i don't want to get stampeded we have to get back online though not back up yet okay we'll have to wait until we thought they all went to Captain Parkers did you bring us anything back here and I figured you guys went out for a for
chowder or something right hello thank you recording in progress all right uh welcome everybody we are moving back into open session for Yarmouth Conservation Commission again this is the Yarmouth Conservation Commission meeting for Thursday March
20th 2025 our first order of business in open session is request for determination of applicability for Kevin and Bonnie Men Menzoli Menzolini 40 Grand View Drive proposed garage and driveway expansion and riverfront area
land subject to coastal storm flowage and the buffer zone to a coastal bank lynn evening Hamlin representing the applicant um this project's fairly straightforward it's to raise and
replace an existing garage on a residential property the resource areas are um a buffer zone to a coastal bank the coastal bank is both armored and bulkheaded and vegetated um the it's also located within land subject to
coastal storm flowage the existing garage is located 83 feet away from the top of bank the expansion will increase the footprint by 174 square feet um so
accordingly um both under your buffer zone rags because we do not enjoy a 50-ft undisturbed buffer um and because we're working in a riverfront which will require 2:1 mitigation that we've shown 348 square feet of mitigation along the
um right there along the um edge of the lawn most adjacent to the bank which will increase the buffer there um Britney said you'd like at least three species of native vegetation so we've um done that plus I like to use some um I I
threw in some dischmpia um just because I think it's nice mixed in with the bear berry um all the work will occur with an existing landscape disturbed its patios and landscaping and um managed lawn so
there will be no impact to either the bank the riverfront or the flood zone and I have a six-page narrative um that I won't read to you but if you have any questions I try to answer them thanks uh questions from the
board any question britney anything um no problems with the project that is proposed i spoke with Lynn briefly that um the previous owner had some expansions of the walkway and patio and we are past the statute to um enforce on
those so the problem as the project as proposed is fine um but just it'll be noted in the minutes that the unpermitted expansion will remain unpermitted that's all thank you okay uh are anybody in the audience have any
comments questions on this one anybody on Zoom raise your hand digitally i don't see any uh unless there's any further discussion among board would somebody like to make a motion for a negative two
and three so moved there a second second all those in favor i opposed carries unanimously right there and then pass it
on down thank you Lynn thanks Lynn right next order of business is a continued notice of intent for SE83-2461 Environmental Consulting and Restoration LLC for Brian and Patricia Clifford 36 Bent Bluffs Lane proposed
addition in the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland uh there is a I think there's supposed to be a request here but I don't see it um from the uh applicant's consultant
asking for a continuence to April 3rd 20125 do I have a motion to that effect so moved is there a second second all those in favor i opposed it's on the screen if you need
to see it no thank you who first did who made the motion and uh let's see who did it pat and uh Bradford thank you all right next order of business is another continued notice of
intent for SE83-2463 uh Rosangela Kolierro 59 Oyster Cove Road easement proposed construction of a dock facility in a coastal bank coastal beach salt marsh land containing shellfish land under the ocean land subs coastal storm flowage
and riverfront area chairman I'd like to recuse myself from this okay let the record reflect that uh Commissioner Mohern is recusing herself uh from this testimony should I um abstain from these because
you can you can actually hear this one only be because there were there was no testimony opened up before so okay uh all right so I just need to uh let everybody know that we are going to be
hearing this uh this hearing under a bylaw only uh review uh we had every intention to hear this under the state uh performance standards the state wetlands protection act uh but that was taken out of our hands by a
um a request for a superseding order uh that was filed by uh attorney wall on behalf of the applicant so uh we will only be listening to testimony that relates to the town bylaw wetland
bylaw uh there is nobody here bob are you Mr chairman full disclosure my name is Bob Perry can you go to the microphone i'm the civil engineer on the job but I am unauthorized to provide any
representation for this applicant thank you okay thank you Bob uh so there is no nobody here for this or no applicant representative uh for this hearing uh I think what the easiest thing for us to do is just Britney if you would just
give us a quick brief uh synopsis of of what they're looking to do and any variance they are requiring uh we can make any uh questions to you of that and go from there the application that was submitted is
for a proposed dock in the Bass River um with a float and a ramp um they're requesting five total variances for this dock um the first one is there is a float limit the float limit has already been reached because there's already an existing dock on this parcel to the
south and that's 3.01 um section 13 the proposed dock is not at the center of the lot 3.01 section 7 and within 25 ft of the property boundary were without permission from the abodding property owner 3.012d
the float depth at mean low water is 1.5 ft which is less than the the required 3 feet um in section 3.011 and it is lastly 48 feet from the existing dock to the south instead of the required 75
ft we do have a list of a butter um opposition that we can run through we've received sorry we have a butter opposition from the property
owners at address 35 43 51 and 55 and as well as the owner of the parcel that the dock is proposed on at 59 Oyster Cove Road um a lot of the oppositions are similar in the fact that their easement
owners and they all believe that their rights would um their deed rights would be infringed upon by the proposed dock if you'd like me to read them all I can but I think that sums them up i
think we get the gist on that one though um and just to be clear um these oppositions um the conservation commission decisions are made solely under the wetlands protection act and in this case just the Yarmouth wetlands protection bylaw any
vote doesn't suggest compliance with other laws such as easements and deed right access which fall solely under the land court the comments from all of these abutters show that that's clearly an issue at this site but it does remain outside the purview of this board okay so I couldn't have said that any
better than been that blurb uh any questions from the board five five variants is what they're seeking uh Britney any other comments questions concerns no
uh all right is there anybody in the audience who would have like to have us to say anything about this any questions on this one if you would come on up to the to the microphone either one is fine uh just make sure you state your name uh for the record yeah so Mark AOT 59
Oyster Cove Road representing uh my parents and such who are in Florida right now um so the five variances of those particularly the 48 foot um really
affects our our dock um because ours is the dock next door to it on the parcel itself um and I would also say that um the access to the water which we would like to restore um which this current
dock which you guys already put an enforcement order on which I'm not sure why the enforcement order isn't being enforced so that we can further restore the rights of the easement holders to get the stairs put back in so that people can enjoy the river who are the
easement holders which we aren't able to do because this they built that structure last year on that on that that you guys did an enforcement order I think in July so we'd like to know why that enforcement order hasn't been
enforced and that structure actually removed that they built on that so that we can then further have the rightway holders file for putting new stairs in so that people can
enjoy i mean the river should be enjoyed by all on the street is our feeling so we we'd like to hear some comments on that hopefully um because that's definitely a problem for us um and I think that there's plenty of Butters
here if they want to talk to that but our goal would be to restore equal access to the water for all the easement holders who have been blocked from access of the water by this one land
owner on the street for I know that you can't judicate the land piece of this but the access to the water and the the wetlands and doing that obviously we'd have to come back to this board to to get those stairs put back in I believe
and such so we'd like to hear a little bit on all that if you want to ask me any questions I've probably sent the most information on this if anybody has any questions ask me i'm I'm here to provide the answers cuz my parents they are elderly at 95 years old and 83 this
isn't really their baywick to go and I'm going to be with my sister the land owners for a very long time so we have a vested interest in this parcel being returned and everybody's access on the streets you know and future land owners who buy it being properly taken care of
and this has been going on for over 30 years we we just want to put an end to this this is getting ridiculous so thank you all right thank you uh and again we can only address uh things as it relates to the wetland protection act and the town wetland bylaw so uh I understand
your frustration with with uh deeds and and access and things like that but uh we are limited as to what we can do with that uh is there anybody else who'd like to make a a statement is there anybody on
Zoom uh please raise your hand digitally i don't see like the list of participants like we usually see them on Zoom usually we see people on the side i I don't know i mean do you know what I mean when it's like showing up as a list there's seven
participants can you go grab your computer now so the signature sheet gets used for either or approval right yes yeah it does need to get signed by Sorry all right so I don't see anybody
in Zoom uh is there any further uh comment or question from the board yeah so anybody else this is your last last opportunity uh my name is John Ozarkski i live at 51 Oyster Cove Road um I also own the
property that abluts the easement of 59 Oyster Cove Road um the dock would be less than 5t from my property at the river it
would also be a second dock on the same parcel of land on the river and it would totally restrict anything that I could do with my parcel of land that's on the river um so five variances is a lot of
variances for one dock um that part of the river uh at low low tide the dock would be pretty much there wouldn't be any water under it that's for sure um and we just had a astronomically low low
tide and for the first time in the 25 years that I've owned the property at 51 Oyster Cove Road there was actually no water in the cove under anybody's docks it was it was all just dry even the swans that the
family of swans that live in there had to leave because there was no water for them to cruise around in so um like I said five it's not one variance it's not two it's five and
there's a lot of other issues the the the Khog population um they're going to have to dredge to put this in there's going to be a lot of damage I believe under the water which sometimes is not even water there
so that's it thank you okay thank you very much just one more comment on that because Yeah so again Mark Aot 59 Oyster Cove Road um on the water thing I do believe that what's on the plan is
incorrect for the soundings i don't know where it came from but I have a boat on the dock there i'm going tell you if you go out and you do the soundings during proper time those soundings that they have there are are far off from what the true soundings are just like John was
saying the water levels are a lot less than what they said because there is a the land the the bottom there goes up so whatever happens those soundings are definitely incorrect so thank you anybody else
i ask Chance going once twice okay um unless there's any further discussion uh by the board uh would somebody like to make a motion to approve the project with special conditions
so moved is there a second second all those in favor say I oppose say nay nay nay one two three four five zero to five uh in the negative uh so the project does not
carry under the bylaw we do still need your signature so please sign it just reminding them to please sign it yes everybody needs to sign it all right thank you very much everybody uh next order of business
uh we can't we can't do that right now no uh wait do we have it on No we don't have it on We've never needed We'd never put it on the agenda if it was part of the I'm Hold on folks
do you want to do you want to All we can say is we we can't we can't issue anything draft but we don't need to have that in the hearing anyway so we can do that as a draft and then they'll have to come back for you to ratify it okay so just so you understand
there was a question about the enforcement order uh so what we are planning on doing is issuing a new new enforcement order saying that you weren't in compliance with the previous enforcement order uh and we'll move it from there then okay so that you you
will see that coming back on a on a agend agenda probably in the next couple weeks I would say um just to let you know uh enforcement hearings do not allow for public comment but you will see that on on the agenda okay okay all
right thank you thank you all right next order of let's see where are we here uh next order of business is another continued notice of intent for SE83-2465 David Tedesco 172 Pockanocket Drive proposed bulkhead and pier system
with dredging and land under the ocean coastal bank buffer zone into a coastal bank and land sub coastal storm flowage uh you did not go through Mullan eyes and or did you did you review anything i don't think she can do that recuse yourself on this one okay i think
abstain is okay huh i think abstain is fine she wasn't on the board yet oh you can that's that's true yes you can abstain maybe Pam could Pat could address the approach to Yeah are you coughing mistakes here i am
all right um joe can you go print a new sheet for 59 oyster code all right so we'll hold on to that and good thing you're here do you need the file or anything Joe uh no i shouldn't okay wait you might need your computer though
yes we normally aren't this confused believe me um all right karen good evening Mr chairman uh members for the record my name is Kieran Healey i'm a land surveyor with the BSC
Group with me tonight is the owners of the property David Kim Toedesco um we are looking to um build a wall out at the site on Parkers River here a couple of weeks ago and we discussed the merits of the project and um went through all
the different issues at length so I won't go through all of those again but as a result of the last hearing we were asked to do two things and one was to move the wall back so that it was above the mean high water line which we have done we ended up moving it four feet to
the east and the second item was to um identify the plants and where they were going and we have a a little subs sketch on the bottom right hand side it talks about the number of plants and in each section and um as I mentioned the wall was moved
back four feet and we reduced the size of the dead men so it still would be on the um property and not going to pocket drive and um other than that I'd be glad to answer any questions you have the pier system as well moved backward four
feet so we moved everything to the east four feet which increased the size of the dredge area by also by that 4T just so that we would be uh be consistent all the way back i'd be glad to answer any questions you
may have right thanks Karen um I'll turn it over i'll I'll turn it over to the rest of the commission first i'm I'm sure that Ed's issue is that you're doing some dredging on this property but this is area that was previously dredged no that's not his issue that's not what it That's I know
what it is anybody else are we talking creeping juniper creeping juniper are you poking are you just trying to poke fun here i'm oblivious to what the issue is uh creeping juniper
could you spell it incorrectly no could you just do something other than creeping juniper like Bay perhaps yeah we don't have a problem with Bberry okay amazing that's it i got a problem with creeping juniper
i'd be more than happy to switch this to Burberry mr chairman I think you were talking I figured you were talking to Dan Ogel and he was saying here do the juniper poke it all right that's all I had uh anything else from the
board uh Britney anything the only thing I would add is um some light monitoring just photos is fine for the plants i'm sorry I didn't hear you monitoring for the plant establishment is the only thing I would add um for a special condition
uh three just the three years right okay uh can we just get them to initial to to do two copies in in hand for the Juniper issue i can just put it a special condition i don't need it you just do
that okay all right that's fine and I will modify the plan anyway so that way when people see the plan they know that they're putting in Bayberry we won't Okay okay thank you come back in three years and have beautiful juniper out there that's right it's like I'm I'm going to see it thank you Karen uh anybody in the
audience on this one uh anybody on Zoom oh there's one i can't see who it is but Chris Eric chris uh Chris Ericson if you want to uh unmute yourself and
just identify who you are okay can you see me or No uh just hear you okay so I'm near the butter on 2 C drive and uh yesterday I I just submitted to
Britany a uh an edited drawing of the lagoon and I just want to make you aware that I have a float there and it was approved back in 1999 just RDA but I never completed the application and it was for a second
float and I just want to make sure that you guys fully see that because I'm in process of getting it licensed through the D but they sent it back to um the AMA conservation because they wanted it updated the application so Britney's
well aware of it and I just want you guys to all be aware of it because it's not drawn into the um you know BSC's uh site plan but I sent her a copy and also you guys have an aerial uh it's in a Dave Tedesco plan and you can see where
the docks are all positioned and I'm not opposing to uh Tedesco project i know the neighbor and um I'm not opposing anything i just want you guys to all be aware and have a clear understanding of just how this all ties together because
I don't want to lose my space you know I've had it for 25 years i have two boats and I am pursuing um you know this licensing of my float and I just like I said I just wanted to make public notice
to all every all parties and um and I guess that's it thanks Chris i want to acknowledge I received your your sketch plan u new material can't be submitted to the board less than a week before the hearing and you we did
acknowledge that you had a float there at the last hearing but it has not been completely permitted yet which is why it's not shown on the plan so we acknowledge that you're in the process but it's not permitted fully so that's why it's not shown on the plan but you're not opposing the project is what
I'm hearing so thank you you're welcome right thank you uh anybody else on Zoom i see nobody else uh any further discussion among the boardney anything else no all right
unless there's anything else uh would somebody like to make a motion to approve the project with special conditions and we'll receive that revised plan to Karen yep i'll be in touch with Whitney all right thank you is there so moved second
don't get all mixed up please there we go all right all those in favor i opposed and one abstension right abstain yes all right mr chairman thank you members thank you Karen thank you Karen
all right so this first one is going to be this project okay this is the one that everybody signs and then Pat this one you do not sign okay you too Ellie don't sign that she want to see Joe go back to print i don't
know it's kind of fun all right next order of business is another continued notice of intent for SE83-2469 Alfredo Lope Lopeil 21 Television Lane proposed elevate elevation and relocation of a single
family dwelling septic tank replacement regrading and retaining walls and land subject to coastal storm flowage hello hello representative not here i'm sorry did you see him run in miss somebody on that
missing is Trunk Strong Tree here for this hello oh no we Oh she's on Zoom my lord katarina hello everyone i am Katarina Coroff from Strong Tree Engineering i
appreciate you're hearing our continued project um sorry Karina katarina before we get going I just want to let you know uh we have a policy that states the uh engineers and and applicants should be uh make an appearance in person at the
hearing i understand that and Matt Layman who was here previously was intending to come unfortunately he had a family emergency and I do live 2 hours away so
I was not able to drive out in time um is there any way that you would allow us in this case for me to sit as a representative um especially considering the only issue that came up during our
last hearing was the uh D number had not been assigned yet um does anybody eject from the board all we have is a D number did we vote we just continued we just continued
do we have the the D number now we do okay um Oh yeah we do um All right uh if there's anything else did did you need anything else then Katarina uh no I don't need anything else i'm happy to discuss the project with you to
do the summary um and um of course Alfred Loilado the homeowner is there uh in person as well so there there were no changes between last time and this time right we didn't we didn't ask them to do anything else
right we we were just waiting on the D you were discussing the flood zone with the wall but you did not come to any conclusion so it seemed like you were continuing for D number but didn't make it clear if you were okay with the wall for the flood zone
um we in the past have approved projects that have included fill in the flood zone um it has been a policy of this board to encourage the least amount of fill possible to achieve the same goal um but in the past we have approved projects with fill in the flood zone
so I guess my my question Mr chairman is are the retaining walls going to going to redirect the flood waters to the street and how do we know yes or no may I chime in please yeah go ahead yes
so this the entirety of this project falls within the land subject to coastal storm flowage the uh FEMA flood zone uh base elevation is at 11 ft the house is currently situated at the elevation of 5.6 ft and so we propose to raise it to
12.2 to above that flood zone this is I believe beneficial to the neighborhood for for multiple reasons one currently storm water runoff is just going directly onto the road so by adding
these storm water catch basin improvements the chambers sub subsurface chambers we're actually creating a space for water retention to slow down the um the flow of water directly onto the
street and the point the purpose of the retaining wall not only um is to we're going to fill with the soil but we also are improving the septic system um and also again giving more space for
the storm water catch chambers and this will slow down the flowage from the site because this system will also all the runoff that would normally go off the roof directly onto the ground and then just pouring onto the road that would
then be diverted into these uh new new system chambers that we're proposing and the addition of the retaining wall is not anticipated to add to the flooding issues of the
street in fact again the specific issues to the site will be slowed down now we cannot slow down the ocean so when there is flooding from coastal or from precipitation this is
going to be a continued issue um but there are existing storm water sewer drains in the neighborhood the this was discussed last week there's one directly north of the property and that is where a lot of the project uh the the property and
neighborhood water tends to pool just directly north of the property and so uh tech at this point it's the property that's getting subjected to a lot of of water and uh we do not intend to divert
that and make it a neighborhood property we simply are attempting to improve the conditions and to mitigate the flood issues in a way that we don't anticipate will burden any further the neighborhood
that's it from me thank you that's it okay anybody else britney nope is there anybody in the audience on this one anybody on Zoom right uh would some Can I just add that
the um if if anyone's been out to the property it's staked out and the retaining walls are pretty far back into my property line the flooding is if you look at that the flooding is um on the
roadway um the retaining wells are I mean as you can see pretty well into my property um I I just I've gone over the center of my head several times and I'm trying to you
know I'm not a scientist like Katarina is but at the end of the day I know that water travels down hills and if I slope it down I can only imagine that the water is just going to be directed more
into the street opposed to retaining walls and retaining water into my property um I I personally am losing a lot of property by doing that because naturally I don't have much of a front yard anymore but I think that it's at
the end of the day the best layout for that piece of land and that's all and again as I said before I have great support from my neighbors and the board um I have had nobody object to it um
that I know of anyways um and that's about it okay thank you i have one question maybe for for Britney we've heard the explanations about why the retaining walls might even improve the property
and the runoff um I don't understand how that would happen but um are the explanations that the that the wall would somehow mitigate the runoff
situation in that area in your opinion um valid i appreciate you placing a high value on my opinion but um so the in in my opinion yes any wall
in a flood zone can redirect flood waters especially when you're experiencing predominantly coastal flooding this area experiences both coastal flooding and flooding from intense precipitation um so what they're saying is true for storm water um the storm water is contained on the property instead of flowing into the street
during intense storms but the storm water that's already accumulated onto the property during intense storms will stay there instead of being able to flow onto a relatively flat surface i think the height the top of the wall I think the top of the wall is
below the flood plane elevation so if you get a the most severe flood coastal flood it'll still over top the wall and some will be able to infiltrate but on your regular coastal flood it will still push some water um maybe negligible amount of water into the street and there are
other there are other houses in the neighborhood that have similar walls in place so it does have a function that could be seen as positive from a storm water perspective okay thanks hope I didn't put you on the
spot you definitely did i think I think that um she recovered well our storm water our flood plane regulations this is a great example of why we have them um but we do have to acknowledge the
fact that every site is different um and it may be more applicable in closer areas to the the ocean um where the houses are much closer together um yeah so it's it's a difficult project
but I probably would approve it because of the presence of other properties that are similar on the same street um but I don't vote so it is up to just just the you know just for the sake of um
explanation the the folks come in here with their experts and we have our experts so that's why I asked the question i appreciate it thank you all right uh anybody else i went to neighborhood right anybody else in the
board all right would somebody like to make a motion to approve the project with special conditions so moved there a second second all those in favor i opposed
abstain again and one ab one abstension do we have to um point of clarification do we have to count as an abstension if she was not eligible to vote because she wasn't on the board yet when we opened this item or do we just say that it was 40 you
were not on the board at the time at the time this was Oh no so you don't even have to instead of 501 nothing sorry all right thank you thank you thank you thank you very much your project passed
thank you have a good evening appreciate it thank you guys so so this one is new so you're eligible next order of business is a notice of intent for SE83-2471 Henry and Nadine Gil 206 South Street proposed construction of a pier
ramp and float and replacement of a stone revetment and land under the ocean coastal beach coastal bank salt marsh and land containing shellfish oops sorry do you want an easel okay thank you [Applause]
thank you bob Perry Cape Code Engineering and uh Bane and Naden Gill are here tonight we have um it's a proposed coastal management proposed dock project at 206 South Street South
Yarmouth a little bit of history there was a notice of intent filed for raise and replace on the house the gills have decided to maintain and and just remodel the nice old Craftsman house that's here today so the setting that was going to
be changed is going to stay the same and they've focused their attention now on the the waterfront um there was also a dock proposal here three years ago was approved under the wetland act and it was
um not approved under the bylaw on a basis of recreational interference which we did not agree with that but we went ahead and looked at other options and and tried to sort of remediate that
concern so we shifted the dock location to the north end of the parcel that is a location where a dock once existed if you wanted to see a land court plan I have it it's 1922 shows a very long dock here at the
north end not so far from where this is proposed and I'm going to address the project in basically three pieces the first would be to to get the sort of the straightforward part is the erosion
protection we have a lot of dredge material that was deposited here decades and decades ago which formed a kind of a plateau on the south end of the lot there's an Osprey pole you might have seen it and we uh we know that there's you know quite a bit of of of dune land
that that sort of flows back there it's debatable but along the leading edge of it it it shows quite a bit of dune character there's a lot of fill but we're not proposing to extend the revetment we want to reconstitute
uh the entire revetment because it is a fairly loose and collapsing collection of rip wrap stone and as as it goes to the south where it integrates with what is the old breakwater jetty for the Bass River that
organized line of stone you see actually has um a wooden core to it running along here it also continues off to the north it was formalized I think around 1910 um
it's it's licensed under chapter 91 and we're only proposing to um reconstitute the revetment which as I said is licensed but on the south we're proposing a fiber core lift it's a it's
a core fiber lift not a set of fiber rolls but it's a durable multi-layer sewn uh burrito for lack of a better analogy filled with sand that would be periodically sand covered not in a quantity that would threaten the
river but it's a a meaningful measure to control the flanking erosion that's occurring here um there is no discernable filter fabric in the revetment and there's a lot of sink holes beginning to form and uh over
the last more than several decades the gills have just tolerated it but it's actually become unsafe so the reconstruction of the revetment is a component of this project access would be through the upland
and there's no aquatic vegetation seawward of the revetment you do have a little bit of salt marsh graduates to be a significant salt marsh deposit that's in inboard of the ancient breakwater and any work on the end would
be done essentially from the side or from the upland or from the sandy beach there's no aquatic vegetation issue um other riverments in Bass River we've built from the side and this probably is no exception it would just be re uh
disassembled and reassembled with a larger grade stone because the rip wrap that's there um it's been scattered before in storms and it's just not a wise thing to if you're going to do all this work you might as well increase the size of the stone and and key them
together so I can take questions on that or I can move to something which um was based on the previous visit we've moved the dock to the north end of Locust it's absolute
that this portion of Bass River has an al cove in it and we have uh photographs if if you needed to see we've got about 470 ft between two peers there is one to the south and
there's one to the north and in trying to address the concern for navigation which I just want to elaborate on that a little we're 470 ft between docks and we are
260 I think 265 to the edge of the navigational channel we I've scoped out this entire area we have kodium and some brown algae that's in sporadic locations on the uh
on the bottom there no eel grass and so by locating the dock where it had been once located we we've got uh and I have to refer to my plan 195 ft to the dock to the north and 252 feet to
the dock to the south we have stationed the float at the location where we have just slightly better than 3 ft of water at the seawward edge and it's just deep water going out from there be great if it could be a little
farther out but it's 128 ft from mean high water and as a result of that it does not meet your 80 foot length limit but in reviewing this location and this project and examining waiver
rationale we put into the narrative the reasoning for that where a blanket 80oot limit whether your dock crosses 80 ft of salt marsh or whether your dock crosses 80
feet of open sand that happens to be um a unique area of the river because it has been altered by man in the first place um there's very little additional adverse
impact if any to the extra length of the dock we're simply looking at an al cove in the river where we are 25 ft inshore from a line that's connecting the two docks that exist there today
we're not extending out certainly not farther than those docks and effectively because of the shape of this portion of the river that's that al cove that we're describing is armored um it's almost as if it were a landward extension of the
ri of the of the of the pier and we are not crossing any um valuable aquatic vegetation we do have a shelfer study that indicated there's cohog population here and there's no surprise there um your regulations allow for cohog
population to be relayed out and there's certainly no objection to doing that you can see that we're 20 feet to the property line and effectively there is no property line out in the river but just to be fair we showed you the extension
of it and we're 16 ft from from the extension of that lot line with the float but we entered a communication from the director butter the trustee issued a letter saying they have no objection to that so with that approval
that doesn't put us into waiver territory for that even though we're not centered in the center of the lot um we tried to sort of get the greatest spread between the the two docks although um
there's it was I think just a plain rationale there's there's no difference in depth if you run back and forth across the front of the lot and just to take it out from being directly in front of the house we nudged it to the north a little bit so the you know the crucial
question is can this dock be approved with a waiver and the narrative goes through the reasoning for that as I said and we know you've had other applications and we we want this project
to stand on its own two feet um it's a standard dock it has lots of clearance as you come off the upland people can walk beneath it it has very ample elevation all the way out but it's not overly elevated where it is above the
tidelands we did lengthen the ramp so that it would be a little shorter as a permanent structure so we do have a a 20 foot ramp instead of a 14-footer and because if you were to evaluate this
on the basis of comparative impacts given the way the regulations are written if ever there was a location that qualified for a length waiver I think you would be looking at it and that is uh what is now before you
i don't have a lot more to add because a lot of the dock is somewhat standard and um you've seen a lot of docks um so we have um there are no no more opportunities for a dock to be established in this
part of Bass River and historically there was a dock here and so we'd be happy to try to answer questions you have about the project so I think I'll leave it there and thank you very much okay thanks Bob
questions from the board yeah I have a question about the um the depth of the water if you can just review that again um at it says um right boat shall be no less than than
three feet of mean low water um and the depth of the water on the let me see where am I um uh let's see depth of the water landward side of the flow shall be no less than 2 and 1/2 ft maybe I'm mixing things up a little
bit but it looks like at the end of the dock you only have like a foot and a half you don't have much water down there at mean low and mean high it's quite flat um we are stationing
our float approximately where the 4 foot contour minus 4 foot contour runs under it uh and it actually drops off to five but those are NAVD88 elevations so
if you were looking at um soundings or or I don't even think soundings is a proper word if we convert NAVD88 to mean low water it's approximately a 1.3 foot difference so the end of our float is almost out to where we have a a
minus5 contour so we have slightly more than three feet of water at average mean low tide at the outboard end of the float and uh no less than a half a foot um less than
that at the inshore I guess so but it doesn't seem like your plan is reflecting that at all well maybe I mean you said a lot of things there but I'm seeing I am seeing uh the the same thing you are i hope maybe you want to come around here because it looks like mean
high is 1.5 mean low is 1.4 yep there's a should be a minus sign there so that um that's a about a 2.9 ft difference so the um this is the bottom trace
and so that's the depth of water we try to show graphically our floats floating at low tide i don't know that a float would draft that much it's approximately a foot but you'll scale that to be uh at least two and a half feet at at uh that
distance and so at high tide the float will be floating up here so So mean high at 1.5 and mean low at minus 1.4 and that's a you know we're getting close to the mouth of the river the tide range could even be a little more there
but We're using numbers that we've observed that are listed so I have I cleared that up or not really but that's okay i don't want to hug your time here no that's all right just that's the key if you were to scale that no no no no it's okay i'll
I'll listen some more okay okay there you are right it just looks like it's too low to me maybe others would help me out with that and also of course the other thing I probably will be discussing is that that and you brought it up about
um bylaw talks about 80 ft and it's 128 ft and you don't seem to gain any more water by going out 128 ft but maybe I'm misunderstanding something so let me let me listen to the rest of the discussion i can explain that we certainly do that's the reason we're out at 128
because we get ourselves to the drop off right at the drop off they can see the contour lines okay all right appreciate that thank you can I ask a question sure um this this is really it might have to
do with means and methods and um but I'm just um looking at possible exposure that could upset um the bedding you could you explain uh note general note number nine which reads um that the bedding stone shall be of angular
granite stone blah blah blah 8 to 12 in this second sentence um a secondary stone layer is advised and may be required dependent upon the resulting stone face void sizes subject to engineer inspection could you elaborate yes I can thanks for
asking one of the things I deal with routinely are contracts going out to reetment quote unquote reetment builders that don't know how to build revetments i don't have control over who builds this i do have control over inspections and if I find myself working with a
contractor who has limited ability to either purchase and deliver appropriate stone for stone revetment and I have large gaps or different qualities of bedding stone I have the right by that note to
require an intermediate layer of stone that would sequester the bedding stone from coming through those gaps in the arm armor stone my preference is to have someone build a revetment with minimum paracity
in it and some face texture and I'm I have a lot of that going on this winter and I had one significant interesting project where we we organized it finally and it was one of those cases where it became necessary
to to look at that specification so that we were properly policing the construction to keep the bedding stone in the Rivetman it's just a it's there for protection for quality
thank you anybody else i just have a question what are you going to do with all these stones that are already down there well that are in the Some of those stones are adequate for bedding stone okay um and they're if you I would call them almost
a rip wrap um quality they're they're not chips but they're they're you know chunks of what appears to be non-native granite sort of a blue they're not blue stone but they're um they can be used
for any number of things are you using them in the wall you're rebuilding no um like I said if the contractor chooses if they're once once things come apart typically something like that would be just trucked away and and I
wouldn't have any remaining stone or chips there's some police work that goes on when a job like this is done you make sure you don't leave stone on the beach i typically want bedding stone confined in a
bin but that stone that you see there is not unlike uh certain stones that you will find going into the core of a breakwater or a jetty or a revetment our preference is to use n is to use native granite so that it matches the color of
the armor just a better thing okay there's a lot of stone there that's wondering what you're doing yeah and and a loader or an excavator would would make fairly quick work of putting that into a a truck and taking it
away some some is usable anybody else i just want to say I'm having a hard time with the uh length of the pair being almost 50% more than more than 50% or more than what we normally
um accept on it we we knew that going in and I appreciate certainly we we've talked about that the pier would not be possible without the waiver because we believe that the depth requirement is is
the thing that rules you want you don't want boats traversing a shallow whether it's vegetated or not and the activity I think there were there was a mooring here the activity here over the years was where people come to the beach with
a boat and the length is just that it's a length but it's not traversing vegetation not traversing a clay bottom or or anything like that it's
um it's the length yes but the but the length by itself doesn't represent an adverse environmental impact needs to be qualified for what what is it the length over that was our reasoning for the length fact that you cannot have the
dock meet the depth if you don't have the length so the dock had in order to meet the depth the dock has to beund it it's the it's the minimum right now because of the depth we've just got the depth that you require fortunately
we're so far from the channel you you know you probably routinely see docks that are looking for channel waiverss or they're you know some kind of salt marsh traverse but this is a very good location for considering the
waiver on length because it is a shape of the shoreline that disadvantages this property at a location that's 400 ft between two docks and right at the mouth of the river so the many of the issues
that you would be faced with in a payment or a tidal flat with mud um don't you know or somebody having to get in their boat and then traverse this complicated area of shos and shallows to
get to a channel that's not this anybody else any I'm sorry i have I also have kind of a problem with the length just because this is our regulations and again we're just put that out there well I
appreciate that comment too it's But you approved a 130 foot dock um you know 200 or about 1,200 feet from here and not long before that another one about a similar length and those are crossing salt marshes and those are very very
close to navigational channels and I've been at I've been present during some of your review meetings when you yourselves had said that there used to be a one-sizefits-all review and you moved away from that i believe Paul was one of
the ones who commented you know this is there are cases that are worthy of consideration for a favorable conclusion on length and this is shorter I believe
than those those facilities and so um I I was happy to represent the gills to come in and speak with you about this because it looked as if you compare all of the decisions that you make and you look at the specific conditions at this
site that you would be able to reach a favorable conclusion that's what we thought ignorant question is it out of our purview to to look at this in reference um or ask for um you know a plan view of
of this relative to the navigational channel he shows the distance to the channel it's got the 265 ft but relative to the you know maybe big picture you know you you mentioned
other peers um I can you do a show that's no that's not outside our purview we can see it we'll show it I just want to add we're not trying to put
you into a position where you're granting anything that would be of a precedent nature everyone in many commissions are concerned about that that's what I was looking for this project seems to line pretty much can I see that when you're done yes
thank you i ought to keep my mouth shut okay i have a question i I I just have something if I may uh we'll go to Paul and then uh Britney um I thank Mr parish bringing up the
past to haunt me a little bit but anyway um you know I think we try to consider all of this in terms of the regulations and you know if no one else no one else commented on my questions and maybe my questions were off base in terms of the depth of the water that's something I
saw in the plan that confused me a little bit va VR regulations um I remember in some instances there were uh considerations given to something you referenced which is the um kind of I don't want to call it the topography or the shape of the area that
was a consideration back with something else um I don't know if anybody else has anything to say about that you know I I went out there and it seemed like at the time I think it was low tide and boy the water seemed far away you know and so I understand why you want to reach it by
going 128 feet um I I um but if you went if you went a shorter distance you're basically saying what at at low at low tide you'd have no water underneath the dock well you you don't have to come inshore too far before
you're in the two-foot category yeah and you're saying in terms of the way you read this plan there is sufficient water under the dock at 128 feet absolutely i staked it i don't know if the buoyy's still there but I I I could have gotten lost in the river if I had gone any
farther it just drops off so nicely it drops off me so it it's really So I must be looking at something yeah yeah i think maybe in the future it's it's super helpful when they're looking at multiple plans just to show have an arrow right here between and say how
much depth there is at low water well we're happy to do that i sometimes put corresponding negative numbers on that actually are uh mean low water datam values because that's really you're just basically reading the depth of water at low tide
when you read the number d changed to an NAVD88 requirement for plans we used to put them all on mean low water if we could figure it out and we usually can but this gets confusing it looks like there's more water to me is reading
minus5 but it's not it's it's minus4 you know minus 3.3 to 3.5 at the end of that float that's your depth of water there we can't if we move it three feet inshore we're we're
cutting it close and I'd rather not cut it close so we're 128 we are right at the drop off and it goes right off you can see it you know it's not steep but it just keeps going 128 it drops off
sorry we said at 128 it drops off yes where the float is stationed we begin see we have this wide distance between two foot contours and then we have this much distance between two foot contours
so there's this to get from -2 to -4 and there's this to get from -4 to -6 it just goes it's perfect it's actually perfect except for the length which isn't crossing vegetated shallows
or salt marsh sand thank you anybody else britney I have a question about the revetment replacement um do you know
what the slope is of the revetment that you're repo that you're proposing we could determine that um I'd have to get my scale out but it's a rock pile it's it's you know it's got variable pitch but just CZM um recommends a slope no
steeper than 1.5 to one and recommends closer to one to three right we would which I was able to find just to make sure that I was thinking of it right um I don't have a slope value on there that's my mistake i should have given it to you but our revetments are all 1.5 to
one okay that's great and you mentioned before some difficulty perhaps with implementation with some of the builders um what you're showing looks like it has a rough face is there any way for you to to police that in in the implementation to make sure that's roughaced when it's
installed yes there should be a face roughness it's uh the face roughness should be on a scale of 1 to 1.5 ft so it's an effort to control face roughness which right on the plan and some guys want to build these smooth things it's
not the way to do it okay i missed that rock pile that's not the way to do it either and my last question is you said there was no moorings there um it does look like there was a mooring there in September is that owned I didn't hear you it looks like there is a mooring there in September or is that owned by the family is that your boat okay so you
would obviously if you had the pier you would no longer use that moing right is that correct okay how deep do you think it is at that moing at low tide i get wet because I get mad because I low tide at low tide it's very shallow
right very shallow so so that's the use that's going on there now in shallow water which would be more harmful to the bottom because the mooring scope if this is legal mooring it swings around the
mooring chain drags around the bottom and creates a scour for the circumference of that radius uh and it's it's there's an established use we're removing that
damage from this location with the dock okay and I just wanted to um point out um one other thing or two other things to the board is that um one of the two reasons it was a similar dock on over the salt marsh was um denied in 2018 was
for the length and then also for its interference with recreation with sailboat tacking this was did this did go in front of waterways and they did not find that as an issue and I would imagine that's because it's already impeded by the mooring now there's a mooring there so there's no ability for sailboats to tack in there any longer um
and the other thing that the waterways board recommended is that they they do wish to have a a shellfish mitigation fee for this dock they have not explicitly defined that yet um so it would still kind of be working with them if this is approved to define what that
shellfish mitigation would entail i know there's no objection to that in fact the conversation at waterways had to do with uh scallop lanterns but I was I was quite sure that I heard that scallop lanterns would require greater depth
okay it would Yeah it would be kind of in collaboration with them because they haven't defined has been there for decades okay it it wasn't uh we didn't have a discussion with waterways about the mooring presence except that it would remove that mooring from um or
there was the possibility that would remove the mooring from service because nobody else is going to use the mooring um but it was uh there was a I think there was a four to it was unanimous with one extemp extend abstension at at
waterways okay um I do have one other thing so just to clarify the home order of condition is does not intend to move forward at all or it may no um there may be there may
be some work that would be related to that that would okay under it but no there's no demolition of the house anymore i just am worried about having different sizes of mitigation planting on both plans i would prefer that they be the same size and planting plan so
that in if one is implemented if both's implemented we have the same plan um you're showing five to six feet and the other plan had an 8ft buffer and already has a planting plan associated with it i think it would in we were not in the riverfront area but I know that at the time there was an interest in mitigating
for all of what was being and that's no longer being done but I knew that you had the requirement along the cap so we showed the 5- foot and it would be planted with um salt tolerant
native plants but we didn't provide a species to you um I just wanted to get through the the larger issue which is the um the the length waiver on the pier okay um it's the 800lb gorilla in the
room right so yes if we if um depending on the approval we will just need planting information and then also I would assume that you're planting beach grass over your sand oftent times the cover sand on those it doesn't it's sacrificial above it yes behind it yes
because that will stay in most cases okay thank you that's all add to that that's no problem okay anybody in the audience oh I'm sorry anybody else on the board anybody in the audience anybody on Zoom raise your hand
digitally i see none uh would somebody like to make a motion to approve the project with special conditions so move there a second second all those in favor say I i I
All those opposed say nay nay can we roll call i raise raise your hand for I one two three four and one two nay right
okay i should get up and scurry out of here um so you did that the last time don't do that again don't hold that against me not my not my thing so um thank you all for
your consideration on this project because the reasoning I want to go on but the reasoning for us was extraordinarily important it mattered and I guess it did
matter too so thank you okay thank you the special conditions will include the shellfish mitigation and the planting plan and the regular DMF ones um time of year and Okay just want to make sure these are at the bottom of the uh that's what
I was looking for thank you and um I don't sign this you don't sign it no if you voted no don't sign it first two are see the first two are okay without or are they easy or first one just the first one right
okay all right so we have certificates of compliance we have a request for certificate of compliance for SE83-2095 uh Paul Butler 164 Driftwood Lane uh there's no issues with that one do I have a motion to approve the
certificate of compliance so moved is there a second second all those in favor i opposed abstain you know you can go ahead and do that if you want to abstain that's
um Okay uh next one is for certific certificate of compliance request for SE83-2161 Paul Butler 164 Driftwood Lane
uh any issues Britney sorry I just got tripped up on the number 2161 um so there's no problem with the construction of the building for this everything's fine um the only issue that we saw on site is
I tried to describe briefly to you where did you um upload the photos for this did you put it in the other COC oh yeah yeah that's probably what I did other 2095 um let's see um
okay either way um Joe's gonna look for the photos there's along the pathway to the dock that goes up here um there is an area of mitigation planting on the property to the north that was sheet
mulched um and it is slightly sloped and there are gullies through the sheet mulch carrying mulch over the path and onto the coastal bank and eroding the bank it would be great if I could show you a photo um but so it is there is eros some erosion on the coastal bank
right now i don't think it's something that's going to take too long to remedy but we do need to stabilize that area and get something in there to help with the issue just back out because it's in both i left it out in the big folder
it's just ination okay here we are sorry thanks here we are on the path um and there's mulch going off the side onto the bank and it's kind of eroded from here you've got something there it just didn't seem to be big
enough to keep that mulch back and the mitigation areas shouldn't have been mulched like that initially um and this is the area where there's some loose sand sediment too and it is owned it is on the next property but it is owned by the same
person so I didn't know um how And that you said that was a mitigation area that had mulch in it it was yeah that's irrelevant to what we're Yeah that was all I had for the path pictures
so we do have some organic material and some loose sediment on the coastal bank side when it's running down into the water so I'm not really exactly sure how it would be um stable you have those rocks there yeah that water must have been moving we
had two inches of rain on Monday wouldn't be out there Tuesday monday right oh we went Tuesday yeah you gone last week I'd be careful i wouldn't have had this issue because when I was out there doing my inspection I didn't notice any uh mulch that had ran down
here um well what are we going to do about it i mean this is why I I mean we we have to it's usually in the special conditions that you don't mulch the
sheet mulch the mitigation area but oh gets missed yep yeah i I was out there and and I guess the problem as I saw it was that oaks put down that black um sheet they had some weed block underneath and unless that's taken up
that that mulch is just going to continue to wash over the top of it it doesn't really work and I don't know why landscapers use that method um certainly would be better for the soil and everything else if they didn't use that type of I don't know what you want to call it membrane or whatever the heck it
is um it just keeps it when it dries out it blows off the top and everything else so it just wasn't a great job that they did and I don't know if it's detrimental to the entire project but um you know you know I mean it could be all taken up
and just put the mulch down that probably would stay there but you know I don't know if we could require that well if you got the fabric underneath it it's going to continue to leak anything that's on top of it then that sort of says to me that you
got to get rid of the fabric um as part of the mitigation area I this is why I always recommend that that you don't you don't use you shouldn't use mulch you
can either let it naturalize or you could use some sort of a seed mix and let let the seed mix take over and essentially be the be the mulch but it also absorbs a
lot of the moisture and and uh nutrients that are moving through which is the whole point behind the mitigation area in the first place so I mean if you would just want to remove the remove the uh fabric
and come back then I'm okay with that um are we sure there was filter fabric in this section or was it more by the pool that we saw the fabric all down that was all over here okay i mean I don't see it in those pictures
but I'm wasn't out at the site so it was in one of your pictures pretty clearly if I could Mr chairman if I could what I'll do is I'll ask to meet the owner on site and go through the issue with him and have his landscaper come out and
come up with some ideas on how to deal with it and then if it's major I'll come back and talk to Britney about it if it's just something minor like removing the fabric um then go ahead and get that done but let me just see i'll probably go out there the next rain and
see how it's flowing and see what's creating the the runoff it looks like some of it's coming actually off the lawn the way it's all the way from up there so um best time to see this when it's raining so I'll go out there and check it out maybe
tomorrow maybe tomorrow when I leave here I'll make the phone call and maybe tomorrow okay all right so you want to just you want to continue this for like a month and just so you have a little bit of time before you come back or if I could continue for the two weeks and then I'll ask to continue for the extra two weeks
if I need to because there's um some economic decisions being made so so this one we will continue for two weeks do I have a motion do I have a motion to that effect so moved uh all all those in favor i'm sorry is
there a second i'll second all those in favor i uh opposed right so we'll see you in two weeks all right who second who was it bradford bradford you did okay
all right so I'm going to just sign the top the top uh one do not sign the bottom one uh next order of business is another certificate compliance for SE83-2343 David Palmer 17 Crest Circle
this is a partial COC request so this one again I don't have any issues with the construction portion um and this is just a partial because the plants were just installed in the fall um but it's just a note that the site is not yet fully stabilized um this the sil
fence is still in the waddle is still in and there is some evidence of erosion um past the little pathway at the bottom of the hill there um so we just need a little bit of stabilization and to make sure that it's stabilized before we get rid of that fence um to consider as we
the permit will still be open after this because it's a partial anyway but I just wanted to make sure you knew um that there's still some stabilization to get going on in that back could we request the um partial for the biggest things for the house yeah the partial is fine um with the exception of
the plantings and stabilization of the yard to just be continued they'll it will remain open um so that's for 23 23 43 right that's correct okay
if I ran that right around the bottom to the silk fence yeah I think if you if if you take down the silt fence and remove the straw waddle you will have to put down some sort of wetland native seed mix underneath the jute because there is kind of it looks like the sod left a bit
of a lip here so it's going to be like a a pretty big drop off so it needs to be stabilized um and there's some loose soil here too so if you put down some sort of native native seed mix and some jute over it with stakes that should do it britney on the on the next one which
is same owner we talked about taking off the um uh tags it's the same thing on this oh yeah this place too if you could take off the tags to the plants they could They're just litter future litter would remember what they were
so far it helps me greatly when I'm counting plants taking pictures so I'm always telling people leave those plants on leave those stickers on if you've got to help the engineers out they don't have that
so the partial is good all right so uh we're good on issuing a partial certificate uh is there a um motion to that effect so moved is there a second second all those in favor i
opposed carries unanimously and another request for certificate of compliance for SC83-2344 David Palmer 24 Valley Road another partial is that right same the plants went in in the fall um this one
is all good to go i would just put um a condition there's construction debris still all um on the property hold on one second in in addition to the same plant tags um that need to be removed there's some construction debris on the on the
coastal bank on the side um so that should just get out of there and if you could just send me a picture when it's out and then I can issue the COC all right uh is there a motion for the partial certificate for SE83-2344
is this a So moved is there a second second i'm sorry just to be clear this is only a partial one for correct okay right because the plantings have not been in long enough okay are there monitoring reports on these i was going to ask for
the other one too but Oh Bradford can you monitoring um yeah did we Did we ask for monitoring reports i don't know hold on i don't believe so just I'm just asking i'm not all those in favor opposed
carries unanimously we did not ask for reports that brings us to the conclusion of our certificates of compliance just one question as soon as I've submitted plans and you've approved the plans I take it for the when we submit that the plants
have taken we don't need to submit any more plans with those no you don't need an asbuilt for the second section of the COC thank you thank you okay thank you uh this brings us to the enforcement portion of our agenda uh Joyce
landscaping for John and Susan Basic 122 Thatcher Shore Road unpermitted removal of vegetation and filling of a bordering vegetative wetland and its buffer zone hi so this property recently closed out
um two certificate one certificate of compliance in the fall um so they have a recent asbuilt plan um of the site that I will slowly pull up um and so here's the site there's a
stream in the back with um marsh and there's also a boarding vegetated wetland on the side of the yard um this area had recently has recently been um cleared of vegetation and fill was brought in to
level the area they did have erosion control installed um and I did meet on site with the property owner and the landscaper who completed the work um at Joyce Landscaping um last Friday and so here's the area um there's
still some intact skunk cabbage over here and the bottom but this most of this area was definitely wetland prior um and it has been removed of vegetation um with some lom brought in and the homeowner also did mention
that they did remove three trees um I think he said a cherry or two cherries and um I'm not sure but three trees were also included in the removal of vegetation here's a portion uh that abut that directly abuts that that pond and stream back there with some pragmitees
here's a erosion control but there has been sediment that has crossed the erosion control already um so it does need to be reinstalled um a little more securely we have sediment going underneath and around it and so um my recommendation for this
property um would be to issue an enforcement order including certified ecological restoration practitioner for restoration of the pre-existing wetland area including at least a 10-ft buffer um with a report with the general number and size of the trees that were removed
and general previous existing conditions um I would recommend that since it's just the beginning of the spring happy spring um that they can if they're able to contract with a certified wetlands um ecological restoration practitioner in
time to attempt to remove the fill to restore the original grade um and seed the whole area with a wetland seed mix as soon as possible um and then uh have a restoration plan submitted and if possible get some
portion of those plans sub um installed this growing season before June 1st if obviously if all the stars align um I realize it's a very quick turnaround but we can have a caveat in there if it's not able to be completed that it'd be done in
this in the fall but definitely at least to be seated and then three years monitoring by a professional aer okay do you have an aerial photo of this [Music] here's the site the pool um this
is here's the pond in the back covered with fragmitees um and here's that wetland to the side that was cleared and the stream this is in September so it's dried up but the stream runs on the side let's see if we get a leaf off here's that wetland um I'm assuming
these are the two trees that they had removed this this is the one that's remaining here um and here's that stone with the water on the side um and this is where the wet area was where that's kind of darker um but it would need to be redineated in the
field to find that exact boundary okay can you call go all the way out just so I can see a little bit yeah we're in Yarmouth Port of Salt Marsh that's Thatcher shore conservation area to the just to the right where you're Yeah this
is conservation area um down here and there was other one um small thing on on conservation property they dropped a big pile of wood chips um that has that does have to be relocated okay it's our last
You are Sorry I'm Andrew Nicus okay and do you understand what you're what what we're asking you to do without a doubt okay we've reached out to um multiple mitigation consultants okay trying to find somebody who we can align with and work with as soon as possible um willing
to do whatever it takes to make it right obviously okay thank you okay and I I don't see an issue i'm sure we could get if we can get everything in line timelinewise yeah I think the seating at least Okay in by June one that would that shouldn't be an issue
yeah I would I would recommend as soon as possible to um delineate remove the fill to restore the original grade and seed and then submit the restoration plan if possible by May 1st and go from there it's going to be tight it's going to be
tight yeah but if if we can even get it seated yeah i mean I I think if you can get it seated you're ahead of the game at this point so um and you've got the SER the SER will be doing that doing all the work is that
correct um that would be up to the board i I think that's what we should be aiming for could you repeat that the the SER would be the one would be the individuals that are actually doing the the actual
planting and restoration work and not just supervising it would just might be difficult to get someone that quickly from that well I think they could certainly supervise the as far as the the planting or the seed mix goes that that sort of thing um I mean if they're
I don't know if the surf would be willing to just supervise as a supervisory capacity that would be my only my only concern uh if they are willing to to have and when I say supervising I mean onite yes and a
dedicated individual on site while you're doing the work then that would be I guess I I could live with that but if they can't [Music] then I would want to see them doing the work so and then I would also put in as a as
a stipulation that if they change if the SER changes that they should notify the office ahead of time or at least make notification to you and as to who's taking their place okay and we would have a
pre-construction meeting um before anything goes on additional to what's already there yeah I can get somebody up you can mitigate the get rid of the wood chips we can re reattach and better attach the waddle um obviously as soon as possible
too okay great okay anybody else have any questions comments all right um do I have a motion to issue the uh enforcement order as written is there a second
second all those in favor i carried unanimously all right thank you just make sure you keep in keep in touch with Britney throughout the whole process okay i have Joyce's email um okay thank you the cell is probably the best one
too great thank you very much okay thank you uh moving on to other business we have the approval of the meeting minutes for December 6th and March 6th i read March 6th it seemed fine
i did good for you you said you disagree no I said I read it as well okay i disagree this is So is there a motion to uh approve the minutes for March 6th i'm sorry you made that
motion Brad i'll second you did the second right is there a All those in favor i opposed you don't even need to abstain because you weren't around oh were you there on March 6th march 6th let me see
when you went to Boston no no I was bring up the notes we have it one one two three four there's four of us good for that one what about December 6th no we're not good for December 6th still we're still not good for December 6th no because that was the daytime
meeting where you and Bradford were not here so we just still have the three one two i don't remember a daytime meeting say it it was on a Friday oh that's right we had to move it because this is why I advised against doing that
we got to move once back because we missed the deadline for because there was an unfortunate administration error i said we not you all right so we'll just table that old December 20 or
December 6th 2024 minutes to next time next time whatever that is i won't be here next time so we'll be able to vote okay so the time after that um the 16th I think it is april 17 okay
april 17th for the and I was here for the sixth writing my notes nice all right um announcement for Yarmouth annual community cleanup day saturday April 12th
2025 sounds like I just made that okay anything else for anybody um yeah i was wondering um if you had received any updates about the open meeting law i have not it does the only thing I heard was that
the House has the House has passed it they were passing they were they were the Senate was actually supposed I heard don't hold me to it but I heard the Senate was voting today uh and if they did then assuming they do that favorably they'll pass it
on to the governor and I think they're looking at a another I think it's another two-year extension i think it's some sometime in 2027 once that's final I'll let everybody know okay not yet it's important that was coming
up okay anybody else if not uh would somebody like to make a motion to adjurnn so moved is there a second all those in favor i opposed carries unanimously we stand
adjourned at 7:30 713