Heat. Heat. 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 only missing one commissioner. However, we have a quorum and we're going to go forward. I'd like to remind the commissioners after commenting, I will call on each of you in turn. So, please refrain from
speaking over each other. Also, all votes are done by roll call. So when I call your name, please state your name and your vote for the record, even if you made the motion or second. To our public attendees, any time during the meeting may enter 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 we will at the appropriate time let you know and 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 Wetland Protection Act and
or the Fmouth Wetland bylaws apply to the proposed project. A negative determination is that the provisions of the act and or bylaw do not apply. Therefore, the project may proceed as proposed. A positive determination means that the provisions of the act and or bylaw do in fact apply and or may
require some conditions. Therefore, the project would require a notice of intent application. So, as an applicant, you want to hear a negative determination. For the benefit of anybody waiting for a particular hearing tonight and so you're not waiting necessarily, the following
hearings are expected to be continued. for Joyce Street, Felmouth, Mass. 37 Deep Pond Road, Felmouth, Mass, and 110 Scranton Avenue, Falmouth, Mass. All right. First on the agenda, we have
a request for a continuence for determination of applicability. Heather McCarthy, Ford Joyce Street, Falmouth, Mass for permission to raise and rebuild a single family dwelling with a patio, covered porch and garage, install five drive wells, reconfigure a driveway, and
install a new title five sewage disposable system. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, the applicant is requesting a continuance I just had it until the 15th of April.
All right. So move >> Bman second. >> Motion to second. Any questions? >> Hearing none. I will call the role. Dave >> tent. I >> Ronnie >> Bowman I. >> Ron >> Risk I. >> Dan
>> BS. >> Jim >> McGrath I >> and Duffy. Motion to continue passes. Next, we have a request for a continuation under a notice of intent. Selene and Michael Ort, 37 Deep Pond
Road, Falmouth, Mass, for after the fact position permission to construct a shed and deck extension and to install mitigation plantings. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. The applicant is requesting a continuence until April 22nd.
>> So move Driscoll and second. >> Hearing a motion and a second. Any questions hearing? Seeing none, I'll call the roll. Dave >> Dan, >> Ronnie, >> I >> Roni, >> Dan,
>> Jim, >> I >> and Duffy. Motion to continue passes. Next, Brian Mclofflin, Fmouth, Pier 37, Inc., 110 Scranton Avenue, Falmouth, Mass, for permission to replace and relocate the bulkhead, remove a portion
of the filled tide lands, and expand the existing dock system. Jen, >> yes, Mr. Chairman, the applicant's requesting a continuence until April 15th. >> So move Driscoll and second.
>> Motion a second. Any questions? Hearing none, I'll call the role. Dave >> K. I >> Ronnie >> Bman I >> Ron >> Briscoli >> Dan >> W Shai >> Jim >> Barath I
>> Duffy I motion to continue is passed. Next request for determination of applicability. First one Clay Reader 26 Clipper Lane Falmouth of Mass Mash for permission to remove an existing deck and construct a sun room. Alissa
>> staff recommends a negative two under the state and bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed and this project solely takes place in an AE flood zone. >> So move Driscoll second. >> A motion to second. Any questions? Hearing none. Seeing none, I'll call the
role. Dave >> Kentai. >> Ron >> Driscoll. I >> Ronnie >> Bullman. I >> Dan >> Wall Shan. Jim >> breath high >> and Duffy eye. Motion passes for
>> keep us on our toes switching Ron and Ron. >> They did. >> That was sometimes the screens on the pictures change. >> Next we have Joan Doyle 43 Ocean View Amouth Mass for permission to remove an
existing deck and construct an addition. Alyssa >> staff recommends a negative three under the state and a negative two under the bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed. >> So move Driscollman second. >> Any questions? Hearing none. Call the
role. Dave >> Santi. >> Ronnie. >> Bullman. I >> Ron >> Escali. >> Dan >> Wall Shan. >> Jim >> McGrath I >> and Duffy. I motion passes for a determination. Next we got Robert A. Kelly and Raymond
A. Davily 118 Clinton A. found with mask for permission to construct a swimming pool, covered patio and garage and relocate a driveway. Alissa >> staff recommends a negative two under the state and bylaw resource area boundaries are not confirmed in this
project solely takes place in an AE flood zone. >> So move Driscoll Bowman second. >> Got a motion and a second. Any questions? Hearing none. We'll call a roll. Dave >> Kai. >> Ronnie. >> Bowman. I
>> Ron >> Biscali. Dan >> all shy >> Jim Bari >> and Duffy I motion passes for determination. Next we got Susan Moran trustee Charles E. Moran qualified
personal residence trust 402 Wild Harbor Road found mass for permission to maintain an existing revetment. Melissa >> staff recommends a negative two under the state and bylaw. Resource area boundaries are not confirmed.
So move Driscoll Bman second. Got >> a motion in a second. Any questions? Hearing and seeing none, I will call the role. Dave, >> Ronnie, >> I >> Ron >> Biscal I >> Dan >> Paul Shy.
>> Jim I >> and Duffy I motion passes. Next, Heather McCarti for Joyce Street found with Mass. And we have already continued that. All right.
For notices of intent, all hearings of the Falmouth Conservation Commission are held simultaneously under the authorities of the Massachusetts Wetland Protect and the Falmouth Wetland bylaws. Although a single decision of the commission is issued, it represents a separate decision under each authority.
As a reminder, public comment is limited to three minutes. So I encourage you to stay within the purview of this board which the rules and regulations of the wetland protection act and the falmouth wetland bylaws and how they pertain to a particular application. The chair reserves the right to stop any commented
that is disparaging or inconsequential to the hearing. Please know that all correspondences re received by the conservation department is forwarded to all commissioners and becomes part of the record. We will not read each and every letter we receive at a hearing.
Remember, our jurisdiction is that of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act and the Fmouth Wetland bylaws, not zoning, health, or building. First up, we have Nicholas W. Peters trustee uh 17 Green Pond Reality Trust 17 Green
Pond Road Falmouth Mass for permission to construct a dwelling to install Title 5 sewage disposable system and to install a fence. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I've promoted Tom Bunker from PSS Design to present his project. Tom, am I promoting anyone else
up tonight with you? Uh, >> Brian, >> Mike Borceli is here and Brian Wall and I believe Nick Peters. >> Am I promoting everybody up or >> I >> Okay, I'll promote >> you know that Brian will speak after I
speak. Um, Mike will be available to answer questions >> and Okay. >> that um Nick will be speaking also, but um yeah, we'll >> he's speaking as well, >> I believe. So, um, he he can chime in if he's not. I I Yeah. Yes.
>> Okay. I'll promote Nick up. Mike or Selli, if you'd like to be promoted up, please do the raise hand function for me. Okay, Mike. I got you. Good evening, Brian. How are you? >> Good, Jen. How are you? Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission.
>> Okay, so Mr. Chairman, I have Tom Bunker, Brian Wall, Mike Borcelli, and Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters, you're our panelist. You can put your raise hand function down, please. >> All right. Uh Tom, the floor is yours right now. >> Okay. Thank you. If I may. Yeah. Um, for
the record, Tom Bunker with BSS Design. Uh, we've done the survey and the site plan for this with the help of Mike Porcelli, the septic system and board of health. Um earlier ago uh long ago uh
before before um so before Alyssa's time I also went to the uh zoning board of appeals um which Brian and Mike were not involved in but I was working uh for for
a previous owner at that time. Uh but if I may, I will uh put my share my screen and my drawing. Let's see if I can Okay, let's see. Uh so can you uh see I have the GIS map up
here? >> Yep. >> Okay. Yeah. Just the you you climatize to it. This this property is the last one of the last vacant lots on Green Pond Road. Uh it is accessed from
the north and uh through uh uh this other road. forgot the name of Meline Road coming in from Route 28 to the north. Uh it's at the upper reaches of uh Green Pond, Green River right here just before it or just south of where it
comes out from under uh Route 28 by the East Library. So you see this is a vacant uh conservation land actually owned by the church across the way and these other houses in similar circumstances along
this property. Uh this is the vacant land. Uh this does not show the flood zone on it but it's elevation 12 running through through this way. And there's a steep topography in this location which is the uh uh the focus on one of the
focus on the uh the resource areas on this plan. And so we have done this plan um the uh if I have an existing conditions plan this this basically this house
footprint is so small but you can see all the existing conditions on here. We have Green River and there's a little spot of uh bordering vegetated wetland in this location here. The heavy line through here is flood zone AE elevation
12 uh 13 13 rather uh and it changes the flood zone X. this bank uh is steeper than is steeper than 10:1 and uh therefore it's a coastal bank but it's actually steep also steeper than
4:1 and so the coastal bank designation uh goes up the slope to uh the point where it the slope drops to less than 4:1 and
uh it's a minor drop you can see the change in the contours spent a lot of time going up and down through this area to get that uh designated properly. But that's the uh top of the coastal bank of a uh of a it's a co coastal bank which
borders another resource area being the uh river and the BVW. Thus having a 50-foot zone A. Um and that zone A you see is right here. It's labeled up at the top coastal bank zone A. Uh and then
it runs at the north side of the lot very close to the uh the street line and uh and then gets further away because that's the sort of the break in the slope uh is not parallel to the street
at all and not even parallel to the to the river. So it it creates this triangular shape that is inland from the zone A of the coastal bank. Um that's the uh main main thing here. But then there's also a it's in the
riverfront area which runs all the way out to um this point. The other side of the road is the outer riparian zone. And there is a limit of 5,000 square feet of disturbance within the riverfront area.
And we're um because of the tight limit of work imposed by the setback from the coastal bank, we're well under the 5,000 square ft. Um there's the A zone of the 75 ft zone A of land under the water
body running through here. Um there's another label for the coastal bank zone A. There is um 100 foot BVW zone B runs B just about the same as the uh 50 foot
coastal bank zone A. So that that's running through here. Um and that's that's the limit that we have to stay away from 100 ft from the uh from the uh from the uh wetland and the river the the wet wetland let's say
under the uh um mass title five and the Falmouth health regulations. So, um, given this small footprint area, uh, we have a proposed one-bedroom house
number 17 in this this location. And I, um, can show you on this one, which is a detail. So, there's the zone B of the uh, BVW running through here. And so, the house
just hits into the zone B of the BVW. And you'll notice that at various locations, this is only five feet from the zone A. Five feet, five feet, five feet. And at this location over here, it's six feet from the zone A, which is the uh no disturb
um limit of work. Um and uh I pointed out that the nearest sizable trees are out here more than 10 ft from the uh from the uh proposed work from the proposed house. Um
we have this it's a very small house. The uh total coverage uh by structures is only 590 square ft. That's smaller than a uh the maximum size of a an ADU on a property.
And one bedroom is uh smaller. Actually an ADU the number of bedrooms is is not not limited but an ADU can be up to 900 square ft. Um, this is a 500 ft on one floor and there is a second floor to it where the one bedroom is situated. Um,
but a lot of that area is taken up by stairs coming up through here and a bulkhead uh which has a deck built on top of it. Uh, a flat roof and a deck built on for the as the second means of egress from this house. The primary
egress being in this location at the front of the house. the uh septic tank here um to a debox. Uh the smallest size we're allowed to design a septic system is for uh two bedrooms. So we have a
two-bedroom septic system on here, but it is just a one-bedroom house and uh anything less than uh three bedrooms uh has to have a deed restriction limiting it to the number of bedrooms. So that will be put in place. Uh and uh so we
have the leeching area here, the reserve leeching area. We did get a variance from the board of health to move this leeching area away from the uh BVW on uh environmental protection grounds. That's
121 ft uh from the uh this location from the BVW to the nearest point on the leeching uh system here. 121 ft. Um so I can tell from tell you from experience that actually this this has
more protection. It's f further vertically and horizontally from many houses which you from the groundwater from from surface or groundwater than than many houses you routinely approve. Um it can be as close as 100 ft uh horizontally and this is 121 and the uh
septic the bottom it's like uh as I recall uh it's like 12 feet or 18 bottom of that was 20. I don't have the profile up here. Uh but 22 to it's about more than 20 ft from the bottom of
the leeching area to the groundwater uh with the septic system in this location. Um so you know that's that's what we have there. It's a very tight lot. It's a very small house. It's the best we could
do. Um I had gone to the ZBA. You know, this is actually before Ashley's time and before before uh Norine when SR was in and I had filed and told I ought to just withdraw it because it will not be approved. It doesn't meet the standards
of a of a variance uh under under zoning regulations. um the septic the there's some discussion in the narrative about the coastal bank how uh and the relation of the coastal
bank to the septic system. We're not 100 ft away from it obviously uh but we feel that this leeching area will have no effect on the coastal bank. there's no
risk of breakout of the uh effluent. Um and as I said, we're we're further horizontally than than wetlands and rivers than many houses you approve. Uh and you know, environmentally that this
is better than many. Um uh there are a number of things uh Brian can address some of these a little better. I feel that some of these uh particularly the five- foot setback um from the limit of work can be uh we we
feel you can find uh make findings uh very specific to this site that will not set precedent for other projects because I don't know how many other properties there are like this but probably very few which you know could follow in the footsteps of this project
um and we feel in this case It's uh as I said, it's a small house. We've done uh um the best we can fit on here and like Brian could I think uh carry on for me all the things I forgot to say.
>> Um thank you Tom. Through the chair, uh for the record, my name is Brian Wall. I'm an attorney. I have an office in Sandwich and um with Tom and Mike, I represent the applicant, Nicholas Peters. And that's a perfect segue from Tom because the primary purpose for me
being here tonight is to address um that setback to the structure from the um line of the no disturbance zone A. Your regulations call that a no structure zone. Um you might have heard me say some of these things rather recently on
a project about a month or two ago. Um but bear with me. I think it's important for the record that I say some of these things here again. So in your buffer zone regulations uh at FWR1018 there's a thing called an introduction or preamble which explains all the
reasons why buffers are important and it pre um it's it's before all the specific regulations that follow that regarding the buffer zone. And in the preamble uh there is a statement that says that when there is a project where the zone A is
fully vegetated the commission may impose what's called a no structure zone adjacent to the zone A. Now I note for your attention that the words are the word may is a very specific word from a legal perspective. It means that the
authority to impose the zone is discretionary and not mandatory. So what that means is the commission may impose a no structure zone if it feels necessary but it's not required to do so. Now when the commission has imposed a no structure zone in the past it
typically does impose a 10-ft setback but that 10-ft um distance is not actually in the regulations. In fact um if you look in the specific performance standards there are no performance standards regarding no no structure
zones. There's no distances specified whatsoever. Now, interestingly, the commission has the authority to enact a regulation setting forth a specific distance. I know there's a lot of new members um on the commission or relatively recently appointed members. The way that this
works is the town meeting actually passed what's called the wetlands protection bylaw that says that the town wants to protect its its wetlands. And then the town meeting gave the commission the authority to develop specific things like all these distances
that you see on Tom's plan. But the commission has to this date not yet adopted a specific regulation or a distance regarding a no structure zone. Now, as Tom has said, the lot that we're dealing with is very constrained. And so in order to get any developable house on
the property, the applicant is proposing a very very modest house with 450 square feet of a footprint. As you can see from the plan, it's also a very unique shape and design in order to comply with the commission's regulations and the town zoning standards. So after all of those
constraints are applied um and the unique house that he's picked to meet the requirements, the most that we can meet as far as the no structure zone is 5 ft. Now we contend that this meets the requirement because there actually is no
specific requirement and we are in fact showing a no structure zone on the property. And mind you, what we're talking about is there's the completely no disturbed a zone. And so this is an additional buffer to the buffer. Um
the preamble goes on to say the reasons why the commission would like to see no structure zones um when when imposed. And there are basically two reasons why. The first is called potential construction impacts. And if you read
the uh preamble, it talks about things like siltation and construction debris. Um the distances needed to protect the buffer zone from that. We are protecting that with the 5 ft. And I think Tom mentioned, and if he didn't, there's a
notation on the plan kind of smack dab in the center of the plan. In order to protect the zone A, the applicant is proposing to install a fence along the zone A line prior to any construction beginning. So that fence will be you'll
you'll have not only a regular siltation barriers, but you'll have an actual fence to keep activity out of that zone A. And we think that that will be sufficient to protect the zone A. And the commission can also impose conditions during construction such as a
daily inspection of the limit of work or a daily inspection of the uh of the fence line. The other reason why the commission imposes uh no uh no structure zone is that after construction the commission is concerned by the human
activity on the area of the lot that's allowed to be developed. And the preamble talks about things like increased nutrient loading due to the change in land use or unregulated cutting of vegetation such as the lawn extending like the proverbial person
taking an extra swipe with the mower. Again, the fence is going to take care of these issues because it's going to create a physical barrier between the developed area of the lot and the zone A. And we think that um that we've
addressed that. So furthermore, I think the commission might have some concerns about the excavation that's going to occur close to the zone A. And as it happens, the applicant, Mr. Peters, is in the excavation business, and he's been doing it for almost 30 years, and
he does a lot of it on Martha's Vineyard in some of the old historic villages and has to excavate in very, very tight circumstances. And so after I finish, we'd like Mr. Peters to appear before you for a few minutes and he's going to tell you how he thinks he can do this excavation. Um, and he's very very
comfortable that he can remain within the limit of work. So, in summary, um, we contend that the notice of intent demonstrates compliance with all of your regulations. A no structure zone is proposed, albeit less
than your usual 10. We think that it adequately addresses the reasons why you impose no structure zones and we would ask that you consider approving it. And as Tom already mentioned, we think that the commission could make some findings here to say that this is a very unique
lot. It's a very unique house, especially being a one-bedroom, and you could feel comfortable that this would not set precedent that other people would try to follow because it's highly unique. I'm available for any questions and obviously I'll remain on the panel while
we finish this project up. But if Mr. Peters could um unmute and address the commission about how he would go about the excavation. >> Um yeah, can you hear me? >> Yep. >> Yep.
>> Um so um like Brian said, I I've been doing this for quite a long time. Um, I started when I was 14 with my parents. I started my own business when I was 18 and I'm 44 now. And I mean, excavation,
foundation, septic systems, it's it's basically all we do. So, we do all site work. I'm also a licensed building contractor. Um, so I'm I'm familiar with codes and you know what you have to do in order to achieve you know what's
being asked and 5 ft of space for this little house is is pretty pretty easy in my mind. Um, we did a few projects uh recently on the edge of main roads where we drove steel in the ground and
made some cribbing um because we had less than 5t to work with. one was downtown right on a main road. I think there's a picture um that we gave you guys with it. Um and it's just it it basically we had to just build a
retaining wall so we could build the foundation wall. Um and we used that retaining wall as our our one side of our form wall and we poured the concrete wall right in between it. So 5 ft is is
pretty easy if we put up a permanent fence. Um you know there's pretty much you know no way for us to go over to the other side of it to make any mistakes and it just it's all all seems pretty easy to me.
>> And I should say through the chair that u what Mr. Peter said is in a letter and there are photographs of some sample projects that he's worked on um in tight circumstances and what I said is also in a letter that's been submitted into the record.
>> Thank you. Um Mike, are you contributing or here for questions? >> I'm just here for questions. >> Excellent. All right. Um thank you guys. Uh we'll start off with Jen. Tom, you said you went to the ZBA. What
year did you go to the ZBA? >> Um, I' I can pull that up. I think maybe >> 2013 sound familiar because that's what the ZBA told us. >> Yeah. Yeah, it could be. >> So 2013.
So 13 years ago you went to the ZBA. >> Well, the regulations >> and you haven't you haven't tried to go back? Well, the the standard you can ask talk talk to Brian about that, but the standards and I've learned since then that the standards I mean there's only three ways three criteria where where a
person is uh eligible to get a a variance from zoning and those criteria haven't changed and and the land hasn't changed but you're right I haven't gone back in that time. >> You may want to reconsider that. Um
Tom, you're conf you have some contradictions in your narrative. You say one that the trees aren't going to be touched, but then they might have to be pruned. Which one is it? >> Well, I think I said maybe said they may not have to be pruned, but it's I don't
expect they'll have to be pruned. And I I saw in the staff comments and I didn't get back out, you know, which I just just got the comments on Monday and had chance to go back out to take a look. But I'll I I can look into see how how big or small the crowns are. >> Okay. >> The base of the tree will not have to be
touched, but it's possible and I'll check that. >> Um yeah, I mean the the the commission I mean the staff has concerns about the tight limit of work. uh we started, you know, putting these no structure zones
in because I remember a time where I used to get two foot limits of work and have Tom and Mike here and I'm I'm just picking on you guys um say that they could they could dig a foundation on a twoft limit of work. So I mean I think
it's a st a standard and we have standards as well that that you know the board had has kind of set and it also you know you know that that greater than 5 foot limit of work I mean 5t is not very it's not a lot of space and to
maintain a a house with that tight space is going to be difficult. How many stories is this house going to be? Two >> two >> two stories. So you're going to build this house, this two-story house with a five foot limit of work.
>> Yeah, it's small. I mean, >> and your overdig on an excavation three to four. Three to four. Ronnie Bowman. I lost. Where is he? Oh, top corn. >> What's a typical overdig? Ronnie
>> on the back side of a foundation. Three to four feet. He doesn't need more than that. No. >> Okay. So, um, yeah, the staff just does have some some concerns with the tightness of the site. That's all, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. Can I address Can I
address >> could I address that comment about the uh 3 or 4 foot overdig? >> Sure. >> Um, there was a letter submitted by Mr. Peters and there was a methodology that he used where he was very specific about how you would mitigate against needing
the 3 to 4 foot overdig and that is by installing um um >> steel >> a retaining wall that would act as the wall of the foundation. And it's installed using steel uh channel lions
with um timbers interlocking so that the wall excavation is maintained and can't collapse and does not have to be overdug. So that's in the record. That was a unique and uh innovative way to
minimize and mitigate against overdig need being needed for this. So I think it's important if there's questions about that by commissioners, you should understand it. It's not just lip service. It's a very specific methodology to
address those issues of over digging. >> Thanks, Mike. Alyssa, did you have anything to add? >> No comment. Thank you. >> You're welcome. All right, I will take commissioner questions. I'll start out with Ronnie.
Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Tom, Mike, and Nicholas. Um, Jen answered the first thing I was going to the ZBA and that 25 set foot setback if there could be a variance to push the house towards towards the road and it doesn't seem like that is an option.
Correct. won't I understand Brian said >> I would agree with what Tom said is that there are three criteria under the zoning act and we don't think that we meet them in this particular instance and although some of the staff has
changed at the zoning board uh we were told emphatically um by the staff last time don't even try it's it's dead on arrival >> okay >> 15 years Um I mean so the major issue is
this 10-ft limit of work and I know it's not in the regulations but it is uh something that uh the commission I just can't I'm just short of a year on the commission and this is the guideline that we've been following.
So I am a little uh trouble with this. Do I think the work could be done in a five foot limit of work? Possibly. Yes. I I do think that. But I think the uh the big issue is the standard that we set at 10 ft. So
I'm kind of uh up in the air on this. Thank you. >> Thanks, Ronnie. Ron, >> similar, you know, we've had that 10-ft buffer to the buffer. I've been on the commission for now about two years, and it's been consistently enforced.
Unfortunately, for some people, it it's a it's really a bad news for them. And here you're stuck, you know, Mr. Peters is stuck between the zoning board and and the conservation commission and we've had a a a very specific 10 ft uh
enforcement zone and um I don't see how we can get around it. Thank you. >> Thanks, Ron. Dan, >> um I actually have a question for staff. in the conversations with zoning since we found out that the last time we tried this is 2013. What what was their
feedback as to the setback? Because I think that's what we're trading off here is the setback versus the no build area. Did they have any? >> They had no feedback. They just stated that um in their notes it was 2013 the
project was withdrawn um due to them um not having a um a I don't want to say a positive experience before the ZBA but I think they just saw things not going
their way and instead of getting a denial through the ZBA VA, which correct me if I'm wrong, Brian would have um they wouldn't have been able to apply again for two more years if it was denied. Um I don't know why it was
withdrawn specifically, Dan. It was just stated it was withdrawn and something about them seeing trouble with the ZBA getting threat. That's all. If I could just say one thing about the withdrawal part, Jen. Um, I didn't read this
section before, so this is from my memory, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct. If you apply for a special permit, you can't reapply for two years. If you apply for a variance and you're denied, it's forever because the the criteria don't change. In a special permit, it's, you know, whether the project is
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And that can kind of change based upon circumstances. But if you don't meet the criteria, you don't meet the criteria and you get a denial and that's forever. >> Okay. >> They have changed the zoning bylaws since then, but I don't know if the
criteria has changed. >> Yeah, it's it's the criteria for the variance are in state. It's in chapter 48 of the zoning act state require. >> So it was withdrawn. Dan, >> got it. So the bottom line is whatever the three things are, this this lot
wouldn't qualify to be able to even request a variance that >> is that right? >> Well, you can request, but um we we we we made a judgment call that we did not think it was going to go anywhere and that was based upon conversations with the zoning administrator.
>> Got it. All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions. >> Okay, Ron. Yeah, Brian, was that 2013 or 2026? >> 2013. We we we haven't gone back. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make that clear. >> Yep. >> Thanks, Brian.
>> Dave, >> um I don't have much of construction background, so I'm going to ask a couple questions about the overdig. What's the purpose of overdig? What is it? >> So, so you have room to do like the form work. >> When you set up forms, you have to get
on both sides. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, >> we're doing a job, right? So, this house I'm only going to try and do an 8ft foundation. Um, you know, and you got to you got to stick I think code is 6 in out of the ground. Um, but your sill
plate and your plywood hangs over. So, you're usually like 8 in out of the ground minimum like where grade is. Um, and if you do a 7 foot 10 wall, you know, you're really only doing like a
like a 6 and 1/2t dig, 7t dig, something like that. So, if you if you were to stand down in the hole, you could put your arm up and grab the top of the hole. Um, so it's not like a very deep dig. I'm not looking for a 10 or 12t basement. Um, it's just enough to do
utilities and a little bit of storage because the house is so small. We really don't have any room to put a water heater in a closet because then we don't have any closets. Um, so when you do an overdig, it's it's basically just so that you can do the formwork.
>> Um, but we're doing a job right now where we only have a twoft overdig. Um, >> and it still works. It's just tight. It depends on the soil conditions, too. When you dig some areas where it's really sandy with like some some grain, like baseball sized rocks, things like
that, it it can cave in a little bit. So, having 4 ft gives you that little bit of extra room. Um, some areas you dig in the shelf, the wall stays perfect. I mean, this foundation's so small, we could dig it and have it put in in like 2 weeks. Um, as long as our
inspections go quickly. Um, so it's it's not like it's going to be dug out and be sitting for a long time. So, as long as the soil is pretty tight, which I think it is there, the the wall should stay pretty well. So, we could keep it pretty tight.
>> No, no. Both you and Mike have mentioned the retaining wall, right? >> Yeah. >> Is is that definitely in your plans? >> Um, well, so it it depends. Um, everything comes with a price. Everything's getting so expensive. Every meeting costs money. like everything
continues. And if if I have to do a retaining wall, it's it's easy to do. We can do it when we start digging. We don't have to do it first. Um we actually on situations like this, what we would do is we would start digging the hole and we would start working our way to the edge of where we're going to
do the foundation. If we find that the soils are going to be caving in, we'll we'll start setting up to to drive some beams in. We'll drive those steel beams in. And then as we dig the hole, we start sliding down the 6x sixes or 4x sixes, the cribbing, and that creates
like a a retaining wall. It doesn't have to go the full 7 ft. Also, um we could do a wall that was only 5t tall and then slope the top, you know, back a little bit. So then that way it would ensure that nothing would cave in where we put
our fence so that the >> and that wall would be if you said 3T overdig, it would go there. It goes just just outside the forms. >> Yeah. Or we could build the wall and we could put it in and use that as the outside of our form. So we basically
could put it, you know, within a foot of the foundation and then we could use we could build a one-sided wall. You know, you would just take forms and you put it on one side. You'd screw into those 6x6s and that would be the >> I guess what I guess what I hear is that your your approach is going to kind of depend on conditions depending on how
the behaves, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. We've been putting foundations under old houses all through the island for years and that's kind of how we approach it. >> Okay, >> Mr. Chairman, can we share the screen and show a photograph of this? >> I don't see why not. >> I think there's an example that was
sent right? >> Yeah, this is it. >> These are those beams, >> right? >> Yeah. >> And these this is the cribbing. And you can see where this fence is. That's less than five feet. >> And don't have it up. that that fence
was actually on the road cuz we had a detail at the time, but we were about 1 foot away from the tar road when we built that and we didn't damage the road at all. >> I go back and take pictures of it. >> Let her open. You can share. >> I I can see it on my screen.
>> I see it. >> Yeah, we're seeing >> I see it. >> All right. It's just me. I'm blind. Okay, I got you. >> Okay. >> So So you you would do that if you if you needed to, right? Yeah. Yeah, we could. That was for a 10-ft basement.
>> Um, so in that situation, we kind of needed to soil was really tight. It held really well. Um, but because it was so close to the road, we uh we planned to do that from the beginning because we wanted to retain the road. >> Well, thank you, thousand words.
>> Thank you, Jen. >> One quick question. No walk out. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And Mr. Peters, how how what's the height of the proposed house? >> Um
I'm I'm not I don't have the plans in front of me. It's probably going to be if we did uh 9 10 18. It probably won't be over like 24T.
Okay. So, the reason I asked that goes back to the tightness of the limit of work and you putting a fence in there. What if you needed to get to the top of What if you needed to get to a second floor window to repair it or shingle or anything else? You can't put a ladder
out there. >> You wouldn't have to. The house is so small. I have an aerial lift that's articulating and you would just use it and go over the house. It's such a small house that you could go >> and then how do you get down on the other side? Again, my point is you can't put the ladder if you ever have it. It
just goes to ongoing maintenance of the house. >> These very tight limits of work are just in reality not >> they're just not realistic and they're not practical. >> No, I understand. If it was a big house, I definitely would agree with you because the house is so small. We could
work on the roof from the articulating left without a problem. >> I'm not talking about the roof. I'm talking about like maintenance five years down the line. Yeah, >> something happens. >> So, because the house is so small, you actually could go up and over the side of it and you could come down the side
because it's so small. You also could put >> You could also put a 12t ladder with, you know, if you have five feet, use a 12t ladder. You stand on that ladder, you're up about 16, 17 feet. Um, and if
you guys are worried about uh, you know, replacing shingles 20 years from now, I could do uh, vinyl siding. I could do cement board siding. I could do >> I'm just talking about, sir, I'm just talking about the practicality of maintaining a structure in perpetuity
with a 5 foot limit of work. >> That's what I'm to say. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. And >> yeah, most of my concerns have been addressed primarily with the 5 foot setback. I'm curious though about the um
the bulkhead. Does that go to a crawl space or what's that about? >> It's a basement. It's a full basement under there. >> Oh, it's a full basement. >> Yeah, maybe Nick can. It's I've seen them before where where some places have a a bulkhead
um even with a flat roof on the bulkhead and then a deck above it and there's like a hatch in the deck floor to access the uh access the bulkhead stairs. Is that what you had in mind, Nick? >> Yeah, we we've done quite a few of them down in town here um where the houses
are very close together um like in the campgrounds and stuff and they need access to the basement if we put it underneath. And you just you basically take the deck and you can set it up two different ways where you know it could open up with um hinges and then it it
goes back down. You got concrete or ledger on both sides so it'll have support. You open that up and then underneath you just have a bulkhead door that can lift up. >> Right. And that that's a full basement underneath the house. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. No more questions. Thank you.
>> Thanks, Jim. I have a How high off the How high is the bulkhead? Um, basically, how high off the ground is the deck going to be? >> Um, I'm not sure if I have all that. Um,
I want to say that the deck is probably going to be I think we're going to re we're going to try and recess the framing so that it'll be it'll probably end up being about 12 in off the ground the deck.
So maybe one step up to it like a like a a piece of stone you'd step on to get up to it. >> All right. Just curious. I didn't know if it was going to be like a second floor deck. Um, and then >> Oh, no, no, just a single floor. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I also share the same
concern about the five foot work. Um, just walking that area is very tight and it is pretty dense in there a little bit too right now. And that's just in the fall, never mind what I mean in the early spring. Never mind all the leaves and stuff get there. So, um,
that's pretty much all I have. >> Mr. Chairman, may I add one thing about um the protection of the buffer? >> You can. >> I I'd like to point out that in FWR 1018 subp paragraph 9 um it talks about
temporary degradation and restoration of the resource area buffer. And it says the commission may permit activities within the resource area buffer that will alter the buffer vegetation temporarily but will result in a complete restoration of the buffer. So,
what I'd like to respectfully point out is that we are talking about a buffer to a buffer. You know, we're not right next to a salt marsh or a coastal bank or anything like that. And with this fence and I think with some conditioning, for instance, you could condition it so that
if there is any unanticipated alteration of the buffer, it must be restored and that could be a continuing condition that would run with the land. Similarly with the construction um the excavation there were some questions by I think it was Mr. McGrath or maybe Mr. Kent about
maybe it will vary this the the approach might vary based upon the soil conditions well there could be a condition that says staff must be notified when the excavation begins and no additional work can be done until the soil conditions are viewed and then an
appropriate methodology could be could be imposed. I think you have a lot of power here with conditions and I think that this project could be made to work um comfortably so that you feel that the buffer is protected. >> Thank you.
>> All right, Tom, were you going to go back on the site and take a look at the trees? Um, yeah, I can if if we need that information, I can go take a look at the at the trees and we need a >> can at least one >> continuence for that if you if you need
that information. Y >> um I don't know what's your pleasure. I'd take a motion to close the hearing and take it under adisement Driscoll. Bullman second. >> All right, we got a motion and a second
to take it under advisement. Any questions? Jen, is there anything in the public chat? >> Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman. Uh, doesn't look like there's anything in the public chat. >> Perfect. Well, see a motion and a second
and no questions. I will call the role. Dave, >> Ronnie, >> Bulman, I >> Ron >> Griscali, >> Dan >> Bshai, >> Jim >> Grath,
>> and Duffy I. Motion passed to close and taken under advisement. >> Thank you guys. >> Thank you, Mr. Peters. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Brian. Appreciate your time. >> Thank you. All right. Next, we have Selene and
Michael Or 37 Deep Pond, which has been continued. Continued request for a hearing under notice of intent. Brian Mclofflin, Pier 37, Inc., which has been continued. Next, we have Steven Augusta, 33 oyster
shell lanes found with mass for permission to install mitigation plantings. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mike Borceli is still with us to present this project and I have got it promoted Angela.
>> Yep, I did. Angela Tanner from Crawford Land Management to present the project. Just you guys, right, Mike? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Hi, Angela. >> Thank you, Jen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. >> For the record, Mike Borelli, Felmouth Engineering. I represent the applicant,
Steven Augusta, along with Angela Tanner of Crawford Land Management. This is a continued hearing. We made the initial presentation. Um, we received comments from staff and commissioners. Some commissioners wanted to visit the site.
Uh, we revised the plan subsequent to the comments we received. Um, in the staff report prepared by uh Alyssa outlines what the revisions were. They were relatively um
simple. There was an edge of clearing line missing. I'm going to share my screen if I could. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um there was an edge of clearing line missing
over here. that we added and we adjusted the um proposed mitigation planting to such that it was um proposed adjacent to and to supplement that existing vegetation.
Um we um made an adjustment to other buffer plants that were proposed in this location. the client prefers to go back to what was originally approved which was tree mitigation in the woodland and
the Crawford land management plan shows the tree mitigation we believe the tree mitigation um is appropriate. It was already approved by you on the initial uh order of conditions that was issued uh subject
to monitoring as necessary to make sure the trees um are maintained and not cut or or uh or die. I would assume you'd have a monitoring requirement for the other mitigation
planting so that they could be combined together and there obviously be ongoing conditions of the seed. Um we had pointed out that the generator was included in the mitigation
calculation. We've removed the second float from the plan. Uh that was not permitted or licensed. Uh as of today, the ramp and floats are not in the water. Um when it's time to
put them back, there'll be a ramp and a float so that it's um consistent with permits. All right, that sums up the plan revisions we made. I'm happy to take questions. Uh, Angela's here also if she
wants to uh present her plan and then we're both here to take questions. >> Okay. I um if I Angela Tanner from Crawford Land Management for the record, if I could share my screen.
>> Go ahead, Angela. So this has the updated mitigation planting and tree replacement planting. We at the request of the staff we have changed the spacing of the mitigation area to be the required for feed on
center and then as Mike said we um switched to the originally permitted plan which was trees in the woodland area. We do have a note on here that this plan is fairly diagrammatic and
that we would want to stake the locations of the trees on site before they're planted and we'd be happy to um work with staff on that if they wanted to be there to see where those trees are going. And that's basically all that I
have. >> Thank you, Angela. Jen. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Um, I think we still are concerned that
the PA the PA um parking area is moving closer. Um, that has not been addressed yet. Um, Mike, you're going to have to add a 5ft buffer strip. Now that you've put the the vegetation edge on the plan, we can
we know that more vegetation is needed. So, that'll need to be added to the plan. And we just don't agree with the the the the tree placement. Although the board did uh approve that in the original
application, staff was not supportive of that. It's very wooded in there. And as the trees grew, um, Mr. Augusta himself said that he cut them so that his neighbors could have a view. Um, it's it
would be really difficult to enforce. It's a very wooded area and, um, we'd much prefer to see that um, shrub material that was um, at the last plan uh, on the last plan. Angela, do you
remember off the top of your head how many square footage how many what the square footage of was that of the shrubs that were replacing the trees? >> No, but it was a it was like 3.25 shrubs per tree at 4 >> per tree. Okay.
>> All right. Let me write that down. 325 shrubs. >> In the staff report, I noted it was 94 shrubs last time. >> Thank you. True. Um and that's all I have. I mean, we are concerned that the
the PA area is just not being um addressed is moving closer. That's all. Thank you. >> Thank you, Alyssa. Do you have anything to add? >> Not at this time. Thank you.
>> All right. No state uh staff. So, Ronnie, >> thank you, Mike. Thank you, Angela. Um, I don't have a problem with trees going back if they were first approved as far as that's concerned. Um, they definitely
have to get the driveway and stuff pushed back. And as far as the pavers are concerned, they're they're pvious from what I saw today. So, I'm on the fence on that situation. That's all I got.
>> Thank you, Ron. Yeah, I'm also with the mitigation, but the the pavers that seems to be that seems an issue and it's still not totally addressed. >> Thank you, Dan. >> I think we're all focused on the same issue, which is the pavers and what's the impact of the pavers and I think
there's two issues. One is just the fact that at least part of them nothing can leech through and the other part is they're encroaching further into the to the buffer area. So, I think the real question is what's the options, right? Obviously, they're being they're
not being addressed in the changes. So, clearly the intent of the homeowner appears to be to just keep them the way they are without any even proposing any mitigation. So, I'm just trying to understand whether that's really what is being thought of or whether something different being thought of. >> I can answer that, Mr. Chairman.
>> Go ahead, Mike. >> We're going to defer to the commission on this. we did mitigate for them. Um, part of the mitigation shown on the plan um includes our estimate of 430 square
ft of area for the reinforced uh turf um system. The reinforced turf system, if you've been out there, is sort of a I call it a waffle system. So, there's grass that grows through it. There's
portions of it that are impervious. No doubt. Um the part that's impervious, it uh we it's a percent a percentage of that whole area based on our understanding of the system. We we assigned an area for that of 430 square
ft and then we applied a factor of three to that. So because of that it's like close to,200 square ft. Um so we we were going to defer to the commission if they wanted it removed. uh to make it a condition and if if you want it removed, we'll remove it and adjust the
mitigation accordingly. >> Okay, got it. Thank you. No other questions. >> Thanks, Mike. Jim, >> no questions, >> Dave. >> Yeah, this reinforced grass area is the
key here. And um um as I recall from staff, you can tell remind me this definitely does go closer. Correct guys. It's not it's not the mitigation. That's not really the issue. Our issue is is moving closer. Correct. >> Correct.
>> And that's not addressed. It's not changed. So it's that to me has been the big issue all along. It remains the the big issue. And since we haven't seen any solution to moving closer, I it seems to me we have to condition it that it goes away.
We just haven't seen any any proposal that will get us around that issue. I don't see it. Thank you. >> That's all I have. And that's all I have. >> All right. And um I don't have anything more to add. Everything I've has been
discussed is already what I've had. So um generalist, anything lastly before I take a motion? >> There's no public chat, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Can can we condition to remove it when we if we close it and
then next week do the conditions and remove the papers? >> Yeah, >> you can condition that I guess. >> Yeah, >> that's kind of >> want to make sure. All right. So, make a motion to close the hearing and take it under advisement. Disl >> got a motion a second. Any questions?
Hearing none. I'll call the role. Ronnie >> Wman. I >> Ron >> Dan Walsh. Jim >> Arath I >> Dave >> I >> and FBI motion passes to take it un to
close the hearing and take it under advisement. >> Thanks Mike. Thanks Angela. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> Good night Mike. Night Angela. >> Good night. >> Next. Mike Jackson Yach Club Inc. 501c3 West Fmouth Harbor
Westmouth mass. Permission to install three seasoned old floats in West Falmouth Harbor. Jen, >> yes, I am promoting a Matthew Strickland. Ma, am I Matthew? Am I promoting anyone
else? >> Yes. Uh, Chris Wright should be on. Chris writes. I have two Chris rights. I'm going to promote them both up. Um um >> is that impactful? Requires
>> Matt Strickland and Christopher Wright. Mr. Chairman, and the name of your company, Matt, I'm sorry. >> Uh Chaput Yach Club, Inc. >> Oh, yeah. in the chat. Yeah. Club. Okay. >> Yes. So, um Mr. Commissioner and uh uh or Mr. Chairman and commissioners, thank
you very much uh for taking the time. Um uh we've been before the commission a few times on this and I think uh the the one last outstanding issue was a question about having a water survey uh a water depth survey done. Um we've been in touch with um CR Environmental uh
represented by Chris Wright here. Um, and he's here to give you the findings of that survey and I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. >> Thank you. Uh, Chris, if you get on screen and unmute. >> I think I'm unmuted. Uh, having trouble
getting on screen, though. >> Chris, do you want me to share your plan for you? Mr. Jackson asked me if I would share the plan for you. A couple of slides. So, I have the slides he sent me. Um, would you like me to share those for you, sir?
>> Yes, please. >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, may I share my screen? >> You may. >> For the Chap Yach Club. Okay. Okay, I have it up for everyone. Can everyone see that? >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yep. Okay. All >> right. So, uh, yeah, I'm Chris Wright. I'm a certified hydrographer with CR environmental and what we're looking at right now is a survey that we did in 2022 uh of the entire harbor uh very very
detailed um we took that data when we were contacted by Mr. Jackson and uh convert converted the data to mean lower low water data. So left is NAVD88 which is a standard surveyor's you know datam
or surface on the right is the mean lower low water data. So using the mean lower low water data from 2022 uh we started to select appropriate locations for these floats
and then went on and did a yeah did a new survey. So and that's what you're looking at. Uh flat long depth everything is good to about a tenth of a foot. Okay.
And then I had >> Is that all you have, Mr. Wright? >> Yeah, that's it. >> I have more I have more slides that Mr. Jackson wanted me to share. Well, if if you have any qu any questions about the survey techniques or data accuracy or anything like that, I'm I'm here to
answer them. >> Okay. Um Okay. I think I'll just leave that slide up, Mr. Chairman, if you want. Or do you want me to take the slides down? >> Um if it's better for the commissioners
to represent it. I but I can't see who's on so I'll >> pretty much all have this. So I think you can stop sharing. >> Okay, >> thank you. >> There you go. >> All right, so uh Jen,
>> so we did receive the water depth data. It does say that there is more than 3 ft of water where these floats are shown. And what we don't have is the information of how low the floats are going to sit in the water cuz our regulations actually state it needs to
be 3 ft from the lowest portion of the float. So, um that's kind of missing information and we did not receive any information um from the shellfish constable. Um and I know Ronnie has
asked for shellfish survey and we have not received one of those either. Um I think Ronnie, you were the only one asking for the shellfish survey, but we haven't received um any information on the shellfish data. Um we did receive
some correspondence from the shellfish advisory committee um right before the meeting that they tabled their conversation. Um they had tabled their convers their discussion of this
um we received that and I have not been able to send this to Mr. Jackson or Mr. Strickland your group because I literally received it at 6:50 p.m. So I will be sending it along tomorrow. It says our committee delayed the
discussion as we are anticipating that the locations might need to be moved during water death. At this point, I can only say there have been concern raised by commercial shellfishermen about the uh original mooring locations. Um, and that's all I have on the shellfish
information. That's all, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. >> And you have anything to add? >> Uh, just a note on the quorum. It is Dan, Dave, Ronnie, and Bill. >> Okay.
All right. Uh Dave. >> So I'm looking at the Can we Can we display that diagram we had a minute ago? That's what I'm looking at. >> I actually have a few questions on it. >> Oh, I put it up on my screen. I'm not sharing. I'm sorry.
>> Oh, what's up? >> Can you see it, Dave? >> Yeah. Good. So, uh over on the right, uh we have a color gradient, right? Ending 4.4 down the bottom. Uh, and we have a an area in the center here that's enclosed in a dark line. Now, what's what's the dark line? What's the area in
inside of that? What's what's that c what's that encircling? >> The dark line is the three foot mean lower low water contour. >> So, everything inside of that is in more than three feet mean low. >> Yep.
>> And it's a little hard on the color photocopy I've got here. Looks like a lot of it is like 32 and 36. Uh are there any areas in there that are as deep as four? I don't think so. >> Uh there there may or may not be not
having a GIS software up and loaded possibly right north of the number one float. >> Okay. And and the one, two, and three are those the places of the the locations of the floats or >> Yes. Yes. And so num number one is at 3.96 ft. So, I imagine that little
contour north of it is probably at four. >> Okay. And then and the size of them once they're installed, they'll all fit inside of that three-foot section, will they? >> Yes. I I think the other figure that was shown had some yellow circles around it.
That showed a Yeah, there you go. That's a 50 foot diameter. Uh >> oh, I see that. Yeah, that that shows that the uh the three peers or floats do stay inside that area. That's that's what that shows, right? >> Yes. >> Um and I forgot there was some
discussion at one point. Uh are these things swinging around? Are they anchored so they don't swing? Does anybody know that the harbor master is calling for them to be anchored? Um I'm not quite sure what the yacht club's plans are. Maybe Mr.
Strickland, if you're with us, you could let us know. Are your plans to put two anchors on these? >> That was our plan right now. Yeah. um to work with the harbor master and and do that two anchored position to to help reduce the scope of of movement. Yeah. >> Then then that would that would help them stay inside this three-foot area.
>> Exactly. >> It's one of the probably the main reason for doing that. >> Yep. >> Well, I guess we now I'm not guys I'm not familiar with mean low low. I think Dan may have mentioned earlier. Dan, did you mentioned that was not the right measure to use? You said something earlier, didn't you, Dan? >> Yeah. So, I I think this goes back to a
fundamental question. is are is the standard the extreme low tide because we're trying to avoid these things getting down and doing damage or is it really mean low tide which I think everybody knows that's like the 19-year average of low tides. >> So I guess my question then is mean low
low the proper measure to use here >> right >> mean lower low >> is the lowest of the low tides over 19 19 years. So you you have so you have two low tides a day. One is lower than
the other. And if you take all of those lower of the low tides over the course of 19 years and average them, that's what this is showing. >> It's on a full moon you'll have a higher high tide and a low low tide. >> That as well, right?
>> But it is not the extreme low tide. >> Right. So, if you go and Dave, were you done? >> What' you say, Dan? I missed it. I >> I just didn't know if you were done. You had asked. >> Well, I guess I I'm not sure to ask
this. Um, should we be concerned that there are lower lows that we lower than three? Is Is that a concern for us in approving these these these slopes? I don't know the answer to that, >> Jen. I think that's a question for you.
Uh I'm I'm looking up exactly what the regulations say right now, Dave. But if you are concerned, if the board is concerned with, you know, possible grounding out of these floats, then yes, you should be concerned. >> Right. >> If I may, I do want to address a
question that was asked earlier about the um intended draft of these. >> Yes, please. >> Um yes, and I apologize. I thought we had we had communicated that uh the intended draft is to be a maximum of 8 in. >> Okay. Thank you. And that's with
>> that's all I have guys. That's all I have. >> And can I just ask on the draft is that with it loaded with the the boats? >> Fully loaded with uh boats and kids. >> So what I can't tell then is as I look at your depth here, if I m if I subtract
eight inches from these, you're you don't have three feet of water. And even just with not even going to extreme low tide, but even there you don't have you only have it on the upper one, the first one. >> Yeah. >> So the other ones are below the three feet already. And
>> true. So, if you go to extreme low tide, I looked I didn't look across the whole summer, but I looked for a month and I found a minus 4.7 as the one forecasted for whatever the middle of June or July. And so, if I add
that to your rate, you're down closer to 2 feet or maybe two two feet four, but you're getting pretty low. So I'm looking at this going I think I think it's hard from these numbers to
kind of look at this and go is there always enough water underneath the floats. I think you need to take the calculations and kind of subtract that. I think your report al and we said it earlier you got another inch of error inch inch and a half of error as well.
So these are in fractional feet. So it's hard to convert it down to feet, but feet and inches that is. But I think you got to get numbers. They kind of put the math together that take this take the extreme low tide across the period that the floats are going to be in through
the course of the summer and look for the lowest tides or lowest tide. take your error into account and take your 8 inch max depth into account and see what the numbers come up because I think you're going to end up not having enough water in this location.
Thanks, Dan. Um, you can stop sharing. Thank you. All right, Dan, was that all you had? Yeah, I I think it is. I think the thing that I can't tell you, there is the circles that were dri that were drawn around the uh the points where the floats are going to be anchored. What I
really can't tell is there's not a there's not a literally a dimension on those to tell me how wide that channel is and how wide the floats are. So even if they're anchored in two points, I can't tell if they're really closer to 3 ft. One of the one of the circles showed them outside of the 3T, so even less
already. So there's a question of do you already have the edge of the floats in too low a water even before all the things I just said. Um, and then I I think there's still a question about and it's maybe it's it's it is partly conservation. It's partly maybe
waterways, which is if this is in the center of the channel, it could mean you have you end up with the boats that are south of this going through the lower areas. And >> so >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't want to
mean to interrupt there. No, I'm just I'm just the concern is that they hit bottom or they disturb the bottom as they're going around the floats constantly. >> I I totally understand. Uh what I want to point out is that this is not actually the channel that goes in into that lower area of the harbor. The channel uh the official channel um goes
I think to the west and north of this whole section and doesn't appear on this uh on that diagram. Yeah, I we looked and that looks like there's a there's a channel there potentially depending on the way things shift, but the north end of that other channel looks like it's awfully shallow, but there isn't data
that I can rely on to look at it and go, what is it? >> Right. >> But that's part of the reason we wound up where we are is because we worked with the harbor master who said that the official channel is that northern that northern pass. >> Yeah. The western pass. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Right. Because you're they're south of
you. So they're either in there or they're it's the western little pass that >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So it's just another concern that I think at some point some we've got to kind of look at and go does that work? >> Right. Because otherwise we're just moving a problem.
>> We're creating we're putting your floats in but creating a problem someplace else even if the floats go in and we don't want to do that either. >> Sure. That makes sense. >> All right. >> That was all I had. >> Ron, >> I'm not on it. I'm not on this. No, you're not on it, Ronnie.
>> Yes. So, I'm in total agreement with Dan and the displacement that how much water is going to draw on that float is is kind of suspect. I think we need something in writing >> exactly what that the displacement of
that is going to be. And originally, I think they were they weren't going to be anchored. Now, I see you want to anchor them so they're not moving into shallow water, but you're creating we're trying to preserve and grow eel grass and that them areas are going to be shaded. So,
I've I've asked since the first hearing for a shellfish survey and an eelrass survey. So, um I think there's some more work to do here. That's all I got. >> Thanks, Ronnie.
Um not sure. I I in general I think I'd just take the the shelfish constable sort of recommendations and the the shelf advisories recommendations. Um but I do agree with everybody else and you
know first first look at this you know oh it's above three um and now you're taken to well it could be below three again. Um, I'm wondering out loud if every time we
get a new survey, we're gonna be able to talk about these numbers of going below below three or right at three. Um, so I'm not sure where my feelings are of that, but I do agree that I would I'd like to have this
at least continued to hear back from the from Chuck in the in the shelfish advisory panel, Jen. >> Okay. >> I don't know when the advisory panel is meeting again. Um >> but
>> or just at least chuck so we have an idea. Um >> okay. >> You know if if these are going to be too low and it's just going to you know you know I I I sat in I looked at the the last meeting and there was a lot of talk about you know how we don't normally
get this um you know the harbor master does the floats. is just so close to the ground and I'm used to seeing floats in the houses and such like that in much deeper water where it's not really an issue.
Um, and so this water depth is definitely something that we do need to consider. Um, but yeah, what I'd like to at least consider Chuck's advice and then um, you know, finish this out
pretty soon. Well, I can see what I can get for Chuck for your next meeting, which is on the 15th of April. >> Yeah, if you can just get something from him by that or even to pop in to answer questions um >> if that's possible, that would be really
nice. >> Okay, I think we can try to do it one more time with Chuck. I can pose a question to him. Is there a concern? I'll just pose a direct question to the shellfish const bill. Do you have concerns with shellfish in
this location? It'll be yes or no. Maybe a few other words. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> I'll send that email tomorrow. >> All right. So, uh maybe I'll entertain a motion for someone to continue to the 15th
or what's the commission's pleasure? Um, we can do >> I guess I can, this is Kent. I can move to close and take it under adisement. >> I continue.
>> We were trying to move it to the 15th. Right. >> Continue to the 15th. Yes. Okay. I'll change my motion to continue to the 15th. >> All right. >> So, we have a motion and a motion. So we'll consider that a second. Any questions?
No. All right. Dan >> Walsh. I >> Dave >> T. I >> Ronnie >> moment I >> and Duffy I. Uh motion carries to move this to the to continue this hearing till April 15th.
Thank you Matt and thank you Christopher. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Right. >> All righty. Actually, John, real quick. Oh, sorry. Vote orders of conditions. >> One second, Mr. Chairman. I need to
remove everybody from the hearing and I'm having a little bit of an issue with that right now. Mr. Strickland, change role to attendee. And Mr. Right.
Change ro to attendee. Okay. Um okay. >> Thank you. So got vote order of conditions. Jonathan Hamilton 91 Mtoxic Road Falmouth Mass. Jen. >> Yes. That was the raise and the rebuild
of the house. Um one second. Just writing some notes down. >> Jim, you're not on any of these forums. >> I'm not on it. Okay. >> Jim. >> All right. Let me find Mr. Matxic. Here
we go. It was the gentleman that >> gave his very short and sweet presentation. Um, I think there is an area that needs to be reveated over by the shed where there's some storage happening. We can work with
uh Mr. Hamilton to get that area ve vegetated or maybe move that vegetation that square footage down closer to the resource areas or if he'd like to replace it where it was, that's fine, too. I also think there's some
um uh storage in the buffer of various um boats and trailers that should be uh
relocated somewhere else on the property. I'm gonna get it out of the buffer because it is in that no disturbance zone a buffer and to have that area re uh vegetated um and we can come up with some conditions that outline that.
>> Sounds good to me. >> Anything to add, Alyssa? Anything that I missed? Okay, perfect. And make a motion to issue an order of conditions as extensively discussed. Driscoll >> Bowman second.
>> All right, got a motion and a second. Any questions? Hearing none. Call the roll. Ron >> Driscoll >> I. >> Dan >> Shawn. >> Dave. >> Panti. >> Ronnie. >> Bowman. I >> and Duffy. I. Motion passes to issue an
order of conditions as extensively discussed. Next. Steven and Susan Burn. 55 Grove Street, Falmouth, Mass. Jen. >> Um, yes. So, this is to remove a patio, construct an addition, and install
extensive mitigation plantings for both the proposed project and for wall work that was done within um the zone A buffer to a salt punch. It's pretty straightforward. The tights the lot is very tight. So the vegetation
is going to be in zone B. So we should put some conditions and some findings that reflect that so that vegetation remains. >> Sounds good. Um is it usually something like you know check it a year out, check
it two years out? >> Yeah, we'll put monitoring reports. >> Perfect. Alyssa, anything to add? things. >> Make a motion order of conditions. Driscoll. >> Is that with conditions? Are we Do we
need to put that in with uh staff? >> No, they'll put it in. >> They'll put them in. >> Oh, they'll add it. Okay. Bowman. Second. >> Motion a second. Any questions? Hearing none. Ron >> Driscoll. I >> Dan >> Wall Shine. >> Dave
>> Kai. Ronnie and I >> and Duffy I motion passes to an issue and order of disc conditions discussed. Next, Robert and Cara Martin and trustees 58 Westwood Road LLC 58
Westwood Road Felmouth Mass. >> Jen, >> yes. >> And I don't think I'm on this one. Oh, you can't get off that easy. >> Just want to know and Alyssa, you're on mute if you're
>> trying to say anything. So this is the proposed restoration and of a violation as well as
proposing extensive invasive species work on site. Um, the staff is still concerned with the use of mechanical means to remove the vegetation
in the area that runs north to south from the sand path approximately down to the the flag pole area. And I'm just using that as a a reference point. Um,
we don't have any concerns with the vegetation being removed. Um, let's go on the northern property line east to west by mechanical means, although there is a stand of
of the edge of sumac to be replaced. So, replacing the sumac. I don't know why we're removing it to replace it. Um, but I think that the board has a couple of different options.
You can and vote the plan as proposed um with like mechanical means in areas that the staff is uncomfortable with. Um, we can
just require them to we can basically deny the invasive species removal work and just make the um have them replant the area of the violation. or we can condition it
so that the hand removal is done from the sand path down to about the flag pole. And again, I'm just using that as a reference point. And I think that's where the staff,
we would rather see that hand removal, the use of carefully applied herbicides. At the last hearing, we heard about thousands of gallons of herbicides being sprayed everywhere. That is not the way
you apply herbicides in this in these types of situations. It's a very small amount. It's wiped on. It's very localized. There's not spraying of the dune with with chemicals. It's not how
it's not how that technique is done. Um, so there are there are the options for the board. >> All right, Alyssa. Um, just to add a comment to what Jen said in terms in the area in question,
um, staff is also advocating for the trees to remain on site. >> Um, and the sumac as well. Um, I think those are the last few sticking.
You're talking about the trees on the actual dune itself and not the ones proposed to be removed outside. >> Okay. >> Correct. The trees on the dune in the area that is currently not being proposed as manual removal.
>> Okay. Yep. >> To be clear. >> You're welcome. All right. I think there's a little discussion on this. I'll go with Ron. >> Yeah. Again, Dave Dave and I are out there with Fallon and we listened to the expert talk last week for hours and
hours. Um, yeah, I think mechanical removal is fine on the north and south side and you know, we're using the sand path and the flag pole is as things I think you can even get a little closer to the dune on the flag pole side, but no mechanical removal on the dune and save all the trees as as every tree that
you can. So, I think option C would be what I'd be thinking of. Okay Dan. >> Yeah, again, I'm not on this one, so I don't think >> Okay, >> Dave. >> Yeah, I'm with Ronnie. And one one thing that changed my mind in in the last
session was um there was some talk about replacing and um uh some some uh plants in there. And I guess the the fact that the likelihood of them surviving is not great. So, I go I go with the manual um removal in the area we're talking about
along with what Ron is saying. >> Ronnie, >> he that was what Ron said, but I'm I'm in the same boat. Thank you. >> All right. And I think I am also in that same boat. So, I'm very comfortable with
um staff working with them on what they like for the the two sides and manual in the front not to touch it with that. And then um >> you probably want to have someone there when when the excavator is there to
monitor as it happens. >> Yeah. >> Um I assume that you would put that condition in without even me asking. So to be clear, we are all comfortable with the mechanical removal
running west to east in the shoreway and somewhat north of that sand path with the exception of the removal of the sumac.
We are okay with mechanical removal from the flag pole is >> um I'm just using that as a point because it's right it's nice and neat in that little corner. So it's it's a nice reference point from the flag pole
east um to where their property is. Uh it's the flag pole east up to where their limit of work is and then north to south from the flag poleish
to the sand path and in the area of sumac. The board would like to see manual removal. Okay. I will give the applicant the choice if they want to use an herbicide or not. They can go in and manually
remove every year if they choose. But to combat it, the the the use of an herbicide might be helpful. Um, we're going to keep the trees and we're going to keep the sand of sumac >> and we will condition it that when the
excavator is on site manually removing that staff will be there and that we will also check the site after the uh the hand removal. No, we will check the site dur we will
be on site during the mechanical removal and that we will check the site after the h a manual removal is complete. Does that sound >> correct? >> I I take it all these conditions have a monitoring report of another
>> Yeah. And then then the monitoring report and the other standard conditions that we we will set and we will make findings that this is to address uh an ongoing violation. Um, >> and you're also you're also going to do
something with the lawn, right? >> What was that? >> You're also gonna do something with the lawn. Either cut back some of the lawn or or whatever. >> Well, right now they're showing a lawn area um that it that's exceeds that that
10 foot. So, that's another issue. Nice catch, Ron. um that we can have them plant the lawn area up to 10 ft of the deck cuz the original limit of work had the add the buffer right to the deck. Um I wouldn't I
wouldn't recommend that. Um I would allow at least a at least what we usually do is 10 foot lawn area. >> Okay. >> Okay. And 10 ft off the deck. So planting should go up to within 10 ft of
the deck. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> D your hand up. >> Yeah. And have they defined what they would plant there? >> They they give us a plan for what what species they would put in there? >> We can do a combination of what's on the
plan. >> Okay. That's that's that's okay. That doesn't have to be defined at this point. All right. No, that the extra area of the lawn that the board wants planted, we can choose from. I mean, they have clethora right along there. That would be an appropriate plant.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> And one more. The limit of work on the neighbor side. How are they going to work that out? >> On which side? The north side or the south side? >> North side. >> Neighbor side. Not the rightway. Not the
shore. Not the shore access. The neighbor South. >> That's the south side. >> Southside. And what is the concern there, Ron? I'm sorry. >> Oh, the limit of work and all those all the invasives and everything they're going to remove. They're just going to go in there and remove them. Um, do we
have to get the neighbors permission for them to do it because they're obviously going to rip out some some bushes? >> Well, not according to their plan. So, if they do want to encroach on the neighbor's property, they really should get permission. And we can write that into we can write that into an order of
conditions. Right. >> All right. >> Go Alyssa. >> Uh, just to make a quick note that the staff was advocating for the Rosa Regosa to remain on site. So, I'd recommend conditioning that in this new area that
we're defining as well along the dune. >> Um, and Jen, I believe, I don't have it in front of me, there might have been a species or two we had concerns with on the plan. I think the clethrow was just proposed very very close to the dune. I think that was a a question of ours if
that species location was appropriate. Do you recall if that was the case? >> Yeah, I'm not quite sure. uh sweet pepper bush will do well in the dune. But um and when we say dune area, I want to be very clear that it that that that
the that the area of manual uh removal does expend extend into the dune buffer um up by the sand path. I want to include that area as well. Um and the species of concern was the St.
John's word that likes to use along that uh the shoreway. I had concerns with the the species of trees. So, we might give them some choices of trees. I don't think red maples will do well there. Um
I don't see any other red maples around that area. Um and that is We can look at the plants more closely and if we have concerns we can switch around some plantings.
>> Sounds good. >> Okay. Anything else? >> I think I'll make a motion to issue an order conditions as really really extensively discussed. Driscoll.
>> Uh I think Ronnie stepped out for a quick second. We'll wait for him to second. the screen. There he is. All right. So, we got a motion, a second to issue an order of conditions as extensively extensively discussed.
>> Any questions? Seeing none, call the role. Ron >> Driscoll I >> Dave, >> can I? >> Ronnie, >> I >> and Duffy I. Motion passes to an issue of order of conditions as extensively extensively discussed.
And we have Mike Labava, Repurpose Properties LLC, One Bets Way, East Falmouth. Jen, one second, Mr. Chairman. Find my plant. This is an amended
order for A pool patio pole house. What is and then another little patio fireplace area.
Um this is all in the zone um so 100 this is all within the zone B the uh zone A is fully vegetated so there's no mitigation required and we have no concerns with this project.
>> I'll make a motion issue an order of conditions as briefly discussed not discussed Bowman second. I I do have a question. So, is this the one I'm doing this from memory, so bear with me. Is this the one
where the fireplace was too close to the little bit >> to the buffer area and we wanted it moved? >> We've received that revised plan. >> We did. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> All set. >> All right. We've had a motion and a second. Um and having one question, I'll
call the role. Ron >> Chrisai. Dan >> Walshai >> Dave >> Can I >> Ronnie >> Walman I >> and FBI motion to issue an order of the conditions as briefly discussed is passed
that there is everything so I'll accept the final motion >> make a motion to adjourn Driscoll >> and second >> motion and a second has been called no questions Ron >> Driscoll I >> Dan Can
>> Walsh I >> Dave >> Kai >> Ronnie >> I >> and Duffy I motion to adjourn is passed. Thank you all.