[Music] [Music] [Music] heat heat
[Music] good evening and welcome to the March 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 bets's under the weather tonight but we have a quorum so we're moving forward and as a reminder for co excuse me for commenting I'll call on
each of you in turn and that all votes have to be done by roll call to our public attendees at any time during this meeting you may enter any comments or questions via the chat function at the appropriate time they will be read into the record if as an
attendee you'd like to participate in a particular hearing let us know via the chat function then at the appropriate time you'll be promoted into the hearing as a participant when you are selected you must have your video enabled be succinct
and respectful of others public comments will be limited to three minutes each regarding RDAs we're overwhelmed with them tonight so hold your horses under a request for determination of applicability the applicant is asking
the commission to determine if the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and/or the Falmouth wetlands bylaw apply to their proposed project a negative determination is that the provisions of the act and or the bylaw do not apply therefore the project
may proceed as proposed a positive determination means the provisions of the act and or the bylaw do in fact apply and or may require some conditions therefore the project would require a notice of intent application so as an
applicant you actually want to hear say something hear us say something negative all right first uh vote minutes February 26 2025 second mr chairman I move approval of
the minutes as written patent second we have a motion and multiple seconds to accept the minutes as submitted for February 26 questions or comments all right we're voting courtney
Bird I matthew's eye kevin O'Brien i Ron Driscoll i Russ robin's eye steve and I it is unanimous with this quorum we have accepted the minutes of February 26 thank you
Kristen next up is a request for determination of applicability first up Tim Mackey 15 Penzance Road Falmouth Mass for permission to remove ornamental plantings and hardscape and to install
native shrubs and grasses alissa staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative two under the bylaw resource area boundaries are not confirmed so move second all right we have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation
questions or comments we're voting courtney Bird I matthews I kevin o'brien i ron Crystal I russ steve pat and I it is unanimous we have
accepted staff's recommendation thank you Alyssa and Fallon next up are requests for a hearing under notice of intent all hearings of the Fouthmouth Conservation Commission are held simultaneously under the authorities of the Massachusetts
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 as a reminder public commenting is limited to three minutes
so I encourage you to stay within the purview of this board which are the rules and regulations of the wetlands protection act and the Falmouth wetlands 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 Weatherly Doris Quisset Harbor Boatyard 36Qet Harbor Road Falmouth Mass full permission to reconstruct an existing
licensed pier jen yes Mr chairman i am promoting Dave Martin uh to present this project thank you where are you Dave
he's in get off to a nice smooth start dave's gonna mess it all up i am say hear me now yep we can hear you i'll start the video when I hit and now we got everything running again we can see you
okay so sir I'll share my screen try to do that get this right here share wow look at that can everybody see that all right all set yes all set so we're here tonight to request your
approval to reconstruct the uh inner half of the stock from this line to the concrete bulkhead the remainder of the pier had been reconstructed some near number of years ago permitted approved and reconstructed um the work would take
place Schultz Marine with Ben Carson they'll come in by a barge and do most of the work from the barge remove the piles remove the decking remove the timbering the cross balls and replace
the dock in kind we've shown a debris boom around the work area this is a town owned uh bulkhead and gravel parking area so probably some of that will be used for parking and things of that
nature while the plan is on the screen are there any questions uh we'll poll everyone after you're done with your presentation Dave i'll stop sharing that if you'd like yeah don't be upset if you have to bring it back up
but do my best all right Jen yes Mr chairman i don't believe we have many um comments um Alyssa had requested that um Dave show the boom on a plan and Dave
you submitted a revised plan with that correct i did this afternoon perfect um we have a D number so we're fine we double checked on that and obviously DMF comments will be incorporated they want the piles removed in their entirety and not just cut below the mudline that's
all Mr chairman all right Alyssa nothing at this time thank you all right commissioner comments or questions courtney pretty straightforward no questions it is straightforward isn't it
kevin no questions Mr chairman thank you all right Ron no questions it is straightforward thank you all right uh Russ Steve well said thank you
hey Jen is there anything in the public chat function please nothing in the public chat Mr chairman mr chairman I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement just second
dave you may get set the record for the most expedient yes application all right we have a motion in a second to close the hearing help all right Jen i asked you about public comments correct yes you did Mr chairman
thank you all right we have a motion a second to close the hearing last call questions or comments all right hearing none we're voting to close the hearing courtney uh Bird I Matthew's eye Kevin Oprah and I Ron Driscoll I Russ Robin's
eye Steve and I it is unanimous we have closed this hearing thank you Dave thank you all have a good evening good night Dave good night good work Dave all right next up Boyce
Hamson i don't know if this is Acme or ACME fm with Mass LLC 278 Scranton Avenue found with Mass for permission to conduct maintenance and improvement dredging jen yes Mr chairman um
Raul there we go we will unfortunately this was the one that Rebel wanted us to take out of uh to skip until his amended but I do not see his colleague Jake who's prepared for
zero central so I would suggest taking opening this hearing and then Mr chairman will take the amended out of order before we go on to central so I am promoting uh Raul Lazardi from Capen Islands Engineering to present his
notice so since Jen just ruined the surprise for you there's there's an amended order coming up later in the in the agenda so we're going to shake things up a bit see who's sleeping um just so you have so that you have the
whole for the record we're still on 278 sorry I really didn't mean to interrupt everybody that's talking over me i'm sorry never mind Jen yes Kevin we are at 278 Scrantav mr lazardi you're up sir
good evening for the record Raleigh Sardi from Cape Islands Engineering representing the applicant and I think it's Acme Famouth MA LLC um the applicant and property owner um of this for this project um Chen if if
possible and you can um recognize either Boyce Kempson or Tim Cohan from I see a Tim Cohan if you could promote him i believe Bob Ammon is in attendance as well oh Bob Almond okay got it i got Bob
i got you Bob and Tim Cohen okay thank you so I will start with sharing my screen with your permission yes sir so this project is for a notice of
intent to permit um maintenance and improvement dredging at 278 Scranton Nav this is the site of Famouth Marine um using the Famouth GIS or um topo maps
here's inner farm inner um harbor and this property is towards the bottom half of the harbor at this location looking at an aerial this is what the harbor looks like um the property lines for this project are
through here and over here so this is the area that we are proposing to do dredging for so we file this um this plan for the application and on the plan you see a rainbow colored
um kind of area in front of the bulkheads and this is depicting water depths um the red areas towards the bottom side represents depths of greater than 10 ft the yellows are depths of 9
ft um the greens are 7 to 8 ft and this area over here is less than 7 ft what the applicant wants to do is get depths of 7 ft throughout the the marina so we file um a sub another um
plan um along with the main site plan which is this one that I'm showing now now this plan was shown was produced to show the licenses in the past um starting in the 1940s
um to the 1970s all the different um permits that allowed dredging within the same areas um even though we call that this area to the south is what we consider improvement dredging we believe
all of this um harbor has been dredged in the past however we can't find a particular license that shows that this area was dredged to elevation minus 7 this area was dressed to elevation minus 8 in the past this area was um ded to
minus 8.7 and this area was ded to minus 8.7 and again we're just looking to recapture those depths to elevation minus 7 which is the crosshatch in green that we show in this area
so that's the project i do I did receive um the comments from DMF um we have no objection to the time of year's restriction we do propose a siltation curtain um on the site throughout um the whole project this project as we will
explain later on um is in tandem with the whole marina reconstruction um and it's going to take place simultaneously this area of dredging to the south is the dredging that this board approved
for Nas Marina um last year um we do have if I go back to the site plan we have a couple of salt marshes on Nah Marina's property and we propose that the edge of the dredge is going to be 25
feet from from those salt marsh um we do see that one of the recommendations from DMF is to also show 25 feet from mean low water we asked this board not to allow for that uh as a condition because
that will prevent some of the uses that the applicant wants to do for the peers at this location so we do have approximately 15 to 10 feet um set back from mean low water and comparing it to the prior permit for Nas Marina in this
location which was allowed to dredge all the way up to mean low water um and in similar way last year the project that was a dredge for across this harbor um at this location for McDougall's we're
actually allowed to dredge all the way up to mean high water um but for that reason we were asking this board to allow us to dredge to within 10 15 feet of mean low water and not adopt the 25 foot um recommendation from DMF from
mean low water we do meet the 25 foot offset to mean low uh to the salt marsh that DMF is recommending um I'll stop sharing but I will continue with some um addressing some of the comments from
staff so there is some sections in the local conservation regulation um 10.255 255 and the state WPA 10253 and what it is that the design of the dredging for improvement um has to
meet certain criterias and not be in a sense detrimental to the environment um not changing the topography of the of the harbor not changing um erosion um or sedimentation to beaches down coast
beaches and things like that um so this project is proposed to be at 41 slopes to reach that elevation of minus 7 which it's elevation that has been um dredged at this site before this work is not going to be changing the um the overall
wave action that happens in the inner harbor it's not going to be affecting or increasing flooding on the aboting property or anywhere else in this harbor and it's not going to change temperatures or flushing and turbidity within the harbor so we believe this
project does meet those regulations of um 10253 um from the state and 10255 um from the local bylaws um overall there is roughly 16,200 square ft of land under the ocean
that is proposed to be dredged with this dredge 850 cubic yard is proposed to be trucked away we're not keeping anything on site we don't have the room to to bury this material so it is being trucked away of that 825 850 cubic yards
about 540 is within areas that is called maintenance dredging and about 310 is improvement dredging with that if there's any questions um we'll be happy to answer thank you
Ro bob do you have anything to add at this point not at this point thank you all right Tim do you have anything to add at this point no thank you um we just went through a very similar project at McDougall's which Raul mentioned um it was
successful and we utilized Schultz Marine as our marine contractor and uh and Cap Islands was involved in that project as well this is slightly larger but very similar in scope and uh please let us know if you have any questions thank you excellent Jen
yes Mr chairman um think the board will have to deliberate on the requests to um be um no closer than that 25 ft as recommended by DMF other than that we have no no questions the improvement
dredging is a small part of this project and I don't have any concerns with it at this time okay melissa no questions thank you all right just to clarify the the 25 foot variance is is to mean low water
not the salt marsh is that correct i believe so right where is the salt marsh in there correct um so DMF recommends two different 25- foot setbacks one to the salt marsh and one to mean low water we comply with the 25
foot to the marsh what we're asking the board is not to um condition to the mean low water got it thank you but I we should point out that we will be I think it was 10 to 15 ft from the uh mean low
water so we're not proposing to be that close to it thank you Kevin no questions this time Mr chairman thank you yeah a question on the dewatering
there's uh I know most of it's going to be done on land and some is going to be done from a barge on the harbor how are you going to dewater it in the barge is that going to be moved somehow onto land or is it dewatered right on the barge and then put put back in the harbor so we have two options so the the dredge
barge can deing a certain amount of of the material on the barge and then um transfer it over to the trucks on land but there's also a dewatering basin proposed on land um between the building and the bulkhead um and some of that
material is going to be done um it's going to be dewatered from that um dewatering basin on land and then um loaded into trucks and trucked away to final disposal okay I understand that but how are you going to get the the material from the
barge to the land is there is there doing it so it's a clam um um bucket and it grabs the the material and it places it either on the deer basing on the barge or on land all right but the material in the barge
how does that get on land how does that get disposed after it's watered the same the same crane that runs the same right the same crane is the one that moves it from one place to the other all right so it has a reach yes okay that's how we did maybe I should have asked that in
the first place okay thank you all right all right russ no questions Mr sherman all right Steve no questions thank you all right
Courtney where are the dredge spoils going um we have yet to decide the final location um we're sampling um the sediments to do the quality all the testing that's needed for the water
quality search um once we get that we'll find out exactly where we're going to go i mean because the odds are they've got some contamination in them that's right so depending on the results um there are certain sites that accept um
the disposal so we'll have to figure that one out okay no other questions thank you Jen is there anything in the public chat function please nothing in the public chat
all right you said we have a DB number we do okay i'll make a motion to Can I have one more comment sure uh thanks one of the DMF uh comments the last one is about the
potential for fuel spills um on the upland and it there are two sentences which are somewhat uh contradictory and I just think that the language when it's written up ought to be cleaned up one sentence says that um all landbased
equipment should be prohibited from being refueled on site and the next sentence says if equipment is refueled on site adequate containment uh method should be uh utilized so one says don't do it the other says says how to do it
um and so I just would recommend that uh that that language be uh made a little clearer and um I don't know whether any of the equipment such as that crane will need to be refueled on site but I think that's probably likely um and therefore
I think the second sentence should should apply and we shouldn't be in violation of the previous sentence you you I'm sorry um so David if I understand you or Bob if I understand you correctly um you
would include both pieces of information in the in the No no he's he's saying to pick the ladder i'm sorry he's saying to allow allow fueling but with safety measures
yeah so you incorporate both okay thank you yeah so I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under adisement second all right we have a motion and a second to close the hearing last call questions or
comments we're voting to close this hearing courtney Bird I matthews i Kevin o'brien i Ron discolly russ robin's eye steve and I
it is unanimous we have closed this hearing now Jen this is where we're going to move something around right correct Mr chairman all right so the next one so we're going to skip around a little bit
for this one item so pay attention here we're going to jump to request to amend an existing order of conditions and it's for the same property so we're trying to do it so that while it's all fresh in your minds because this is such a long
meeting so I'm going to read the legal ease which is Boyce Campson Acme Falmouth Mass LLC 278 Scranton Avenue Felmouth Mass request to amend the order of conditions for Mass D-4779 to reconfigure the layout of the
previously approved marina so just to be clear this is a an existing order of conditions that we're talking about so Jen or do you want R to start oh Raul's still with us from Capen
Islands Engineering to present his separate project on this property this evening and I'm assuming Bob and Tim are going to remain thank you good evening for the record Rowley Sardi with Kadan Engineering representing the
applicant um Acme Famouth MA LLC with us also is Tim Cohan from Acme and Bob Ammon representatives for the applicant um if I could reshare my screen yes sir so as the chairman mentioned this is to
amend an existing order of condition 254779 um in the past we filed um an application to reconfigure the marina uh and it included several components of the marina um but this amendment is just to um revise the actual footprint of the
floating peers um we have a fixed pier at this location too actually which is a travel lift those two fixed peers are not proposed to be um revised um all the other floating peers and a couple of fixed peers which um the permit
currently has this one as a fixed pier and this portion as a fixed pier um those fixed portions are not proposed any longer um what the applicant wants to do is like I mentioned keep these two fixed peers for the travel lift but then
all the other peers are going to be floating peers in this configuration the half to the north is kind of similar to what was um approved before um it's a main pier with fingers peers coming off of them um to the very
north side which is the furry pier um that one is moved slightly closer to the property line at this location and then the south one-third of the marina the floating peers is completely different we have this combination of like a
inverted E-shape and C um floating pier system that is completely different that was proposed and approved before compared to existing condition this marina still reduces the overall footprint of total peers by
approximately 276 square ft it also reduces the number of piles and the footprint of these piles um on land under the ocean of approximately 151 square feet so we believe it is a great improvement over what's currently
existing and it will um be easier and better for the applicant to operate the marina um and in this layout you can see actually better why we're asking for the dredging in the prior application for this um this
floating peers at this south location so we need the actual depths at this location um just to connect one project or one application with the other um so that's the the amendment that we're asking for and there's any questions we'll we'll try to answer
all right thank you Jen yes Mr chairman um usually the board when looking at marinas takes the marina the footprint of the marina and has allowed in um other cases for the peers
to be reconfigured um so I believe this is kind of with within what the board has permitted before when it comes to uh marina expansions um both in Felmouth Inner
Harbor and elsewhere in town so um I have no comments or concerns thank you alyssa no comments thank you so we kind of need to approve the
dredging for this configuration to work i see what you did R i got your number all right commissioner comments all set thank you we can't hear you Jamie your microphone's gone bad i don't know
what happened all right there you are i don't know i wasn't I don't know what I did russ comments or questions i'm good mr chair Steve nice presentation Re no questions thank
you Courtney um I presume the Harbor Mass is fine with this um so we filed with the harbor master um I have not seen a new letter i do know that he did issue a letter in 2022 for
the original order of conditions um and he had no objections but I haven't seen a new one for this application yeah i mean I I mean clearly you're going to need to if he's on board with it I'm fine with it i you know that's my
only concern no questions yeah like like Jen mentioned it is within the the zone of reconfiguration that was approved um last time um so that was reviewed the same as before yeah i mean we we can always
condition the the order to make sure that that letter is in the file that's all no other questions all right Kevin no questions Mr chairman thank you all right Jen is there anything in the
public chat function please nothing in the public chat Mr chairman all right anything else from the applicant side all right what are you thinking folks i'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement
risk second all right we have a motion a second to close the hearing last call questions or comments we're voting to close the hearing courtney Bird I matthews I kevin O'Brien
i Ron I russ robins i Steve I it is unanimous we have closed this hearing thank you Raul thank you Bob thank you Tim thank you happy night thank you Bob kim all right we're going back to our
previously written agenda next up are continued requests for hearing under a notice of intent first up Ronaldo and Z Central Avenue map and parcel ID is 32-04-00004-002 eastbound with mass for
permission to construct a single family dwelling and install a title 5 sewage disposal system on an undeveloped lot and before anybody starts I have a question jen this map and parcel ID is that for the entire
division that has not been divided yet it has not been divided right so this doesn't identify the individual property oh boy all right jen yes Mr chairman i have promoted Jake
Frick from Capan Allens Engineering to present his project jake you with us i am i am here there he is you're up sir all right uh good evening my name is Jake Fricky i'm professional land
surveyor with Cabin Islands Engineering representing Ronaldo Andre for the project on Central Avenue we filed a notice of intent application DP number 25-50 to reconstruct or to construct a dwelling on the property and with your permission I would like to share my
screen yes sir this is as you stated a continuation of the hearing on February 26th um board comments at that hearing focused uh primarily on the restoration planting being partially on a separate
proposed lot and the recommendation for a IA septic system revised plan was submitted to conservation last week addressing some cl the client uh comments and some client modifications as well this plan
includes the IIA system a row of privacy screening along the property line in this area and uh the house was modified to include a a slightly larger deck and a
pool and patio per client request after lengthy discussions with the client about his plan for this parcel it became clear to us that he was unsure of exactly how he wanted to proceed with the subdivision and based on this the subdivision work on our end has been
completely put on hold as the client wants to focus his resources and efforts on the house project in light of that we are not showing the proposed property lines as we were before and recommend that the restoration be planting be installed concurrently with the
installation of the limit of work to eliminate any question about the timing of when the plants will be installed based on questions that came up in a Zoom meeting with conservation staff on Wednesday 35 we staked the revised
design in the field and scheduled a site visit the following Monday 3:10 to review the design and the site conditions we had a lengthy discussion at the site on Monday with staff which reiterated uh staff comments which was
reiterated in staff comments provided yesterday uh following that discussion with conservation on site we made some revisions to the plan which is the plan that I'm presenting here tonight a copy of this plan was sent to staff earlier
today the differences between the plan submitted on Wednesday and the plan submitted today are as follows the deck running along the easterly side of the property here has been redesigned as requested and replaced by
two sets of steps coming off of the house at the closest point these steps are 13 ft from the limit of work and 14 ft from the FWRA zone one of the dry wells has been increased in capacity uh
and moved in such a way so that it can also double as a pool draw down and the drainage system in the driveway has been assessed and moved into the driveway for ease of installation and we can confirm
that it is designed to handle a 25-year storm at this point I will stop sharing my screen and be happy to answer any questions thanks Jake jen okay
Jake um yes we did ask for some revisions on the plan but the board has not seen this plan and we got this plan at 1:30 this afternoon so we have not looked at it um yes it does appear that you have incorporated some design changes that I suggested and I
appreciate that but in the future I'm not and will not accept a plan the day of a hearing to be presented to this board at the hearing that it's unfair to the board because they haven't seen it um I I do appreciate you making those
design changes um but it's really kind of hard for us to review something the day of a hearing and not have the board review it as well um so with that Mr chairman I sure I mean my comments and questions i'm going to still have the
same um I I don't know how you want to proceed if you want to proceed I can comment on what I can um but this will need a continuence so we can review the plan um yeah it's tough for us to comment and
question something we haven't seen courtney wait your turn so I mean I can comment on um the driveway portion um so Jake did revise the plan based on comments that we had in the field they
restaked they had enlarged the deck and put the pole in and we really did have concerns about basically almost shoehorning this house into that small space cuz there were several large trees
um along the limit of work within your no disturbance zone A to the salt marsh that would have to be either removed or altered um for the construction of this house um Jake I again I don't even have a hard
copy of the new plan so um how far is the closest point from the house to that limit of work that no disturbance zone A it's it's 13 ft from these from these steps here uh I don't I don't know what
steps you're talking about i don't have a plan uh can you see my screen oh no no uh do would you like me to share it again yes please all right can you see my screen yes we can all right so it's uh this this set
of steps here coming off of the house is the closest point to the limit of work it's 13 ft there to the limit of work and it's 14 ft to the Azone line which is just beyond the limit of work line
okay um again okay you can stop sharing Jake again I appreciate you making the the the revisions and it does look like what we discussed in the field but I'm going to give you a pass on this one Jake but
don't ever do that again um because you're going to need the continuence anyway because we just haven't we have we staff has to do our due diligence and the board does need to see the hard copy um that said the board also needs to determine whether or not you're going to
allow a construction of a driveway up and over that coastal bank um the only time I've seen the board do something uh per permit something similar has been when there has been an existing house or
um some sort of structure so although there is a path that they are proposing to reveate that path we can't find any permitting history on the path um so the board will need to determine um whether
or not you were going to allow the driveway up and over that coastal bank this is a fairly large property obviously there was some um proposal to obviously you know there's some thought into possibly
subdividing the property so there is you know room to pull that house off um from way down on deep into that property and pull it further into more the middle of the property to avoid construction of the driveway on the coastal bank um but
that's all I can do right now Mr chairman without seeing a revised plan and revised staking in the field okay alo thank you uh just one follow-up comment um if the commission did share in the
staff's concerns regarding um some of the larger trees located just inside the zone A past the limit of work um something we have required in the past is maybe the first 10 feet into the zone A actually surveying the um mature trees
in the area just so we have a record of them on paper it's something that helps the staff when compliance comes along um in assuring that those are still present on the property if the commission was interested in having something like that uh with a continuence that could be
added to the plan thank you all right Courtney before your hand falls off i just um I think as in my role as resident Hermogen I think we should continue this for a week or so to allow
staff to ruminate on what's been put in front of us and then we can properly deal with it yeah all right does anybody else have any comments or questions um Ron yeah just um what are their options
on that driveway going over the coastal bank is it allowed or not allowed or is there some sort of engineering that can be done you know can you put a driver can you put up air can a bridge in can you go over the bank can you go over That's
going to be up to the board Ron it is an actual coastal bank it's an actual resource area i don't I I have seen reconstructions of driveways um but again that's to access a house that was existing the other option is to relocate
the proposed house this is a how many acre property there is plenty of room further toward the street on on the other side of the coastal bank to locate a house the house does not
have to be down this far absolutely understood i'm just curious you know again I've been here a year but I haven't seen this one before and um again we put we put peers or we put ramps over the salt marshes to get to a pier i don't know if this is any
different to do it here just thinking that's all oh there you go thinking again yeah i mean it's rare that we we'd allow something like that um this is a case where you know they have the land to do it and you know I know they're trying to
subdivide the property into I think it was four lots but maybe it can only be three and at the risk of sounding like I'm designing their their project you know maybe the the lots three and four are the last two get merged and but that's not for us uh we really need to
see the revised plan to you know to really make an educated decision you know um any other comments or questions all right Courtney don't be
repetitive what do you got um no i think if we're looking at something like this obviously the question is uh can we as a board um make a finding that is unique to this situation to allow them it's
just that when we do that do we open a door to a lot of dangerous precedents having been on this board for a number of years um sometimes when we make these uh evaluations based on site conditions they come back back to bite us later on
when somebody else finds another situation and they point to this so you know I think we have to be very careful about how we do proceed which is all the more reason why we need to continue to kind of work through these things
how long have you been on the board huh how long have you been on the board uh since about 20 years 20 years over 20 you're almost ready for retirement yeah I know all right so you and I both
Jamie you know you have to look at a property under its own merits and you're right we have to be careful of setting a precedent so it's something we have to think about as a board and see what we would allow or not you know it's just tough when you know when when when you
have this much acreage it's tough to be sympathetic to the location you know i mean I'm just speaking for myself so all right so Jake you have a request for us
yes I request continuence um I I would like it to be next week but I I don't think that you guys are actually meeting next week no we're not meeting next week Jake in the 26 if I put anything on else on the 26th the chairman will probably
call for my head so you're looking at April 2nd sorry whoa all right well I guess it is what it is yeah i'm sorry Jake i just I I know you incorporated the the comments we made on the field and I really appreciate that but these
guys needs to see the plan as well sorry all right such is life but thank you for making those revisions and we'll look at them carefully next week so yeah April 2nd's the best I can do for you Dick sorry okay well I guess
we'll take April 2nd then thank you at the request of the applicant I move that we continue this hearing until April the 2nd fiscal second april the 6 two april two
day after day after the fool's day oh all right we have we have a motion and a second to continue this till April 2nd last call i'm sorry i skipped a step jen is there anything in the public chat function nothing in the public chat Mr chairman
sorry about that all right we have a motion and a second to continue this till April 2nd last call questions or comments we're voting on the continuence courtney Bird I matthews i Kevin O'Brien i Ron Driscoll I russ robins i Steve and
I it is unanimous we have continued this until April 2nd thank you Jake you're welcome thank you have Have a nice evening guys yeah Jake next up a request to amend an existing order of conditions town of first up town of
Felmouth various waterways and beaches that's sufficiently vague felmouth Mass request to amend the order of conditions for mass DP number 25-4717 to add an improvement dredging site alter three channels and
recategorize a nourishment site and a deatering site wow that was a mouthful jen yes Mr mr chairman I have promoted Leslie Fields from the Woods Hole Group up to present the project as well as
Greg Frasier the town's director of marine and environmental services and the town's harbor master excellent good evening Leslie are you starting or is Greg starting i'm happy to start unless Greg you want
to give a preface to this all right I'll start um I'm going to share my screen if that's all right mr chairman can you hear me now oh yes we can oh okay yep it's fixed now so go ahead Leslie and I'll answer any
questions okay all right right are you guys looking at my presentation no we're looking at Nova Scotia I think screen screen saver okay a nice one
there we are how about this is this good better yes all right so this is a request oh wait a minute okay wait a minute now what do you see
amendment overview overview i like that jump to the important stuff all right wait a minute i'm just going to stop and start over i'm sorry all right is this full screen uh it's close enough close enough l all
right request to amend an order of conditions um just an overview the conservation commission issued an order of conditions uh SE 254717 back in 2022 for dredging and beach nourishment at various waterways
throughout the town we want to amend that order of conditions um by adding Meganet Beach as a temporary dewatering area for use um while dredging Means entrance channel which is totally in the town of Bourne
and for which we already have an order of conditions we also want to deepen the uh great pond outer channel narrow the great pond inner channel and then deepen the great pond outer channel um so Megan I'm just going to go through
each one of them each site so Megan Beach temporary deatering basin we're adding um a 12,000 square foot temporary deatering basin at Megan Beach as I said for sandy material only dredged from Megan Harbor approach channel so we had three borings out there we know that
that material is all sandy um that channel was approved by the Boring Conservation Commission um I don't know a couple of months ago so we're good on that front and we just want this temporary dewatering basin to pump the material into once it's dewatered it'll be trucked off site to um probably the
town's either another beach that has permits or the town's composting facility where it be stored there until it's needed for a beach and um then the site will be restored uh okay
so um you guys looking at the plan right now Megan Beach deatering plan yes okay yes so here's a picture of the deatering base and there's the parking lot over here the um bulkhead and here's the jutty that goes out here so it takes up
most of the beach but it's still above the high tide line um here's a crosssection of it uh as far as the deatering goes we could either just let it sort of build up a burm you know excavate this hole build
up a berm right here to um hold the water hold the slurry and then it let it sort of drain out over the beach naturally um or we could also put in a pipe to allow some of that water to drain after it's been dewatered and that'll be sort of a game decision you know at the time we do the work and we'll work with Barnesville County
dredge to make that decision green great pond outer and inner we're going to deepen Grape Pond outer channel to minus 9 at mean low water um with one additional foot of allowable overd depth dredging and then we're also reducing the reducing the width of the inner channel to 50 ft um so we're reducing
impacts at the inner channel by 55,000 some odd square feet the reason we're doing this is because frequently the town has to request incursions into the um time of year restriction for marine fisheries um and
we have been asked by DMF to try to go deeper in the hopes that it will reduce the frequency of maintenance dredging so if we don't have to come back as often maybe it's every other year every third year then that's fewer requests to um dredge during the time of year
restriction for marine fisheries so this is the outer channel we're doing at at Great Pond the inner channel is on the north side of the road that's this right here we're reducing that again uh from about 50 or 60 feet wide to only 50 feet wide
and that's just that's it was determined that that's all all that we need in that area to maintain safe navigation here's the crosssections again so um we're going down to minus minus 9 with one foot of over depth dredging in the outer
channel this material here is pumped over to the end seasons resort beach which is also a part over here on Yeah over here to the west of the channel um and that's that's already been permitted green pond we're just
deepening the outer part of the channel from minus 8 or 2 - 8 at mean low water with 1 ft of allowable overd depth stretching for the same reason want to reduce the frequency of um maintenance stretching so it's just this part right
here the outer channel again um you know going one foot deeper than what we have now so down to minus 8 with one foot of overd depth no changes to the inner part of the channel here this just a cross-section showing the the dredge depth minus 8 um down to
minus 9 with over depth that's the cross-section of the this material gets taken to acapest get on the west west side of the entrance and then we just listed here the resource area so land under the ocean coastal beach for the nourishment
sites land containing shellfish land under fish runs estimated habitats or rare wildlife that's only the two inner channels so great and green pond inner channels we do have a number of time of year restrictions we're we're you know at this point proposing to adhere to all
those although it is it is common for Great and Green Pond for the town to request incursions into that time of year for winter flounder which starts January 15th and ends August 31st i think that's it for the presentation i apologize that I wasn't in full screen
mode um but I'm going to end the slides and I'll um open to questions thanks Leslie jen thanks Les i'll start with the easy one why my background so dark
um how with these deepened channels i don't have any concerns with them but how much time is that going to buy us do you think is it going to be every other year that we go in now or it every two years do we have any idea i don't think
we really have a we can't give you a really good answer on that but the hope is that it would be every other year because right now basically dredging them almost every year every year yep i'm well aware of that okay and back to Megan um for the board there was a uh
prohibition of using manit um in the original comp dredge permit um there was concern by the of the neighbors um that meant it just it it stable it doesn't need sand um this is just to dewater the sandy material and we need to stress
that it it can only be sandy material only no silty material to be dewatered on the beach um that said Leslie the use of the pipe um February two weeks would that cause any sort of you know
localized scouring um where the pipe is is is placed towards probably towards closer toward the the the water line yeah no I mean it would be deeper than that so it wouldn't cause any scouring be you know exit below the below the water line i I
honestly don't think that the county dredge would use that method okay um so but but we wanted to include it because it is a little bit more sort of intrusive and if they did choose to do that we wanted everyone to know about it um but it would it would exit the water down below the water line and so
there wouldn't be any sort of scour okay so we could probably just condition it to if they are to use that method to let us know and we can meet out there with the county dredge and see what their operation is i think that's a really good Yeah that'd be a great condition to
add okay perfect that's all I have Mr chairman all right Alyssa no comments thank you all right commissioner comments and questions russ we're going to start with
you i've got nothing Mr chairman thank you Steve uh no comments Mr chairman thank you all right Courtney no questions okay I think it's good revision to the project kevin no questions Mr chairman
thank you Ron i'm all set thank you Mr chairman all right Mr frasier I didn't mean to ignore you you have anything you'd like to add at this point uh no just that we're very hopeful that uh that the DMF recommendations of digging deeper will result in less dredging
because as uh Jennifer knows we just today got the this year's time of year waiver to allow dredging to proceed in Great Pond and Green Pond it's an annual event for us so we're hoping we don't have to do that in the future
let's hope all right Jen is there anything in the public chat function please nothing in the public chat Mr chairman all right I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisor discal second
all right we have a motion and a second to close the hearing last call questions or comments we're voting to close the hearing courtney Bird I matthews I Kevin O'Brien i Ron Bis I Russ Robins I Steve
and I it is unanimous we have closed this hearing thank you Leslie thank you Mr frasier good night everyone night le night greg can you stick uh can you Greg can you stick around just in case the board
has any questions on that extension request sure thank you all right next up uh the next one we had already closed because we took that out of order make sure everybody was paying attention and you all passed thank you
next up request to extend an existing order of conditions first up town of Felmouth Greg Frasier it's a Greg Frasier night humber master zero town Landing Road map is 32-21-015-0000 with mass D number
25-4432 requesting a three-year extension jim yes Mr chairman uh the staff is recommending a three-year extension this is the boat ramp over at CPIP correct Greg and um Horley and Whitten is currently
working on drainage improvements to that parking area which is great but that might affect the boat ramp design um so we need to wait for Horley and W Wh Whitten to finish um permitting their
drainage cuz we may or may not have to amend the boat ramp project so this is the boat ramp that board saw a few years ago um for the Sea Pit River boat ramp um so we are recommending a three-year extension on this one
okay questions or comments all right what are you thinking i'll move to grant a three-year extension fiscal second all right we have a motion and a second on the table to gr to take staff's recommendation of granting a
three-year extension all right we're voting on the extension courtney Bird I matthews I Kevin O'Brien I ron Briscoll I russ
steve I it is unanimous we have granted a three-year extension thank you Greg thank you good night good night all right next up Robert J natalie Kolgan 133 Fay Road Falmouth Mass D
number 25-4528 requesting a one-year extension Jen yes Mr chairman we are recommending a one-year extension all right questions or comments yeah what what why do they need it they're
still finishing up the project court plantings and all that stuff yes okay i'll make a motion to extend a one year um grant a one-year extension fiscal second all right we have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation of a
one-year extension we're voting on the extension courtney Bird I matthews I kevin o'brien i Ron Driscoll i Russ steve
Matt and I it is unanimous we have granted a one-year extension thank you all right next up continued hearings under an enforcement order i'm going to read off the next the first one and the
second one because we're going to hear them simultaneously everybody clear on that yep first up Patrick Burke trustee Church Street Trust 158 Church Street Palmouth Mass unpermitted removal of vegetation within the buffer to a
coastal bank and John Cook trustee John C cook 2009 Trust 170 Church Street Felmouth Mass unpermitted removal of vegetation within the buffer to a coastal bank jen
yes Mr chairman I have promoted both property owners John Cook and Patrick Burke as well as Johnson Sears from uh Francisco Tvar uh to address the enforcement issue uh which Alyssa can
brief the board on excellent alyssa thank you yes so the enforcement before you um was reported to staff in the form of a complaint someone had driven by noticed that um a lot of vegetation right off of Church Street had been um
either mowed or just cut very very short um staff was able to send out some letters to the homeowners and arrange a site visit to confirm um staff did receive a plan from Melo Engineering which I have shared with the board previously showing the extent of the
clearing and a solid portion of it does fall within your uh jurisdiction both the A and B buffer to the coastal bank um along the water um John here will be working with the homeowners to develop a
restoration plan and restore um what has been removed there are some invasives making their way into the area so the staff would recommend that the invasives at least within jurisdiction are treated eradicated to the extent we
usually see prior to replanting taking place uh in review of aerial photos staff did find a second violation at 158 just as a note to the board you will see that as an upcoming RDA on a future hearing to replant what has been removed
on that site and that's all I have all right seems pretty cut and dry um let's see do the homeowners or Mr soros do you want to comment at this point
good evening yes we would for the record my name is Jonathan Sles with Francisco Tvars um I'll be helping with the two homeowners here trying to rectify the problem um as mentioned this was an accident basically
performed by an uneducated landscape company who continued to mow into this area um we did meet on site and we spoke of some different remedies that we came up with uh what our clients would like to try
and do is just to allow it to grow back to as it was um as Alyssa pointed out it is actually all invasives and our concern is trying to fight the invasives and replant it with new plant material
is just going to fail um there's areas that were not cleared that are still there that are still covered within the grapevine and we feel that's just going to continue to want to take over i've been monitoring the area through the last few rainstorms there's been no wash out um as the root mass is all still
there the company that did this work had brush mowed everything down um the larger area is the the B zone there is uh one property that has a larger azone uh that has been cleared
we're basically proposing either netting seating trying to stop any additional erosion potentially a limit of work fence and maybe allowing the enforcement order to stay open if we didn't see uh proper growth coming back of these areas
and then proceeding forward with an enforcement order the clients did not gain anything from this other than actually a loss of their privacy both their property sit much higher up and you know this was to be a cleaning of the area down bottom not into the the
zone but the landscaper continued to go and clear too much so what we're trying to propose is allowing this material to come back maybe installing some some delineation marks of these zones um I feel if we're going in there
to try and eradicate all the invasives it's going to turn into a very large potential erosion condition um like Janet pointed out right on the the the road edge there so with the mass that's been there and the lack of erosion that we've seen through these rainstorms I
feel that it growing back would probably be our best uh our best form going forward i don't know if the homeowners or Jonathan the uh Pepaloney the lawyer if he's also in the room has anything else they want to add
okay I'm going to promote Jonathan Paloney i did not realize Jonathan was here as well for this project hello Jonathan good evening hi um yes Jen I have not
had a chance to speak with you about this um I've had some preliminary conversations with the property owners u I don't think I have too much to add to what uh Jonathan Sirills has presented tonight i think he appropriately
captures the owner's feelings this was a mistake um but I think that in terms of restoring things to the original conditions um it it does seem like there are some some benefits that would acrue to
allowing things to regrow um but I'm sure that the commission has some strong feelings about that i think at the least um there might need to be a better understanding of what's actually there right now what root structures are in
place right now cuz I think really the the question that comes to my mind is what is the right method to address in this area and uh it does seem pretty extreme to go in and grub everything out and try and replant everything um which is certainly not the original conditions
that were there is that all Jonathan yes okay all right alyssa did I ask you i'm sorry um I don't have any initial comments at this time okay all right commissioner comments for the record I'm recusing
personally mr chairman can I offer one comment since I haven't sure i don't recommend you allowing it to regrow this was a violation if you were to go down this
road talk about a can of worms should be opening up we'd have people mowing down invasives all over the place and saying "Oh I'll just let it grow back." Um the board has never just allowed the invasives to grow back it was you know it is a violation i would recommend that
at the very least the zone A how far does the zone A go on Alyssa uh I don't have the plan in front of me it was only electronic so we would need to look at Tim's plan a hard copy of the plan you know at least the zone A at the
very least um there are methods to protect those new plantings from invasives we see it all the time with either root barriers and or mo strips so we see mitigation and restoration plantings right up to neighboring
properties that are a sea of invasives and somehow those plantings manage so um I would caution the board to just uh just allowing it to grow back that's all
can I make one comment sure this is Jonathan Paloney again the one thing that I wanted to point out here because I know that there's several other projects that have been improved in this area around Church Street um but this particular property these two
properties rather are um I think much more impacted by the wind and the other impacts onto this coastal area i mean you can see when you drive by that everything is really blown over and I think that's where some of the concerns about how you're going to restore this
area um under these particularly harsh conditions around the corner there's been a fair amount of clearing of vegetation underneath other cover other um juniper type trees and further around
there's rather large oak trees uh grass has been planted underneath those in those areas but those are all in the lee they're much more protected zones and and on this side there's it to me it seems like there's a pretty good reason why this whole area has been
predominantly invasive um I think if you want us to kind of sit down again I haven't had a chance to talk with Jen about this project yet um and and we can try and figure out some good areas to put things in i myself would like to see more documentation about what plants are
actually there um because if it is predominantly invasive species that have been cut I certainly understand your concerns about precedent but in terms of the regulations restoring to the regional conditions I think we need to be mindful of what are we trying to
correct and how are we going to do that in the most appropriate way so that we're not causing more problems than we're trying to solve so I think that that the property owners certainly want to uh make things right and that that and acknowledge that this was um a
mistake that obviously they own the property so they control that regardless of how it came about um but let's try and figure out an appropriate remedy for this that actually solves the problem um one comment to
that 158 went through a major uh major mitigation and restoration project um several years ago those plants survived so it's not that much of a wind
tunnel that things can't grow that's all I have right i again I I think that even for that area it's not as jutting out as this particular area is but it is the conservation
commission's assessment of that i Okay all right mr burke I see you have your hand raised could you turn on your audio and video please um go ahead am I No Burke i'm sorry hi pat Burke uh landowner 158 Church
Street uh Jen I think you make a good point i just wanted to uh point out or clarify and John can back me up on this that we have had uh very little luck uh growing down in that area uh outside of
those zones when we've tried to plant evergreens around the uh electrical boxes and whatever they are transformers uh we're probably in our third round of evergreens we've also anything above the tree line suffers you in tree line I
mean those um slanted trees Jonathan mentions if you go by our properties they look like they're at 30° angles from all the wind so it will be very difficult to get things to grow uh and be healthy over time in that
area uh we just get severe winds that's all I wanted to add all right all right commissioner comments and questions steve we're going to start with you
Mr chair mr cook has his hand up sorry Mr chairman thank you i am I don't have any questions thank you Mr cook turn on your audio and video please am I Am I on
audio your video on please i think I'm on audio i'm sorry can you hear me we can hear you we can hear we can't see you okay um sorry about that you are thank you um
John Cook 170 Church Street the only other thing I'd like to add to pass point about things difficult going now the previous owner of my property planted um and tried to irrigate extensively along the front a row of um of plants as well that were part of a
plan and we we tried to water those extensively to try to do it and none of those plants survived and that's in the exact same area basically as this is um so I'm just trying to add um a little bit more color to Pat's point about how
difficult it is for things to go there all right continuing with commissioner comments Courtney um I I know this is a very exposed area um my and I understand the issue with
the invasives now um it's been suggested that you you were concerned about rooting the invasives out and that that would create an erosion problem and so on but I I
mean to me if you were to uh use an herbicide that allowed you to keep the root root mass intact that would hold the soil while you got rid of the invasives and then you could plant that's the first thought the second question I have is before all of this
was cut down how high were the was this growth area does anybody know it's approximately chest height huh approximately chest height okay 5t
four or five feet okay so um you know is it a is the problem of survivability a question of the type of plants used i mean if you go and buy nursery stock
um they're they're not liable to be able to survive in that area because whereas if you use field grown stock cedars and that kind of stuff their survival is tends to improve i'm not a I'm not a
landscaper or an arborist but that's been my experience on the commission so I I think you guys need to think about this a little more i think it's doable to do a restoration and get stuff not everything up to 5T but I think you want
you want stuff I don't want to see a whole lot of time spent and you end up with one gallon plants that are 4 in tall that doesn't really restore the buffer so those are my only comments
kevin no comments Mr chairman all right Ron no no comments about that thank you Mr chairman russ just one question for Mr sils um how long would it take for this stuff
to grow back that you were talking about the stuff that that is rooted in i mean is it 6 months a year two years three years any idea the wild grape can grow approximately 1 to three feet a year um
so yeah I would say probably to be fully back it would probably take two maybe three full growing seasons to look as if it was never touched um last year this happened it was late summer early fall um we did already start to see some new
growth popping back up on this plant material um which is when this all started to come you know as a as a plan of you know I think this would be the our our best plan versus excavating or treating and causing any other potential erosion
issues but I think between two to three years it would be fully grown back okay okay thank you Mr chairman all right jen what's the staff's recommendation at this point staff's recommendation is to have a planting plan to restore this
with native shrubs and not allow the engra invasives just to grow back again if the board allows this to happen you are opening an ent huge can of worms so my recommendation is a planting plant
and at least to try to restore that buffer okay so procedurally are you looking for a planting plan under an enforcement order or are we looking at a continuence to create a planting
plan if the homeowners want to follow your staff's recommendation do you know what I'm asking yeah i mean I would ask Jonathan if you and I have not had the opportunity to speak about this i have
not spoken to uh Jonathan Sh either um about this project recently so we would like the opportunity to to speak with the property owners representatives um if they still feel that this is their best way forward just to turn the back
on a violation that's fine the board can decide to require a planting plan within an enforcement order at that point but at least give the staff the opportunity to talk to the applicants representatives because this is the first I've heard about we're just going
to let it grow back melissa also in the meantime um if the homeowners were acceptable the commission can make a site visit and see the sites for themselves so can I ask a question procedurally hasn't this been continued multiple
times yes yep okay we were initially waiting for waiting for a survey alyssa continue we were initially waiting for a survey um the homeowners were very proactive in contracting with
an engineer uh we needed to know where your jurisdiction uh began and ended so we knew what we um what we were looking at and how much restoration the commission would like to require okay Courtney uh if we're going to have
a planning plan I'd want to see a methodology as well all right Mr burke you started to speak i would I was just excuse me i was just adding uh Alyssa filled in the delay was
because of a waiting for a survey thank you all right where are we at jonathan do you want to request a continuance for the opportunity to to meet with staff or are you going to take a chances that this
board just requires that planting plan no I would like the opportunity to discuss with staff okay when would you like a continuence too i think that you have April 2nd or April 16th
well either of those are fine for me so if April 2nd is filling up we're happy to go April 16th um and that certainly won't affect me coming and meeting with you before then yep let's go with April 2nd sure okay
at the request of the applicant I move that we continue this hearing until April the 2nd just the second all right last call questions or comments before we vote on the continuence all right we're voting to
continue this until April 2nd courtney Bird I kevin O'Brien i Ron Driscoll I russ robins i Steve it is unanimous with this quorum we have
to continue this until April 2nd thank you everyone thank you clarify just to clarify the record this is for both properties correct correct okay because we opened them as one
thank you everyone thank you thank you all [Music] right next up continuing with continued hearings under an enforcement order Jane
Fur 2622 and 0 Shore View Avenue map and parcel ID is 39-02C- 000-504 found mass unpermitted removal of salt marsh vegetation and unpermitted
construction of a deck within conservation jurisdiction uh Jen or Le Jen is promoting Tom Bunker right now who um I believe is representing the property owner is that correct Tom okay
that is correct is there anyone else we're promoting no I think I think it's just me okay okay so let's start with staff because it's an enforcement order so Jen I'll hand it over to Alyssa thank
you um so as noted in the staff report there were uh two violations that staff discovered on these three contiguous properties all owned by the same homeowner specifically on 26 shore view when reviewing aerial photos um it is
evident that the back deck to the home was reconstructed between the 2016 and 2017 near map aerial photos it was enlarged and it's within the zone A to a salt marsh since there are no permits on this nor building permits um the staff
is requesting that a restoration plan is developed to determine if the deck is moving closer um and and hopefully if not um that we can uh approve it after the fact with the appropriate amount of mitigation plantings um the larger
violation on these properties as noted through the various photos in your staff report is the um mowing and degradation of the large salt marsh um more so identified on 22 and zero shore view um this area was part of an enforcement
order back in 2016 for restoration on the site the enforcement order was very clear in only allowing a 5-ft path from the backyard of 26 Shore View crossing 22 onto zero to allow for water access the remainder of the salt marsh was to
be allowed to grow back and areas cleared in the BVW and buffer were to be replanted um that was conducted however uh as seen in the aerial photos staff is unclear as to the exact reasons but the salt marsh the actual resource area has
been maintained it appears mowing um staff was on site in 22 and attached some of those photos which coincide with a mechanical means of maintaining the salt marsh area um also that 5-ft path
from the backyard of 26 Shore View through 22 and onto the water has also increased and decreased in size um staff has been in contact with the property owner over the years to ask for remediation on the site and ultimately
we brought the matter to the commission to seek requirements um to restore what can be restored and to allow the salt marsh to either grow back if the commission sees fit or to require restoration um staff did briefly
speak with Tom um yesterday um he is taking on the project as he did the site plan during the 2016 enforcement so I'll turn it over to him if he has any comments at this time uh thank you i um don't really have any
comments this time except we're about to start um I think when Alyssa and Jen and I talked um I I'll jump right ahead you know saying we'll need a continuence because we haven't updated our survey yet to current conditions uh they
suggested having a me meeting or having a continuence until for about four weeks uh which time we can have a we'll have have the survey done we'll have the plan of existing conditions done i'm not sure how much further we'll have but
um uh we we will have the the baseline information at that time and you know that if we will be preparing a planting plan uh for that uh or whatever else staff wants us to
do so I'll keep in touch with staff and keep keep them apprised of of uh progress um as I go along and do whatever they say all right questions or comments from the
commission alyssa are you guys all right with the uh with the continuence to get a plan together and yes um I had requested um a month i understand that Tom might require more time but to at least uh
require an update as to where we are in one month just so um this doesn't get away from us that makes sense Courtney tom how how long realistically do you think you need
i don't think I need much much more than that we have you know as was said we we've worked on this property we have a a good background as of a few years ago for the plans that we did uh we did the plan when uh some of the other
mitigation planting was done and so uh it's not going to take a lot more survey to to get that in so by a month I think be pretty far along but I don't think we'd be complete it might just be a couple more weeks
after that okay thanks so let's do the the month and see where we are sounds good i'll There's no other questions i'll make a motion to uh What do we have for a date Jen april 16th
at the request of the applicant I move that we continue this hearing until the uh was 16th yes Courtney yeah of April there's a second thank you we have a motion and a second to continue this
matter until April 16th last call questions or comments voting on the continuence courtney Bird I matthew's eye kevin o'brien i Ron driscoll i Russ
steve and I is unanimous we have continued this until April 16 thank you Mr bunker thank you thanks D see you in a month or so
you can come back sooner we're okay with that okay i'll find something thank you we appreciate that don't give us too much idle time all right next up vote orders of
conditions first up Richard STI 64 Edgewater Drive East Balmouth Mass um the quorum is all of us here small deck off the front no big deal oh this is Mr collins's
project small addition in the front of the house mitigation in the back alyssa did we receive a revised plan the day after he's corrected mitigation to four feet on center and he's added the salt marsh buffer perfect and delineation
yep and did he add the drywall forgot to look at that part i think he was talking about perhaps tying it into the existing system depending on what happened i might have a gas line yeah oh I think we just lost
Alyssa she was Oh there she's back i realized it i'm sorry my internet's not great um he might be tying it in to the existing system he wasn't quite sure yet okay thank you
all right anything anybody want to see in there all right what are you thinking i'll make a uh a motion to uh grant an order of conditions as discussed second all right we have a motion and a second to issue an order of conditions last
call questions comments or input we're voting to issue an order of conditions courtney Bird I matthews I kevin o'brien i Ron Priscal I russ robins i Steve and
I it is unanimous we have issued an order of [Music] conditions next up Nathan Perry 196 Matoxet Road East Falmouth Mass uh yes this is for um uh uh this is
a house project the board has seen it in the in past um but it is um house it's going up on I guess lowprofile pilings but it is
being it is being raised um to uh above the velocity zone they've kind of moved it a tad further back from the u coastal bank um they need to remove all of the uh
unpermanented out halls they have over there um and um our only concern was the oak tree next to I believe the house they they're insisting that they're going to try to save that that would be great if they
can um but staff is well aware that it might be removed um Alyssa had her hand up but she's frozen but maybe we can still hear her um that's all I have Mr chairman all
right she's back alyssa wasn't the best time for my internet to act up now that we're here um it was just to readjust the limit of work off the top of the bank and into the the buffer so we'll get a revised plan from Mike
with the readjusted limit of work this is a good plan i mean it's it's like the last one with the improvements that um we were kind of hoping for um procedurally this this order conditions
would supersede the last order i always forget because we don't do that this that often okay all right Courtney um I think we should just have a condition in there that if the oak can't
be saved that they plant uh another tree you know with a certain caliber as long as that's in there that's fine i do think they um this probably could have been an amendment i'm not quite
sure why Mike uh filed the notice but I think he probably just thought because they were using part of the old house in the first design and then this is an entirely new structure he felt probably safer going the notice route but I think in the presentation it they just
couldn't make the older part of the house work with the newer addition with the new building code well I like this process it was cleaner i mean I I know it you know the effort that that the owner and and the engineer
puts in but but it's just much cleaner for us to deal with i mean and you saw that because that hearing lasted like three and a half minutes so you know so it it's it's appreciated if you're listening Mike or Mr
perry all right anything anybody want to see in there different or additional all right so I'll make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed driscoll second all right we have a motion and a second to issue an order of
conditions last call we're voting courtney Bird I matthews i Kevin o'brien i ron driscoll i russ robins i steve matt i
it is unanimous we have issued an order of conditions next up Katherine M truman 78 Benjamin Ny Lane North Thalmouth Bass this was the invasives removal
project by um Par uh Potera Ecological um Lindsay from Peter Ecological um with some landscape improvements and I
believe a new parking yeah new little parking area um over on Benjamin I think the only concern was the amount of shrubs that Bera was
uh initially proposing um I think it does it will require more shrubs but we can work with Lindsay and her team once they get all the invasives removed fair enough
alyssa nothing else to add at this time she um made all the other corrections excellent anything anybody want to see in there additional or different all right what are you thinking i'll make Oh and I'm sorry wait wait wait um
is not on this forum okay all right go ahead Court uh I'll make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed need a second it's got to be somebody else yeah I'm not on it right correct
second thank you all right all right we have a motion and a second to issue an order of conditions last call for questions or comments we're voting to issue an order of conditions courtney Bird I matthews I kevin O'Brien I russ
robins I steve Ben I it is unanimous with this quorum we have issued an order of conditions next up is to vote amended order of conditions first up Joseph G marzola
trustee Joseph G marriola Revocable Trust 2018 15 Moses Road um this is to allow the stairs that were built larger
um and closer to uh the resource area um to remain and I think the board had some discussion about whether the it was necessary from
a safety standpoint um to have the stairs in this location um or if they it was done for some sort of aesthetic reason um so what would the board like to do remind me what was the
staff's of where the seaw wall is well I mean I always Sorry the the the patio wall i don't know what to call it seaw wall I'm talking about what was the question Jamie you were going in and out i apologize sorry what's your take on
the the the proximity to that wall the coastal bank line of the coastal bank the wall is the coastal bank and it is moving closer to the coastal bank the wall is the coastal bank yeah the
wall is that vertical the wall is actually the top of your bank because your beach is right there so it is it is moving closer to the beach by I think what is it Alyssa one a half a foot yeah something like that
um which sounds minimal but it's the width of the stairway it's not the run so it's from my perspective it's not a safety thing it was an oversight i would say that somebody just wasn't following the
plan i I don't know i'm not throwing anybody under the bus in that regard but I mean you guys have heard me before saying you know I I like a good run on a stairway that you know that that promotes safety but this has nothing to do with it it's just they just made it
wider so Oh yeah i know this one yeah so well you know so go ahead Courtney my inclination is that the wider stairway
is uh not what was on the plan and it should be cut back we shouldn't allow it they could easily if it's four feet wide rather than five they can still meet code on egress so I I think we should require it to be
fix brought to code i think we start setting precedents that I'm concerned about well yeah so just to be a curb engine on this Russ I I gotta agree with Courtney i I went over for my own curiosity and
measured everything up um you got 42 inches on the inside post to post actually it's from a it's an inch and a quarter um round grab rail on the inside and it's about 42 in so I think they
could I I believe the number was 8 in it was over right it should have been 58 and it's actually five feet right now um I I agree with Courtney you keep letting this happen it just you know it gradually creeps and creeps and creeps
and I I you know I I think they can come up with that 8 in and and if you look at the building plan it even shows that deck flush with that back wall so and if you measure that that's 11 in over so um
I think they should have to uh make it right okay so just so you know pro procedurally what we're going to want is a motion in a second to issue an order of conditions and then if you don't agree with it you're going to vote
against it just to be clear correct and you know I So again just so we're clear Courtney just one question to confirm code is a minimum of three feet clear inside rail to wall is that correct i
mean well that's what it used to be i just want to make sure it's 36 wallto- wall or post to post and then the handrails allowed to be inside of that so so in other words what is plenty of the reason I'm asking is that they
certainly have plenty of room to make a stairway that meets code am I correct okay all right any other questions or comments anything anybody want to see in
there all right what are you thinking i'll make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed positive that's an approval motion so if we want to vote it down you just vote no
correct all right steve did I hear you second thank you speaking over you we have a motion and a second to issue an order of conditions last call questions or comments we're voting to issue an order
of conditions courtney Bird no matthews no kevin no ron no russ robins no steve no
it is unanimous we have I don't know the term to use we've denied an order of conditions denied amended order of conditions correct pardon me so their so their option is to come back to us with a corrected plan and
well or new order conditions with a correct plan that we can approve no they can just fix it and then ask for compliance yeah oh okay all right next up we're still under amended order of
conditions laura Tormet 10 Circle Road Falmouth Mass yes Mr chairman this is to rebuild a deck and a little kind of beach house shack that's on the deck um
to rebuild it in basically in kind and to no and to remove an unpermitted section um so they're bringing it back to the original uh chapter 91 approved license configuration Alyssa she's frozen
all right we'll come back to Alyssa anybody else questions comments or input make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed driscoll second we didn't give Alyssa a chance hold
on alyssa do you have anything you want to add i missed it it's okay thank you all right so we have a motion and a second to issue an order of conditions as discussed last call questions or comments
we're voting to issue an order of conditions courtney Bird I matthews I kevin O'Brien i Ron Chris russ robin's eye steve I
all right before you get all excited we have two things to throw at you first off just a reminder there's no meeting next week and Jen has something she'd like to share with us yes there is no meeting next week but you do have
your regulatory review meeting on Thursday starting at 3:30 two things there what day is that of the week thursday at 3:30 courtney we have the regular We have the regular no I know what day of the week
20th thursday no no no i understand date the 20th 20th thank you there's no hearing next Wednesday but you do have a review on Thursday and the only thing I wanted to add to make sure I didn't have a conduct it's okay i'll
remind you next week Court um so this board had an executive session a few weeks ago to discuss uh with the 300 committee and the compact of Cape Cod about purchasing a particular property um we have learned
from the 300 committee this week um that the property owner has withdrawn the um withdrawn his offer to sell there was little explanation um so therefore we
will not be submitting an application to the CPC at this time if there's any additional information received by the 300 committee I will inform this board that's all I wanted to say thank you oh and the 300 committee would like to uh
thank the commission for working with them working with the compact and considering the proposal so that's the important part of that message yes that is the important part last motion who wants it um Mr chair as
um vice president vice chair resident Ker Majin and senior member of this commission I move that we adjourn driscoll second bird eye simple matthews I O'Brien Iris
I Robin I it is unanimous we're adjourned thank you everyone [Music]