Monday uh is this revised version that has the datim to mean low low water
which is essentially the uh mean of moon tides lows um over the last 19 years. Um so if you if you look closely here, this is the channel coming around the corner. This is the flat here and another deep
area running down part of the flat and I've got a detailed view of that. This is the detailed view. Um it zooms in using their mapping protocol. So there's more data than shows up there, but uh it's pretty clear that the
channel um you know has uh uh about four to six feet uh along this area. And then this low area is kind of a box canyon with a shaw up here, but a deep water in this area here. Uh, and this is where um
in conversations last fall with with um Chuck Martinsson, uh, he recommended that we move the original locations that we proposed to the harbor master further south and west to get to um these mooring areas. So just to wrap up here
on the depth issue, um this is the area that we would propose to be looking at was greater than four feet. This is a very wide uh opening here, so maybe 600, 700 feet. These are pretty far apart. There's plenty of room to put moorings
in here for sailing floats. These will only have the used sailing boats on them. um that will swing um potentially uh you know in a very tight area depending on how the moing set up. So the basic design would be
three to four depth four to 3 to 4 foot depth at mean low low water using a helical screw and a bungee supported chain. Um that's that's the eco mooring and if uh required for an aft um
moorings for these um uh floats in order to reduce the swing area, you can see there's no way that they can swing several hundred feet over into the channel. Um but reducing the swing area uh if it turns out to be important to the shelfish uh constable and and to the
harbor master, then we're willing to come up with a way to do that. So, we've got plenty of area to work with that's deep enough uh to meet the requirements. Um, so that's the update on the uh on the um the depth data. Um recognizing
that this is uh 22, it was April 22, so it's coming up on four years old, we would do a infill survey in this area, probably using CR Environmental. We also have a proposal from Cape Island Engineering to do that with little GPS.
um um boats that they that the robots that they put out there. Um the the the the plan would be to do that as soon as it opens up ideally because eelgrass is deciduous. Um it would be nice to do that later in the spring. Um which is
one of the reasons that we're hoping that we can make this a condition uh and a requirement to get the survey data to you confirming the depths. um and uh at the same time be in parallel working with the uh Upper Cape Tech students to
build the floats uh this spring for use in the summer. So that's it in a nutshell. Um I appreciate your time and thank you. Any questions? >> Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson. Um
if you could Who's still on the screen? If we could remove the screen. Jennifer. >> No, that's not me. Mr. Jackson, can you stop sharing your screen, please? Sir, >> sorry. I'm just not a uh >> Oh, there we go. Right there. I got it. There we go. >> No, no worries. No worries. So, the
board needs to determine whether or not the information provided is what you are looking for. Um, you did ask for survey data. Um, the board needs to determine if this is sufficient for you. Um, Mr. Jackson, we
still haven't received any comments from Chuck, but you're saying you did speak with Chuck. >> Well, actually, he did send an email to to you and >> email. Yeah, >> a short email, but the the the the real thing is for Chuck uh and um the harbor
master, Greg, to uh to have a conversation. And because of Greg's uh situation right now, I don't think that's going to happen right away. Um so, we definitely are looking for continuence uh until you have that input. >> Okay. Thank you. So, we will be
continuing that for Chuck's input, Greg's input, and um if the board uh wants to close this without that concrete water depth data, um I think that the two main points we have are
water depth and shellfish. Um and and that's what we're looking to kind of button up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Jim. Alyssa. >> Uh, just to note that we have received other um public correspondents. They
have been submitted to the commissioners and have been placed into the record. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I don't think we've ever received so many letters on on one subject before. I'm sure of it. >> You did on the gate. >> What? Oh, on the gate.
>> You did on the gate. >> I'm not sure. >> Also in West Felmouth. >> Yes. Right. The bike path gate. >> The bike path gate. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, if we could um commissioners, if you have any questions, comments,
let's just go through. Ron, >> I'm all set. Thank you, >> Ronnie. >> Yeah, Mike. Thank you. I think we're definitely going to need a little more clarity on the water depth from uh Capeen Islands and uh definitely going to need a shellfish survey and I think that's going to have to be a
professional outside entity other than the shellfish constable. That's all I got. Thank you, >> Dave. Thank you, Mark. >> Dave. >> Yeah. So, uh so Mike, Sierra Environmental is going to do the depth study once once we have clearance
though. Is is that is that accurate? Um, we're looking at two proposals. We we're waiting for the CR environmental. They worked so hard on preparing this data for the hearing that uh they hadn't been able to get us a proposal yet. >> Okay. >> Um, so I mean Jen Jen kind of said we we
need the um commission needs to decide if this is the information we need, but we haven't got that information yet. So, and and that's the most important issue, I think, I believe. >> Um um I guess we have one more question. I got a question from the public. I'll pass it on here. Um, someone said to me
that they thought that this is more for Jen perhaps. Um, I think we can't build a pier in in a velocity zone. Is that true? >> Um, is it makes sense then to say why can we do it for peers? I mean for for
floats. If we can't do it for a pier, why can we do it for a float? >> Right. >> That's a question I got. That that that's a good question and I think that's what we're struggling with right now, Dave, is um
you know, Greg um issues 10A moing permits. We usually see we don't get involved with like moorings for boats or anything like that because there's 3,000 of them all over Felmouth. Um but Greg
Wool, you know, he does approve um like swim platforms, you know, somebody wants a 10x10 10, you know, something swim platform for the kids to jump off of and he will approve those under a 10A moing. They
can't be there can't be a ramp that goes to it. They can't turn it into a makeshift dock. I don't believe you can, you know, uh, like leave a boat on it or anything like that, but that's something that, you know, Greg, um, does.
They're in velocity zones. I mean, the shoreline's a whole velocity zone. Um, >> so by that by that >> the issue with docks is they're they're fixed structures. They're on pilings. There's a debris there can be debris
caused by them. um in this case they c these things can be moved if there is a large storm event coming they can they can be moved >> so the answer is so the answer seems to be it's not appropriate to go if we
can't do peers why can we do floats the way to go is we do floats we do it now and we approve them we do already approve them in velocity zones so that's the uh angle we will go to approve does that make sense >> well the board doesn't because you don't see
you don't see 10A morning permits. You've never seen 10 a moring permits. >> Um Greg will occasionally if he thinks they might be problematic, reach out to the staff if they're close to the salt marsh or something like that and and we'll and we'll work with Greg through
those issues. Um but again, docks have pilings, they're fixed structures. Um they can potentially cause a lot more damage to the resource area. um if they become
dislodged or dismantled in a severe storm event. >> Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. One last last thing. I know a lot of comments are coming in an awful lot. Maybe not as uh is it is it accurate to say concom responsible for three things. Depth,
eel grass, and there's one more I forgot. What's the last one? >> Shellfish. >> Shellfish. >> Shellfish. Right. Those are our three areas that we have to be concerned about as our commission. Right. because a lot of other comments are coming in, but they're all thought of things like these peers. We're not responsible for those
things, are we? Is it really just those three areas we need to be concerned about? >> The the three areas are the major things that are are are are um that this project would would fall under is water >> for this commission.
>> Yes, for this commission. Anything about the transfer of moorings, >> right? anything else like that that is that is outside the purview of this board >> including my question about the floats because that's really more in in the harbor master right >> well we do we do approve floats that are
attached to docks Dave that there are some docks that have the floating sections because of you know the the fluctuation in water depth at a certain area especially in West Falmouth where you're looking at like a 4 foot um title range you'll see a lot of floating
>> I gota We call them floating docks, but they're fixed peers with a a floating section to them. Um, but again, they're attached to a fixed structure can cause damage in a large storm event. These are kind of hail moorings offshore, like
further away from the shoreline, less likely to cause severe damage. >> I gota Okay. Sorry for so long, guys. That's it for me. Sorry. >> Thank you, Jim. Um, I'm going to reserve judgment until
we get more information, but I certainly hope the water depth is is is enough to uh to make it happen because I spent a lot of time in that harbor and uh watching those sailboats race up and down that that place is it's pretty special.
>> Thank you, Dan. >> Um, I Mike, I have a question for you. So you said when you were showing us the baometric data that that was low low tide, but the report says that it's high
tide. So I'm trying to understand what's the data for really representing in that baometric chart. I mean we still need to get up toate data that makes that clear. But if that's really high tide, which is what it says in the introductory
paragraph on that report, and it's only what's it show? four, five feet in that area and the tidal range, as Jennifer just said, is four to five feet. They're going to be sitting on the dirt. So, I'm just trying to figure out whether or not
the the data you sent supports your objective because it seems like there's not enough water to be able to make this work. >> Yeah. So the the um I don't I don't know if that
North American vertical DATM 88 is the actual high tide or if it's just a standard DATM. Um but when I saw it, I said to the engineers that this isn't what the Concom needs to see. What the Concom needs to see is mean, you know,
the moon low. Andre, >> so they produced this second map that adjusted the datim to show the moon low and if you compare the the depths, you know, from one slide to the next, um, they're they're a few feet different.
Um, so I think I think I feel very confident confident that this data is good for the time and then the question is, you know, what kind of scouring or change has happened in the sand flat uh, in the last four or five years, >> right? And I'm not debating what your slide showed. I'm looking at the report
and just going the report in that area says 5T and the title swing is four to five feet. So it's you're not going to get three feet underneath that. >> Even if the title swings less, that's all I'm getting at is I'm trying to save you time and try to go Wait a minute. Where am I really? >> Yeah. I I'd be happy to try to get
professional surveyor in to explain that for you, Dan. Um you know, next time we get together. >> Yeah, I think everybody said that. That's why it's so critical, just because the numbers don't seem to add up. >> Yeah. I I will say that I went out there in uh September and in I and I talked
with the shellfish constable about this. Uh that's where I learned that the eelgrass is deciduous. So, you can't make an eelgrass uh observation in the winter uh very effectively. Um but at that time, I was in this same general area and I found over four feet at low
tide in September 17th. Um, >> so there's a lot more water here than than you would expect because there's you can see that. Well, you can't see it, but I'm looking at it. There's some very shaw stuff just moving it towards the town pier from um where this area is proposed.
>> Right. Okay, I got it. Okay. >> Thank you very much for the feedback though. >> Thank you all for your comments. I also benefited from a sailing club. Although it was in Worcester, Mass. It did save me a summer some 30 years ago.
>> So um or two actually. But um so how do we want to proceed? Jennifer Mike. >> Um I think the board is going to was looking for additional information. So we will need another continuence. Um
I don't have my calendar. Alyssa, you're going to have to help me out on this one. Uh oh, wait a minute. No, I have this. I can use this. Uh, >> don't Okay. The request was that we move forward with this pending the results of the survey.
>> I think that's what Mr. Jackson would would hope, but we do still need for for Mr. Jackson said a continuence for for Chuck's comments um for him to meet with Greg. Um, >> I think >> there's two choices. We've either closed the hearing tonight with the information
that's provided and the board condition the the um OOC on a future water depth study which >> that doesn't sound good. >> No, which runs against >> or we continue it. Mr. Jackson, we don't
meet on the 18th. We meet next week, but I don't think you'll have your survey done. Would the 25th work for you? And then we could get like a quick update and hopefully you'll have some more information on your water depth by that time.
>> Uh yes. >> Okay. 25th. >> We'd like to keep it as tight as we can, Mr. Jackson. >> Yes. We're trying to keep this going. I appreciate that and I appreciate it. >> It may not seem like that sometimes but um so if I get a motion to continue the
>> motion to continue the hearing until March 25th >> second. >> Okay. So I have a motion a second to continue this item until March 25th. I'll call the role. Ron >> I >> Ronnie >> Bowman I. Dave
>> Gant I >> Jim >> Grath I >> Dan >> Walshy >> and Patton I we have unanimously supported the continuence of this item until March 25th. Next we have continued request to amend.
>> Thank you Mr. Jackson. >> I'm sorry. >> See you. >> Are you done? Jen, can I go on now? >> Yes, you may. Continue to request to amend an existing order of conditions. Michael Smith and Yvon Chung for
Whitmore Avenue, Famouth Mass. Request to amend an order of conditions for mass D number 25-5003 to conduct invasive species management, remove and replace several trees and plan aella screening trees.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman, I promoted Mark Dib from Capen Islands Engineering to present his continued project. Hi Mark. >> Uh good evening everybody. Mark D with Capeen Islands Engineering. Um here to present the uh continued amendment uh
request for for Whitmore A. Uh with your permission, I'm going to share my screen please. Okay. So, about a year ago, maybe a year and a half ago, um we were in front of this commission uh for a new septic
system that has been in installed, has a clean two nitrogen reducing system. Uh one of the best systems out there. Um there was also a second floor addition uh on this portion of the house as well as there was some
some conditions on site uh some paneling under the house where water was supposed to flow in and out things like that that have been worked on and brought into compliance. Um there was also some removal of shell areas uh things like
that that was approved. Um the I don't believe the order was closed out, so we're amending this current order. Um and what the proposal tonight is to um replace a couple black pines uh out
in this area of the project. Um they're uh not the healthiest pines and could be susceptible to disease, things like that. So, we're proposing to replace those um with new trees. Um the main
portion of the rest of the project is some invasive management in this green area um as well as a row of um red cedar trees that would go along the
neighbors um parcel. We did receive uh some staff comments. Uh we also met with the staff and the landscape uh installer Reposa landscaping who also does work
with the the neighbor here. So um some discussions uh regarding you replacing the trees. Um one I think the kind of the biggest topic was that there's there is invasives throughout
some of the rest of this property. Uh it is a pretty large property off towards the water and there's still some area in the back. Um we are not currently proposing to manage this entire area. So
um we are proposing a kind of a demarcation line using cedar posts um to to delineate uh the extent of the management of um the invasives management as well as to assess the
health of the restored um area once the invasives are done. Um that is key. you know, ongoing maintenance uh is key to the project and we talked through it and that you know identified the installer.
Um but so with that I think I can uh stop sharing and answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you Mike Mark excuse me Jennifer. >> No uh like Mark said felon and I met with Mark and Paula on Zoom and I think
all of our concerns and questions have been answered. Thank you, Mark. >> Melissa, >> nothing at this time. Thank you. >> Thank you. Commissioner comments. Ron. >> Oh, looks good. Looks like a good project. Great. Great to work together with the staff.
>> Ronnie, I'm all set. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dave. >> I'm all set. Thanks. >> Thank you, Jim. >> No questions, Mr. Chairman. >> Dan, thank you. >> No questions, Mr. Chairman. And I don't have any questions. Are
there any comments other than that? No. >> So, uh, before us, we have a request to amend the existing order of conditions. >> I'll make a motion to amend as
discussed. >> No, no, no, no. You make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement. >> We'll make a motion to close and take under advisement. Thank you, Jen. >> Second. >> Thank you. So, a motion to continue take this under advisement.
>> Um Um and take it under adisement. >> Close and take it under adisement. >> Close and take it under advisement. >> Thank you, Ron. >> Bris, >> Ronnie, >> and I >> Dave, >> Jim, >> I
>> Dan all shy. >> And I also agree. So that's unanimous. >> Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night, Mark. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Mark, >> thank you, Mark. Good night. >> Continue hearing under an enforcement
order. >> Uh Seall Lane Community Association, Zero Davisville, East Famouth, Mass. Uh unpermitted clearing, cutting, and construction within the flood zone. and win the buffer to a salt marsh. I'm
sorry, that's Matt Marshall 40-11-013-0000 >> as a note. The quorum is Dave, Ron, Ronnie, and Steve. >> Oh, uh, chairman, I on the, uh, West Falmouth one. I don't know if was Ron part of that quorum.
>> No, we missed that. Too late. We'll correct the quorum on the West Falmouth one. >> Okay. Sorry about that. >> Yeah. >> Hello, Tyler. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, commissioners. Uh Tyler Gdro, environmental landscape solutions
representing the applicant CEO Community Association. Um we prepared the mitigation planting plan. And if I can share my screen, >> please. And so, uh, we met Jen on site. I
believe this project was brought before you as a previous notice of intent for a a dock extension which was denied. And the, um, staff found that there was some clear unpermitted clearing within both the buffer zone and a flood zone. Uh, we
we spoke with staff and we got a a surveyed site plan and prepared this mitigation planting plan. This green area, the little bit lighter green hatched area is within the uh 0 to 100 of the salt marsh, which we propose uh
the 4 foot on center. It's about 2,230 square ft. Uh in addition to that, we propose uh some shrub mitigation outside in the flood zone. Um mostly in these areas were attached and then the individual shrubs were outlined. Um the
lighter green hatch is a a meadow seed mix. Uh one of the staff notes uh was that there was a switchgrass that was in there. That was actually an error on our end. So we'll correct that um in when we when we propose that seed mix. Uh in
addition, there's a small patch of Japanese knotweed that uh staff requested be part of the mitigation. uh this project we would probably propose a a stem injection of a wetland approved herbicide. It's a pretty standard uh
operating and notwe can be pretty can be pretty nasty. So the I believe the use of herbicides would be the the best case. Uh in addition there's two uh patio areas that um the homeowners are
working with staff to um submit RDAs. This plan would be under the assumption that those are approved. A and lastly, there's some area of uh stone that's existing within the flood zone. All of the crushed stone is proposed to be
removed. Uh there was one question about this area that um is just outside of number 55. This is an existing landscape. There's um some ornamental plantings, but there's also some native ink as well as red twig dogwood. So, the
reason this is uh left empty is we wanted to just leave the the landscape plantings that were there. They're they're not harming anything. Um and happy to answer any comments or questions. >> Thank you, Tyler.
If you could um >> Yes. >> close your screen, please. >> Jen, >> I'm gonna let Alyssa take this. She's been leading the enforcement on this one. We both have actually, but >> Alissa, do you not have
>> Thank you. Um, yes, Tyler, thank you for joining us tonight. Apologies for not having a quorum the last time. Um, just to go through the staff report here. Um, let's see. You're going to add where the knotweight was. That's great. Switching
out the switch grass. Um just a clarification on the patio component at number 55 in accordance with the building commissioner and the association that overlapping patio has been removed. Um it's the one down
towards number 57 just looking for a formal um request that the association is looking for this commission to approve that hardcape in the flood zone. >> Yes. So I I believe the homeowner is doing that themselves. Um but I can
clarify. >> Okay. Um let me see. And then so as you are here giving the presentation um are you contracted for the work going forward?
>> We haven't contracted with them directly. I I don't see that we wouldn't but um it's just that I would say that they would contract with us or you just have to have a qualified professional. Sometimes other companies take over work. It's just the nature of the business. Um.
>> Sure. Understood. I was wondering if there's a a management plan in place then cuz I'm wondering who will be maintaining the plants. I understand that the work might be taking place by adjacent property owners and by someone who will be installing them. I'm just wondering are who being association
property. There's so much access over there. I'm wondering who's going to be watering them and making sure that they're growing as they should. >> Sure. So we we as part of how we we typically work is we uh provide a temporary irrigation system. So each of the homeowners has agreed to use their
outdoor spigets in order to keep the watering. We usually do one or two years of um a temporary irrigation system. Something like this with the the the quantities we probably do an overhead irrigation which would be sufficient. Uh
but in terms of maintenance, I I know this isn't a formal application, but it could be something that is conditioned that the watering be done. Um and again that I think that note of a qualified professional, we would qualify under that. And uh but if they decided to work
with another contractor, they would just need to follow this this plan. >> Understood, Jen. >> Um Gary Mcnotton and has been promoted to a panelist. He is the president of the association. Mr. chairman and also
the homeowner at is it 57 Gary? >> 57. Y >> okay perfect. >> Yeah, >> he had his hand raised I think in response to the question about the irrigation. Thank you Tyler. >> Yeah and I think Tyler answer I mean we'll work with Tyler um you know we've
enjoyed working with Tyler. The intent would be to continue. I would ask um you know that it be Tyler or a qualified professional but whatever is necessary um to make sure that this established you know gets established and satisfies the commission is what we'd be committing to doing.
>> Sure. Understood. Yeah. It'll help us in um in writing up the you know permitting information if you know we can just add a couple more details should it be passed on to someone else and make sure all the eyes are dotted and te's are crossed. Um
let me see considering the the nature of this the staff would recommend that the condition that the commission condition the work done by a date certain um obviously monitoring reports um Tyler in the staff report um cword of
number 57 I did circle sort of an area of pre-existing plantings that have you know disappeared over time so the staff is recommending that that's approximate square footage um be reinstalled in addition to what is being proposed. Uh just a note for all unpermitted
cutting to stop. Um and staff has met with Tyler and Mr. Mcottton on a couple occasions to review this plan. We would like to see tree material proposed. Um trees have been removed on these sites as can be seen
through the aerial photos over the years. So having some proposed for installation would be best. Um the staff is also looking for additional shred material to be proposed in the flood zone. Um back when the dock process was
occurring um staff was under the impression that the entire property was to be planted um not necessarily a thicket of shrubs but there was to be a meadow mix that was going to be left to grow. Um, at this point I do believe
that whatever is not in the green shaded area is proposed to be maintained effectively as lawn. Um, so the staff is looking for a little more to be added to the plan and perhaps the commission can
um comment on that as to their opinion and perhaps a quantity or percentage of additional plant material. Thank you. Thank you, Leslie. >> Yeah. Could I comment on a couple of those items?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, thank you. First off, I did want to thank staff. This has been an amicable process and, you know, we've been working, this has lingered on a long time before my role as president. So, I wanted to thank them for their, you know, assistance in getting to this
point through this process. Um, a couple of things. A lot of the area that's in question, you know, there's the area that Tyler pointed out that is within the 100 foot buffer that will be completely restored. That's never been a question. Um, a lot of the other area is is AE flood zone and I think a lot of
times that AE flood zone is front of in front of this commission and you know it's only AE flood zone is is typically the treatment of that. So, as you know, a lot of it's been cleared since the '9s. Um the area behind 57 that was
highlighted on the staff report that was landscaping. You can kind of see how it was reworked through the years um that was ornamental landscaping that existed behind that house. Um so it was never any it hasn't been anything native since sometime in the '9s and and I would point out when it was cleared before
2014 it wasn't most of it wasn't even flood zone. So you know as the association is responsible for this cost because it predates the current owners myself included. Um so the association is picking up a lot of this work and you know we have I have a fiduciary responsibility to ask that you know the
amount of work that we're required to do particularly within the flood zone um be minimized you know no questions we will restore the buffer zone uh 100% nobody knew that was buffer zone there was nothing done with malicious intent and you know as I pointed out in in our
neighborhood discussions you know waterfront or waterfront abudding properties don't come with homeowners manuals and I I think some people did some things without knowledge. We're much better informed about that. At the end of this process, we will have a plan that clearly shows what should be back there. And we're making that part of our
association documents so that the current and future homeowners will know exactly what those limits are and what they're not allowed to do um in those areas. So, we just ask again the the least amount of fiscal impact that we can incur as an association is is my
primary charge. Thank you, Gary. Okay. Uh, commissioner comments, Ron. >> Yeah, Gary, thank you for u coming in and explain it. My I'm going to leave the plantings and the square footage to
the staff and the experts. My concern is you're usually dealing with a single property owner here. There's multiple property owners and a homeowners association. It's been going on for a long time. you've had good discussions with the staff, but uh can you give us any assurances that that all these staff
recommendations will be followed and that there's financial backing to do it? >> Well, all of the um the land that's in question here is is association land. Everything that we're talking about this evening is the association land. So, it's, you know, the 18 homeowners that
if there's a requirement, an enforcement order, um that effectively is an order to do it. It's it's no different than a tax assessment. We would be obligated to do it as the homeowners um you know collectively >> well like a like a sewer easement um you
you know if 10 people are a private road 10 people want to pave it and eight of them agree or eight agree and two don't um the two people don't contribute anything the the association puts a lean on the house that doesn't get that doesn't get Tyler paid and doesn't get
the work done. No question. >> And we we did have a previous vote um agreeing that you know without knowing the the limits of it uh we do have a previous vote on record of the association that you know agrees that we need to do any do something we need to
you know whatever the commission uh determines is something we will need to do. So that vote did occur back I believe it was August um and I believe it was a unanimous vote. So >> okay. All right. Thank you Gary. Just >> thank you.
>> Thank you, Gary. Ron answered all my questions. I'm all set. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dave. >> I'm all set. >> Thank you, Jim. >> All set. >> Dan. >> Dan, you're on mute. >> Not on the quorum.
>> I'm sorry. I called on many people that weren't on the quorum, I guess, but I am on the quorum and uh I don't have any more questions. I think we're moving in the right direction. Um I I don't know if we can close this, but I think the staff
in particular was very clear about what needs to be done. Um and can we write an order of conditions um at this point is what my question is to the staff. >> Well, Mr. Chairman, we at this point we
close this enforcement hearing and take it under advisement and then um current current council has been recommending the filing of a notice of intent to complete enforcement actions. This has been going on a long time. Um I
would like to have a a discussion with staff on on how to move forward if we can move forward just under an enforcement order. doesn't require very heavy conditions. So, I don't know. Um, but I'll bring a
recommendation to you when you meet next time to vote the order to the enforcement order. It'll either be an enforcement order with a requirement to file a notice or an enforcement order with date, certain, and conditions to install the plants by.
>> So, we're going to close it tonight. >> Thank you. We're going to >> So, yeah, you can close you can close the enforcement hearing this evening. Thank you for the clarity, Ron. >> Second motion to close the enforcement hearing. >> Wait, Alyssa, I'm sorry, Ron. Alissa clarifying question. I'm sorry I missed it before.
>> Oh, she just >> Can you confirm if the gravel Sorry, I have terrible internet. Um Tyler, can you please confirm if the gravel um cword of 55 is to be fully removed?
>> So of 55, I believe. Is there gravel? >> Yes. Yeah, I I knew it was being removed in the zone A buffer. Just confirming that in the flood zone 2, it's fully to be removed. Okay, great. Thank you so much. >> I'll second that motion. >> Thank you, Ronnie.
>> Great. So, I have a motion in a second to close this hearing and take it under advisement. Um, Ron >> Driscoli, >> Ronnie, >> Dave, >> Kent Eye, >> Jim,
>> McGrath, I >> Dave, Dan, >> I'm not on this one. >> Oh, that's right. Ronnie, Dave, Ronnie, Steve, Pat, and I Thank you. >> Have a good evening. >> Thank you very much. Thank you, Gary.
Tyler, thank you. Okay, we have a request to extend an existing order of conditions. Christristen F Hunt 42 Deer Run Lane found with mass request one-year extension. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. They're requesting a one-year extension so they can evaluate
the plantings in the spring and request compliance. >> Okay. Anybody have any questions? >> No. I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to continue for one year. Is that what we're looking for? >> Yes, please. >> And the exact date >> or no?
>> Second. >> The question was, is it an exact date or just >> the exact date? It'll be one one year from when the um application expires, so it'll be May 25th, 2027. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> That's the motion. And I think uh Ron seconded it. Yep. >> Yeah. Okay. So, I have a motion in a second. Uh, Ron, >> Disco, I >> Ronnie, >> Baldin, I >> Dave
>> Tai, >> Jim, >> Raph, I >> Dan, >> am I on this one? >> No. >> Okay. >> Oh, yes, you are. I'm sorry, Dan. You are on this one. >> All right. Walshy, >> thank you.
And Pat and I, it's unanimous with the full quorum. Okay, we have vote and order of conditions. Uh, Edward and Gail Connelly, 274 Edgewater Drive East, East Famouth, Mass. Does someone have the quorum for this?
I didn't get a quorum sheet for this week. So, >> I don't think I'm on it. >> I've got it here. Um, it is Dan, Dave, Jim, and Steve. Dan, Dave.
>> Oh, wait. Hold on. Oh, goodness me. >> Dan, Dave, Ron, and Steve. >> Dave, Don, Ron, and Steve. Okay. >> Should be the last challenge in quorum week. >> They're all challeng.
>> Yeah, right. >> Okay. >> Ron's on it. >> Hold on. Ronnie. >> Ronny's off. We have to separate your names on here. It's very confusing. >> Ronnie on the agenda. Next time we'll change it. >> We're Ronnie.
>> Okay. >> So, who who wants to help me? >> Uh, >> okay. This is just a raise and rebuild. Very straightforward project. >> I agree. >> Raise and rebuild. Don't really think there's too many issues.
Um, we'll put your regular standard and special conditions. I don't even think Alyssa, was there a mitigation component to this? I have it up. >> I forgot my packets. >> They attached the garage to the house. Other than that,
>> it's pretty straightforward. >> Yeah, because they were actually Yeah, they didn't really add any space, >> right? >> No. I did have >> I had note there was an extra float on the dock. They're also mooring more than one boat at a time, so those need to be
addressed. >> Um and they're topping some trees that will need to stop. Um I also think that some of the required vegetation in that rock formation um >> rocks >> of the retaining feature appeared to be
missing. I know that um I believe Mike Borcelli was talking about how there was rigosa out there. So perhaps it's just something um in the spring we need to evaluate. >> Okay, we can write that up. >> Anybody have any questions, issues?
Can I get a motion to uh issue an order of conditions for 274 Edgewater Drive East from Dan or Dave or Ronnie? Ron. >> Ronnie. Ron. >> Okay. Clarifications. >> Second.
>> Okay. So, I have a motion from Ron, a second from Dan. Uh, I'm going to call the role. Dan >> Paul Shy. >> Dave. >> Dan. I >> Ron. >> Is it Ron or >> Ronnie? >> Ron.
>> Ronnie's on this. >> Bowman. >> Bowman. >> Bowman. >> And I thought you said Ron, but Bowman. Sorry. I guess. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Ronnie. >> He did that on purpose. >> He did >> just to confuse me, which isn't
necessary. Um, now we have to vote an enforcement order for Dave and Marcy Barnes at 38 SWID Squibet Drive, Famouth, Mass. And the quorum for that, I think, is >> this one I'm coughing on. Dave, Ronnie,
Steve, Jim, >> Dave, Ron, E, Steve, and Dave, >> Jim, >> Steve and Jim, >> Jim. >> Yes, Jim read in for the Mullen rule for this one. >> Okay.
>> So, um, I sent over a draft enforcement order to you all. Um, unless you have any notes, we can process the paperwork tomorrow. I don't have any notes. I don't like it, but I don't have any notes. >> I do think during the notice of intent
process, there will be a little more room for discussion. Um the staff does have some ideas about how to um take care of the unpermitted features yet still hopefully
get a um a flat part of usable space on the property. you know, not in shape of what the patio is, but we did have some ideas that we would be interested in sharing with the barns, um, if they would like to have a discussion about it. >> Thanks.
Anybody have any questions? No. Okay. I'm going to call the role to vote and enforcement order at 38 Knocket Drive. Dave >> Pentai, >> Ronnie >> Vulmani, >> Jim >> Rathy,
>> and Patton I unanimous with this quorum. Okay, if I could, while we're still in session, next week I would like to put an item on the agenda that we have a representative to the CPC
from the Conservation Commission. If anybody has any questions on that, I'd be happy to talk to you about it, but I need to I can't go to another meeting of the CPC unless one of you guys volunteers. Um, honestly, they're they're starting
to get nasty. Uh, uh, it's usually historic that doesn't have a representative, but this time it's conservation. Um, okay. Sorry to take that up at this point. Uh, can I get the final motion? >> Wait one second. Is there any way, Jim,
we can change my name to Ronnie and just leave Ron Ronald Driscoll, or does it do I have to be Ronald? >> That's on your end. Ron Ron Ronnie, that's on your end. Um, >> when you register, you have to write in Ronnie. >> Yeah. Nobody wants to do that.
>> We can help you. >> Or you can or Ronnie Ronnie, you can I I I'll show you how to do it tomorrow. Okay. One of these days before next meeting, I'll show you how to change it on your screen. >> I'm not too techsavvy. You >> know, I will. We got you. >> All right.
>> And if anybody has any questions on the community preservation committee, um, Steve, they can reach out to you. You've been a long-standing member of that committee for how many years? >> Seven. >> Yeah. So, >> we will put it on the agenda.
>> Thank you. Um, can we I represent another committee, believe it or not. So, if I can get a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. And Driscoll second. >> I have a motion a second to adjurnn. All in favor just out.
Can't I shall >> thank you all very much for your cooperation.