shrubs um naturally growing in including sweet pepper bush, low low bush blueberry um and some tree saplings. And so, um, I submitted this report to Britney. Um, it was from an inspection of May of this year and, um, we're just
requesting from the commission. Um, because the enforcement order stated that everything, anything that dies needed to be replaced, but it's been a couple years and he has 95% of the trees still in good health and 93% of the shrubs in good health. Um he spent a lot of money to get all these plants in
there and he he installed irrigation lines throughout the entire restoration area. He did not use them this year because of the town water ban. Um I spoke with Britney about this and apparently because it is um uh he could have I guess handheld water
them or done drip irrigation. So he could have used that but he was under the impression that we could he could not. And despite that the restoration area is doing very well. Um Mr. Katros is um proposing to replace the five dead mountain laurel shrubs with five bay
berries as that was part of the approved plan, but he was hoping to not have to replant the one tree that died because those are expensive. He's put a lot of money into this and he will uh reed the area next year, but the we're here to request that he does not need to replant
the one tree that died of the 20. And um I believe the enforcement motor also stated he needed to install um some sort of fence or markers along the 50ft uh buffer zone. Um but he he doesn't go back there. He doesn't do anything back
there. Um and so he was hoping to not have to install those as well. And so we were just coming from coming before the commission to request one um not having to plant the one tree that died and to not need to install the markers along the 50ft uh buffer zone.
>> Okay. Thank you. Comments or questions from the commission? >> Um I was just curious about the 50 50 foot buffer fence. That's that's not I mean it's a requirement right of of the the wetlands. Yeah.
>> It's not whether or not it's a personal decision, right? >> No, it's the it's a >> a delineation. >> Yeah. Delate where it is, >> right? >> So I I don't understand his comment when he you said he doesn't go back there.
>> What does that mean? His reason for not putting up the fence. >> Yeah. I I specifically asked uh Britney some questions about that about the fence and about the requirement and um the idea is it's delineation and the idea that delineation without the fence
was already um let's say uh violated and coached upon and so now this is a measure to make sure that doesn't happen again. So um that sound like a reasonable explanation to me as to why the owner would have to put in the fence. Um, so I'll continue to listen to
the commission about that. >> Uh, I would argue that, uh, it's not for him, but for the landscapers and other people who are coming in and doing work or so I think it's necessary. >> Bradford, any thoughts?
>> I would just say that I agree about the the fence. Um, I think it's necessary, especially since it was coming from an enforcement order, I believe, in the first place. >> Um, but I will give um
some leniency on needing to replace the tree. Um, I I think we can all agree we don't necessarily expect 100% um survival. I want to say our regulations say like 75% over three
years. Um, so if 95% are fine, then I'm okay with that. Um, but I do think that fence needs to go in. >> I was out at the site and it was obvious that um, they had gone beyond that area. Um, all
the um, oak trees that were out there that had respouted had been topped all of them. So definitely there had been some disturbance on oak in that area. So the sprit the single rail fence appears to be really needed to keep that
delineation. And the other thing there was mulch um between all the plants and that they had asked for a wild flower mix. He had said that maybe they going to put that in next year for the ground cover right now.
>> It was originally put in but without um the irrigation. One side of the property has pretty good ground cover with our basious um plants, but I think it's the west side is pretty barren. Um but I think with receding with watering next year it should do better.
>> Were you Were you out there to see the choppings of all the oak trees? >> I I did see that that was not there when I went out for my inspection and I spoke with Mr. Katamos about that. Um he will not do that again. And one thing about um the when the enforcement order
response plan was approved um it was in the plan that the stumps that were regrowing would be managed but you would just to cut the suckers off so that it sort of regrew as a single stem tree um not as a bush um and that was not done but Mr. Katros will have his landscaper
do that because he would he doesn't like to look that they kind of all look like giant bushes right now. he would much rather, you know, them be trimmed so they look like a single stem tree, which was a part of the plan. So, he will not top them again. He he was I've made that or he he understands that. But he is um
going to have his landscaper when he receds next year and puts in the bay berries um trim the suckers so that those regrowing stumps grow more as trees rather than bushes. Well, some of the um toppings were in the 50 foot buff
buffer zone again beyond where the new split split rail fence will come to deniliate the the area. I'm just and this we saw that just a couple of days ago when we were out there. Um,
>> I don't know how we wrote it up the last time about all those uh oak trees because that's that was what was the enforcement order in the first place. >> Yeah. Yeah. Paul was right about the uh there is a note in here about stumps. Um
>> yeah, on the approved plan there's a note that says any >> in the approved plan >> any stump proposed be managed as a oh wait no it's um yeah >> it showed a list at the bottom >> was it was I there okay down here was it
>> number five >> sorry no I think it's on the plans >> oh like a a note in the plan like down here. Oops. Yeah, I just saw it, but I can't zoom into it. Hold on. >> I do that all the time. >> Yeah.
Yeah. Any stump not proposed to be managed as single stem trees will be left to regrow as shrubs. >> So that's that's meaning not to do what they planning to do. Uh >> what's um the
the stumps on that plan that are highlighted green um I don't know if you have a color plan but the the stumps that are highlighted they're they're numbered on the plan um those were proposed to be managed um as single tree stems and any stumps that were not there
weren't showing signs of regrowth at the time so those were not proposed to be managed. You go back please Joe to that enforcement >> order the bottom of it >> we want when we were out there >> or you want this >> yeah on the plan itself yeah
>> any stump not I proposed to be >> any stump not proposed to be managed as single stem trees will be left to regrow as shrubs >> okay >> so that's uh >> there should be some that are marked for >> the green um the green little circles on
that plan are pointing to the stumps that were proposed to be managed as um single tree stems. >> Okay? >> Because at the time those were the ones that were um regrowing. Um the other ones were not showing any signs of regrowth. >> Okay. So you know whether the exact plan
it seemed like they were all managed as as shrubs. Um >> right. They Yes. >> Yes. the the impression I got when I was there was that um you know again they were topped and and you know we typically see that as a problem. >> Uh so um I guess it would be important
to uh review the plan and adhere to whatever the plan was and regarding those trees whether they should be single uh tree stems coming out of the stump which probably be a little difficult to do but I guess it could be done um as opposed to the others. And
then the other thing has to do with the um you you mentioned the um the the fact that the wildflower mix didn't take because I guess of the drought and um and that that would be addressed in the
next planting season. Is that correct? >> Yep. He will reed the area. Um and I think with watering that that will do much better. But as I said, the eastern side of the property has fair has pretty good ground cover. It's it's the western side that um is is fairly bare between the uh the shrubs and trees.
>> Okay. And the final item has to do with the fence. I seems like the consensus of the commission is that fence should um be uh be put in place. Um again, this is a a single rail fence. I believe it's not a big tall fence for anything as a
line of uh delineation. And so that would be the expectation of the commission. We can take off. >> Okay. And not replacing that tree. >> Oh, the tree. Yeah. Um I don't What What kind of tree is it? Where is it? >> It's a flowering dogwood that died. 10
red maples all survived. Nine of the 10 flowering dogwood survived, but one of them did not. >> Well, I think that's okay. You know, I don't know about anybody else, but I think we could let one go. I >> I think that's okay. >> Yeah. >> And I have to comment that I think that
the you're doing a nice job on the property. So we could finish up a couple of these other items. That would be terrific. >> Thank you. >> I just have one question. Um was there were there any non-natives planted in there that were supposed to be native? Is it you might have said this earlier. I just might have missed you.
>> The Yeah, the the um the um hang. Yes, there was um mountain laurel that was planted and that was supposed to be Bayberry. The second to last iteration of the enforcement order response plan before
it was approved had mountain laurel instead of Bayberry and I believe the commission asked for that to be changed. But the landscaper must have been given >> the second to last iteration because everything was followed perfectly. It's just instead of Bayerry, he put it in the mountain order. But those have those did those did not survive. And so that's
why he's going to plant the five bay berries um this following spring to replace they were supposed to be planted in the first place but to replace the mountain laurel. >> Great. Yeah. >> Mountain laurel are native though, aren't they? >> Wish Britney was here. I I don't
[laughter] >> I'm pretty sure they are. >> Maybe they're just not preferred over Bay. I know Bay are kind of higher quality. I think a lot. Yeah, I have a plan from 114 2022 and 119 or um 119 was the last plan at it
and the only real difference was switching out the mountain Laura for Bayberry. Um and then those that comment about the stumps being managed. >> Yeah. If if they didn't survive anyway, I see no point in not replacing them with what was originally, you know, agreed. So that's
>> Hey, anybody in the uh in the audience have any information or comment on this particular item? Seeing none, anybody on Zoom out there. Hey Karen, anything else? No, I think you've covered everything. You've made your position clear on defense and um
being able to not put in the tree is important to us. And uh the rest of the plants will be planted and now that we know that the water pan does not apply to drip irrigation, we can do a drip irrigation next year even if there is water band. So >> great. >> What do we need? Yeah, you need a a
motion to um deny the request to not put up the fence and uh allow them to not replant that one tree. >> Okay, everybody clear on the motion? Anybody making the motion? Jack >> second.
>> I'll second. All in favor? >> Anybody opposed? I don't think so. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. >> Thank you. >> That's a double negative motion. Yeah, >> I think it made sense though as long
Yeah. >> The next item is um RGA for 68 Link Lane. Oh, no. Yeah. Yeah. Yink Lane. >> How are you? This is a um
after the fact filing for deck expansion of stairs in coastal bank land subject to coastal storm flowage and the buffer zone to a salt marsh. >> Yes. So I'm here representing the homeowner. I'm Yasmin. Um so the
homeowner, they renovated the deck. uh the wood was rotten and they replaced the railings, but they decided to build uh a staircase uh for egress and um that's the reason that we are here because it's considered an extension uh on the deck.
>> Yeah. >> So, we are here. It's already built. So, we are here after the fact to ask for approval to see if we can leave the way that it is. Uh I would say it's beneficial because before we didn't have the safety exit from the top floor. So,
now we have the exit. >> All right. Anyone on the commission have a question or comment? >> I'm less concerned about the stairs and more concerned about the rinse station. >> The what? >> The rinse station or outdoor shower
that's next to the stairs. >> Um, I don't recall having uh that there. [snorts] >> It's not on your plans, but it's at the site. Oh, okay. Yeah. Uh, >> is that under the deck or is it
>> It's next to the stairs. >> Yeah, I haven't been to the site either. So, >> yeah. You would like that to be removed or >> It either needs to be per permitted or removed. Yes. >> Oh, okay. I believe it was there then because the only thing that we touched
it was the deck in the staircase. >> It's new. >> It wasn't there at the sale cuz I toured the house. So >> I would have to check with my I would have to check with my client. Yeah. [laughter] Okay. [clears throat]
>> So we just need to ask for a permit for that shower or get it removed then. >> Okay. >> What would you what you would do about the runoff from the shower because it's right there on the slope. Some erosion. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm not aware of the shower
because I was only hired for the deck part. So I can definitely communicate with them and see what decision they will make and communicate with the town if they would decide to remove it or if they want to put a new permit for the shower if that's okay with you.
>> Go ahead. >> Could you indulge me in under I have a note on photo seven and nine in photos. I >> let me see >> I wrote a note and I need to remind myself on what >> is that? That's where we see the shower. Yeah.
>> Oh, there you go. Yeah. A7. There it is. That's >> looks new. >> That's why I noted it. >> Yeah, I can definitely communicate to that with them about that and get back to you uh as soon as I talk to them about it.
>> Okay. And what am I looking at in number nine? >> That's existing. Um, like I said, um, you know, I only worked on the deck part, so I'm not familiar with that. >> Yeah, I was there and I don't know what that is. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> It might be something that Britney took a picture of that she was interested in in terms of, you know, a structure going up on the land maybe in in an area that is um >> Yeah, we are definitely not touching anything anymore in the house. I thought
you might >> maybe it was there previously. >> That's that's really the benefit of the the site visit because as you could see from the aerials it's kind of hard to get a full picture. So it's probably >> addition I didn't notice that honestly because the only thing I was like more
concerned about the deck and the staircase portion. Um, >> okay. >> Well, it seemed to me also that there was a concern about the stairway uh encroaching upon the um the buffer zone. Um, but that doesn't seem to be
reflected too much in the in the notes here. >> We did the BVW. >> I mean, >> yeah, we did the BVW and they said it's within the um 100 buffer zone. >> Okay. >> 100 ft. Yeah, we should have the report here, I believe. Okay.
>> Yes. >> I believe it's also within a flood zone. >> Uh yes. >> So not just the buffer zone to a BVW but within land subject to coastal >> right. >> Yeah. There
>> this is the note on the delineation. Um but as far as the recommendation, it seems that um one of the one of the major things has to do with the erosion taking place on the property and the fact that um the conservation agent Britney would like to meet with somebody
out there to discuss the erosion and what possibly could be done to uh maybe plant things or whatever. Yes, she asked me for a mitigation plan uh which I also sent it to you and she told me that you
could either approve what we proposed or ask for something different. >> Yeah, I think if I remember correctly, the the plan that we got didn't have a lot of detail. So, I think she just wants to be able to go out and visit.
Yes, because I proposed what I thought it would be. Okay. But I discussed with her and she said that at the hearing you could also ask me for something because we were not sure like what exactly would work in the property. So I proposed what
I thought it was best. >> So does this require a continuation? Um >> it's an a request for determination. So we can't continue it. But you can issue a negative two and three determination with uh conditions that Britney get out
there before any planting is done and um and erosion to stabilize that slope uh with a native seed mix. >> I think our main concern was if we would have to demo the staircase or keep it,
but anything else that you want us to do, we'll definitely >> Okay. >> do it. Yeah. >> Okay. Everyone clear on that? >> Anybody in the audience have anything on this? Anybody on Zoom? Okay. Can I have a motion then? Or I
guess it'll be a negative >> two and negative three >> with special conditions. >> A condition for erosion, seating, and site visit by the um conservation agent. >> Could I just confirm the square footage of mitigation? I have 360
Yeah, I'm I'm having a hard time finding the uh the mitigation plan. Um >> I don't think there is one >> mitigation area right there. >> You got the square footage from somewhere. >> Yeah, this is and this is exactly why Britney wanted to be out there because it doesn't really show the the landscape
that well. So, >> but it does show the mitigation >> the area. >> Yeah. >> All right. Do we did somebody make that motion? >> So, moved. >> Okay. Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> I Any opposed?
>> Me. >> So, it's one, two, three, four to one. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> I'm sure Britney will be in touch with you. >> Okay. >> Yeah. About the shower and the whatever that other thing is. We'll we'll tackle those separately. >> Okay. I will definitely reach out to
you. Thank you. Do you have a signature page for that to pass in? >> Pardon me. Oh, >> just signatures. >> 68. >> 68. Yeah. 30. Higgins didn't have anything. There you go. >> Do Higgins scroll, too. >> No, there's nothing there. >> Okay. So, I'll hang that. I'll put that
over here. >> Thank you. Okay, next item is um Cape Cod Engineering for Richard Pelletier, 188 South Street replacement of seven piles on existing dock and land of the the ocean and land
containing shellfish. Hello. How are you? >> Good evening. I'm great, thanks. Bob Perry, Cape Cut Engineering was asked by Richard Pelletier to look into the worn out pilings that are over at his docking
facility at 188 South Street. Um, I worked on this dock when it was first conceived and permitted back in the 80s, I think. Um, so what we have is a series of float anchor piles that are accessible
directly from the from the deeper water once the floats are out. The floats were not out when I was over there. I believe they are out uh or they will be out. Certainly they'll be out for this work. So that we we have the um five pilings
along the perimeter of that large platform and we have two pilings that I term outall pilings. Um those are elective. I'm I'm not sure that those would be replaced, but they're going to be inspected. They're out in the water and I didn't get a good closeup on them.
The others have really been scrubbed and worn and um one of them is actually a pipe. Maybe two of them are pipes. They're going to be changed to a typical timber piling. And these would be driven into place. Um, a marine barge will come up and
install. We'll first vibrate and jiggle the old ones out and not not going to be cutting anything off. Everything would be removed and the new pilings would be installed. I do have a question for the board or or for Joe. Is is a CCA pile
still is that allowed in Yarmouth now? is that if it's there's a size limit to it. Uh I believe it's three inches. Does anyone else know? >> These are proposed to be 10 inch >> 10 inches >> maximum. >> Oh yeah. Yeah. >> And you know the general understanding
is that the work would be consistent with your rules and regulations. >> There's been back and forth. >> Are we good on the piling? The question on the piling. Should we look it up if we don't know? >> Um I mean if if As long as Bob's willing to
do whatever it it is in the regulation to make sure it's uh compliant, then >> yeah. Okay. All right. Right. >> I don't think we need to call it out specifically. >> Many RDAs don't have the oversight of an order conditions. We checked with Britney initially about this being an RDA and that was the choice. >> Okay.
>> But there's no reason that there can't be any there can be easily to coordinate this just to make sure we aren't using anything you don't want us to use. >> Okay. All right. >> Thanks. That's what we want to make sure. Okay. Thank you. Anything else?
>> No, I have that's my speech. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, >> waiting comments. >> Yes. Yeah, we haven't gotten any comment yet. But again, we can't continue. So, we could uh >> We did hear from them. They said they received it, but I didn't get a comment
either. >> Yeah. So, um, can you continue the RDA or do you >> No, we we the best we could do is, uh, issue a determination >> contingent >> depending. Yeah. Yeah, >> that works for me.
>> Okay. >> Does anybody have any questions or comments on the commission? >> I have a preference for not using CCA regardless of the size. Um if unless it's coming down to cost, I'd prefer some other um
ecologically safe alternative. >> I understand. I I have um [clears throat] since I got into this business about 40 years ago, we've had industry studies and those are usually biased to the industry. I've done a lot of research on dilution of these things
and I've had agreement for using repurposed piles. I don't know if that's of interest here. Um, there's varying grades of CCA treatment. There's 2.5 pounds per cubic foot and then there's one pound per cubic foot. And just think
we get into green heart pilings, we're into the whole concept of rainforest abuse and we have possibility that there's a greater repetition of the work if the pile rots. So don't I don't disagree with the concern. Um, we're in
an open area on Bass River. Very very high flushing. The sewers and Dennis aren't even coming to this part of the river. I don't know about Yarmouth, but I just um would would say that if I can note that concern. I don't know if it's a feeling of the entire board, but we
would look for a CCA treatment that would be of a lower intensity than the maximum, which is what you use down south when you have warm water borers. So, if we could use one pound per cubic foot, that would be a whole lot easier
on the environment. If that's a compromise you could reach, >> as long as it meets the regulations, um, I'm fine. I'm just voicing an opinion. >> I get it. Thank you for that. >> Sometimes in the past, I don't think we've dealt with pilings in a while, but
there's been discussions about fiberglass and all this other stuff. >> There are uh composits. They're usually hollow. Then there's the concern for you know plastics and other man-made things that are getting into the environment and the the hope is that you know with
CCA um that you do get terrific dilution. This is just you know pilings and then there really isn't very much coming out of these um piles or sheets once they have weathered. And then
there's a fact that you're going to get a little bit of outflow of the chemical when they're new. But um you know in the other instances we've had we we've asked for these pilings to be somewhat weathered before they're used, not
delivered right out of the factory. But again, I'll leave it to your board to determine your maybe a a changing set of rules, which as we learn more about these things, you can change them up. And uh for now I guess we'd go with what you'll permit.
>> Yeah. I don't know anything about any changes of conditions. Britney would be >> my my understanding is that there used to be a regulation against it but uh builders were so hardressed to fulfill that regulation that we they dialed it back just to as a compromise
>> with the understanding that it's not preferred but it is. >> Is it pressuret treated? Is that what >> Yeah, pressuretreated copper chromium arssonate um in in closed in payments you know uh you you do have issues I think with that and out here in such a dilute environment it's probably less of
a concern but it but it's uh it's intended to preserve the wood against marine life. >> Sure. Sure. >> Okay. >> Uh >> I just want to make one comment. I went out and some of the some of them didn't look so bad. So, you're going to really
check which ones really need to be. >> Yeah, it's it's a elective, but that the count came from the owner's preference. Um, and the pal the platform pilings are fine. It's where the floats have been wearing. I actually have not seen such
wear on pilings in all my time, but some of them are really scuffed. And uh I I think it's just the float was uh just a hard surface against the piles and a lot of wake action. >> There's a big boat on it, too. Beautiful boat.
>> Oh, the cat boat. >> Yeah. Nice little 26 maybe a 23 foot cat. Yeah, it's a pretty boat. Pride [clears throat] and joy. >> You can see it if you lift that picture up. I think >> this one. >> Yeah. Right. >> Fantastic. >> Now, I know I saw it in It might have been one of the overheads. I saw the
area. I made a sure I made a a sure thing that I took a picture of it when I was there. It is a nice sora. >> Maybe not. It wouldn't have to be all seven. That's all. >> Right. It may not be. >> Okay. Anybody else? Anything? Anybody in
the audience? Anybody on Zoom? Okay. So, someone should make a motion recommended two. Um, since we are still waiting for the DMF comments, we would probably want to include potential conditions from their comments, which
would be typical, as Bob already said, you know, pulling the entire piles out instead of cutting them and things of that nature. >> Okay. Do we have that recorded somewhere or should we >> We haven't gotten them yet. So, >> okay. >> As as long as Bob's okay with us saying that pending, then
>> yeah, we need to talk to you about those. We'll come back, but I we usually accept those conditions because they're >> they're pretty realistic. >> Exactly. Okay. >> So, I guess we can vote. >> Be a motion for a negative two uh with
incorporating DMF comments. >> Yeah. And just pending >> pending >> receiving. Yeah, [clears throat] >> that was my motion. Second. Thank you, Bob. All >> in favor? Hi. >> Hi.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Pick that up. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We'll be in touch. >> Thank you all. >> Good night. >> Good night. >> Um, continue notice of intent. Capecot Engineering.
>> Oh, this is um for RJ Resorts Blue Water Resort owner 291 and 301 Southshore Drive. Yes. >> Proposed seasonal deck on coastal beach velocity flood zone and NHSP habitat. Is this >> Yeah, we received a uh email from Bob
earlier today with a request that you should have it should have been in the pile. Maybe it got lost underneath one of the folders, but he was requesting for the first available meeting in January, which would be the 15th. >> Okay. This has been continued many times.
>> It has. Uh, but it's pending NHSP comment. I guess they've had a lot of questions about the raking and they've received comment, but uh I I guess there there's still some back and forth there and it hasn't been clear exactly what they want. So,
>> being held up by an older 2020 permit. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we need a a motion to continue. You have a question, Ellie? >> Yeah. I um the drawings there was a revised plan and
>> for for this one >> Yeah, they're dated the same that's all. >> Oh. Oh, okay. >> These guys have this revised plan from July. >> Yeah. And then the other one Unless there's a
revised. It says 23, but the >> Oh, does it actually have a different date on it >> in the bottom right corner? I think they're both dated the 21st, which >> Oh, you're right. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. When all these months
without noticing that. You got that, Bob? Just a just a revision there on the date, I guess. Uh >> there's no the re there's no revision date, apparently. What's this one? >> It we have it marked as revised, so I'm not sure exactly. Oh, here it is. Here
it is. >> Up there. >> Yeah, right. Right up the at the top there. >> We'll check that. >> Okay. >> Some discussions with NHS. >> Yeah, >> I'll get back to you. Thank you. >> Right. Thank you. >> Thanks for sticking around to hear that out.
>> You have um you have to vote on the continuence. Did you do that yet? Did we? >> No, I don't think we voted. >> No, we didn't vote. >> Would you like to make a motion? >> No, I had a question. Is the >> I'm sorry. >> Is the seasonal deck out because it's
after December 1st. >> Is the deck out? >> Is the deck removed? >> My understanding that it is. >> Okay. >> And I'm speaking from um my last visit which was months ago. If it's [clears throat] not, I will
contact you, but I believe it is. I just I can't imagine sitting there. >> Okay. I just wanted to confirm. It says remove by December 1st. It's after December 1st. >> It has no It has no authority to >> Yeah. That's a folder for8.
>> Yes. >> Voting to continue. >> Yes, please. To to 11526. >> Getting me confused. Yeah, this is this has to do with the um the next one has to do with the temporary deck. That's where we are moving. The ne this is this
is the temporary deck we're talking about right now. The one on the beach. The next one is the dock. Uh >> this is we >> So we'll make a motion to continue SE83-2494 to January 14th >> 15
>> 15th 2026. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> there's no signature page for that. So >> there's no um >> no signature for that. >> Oh yeah, I misspoke. It's not the dog
next. We're still we're on show next. Okay. So nowbody set where we are. >> Yep. Chilton. >> Okay. This is um SC 83 uh uh 25
03 Grady Consulting. Joseph Pipio, six Chilton Road, proposed raise and replace of a single family dwelling in land subject to coastal storm flowage.
Um, and the buffer zone will cost the bank. Good evening. Scoffnar with Grady Consulting representing the applicant. Um, we were here a couple of weeks ago. This is a proposed raise and rebuild of a single family dwelling. There are some
discussions that we incorporated into our design. [clears throat] Um let's review some of those changes. There was concern about the rent station being moved closer to the resource area. So we are proposed it to push further back so it's outside that 35 ft buffer. There
was initially a proposed um raised patio that was going to require a retaining wall and that was going to be within the 35 foot buffer. Um the applicant has decided to remove that and instead go with an elevated deck which was one of the recommendations of the commission.
Um as part of that change, the deck was actually reduced slightly to provide a greater setback to the resource area. There was initially a shed that was on the the rear side of the building. There was some concern about the shed being over the septic system and with the need
to to put um some type of sauna tube or solid foundation below it, it really was not feasible to keep it. So, we've actually removed that which helps reduce a bit of the coverage on site. Um there was some discussion about the mitigation area. Um there's some
discretion within the bylaw that allows the commission to decide what percentage or what um ratio they like the mitigation to be replaced at. Um the discussion was to make it a 4 to one. So we decided so we agreed to um increase
that mitigation area mitigation plantings which is shown on that second sheet. And I believe that is a summary of the major changes. Happy to answer any questions. Questions from the commission.
>> What is the square footage on the on the proposed um deck now? >> The proposed deck? >> Yeah. >> Well, it looks like it's 18 by 21 and a half.
It is larger than the last. >> So the >> previous >> No, it it's it's smaller than the previous one. Um actually I think I have the previous version under here. So the the entire footprint so that the
patio itself might have been smaller but then there was the retaining wall that um that stuck out further. So that was proposed let's see it's 17.2 ft from the from the resource area and this is proposed at 18 ft the resource area. So it is it is the total footprint is in
fact smaller. >> Is there a cross-section of the deck? asked for that. >> A cross-section for the deck? >> Yeah. >> No, there's not a cross-section for the deck. >> Oh, that's the lady. >> So, the So, the deck the deck's going to be going to be elevated like we talked
about. It's going to be just a step below that first floor elevation. Then there's steps from the from the driveway that'll lead up to the deck. And then same thing in the rear and the back side of the deck. to be steps back down onto the onto the lawn, the existing grade.
>> And what are the piling sizes for that? How many of them are there? >> Um, >> yep. So, the the deck will be will be on sauna tubes. >> 18 by 21 and a half. >> Okay. actually the the deck will be will be on diamond peers
rather than sauna tubes to have a lesser impact. >> Diamond peers. >> So if you look on if you look on that second sheet on the bottom the the diamond peers um rather than having to excavate down and and you know pour a put a sauna tube in the ground and pour
concrete into it. They've come up with these diamond peers that you just you really just put them on grade and then you pin them down into place. So they're they're really they're really um secure and they they have a lesser impact.
>> This crosssection for the stairs, this cross-section. Yeah, this cross-section I I believe Britney had asked for a cross-section for um that the access stairs off to the left of the property. We had a note on there to
>> access stairs across the unpermitted revetment. >> Across the riverment, correct? >> So, this cross-section shows what? >> This this landing piece. >> Yes. >> Yeah. That that shows that shows what what he intends to replace for those
stairs across the roof. >> So, where you said there's one for the deck. >> Oh, no. So, there's there's no cross-section for the deck. I was just pointing out, you had asked what what the diamond peers were. I was just pointing out what the diamond peers were to support that deck. >> I'd like to see a cross-section for the
deck as well. So, >> for the deck, >> yes, because you have stairs within the 35 in a flood zone. Um, I also have questions on these stairs. Are there risers versus treads or what? And what is the material that it's
made out of? >> I think we asked for that last time if I'm not mistaken. of the deck, right? Yeah. Yeah. >> I don't Okay. I I [clears throat] don't recall that. I know there was a request for a cross-section of the um that
depression area and then these stairs as far as the material for the deck. Not sure composite material. >> A composite material for the deck. And the stairs, is there a riser as well
as a run or >> you can come up, Joe? Yeah, >> Hi, I'm Joe Dibil, the owner of the property. Um, the idea is to do um composite treads and composite risers to go up into the deck.
No, I'm talking about the access stairs to the rebellion because that's what is shown on the plans. >> So, we I'm showing an aluminum stair. I'm I'm not sure what what the best approach because I've never done that before. Just assume aluminum stairs.
>> Okay. >> I thought you were asking about I thought you were asking about the deck. >> I thought I thought it was too >> Well, I did, but you didn't show that on the plan. So, I'm asking about the question of the cross-section on the plans that you have shown us. >> Okay. That wasn't clear to me, but yeah. So that the stairs will be aluminum is
what he's proposing. >> Aluminum. >> Okay. >> Is there preference for the board that you guys would recommend using for for those kind of stairs or >> the rest of the board if there's any concern about Jack? Anything?
>> No. Okay. was the you didn't the relocation of the rune station um that re that's a revision you didn't mention it in your list of revisions right
>> oh I yeah I I did so so initially we proposed that rinse station um I believe it was in that 35 ft buffer >> so we pushed it we pushed it back outside 35 >> make note of that >> I think we just really needed clarity um on the deck
was elevations noted to see what was going on with the existing substrate. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, so the deck the deck will be elevated and elevation of I think 13.6. It shows on the on the plan there which is just one step down from that first
floor elevation. And again, there'll be steps from grade that'll go up to that elevated deck. And it will be supported on on those diamond peers. >> There'll probably be four of those diamond peers underneath it supporting it. And you added the crushed stone, I think. I don't think you noted that
before. >> Yeah. Yeah, there'll be crushed stone below the below the rent station. >> That below the deck. Crush stone. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yep. >> Let me ask a question because I have
some notes here from from Britney. Maybe Joe could help with this. Um, the patio has has been eliminated. Right. You have the deck over the patio. Is that correct? >> Yes. There's something here from her about a new plan. >> Well,
uh, so the, um, our regulations again, we have that 35 ft no disturb zone, and this is preferable to a hardcape patio, but it is still a pretty significant area in the 35 foot buffer. So, that's
just a food for thought, I guess. >> Yeah, I know. because [snorts] it seems to me um that the the things that were discussed last time were were um provided by the applicant >> and and so um >> it seems that we want a little bit more
detail on things and is is that um something that the board is looking for? >> Yes. From what I've heard so far, it sounds like everyone wants a more detail on the deck cross-section. Um >> maybe a thought of shrinking the size of the deck.
>> This is something that >> the size of the deck >> had mentioned. >> Yeah. >> Bringing it down to 560. If I if I may, just as as Joe was referring to for the the uh mitigation for that for the um this coverage within
that buffer zone, um the total required mitigation for the work that we're doing based on the bylaw and based on the commission's decision a couple weeks ago for a 4 to one replication is 570 square ft and we're proposing 1,50 square feet.
So, so double what the what the requirement is. So, I think this is a a significant improvement. Um, and if if the um I guess sticking point is the deck, we're happy to provide a detail of the deck as as a um as a condition of approval. That's that's really not not a
problem. Believe I believe most of the information is on here like like we talked about at the last hearing. There'll be crush stone below it. The deck will be elevated with spacing in between. We'll specify the type of material and show a detail with the with the supports underneath it, too.
>> Okay. I have a couple other things if unless you guys are still >> Anybody else? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Let me uh ask to for you to go back over what's happening to the 35 ft rubber. You're
not going to put it. You have uh 1565 square feet. Is that going to be eliminated? So, so that 115 is is the increase in coverage within that 35 foot buffer
zone. >> So, there's an existing coverage of 1,147 and the proposal is for 1,262 with with the agreement that will provide this significant mitigation plantings. >> Yeah, I would be for elimination of
anything. >> Sorry, Jack. What? I would be for elimination of any in the 35 >> any new >> anything. This is a new >> well there's stuff pre-existing >> but it's let's go one at a time if you
don't mind. Go ahead Jack. >> My understanding that once you start changing things you have to meet the new regulations. >> Yep. Yeah. And part of the regulations is that >> you can't be grandfathered in on that.
and part of the regulations that at the commission's discretion with the um rep replication plantings that you are >> but I would just I have none that's a personal >> okay
I'm not sure that would um cause anybody to not vote in favor of this project I don't know Okay. Anything else? >> Just for clarity, I'm looking at the mitigation table and in the 30 foot 35t
buffer zone. The driver of the additional square footage is the 59 square ft of deck and 56 square feet of driveway. Correct. >> That is correct.
>> So that's really Um what we're what Jack is concerned about is that addition of 115 square feet. Um and then to your point that you negate that in
the 35 to 50 you're reducing 33 and then 50 to 100 you're adding 55. So it's a net of 137. Um, >> so >> we did like to see a depth at 59 square
foot less. >> So Joe, do you think that the mitigation and you and Britney think that the mitigation is uh sub substantial enough that it would be worth going into the 35? I mean,
>> the reason the reason it's at the commission's discretion is because it's also within your right to deny anything in the 35. So, if it's up to your vote and your discretion, if you if you feel, Jack, if
you'd be happier with even more >> uh mitigation. Thank you. That's okay. and and I don't know the feeling of the rest of the commission if you are are okay with anything any new and like I said this is
an improvement from what you saw last time but it's still totally within your right to say it's in the 35 and so you're going to vote no so >> well the issue to me is what is you if there's an improvement that's worthwhile
>> yeah I understand >> and I understand that's a difficult Yeah. Can you can you really quantify that? It's up to your judgment a little bit. >> Doing that. [snorts] >> So,
um, >> well, referred, you have anything else you want to add to? You seem to have some, um, strong ideas about this. >> I think I've said what I've had to say on this one. >> Okay. All right. You don't so in your
thinking do you address the idea of sufficiency in a gain of more you know more planning. Um I think the biggest impacts that are
being proposed to us are in our no disturb zone. Um, you've reduced the amount of impacts within the 35 to 50, but the impacts are still
largest within the area we're most concerned about. Um, but I honestly don't feel like the things I asked for last time were addressed, so I'm still waiting for those. >> [clears throat]
>> I'm confused about Britney's comment about consider allowing um less new coverage by shrinking the deck. Where's the 561 square foot come in? What is What is she saying there? shrink. >> You can't the deck is a total of
I don't know where the 561 comes in. So I mean we can't >> Oh >> as a as a counterpart if if the commission's um stood strong on not allowing an increase in coverage within that 35 ft buffer, we could we could
reduce the size of the driveway to make sure that there's no increase. Um but in part with that we would not we would not be required to mitigate at the 4:1 ratio. The only mitigation that would be required would be 110 square feet. So this proposed mitigation plantings from
the 1,50 which is a significant increase by the bylaw or by the regulation would only need to be 110 square ft. So that's that's the trade-off that we're talking about here. So if if you're if the commission really does not want to allow any type of increase, um you know, we we
could we could reduce it down there, but again, uh there would be no requirement to have this significant amount of mitigation. In fact, it'd be 10% of of this mitigation size. So just just trying to put that into perspective,
this the the significant plantings that we're proposing here and the the benefit to the um to the environment In your um opinion, the extra mitigation is that land
uh what should I say a good ecosystem at this point or are you making that a lot better? >> Well, what's that what is existing is is um fertilized and maintained and mowed lawn grass. So part of the mitigation is
he's sacrificing that existing lawn area um for more native plantings which yeah make it provides a nice habitat. >> So I would on that basis I would go along with your approach >> I think that significant amount and that
we're talking all the ecosystem that goes along animals plants and everything goes along with that versus grass. So, I'm sorry to drag everybody through this. >> I I think you're giving I think you're
making the site um and this might be I think you're making the site better than what it was by deleting the the heart the the concrete walkway etc. And I think that's why we're just asking for a section of the deck because it is elevated. Mhm.
>> Um I think you know you're getting and you're replacing that hard surface you know with plantins. Um that's my feeling. I know it's in the 35T buffer that calculation but when you look at the site holistically as a whole I think
it's good that you are introducing more plantings and getting rid of that impervious concrete walkway. It was quite extensive. >> Definitely. >> Okay. And the the other the other part of of you know the concrete walkways versus the deck. I mean the deck has
spacing in between it will crush down below. So it does allow infiltration. >> That's why we're that's why I'm looking a section to show that. >> Yeah. Wouldn't be able to know >> right >> from these plans that there's spacing in between the decking. So >> right. >> Yeah. >> And that's what you want to see as far
as the cross-section is concern. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There's the applicant had talked about um a condition being that there's a review of the um of the deck or the the construction of the deck, the building of the deck, the creation of a cross-section as one of the conditions
that could be reviewed by by Britney. Is that something that can be done if we have to continue it? >> I think that's really up to you if you think these I mean it seems like there are concerns that some of the things you wanted addressed in this plan weren't addressed. So, if you would rather
continue to make sure those get added, that's within your right. If you want to put all the burden on me and Britney to review the plan, >> I think at this particular point, what we should do is see if there's any other comments for the audience or on Zoom. >> I do I motion from
>> just one other comment as well. So, >> I'd like to say something. >> Yes. I think we should consider just as you're doing the other um updates, consider just um maybe shortening the deck a little bit. Just
bring it in more because again, I know you're doing significant plantings and all this for the mitigation, but it is a no disturb zone. So as you know as small as you can make it to be comfortable with it
the deck that's all. >> So when you say that the um the elevator it says 215 by 18 is the size of the deck. So what would you propose? >> I don't know. >> Have a number. >> No I don't. Is there any feasible um
>> under 20 20 even [laughter] you like we like to build even numbers. >> All right. Well, let's let's do this. Let's let's find out if there's any other comment from the the audience and from Zoom and then we'll see if we have a motion rather than keeping this dead
horse. You know, I I personally think um Oh, well, I won't say that. I'll just vote the way I think I should. Okay. Anybody in the audience on this item? Anybody on Zoom? Okay. Does anybody care to make a motion
regarding uh >> I just have one last thing with the uh the steps the stairs over the revetment? Um I don't know if we had a detail for the spacing between any planks on that. Just if you're going to be going back to
the drawing board with this anyway, if we could get a one inch spacing on that, just have that called out so we can uh >> make sure light gets through. >> Yeah, >> I'm Yeah, have to accept that as a condition. >> Great. We're looking at any reduction, it would
be in the driveway because that's an elevated deck. And that's right. Um, yeah, we we're also this we're ask they
also need variances too. So, are we voting on those tonight or I mean >> we would I believe any vote would include those variances. >> Yeah. [snorts] >> Okay. Do you know what I mean? It's
either or is the drive. >> They're both in the same buffer. >> Noting um Britney's comments, it's more to the decking to shrink the size of the decking. anything else, show
>> I I at this point I think it's kind of up to your judgment. Um, but it sounds like >> I was just going to say uh uh before we make a motion probably be specific in in what you want them if you want them to try to reduce either the deck or the
driveway or consider either or both a combination just uh I would hate to ask for those cross-sections for the deck and then have them come back and then you then you decide you know a specific reduction in either of those. So I would try to >> just aim for something specific for them
to shoot for for Does she just >> in my opinion we seem to be a little muddled on this and and um unless we can make a very articulate specific motion with specific conditions. >> Um I'm I'm thinking that it might be
better to ask for a continuence or to move to a continuence. Um go I'm sorry. I I might might suggest after talking talking to to my client here that we're happy to um if if the board's willing to approve this tonight. We're happy as a
condition to both provide uh you know a cross-section detail of that deck and to specifically reduce that that size from 215 down to 20 ft even. So, um a bit of a another bit of a a compromise and showing that he's willing to work here just to be able to to move this forward
and Okay. Thank you. >> Anybody like to attempt a um a motion, please? >> What would that motion be? Re motioning to Well, he just offered uh to approve
with that reduction in size. >> Well, that would be articulated in the in the motion. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's what Yeah. Which which Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, we could Um can move to approve this this um
with the condition that uh the applicants provide a cross-section of the deck and a um reduction and a planned indicating the reduction in the size of the deck. Is that everything you said?
Okay. Is there anything else to add to that? the detail about the stairs, the spacing of the stairs also in the >> What about the stairs? >> Uh the one inch spacing on the steps. >> Okay. The planet >> included in the revis. >> Sorry. And also a um indication of the
one in spacing on the stairs. >> So moved. >> So moved. Okay. >> A second. >> Second. >> Did you second it, Jack? >> Yeah. Okay. All in favor of the motion
seconded by Jack say I. >> I. >> I opposed. >> I >> I >> eyes and eyes and nay. >> Eyes or nays? Eyes or naysay? Yes, >> that was confusing, too. >> Okay. So, what do we have? Two eyes and
three three nays. >> Correct. >> So, that the motion doesn't pass. >> All right. So, Click continue. >> In that case, we can we can continue >> this. >> I can't hear you. >> Continue it. >> Continue. Yeah.
>> Could we continue with a with a request that that >> Yeah. >> Let's provide an alternate of reducing the square footage within the buffer either the deck or and or the driveway.
>> The driveway just is hardcape. And I'm just thinking that very clear would be reduced. Um, no, you don't think so. >> We just we just proposed a a reduction. Um, >> right. >> Yes. In the in the deck, >> not the driveway.
>> Both. I just thought it would be easier in the driveway. >> I don't understand. >> What if it's >> Didn't we just vote on this? So, can are we even able to continue at this point?
>> That's a You got to bring back >> to resubmit it. >> I don't know. >> That's a good question. I'm not 100% positive actually. >> Yeah. >> Well, >> I just wanted to see other options. >> Well, you know, it's interesting. Um,
I would recommend that you get in touch with Britney or Joe, you be in touch with these folks about what the next step would be for them. Yeah, if we can't continue tonight then uh yeah, I guess that's that would be >> to continue. I would think just make another motion. >> That's that's what I thought. But
>> have a motion continue this. Thank you, Dan. >> I move to continue to um the next meeting that what two what to what date is >> would uh two weeks be be enough to make some of these changes or do you want the next available would be January? It certainly is, but I I would going to
need more specifics on on what we need to change because we we had we had a long discussion last meeting and our opinion is that we had addressed all of those changes. Um I'm hearing now that that the opinion is that some of these changes were not addressed. We've made some compromises and some of the members
aren't willing to listen to those compromises. Uh we we're happy to make the changes and and as you can see with the significant improvements of this site, you know, the owner is clearly willing is willing to to make improvements here. Um we just need more direction on what the commission would be considered approvable because we we
believe this is an approvable plan. >> That's why I voted no on on >> right. So that that wasn't enough of a reduction or is that the feeling? >> Is fine. So I voted no on reducing anything. >> I see. I say I don't think we need to
explain our our reason for voting or not voting I or nay. I >> I think that um things were presented in a very um efficient manner. We considered it. There were there were questions about it. Motion was made and um I'm sorry that I'm not able to tell
you exactly what the next step is. Usually I rely on Britney being here or somebody to help out with that kind of thing. Um so uh all I can tell you is that um if if if we can have
we can have some communication after if we um can vote to uh vote to continue this and then there some be some continue um of communication with Joe and Britney about what specifically needs to be put into the plan. Um I won't count on on the plan
right now. I think uh it is what it is. But um so can we can we do that and maybe we can get >> sure. Yeah, we'll we'll accept it the continuence. Sure. >> Yeah. And then we we'll try to make it as easy as possible. I'm sorry for this company. >> Do you want to continue to the 18th then
and if we can't quite figure out what changes to make, we can move it to January and just be in touch with uh me and Britney. >> Yeah. Yeah. The next next available hearing would be preferred. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we have a motion, I think, on the floor to continue this >> to continue to December 18th.
>> December >> 18th. >> 18th. >> Yeah. Two weeks from now. >> All right. We have a second to that motion. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. Thank you. Thank you.
We have What do we do with this? >> Nothing. >> Yep. >> Okay. Okay. Next item is SC 832501. 53 on door is lane presented by Down Cape Engineering.
>> Dr. Sajan, how are you? >> Good. How you doing, Paul? I want to apologize for my phone going off. I I thought I had turned it off, but I didn't, I guess. Thank you. >> Good evening. Uh, for the record, my name is Dan Ojula. I'm a land surveyor
and also a civil engineer and helping Dr. Serjin out with a um hopefully a pretty straightforward matter. It's a replacement of a pier that he first had uh permitted back in 1996. He's been a a longtime resident of the of the area.
Um, there was an enforcement order. I think there was a misunderstanding that the pier um you know wasn't permitted or didn't have a license. Uh but we did supply that that license um uh over over to Britney eventually. So she she does
have that now. Um there's uh he's transferred it for um you know in inner family transfer if you normally those interm 99-year licenses expire if you uh convey it for value but it's an inner
family transfer. So our position would be that that that license is still valid. Um what brought the action was that um there was an older the the existing large float system was made of styrofoam and it started to deteriorate and there little white things all over
the the uh the bay and and uh the doctor felt bad about that and was in a bit disrepair. So he thought he was doing the right thing and uh replaced it with a very nice new modern plastic floats, high flotation floats. And this is a long float. Um, I think he should be
commended for how natural this property is. Instead of the, you know, irrigated turf lawn right down to the water, he's maintained it over the years as a very natural Cape Cod lawn. There's a very significant buffer. He's got, you know, a couple hundred feet of beautiful salt marsh all along there. And it's
interrupted only by this one little and it was a concrete before, a 4ft concrete strip uh that went down to the dock. and it was there when he bought it and so forth, but he licensed it, did did the right thing. And so, uh, in the process of of replacing it, it caught the
attention of of u the town and, uh, they said, "Oh, you put in a new pier without a license, so you got to come in." And we, uh, were hired to to fix the situation. We got BSC involved, but of course, it was the beginning of winter. Um, and they they couldn't get out there
to do the shellfish survey. So, one thing led to another, but uh then we had to do waterways, but finally here we are. Um the shellfish report um is it's good shellfish habitat. Um the doctor's a bit of a shellfish fan and and has
noticed over the years, a commercial area up there and um there's a pretty good um habitat uh for shellfish. And um the nice thing about these floating systems is uh they're removed in the fall in the winter and then the clammers
move right in and and take the whatever clams they'd like that were uh growing larger underneath the the pile. So there's no they do have a rule. They try and stay five feet away from you know fixed peers, but um the uh waterways some of the shell fishermen on that were
kind of pleased that we are sticking with a float system and not going to a fixed pier ramp and float system. So, it's a little bit lower than normal than than uh you guys usually see, but again, uh it was in the past always
concrete underneath that walkway. And um what it does is it keeps a very low natural profile. you know, even the sometimes you get some wash over the top and it just blends right in rather than
the aesthetic of a big, you know, high high raised pier. So, you can see um from the photograph that's provided in the notice. Um it's just a very subtle you can anybody that's walking along the shore and one of the people uh nearby
came to waterways and said, "Gee, you know, I I hope I can get under this thing or over it." and we assured him that well this is permitted here. It's a it's an easy step over over and that's a beach area there so there's no salt marsh. There's one again a thin strip of salt marsh but where there was concrete
before there's now a raised platform uh with a little bit more light through. Um so let me just go through because it's important um you know some of the the things that you look at. The width of the salt marsh is 23 foot in the area of the structure.
Um again just to back up your it's a it's a twoacre lot. Um with the governor's new order he could actually uh sell the far lot and put a three-bedroom house and they might want their own pier, but um it just it's an
perhaps something to consider that had certainly agreed not to do that and have a second pier on the property if you were able to find your way to give us some some modest waiverss here, but um it's a big lot with those combined lots. It's 2.1 acres. Uh the interimm license
was way back in 1999 to maintain the concrete pad, ramp, float, and piles. Um uh and that was when it was John Surgeon Trust. Um the um D license is technically anytime you change a substantially it invalidates it. So we
would agree it it may be invalid because the the float size was reduced a little bit and the length was reduced a little bit. Um you could probably argue that either way but in any event uh his heart was in the right place. He he he he put in the nice new high flotation plastic that's much better for the environment
and uh basically it's identical to what was there. You can see the profiles on the plan right and left and um you know just picks it up a little bit over the salt marsh and um in other words is you know just a little bit smaller float size than what was permitted there before.
Your resource areas are salt marsh land containing shellfish land under ocean fish run and land subject to coastal storm flowage. And again, the shellfish um was conducted in late April uh once they uh uh warmed up enough so he didn't
have to rent a wet dry suit. And uh that report is part of the package there. Again, it's pretty good shelfish area. [clears throat] We're looking at a width of the decking is uh about 4.6 and has minimal spacing. We're willing willing to remove the decking and reset it with
one inch spacing u at 4 foot wide. um we have in there um or if the commission would prefer a throughflow panel which we have in other places but Dr. Surjan would rather the you know nice oneinch spacing on the decking and u we've seen
u we have had some atgrade walkways on the north side um permitted where the you can see the grass going right up through the through a deck like this. So we feel it's uh it's it's reasonable in this case where you've only got four out of the 200 and some feet uh that are
even disturbed at all. And very importantly is where a concrete pad was. This isn't like it was a virgin. Uh you can see in some of the pictures there's a few chunks of that concrete under there. We can pull those out and u I bet we can get a little bit of salt marsh to grow under there.
The presence of the pier it's nearly 30 years plus does not appear to have negatively impacted the shellfish habitat and productivity. Um again um the uh the floats are removed off season so the area would remain accessible for shellfish harvesting. A lot of the time
they do work in the winter. Uh the most productive shellfish is out a little bit deeper and um good habitat from 20 to 60. 40 to 60 was a little bit better. Um some of the other resource areas you look at other are the lands
subject to coastal storm flowage. Um it's subject to 100-year flood of nine. It doesn't flood particularly. This is way way up the river. You'd have to have a heck of a storm to get a 9VD88, but again this is all um typical
construction for for marine. Um it's um rugged and and can withstand being underwater. It's still water flooding. Um and um again there's no real performance standards for that. Um but u nonetheless
it would not impact I think we would say that resource area. Rare species um is is not mapped. So when [clears throat] we look at your regulations um um we generally put a permanent sign on there. We're willing to do that. Um minimize blockage of of
sunlight to shellfish beds in salt marsh. Um again either the a nice thick uh one inch spacing or through flow panels for 4 foot wide um over them over the uh salt marsh. And again, that's we're just going to take
the overhangs off so it's it's 4 foot wide. Um and then um um number three would be that uh the peers don't eliminate uh shouldn't eliminate moorings or impede navigation. Uh this
is the end of the river. It's a big embainment. um waterways looked at it, determined that there was no hazard to navigation. So their um minute should be in your file. Um and um they were, you know, they noted that there was some variances required for this, but they
were I would characterize as typically more in favor of going with floats that are removed rather than a fixed pier ramp and flow. [clears throat] um public right of of u passage sign. Um as we said the passage
is excellent with this uh where we required to raise it up which we feel is is very unnecessary on this very very natural site where it had a concrete pad under it. Uh we would either raise it up so high that you could walk under it. Uh and again it's just visually um a lot
more than we feel that's needed or we would and put or put steps up over it and down again which again adds footprint on the beach and areas that probably would be better off without extra footprint. Um but we'll one way or the other we'll
absolutely comply with uh with that item which is uh number six public right of passage up here to the center line of the lot. Again he's got a over 200 feet of frontage and he's beats the 25 foot side set back. This is a spot it wants to be
because there's a higher bluff to the east and you can naturally walk down without having to have a big stairway. So I think it's very reasonable to um wave that. And again, it's it's where the pier has always been, so the site is acclimated to it.
Um um lights, if desired, would adhere to the Yarmouth guidelines. None are intended at this time. Nine is a shared dock. That's not applicable. Um we're uh 78 ft from mean high water. It's under the 80 foot that's allowed. Again, the
other one was a little bit longer. Um the water depth at the end of the float is uh four feet and the inner float is about 1.1 ft. Um the variance is u required to maintain that inner float. We can't quite meet the uh 2 and
a half foot minimum. Um but again it's been in this uh configuration for many many years. Um and uh appears to have no impact. The shellfish are doing great. Um number 12 talks about the navigable
channel and um and other items. As the narrative says, u there's no abunding docks greater than 100 foot to any channel, greater than 200 foot to a ranch ramp, town landing to the northeast, and the dock is uh greater
than 25 foot to abundant property lines. Um on your uh pier regulation 301D uh 13, the combined float area less than 200 unless a shared pier, uh we're at 216 square foot right now. It's a 16
square foot variance. Um it is 24 foot square less than what was there licensed already. So um would respectfully ask to not have to shave it down that little extra bit. Um no personal watercraft or modular floats in the 200 foot and
that's not applicable. The owner doesn't have a jet ski. Um you were going to get one for Christmas was. >> It's a [snorts] death wish. >> No lifts are proposed. So the 15 is is clear. 16 uh rampant floats should be removed in the off season. Um Dr. Surgeon has
removed them uh since Britney gave her the warning and hasn't put him in all this summer. So he's been without the pier. Uh so he's absolutely complying with that and is being respectful of the regulations. Uh 17. Um, an expansion of docks should only be allowed where
there's no encroachment or uh uh and because there's no expansion of the existing permit that's not applicable. Uh, no CCA material allowed except on timbers greater than 3 in again nonproposed. We are um planning on there's some existing you know no work
absolutely if if we are allowed to proceed with what we feel this these minor relief is is absolutely no work proposed at all. So, um that's that's a bonus, I think. Um but we're if we do raise it up, um would have to do some
some work uh in and around the salt marsh. Hopefully, that won't be won't be needed. Uh number 21, existing legal docks and peers that are destroyed by natural causes may be reconstructed uh provided they meet current regulations to the greatest extent
practicable as determined by the commission and filed within three years of destruction in order to qualify. Again, we're seeking a variance to remaintain the existing configuration. It was, you know, not completely destroyed, but it was well on the way by natural causes. You got the UV degreation, the slow uh the styrofoam
was was falling apart due to natural causes and causing pollution. And so he felt compelled to to correct that and remedy it. And so here we are. >> Can you put these on the screen? I think everybody's >> Oh, you want the regulations. >> What are you reading from? >> I'm reading from the narrative and this
is is uh on the second page. >> I never have seen that. >> It's on the >> I don't have anything. >> It's in the NOI narrative. >> When was this submitted? Um, this was uh transmitt of October 17th of 25.
>> Joe, I don't have anything for this project. >> Yeah, it's because it was continued. So, uh, we didn't get anything new, I don't believe. So, >> what is the reason why you don't have any? >> Because it was continued. So, we didn't we haven't we you didn't submit anything new recently, right? No. >> Yeah. So, it's we didn't
>> The only thing we've given you recently are a couple support letters from the Abutters, which which >> Yes. Which we have here. Um but um when was this continued from? >> It was from a enforcement was
>> I don't have it on. >> We didn't file too long ago. October 17th. >> October [clears throat] 17th is >> so it would have been probably early November meeting. >> Yeah. November 6th looks like we had a vote on it.
>> Yeah. The reason it was continuous because waterways hadn't acted yet and so you wanted a continuence for that and now you've got the waterways minutes hopefully came in uh we bugged him for it. I think they came in yesterday or today. Um >> well Dan, regardless of everything
you're presenting and we don't have it in front of us. We can't follow it. Seems like it's coming out of the regulations. >> Yeah. Straight out of the regs. >> Yeah. just >> um but one of the notes I have is um that you might want to uh continue this
again so that you can revise specific plans for what the what you're going to do for this uh this site. And also just I want to read this. Okay, this is a a note from uh Britney Pier was never permitted under conservation
and rebuilt and therefore requires conformance with our current regulations. I don't know if you discussed that with her at all. >> Yes. >> But I think until we get a plan that does conform with our regulations, it's
going to be difficult to um get a vote for anything that you're presenting. I'm not sure if that's fair to you, but um you know, >> well, if that's if that's the unanimous opinion of the of the commission, >> that's my opinion.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, that is, but you know, Dr. surgeon's been paying taxes for many years on the land and he's he's had a license for the pier and it's been there. So, let me just finish quickly a few more points and then we'll turn it over and and uh if that's the opinion of the commission. I >> I certainly know that there are a lot of
people that have been around here for a while and have contributed an awful lot to the community, but sometimes we're all faced with following regulations. >> Yeah. >> You know, um and we are all taxpayers. [laughter] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. >> And we're volunteers, so >> Yep. No, it's it's it's all good. Um, so
we had gotten to um the ramp and floats will be offseason. Right now they're up on his on his Cape Cod lawn. Um, no expansion, no CCA. It's not within a no dock zone. It's not a public project. That's number 20 of your regulations. Your regulation 21 uh we had just been
talking about the destroyed by natural causes. Again, that's basically what happened here. it was a legal pier that was uh and then what your current regulation actually says is that um they may be reconstructed provided they meet the current regulations to the greatest extent practical as determined by the
commission. So you guys have the authority to determine if Dr. Surgeon's little dock here uh is reasonable if it's if it's uh you know given all the conditions on it uh that it is um it is um uh the the exact language is the
greatest extent practicable uh as you determine it to be within three years and and we're asking for that variance and if would appreciate you just um you know giving it some thought you have the authority um I'm not saying you need to exercise it but if you would like to we
sure would appreciate it um so Again, um it's unpermitted reconstructed, you know, pier structure at this point. Uh we did all the soundings, no eel grass, no navigational channels. Um there's uh no shellfish relay areas. So in summary,
the existing pier would require some variances. However, the original current pier with a prop or the current pier with proposed modifications and again all we're what we're looking to do is put a nice one inch gap narrow it up to the four feet so it meets all the regulations except the height. It's the
only one uh that would necessarily uh wouldn't quite meet and again uh we'll look at that again. Um would would there elevated the concrete pad was removed. It's very significant. So there's going to be some uh gr growth under it. Um we
we've elevated a little bit. Uh we can either do through flow panels or that open gap at your discretion and uh there's no disturbance anywhere because uh we're not doing anything other than the decking change. And so as the end of the narrative says, the commission at its discretion may wave one or more of
these regulations when the proposed work will not adversely affect any area subject to the protection of the regulations. That's just section seven. um it would be our argument that there's no adverse effect to any area subject to the protection of the regulations as the pier will remain in its current state with the expectction of the re decking
um being replaced with either through flow panels or or a larger gap. So again the the real the real long and short story is that you know the doctor has had this pier with a concrete ramp in this section for 30 years. He made the
mistake of not asking your permission to put it up. Uh but he thought he was doing the right thing. And it it is so innocuous with over 200 feet of frontage. It's the only area of this little piece of salt marsh. It's going to be it's better than it was. And he sure would appreciate your your
consideration of not having to have a monstrously high sore here. Um so that's that's what we'd leave it at and be glad to answer any questions. >> Okay. Thank you. You said you provided Britney a copy of the uh license.
>> Yes, the original license is recorded. I could >> Do you have a copy of that, Joe? >> I do. Yeah, Joe. >> I asked Joe because I did not see it in our electronic files. >> Beyond that, Ellie, [clears throat] question.
>> I I just want to commend you on that on that shellfish study. >> That was an amazing effort and uh document and um you know after so many pages it does come to the conclusion as you said for 30 years I don't know what
the statement was but it was pretty significant that the presence of a peer and associated activities for nearly 30 years does not appear to have negatively impacted habitat productivity within the sampled and surrounding areas. Um we're
just really impressed with that and impressed with your entire application. It was very comprehensive and I understand some of the variance issues. >> Yeah, it's um again here's the old license just so everybody can see this book is uh recorded in the registry
deeds 1266 uh page 138 and on 141 is there's there's the peer ramp and float. You got the 16 by 6 by 16, a six by 12, a 4x12, and then a ramp and and then you can see the
3x14 concrete pad over the the salt marsh area. So >> what is the expiration date on that? Like >> so that would expire um 30 years be 2029. Um >> no, it's the date of when it was approved, not when it was recorded. So
what is the date on the signature at the bottom? >> Yeah, I just went within a year. >> 19 February 10th, 1999. So >> So >> 30 years would be 2029 >> was it? And it was recorded within the
required time frame because that's if they're not recorded in time, they also expire, I believe. >> Yeah, this is just an interm 7700 approved by the D February 16th and recorded uh February 17th. So I would imagine that was >> so was met.
>> So in approvals from chapter 91 don't need to come through local permitting. However, they can't be renewed. And so in order to keep an active license, it does have to be renewed with chapter 91 as well as meet the state and local
standards >> 100%. And that would be that would be our attempt >> asking you to meet the local standards um [clears throat] for this which as our chair has already said um I think we'd like to see some
effort into meeting that regulation. also that we need to have the documents not just be uh read off rather well by you but uh have a propensity for being able to
provide a thorough presentation and often we don't have the material in front of us so that it really you may be able to read it off and rightfully so but rightfully so we also need to have that material in front of
Oh, 100%. Yeah, I wouldn't expect you I wouldn't I would be lost myself if I didn't have the packet. Uh so I apologize that uh you don't have it in front of you, but perhaps the expectation was a quick uh you know a quick forward. So it wasn't provided in paper format. I know it's on laser fech
because it's in in there, but that's awkward to access during the meeting. So >> you know when it was on laser fee by what? >> Oh yeah, it's it's on within a day of being filed. I'm sure. >> Yeah, it would have been within a day of it being filed. So was it's been there since uh October, mid-occtober I'd say
probably >> because I was in there and I couldn't find any of this. >> So that's the problem. The paths on those things are really tough to follow. >> Yeah, there's a substantial packet. >> Well, um Pat, do you have anything?
>> No, I just uh again the current reg regulations are what we've asked for everybody else coming towards us. So I can't see how we could do the variance on at least on the height
was u very much considered important these days for the the salt marsh >> the floats are very nice boats sorry floats >> but also doesn't meet the three foot minimum >> yes and the depth >> the area is larger so three variances
>> there was a comment I think about the the height of a float somehow if it was higher it would impact upon the shelterish area. Was that something I heard or did I mishare that? >> Um the only [laughter] I think I I I think you misheard. What I meant to say
was that it would just be aesthetically shocking to see a big, you know, high, you know, ugly, you know, I mean, not that they're that ugly, but it's uh it'll be a lot different looking from what's there now. It's where it's it hides in the winter. Now, it's going to be a a big six-foot thing all winter, but
>> Okay. >> All right. Any comments from the audience? >> Yes, sir. >> Johnland, [clears throat] uh Paul Jonathan, 26 aunt Dora's a butter um also mooring lency in the what
what I guess would be the waterway potentially impacted um and deemed not to be impacted by waterways, which I would agree with as one of the mooring license holders in the area. Uh I am also um I want to speak on uh Dr. Serjin's behalf in a couple of important
ways here. Uh I am also the uh president of the Cape Cod Salty's Sport Fishing Club, which is well renown as a member of our communities, well known as a member of our community since 1959. Uh not just for being anglers, but being conservation-minded anglers who do lots
of projects in our community. And Dr. Sarah is a very active contributor to our club and certainly understands the importance of conservation is involved in those projects as a matter of fact on a monthly basis and an annual basis and gives great amounts of money to the the
operations of our club to serve the ecology and in our fisheries and our very fragile ecosystem here. Um I also uh get to speak momentarily to this commission which as uh previously noted we are all taxpayers and you are volunteers and I thank you for that. Um
I'm I think that uh you are also all humans. So I want to appeal to your humanity for a moment and your powers that you have as members of the commission to do something good in the community and right for your neighbors. Um, I don't think, well, I I'll just say looking around the room, with the
possible exception of a young man in the back, there is nobody who spends as much time on this body of water as I do in the community. Um, I am on this body of water, hundreds, if not thousands of hours a year. Um, I am also the deed owner to one of the properties who has
deeded water rights to a town-owned parcel adjacent to the marsh in question. and I'm a neighbor to another parcel that you have your commission has taken action upon in recent years which is the Milandre property. And so there's a couple points that I want to make
about this project. I am worried about ecological impacts from this project. As somebody who frequently uses that waterfront and and is at that marsh and at that beach, I am also worried about the ecological impacts of this project because of the uh boat ramp that the
town maintains next to it, which I'll get to in a second. Um, but I am actually uh very much in favor of this citizens uh project being left as is for the following reasons. I was the one who would personally walk around that
waterfront uh benefiting an elderly neighbor and pick up the pieces of the styrofoam out of our fishery and off of that shoreline when it was decomposing. I say that because I wonder if as volunteer bureaucrats you hear stories
all the time of people coming forward with all kinds of soba stories of why their story should be heard. In this case, I want you to know it's entirely factual. This individual expended time and money to improve the marsh and the waterway and to deal with the composition of those floats, which as
you know was putting microlastics and chemicals into the shellfish bed and polluting the waterfront. I've personally uh helped the resident collect bags of garbage off of that waterfront in the five years before he made the replacement. Regarding the matter of the traversability of the
waterfront, I think I've established that I'm an angller that uses the waterfront frequently. Um I would personally ask the committee not to elevate that ramp. Um and I as would others in the community I know uh because there are people who frequently traverse that fishable terrain right
now. And actually the other docks in your jurisdiction along that waterfront are more hazardous and frankly a pain in my ass as an angller to get around or under because property owners don't always maintenance the stairs and stuff that go along with your regulations. In
this case, it's an easily traversible path at ground level and the doctor has already cleaned up the area. relative to your questions of the cement, the concrete, whether there was anything done there. I also want to testify on the doctor's behalf that he uh when he
did this project with or without the commission's permission, and I understand you could take issue with that. By the way, I also worry based upon the discussions tonight that the commission will not have the ability to make an objective or rational decision on any uh matters that I might
personally bring before it in the future. Um, but you know, relative to what's happened here, when he did this project, permission or no permission, he substantially improved that waterfront. He cleaned up uh debris. He removed uh
uh broken pylons that had washed up from down the river. He removed pieces of the dock that had been there for years, as long as I've owned my property. He and his builder who fashioned the current installation already did significant improvement on this marsh and on this
land in terms of removing debris that was actually laying on top of the salt marsh in question. And so they have already contributed to the flourishing of that marsh. And again, I'm saying this to you as a taxpayer and a citizen who spends hundreds of hours in that
area. I would just ask the commission, how many of you have fished those waters recently? So, I have seen that that marshland come back substantially already as a result of the work that he has done. A couple
of of other important things worth your note for the commission. the Malangry project that I referenced, which you all made similar decisions to the ones that you're I fear are about to make tonight. You made decisions that were in I think you you believed good intention
according to regulation, but they have unintended consequences when you don't exercise common sense with your power and authority that you have to do the right thing. In the Meyer project, you demanded that certain organic fill would be brought in and used again on the same
premise. That's why I think it's pertinent to pertinent to this conversation. You you were concerned about growing and rebuilding the salt marsh along an adjacent area of this same waterfront in question and you demanded that certain organic fill would
be brought in and used for the salt marsh restoration in that area. What you didn't know is that your mandates actually negatively impacted the growth of the salt marsh at the mangry site relative to the rest of the area because
the organic fill that was required came in and actually polluted the water and for the last 2 years since the Meandry project we haven't seen the same growth in the area that you oversaw relative to regulation versus what's happening elsewhere. Now, in this case, the work
that he's done has already allowed the salt marsh to regrow better because he's removed the concrete because he's taken the mitigation steps that he's already alleged. So, there is a risk to doing things by the letter and not by common sense and looking at facts. So, I would
ask you to not deny his requests. I would ask you to not require him to do additional work on that waterfront as an abuter and as somebody who has deeded rights to the adjacent lot. I would ask you to not require this resident to disturb that lot anymore. I would ask
you to make a human decision with your authority and not cause further work and damage to that salt marsh and let the marsh flourish as it already is in the past 2 years. Now, here's the human part. This gentleman complied with all
of your commission's requests thus far since he did come forward and try to do this by the book. As you already heard in his own testimony, he did not put his dock in the water this year. He did not put his boat in the water this year. So, in compliance with your commission's
seemingly capriccious decisions, I would have to say based upon some of the proceedings here earlier tonight, uh he I lost a fishing buddy for a year. And if you look at the individual in front of you, that's you know those years are coming at a premium now. So, please
please consider please consider an appropriate action based upon the firsthand evidence I'm presenting here and don't require this person to disturb the dock. There's one more matter. This area of the marsh and the shellfish bed is probably the healthiest area along
that ed that entire region of the pond. I'll tell you what the bigger problem is. If you're going to require him to modify this dock to meet your regulations, then the town would also have an obligation to expend its own funds to put a dock in of the same
regulatory compliance at the boat ramp maintained in that same shellfish bed. Because right now what what you allow willingly from your seats is that the fallen pond boat ramp in the same area everybody who launches in that area which is a lot of people they simply
have to uh land their vessels on the shore. So in fact the only area of that marsh that is not wellmaintained is the area at your boat ramp because you don't have your own complying dock. This gentleman is maintaining an area of the
marsh and the shellbed and the waterfront that is probably the most flourishing area of the marsh and the waterfront along that entire north uh end of Fallen's Pond. >> Thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. >> One final comment. My my son is back
here. Uh he's in he's uh going to be uh in Eagle Scout in our community someday. He happens to be working on his citizenship in the community merit badge right now. and um he has a lot of questions for me about how it is that the commission can make decisions of this magnitude and I'm being dead
serious of this magnitude and cost to citizens uh with bumbling the proceedings the way that we saw earlier. Thank you. >> I would like to com I'd like to reply to a lot of your comments but I'll I'll I won't do that. Thank you for your input.
um we do our best to try to uh uh carry out our responsibilities um year in and year out. So I appreciate your comments. Um I think that uh we need to move on. I think that the the um
requirement is simply something that we all need to face. um that there are regulations, there are rules, there are uh expectations in terms of building things along the the waterfront etc. And
so um those things need to be um need to be uh uh followed. Okay. So I would ask um is there anybody on Zoom who has a comment about this? Okay. Seeing none, uh Joe, do you have any other things?
>> Uh just to add that, uh we received DMF comment and they pretty much fall in line with our regulations as well. They they commented that the decking was too low and that the float does not have enough depth um besides their typical time of day requirements uh with high
tide and everything. Uh this also was in front of waterways and they had a motion to accept the plan. They did not have any concerns for navigation. They had a few concerns about shellfish and that uh motion tied 22. So just to add that it's
not just this commission that takes issue with the height and the >> uh depth. >> Yeah. So um again there was a comment u in my notes here about continuing this in order to um uh get revised plans.
That might be something that the commission would like to consider. Um or we can act on a motion that you might have regarding this application. >> I think um u from the applicant's perspective um would you know one thing
would love you to consider is that you've got one small pier on this property. Um since you know Moore Healey's decision that you can unmmerge lots, he could put another house here which could ask for a compliant pier right by the boat ramp. Uh would hardly
any salt marsh here probably because the public tramples it. But uh we would absolutely agree to stain anything any idea of selling that and putting in uh having somebody else put up here there uh if you would grant the small waiver of having you know just this this ever
so slight uh uh you know just a slightly raised uh appear in an area where there was a licensed concrete pad. I mean, you've got exception after exception after exception on this particular lot where you could look at if you grant a variance, you know, what are the exceptional circumstances that apply
only to this lot that don't apply to everyone else. You're not setting precedent. You look at each site site uniquely anyway, but gosh, we're getting rid of a concrete pad. We're agreeing not to put in a second pier and it's already there and it's been there for 30 years and uh it really doesn't seem to
be a big lift to allow it to stay. Um you know in in that anybody else that comes forward you can say well they had potential for a second lot. They voluntarily agreed to never do anything with it unless they elevated this and u there was already a pier there. Um and
you know it's for the doctor to have to climb up extra stairs uh at his age. you know, I I don't really know why I would would make him do that. But if there's any any of you that would or majority that would vote in that direction, um it would would appreciate it. Uh and if
not, well, either way, we'll take a continuence. But, um I don't know if there's anybody that could find it in their heart to, you know, leave it the way it is. Uh and then would take a continuence and, you know, maybe do some minor modifications that you require. Any any thoughts on that? >> That might be appropriate.
>> Continue. >> I just want to say there's two things. Um, I think regulations are regulations. I, you know, I followed regulations and specifications for 30 years. I understand that there's also such a thing as grandfathering, as you're well aware of, and why things can be
grandfathered. I don't think we should I I don't think we should blindly say you have to follow the regulations. Common sense, you got rid of all of that concrete, as you said. You don't we can't lose sight of that. Again, it's what what this looks
better than it did. And then if we adhere to the regulations, it's going to be more I think it's going to be unsightly. It's going to be higher. Um I think that that common sense should prevail on this one. And and I I I can't believe I'm saying this, but I don't
think we should blindly, you know, say blindly say follow the regulations. You really have to really consider what that's going to look like and the impact it's going to take. The impact to to the landscape that it's going to take. And that's that's what we do. We protect the landscape. And right now, it's an
institute situation where it blends in with the landscape and there's no impact. And I think there's going to be more impact if we follow the regulations. It's it's I mean, it's not bad looking. And I have to take exception to the documents, all of the
documents, and forgive me, but they were all available to us. We had to look online, but it's a very comprehensive application and it's all online. We probably should have had hard copies, but I just want to say that that that shouldn't be your fault. >> Well, you could you could um make a
motion um approving the requested variances. >> I move that we we approve the requested variances. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. Um,
okay. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> opposed. I mean, nay. [laughter] >> All right. So, it passes three to two. As far as I'm concerned, the variances are.
>> We really sincerely appreciate your careful consideration of this and uh we'll we'll do a good job from here on out and uh really really appreciate the careful consideration. Thank you. >> Hey, thank you. I just want to I just want to thank Whoops. >> Are we all set with that, Joe? >> Not quite because um if we need to issue
an order of conditions, then we need to vote on issuing an order of conditions with special conditions. >> Okay. So, we have to uh the special conditions, >> I would think. So, yeah. >> Okay. >> Rather than just accepting variance because that's separate. >> I guess we could have combined them, but uh it wasn't explicitly stated.
>> How do we define the special conditions? >> Um is there anything discussed? Oh, the DMF comments. Um, so the the typical restrictions that would go with the dock such as working at high tide and uh storing floats
>> and being that there's no work no work at all, you know, it's it's it's pretty I think the one about the dock stored at Upland is fine and any of them are fine because most of them don't apply. >> And again, we'd be happy to have a condition in there that no other peers uh be applied for on this property without reconsideration of the
variances. Um, if you'd like to put that in there, we're happy to live with that. >> Okay. >> I'm cool with that. >> May I say something? >> We need a motion to that effect. >> No. >> Yeah, I believe so. Yeah. >> Need a motion to uh >> I propose a
motion to to um accept the variance to approve the variances and include the uh conditions that are documented where are they documented? >> The DMF comments just incorporating the DMF >> sort of the typical
requirements, etc. that that I know you're familiar with. >> And the plan has on it uh the one in spacing, making it 4 foot wide. This very little work to do, but we'll trim them up, space them right, and uh we'll do a good job and we really appreciate your careful consideration. Thank you.
>> Point of order or something. >> Yeah, sure. >> DMF is saying the decking is too low and the float's not enough depth. How does that >> how do you figure that in? >> You're actually saying that they have to raise the dock and
>> because that's what DMF >> I think we have the ability to to issue. >> You're using that as the variance >> and those are always just suggestions not mandatory language. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Now we need a second. >> Yeah. We need a second for uh
>> I'll second. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Moved and seconded. All in favor? I >> I oppose. >> I three to three to two. [clears throat] >> Yeah. Okay. >> May I say thank you very much and thank
you for letting common sense prevail. >> We try. >> I know. I know. I wouldn't want your job. >> Well, let me make a point. >> I'm on a lot of commissions myself and whatever. And it's it's it's not tough. You have to make tough decisions. But
>> basically [snorts] every every committee I've been on for the past what 20 years, sorry Mr. Frost, is um we've always looked out for the residents's well-being and we've bent over backwards
to help them. And um >> well, let me point out that my vote had nothing to do with the what your decision was because I just had didn't have enough information in front of me. >> Yeah. No, I'm not I don't hold it against any just I'm just thankful to
common sense because to build what you would need to build would have um would have been environmentally really damaging because that would have gone up. had gone up a hill, you would have destroyed a lot of land. You would have
had to put pilings in the water and I don't know that shows a piling, I believe, but there's there's no plan to put a piling in there. So, I I mean, I think it's a win-win situation for the environment. >> I think we took all that into consideration. Thank you very much.
>> Okay, I'll let you I'll let you guys go home. I'm I'm sorry. Thank you. >> Thanks. There you go. >> We can muddle through a few more. [laughter] >> All right. >> Another pen. Yeah, it should be right in
there. Speaking of muddling, let me give you the green cards on that one. >> Oh, thank you. >> Okay, let's see. Where are we? >> This one. Um, >> should be the store motor.
See if we can make this meeting just a little longer here. Um, let's see. Uh, [snorts] >> yeah. Request for certific certificate of compliance >> SW2021-00002 Urological Associate of Cape Cod. Um, is
that okay for a CLC Joe? Yeah. >> Uh, yeah, this should be fine. This was a storm water permit. Um, everything seemed to be built basically according to plan and we passed this on to engineering for their comments. Their only comments were that two of the drain
covers said sewer and they they would prefer that it said drain, but I think it's okay to issue the CSC still. >> Okay. And can we combine the next one also with a vote? >> Um >> initial a different >> Oh, I guess we hold on.
>> Well, let's do that. Let's do the first one. >> We have a a motion to approve the certificate of compliance for SW2021-002. I I move that we approve the completion of the project subject to um renaming
those or switching the two. What is that? >> Yeah. I mean >> two manuals. >> Yeah. They're they're basically the covers say the wrong thing on them. So you you bring one cover over, pull one up, put it on, and it's it's very easy to do. The owner has committed to doing that. So um you get my word it'll be
done. If you want to leave the condition on, you can. But uh it is important for financial reasons to end a year that we get this thing closed out. So okay, >> you got my commitment. It'll be done. >> That's fine. >> And and there are ongoing conditions as well for that. >> Yes. >> So I move with that commitment.
>> Okay. >> Is that second? >> Moved and seconded. All in favor? >> I >> Okay. Next one is SE 83-1161 Gian Song 232 Blue Rock Road.
What about this one, Joe? >> Oh, uh, so this one, there are some minor variances to the floats, but the NOI that we'll be addressing next, uh, is meant to permit those changes. Uh, so I think it's okay to issue the COC and we'll just take care of any variances or
u, excuse me, differences in the NOI. >> Well, we can we can approve. I would recommend that. >> Okay. All right. A uh anybody make a motion to approve um SE83-1161?
>> So moved. >> So moved. Second. >> Second. >> Second from Pat. Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Okay. Moving on to notice of intent SC 832505
Down Cape Engineering for Gen Song 232 Blue Rock Road. After the fact filing for a seaw wall and proposed float reconfiguration on an approved dock within coastal bank, coastal beach, land under the ocean, land containing shellfish and land
subject to coastal storm flowage. >> Good evening, chair, members of the commission. For the record, uh Dan Ojula, land surveyor and civil engineer with Down Cape Engineering in Yarmouthport. Uh and here um we're at 232 Blue Rock Road um with some minor modifications and kind of cleaning up
some uh some past sins of former owners. Um it's um fairly minor in nature. We we feel um we met with waterways. Uh they were comfortable. They did ask that we pull the float in uh to match the
existing one. So, uh, if you're so kind as to approve, we'll we'll give you a revised plan showing that or we could continue if you if you need to. But you can see how that um there were two floats that are longer. Uh, we're replacing it with one uh float that's compliant. Uh, but we're simply going to
pull it in the the so it matches the exact distance off the channel as the existing one. it would have already been um uh the same uh so no closer but they it what didn't seem to me to be a big deal to just pull that in u the two foot
that they requested. So that was the change that waterways had. U if they got their comments over um it probably reflects that. And um other than that, there was [clears throat] not this owner, but a former owner had put a a
small bulkhead in. Um a lot of times in these areas, you get a little bit of erosion on the bottom of the slope, and it's it's scary. and the the owner does an emergency repair or something and and forgot to ask, but um it's like a landscape tie wall to protect the toe of the bank. Uh the current owner realized
the dock configuration didn't match his license perfectly. Um it's a um the old license, you know, it is licensed and and permitted, but it was in ' 92. It was the fixed stock was okay. It's a 6x6
for the for that at that time when he was purchased last year. Um they it was one 5x12 and one 6x12 and um um one 6x6 float on three pilings and he
had installed that little wall to protect the bank. So um we couldn't find a license for the wall. that does nick the high water uh just above the toe of the wall. And so we're um looking to license the existing configuration with
the float modifications as well as that little toe of the wall to rectify the discrepancies um constructed under the previous ownership. Um we um filed an RDA to permit the but the filing was withdrawn with no decision rendered. I think you wanted a
notice on it just so you could condition it. Um I would be speculating on that but that's what I think. Um resource areas are riverfront you know obviously on on the the Bass River um salt marsh coastal beach
coastal bank land subject containing shellfish land of the ocean fish run and land subject to coastal storm flowage. So, we got the the full gambit. Shellfish survey was conducted by John LOL, the East Dennis Oyster Company, and attached that. Again, it's um almost
identical to what's there now, just a lot smaller. So, um wouldn't be many complaints, I don't think. Um we're um um decking would be non CCA treated and have oneinch spaces accord with the in accordance with your current
regulation. uh [sighs] with the coastal beach and the salt marsh and the riverfront um we feel that it's uh the effects are on and the narrative there are pretty dimminimous. Again, you're going to have um six feet above the salt marsh uh at the next maintenance. Um we can
certainly uh raise that up. Um that's on the plan. Um signs currently exist near the mean high water mark to uh for the lateral access and uh by using the existing steps they can uh easily access up and over at mean high water coastal
bank. Um again the toe of the wall is supported by that landscape to wall. Um and um we're looking to formally permit the wall to help stabilize that bank. It was installed prior to the ownership. Um it
uh appearance does presence does not appear to negatively impact the stability of the bank. In fact, it you know probably helps it quite a bit the smaller storms which lap at the toe uh once you undermine the toe down she slides trees and all. So um I think it's a good thing to have that there at this
point. Um looking at the uh narrative we go through um land containing shellfish the fish run and land under ocean that would mostly relate to the float. So, we're talking about that. Uh, but again, temporary impacts only. Um, you've uh
you got two foot wider, but it's a lot smaller than that two feet as well. So, it's no further out. Um and then um the uh John Lol with the shellfish survey
looked at it and um u he found um um healthy shellfish population differing sizes from seed to cohog size and healthy shellfish habitat no eel grass and again it's basically there already
just uh re rearranging it making it a little bit smaller than what's been there for many many ers. Um, under the regulations, I I won't go through every single one, but let's just uh roughly look uh go through quickly. Again, the 1- in permanent sign
required, the open 1in planking, maximum 4 foot at the time of the next maintenance. We're happy to have that be a condition. Um, elimination of moorings, none of those. Uh, distance to the channel exceeds 100 ft. I think some boats come a little closer to this than
the than the mark channel. So, uh, we're happy to put the float at the existing outer position, um, just in case. Um, no salt marsh, uh, impacted. Um, navigation is okay. It's not used for swimming.
Um, the, uh, peering boats are roughly centered on this one, so that meets the regulation. Um, if we do do lights, it'd be directed downward and avoid disturbing neighbors. Um, we're at 75 ft from me in high water. that's under your
80. Um, water depth is 3.1, uh, which exceeds CZM's 2 and a half. So, we're good on that and meets the three-foot requirement under the Yarmouth bylaw. And I think moving it in two feet will be right at the right on the number. I think that's okay. Existing float is 85
foot from the norly float. Proposed is 95 with the existing and proposed 55 foot to the abuing suddenly float. Um this is a a variance but again the hardship exists due to the small amount of water frontage of those neighboring lots and our lot there's no navigational
issues to a butters access the channel is straight shot perpendicular to the float and um navigable channel is is 155 from the float um and uh this is the 12 A bloat will be 41 foot to the norly property
line extension 24 to the south so that's just a one foot variance and again it's no closer than what's been there for at least at least 17 years. So, we feel that that's able to be granted without concern. Um, we're at 200 square foot um which meets local regulations and reduces
what's there by 28 square foot. Um, the darive goes through some other things. No jet ski, no expansion, no CCA except the timbers uh piles rather. Um, and um again uh soundings were were
performed. As you can see, we've got an extensive amount of uh depth data on there. Uh NAVD88 datam. Um so in summary, uh requires two minor local variances under your your regulations. A one foot variance to the
25 foot to the lot line extension. Um the current float's been at that offset for 17 years and has no deletterious effects feel that could be granted. The second requested variance is a set back to the subtly abudding float um from the
required 75 to 55 and again this is just required due to the small length of water frontage for the lots and it existed since at least 2007. It's a small amount of boating activity has not been impacted for this from this reduction. So we we feel that that would be reasonable to grant to leave it uh in
its current configuration. Um, just a reminder, the commission may at its discretion wave one or more of these regulations when the proposed work will not adversely affect any area subject to the production of these regulations. That's your section seven. And it would be our position that there would be no adverse effects to the area
subject to the protection of these regulations. It's mostly related to, you know, boat movement out uh way out near the end of the pier and waterways was comfortable. Uh we put a brief construction protocol in there. Um
uh that um you know mainly peer maintenance in the future replacement of piling and decking materials occur from a barge. Higher tide conditions so it won't ground out material stock part in an owner's yard or on the barge. Any work would be subject to your regulations at the time
of the filing. We would have to do a filing for that. And you can see John Lol's uh found some some cohogs out there and you've got his resume and some photographs. Again, you're looking at that, you know, um landscape timber wall there that that holds the toe. The
neighbor looks like they have a vertical vinyl sheet pile wall. So, there's some some differences of construction in the area, but again, it's they're long predating our our owner and would would simply like to license it. We paid an after the-act filing fee which was was
noted um for that and uh we do apologize for the old owner not not having done it but we're trying to clean up clean up the permitting on it. And again there's your um idyllic waterway there with the um conservation land on the other side which is rather nice. Um be glad to
answer any questions if you have them. >> Okay commission any questions? >> Billy. >> Um the wall um what is that wall next door? What is that? >> A vinyl vertical vinyl sheet pile. Looks like >> is that installed after? >> Um yeah, that would have been a more
recent product, I think. Uh I I I don't know the specific dates, but uh let me see if we have the license number on here. Um no. Um we got a there's a nail in the seaw wall there 55, but I I didn't I didn't find the license. I didn't look either though. So are we
part of this is the wall we're the do the drawing says existing landscape tie retain wall to be licensed that in this in this submitt right. >> Yeah. So so basically what this is is that uh he doesn't have a chapter 91 license for that wall. So uh if you
folks are kind enough to approve what's there. We won't change anything but we'll just draw it on the myar plan and submit it to the state for the chapter 91 license. uh >> okay with the stability of that wall. It looks like it's in pretty rough shape. Is it just because it's old and weathered and
>> Yeah, it's um I I didn't do a thorough structural analysis on it, but um you know, it's if something happens to it, we'll address it at that time. Um you know, it's it's it's fairly disruptive to go ripping out a wall and redoing it. So
>> um you know it it it eventually you know would probably you know build a new one and retreat a little bit is what we usually do with these but um for now we just like to license what's there and >> impact does the when you mention that
the um the high is impacting the toe. What did you mean by that? >> Um that's just a trigger for the requirement to follow with the chapter 91 state. So, you know, maybe when this was put in, there was a little more beach there and it's eroded. But now the
and I'm would be speculating, but sometimes that happens. As soon as the the mean high, and it's actually spring high, which is a few inches higher, touches the wall, it needs a license because the land underneath it is owned by you and I as the state. Um, so you need a license from the from the the governor actually signs it to uh to
allow it to remain there. So, it's a bit of permitting process, but again, it's it's been there for many many years, and um to the extent that it's uh it's going to hold up for a few more anyway, we'd like to get it licensed, and then if we ever do have to do it, you'll have another bite of the apple to talk about
maybe using an inert substance rather than um landscape timbers. >> Okay. Anyone else? Well, I don't have any of the paper on this either, so I'm not going to vote.
>> Hey, problem with it. >> Okay, Brad, are you all set? >> Yeah. >> Okay, Joe. >> Um, let's see. Yeah, uh, waterways was okay with it. Also, they they as Dan already said,
they just didn't want it moved any further seawward. Uh DMF had their typical comments. I assume the piles are getting uh they're being repositioned or or Dan for >> Yeah. re reset because uh they would be
sticking out in the middle of nowhere like an outall pile. So, we're going to um remove and relocate that outer pile. >> Right. And those those won't be cut. They'll be fully pulled out of the substrate. Right. >> Yeah. 100%. We'll we'll we'll get that out 100% and u you'd be happy to live
with a condition on that and then um you know would put the 12in diameter piling for the new float attachment um as shown. >> Yeah. So I'd recommend issuing the order of conditions uh including the DMF comments as conditions. Um, it would
also, as Ellie said, that erosion behind the wall is a bit much. Might be uh good to have a condition for some sort of erosion remedy, even if it's >> Yeah. before it gets worse. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. There isn't anybody in the audience, I don't think. Um, anybody on Zoom? Okay. So I have a motion regarding this application.
I move to accept uh [cough and clears throat] accept the project. >> Issue an order of conditions. >> Issuing Thank you. issuing an order of conditions with special conditions. >> Okay. >> But that the requirement for erosion
because that's not in a condition right now. >> We could You're right. That's that's not included. So, uh, we can kind of leave that, uh, open-ended as something we could we could figure out after. >> We need some geo textile fabric and a little bit of sand behind the wall or is that what you're thinking or?
>> Yeah, that's that sounds reasonable. Uh, Britney may have had some more specific um, remedies in mind um because I know she added that note so we can but if you're okay with adding that as a condition, we can work out the details before we issue the uh, >> keep it keep it generic. We'll do
whatever you'd like on that. And it's obviously in the owner's best interest to to amend it. Amend the fence. Yep. >> Okay. All in favor of the motion. >> Who seconded that, by the way? >> Second. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. Um,
we need to Yeah, we need to um >> I moved Ellie seconded. >> We just need to vote. >> In favor? >> I oppose. >> I'm voting. >> Jack abstained. >> Oh, thank you. Got that. >> Hey, can we add some new construction
next? >> I'm passing down this um this is 125 133 and also this one. >> Thank you, Dan. >> Clear for takeoff. Thank you folks very much for your careful consideration and uh sorry for some of the language
tonight. We really respect what you do and uh I wouldn't want to do it. Thank you. >> Taking himself a hole. >> That's COC for 125 133. This is >> Rock Blue Rock Road 232. But the
first one >> there should be two with 232 the COC and the NOI. So you guys need to sign this page. >> That was was that >> doesn't have a
children got continued. So we're good on that. [clears throat] >> Just this one. >> Oh, this must be I have a weird pen. It says What >> that's the >> 106A the big room.
>> This is >> This is the COC. >> What do we have? One more. >> Oh, we're way back. >> One more. Just a plan revision. >> Let me have my >> Sorry.
>> Okay. Last thing. uh >> 63 Thatcher Shore Road request for a revised plan. >> This is what >> DOA issued at 2022 wired swailes alongside a gravel driveway. >> Those swailes were implemented though in
fact observed. >> So what are we doing here? >> You just have to uh vote on whether or not you want to approve this um change to the subdivision and uh the lack of swelles. There was a meeting
um onsite with the town engineer and planner and no adverse effects were seen. So, okay, recommend approving. >> Yeah, I'm not sure everybody got that. >> Yeah. Yeah, I can I can give Jack a second. >> Wait a second. >> No, that was just memory. [laughter]
>> Okay, we have one other one other 63 Thatcher. Joe just gave us some information, but I'm not sure you all heard it. Well, we did >> we were not we were still signing things because it was confusing. >> All right. So, this is um
63 Thatcher Shore Road. DOA issued a in 2022 required swailes alongside a gravel driveway. No swailes were implemented. No adverse impact impact observed. So, I so I guess the direction is to um >> yeah, the recommendation is to approve the plan because the uh engineer and a
planner on site didn't see any adverse effects. So you just have to vote on whether or not to approve the modification. >> Okay. Motion to approve the modifications. >> Modification being >> a lack of swelles. >> No sws. >> Yeah. >> But it seems they weren't necessary.
>> So that's a b essentially Britney going out and seeing it. >> Uh I'm pretty Yeah, I'm not 100% sure Britney was on there or if she just spoke with the engineer, but I know someone from the town was out there and didn't see any adverse effects. I move that
is it called >> uh to approve the modification >> propose upgrading of existing. >> Yeah. I motion to approve the modification that actually uh approves the omission of the swelles. Yeah. Because they were not deemed
necessary by the town engineer and the town planner from their on-site visit. Motion second. >> Are you seconding or are >> you can >> I'm I'm asking for a second. >> I'll second. You can also second.
>> Yeah, I know. But I don't want to. >> Okay. >> All All uh in favor of the motion. >> I >> I Any opposed? [clears throat] >> Signature. >> I guess there's no signature on this show, right? >> Which one? >> That one we just did.
>> Yeah, we don't have a signature. All right. Um, thank you. And, um, other business, approval of meeting minutes. 116 2025. 1120 2025. I I can't vote on 116
>> and neither can I. >> So, we don't have a quorum for that. >> Okay. So, how about 11:20? >> Uh, I think everybody was here for 11:20. So, >> yeah. >> You'll make a motion. >> I'll make a motion >> to approve. to approve.
>> I I'll copy what you tell me is >> I'll second that one. >> There you go. >> I'll second what he did. >> All in favor of >> I >> I >> I >> Okay. The oppos. >> Okay. Then um >> there's one meeting in January. It says
here, >> yes, because the first Thursday falls on New Year's, so we're just cancelling that one like we did with the the June holiday. Any other business not reasonably anticipated? I guess not. Do you folks have to endure
one more meeting with me as the chair? [snorts] >> Get ready. >> We do need a motion to adjourn. >> Need a motion to adjurnn. >> So move Bradford >> second. >> Someone second. Quick. >> Second. All >> in favor? >> I