##VIDEO ID:owesDvj_5dw## good evening and welcome to the February 5th meeting of the fth Conservation Commission this meeting is being held virtually via Zoom video conference and is also being broadcast by fctv on cable channel 9 as this meeting is being recorded by zoom and broadcast by fctv please be cognizant of what you say how you say it and what can be seen and heard in your background we are missing one commissioner tonight however we have a quorum we're moving forward just as a reminder for commenting I'll call on each of you in turn and all votes have to be done by roll call so when I call your name please state your name and your vote for the record even if you've made the the motion or the second two our public attendees at any time during this meeting May ENT 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 it will be promoted into the hearing as a participant when you are selected you must have your video enabled be succinct and respectful of others public comments will be limited to three minutes each regarding rdas under a request for determination of applicability the applicant is asking the commission to determine if the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands protection act Andor the fouth wetlands bylaw applied 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 notice intent application so as an applicant you kind of want to hear a negative determination for the benefit of anyone waiting for a particular hearing tonight and so that you're not waiting unnecessarily the following hearings are expected to be continued zero Central Avenue and zero Davisville Road first up executive session Mass general laws c3a section 21 A6 to consider purch exchange taking lease or of yeah or value of real property where discussion in Open Session would have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the T what that means is we're going into executive session we're going into a different meeting this regular meeting will continue after that um so it'll be a few minutes before we're back so I'll be looking for a motion in a second to enter executive session I'll move that we enter uh executive session a second all right we have a motion in a second to go into do executive session we're voting on that motion Betsy felter I Courtney bird I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robins I Steve p i it is unanimous with this Quorum we have entering executive session see you shortly people meeting we have a couple of continuances to announce so we'll buy some time before Russ gets in first up is a request for continuance under notice of intent Renaldo andreid Z Central Avenue map and parcel ID is 32- 04- 4-2 East Falmouth Mass for permission to construct a single family dwelling and install a Title 5 sewage Disposal system on an undeveloped lot Jen yes Mr chairman the applicant is requesting a continuance until February 26 where so move P second is in the meeting Jamie there is this is a second continuance no it hasn't been opened yet okay so it's the it's the first all right we have a motion in a second to continue this until February 26 we're voting on the continuance Betsy black cter I Courtney bird I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robins ey Steve bat I it is unanimous we have continued this until February 26 next up Wayne Van Wart the seashell Lane Comm Community Association Inc zero Davisville Road M parcel ID is 40-11 d013 z00 z down with mass for permission to reconstruct and enlarge an existing licensed and they ran out of words here um and this is one two three four this will be the fifth continuance Jen yes Mr chairman I know they've asked for continuance a bunch of times they are they have some some kind of serious issues they're dealing with on the parcel where the dock is so there's a number of violations that they have to deal with both us and the planning board so they're trying to come back um and have a plan uh to present to this board um to review that addresses all the violation issues not only in our jurisdiction but also in regards to their special permit from the planning board um before I said that they needed to deal with that before we would entertain a discussion on creating four additional slips at this community dock so they are they are working on that it's taking them some time because it's an association there's a lot of people involved so they are moving forward they are doing the best they can and they have asked for another continuance until February 26th so they're going to try to get you a plan a week in advance to at least open the hearing and get it in front of the board you think that's enough time they say it is they're working it's just there's a lot of um a l i get all that but let's you know kick it down the road we we started this back in all right they're aware Mr chairman you don't sound very convincing all right what are we looking at folks we have a request to continue this until 226 so move gladfelter B bird second all right we have a motion in a second to continue this until February 26 we're voting on the continuance Betsy blad filter I Courtney bird I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robin I Steve I it is unanimous we have continued this until February 26 next up are requests for determination of applicability first up Robert Jette 351 Davisville Road East fouth mass for permission to replace decking and rails on an existing back deck and to enlarge an existing front deck Alissa this application has been withdrawn all righty then it's easy yeah could have told me that before I read all that all right next up Peter and Julie Wyman 14 Francis Avenue found with mass for permission to construct an outdoor pool and spa with a granite patio and to construct the pool house with a porch and pool equipment pad Alyssa staff recommends a negative2 under the state and bylaw resourcer boundaries are not confirmed and this project solely takes place in an AE flood zone so move BL filter second all right we have a motion in a second to accept recommendation questions or comments we're voting Betsy ey Courtney word ey Matthews Z Kevin Brien I Russ Robin Z Steve I it is unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation next up Bradley mcer trustee 24 Sasa Lane realy trust 24 SAS Lane North malmouth mass for permission to construct a detached garage and a new driveway Alysa staff recommends a negative3 under the state and a negative -2 under the bylaw resour boundaries are not confirmed move CL felter second all right we have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation questions or comments we're voting Betsy R fter ey Courtney where I Matthews ey Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robins I Steve Pat I it is unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation next up John whan wean sorry nine Hawks Way West fouth Mass for permission to construct a deck with stairs Alyssa staff recommends a negative3 under the state and a negative -2 under the bylaw resource boundaries are not confirmed so move what pter second all right we have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation questions or comments we're voting Betsy go Ry Courtney bird ey Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robins ey Steve Paton I it is unanimous we have accepted staff's recommendation next up is a continued request for determination of applicability Joe Hosford 8 Rice Street fouth mous for permission to construct two Dormers uh list yes so this is the continued RDA from our last hearing um there was sort of two uh uh portions to this RDA the original request was to construct Dormers which you guys have already approved um during the yeah during the review process we did discover an unpermitted shed on the property so the hearing was continued so the commission could make a site visit and receive all of the um staff information about the project and the site plan for the property um I do believe the homeowners are here to continue to ask any questions as a reminder staff's recommendation was a positive simply because the shed is located in a velocity Zone it's also located within the 100 foot set back to a salt merch so with a 3 to1 mitigation you are over that maximum 200 square feet for an RDA but um since you guys have been considering allowing sheds to be a bite of the app for that 200 foot allotted uh increase of structure in a velocity Zone it could be approvable okay so to be clear despite what the the um I'm sorry what am I trying to say where it says for permission to construct the two domers we already gave granted permission for that so what we're here for tonight is whether we're going to allow the shed to stay as it is or if it has to move to a notice um so that that's going to be what we're looking for basically um okay so Jen do you have anything you want to add to that can't hear you can't hear you can you hear me now yes yeah you need to increase your volume but yeah all right sorry about that um no like Alyssa said the only reason that we recommended the positive for the shed was one it was in the velocity Zone if you were allowed to keep it it would be over that typical 200 square feet we usually see as mitigation under a um under an RDA which is what prompted our positive so we could condition that you know the plants remain they remain in good health they aren't pruned that's okay okay thank you all right commissioner comments Courtney so have have they moved the shed is that what's changed no no no okay so I don't think there's anywhere to move it to to be outside the velocity Zone that whole area is in the velocity zone right all right you good Courtney that yeah okay Mr chairman I just got a question for Jen sure Russ I think Jamie's Frozen right now so what's your question Russ um what was the story with the uh we we had another situation I don't think I was on at the time but I remember hearing about it it was the end in this Central a on the corner of uh man Road didn't um wasn't that gentleman required to remove a shed completely from the property yes he was that shed was removed okay with this set a precedent I you know this is something that would come back um I think right now Russell we're doing some um we're looking at our regulations we're doing some regulatory review meetings and we are looking at allowing sheds um and and sheds in in V zones as long as it doesn't trip that that 200 so we're looking at that we're moving in that direction it's just not written in that way right now thanks and this and this shed actually is and correct me if I'm wrong Alyssa it's actually in front of the house right Alysa isn't it in front of the house yes it is yes yeah yeah so it's not on the water side it's actually tucked in and almost protected by the house so that wall of water is going to hit the house first and then the shed right Ross you're good thank you J I don't know what happened I I left the meeting for a second I I have no idea what went on my whole screen went blank so I think I missed Kevin's comments no actually Kevin didn't comment comment Mr chairman Russell had a question and I answered it so you're fine okay all right so uh so Kevin no further comments I I I I hesitate to say this but I think I understand what's going on and I'm fine okay all right I'm okay with the shed word it is I think if it has 301 mitigation be fine I think it's it's it's in the only place on the property that I can go uh I'm okay with it it's the kind of thing we've been talking about in the Reg atory meeting I know we're not there yet but so that that's my two cents all right Russ any additional comments Steve no comments thank you all right Betsy how did how did we hear Steve without his oh there two Steves oh okay yeah did both Steve say that Steve anyway Jamie I have no problem with this project excellent all right I like Frozen one yeah John um Mr St has his hand raised and I do believe he would like to address the board so I'm going to promote him up as a panelist he's the property owner so why does it say Joseph Hosford why the applicant Horan no he's hi whatever can you hear me yes turn your video on please H trying to trying to get the video going Joe Hosford was our contractor that we hired to do the doorm on the third floor and he went the building application which which triggered this process thank you but we really we want to we just want to thank you for uh especially the staff for their consideration of this and uh we know that this is a problem that that you're going to face uh all over and and I I hope that you you deal with it in in in a way that's U that you dealt with us you know with true mitigation so that something positive comes out of this and I mean moving the the shed would just uh would would would it doesn't seem like the right thing to do for conservation but so we thank you for your for your consideration all right to be clear Mr St you guys are willing to uh provide the 3:1 mitigation if approved yes of course yes all right then I'll make a motion to approve uh to to to make a posit I mean negative determination on this RDA bird bird second all right J I think we should ask him to tether the house the shed to the house so it doesn't blow away we're willing to do that and procedurally are we are we proceeding correctly we're we're offering a negative determination do we need uh to site state and town uh yes it' be they could be a negative -2 under both but we can change that to negative3 if need be for technical reason but that's fine okay so the motion and the second on the table is to um approve a negative determination which would allow the shed to stay with the condition that um it has three to one mitigation I would only add Mr chairman that Mr and Mrs stor we're going to put a a date certain on that mitigation so we'll give you a deadline in which to plant it and we'll go out there and work with you absolutely thank you very much all right Alissa should we caveat a revised plan as well to propose a location no not if you guys are gonna walk through it with them yeah but we do need ask for one yeah we're gonna need to see it on a plan so who did the plan Alyssa um unfortunately I don't have it in front of me oh okay BS did the plan so you're talking about putting the mitigation on the plan is that what you're saying yeah so we know where it is so we have a record of where it went so that is important so we'll be in touch with you this week and we'll give you next steps sounds good thank you very much thanks a lot everybody all right so we're going to vote on the motion in the second Steve you had your hand up sorry yes sir um I just want to clarify it's a negative motion it's a negative determination is what we're voting for so it would be just I want to approve a negative determination that's what we're voting for yeah that's what we usually do staff's recommendation is usually a negative determination and we approve that but we want them to keep the shed yeah should no you should vote for the negative determination it means they can keep the shed keep the shed we're not having a positive determination which would mean they would have to they might be able to keep the shed but they would have to put in an noi got it so this is where this is where no means yes understand a paraphrase Mr bird this was just a double negative as I saw it double negative exactly I saw somebody's hand up I don't know was it Alyssa or Jen it was me I was going to try to explain it to Steve but I think he has it all right the motion on the table is to approve a negative determination we're voting Betsy BL poter ey Courtney bir ey Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robins I Steve p i it is unanimous we have issued a negative determination with the assistance of Staff thank you for all the that helped to Alyssa and palen all right next up our request for hearing under notice of intent all hearings under of the F Conservation Commission are held simultaneously under the authorities of the mass Jetts Wetlands protection act and the fouth wetlands bylaw although a single decision of the commission is issued it represents a separate decision under each Authority as a reminder public commenting is limited to 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 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 William and Elizabeth scel 314 quet Avenue F withth mass for permission to reconstruct an existing licensed peer Jen yes Mr chairman I have promoted my belli to present his project and Mr belli you had exception with you only saw my face on the screen earlier and you made that sound bad I don't know it was only when you talked and then you went away so when you didn't talk it was a lot better but man you just dug a deeper hole I couldn't resist sorry but I can see everyone now all right I make a motion to declin his project all right Mr belli you're up sir thank you Mr chairman members of the commission for the record Mike belli fouth engineering and I represent the applicant with your permission Mr chairman I'd like to share my screen yes sir thank you for for orientation purposes I just wanted to show you this aerial photo the property's at 314 qued Avenue you may know it as the former National Academy of Sciences property it's on a peninsul are off uh quit Avenue there were a couple of recent RDA applications submitted that you reviewed the there's a carriage house on the approach to the property um there's a large circular driveway in a gravel parking lot that was used for um uh various functions uh when it was the National Academy of Sciences it's on quet uh harer directly to the north and west is the knob and you can see if I zoom in on this the the um the house and then just uh south of the house Southwest of it you can see the uh Pier this pier uh has the benefit of a chap 91 license from 1934 so it's a a 90y old license um the house is undergoing interior Renovations and the architect um did research and came up with a lot of um uh old photos one of which I wanted to share with you um this show this shows the original house um in the background and the existing doc sometime a long time ago it's not dated but it's certainly you know from the 30s decades ago um and uh we're here tonight asking for permission to uh rebuild that I submitted a plan that shows the pier ramp and Float on the property it's it's um located in this location um again for reference here's the house this is an overview of the lot um a blow up of the um Pi shows it's uh Dimensions its length it it has a um fixed T 12x 22 with a ramp in a 17 by 17t float and it has uh pilings we're proposing to rebuild it in kind in the same position but with um the current materials that are available a lot of the pilings are degraded they were uh craso which was the standard type uh Marine lumber at the time time uh Through The Years there were some patches and fixes made to this but it's certainly uh outlived its uh useful life it still functions but it's in definitely in need of replacement so we're proposing to rebuild it in kind a typical uh construction that you've seen for docks non CCA treated materials uh the piles will be um driven not jetted the water depths are shown on the plan reference to low tide at low tide there's an excess of well there's about 8 ft it varies from like 7 and A2 to 8 and2 uh at the end um it does cross one section of salt marsh um in the profile that we provided for the project um shows where that crossing of the salt marsh is and the reconstructed dock will conform with the DMF uh standard for uh one and a half times the width of the walkway at it at its closest point it's about 7 and 1 12 ft above the salt marsh which works well with where the access is um up on the pave driveway right here um it we thought um it would be best to uh not ask for relief from that uh recommendation from DMF so we we adjusted the height to meet that standard um here the the distance is even greater it's probably closer to 9 and a half feet um staff comments included I'm going to stop sharing yes step comments um uh were limited there was one question about that specific thing uh where were crossing the salt marsh uh you have a regulation that uh recommends um uh 50% sunlight penetration decking when crossing a salt marsh uh we're hoping that you'll allow us to uh use the same materials that uh are on the current dock which a 2x6 decking with half inch spacing give in that we uh are meeting the DMF policy standard for 1 and a half times the width uh separation the salt marsh is um it's a sparse salt marsh the beach is a rocky uh it's not a Sandy uh Beach it's not a peach shelf type of salt marsh there is just salt marsh vegetation finding its way through the Rocks it's healthy it's um clearly not impacted by the by the dock as far as sunlight shading or anything like that um that was the only comment of note on the staff report and I'm happy to answer any questions thanks Mike Jen yes Mr chairman um the only thing we would have a concern on um and Bessie you might be able to comment on this is if that dock is 7 feet higher or seven feet above that salt marsh is it enough how is it oriented Mike um from sun sunrise to sunset how is the dock oriented um I could show you again if I share my screen um for reference um trying to get you to a North Arrow the north Arrow up here so so the sun e East West is this direction so I don't know it's the the dock is in a Southwest yeah yeah I mean that was the the only concern we had um I know there was um we've received I think uh a few emails and maybe a a call while I was out regarding um some concerns about ill grass being in that area but it's a reconstruction of a dock that's been there for almost 90 years so they're not expanding it so there would not be any um prohibition to to allow them to to reconstruct it they're not enlarging it in into even more Al grass or just um basically rebuilding what is currently there that's all I have Mr chairman Alysa no comments thank you all right Russ put you in the hot seat I've got nothing I think it's a good project Steve yeah pretty straightforward Mr chairman I don't see anything thank you Betsy yeah I don't have a problem either I mean it's the best orientation as far as the sun as far as Summer Sun and I don't think it'll it'll have that much Shadow through the day all right Courtney no questions yeah all right Kevin no questions Mr Tim thank you all right Jen is there anything in the public chat function please there's nothing in the public chat function Mr chairman but there is somebody that has their hand raised I'm going to be promoting a Susan Edson to be a panelist to ask her a question okay and then there is a um there the somebody just did put a chat in so we'll go with that after Miss Edson hi am Susan sorry thank you uh thanks for listening to me this is more of a request my name is Susan Edson I am one of the owners of the James Marshall House LLC which is right next to the um what was the academy National Academy of Science originally was my great-grandfather's house uh with there are about six peers in the outer harbor uh and none of them uh have lights that shine at night I noticed that the scals wanted to have lights along the pier I have no problem with that when they're using the pier at night but it is a detriment to uh the rest of the whole Ambiance of the outer harbor if people have lights on all the time and all of the owners in the outer harbor have never done that so I respectfully request you pass along to the scals uh they request that they do not use the lights uh unless they have to and not have them on all the time thank you very much thank you for participating Jen yes Mr chairman there is a um sorry a chat from Marky close current floating dock is 6X 16 plan has 17 by 17 Mike which is it the license allows for a 17 by 17 and we wanted to maintain the dimensions that the license allow okay all right um as far as the lighting goes we normally require down lighting anyway in low voltage low wattage so that would a standard condition anyway correct uh we can make sure it's in there down lighting low voltage got it okay um thank you Jen just for the record when I ask you for public chat I my perspective I think I'm asking you for all encompassing if there's any anybody wants to speak comment whatever so if I should use different verbiage just let me know but I'm kind of asking if absolutely anybody wants to say anything or or you know what I mean yep I understand Mr chairman just want to make sure everybody's included that wants to be included I'll make a motion no hold on Courtney yeah I just had is it appropriate for us to condition the lighting to be the only time they can have it on is when they're actually using the dock I mean I I know that's it's an Enforcement issue but I wouldn't think we could do that I mean our our standard requirement from my memory is is low wattage and only down lighting it's like step step lighting so that you know nobody's tripping over anything um I yeah I mean I I think that lighting is you know having lighting is appropriate if they're using the dock but if they're not I know we anguished over this issue before with its effect on wir life and all that stuff so that's I'm I'm trying to come up with something that sounds reasonable and yeah Mike Low lighting and the the the low voltage and the downward lighting um is is reasonable Courtney Mike could you could you trans could you pass that on to to to your client yes I'm I'm happy to do that and I wanted to remind you you have a regulation that limits the foot candle uh Power of the lights so because there was a concern uh about these becoming false aids to navigation and things like that and also to respect the like the the abds uh from from unnecessary lighting it would only be if it's I will pass it on to the uh client but if it's only very low light for foot foot if you happen to be walking out on the dock at night for safety I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement one more there's more public chat that keeps coming in I apologize Mr chairman um again from a Mark clu uh lighting is damaging to the fisheries and question about length of the pier what is your Mike can you confirm the length of the pier please the length from mean high water to the very terminal end of the float is 138 ft which is consistent with the license okay thank you Mike and it's rebuilding kind so it can't exceed that correct all right make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement word 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 Betsy black filter ey Courtney word I Matthew's ey O'Brien I Russ Robins I Steve I it is unanimous we have close this hearing thank you Mr Boselli thank you next up Joseph and Lucia giang graso 55 Little Island Road West Falmouth Mass for permission to construct a pervious patio and install previously required mitigation plantings Jen yes Mr chairman uh Mike belli is still with us to present his second project of the evening Mr belli you're up again thank you Mr chairman again for the record Michael Boselli FM with engineering and I represent the applicant Joseph and Lucha Jang graso if you have permission I'd like to share my screen yes sir I'm sharing with you the current uh site plan of the property I'm sure you're familiar with this property you reviewed it and issued in order of conditions in the not too distant past for a pool um and at the time when you issued the order of conditions the pool was proposed to have no patio and that was by Design because there was no room to uh for any uh additional mitigation planting with an impervious patio and uh the applicant was advised of that and they we kind of work backwards in sizing the pool as large as it could be with the allowable area of mitigation planting so it the pool was more important than the patio U but unfortunately over time without permission of patio became important and there was no permits for that and I I became aware of it um when there was an enforcement action issued your staff uh discovered there was a unpermitted patio constructed using one of their tools called near map and um that's why I'm here um there was an enforcement or or order issued we worked with Jen to first uh we the patio was removed that was unpermitted there was actually um an alteration of the required mitigation planting over here to allow for patio and uh that was all removed and we had a site meeting uh with um Jen in the owner the owner uh regrets what he did he takes full responsibility and fall for his actions and he asks me to try to basically get him out of trouble and uh try to get permission to uh restore the mitigation area back to the way it was supposed to be which is the Shaded area this this shaded green area was uh altered in a few places not not not entirely just in an area here and and there was a narrowing of it here so what you see on here is what you approved when you approved the pool for the mitigation the pool was built the proper size the mitigation was installed correctly a certificate of compliance was issued and then this other work happened so we're asking we're here tonight to ask permission to restore the altered mitigation uh in the buffer but we're also here in hopes that we can persuade you to allow for a perious patio um instead of an impervious patio uh your regulations do allow for um pervious surfaces that won't support natural vegetation uh without needing mitigation as long as it's in an outer buffer zone B and this isn't an outer buffer zone B to a wetland the the 50 Foot node disturbance zone is uh identified and then the 50 Foot outer buffer zone is identified and we're showing a shaded area that is prvious pavers um in the uh outer buffer zone B only and the previous paper system is something we researched with a landscape contractor and I'm I'm sharing with you a typical cross-section of what that is you I think you're familiar with them the they they're built in a way that there's a a crush Stone uh subbase um and there's uh a French drain system built within the crush Stone and then there's um this stone is 3/4 to inch and a half and then this is half inch Stone and then this is p Stone so that you can um create a smooth surface to put the perious pavers onto the joints as you can see on this this is called Techo block are such that the water drains through it goes through the crushed stone the the bottom of this is uh on the subgrade is a geo a geom mesh and this pipe has perforations in there's a large dry well right adjacent to the pool that is there for roof runoff it's it's a large leeching pit actually and the this French drain system would drain the water from this into the drywell so this is a pervious uh surface that won't support natural vegetation as a as I understand your regulations as they are written today U mitigation is not NE necessary for that so that's that's what we were proposing to fix this there um is the dimensions on this patio area are are shown on this side it's 12 feet over here it's 12 on this side it's 8 feet on this side it's five the pool itself which is a structure is set back 10 feet from the limit of work which is your your policy uh for a distance from a structure to Pro provide what your your regulations called a no structure Zone well we're we're asking though that there be a 5 foot strip of the prvious PA which means that the edge of the prvious p is only 5et from the limit of work it'd be a a band of uh of grass between it and the um required mitigation planting we're very much open to putting in a single rail fence at the Inside Edge of the mitigation planting as a reminder that that's not supposed to be mowed or altered and we're we're hopeful that you can allow this solution to proceed with that I'll stop sharing and take questions thanks Mike hello chenman um Friday night Mike what about the trees The Three Trees oh yeah so I work with uh I I had a meeting with Alissa yesterday to talk about the staff report I failed to mention this these uh these tupo trees actually were uh planted in a different location which is um I apologize I'm talking about trees and you don't see the screen these three Tupelo uh were actually planted over here I was showing the original position where they were proposed at the time that we originally presented the project to you um staff did not seem to have a an issue with the fact that they were planted over here I I can revise the plan and show where the actual location of those tupo trees are there is like a distant view through here of the water so these at the time we didn't realize that these are these are right in that view they would still be within the uh no disturbance Zone a Zone just in a different position okay um single rail fence is good um that's all I have tman all right Alysa nothing to add at this time thank you okay just for clarification staff you guys are okay with where the tup blows located now I did visit the site um I do think that they are in a fine location um that can benefit from the trees um because they were replanted I do think perhaps two of them are a SPID too close together um but since they'll have to get in there anyway we can address that on site okay thank you all right commissioner comments and questions Steve I don't have any other questions thank you Mr chairman all right I think this will work Betsy yeah I I have no further questions or comments okay Courtney um couple of questions on your pavers the are the pav bricks itself pervious or is it because of the Gap you're leaving because of the joints okay so the problem with that I see you're G to leave probably what 38 to a half inch joint so those are going to fill up with debris and that's going to you're going to have a problem with with the thing draining properly and defeating the purpose of it yeah there is some maintenance required to this that I mean it's recommended you keep the the joints clean by vacuuming and blowing but um if that that is something that requires ongoing maintenance is no question yeah I mean and that's that's a concern because how do we as a committee monitor that just you know it's that's the only issue I with this all right Mike you said there's a drywall or a draw down tank I don't see it located on the plan and by that I mean I don't see it do you have it on there you do not see it because I do not show it um I can add it to the plan and I can direct you to its location just quickly by sharing my SC you said it's bigger than a standard dry well yeah it's a six foot diameter six foot deep leeching pit um and it's right here and it collects the entire uh the roof and we were going to pipe the um French drain uh underd drain system to it as well okay my other question is on the let's see west side of the the pool you show new deck um yes well that was An approved deck um it's an existing deck now um okay that was reviewed and approved um at the at the original order it was constructed slightly different but during the compliance review We demonstrated to Alyssa that this area of it was the same as what was originally proposed that you approved it was just slightly different it was narrower um but longer um but it didn't go any closer to the Wetland resource and it wasn't larger so the words new deck or it should say existing deck or just deck like the rest of them yeah it's a recently constructed deck as opposed to the other deck okay thank you Kevin uh I guess no additional comments thank you all right Russ I'm good Mr chairman thank you all right Jen is there anything in the public chat function or emails or texts or anything you may have nobody would wish nobody wishes to comment on this project and I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement turn second all right we have a motion in a second to close the hearing last call questions or comments all right we're voting to close the hearing Betsy glad filter ey Courtney bir ey Matthews Z Kevin O Brien I Ron oh Ron Russ sorry Robins ey Steve an i it is unanimous we have closed this hearing thanks Mike thank you all right next up Thomas and MaryAnn villo 43 South View Way East fouth mass for permission to construct a dock and continuing with the Mike belli show Mike you're up thank you again Mr chairman for the record Mike belli fth engineering representing the applicant Thomas and Maran Vero with your permission I'd like to share my screen yes sir the verillas own the property at number 43 South View way it's on a fresh waterer pond called flax Pond um you have recently reviewed and issued orders of conditions for two um light duty kayak docks canoe dock type structures one immediately two lots to the left of this lot and one directly across the pond from this property the property um has a an existing house typical landscape areas it has a slope down to the pond the pond itself is freshwater so the Wetland resources land underwat body there's also an inland bank which is coincident with the uh annual uh High Pond elevation um there's a path leading from the Upland down to the water's edge where there was a small set of stairs or is a small set of stairs which you can see in the background um and the applicant is proposing um to eliminate those stairs and instead not eliminate those stairs to uh build a connection to those stairs with a a a small section of fixed pier and then a ramp to a float system the T of the float be 8 by 12 which is 96 Square fet it's extends out into the pond uh 32 feet in the water depth reference to the pond level is uh well over 3 feet it averages about 5 feet in this location the purpose of this uh is to gain safe access to the pond currently these stairs lead to the shore and this and the pond drops off quickly with with an with an inland bank so it um if you look at the a profile of the of the structure which I'm going to share with you right now you can see these existing stairs and then drop off here so the idea is to blend the a small section of fixed Pier a 4 foot wide to those stairs and then have a 3x16 ramp onto a uh Landing float and then the T 8 by12 out here U did this would all be fixed by um the floats would be fixed by 4 in diameter gal steel pipes the uh Timber portion would um utilize um 4X uh 6x6 posts that would be augured in to the bond there's a requirement to provide Public Access along the shore uh under chapter 91 requirements even though it's very unlikely that anyone really would be walking along here but you still must provide that and the only viable way to do that is to provide stairs up and around and then back down there was a question by the staff about this orientation of the stairs you've seen them so that they're more uh oriented the other direction but because of the slope of the of the pond uh I'll go back to that quickly because of the slope of the bottom trying to put stairs on on that slope uh sort of perpendicular to it is would be difficult so we instead oriented them so that they would be parallel with the way the pawn sloped down into the deeper water so you if you were to be coming across or walking across the pawn Edge you'd come up these stairs on the landing and then back down this is for the most part similar to the more most recent ones you reviewed um on this Pond um it's for private recreational use kayaks canoes swimming uh and fishing and with that I'm happy to take questions Mike Jen yes Mike um what about the Slate walkway that's on the property are we mitigating for that I should have mentioned the step comments there was a there was a question about this slate walkway I have not spoken to my client yet but I'm sure this there was not permission for this um I'm going to add the this is a priority habitat um I'm going to add the 100 foot no disturbance Zone a to this and most of this is within the no distrib Zone a so it would e there would either need to be mitigation for it or would have to be removed there's also a a kayak rack which is a couple of I think they're 4x4s that create like a like a square that I think they just set the kayaks on it's not it's not like a Timber deck or anything it's just like supported with cinder blocks so that kayaks could just be rested on it um I'm going to advise the client that now that we have the dock that they should find a way to uh Store The Kayaks you know on along the side on on they can create like um like a rack system on the side or just store them on the on the dock itself and eliminate that kayak rack and we were hoping we could work with staff if we're going to mitigate instead of remove the Slate by mitigating providing mitigation planting in this area and there's actually like a secondary path that is there's no use like you're not sharing sorry the kayak rack is in this location uh there'd be mitigation opportunities here there's a secondary path that is really not used very at all and this is the primary path so there's an opportunity that that should not be there if you already have one path so there's an opportunity to mitigate for the Slate the Slate's here because it's a little un uneven in this beginning part of the path that's why they have it there but so we're hoping that we you'd be able to if this is a acceptable close and we could work with staff to mitigate for that or eliminate the Slate Mike did you get um did you get a um did you get comments back from natural heritage I have not received comments from natural heritage yet so for that reason I will need a continuance actually um because they have 30 days to comment you're you're hear you're having a hearing less than 30 so we'll have to continue it per comment that's all I have Mr chairman all right Alysa nothing to add thank you all right commissioner comments Betsy no comments Courtney no comments all right I think I concur Kevin uh no comments Mr Jim thank you all right Ross no comments Steve no comments all right Jenna is there anything in the public chat function please doesn't look like there's anything in the public chat Mr chairman all right Mike you have a request for us yes Mr chman I'd request a continuance I think we should ask for two weeks hopefully we'll have comments by then if if you're if you're meeting two weeks that would be the um oh there's no concom on the 19th um how about the 26th all right well that would be the next one um unless I can ask for the 12th and if I have no comments just not appear and request a continuance to the 26th if we happen to get DMF comments it's up either way whatever pleases the commission we can try for the 12th Mike I mean it's it's the Tide Water mucket that husky little freshwater muscle right which on all other docks they've had no issues with no issues with so let's just kick it to the 12th and hopefully we'll get the comments in and if not we'll just have to kick it and I just if I don't have comments I'll just email requesting and not take up the yeah and then we'll just try to do the revisions to the plans for us and we can probably get that reviewed for you next week okay at the request of the applicant um I make a motion to continue this to February 12th bir so move uh second Mike are you clear on what changes I want to the plan I am if I'm not I can get it translated by your staff all right so we have a motion in a second to continue this until February 12 last call questions or comments we're voting on the continuance Betsy BL felter ey Courtney bir ey Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robins I Steve hon I it is unanimous we have continued this until February 12th thanks Mike thank you I guess I gotta go back in the audience until my final one I'm moving you right I'm moving you right now Mike just give me a minute there oh right there all right next one had been previously continued Mike Frozen 26 the next one is wait a minute Central AV has continued Central AV has been continued until February 26th thank you yep next up is continued request for hearing under a notice of intent first one there is Chris Smith Clancy construction 318 suppor at Road fouth mass for permission to raise ra a Ze and existing single family dwelling construct a new single family dwelling with attached garage deck and patio and upgrade the existing sewage Disposal system and the Quorum excludes Russell Mr chairman I have uh promoted CA from strong tree engineering to uh present her continued project Kina am I pres pulling anybody else up with you I do have Mr John McGrath on board as well any questions okay pan okay I'm promoting a Mr McGrath up anybody else so hello everyone my name is Katarina corlo I'm with strong tree engineering and we are the representative for the client who is Clancy construction I do believe uh Chris Smith of Clancy construction may be on the meeting uh as well as Kevin Loi who is the homeowner um however for the most part I will be speaking okay represent this project now we have already had one hearing regarding this project um may I share my screen yes please okay I'm going to pull up an image of of e slite plan um just a moment here um make sure it's the correct okay all right so now here is the existing home here at 318 caiset Road and the wetlands is located north and there's a slope here and a coast bank now there has been we we have discussed the Coastal Bank at length um and I will uh talk about that a little bit later on um here our proposed uh project is to raise and replace uh and to add this dwelling here now as you'll see the dwelling is farther away from the resource areas and we are also replacing the septic tank here the current driveway is made out of gravel and uh it will be paved now we have just learned that this gravel driveway is technically considered an impervious surface um previously our calculations included the change from what we believe was a perious to an impervious surface however with the clarification from the board on the recent staff notes this has changed our calculations so some of the other staff notes that uh came up was the mention of some Trails um uh there was concern that the trails were uh located on or adjacent to the property and uh this is a a copy of the trail map and as you can see the trails are here again is the property uh the trails are located uh even north of the wetlands area and to the West so there is actually no path um I wanted to make sure that was clarified uh we also discussed this Culvert here again the house is located here on this image and there's a 12 in diameter Culvert located here this was also discussed in our recent updated revision here's an image of the Culvert so this and then I wanted to also present the updated impervious calculation image here now there's two resource areas that we are consider concerned with here with our calculations we have the bordering vegetated Wetland delineated by these flags here uh the 0 to 50 and the 50 to 100 and you'll see here that um we also have the Coastal Bank buffer zone uh 0 to 50 5 to 100 and the majority of the increase in impervious area would be located here in the 5 to 100t buffer zone from the Coastal Bank now it is at this time that I would like to I will uh stop sharing for a moment um if I may actually not sure how to do that so um oh I see okay all right and then so I what I wanted to Simply say is that um in our recent revision we discussed our findings uh based on a review of a desktop and infield observations we feel that the Coastal Bank the significant presumptions uh that would make up the Coastal Bank are not truly met the Coastal Bank does not supply sediment to the beach and this was discussed in in that uh writing and um in the supplemental information that we provided and therefore the app the applicant is seeking relief from providing medication related to that 550 to 100 foot buffer zone of the Coastal Bank um it is at this time I would like to ask the board if they have any question questions regarding the staff items that I have discussed now all right Mr McGrath do you have anything to add at this point uh my name is John McGrath I work for uh strong tree engineering I'm a professional Wetland scientist um I did the delineation on the site and following doing the delineation um we determined that there was a Coastal Bank associated with the site in his it is pretty far removed from the Waterfront area um the bank itself um is around a 2 and a half acre abandoned cranberry bog that's sort of hourglass shaped very flat based to it heavily vegetated with swamp blue Strife um there's an outlet that passes from from east to west under cpet Road about 500 feet from the bank and it's it's elevated it's a it's a small 12in CMP pipe um there's no evidence of a sediment that crosses through that cul there is only some organic material um the soil surrounding the the bog itself are a blazion till sort of like a basil till almost uh very Rocky the stone walls um the soil series associated with the the banks is a um you know as it ice contact uh glacial deposit it's not unconsolidated material that you might typically find in a Coastal Bank and um there are no veeg there's no vegetation in the area either that is uh Coastal vegetation um you know associated with any Backwater that comes in the the pipe the the Culvert is it appears to be used for flow Equalization and it's about 8 to 12 inches off of the base flow line of the area in in effect our position on it or at least my position on it after looking at it was that um the area can can find any sediment that might come into it um which we didn't find any erosion on any of the banks and um that it it sort of act like a sediment trap or a temporary construction siltation type Pawn situation whereby there's basically a sump under the the outlet structure and um we don't feel as though it it contributes any uh sediment in the form of beach nourishment to the beach uh associate you know that the beach would need or Dunes would need uh on the beach so basically we we agree by definition under the regulations that it it is a Coastal Bank but under the presumptions of significance we don't feel as though it provides any sediment to the Waterfront area all right you good if you have any questions for me I I could I'd be happy to answer them I've spent quite a bit of time out walking around the site and I'm very familiar with the property thank you Jen yes Mr chairman uh I think the board does need to determine um whether or not they feel that this Coastal Bank is significant may not be a sediment Source but you do need to determine whether it's significant to storm Dam prevention and flood control it is far I mean the property to give you a kind of overview and if you just give me me one second Mr chairman I can share my screen um just to show you can everyone oh wait sh can everyone see that so here's the beach here's FL I think it's this Flume Pond there's some sort of Culvert under the road so it's way up here and if you can see I mean it just it's in the upper reaches of that of that flood zone so it's just this part of the property right here that's in the flood zone that's creating that bank okay so that might give you guys a little bit more context in which to make that decision um okay and I think I think that's that's all I have for right now all right what's GNA have to take this one over nothing to add at this time thank you all right come comments and questions Courtney so um your testimony is that um what we're calling a soci Coastal Bank is really a a geologic deposit like a eser or something like that well I think it's part of the terminal Marine but basically uh the point we were making or the request we made on behalf of the applicant was to ask to wave the mitigation requirement in the buffer zone to the coast Bank um because the Coastal Bank itself doesn't act as a Coastal Bank there there is an actively sediment moving from this area it's it's quite far removed um there has been some revisions to the plan that sort of negate that request to some extent um but like I said by definition um it it it follows a flood zone in and at one point the grades increase by for 41 or greater which extends the lineup a little bit above the uh existing flood elevation um you know land subject to Coastal Flowage I I equate it to the land subject to Coastal Flowage in that it it provides the same flood protection that you get from that particular resource area um and whereas Coastal Bank might extend further above that area in Provine sediment which I've been in the field and I really don't see any evidence that any sediment you know it's a it's a big area that act would actually migrate out of that area through that covert um so it's my opinion on it um I've taken a look at it um you know and like I said initially when I delineated the site it was so far removed from the the the Waterfront area I I was surprised when I came back and we looked at the maps and found that it in fact um you know the flood elevation did extend through the property from the O the Waterfront but it's it's it's quite a ways removed from from the beach area thank you other questions all right Kevin uh no questions Mr Tim thank you all right Steve no I don't have any questions thank you bety yeah I think uh you've made a case that you've overcome the presumptions of um the bank yeah I mean it doesn't provide sediment very very unlikely and it it's not really providing flood control either so I don't have a problem all right Jen is there anything in the public chat function please nothing in the public chat function Mr chairman you want a motion please I'll make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement thir second all right we have a motion and a second to close the hearing last call questions or comments voting to close the hearing Betsy lad felter I Courtney bir ey Matthews I Kevin o' Brian I Steve I is unanimous with this Quorum we have closed this hearing thank you Mr McGrath thank you Miss cor thank you very much thank you good night next up has been previously continued to 226 226 getting busy hopefully not too next up Michael badar 27 Sycamore LLC 27 Sycamore Street B with mask for permission to raise r a z the existing single family dwelling and shed construct a new single family dwelling with attached garage deck and porch install a paved driveway and retaining wall reconnect to town Sou and install mitigation plantings and this is continued from I don't know when 122 and it was not open do I have that correct all right so the Quorum is all of us tonight Jen yes Mr chairman I promoted Mark dib up from caping Islands engineering to present his project Mr Deb you're up Sir uh good evening Mark DB was cap and Islands engineering uh represented the applicant Michael Bard for 27 Sycamore llc at uh 27 Sycamore uh with your permission I'd like to share my screen yes sir okay so the project before you tonight is is a raise and replace of an existing dwelling which is in this uh heavier dotted uh footprint and removal of an existing shed at the property at 27 Sycamore uh the property is situated to the west of Great Pond uh there is a uh We've delineated a salt marsh as well as a Coastal Bank um on the other side of Great Bay Street and there is a a flood zone and the Lim line in this location um that is a line between uh 14 and 12 and then the remainder of the property is in AE flood zone elevation 12 the associated buffer zones um there is an a buffer zone to this point on the property and a b buffer zone uh right here so the propos project is to uh remove the existing dwelling and we're proposing a new dwelling that will be um situated uh appropriate for the flood zone um we're actually putting the Finish floor up at 16 which is um a little bit higher than required but um even the newer RS do require that are coming up uh would require it to be 2 feet above base flood elevation um and they're putting this house up at 16 the um there's Associated decks on this side and the water side as well as um couple staircases down off these these decks and elevation there's one here um as well as um more of a uh Stone type Terrace walkway coming down uh with the driveway off the back here as well as this is a one car garage door right here in this area um as noted in the project description the house is currently on uh Town sewer and will be continue to be connected to town sewer uh we're proposing uh roof runoff uh dry Wells um that the property does not have right now as well as a catch Basin at this um area on the property and um the proposed project there is a a very small portion of the existing house in the B Zone and then there is some new Improvement in the B buffer zone um a net plus change of 160 square feet which is being mitigated for in this portion of the property uh there is also a single tree right here on on the site that is um being proposed to be replaced at this location um there was a couple comments from staff one there's a there's a rather large branch that kind of runs towards the east over the shed um I took a look at that I do believe the shed can be removed without significantly removing that Branch maybe some smaller little pieces of it might have to be but the the significant uh portion of that brand could stay and it's also uh far enough away from the proposed house uh so we believe that can can can remain um the initial uh submitted project had a raised kind of sitting Terrace in this area um which is quite a bit of fill in the flood Z Zone uh that's been removed from the project um now really we're just trying to get off the the elevated structure with some stairs coming down um we did clarify um plantings for the mitigation as it it can it's it's on a low pretty low portion of the site adjacent to the waters so we made sure appropriate uh species are proposed um a mix of facultative species that should should handle uh wet and dry conditions for the property um believe that is all I have I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have thanks Mark no questions Mr chairman thank you all right Whata nothing to add thank you all right commissioner comments I don't know where we're at um Kevin we'll start with you oh too bad no comments Mr chair Ross I'm good Mr chairman Steve amazing job for this site amazing thank you no comments all right Betsy I'm good too oh boy Courtney me too all right I'm gonna break that no I'm not it's good JK disappointed chairman um I think the owner of 21 Sycamore um is asking Sarah Lavoy are there two driveways on the property or one continuous u-shaped driveway uh proposed there will be uh not one continuous u-shaped driveway this driveway comes into a couple garage spaces here and then to show us the map you're not sharing sorry about that excuse while I zoom in um so the existing driveways is in this area um there is just one sing there's it is not a continuous loop it is a driveway to a couple garage doors here as well as an additional garage door here if that answers the question so there three garages correct okay and then they said um we were requesting that they they they own a parcel 21 so they are requesting that the that our tree and its branches at the corner of the lot are not touched and then there is a comment that there is no existing driveway currently I think I misread my own plan yeah I do not see um yeah there is no existing driveway I agree and most of those driveways marker outside of that buffer zone B to the top of the Coastal Bank correct there is one little piece here and that was picked up as part of the mitigation requirement this triangle perfect but yes okay thank you all right you can stop sharing Mark make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement word second all right we have a motion in a second to close the hearing last call questions or comments right we're voting to close the hearing Betsy glad felter R Courtney bir I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robin Tai Steve Matt and I it is unanimous we have closed this hearing thank you Mr dib sorry you weren't able to get continued and come back again but sometimes we're efficient thank you have a good night night Mark next up our requests to amend an existing order of conditions first up Gano Fedora 258 Edgewater Drive East East bouth Mass request to amend the order of conditions for Mass D number 25- 4772 to permit the Reconstruction of a Timber landscape wall with stone permit the construction of a new landscape wall after the fact and install mitigation plantings Jen yes Mr chairman I promoted Mike belli to present his uh what are you presenting Mike an amended project excuse me he's Jen's fading fast yeah I am M Mr chairman with your permission i' like to share my screen yes sir for the record Mike belli fouth engineering I represent the applicant Gano federa who owns the property at 258 Edge Water Drive East you recently issued an order of conditions to allow him to raise and reconstruct the existing house um which is uh underway um close to being uh complete but not quite um some of the remaining activities are related to uh Landscaping which is the purpose for my request for Amendment tonight um the there is an existing Timber wall on the property that has been there since probably the original House was built that retains about three feet of Earth here and it's made out of Old Timber uh landscape ties not not creol but like some pressure treated uh Timbers here and there's some steps that lead down to a path that lead to a dock and um Mr fedir is a stone Mason by trade so anytime he sees anything my made out of timber that's retaining he wants to immediately convert it to Stone so um we're proposing to remove the landscape timbers and replace in the same exact location um uh Stone uh landscape wall when I was approached by uh when I met Mr federa he contacted me about this and I wanted to go refresh my memory I I noticed uh a couple of things which is why is an after the fact permission requested and what I noticed was that uh there was a stone wall built here and some stairs to help ease this grade around the building the original design had assumed the grade would just flow around this side and it would be like a walk out on this side but because of uh access off this him wanting access off this uh deck that didn't require a flight of stairs and probably because there was a pile of stones and he can't help himself he decided to build a another landscape stone wall here and that's what we're asking for after the fact permission to uh per so um the staff comments were limited I did add mitigation planting for um what I perceived uh as the only part that required additional mitigation because this this um Timber wall is already there and we're replacing it in kind but in my conversations with Alyssa she wanted me to just verify and and submit a calculation that uh Pro proved that we're mitigating for the entire stone wall um that was built so the original approved plan which I'm going to share with you right now real quick um showed stairs but no wall and it showed the mitigation planting shaded in green and you'll notice this sort of 90 degree um cutout which would have been a lawn area on the original plan we we in the total mitigation at that time was um made up of 1100 s ft here and 300 over here for a total of, 1400 Square ft and on the on the new plan you can see we filled that in and we increased the mitigation uh to 1, 150 square feet here so there's 50 more square feet to make up I thought I calculated uh 3 to one for the area of that but there's also some uh Flagstone here so I'm I'm going to refine the mitigation calculation and hopefully satisfy your staff I'm hoping you could close uh pending uh submission of a um revised plan demonstrating the mitigation barrier is sufficient with that I'm happy to take questions thanks Mike Alysa thank you um yes I did meet with Mike the other day to go over the staff reports uh Mike the other thing to please add to the mitigation calculation is that um area where the fill was added that sort of extended deck walkway as seen in the pictures yes um if you could survey that add that to the plan just add it to the mitigation calculation that would be great yes um and I think you confirmed that the existing limit of work would continue to be used for the that's correct okay perfect um so yeah that's something that we can condition is just a Revis plan showing the appropriate uh mitigation calculation thank you all right commissioner comments or questions Russ no comments Steve I agree with them no comments let's see I agree with the previous two Commissioners all right one big happy family Courtney no comments Kevin no comments Mr chairman thank you all right Alysa is there anything in the public chat function please look there are no new chats and nobody has a hand raised make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement third second all right we have a motion in a second to close the hearing last call questions or comments we're voting to close the hearing Betsy BL felter Courtney b i Matthews ey Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robins ey Steve maton all it is unanimous we have closed this hearing thank you Mr belli thank you all you wore me out tonight but I'm done so have a good night night Mike we're not I know you volunte hang around you volunteered don't remind us have a good night thank you thanks next up continued hearings under an enforcement order Joshua O'Brien and Melissa Mayo O'Brien 22 dear Road East fouth Mass unpermitted installation of a dock construction of a shed and Patio and Associated clearing Alysa thank you yes this is a continued enforcement hearing for two properties out on deer Pond um the hearing was continue to allow for the commission to make a site visit and we've had a couple um sequential continuances after that just to um find a good time for the homeowner to rejoin us at the hearing um I do know that he is in process of working with the planning board to merge the properties um I don't believe that's been completed yet so with one contiguous property um there there may or may not be room for uh mitigation for the unpermitted patio which I believe the homeowner would like to keep to the greatest extent possible um also looking to keep the unpermitted shed on the property I believe the dock has already been removed at this time um so staff's recommendation is to um SE comments from the board see what your opinion is in terms of the location of the shed the patio what can be mitigated for and based on the aerial photos submitted and your site visit if it appeared that um restoration is actually needed if there was um clearing performed on the properties okay you just said it it's um it's on the agenda for the planning board or for CBA um perhaps Mr O'Brien can comment I'm not sure if it's on an agenda or if you're simply just um still working with the town departments uh yeah thanks for having me I was successful in combining the Lots uh that has been filed with the county as a matter of fact um so it should be going through whatever process they need to do to update the uh the record but I I do have the stamp from Jed and and uh and it has been filed thank you so yes zero and 22 have now been combined into one lot which would be 22 dear Pond okay and for clarification Alyssa if if um if these are allowed to stay they would require mitigation but you said something about not there's not enough room for mitigation it's pretty wooded pretty heavily what a lot yeah so one of staff's initial concerns is solely through review of aerial photos it appeared that there was an underst story um in between basically the house and and where the shed is um so it appeared that it had been cleared um but were only as good as the quality of the AO photos perhaps the the leaf layer was Rak um hard to tell if actual shrub understory was removed um so that will just need to be a judgement from the commission if that area is suitable for mitigation all right Jen I'm not going to pick on you just raise your hand if you want to be picked on though um all right we're going to go right to commissioner comments Betsy I have no comments Courtney I don't I don't have any comments either okay my only comment on mitigation or restoration is that it's a pretty heavily vegetated property both Lots or now one um so I agree with what you said it's it's tough to tell if something was taken out of there um if I had to say anything about it I would ask you Mr O'Brien let's just not cut anything further you know Kevin uh no comments Mr chairman thank you okay Russ yeah no comments Mr chair okay Steve Steve I'm sorry I didn't hear if you said anything no comments sir okay thank you I wasn't looking up sorry about that um Alissa you said the dock has already been removed correct correct and if they'd like to move forward they can file a notice 7 okay is that clear to you Mr O'Brien yes okay all right so really sure what the motion should reflect Jen I do want to be picked on um you should at least require mitigation for the the um the larger shed if you're looking at the property the one to the left y um that definitely should be mitigated for as should probably the increase in the flagstone patio and if any patio closer yeah the the the larger and we're calling it shed it looks more of like a bunk out building um that is moving closer but again we're we're in the process of grappling with that right now so it at the very least you should require mitigation which is why we uh asked Mr O'Brien to approach the planning board because once he combined the Lots then he has the room to mitigate on both Lots or on the larger lot now okay okay so if I understand it would be looking for a motion to to approve these increases with mitigation correct so you'd issue an enforcement order Mr O'Brien would have to go back to Tim I want to say when with meal engineering did you go with Tim Santos yes go back to Tim have him calculate It Out Show you an area on the plan where we that could provide the mitigation and submit that to us and then you know we'll give you a time frame of when the mitigation plantings need to go in okay so I'll make go ahead I'll make a motion to issue an enforcement order doing all the things that Jen just said thir second all right that's what I was for all right we have a motion and a second issue an enforcement order last call questions or comments do we need to put a time frame uh well Courtney you should probably see the plan first okay we'll get the plan from Merill and then go from there right I don't really even think you need the twop two-step process Mr chairman as long as you know staff can review the plan for Merill um we can put appropriate planting parameters in there as in you know plant by you know June 31st or or June 30th okay yeah I don't think this needs to come back okay perfect so the motion in the second is to issue issue an enforcement order there's no other questions we're voting to issue the enforcement order Betsy Welly Courtney bird I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robins I Steve Patton I it is unanimous we have issued an enforcement order thank you Mr O'Brien thank you sir have a good night mrri I'll send you an email tomorrow just to recap thank you thank you next up Jane sahagan 21 Davis Neck Road found with mass unpermitted vegetation removal installation of a patio and construction of a staircase within conservation jurisdiction Alissa yes thank you I am promoting um two accounts under the names aian up as a panelist okay one went through got it Alissa yeah I'm just going to send another promotion I'm not sure if it's just a redundant account okay um so yes the homeowner is now being promoted this is an enforcement hearing for the property at 21 Davis Neck Road as mentioned in the staff report um through review of an abing property we noticed a few discrepancies out at 21 Davis neck um items that would have required permission from this department or perhaps might not have been approved to begin with um let me just run down the list here um one section in particular that came to note um as seen in the attached aerial photos is there was a contiguous stretch of vegetation transitioning from 21 to 27 Davis neck so that's how it came to our attention during the notice of intent review uh we noticed that that area was gone had been removed um it was between 2017 and 2019 um that area though the um home Wonder state that it was invasive and not quality vegetation it still was Zone a vegetation that was to be protected um so staff is recommending that area be replanted um there is also a small patio in the backyard that is technically moving closer than the present primary structure so staff is recommending that that patio um be removed in the front yard there were a few minor Hardscape changes though that appears to be flood zone only and can be approved after the fact um sort of the last issue that came to light was the planting of bamboo on the southern property line and staff has advised that that process really shouldn't continue considering how um invasive it is and the Damage that it can cause uh so we did speak with Mr sahian the homeowner here um it was back during that noce 7 tent process um sort of presented our findings and considering we have recently issued a coc for the property to the South this enforcement came back into light so we were pursuing it this way by bringing it before the board and staff is recommending that a current site plan is obtained for the property to highlight these areas determine what can be permitted after the fact and what may need to be removed or restored um and then Mr sahian I'm going to send you a little notice here you can click on that to unmute yourself if you'd like to address the board at this time um do you happen to have video sir I'll send you another notice it's there we go are there you go we can see you hear you um we can't hear you if you are trying to speak can you hear us if you can hear us can you raise your hand or nod your head okay good we're halfway there um are you connected to computer audio let's see if this helps just muted himself again well I I muted and then I clicked the button as un mute maybe it just a wasn't working like there's another Choice yeah I'm working here hello yes can hear you have to talk okay can you hear me now we can okay I'm actually talking to you bya phone got it okay thank you does that work yes this seems this seems to be an echo there is but we might that might be our only option right now in order to hear you okay so we good yes if you'd like to um say anything to the board at this time you can proceed um I I I think it relevant to note that I I think this issue may be somewhat um confused by the fact that um 21 Davis Neck Road and 27 Davis Neck Road were jointly owned by Mr and Mrs um upon 27 Davis Neck Road applying for a a building permit to do major Renovations conservation became involved um it's been the contention of the board um with my conversations with Alysa that I removed um and I removed vegetation I removed planting um and I've told her in many occasions that definitely was not the case and I think part of the confusion here not withstanding the fact that she submitted a number of photographs um I I think the angle at which they're taken um and the dates on which they were taken um suggest that those plantings are not on my land but on the deel land the only thing that I removed when we bought the house in 2016 was Vines poison ivy bamboo and uh numerous mounds of of can and and and Bottles number of things of of a marine nature um the the foxes having owned the property jointly had a dock um that I I gather that uh these these materials came from um in having a few conversations with Alyssa I notified her that when this issue came up um it it kind of forced me to go back and review my paperwork on the purchase of that property the original order of conditions that the foxes received when they built the house that we now own at 21 Davis Neck Road the original order of conditions shows only one order of conditions and that is that the owner of the property take all reasonable care to not in any way damage the resource area the plan shows nothing more than a a row of hay bales no plantings no trees nothing at all so to suggest now that we have removed something that was never required I I I I think that order of condition speaks for itself furthermore um the the other issue of the so-called patio area is nothing more than a circle of um blocks if you will uh jumbo Granite blocks um which is a place where we sit and occasionally um have lunch um it's it's not a structure by any nature and frankly if required they sit on the ground I can get rid of them within a couple of hours if if in fact you require that they don't do any harm if you if you've looked at the property you see that it's been exceedingly well taken care of um the only other issue being the set of steps on an existing deck the steps were were put there from a safety standpoint in order to access the backyard without going down a rather slippery slope on the side of the house they extend out approximately six feet the stringers rest on the ground uh the feet of which are probably 6 in by 2 in each um I guess um I guess that's it thank you for listening thank you for participating Alysa um yes apologies I had forgot to mention the staircase off of the deck which um appeared between 2018 and 2019 considering there is a 100 but buffer to ass salt marsh it may be moving closer um we can determine that with an updated survey um I I really don't have much more to add I think the photos speak for themselves and showing vegetation and 2005 and 14 and then lawn by the time you see 2018 um nothing more to add at this time thank you all right Jen if you would like me to show you the near map photos I can and have them up I have up on my computer if you want me to share my screen please okay here's 2017 we have 2019 so I have this area right in here turns the lawn it's 2018 here are the stairs that come off the deck and again I think the salt Mar should pick up somewhere around here so we don't know if they're moving closer that would need to be a surveyed here is the patio area um that would need to be mitigated for um as well as some Hardscape improvements in the front but that's just floods un only only correct Alyssa I believe so yeah we believe so we don't have a plan and then um 21 it's just all on um 22 22 23 and then we're coming into last year so before you can I speak hold on please Jen are you all set I'm all set I just wanted to show you the photos to just to bring it up you're looking at probably something black and white on your staff report so just right right all right go ahead sir uh I was I was going to ask uh before that plan that last plan was taken down the the the laun line that you're showing is it possible to put that back up that last plan johen yep I'm working on that right now sir okay thank you um just a little slow tonight yeah I mean this I I we don't know if this is I mean this is near map I can't determine that this is absolutely in the correct place but this is what you need to focus on this area right here the patio the staircase well I I I I was going to point out that two surveys of the lot line have been done done one by ourselves and one by recently the dles uh I I I don't have the ability to point but I can tell you that that the area at if you can see where the bamboo ends right there there's the the survey stake ends right in the middle of that bamboo that line that boundary line is 220 ft in a straight line with no deviation so if the survey stake is at the end of that bamboo that survey line is basically back here basically back in this area which means that the new plantings are on the dles land and and and these areas here which they inappropriately encroached on our land there is no plantings there has never been any plantings everything that I removed I I previously explained and as I've said before the original order of conditions didn't require any plantings so I I I don't know how you can talk about plantings being removed that were never required and again with regard to the patio area it's if if it poses an issue if it's a big thing I'll get rid of it if if in fact you don't want the steps there the only other way we can get is is VI on the leftand side which is kind of slippery and and but if you want us to get rid of those steps I'll get rid of those okay Jen can you stop sharing yep thank you so Jen and Orissa the stairway in the patio are they permittable with mitigation don't know we don't have a survey so we need the survey provide those sir excuse me are you willing to provide a survey I'd rather move the steps then get involved with a survey frankly we also have the issue Mr chairman of where the actual patio is now used to be vegetated now you know when we say you remove vegetation sir we meaning you removed natural vegetation the Briar you talked about the poison I you talked about the other shrubs that you don't know what you removed um you know that is all buffer to ass salt marsh and that needs to be replaced the only really really really need you to stop planting actively planting bamboo I'm not I am not actively planting bamboo okay I'm not okay you in in 2021 you actually came to the property with a sight visit um you saw about a seven or eight foot Gap uh from the existing bamboo to a tree directly behind the dagel trash receptacles um I was simply allowing the existing bamboo to gravitate to fill that in so that I wouldn't have to look at his trash receptacles you said fine don't encourage it but that's where it was left and that's where it's been since um Jen and Orissa the 2021 was a c c certificate of compliance was issued did I understand that right for previous order conditions to 27 not that this one so that was when a notice of intent was filed in 2023 um when Mr San's referring to as a violation letter was sent to the property in 21 by Kevin um we were there was there was a complaint that bamboo was being planted so we were simply investigating it at that time okay so there was no no order conditions issued for this property no the one in reference um I I don't actually have the date in front of me it was very old um Mr Haan is correct that it does not show vegetation on it but a lot of plans did not back then it simply showed a limit of work where the remainder of the property from the limit of work to the water was you know more or less intended to remain in its natural state um it wasn't written as a special condition anymore that wasn't typically done at the time but in your regulations it was required that zone a buffers stay intact um I would I wasn't there I would say at least since the regulations are last updated in 2008 okay well that that's where I was going with it is you know if it was recent enough that we could get our bearings with it that's all all right so may ask a question Jamie yes ma'am so I obviously there's there's a like a tongue of of salt water and salt marsh is that salt marsh right behind it appears that it does terminate um perhaps looking west from the home I'm not sure to the extent where salt marsh turns into Wetland um I don't recall on the 27 Davis neck plan if they fully delineated all of that um I think if they did we we would have tried to pull from that um probably didn't I mean they there's no reason they would have had to correct wasn't within 100 feet of their house yeah and they did have all salmore so it might not have been worth going any further right right but we can't delineate anything because we don't have an accurate plan Y correct okay um typically at this point and in seeking additional um commissioner comments Mr sahian um in order for the board to make a comprehensive recommendation we do like to ask homeowners if they would allow the commission during the next uh week or two if you would allow them to visit the property just to see everything in person so they can just not simply rely on the aerial photos that we've provided them but actually see it as we have um so I'm not sure if you'd be up for that absolutely thank you that tongue that's is being shown on the state on the state layer as Sal March okay yeah I'd like to go out and and if I grab it from where the state layer has it delineated and state layer is just going off an thing it's 92 ft to the edge of that stairs so I mean it the stairs may be moving closer into the Zone a of the salt marsh as the patio and again where the patio was there was veget ation it might not be in Mr San's mind as quality vegetation but it was there and it was removed and a patio was put in could we have a continuance for two weeks so we can take a look at this I think that makes the most sense I mean yep because I didn't mean to skip over everybody I just I trying to get an overall of what's going on so anybody that has any questions or comments please raise your hand um but I I do think it makes sense that we continue this and if we're allowed to go on the property just take a look for ourselves so now we can see what everybody else seems to be seeing or not seeing and make a better informed determination does that make sense to you sir it does and i' I'd be very happy to uh to be there in person to answer any questions right all right so I I think we should go that direction uh I'm not dictating I'm I'm suggesting so we actually don't have a meeting in two weeks so it has to be one week or three weeks depending on how busy we are well if you went three weeks that would be the 26 you already have three continued notices we haven't received any new notices for the 26 yet and um you all already have four enforcement orders on that night well three enforcements two of them are like the same enforcement yeah so is it the end of the world to do it to go one more week than that no I think one more week would be would be preferable Mr sahian would March 5th work for you if work we're g what we'll do is we'll continue it out to March 5th that'll be the next hearing and in between that time the board is going to visit your house they're they're going to go at all different times because everybody has a different schedule is that acceptable to you that's fine I I so it's it's not going to be a joint meeting of the board where all are going to be present simultane no yeah it can't be okay I get it I I I just the only reason I ask is that issue with regard to the actual boundary line as compared to uh what you're showing on your plan seems to be completely different okay so Mr sahin what I put up on the screen isn't actually a plan it's an aerial photo okay that the program it's just superimposing lot lines on those are not surveyed accurate lot lines okay so yes I understand it's concerning to you but in our world we understand that the lot lines shown on near map you know those they're not fi confirmed accurate okay okay well oh I I I guess I got the impression it was very important from the from the board standpoint that I had removed existing Shrubbery that was on our lot and I never did that okay so at at the request of the applicant I make a motion to continue this uh hearing enforcement hearing until March 5th bird second would and I would ask a question when the time comes go ahead um would it be possible for him to get the lot surveyed and staked by the by the say in a within 10 days or so so when we go out we know where the boundary really is they the the Stak the the stake the last stake that you'll see is right at the end of the bamboo that was the most recent survey done by the dagel and it's exactly where when we bought the property the last survey stake was placed right in the middle of that bamboo and it's important to note there's no deviation in that line I can send the commission a copy of the COC plan that was recently approved for the property to the South and you can use that as a reference point if that's help that would be helpful that would be good thanks y so we have a motion in a second on the table to continue this till 35 that'll allow Commissioners to take uh to do their own site visit get the bearings and make a more informed decision so we're going to vote on the continuance Betsy GL I Courtney bird I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Ross Robins ey Steve m i it is unanimous we have continued this until March 5th thank you Mr sahian and we'll see you on site I'd be happy to be on site but it unless I misunderstood I'm not going to be able to not necessarily but I mean love to be able to meet with at least one person that's going to be there you can yeah you can talk to any one of us but we we can't predict when we're going to be there oh knock on your door well it's we're not down it's a summer house okay okay well that's all right we'll we'll we'll get our bearings and then we'll have um clearer questions and we'll go from there I mean that's all we can do thank you for participating we appreciate it thank you thank you you have a good night good night all right next up is to vote order of conditions first up Robert Parker 26 Deon Avenue fouth Mass Alissa you um in terms of the Quorum we have everybody um so this is a small raisin rebuild down on Deacon's a um not too much going on in the property other than an upgrade to a Title Five from assess pool there was an overall decrease of impervio surface so no mitigations required um Mike belli presented the project did say he confirmed with Board of Health that there is in fact a three-bedroom count so there's no increase in design flow uh in reference to the DPW Department it looks like they might need to remove their existing post and rail fence but they were amenable to that or getting a license from the select board um the fence that is encroaching on the property to the South will be reconstructed fully on the propert property and the plan has already been updated to reflect our uh surveying comments regarding um some vegetation and a stoop in the backyard so I don't believe we had any special conditions all right anything anybody want to see in there all right what are you thinking make a motion to issue an order of conditions as extensively discussed especially the special condition for second all right we have a motion and a second to issue an order of conditions last call questions or comments or input we're voting to issue an order of conditions Betsy BL felter I Courtney bird I Matthews I Kevin O'Brien I Russ Robins ey Steve Pon I it is unanimous we have issued an order of conditions next up 2017 Kurth laferty revocable Family Trust 50 nascet Road Falmouth Mass and I have the Quorum as excluding myself and Russ yes thank you okay uh so this property was also a raisin construct the house is going up on pilings because it does fall within the velocity Zone they're putting in a pool with a patio around it there was a small bit of patio moving closer they have remedied that um this was the one with the landscape plan by Tom Lee so that has been updated to reflect uh the appropriate mitigation species identifi the extra planting area all the trees on site have been added revised architecturals have been received because they were asked by this board during the first hearing to reduce the enclosed space as much as possible so they did reduce it a bit it's under 300 square feet now and I think all of our concerns were addressed this is the one with the two little tiny closets right you go in the front door and a little closet to either side and then a Stairway and a elevator okay all right anything anybody want to see in there all right what are you thinking make a motion to issue an order of conditions as discussed bir second you have a motion and a second to issue an order of conditions last call questions or comments or input you're voting to issue an order of conditions better see blood felter ey Courtney bird ey Kevin O'Brien I Steve and I it is unanimous with this very small Quorum you have issued an order of conditions last motion who wants it move to a journ felter eye bird ey ey he at I you guys went way out of order did we hear from Kevin we did not Kevin you want to stay in the meeting no I I thought I already said I we're just we're just checking all right we're adjourned thank you everyone