on AI >> recording in progress. >> Get all sorts of advice. >> Elevations. >> Okay. Good evening. This is the conservation commission
meeting for Thursday, March 19th. We're going to just begin right away with the uh request for determination applicability from the down cave engineering for Lube Tona and Nicholas and Melissa Shank. 232 Southshore Drive. Proposed additions in
land subject to coastal storm flooding. 232 Southshore Drive. >> Good evening, chair, members of the commission. For the record, my name is Dan Ojula. I'm a land surveyor and a civil engineer to keep hearing our report and we're here for
the folks at 232 Southshore Drive with a very simple matter. This is just developed area. This is a what you call a flood zone only project. So there's no wet resource areas particularly close
it won't get wet here for many years. But, uh, we're about, uh, the rod's about 9 ft above sea level. So, >> it sounds a little better. Um, so just to repeat, Dan Ojula, surveyor and civil engineer with Down Cape Engineering in Yarmouthport. Um, uh, for the folks at
232 Southshore Drive, this is a pretty straightforward matter. It's a flood zone only project. Uh we're in um the only resource area of concern is land subject to coastal storm flowage. It's an AE elevation 11. So that would come up to about our top of foundation uh
during the 100red-year event. Um so we wouldn't expect uh really any impacts to any wet resource areas. It's a small addition on the east side. It's within existing developed area. Uh there's no fill proposed which is in your guidelines. It's just simply elevated up
with a few steps. Um, so very little impact. Uh, the design flood elevation is 13. It's not a substantial addition, so we're a little bit below that with the first floor, but generally, uh, well, it will meet all the FEMA requirements for the type of structure that it is, and it's relatively safe
being, um, above the base flood elevation. Be glad to answer any questions if you have them. >> Thank you. >> Anybody have any questions? >> No. Um I just one question is about gutters and dry wells
there. Am I missing did I miss them? >> Um only that on note number four we put all roof runoff to be directed to gravel drip edges or roof dry well. So we gave the option of doing like a French drain or a drywall but that's not note number uh five. So uh it will be covered one
way or the other. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I just have a quick question. >> Hi thank you. Um just a quick question in in the in the site plan in the proposed addition. What is um what is that um uh denoting in the top right of
that square? Um it's like a daisy shape. >> Oh, that's just a it's grayed out in the background. There's a driveway light there that's going to be removed. So that's just a demo item. It's not bolded out my understanding.
>> Okay. Okay. Do I hear a um Oh, anybody in the audience? Britney, do you have anything? Anybody in the audience have anything? Anybody online?
I don't see any hand raised. Okay. Now, do I hear a motion to accept with a negative two? >> So moved. >> Okay. Second, Paul. Is it okay?
>> All in favor? >> I opposed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. >> All right. Next. Okay. The next one is a continued request for certificate of compliance SE832310
BSC for Valentina and Merch Kachcha if I pronounce that right. 52 Wilin Road. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members. For the record, my name is Kieran Healey. I'm a land surveyor with the BSC group representing the owners of the property
act number 52. Um we have requested a certificate of compliance from the commission. Um there were a few items that uh didn't match the previous the permitted plan that we've listed in um in a letter that hopefully you have. Um
if I I would go through them. Um first thing is that there is a fire pit on the back left hand side of the property um just inside the 35 ft buffer to the wetland. Um mitigation plantings have been planted along the edge of clearing.
Um this is the second time they've been planted as the uh apparently the rabbits like to come right out of that area at wetland and they've been eaten consistently. So you'll see now there's a little bit of white uh a little bit of chicken wire around each one just to try
and give them an opportunity to to grow. Um a pa patio has been installed at the rear of the house. Um this is that picture right there. Um everything but the last block is outside of the 50ft buffer and the rest of it is between the
501 100t buffer. You can see right there, right just below elevation six, there is a small piece that is less than one block that is within that buffer. And then the um on the left hand side of the property, there is a gravel driveway. Um the majority of it is
outside of the 100 foot buffer. Um a portion is right at approximately um 85 ft that runs up to the um 100 foot >> buffer. that area right there where the gas meter is, but as I say, that's right at
the outer edge of the 100 foot buffer. The entire site is within the flood zone. So, the entire site is within a resource area. And um then and the back of the house itself, a deck um that was permitted on the back right, they put a
roof over it and it's covered porch is similar in size to what wasn't permitted. They just roofed it over um as opposed to leaving it open for the deck. It is entirely outside of the 50 foot buffer that covered porch. With that, I'd be glad to answer any
questions that you you have. We did put in the trench drain at the edge of the uh bike. Um vents, everything is conforming as far as flood zone requirements for construction. Flood vents are in the prop or in the building and so on. And uh with that, I'd be glad to answer any
questions you may have. >> Anybody have questions? >> Just for clarity, is the fire pit being removed or not? If the commission will not allow it to stay, then we'll remove it. Um, obviously they would like it to stay, but you know, that's at the commission's
perview. It is pretty small in size and it's not very elaborate. There's no patio around it or anything like that. But as I say, if the commission are willing to accept it, great. If not, then we will
remove it. >> Anybody else? there. Anybody >> going back to the fire pit? I hate to I thought I I thought at one point we talked about a fire pit that they could take out and put back.
>> That was a different property. >> A different property. >> Sorry, different property. >> It's an interesting idea, though, and I'd be glad to entertain it if this one doesn't work. to >> yeah to that point I was going to say to be consistent with uh what we've said with that other project um would be to
not have a permanent fireplace but one that could be picked up and removed um so one that's more portable if it's acceptable my clients would be more than happy to do so >> okay I think that's the way I would go >> remove it is that what you said
>> not to remove it to to have a portable fire >> Oh Okay. Could maybe Britney, could you explain what the the problem would be with that kind of fire pit? >> Yeah. So, the the original permitted plan um included veget mitigation plantings that fully filled the 35 ft
buffer. >> Obviously, they've had some difficulty with the plants that were specified establishing, but um I would recommend to the commission, you know, giving it another go perhaps with different plantings to fully vegetate the 35 ft buffer. um the one row of plants doesn't
obviously didn't are not doing well. They didn't make it and it it didn't fulfill the purpose of eliminating the lawn in the 35 foot buffer either. And they still do have that fire pit there. Um so fully vegetating the 35 would be my recommendation because of the original requirement and also because of
all the additional hardscape that was put in that was outside the original site plan. So, you're saying it might be better to have a portable fire pit because that's getting in the way of some of the plantings and so on. >> Yeah, I would recommend removal of the fire pit and then they can have it in the lawn area if they use something
else. Um, but >> it's currently where vegetation should be. >> Yeah. And they do make some nice portables nowadays. >> Yep. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> Is the covered porch there or gutter anything? It just goes off.
>> Sorry. Is covered porch. Um, is are there gutters or downspouts or it just naturally flows off into We don't have a photo of it. >> Went back to those photos, please. >> I don't think we snapped one. Joe was >> Looks like there's down smoke down that far side.
>> Okay. >> Anything else, Britney? >> No, that's just my recommendation. And in order to permit all of the other hardscape, I'd request additional mitigation pit plantings to fill the 35. >> Okay. >> So, I'm recommending a continuence until
they can do that. >> Anybody in the audience? Anybody online? Raise your hand. Don't see anybody. So, do I hear uh We want to continue
this for uh mitigation plans. Is that right, Britney? >> Should ask that. >> Everybody okay with that? Continuing for uh revised plans and
additional mitigation plantings >> and indicating the scope of the fire pit >> and removal of the fire pit. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Is that a motion you want to make? I will make that motion. Yes. >> Could you repeat the motion, please?
>> I move that we continue uh SE 83 23 2310 um for revised as builds uh showing increased mitigation and removal of the fire pit in the 35 foot buffer. Um I
think we just have to pick a date to continue to >> Yeah. So, if you want a revised asbuilt showing the plants, it would have to be done after they've been planted. So, fall or spring or fall. >> Um, I guess if we could go through the middle of June and then if they get
planted and everything looks out in the spring, then we'll be back in June. If not, we ask for continuance until later in the year. But I guess let's start off with the middle of June. >> Okay. Till mid June. Uh the first meeting is the 4th or the 18th. So 18
>> 18. Yes, please. >> Okay. >> All right. So did you hear the motion, Paul? >> You okay now? >> I heard the motion. What are you asking? >> Someone needs to second the motion. >> I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor? I
>> opposed. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. Okay, the next uh three certificates of compliance we can take at one time. I'll read them in. The first is SE832330
RJ Resorts Beach Resort Owner LLC 1 Southshore Drive. Second one is SE832231 RJ Resorts Riviera Beach Resort Owner 327 Southshore Drive and the SE8322
333 RJ Resorts Blue Water Resort Owner LLC 291 and 301 Southshore Drive. Have anything you want to add or say? No, these are the permits for the previous red jacket um rake beach raking
and nourishment. They've expired. They're in front of you later tonight with new permit applications for new raking. And um so I recommend issuance of all three of these COC's. >> A motion to issue, Jack. >> Yeah, I have a question. Are these um
are these the revised uh they revised the narrative of the beach ranking? Right. >> For the proposals later. Yeah. >> Later. >> But this is these three right now are just the certificates of compliance for the old one. So we can >> the old one on the on the order conditions. Okay.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> What did you need a motion? >> Oh, we have one from Jack. >> I'll second. >> Second. Okay. All in favor? Hi. Hi. >> Okay, let's uh go here. And I see we have three separate
ones are in here. >> Other ones are later. >> Okay. But okay. Okay, I have to sign three. >> Okay. Okay. Next one is SE 832524
wet tech land design for Amy Rakowski 8 Flint lockway proposed expansion of permeable driveway patio invasive plant pruning with coastal bank land subject to coastal storm flooding and the buffer zones to a bordering
vegetated wetland and coastal bank. introduce yourself and >> good evening. Uh my name is Wayne Tvaris. I'm a landscape architect, also a professional wetland scientist. Um Amy Rowski, who owns the property, came to
me. She had bought it last year and as most owners, they want to do some improvements. Now, this is a particularly curious site. On one side is a coastal bank in which we propose practically nothing.
Um, it's maintained. It's uh erosion proof. Uh, best uh management practices would call for pruning to a certain height. There are two trees out there, a cherry tree and a dead oak that we'd like to remove on that slope. So, what
working from the coastal bank inward to the sort of typical type of changes that owners uh ask for. Uh, that's what we're looking for. That's item number one. We'd like to prune it. It's not a Vista pruning. It's to keep the invasive species in check to keep the roots in
the ground and keep and prevent erosion. Um so I'm looking for the uh the board's uh hopefully approval on that or um an accommodation. Um after that it becomes pretty simple with the exception that we
have a 35 and a 50ft and 100 ft buffer zone all in the same area because of the location of the top of the coastal bank. So all of the offsets uh buffer zones are taken from the top of the coastal bank and um on the first 35 ft there's
not much or anything practically to do with the exception of the expansion of the driveway on the left hand side. So, there is an existing driveway. You can see it. Um, you can see it in the picture. And then the left of that, she wants it two cars wide. She comes from
New Jersey. She expects guests. The parking right now is limited to one uh one car and she's just trying to get a second car in there. In the original uh plan, um, and it was uh was picked up by Britney, we were moving a tree. as a big
tupelo tree and we um went back and we identified all the trees. There are no trees being removed uh for this operation. So for the driveway, it's being expanded to two cars wide. Um and the mitigation planting for the 35 ft is
not much. It's a corner of the driveway and uh the front stoop is um out of date. So that was be replaced size for size. So, you can see that in the 35- foot uh area. Uh secondly, the 50-foot
area, there's more driveway to be involved and um and I'm sorry, that is where the stoop is is in the 50ft zone. So, there's a little bit more driveway involved in um in this approach. Uh most of the work is outside of the 50 ft. It
includes a replacement walkway. There's an existing walkway to the front door with some steps. I've redesigned it in such a way that it's it's pvious. We build these now with 8 in of crushed stone underneath and two inches of pea
stone. That's the setting bed. So all of these patios, although drylaid, they are pvious. So you get the drainage underneath better than what you did before. These are actually outdoor drywalls. Basically, both the walkway
and the patio above it are just on the edge of the 50 foot from the coastal bank uh zone. So, um that being said, that's almost the extent of what the owner is seeking. A driveway
and a uh walkway, a patio, and uh that's it. No trees are to be removed. We use the formula from the town that town of Yamoth asked for for u compensation or mitigation for the 0 to 35 ft for the 35
to 50 ft and the 50 to 100. And we calculated a certain amount out uh put it on the table here on the plan. I don't want to bore you with all the numbers. And then we did a plant schedule. We have two areas of mitigation. One on the left side of the
driveway, which is hard to mow now. it's sloping and um it's really too steep to mow. So, we put an edging uh temporarily while we're doing this work of uh straw waddles along the property line. And
actually, when I was out staking, I met one of the owners uh to the left of this property, displaying part of to them. Uh on the garage side, on the side of the garage, there's a tremendous amount of multifloor rows that's being removed. we
would like to remove it in order to put these mitigation plants. So, uh that is some work that's inside the 35 ft, but I would look at it as very constructive since we're putting back some viburnums and um um red twig dogwoods in the same
area that the multifllora rose is. And we're using the straw waddles to prevent erosion. And as we come up towards the uh tupelo tree that's uh near the road uh that whole band is mitigation planting that has been sized and put on
this sheet with reference to uh compensation for coverage of the of the again patio, driveway and walkway. Uh that did not fulfill your requirements as far as coverage is concerned from
your plan. So, we added an area to the right along the wall outside and inside the 50-foot zone that also has mitigation planting. So, we've named the plants. Uh again, there's some cherry trees and so forth in the area. Nothing
is being removed. Uh big red cedar along the wall uh remains. Uh the grass area gets reduced. Please keep that in mind. on the left side of the driveway that mitigation planting is
uh removing lawn uh and being replaced with mitigation planting. So wildlife habitat the interest of the act is is being um addressed. Uh also that area of mitigation to the right hand side
compensates fully the entire um equation I guess it is of removal or coverage in order to mitigate this plan. So, I think it's a fine landscape plan. Uh, it's fairly simple. The owner wants to replace some of the planting
that she has along the house uh with uh ornamental plants. So, this doesn't come into the equation. Plus, the town and most towns do not allow uh mitigation planting with a certain distance uh of the house. So, uh she'd like to replace
some of those. I've mentioned some of the plants uh in that area and um Britney asked me to address uh item by item each one of the performance standards. So no topography is being changed here except for a portion of the
driveway on the side in order to accommodate it. The driveway will pitch from the garage all the way to the street and maintain the water in the driveway. So there's no side watershed on that um mitigation slope. So when
that gets planted out, it will be uh pine bark mulched of course like most people do. And the same thing goes with the other mitigation area. Um I think that wraps it up. I'm sort of done and looking for questions from the commission.
>> I'd like to take this into two pieces. The first is the uh one piece is the wetland piece the behind the house and then what's going on in front of the house. Let's start with what's going on in the front of the house. And if you have any questions or concerns, it's time to bring it up.
>> You mean the walkway and the patio? >> The walkway, the patio, and the driveway and the mitigation in the bottom. Right. This mitigation down. >> I'm good. >> Anybody? Yeah, >> I guess I'll start then. I I do have a
concern about the uh the Tupelo tree uh on the left part of where you're going to put the driveway. I'm just worried that you're going to upset the roots of that tree and years from now that tree will die. Um just wondering if there's an
alternative at that at that point uh beyond the 100 ft to um that you can still keep two cars up but staying further away from the uh from the tree. >> We can narrow that as much as possible
and we can come up with a a max um I've done this before with a minimum uh distance from a tree to maintain. So we can do that. We just want to make sure we can get cars in the driveway and not make it impassible. So, I had to draw it one way and and you're making a
suggestion. We can also uh line the tree. I've got uh an ink berry. I can plant ink barrier around that tree on the driveway side and pro provide a sort of a visual barrier for uh owners to see so they don't either hit the tree and
whatever root systems we disturb is by digging in uh ink berry and uh tupulos are notorious for having more of a deep water um type of a root system. They seek the water. uh they're not like say
beach trees that put the roots out sideways and you have to cut them in order to to do that. So I would suggest maybe I move the driveway slightly to the right and provide enough room to edge that visually
um and also that would provide prevent compaction. So I sort of agree with you. We won't cut any more roots than we have to and we can provide special construction methodology for that edge where we only put in the top layer of
stone rather than digging in 6 to 8 in of base material which would definitely um hit one or two of the roots that are in that tupelo tree. So that's fine if you want to note that that that's agreeable.
Okay. Anybody else at the front? >> Yeah, you have a note here. Uh, regrading to accommodate level driveway to property line elevation 17 to 13.5. I'm not following that.
>> Okay. Um, yeah, I took some grades and the grades that were given me by the surveyor and then I shot grades out by the driveway. I get worried because I'm a contractor and I want to make sure this can be built right. So, where it
says new on this proposed new driveway, where it says new is the deepest part of needs to be filled. So, that has to be brought up making the sideways slope narrow and more um steep. So, we're turn
taking a burm without looking at the numbers at 18. instead of 18 and taking it down to say 14 or 13 1/2. I think it's a 3 and 1/2t drop in a 7 foot uh or 8 foot space. So, it's pretty steep. So,
we have to keep the water maintained in the driveway so it it erodess through the through the stone going out to the road, which is plenty of pitch and minimize the side slope that we're talking about. So I I don't know if I'm helping correct the situation by the
explanation. Once we plant the plants, they would be of course on ground level. And it's a burm. That's what we call these slopes. A burm. >> I don't know if that clarifies the purpose of the note.
Does that I don't understand >> I >> the note either. >> Where is the note? >> Okay. It's a construction vertical way. Yeah. that one. >> To accommodate driveway, >> but you're showing the regrading.
Um, >> what section is being regraded? I think that's what I'm having a hard time figuring out. >> Portion of the driveway I'm showing with the stippled portion or the hatch portion of the driveway is what exists.
the white section where it has proposed new driveway that's the edge of the new driveway and that white area that's a uh that's in between is is >> I understand where the the new driveway is proposed. What I'm not understanding
is how much of the land to the left of the driveway is being graded and how that ties back into the existing grade. >> Yeah, I think we need to see the um existing topography in that area. We are only looking at proposed to topography.
>> Yeah. And there were so many lines I didn't want to do it. So I tried to I didn't want to complicate line drainage with with that. So all those lines would shift over to the left basically. Uh I can redraw it. I can do a cross-section if you'd like. But basically what it is
is you're coming up about 14 in in that deepest portion. So you're exacerbating the slope, but when you plant it, you're re recapturing the slope and the erosion potential to the left. And that's to the
left, not to the to the wetlands. And we would probably permanently leave the um the straw waddles to be buried. So they provide a line. >> You're proposing to leave the straw
waddles in permanently. That is not conventional. Um, >> conventional. No, >> if I may also. Yeah, go ahead. Um, yeah, that that's a pretty deep gully on the left side of that that driveway. And it
seems to me you're saying that you could um put some waddles and some other stuff and it's not it's going to uh erosion will be prevented by planting and so on. Um, I don't know if I'm convinced of that because it's it's a
pretty good gully between the two houses in that area. So, without some sort of a >> two two things >> area, I'm not sure if that could be accomplished. >> Sorry. >> Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Um, that picture just misses the sort of cross-section. Let's see if we have
another one. >> Oh, that one you just went by. Yeah, there it is. I put the prop that's more or less the property lines with the blue flags. Okay. So, as it goes down there, I have to observe the property. I can't go over to the neighbor's property. So,
along that line, >> Yeah. >> and you're looking at a gully that is basically on the neighbor's property. So we're preventing erosion to the left hand side from the stake that you see one two three up that that's not blue to
the left is about 8 ft and it's also in the lower section of the driveway right now. The the driveway dips in that area on the left. Uh I'm a contractor too so I have to deal with these details in real life when we go out there. So the point is that's elevated but no steeper
than the area behind it where you can see multiffloor rows. That dark area to the right of the little shed and between the shed and the garage is multifloor rows and that would be removed. That slope is no greater than the slope that we're re redoing in the middle of the
driveway. Also we're preventing the whed. So if a lot of water was coming across the driveway we would erode that area. But the that water is being redirected straight down the driveway to the road without erosion. And uh those
those >> storm water into the road. >> Sorry. >> You're redirecting storm water into the road. >> No more than what we have now. It's allowable. Long as we're not adding to it right now. That's where the water is going. You see a um let's see. You have
a grade of 15 out by the road. If you can see it, to the left of the drive uh driveway and near the Duplo and a grade of 17 up by the garage, you have 2 feet of pitch from the garage to the that area,
but water runs perpendicular to contours. So, it's going partially to the road and partially to the left. We're making this better. We're making we're lifting the driveway and we're making the left hand edge steeper but
now planted with native plants and we're removing the waterershed. Oh, we're removing the watershed. So there is no water except the rain water that lands on that slope reducing the erosion that we have
existing right now. And you don't see on that plan any marks through there. Of course, it's all grass. That's part of the grass we're removing and planting to plants. So, I'm sorry. Uh my note confuses everything, but um
>> I'm sorry. Did you say also that you were going to try to move the the driveway to the right a little bit more? >> The entrance to the driveway. >> How about the other part of the driveway? The upper part of the driveway? Uh there's well we're trying to plan uh park two cars a breast and
that's sort of minimal width for two cars a breast. >> I get that. But I mean you right now you're you're leaving the the driveway as it exists on the right side in the upper part of the driveway. >> Yes. >> Can you move it over a little bit farther to the right? >> It looks like toward the mailbox and
he's like there's some space over here to get further away from the tree in the slope there. We can do that in the beginning, but as you see, as you get near the house, we want to maintain a certain safe distance from the house for cars. So, I think that edge is more important than the
driveway. But yeah, we can move that edge over to help with the tupelo uh situation on the left hand side. Switch the whole entrance a little bit to the right. That's fine. >> Well, I'm not saying that. I'm just wondering if you could do that. I'm not
saying, you know, um >> there's a few stones in the Stonewall that have to be moved. No big deal. >> Okay. >> Not in the overall theme of things. No. >> Thank you. >> So, sure. >> How can I explain this any better? I'm
willing to try to >> that's got a question. I >> have a question about the mitigation in the front of the house on the right hand side where it's for the resource area. I assume that I understand that you need to get so many feet in it if you could
put it in the back where the resource area is. >> Find a place to put it. And it's kind of because next to the road, it's really not protecting the area that >> Well, it was originally thought to be
okay because it's in the 50 to 100 foot zone. It's still under your purview. The whole lot is under your purview. Um, I understand that and there's an arborite hedge that is there now. We've shaded it. We could move the mitigation planting up a little bit, but where the
hemlock is and the walkway to the back, it doesn't allow for too much. We're leaving the shed where it is, uh, to go around and make a little area that area where it says number 17, grade 17. It's just not
>> you're proposing. Yeah. So the coastal bank is about six feet of bare and you're proposing to remove this uge. So there is a lot of space back there. >> You mean along here to replace the uedge with something native? Is that what you're talking about? >> Yeah. So since this is the top of the coastal bank and the coastal bank is
partially bare, that's where the mitigation plantings should be going. >> The area is not that big, however. So and again, if I go back to the formula and try to plant native plants in that area, it's a good idea. um
I don't think we're picking up much area. So in other words, if we're sacrificing your right hand corner to go into the back, we're taking maybe 10% of that whole area out. Um I could see you see where the 36 and a half oh
you don't have the plan but anyhow the distance uh to the sideline there's an arborite hedge and I can string some of these plants along there and that way it would go from the 50ft zone into the 35 ft zone but I cannot see that whole group of
plants let's say it's 700 square feet or so in that back area >> 590 square feet >> 590 Okay, thank you. So, and also the owner would like to pass around the back of the house. So, I'm trying to keep a five foot
separation. I don't mind the entire area below the coastal bank right up to the existing vegetation line and around the corner. But again, that entire area is uh 35 ft long, 5t wide. It's only 175 or
200 square feet. So, it doesn't pick up more than 200 out of the 590 square feet. But I I'll be willing to do that. >> Could you clarify that five foot? Um the five >> I'm wondering why you need the five foot access because there's a concrete walkway.
>> Well, beyond where you just put your marker. >> So, just over here. >> Yeah. Right in there. So, then right in there you really need that needs clearance so you can get around the house. Okay. And is 5 foot appropriate? That's what I
I thought would be appropriate for access around the house. I don't think there's any pictures of that. >> And then outside of that, I'm I'm in the back now, but um you're you're cutting the invasive down to five feet. >> Yes. Yes.
>> And the five feet comes from where? >> It's just an organic amount. And I've come from many towns. you go before many towns and they don't want anything cut below 5T. So, I'm keeping that managed to a 5-ft level and just managed.
>> What's the purpose of that? >> There is no purpose except to manage it. >> I don't think that's the best management practice to manage invasive species. So, >> there's also a couple trees in there should be removed. One is dead, one is alive, and just full of this. It looks
It looks like Kudzu in the north. >> Yeah. So, all trees should be shown on the plan. Um, and there one of your your revisions says to maintain it at ground level. So, there's a contradiction whether you wanting to mow it or maintain it at 5T.
>> I I want to go 5 feet. That's what I'm suggesting. So, take away the contradiction. Um, if you did it all the way to ground level, they would just grow back again. And then it opens up the question, are you doing it for vista pruning? There's no vista out in that
direction to see. So there's no vista pruning. It is a maintenance at a certain level to keep things from growing up the trees like they do now. Remove the trees. Number one, keep it cut at 5T. The next year, keep it cut at 5T. Do the work now offseason. There's
no leaves on it. And it looks actually approachable at this time. During the season, it it looks like you walk in there, you'll never walk out again, if you know what I mean. So uh it's just a maintenance. >> I still am not really seeing the purpose of that. I understand if you want to
maintain this completely, manage the invasive species and the best management practice would be to do that and replant so that they have a less of a chance of growing back. If you wanted to maintain the trees, we can approve, you know, a circumference a radius around the trees to manage the invasive plants to keep
those alive. I would understand that. But if you're going to take the trees out, we're not worried about keeping the trees alive and managing at five feet. like you said, there's no vista and we're not effectively managing the invasive species. So, I I just don't understand why the conservation
commission would permit activity in in or the no disturb zone that doesn't have a direct benefit. >> Okay, then I had to address this issue. Let's not do anything. My owner doesn't care. Let's do nothing out in the back.
That's perfect. And that's BMP also. So, I I prefer that. But I was trying to address an issue that was there. So I she doesn't care about it. >> I mean, if she does care about it, she should pursue the the invasive species
management and replant. >> I just don't know what her what the strategy what the goal what the goals are here is to keep the trees. >> My client I would >> also the invasive species management would go into part of the mitigation. So >> yeah, and then you'd have all your space
back. >> You'd be removing mitigation. You'd be removing invasives and putting in natives that would go towards the You're shaking your head. What? >> I won't even listen to it. Personally, it doesn't make sense. Coming from a
conservation board, I know it takes a lot to say that, but you've gotten a neighbor to the left, a neighbor to the right, and a neighbor on the other side. You got three sides encroaching. to do this. And I've been in this business for a long time. It would all be taken over
by the neighbors property by the neighbors. They would just encroach and grow back in there. If this was particular and all the owners had done this work prior, I would agree with that. But I can tell you now that there's too much
competition from the three sizes of property. And the width is so thin that it's like throwing a pebble in the ocean. The what you gain out of doing that versus the expense out of doing that, the removal of the root system of these,
that's the only way you're going to do this is to remove the root systems completely. And you're going to open this up to erosion. and you're going to hope and plant some say uh native species that are you know that I have a list for uh in that area and they would
be condemned basically because all of the plants would grow up to them and you're opening it up for erosion. So best management practices keep the roots intact but control the upper growth. If you want me to say cut them down to um
we had a large project last year in another town, Upper Cape, we cut down an acre around a pond to ground level. All of that came back again, but there was no erosion on a slope as steep as this.
Now, that is good practice. So, if you want me to change from 5T and cut it all the way down, I'll be glad to do that. But to for a conservation board to tell me to remove the root system, >> I mean, that's not what we're saying. Number one, I also just completely
disagree with the leaving invasive species on a slope. Their roots aren't really stabilizing very much. Um, it might be very minimal, but I don't know. If you don't want to address the invasive species, we really I don't think we should be addressing them at all. It's up to the commission, but if you want to address them, it should
really be following best management practices, which I don't believe cutting it at 5T is doing. Um, so we should just clarify what the homeowner's goals are. Um, and go from there with whatever other river. >> Let's either leave it alone then and not
touch it. That's what I would suggest. Leave the two trees. One of them is dead. So, I mean, it should come down. It's an old oak. The other one is alive, but it's full of uh let me see what's growing up that I think bittersweet is growing up that tree >> and it's fully covered. I I don't know
if you have any um >> seasonal. I have um summer pictures with this fully in leaf and u >> it's totally unmanageable. I mean, >> you have a strip in there that's totally
unmanageable. If you went up the neighbor's driveway, which is off this plan to the north, there's a driveway that was allowed in order to gain access to an upland lot. All of that is wetland and he's not addressing that that wetland
and neither is the people to the right or to the left. This leaves this uh a spot a very much a great deal of expense in order to do that. And I would be concerned with erosion. That's my big thing. There's a summer picture from up
above. Look at the little notch that that takes out compared to all of that um uh vegetation that you have. It's quite a bit and very little to gain. I'm looking at what to gain. I'm looking at the owner running into an expense that's
exorbitant and um it's throwing money away. So uh again an option is to cut it to the ground, reinforce the rooting of the of the plant so there's no erosion. That area is steep. It's not erosion
proof. Um and I I I beat that to death. I apologize. So um let me stop. >> Can you tell me how close that dead tree is to the house? Is you leave it there? >> Um the tree is
um Um, yeah, there it is. There's one. And then up above that, you can't see it because it's dead. Is a oak to the >> second aren't that good. >> Right there. There it is. See it? That's dead. >> It's not that close. >> Yeah. >> So, you shouldn't have any problem
leaving it there. >> No. No. No. Not really. No. The other one. I mean, it looks silly, though. It reminds me of driving down Route 95 to Florida and seeing all the kudzu and the topiary of kudzu on the right hand side. It's the same here except it's
bittersweet and it's growing up these trees. So, uh I would flush cut them. I'm not removing roots obviously. I'm just, you know, cutting the tree down. And the other one is more to the towards >> I thought you weren't proposing any tree removal.
>> So, there's a lot of junk in there. There's also summer grape that's not an invasive, >> but that's in there and it just grows wild. >> So, one of the ways of doing it is to cut it to the ground if you want and let it grow back and cut it to the ground uh
every couple of years and that maintains the slope. It does not encourage wildlife habitat, >> but if you did say that >> if I may sorry question, sorry. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> We're here to have the discussion, right? Sure.
>> So sometimes I get a little lost in these conversations. So you're saying that to you the optimal thing to do for that back area is to cut it to the ground. Is that what you're saying? >> That's wonderful. >> Why is that better than leaving it? Your
first proposal was keep it at five feet. >> Keeping it at >> five feet would require the owners to go or have somebody prune it >> at least once a year, probably more than that. Right. Okay. Um, how should I say this? I I'm
really I'm not a wise guy. I saying this from experience. The real optimum way to do it is when flowering season hits for bittersweet or flowering season hits for bush honeysuckle or flowering season hits for um porcelain berry, which is
all out there. And also we found autumn olive. you prune those bushes optimally. That means people have to come out and time their pruning and it would be an exorbitant cost. So the other way to do this is to cut it to the ground allow
the ve what happens is all plants respond by putting all their energy into foliage because >> I understand that and I thank you and I don't I don't ever consider you to be a wise guy for sure. Okay. But the thing is in your plan it says maintain height
of an invasive species five feet height and you say not vista pruning. So um if that was done okay uh that would it would it would have to be maintained on kind of a yearly basis to keep it at
the five foot height and if I'm understanding roots would exist from those plants whatever those plants may be um contributing to holding that bank and that might be um more um advisable
than working on that bank and planting natives It's a difficult area. Is that what I'm understanding, Britney? >> The bank is bare right now. There's little mosses. And >> I'm looking at the >> This is all at the bottom. Yeah.
>> Is that the part where all the bramble is? Is that what would be maintained at 5T? >> That's what they're proposing. >> Yeah. Okay. And And it would be maintained at 5t all the way back to the back property line. >> Yes. >> Wow. which is only 20
25 feet away. Not even that. 20 feet away. >> Yeah, but that Well, I'm glad I wouldn't be doing that work, but um Okay. Um I guess I'm a little lost in terms of what um maybe Britney, you could you could describe for me what you think the best
approach would be. Maybe you've done it already, but maybe I didn't hear you completely. Well, it's not our position to design projects for people, but um it would be I would not recommend allowing continual maintenance in the wetland resource area
and it's no disturb zone if we're not fully managing the invasive species. >> Fully managing. So, that that would be the the best thing to do to fully manage the non-native species. And I would also agree with Pat that even though we've got some invasive species back here
since the bank is bare and we're removing this u hedge, remember we should be planting at least some of this this bank should be planted. >> Planted, right? >> It's bare. >> Okay. So that sounds reasonable to me at this particular point if I'm understanding everything. >> I just I have one other question that's
a little different is about the front of the house. I'll take the time if I may right now to ask. Um, you propose a patio in the front of the house. >> Yes. >> Wouldn't that number would it constitute hardscape and wouldn't it contribute to an increase in runoff? Why would you so
why would choose to put something like that in the front of the house? >> Well, she has no option for a deck in the back. Everybody has patios and we just saw a project that had a fire pit in the back of the house and all that. She has no opportunity for the back of the house because you're on the top of a
coastal bank. So there is actually a view of the salt marsh from the front of that house. So that's why the patio exists. She would look um >> you're getting you're getting >> got you. I know the area. >> Yeah. Right. Right.
>> Okay. Now I don't want to be a wise guy, but can't you just put a launcher on on the existing lawn and look at the view? Do you have to add heartscape? >> Well, don't forget I mentioned about the hardscape. The new methodology actually puts drywalls underneath these. So they
are per they are pvious. Very pvious. More pvious than what you have exist. >> Not as pvious as them not being there. >> It's more pvious than what exists there now. Yes. >> Because it's hard packed or something. >> Yeah. Because the lawn lawn doesn't
absorb. You got more runoff on the lawn. This absorbs and takes it underneath just like a >> I haven't heard that explanation before. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Sure. Sorry. Um, any Go ahead. >> Sure. >> Um, I I really appreciate this, um, for
lack of a better word, sort of a organic application, but what I'm struggling with is a lot of, um, there's a lot of judgment on the Conservation Commission side as far as what is existing and what is new and what is the impact to the existing conditions. Um, Bradford
mentioned the driveway. Um, you know, so you say it goes from 12 to 18 and I'm trying to scale it and it doesn't really line up. And I I think I understand that the the the site plateaus at 18 feet and and and you're just sort of overlaying
all of this, you know, the hardcape, but it in light of that, is there any way um I'm specifically concerned, and I'm being redundant with I think Bradford's concern on this. You're saying you won't need a retaining
wall and there's no way for I for us to to to really understand that without seeing it. And is would it be difficult? I I don't think you did this on I mean this is is it is there any way you could do an existing site condition
submit any sort of existing site conditions? you >> you're basically telling us that all of the contours remain >> okay >> as is and >> and that's kind of a a >> a big assumption I think without showing
it a little bit more clearly. I don't want to give you more work to do but um did did you >> Yeah, I think if you could show the slope at least because right now we're going we're at 14 or 13 at the bottom of the gully. I don't know
why the 14 line ends there. I mean, it should it needs to continue or go out property. >> It's just because there's other stuff shown. Yeah, there's a lot. >> I think because it goes into the property line. We didn't show it going into the property line. >> What you're suggesting is having two
maps. One is the existing and one is the >> proposed >> proposed. I mean, >> that would make it a lot clearer for me. >> My colleagues agree on clarity. Yeah, absolutely. >> I'm having a hard time with that, too. And uh so I think what we're I know what we're
saying is >> maybe a cross-section >> cross-section would be appropriate. Yeah, that's what I volunteered earlier. Sure. >> Yeah. >> Um so obviously we're going to have to continue this. You you've heard what we what our concerns are. We'll see if there are more in a minute, but
>> with the exception of the backyard, uh just I need direction on that the rear of the property. what what you talked up here is is very comprehensive and the request um like I said I do that I'll show you how uh the intrusion of
water works on a patio uh the planting mitigation planting seems to work except maybe we can place some out back so I have direction on all those but this area of invasive species bothers me because I don't want another continued meeting of what to do so I'm looking for
some kind of a judgment um I and a leave it alone, which I prefer to do. B, prune it to 5T, allow me to take out those two dead uh the one dead tree and the other tree that's being uh invaded, or three,
cut it to the ground. But the option of replacing, removing and replacing to me, and I'm not the owner, but that would be come up with an adjective because I can't. It would be a foolish foolish. I
guess it just wouldn't work. So explain to me um why cutting in your proposed in your in your you're proposing to cut it down to five feet. >> Um explain to me why that wouldn't be vista pruning. It's
>> I mean you say yeah it's not >> it is not uh the five foot was my attempt to do some management in the back >> to remove that's it that was all that it was 5T I came up with because it's human scale
>> it's not seven feet it's not 4 feet it's human scale so I chose that uh I prefer not to do anything to be honest with you since we're all being upfront um and And then the other option which we did last spring at this time is to cut it to the
ground but leave the roots intact and add to the planting. I think you made a good point by adding replacing the existing u hedge taking it all the way down according to that picture that Britney had up a little while ago where moss is growing. So I can plant that
area uh right along there and take some of these mitigation plantings and put them back there. It's just won't take up all the area the formula provides. So yes, I'll be glad to do that. So if we have
those three bones of contention, I can work on some of them. But the other one is arbitrary. This backyard, how does everybody feel about this management of invasives? It's full of invasives. That's all that's there.
It's an all or nothing type of um you know roll your dice landscape situation. I I just need direction from you that's all and then I'll be on my way. Apologies to the crowd. >> Yeah. Um, anybody have a
>> Yeah, I I I think I thank you for the discussion before, but I I think proper um management of the invasives would be even though you think it's a foolish errand sounds like it would be the appropriate thing to do.
>> The owner will pull this off the I would I'm going to suggest she pulls it. >> I'm giving you my opinion as one member of the committee. >> I understand. >> Thank you. give my opinion to say what what does the owner want? You go back and have a
long discussion with her, >> but I think >> I already had that discussion. We had a discussion before. >> Well, >> yes. So, >> I think that all should be that area like you said, use the mitigation planning for where the hedge is going to come out. Yes. And on the other side, which is just that big.
>> I agree. I agree with that. That's fine. But what about the wild area here? this 25 by Dave. I would argue that uh the size of that whole
invasive area would be a continually failing battle over time and to try to just make this one piece uh native. Um if the owner could get together with some of the
other owners and uh more swath of land that by the you know along each of the houses fine but I think that we're talking about uh forcing an expensive piece of uh
not labor free but you know unless the owner could do it themselves I just think we should go along with no disturbance. >> Thank you. >> Leave it as is. >> Yep. I agree. >> You agree with that? >> I do.
>> I think the options are either leave it and don't touch it or manage it properly. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. I agree. >> You just said something. >> I said I agree. And I just have two other quick notes if we're wrapping up. Um, regarding the mitigation areas as
they are right now. Um, appreciate the mix of native shrubs. If you could add native ground cover in the form of seed or ground covers interspersed since they'll be really important into erosion control, that would be appreciated. Also, the mitigation table doesn't appear to use our approved regulatory
ratios for the for the disturbance areas. If you could take a second look at that and um I'm not sure about your table. It has addition. Um I don't know if those were revision numbers. if you could just do the total number of plants because I think your ornamental number is not correct based on you know I don't
know some revisions you made um if you could just take a second look at that as well. >> Okay, I'm adding it up now. It looks right but okay I'll take another look at it. And you're saying that the ratios are different than what I had? >> Yes. So the regulatory ratios um for the
0 to 50 it's >> well you have 0 to 35. That's three times. >> Yeah. So, it's not three times. It's it's up to the discretion of the commission because it's in a no disturb zone. But three times is the ratio for the 50ft buffer and two times is the
ratio for the 100 foot buffer. >> Okay. So, the two times is right, the 100 foot is right, the 50 foot is not right. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> Now, according to the discretion of the board, is the three times okay for the 0 to 35? There's very little done in that
area. very little. >> Plus, I'm removing multifloor rows in that area. Also, >> I think we're we're having you move some of that to that coastal bank area where the hu where the hedges are >> beyond it. >> So, I'm not sure what that comes to when
you actually do it. So, I >> think you have to come back and uh show us what what the final uh figure is. >> Sure. Sure. Yeah. I've got three areas here in the front um to deal with. So, I
just wanted to get some kind of consensus in the back. So, I'm not doing anything. I I can come up that right now. Nothing on the back. Um where it says maintain the height, I'll remove that and just say nothing. >> Right. But we'd still like to see the
if you're going to take the hedge away, which you should. >> Yes. and put in litigation there. That would be >> I'm certainly doing that. Yes. Yes. >> Um >> your question, Miss >> Oh, sorry to be labor this. Um just I
haven't seen an application address performance standards this way and I just wanted it's probably for Britany. Uh my question and instead in lie of of of referencing the specific performance standard you have I'm looking at your page three you have interest of the act.
Is that is that I haven't seen an application do it that way. >> Yeah, that's not usually how we >> It's a little bit more judgmental than Yeah. But so why didn't you just list the performance standard instead of >> I'm looking at page three and four of your >> Yes. >> Yeah. And instead of listing the the the
the performance standard, you say interest of the act, >> right? >> And why is that? Where did you get that from? just years of going before boards and added a little clarity to it. There's eight interests of the act that
I know about. They're all listed here. Some towns even have more. So that like protection of aesthetics, that's another town. That's not your town. You know, protection of recreation, it's another town. Shellfish is certainly one of them, but we're not addressing shellfish
at all. So I say no such concerns exist. So, I'm going item by item down this list and saying what the concerns are. There's no topography change. So, there's no erosion potential except you picked up one potential with the driveway. So, we're going to regrade
that and show you. >> It's just a different way of doing >> I apologize to everyone for taking so much time. >> Oh, that's why we're here. >> Um, okay. So, we need to have a continuence. um
>> April 2nd or April 16th. April 2nd would mean revised plans are due next Thursday at noon. >> Next Thursday I can do that because I won't be here for April the next one. So the second do it's fresh in my mind
certainly. So I'll get to work right on. I'm going to show you a cross-section re redesign of the mitigation planting a look see at the table to make sure it's right uh or correct or change driveway change at the entrance to avoid the
tupelo. Thank you. I appreciate your time and >> we need to take a vote. So before you >> do I hear a motion to continue to April 2nd. Jack second. Anybody >> second? >> Second. >> Uh all in favor? I
>> I >> I >> thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> Get to ask about people in the audience. >> Anyone in the audience have any questions, comments? >> Zoom. >> Sorry. >> Sorry. I >> we left.
>> Didn't do that. Uh where am I? >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks a lot. stuff which is here. Okay. Um, we're going to continue notice of
intent SE83-2509 JM O'Reilly and Associates and Bluefax Design for Paul and Nancy Cruz, excuse me, for Glenwood Street. Proposed deck expansions. addition sheds sand nourishment invasives species management of flood
zone and buffer zones to a salt marsh and coastal bank. >> Yes, good evening. Matt Frell with JM Oian Associates and next to me is Caitlyn Cameli from Blue Flax Design. In the audience is Paul and Nancy Cruz
owners. Um, so we have a revised plan from my office, uh, and a revised plan from Blue Flax Design. Um, I put a memo together just to kind of go through the changes that we made.
Um, so I'll just go through that and, um, and then we can open it up to any questions from from the commission. So, we talked about removing the permanent fire pit, uh, replacing that with a portable fire pit. in the same location. So, that goes in the plans. Um the
owners um decided they would remove the asphalt driveway, replace it with a pvious shell and/or stone driveway. Um, in doing that, since they're touching the driveway, they they wanted
to expand it about 7 ft um to the north, total of about 150 square ft in an effort to be able to park two vehicles back to back. Um, they're hoping to add an 8 foot wide cobblestone apron along
the road. Um and then for the area table on the JMRE Associates plan, we removed the existing hot tub from the area calculations. Um also in the area table, we added up all
the mitigation that Blue Flax is showing in their plan and we subtracted the 1,161 square feet required to satisfy the pre-existing enforcement order. So the total that's shown in the in the
coverage calculations is the total mitigation that we're providing for this application. Um and we updated the overlapping buffer zones and removed the 100 foot buffer zone because it was off the property. Hopefully that makes sense now.
Um so yeah, we're proposing in total with the application approximately 2492 square feet of mitigation. Um and we're adding approximately 161 square ft, I believe that was the number,
161 square ft of imperous surfaces to the property. So quite a bit of mitigation. Uh we also had a memo from the project architect um showing the helical anchors and the
connections for the um new deck um and shed. And Cece, anything you want to add? >> Hi Caitlyn Cameilli with Bluelex Design. Um, thanks for the opportunity to present a revised plan to you all. Our
overall vegetation management approach has not changed from our previously plan. Um, what I did change was how our plan notes were written. So, I hope that those were written in a clearer way for you, kind of breaking down each colored
section, the square footage, and what we propose to do in each area. Um, and um >> the microphone a little bit closer to you. >> A little closer. Great. Um so our plan proposes to
restore and strengthen the site's coastal resources through the restoration of native vegetation and removal of invasive vegetation. Um we're proposing improved vegetative buffering along the um salt marsh by removing lawn
and um restoring it with native plants. Um, and we're offering more permeable site elements. Um, this plan enhances the salt marsh function and the site's habitat value and supports long-term resilience of the site. Um, so that's
all I wanted to say. Thank you. >> Anything else to add? >> Nope, that's it. I'm sorry. That's all right. >> Anybody have any questions, comments?
>> Have one small question? >> Um, I think last time we had talked about uh anchoring the shed. Did we decide that was going to happen? >> Yeah, the the detail from the architect. Um, I have a copy here if I
>> Oh, okay. Is it on there? shows the connection, the helical anchor and then the bolted connection. Thank you. >> Appreciate all the changes you've made. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Claire, >> yes. >> We also appreciate
anybody else have questions, comments? Britney, >> um I echo thank you for making all those changes. Um my only recommendation would to be including annual monitoring for the invasive species management um and for herbicides to be applied only by
those with an applicator's license. But thank you. >> So those would be the special conditions. Okay. Anybody in the audience? Anybody on Zoom? See hands raised.
Okay. So, um I need a motion to um to issue the uh plan with order of conditions, special conditions. Anybody want to make that motion, Jack? >> And annual monitoring,
>> right? Which is file special conditions. But thank you. Anybody second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Thank you board. >> Okay.
>> Pretty drawings are pretty. >> All right. This is Susan Road. >> Yes. Here you go. Okay. All right, go on to our next um notice of intent for
SE832514 Crawford land management for Scott Peterson 10 and 20 Susan Road proposed bank stabilization using core fiber rolls and invasive tree removal in coastal bank and land subject to coastal
storm flooding. Yeah, good evening. For the record, Lauren Taylor with Crawford Land Management on behalf of the applicant, Scott Peterson. Um, so I think Nick Crawford presented the details of the project a couple weeks ago at the first hearing. Um, essentially we're just
looking to do a fiber roll array. It would be four rows high. Um, it's a pretty standard installation, so it' be covered with compatible sediment, uh, planted with native grasses. Um there's also a five foot wide buffer strip at the top of the bank that's proposed. Um
so since the first hearing uh we tried to incorporate some of the suggestions from the commissioners. Um one of them was to remove the phase 2 area that was on the south end of the bank. Um the applicant wasn't too serious about doing this work at this point in time. So
we've taken that off the plan. Um we also show a little bit more detail about how the ends of the array would be tied in with existing grade. um particularly behind the existing stone groin. Um we added some more species on the face of
the bank over top of the fiber roll array. Uh it used to be just beach grass, but we added some spike grass, some switch grass, and seaside golden rod. Um and the last thing I think we updated was uh Down Cape Engineering was able to locate the edge of the salt
marsh. So we show that on the site plan and the stabilization plan. Uh, and I think that addresses all the comments from the first hearing, but if there's anything I'm missing, feel free to remind me or if there's any follow-up questions, I'm happy to try to help answer those.
>> Thank you. Anybody have any questions? >> Yes, Jack. >> Remind me what's the purpose of continuing it onto the second southern uh property.
>> So, do you mean the the purpose of the fiber roll array in general? >> Yeah. Any treatment at all? >> Uh, yeah. So, I mean, really the applicant, they're just interested in preserving the existing location of the bank and the integrity of the bank. Um,
you know, same as some applicants are looking to install a patio or something. This is just something they want to do to maintain the current character of their property. um they're concerned about losing land because, you know, they've noticed erosion over the past decade or so. So, they're just trying to, you know, preserve their property
essentially. Um, and the way we see it, it's, you know, whether or not you install the array, it's it's still preserving the essential characteristics and the function of the bank. Um, so it's still able to buffer flood waters. It's still providing wildlife habitat. Um, it's still providing a sediment
source to the beach and the marsh. So, um, because it's preserving all those same characteristics, you know, under the act that are protected, we don't see any reason that it's an issue. >> Um, normally you'd just leave it alone, wouldn't you?
>> You could. Um, >> do you Is this a developable plot? >> Uh, I'm I'm not sure. I don't think it is. I mean, it's owned by the same person. Um, and obviously their property is on 10 Susan Road. This is on 20 Susan
Road. Um I don't know if it's developable or not. Um >> under I can answer that under well under your current wetland regulations it's not because it is all within the 50ft buffer and no new structures are allowed within the 50oot
grant variance. It would be a pretty big >> that needs to be imparted. >> I mean, essentially, um, you're right, it's not necessary to protect a structure, but they're just trying to preserve their their property as it's been since they acquired it. And, um, the way that the array is installed and
designed, it wouldn't be interfering with the way that the the bank functions, you know, it'd still be providing those same functions. >> Well, do you know how much uh the erosion rate has been over the years >> at this particular property. No, I I do
not know off the top of my head. Uh that's information I could get if you'd like it. >> And um >> pretty sure I asked for that last time, but anyway, >> try asking it. >> I did ask for that last time. Um but >> and what they say turned it down. No,
>> don't have it. >> Sorry, I wasn't at the last hearing, but I can get that information if you'd like it. um the uh buildable lots and I think Britney pretty well put a stop to that, but the buildable lots
definitions are being changed in town. So that's why I asked that question. >> Okay. My determination was solely based on the wetlands protection >> regulations. And I think that pretty much would uh override anything else. Don't you think
>> in theory? >> Yeah. >> Under our purview. That's all we need to know. >> Yeah. >> Anybody else? >> I forgot to ask about the retaining wall. Um the existing retaining wall
isn't um what are we doing there? >> Uh nothing's proposed with the existing retaining wall. This is all south of that. >> How many trees are you removing? Are you proposed to remove? >> So, there's 10 within the footprint of
the array that would have to come out. Uh, all of them are invasive. Uh, they're either black locust or tree of heaven. Um, and they're all within the footprint of what we would need. Essentially, we'd have to remove them in order to install the array. Um, but like
I said, they are invasive and you can tell from some of the pictures that the root systems on a lot of them are already exposed because of the erosion. So, you know, they don't have a lot of some of them don't have a lot of longevity in them. Um, and what we're proposing to do is replace them uh 3 to
one with native shrubs at the top of the bank. Um, we've also included two native oak trees. Um, so we think it's an improvement over the existing condition just because we're replacing the invasive trees. Um, we're trying to restore some of that canopy cover with
the native oaks. Um, and we're also creating a a native buffer strip at the top of the bank with those native shrubs that's not currently there because right now it just transitions straight from lawn to the bank. Um, so you know, adding some grasses and forbes and
shrubs up there will help intercept some of the runoff off of uh, you know, the lawn area up there. Um, intercept pollutants, create wildlife habitat that's not there. Um, so that's kind of our reveation strategy for the trees that are coming out.
>> David, >> yeah, go ahead. >> Yeah. um I was out there and and you know you kind of question well why is this being done and that type of thing but you know when I listen to some of the explanation of it seems to me that what you're proposing is very reasonable
uh given the fact that that's an eroding bank anyway it's maybe not as precarious in terms of the house and protecting the house right now maybe years to years from now will be but it seems to me what you're doing is is building something
that replaces this is what's there maybe building it better because you're going to be putting in some more native species and so on. So on on the face of for whatever it's worth I think I would be in favor of approving this plan
>> I would also be in favor of approving but maybe you could put a couple more trees than just two where you're taking so many out of oaks again. Yeah, I think that's reasonable and I think the applicant would also be supportive of that.
>> Jack, you have anything else? Well, normally I would, you know, most places you're trying to uh keep the same level of erosion along
whether it's like Salt River or whether you're talking about obviously the ocean front. I think that because this site is so out in the pond by itself that if erosion
certainly occurs, but it's getting so dispersed among a lot of sites that that I'd go along with letting you or voting for that you go ahead if that made any sense. >> Yeah, you actually made a lot of sense.
Totally understood where you're coming from. I I had asked at the last meeting um for an analysis of the uh erosion rates. Um I had noted on earth around 2018 there seemed to be a
significant uh erosion event but it had looked fairly stable. Again I don't know the history of this site so I'm going solely based on aerial imagery. Um, I had also suggested maybe looking at the stone
groin as a possible cause of that erosion. Um, I understand that the homeowners don't want to change or remove that stone groin. Um, but I I think there are some other options
that could have been uh looked at to address erosion at this site. However, I do think that um as my colleagues have mentioned, it it is a net benefit for the site um sheer number of invasives alone um will be a net
benefit. So um I don't have anything against the project. I just think there could have been some alternatives considered. Do >> we have a project narrative for this? I can you call that up or is it what is
the language on erosion control? Um because to Bradford's point, I don't I mean if we're evaluating this that it if the objective is erosion control, it it kind of opens up a can of worms. Um
does it say I don't know if I read this a long time ago? >> I guess they I mean the whole concept is erosion control. >> Yeah. But as I speed read, >> so I mean I guess what concerns me is that the way I see it is that you're
it's beautifification to control erosion control and I I can't approve a project for that reason. You know, you're beautifying to so if it explain to me what is what is the emphasis on erosion control here because we can't look at erosion
control without having some additional data. you know, it's it's a prevalent problem everywhere and we can't look at it in isolation and say, "Oh, well, we can fix it with beautifification and then apply that to another project
just because we approved it before." So, I just really need to know what the objective is there. >> Okay. Yeah. So, the intent with it isn't necessarily the appearance of the bank. Um I'm not sure if that's what you're getting at, but it's not about the
observed erosion and kind of the aesthetics of that. It's more about seeing um the loss of the bank or like the landward migration of it is more so what the concern was. >> But leaving it as is, you're afraid of erosion, more erosion,
>> right? And you think your proposal will lessen the rate of the rate? >> Yeah, because essentially the fiber roll array it's it's holding that where the bank profile is right now. That's what the fiber roll array would be holding in
place. Um and there's sacrificial nourishment on top of that. Um, but the fiber rolls are essentially kind of like a back stop to to prevent um basically to prevent the bank from shifting landward, if that makes sense.
>> Can I ask a question? >> Yeah, go ahead. >> So, the prevention of erosion of the bank shifting landward would make perfect sense if there was something to be protecting on the property. Um, which is why you would need to maintain such a steep slope. So, you have a onetoone. Can you talk a little bit to why a more
gentle stable slope wasn't considered for this property especially since it is undeveloped? >> Yeah, I mean essentially we're working with the constraints of the existing bank because right now meanh high water is so it's meanh high water is elevation 1.8 and it's pretty close to the top of
the bank. So if you made it a more gentle slope, you're either eating into the upland above the bank and it's, you know, like taking the top of the bank and cutting it back or you're you have to do the work uh below the mean high water line which we are trying to avoid obviously. >> Why would it be a problem to cut away at
the lawn? >> I mean I guess it would be a possibility. We were just trying to meet the existing uh top of bank just because the the applicant's concern was you know essentially losing land. Um there isn't a structure or anything back there, but you know, they wanted to keep um the
upland as it was. Uh so we were trying not to cut into the lawn. We were trying to meet the existing top of the bank. I mean, and yeah, if there's no real landward site constraints, I don't I don't see why we wouldn't go with a more stable slope
given they have more chance of success. Well, the other thing is that the nourishment itself is at a 2 to1 slope, so that's more gentle. I mean, the fiber rolls are a one to one, but that's, you know, the water isn't hitting the rolls in theory, at least not until there's a big storm event or something that would
eat away at the nourishment enough. I don't have anything else. If I would recommend if the commission chooses to approve our standard nourishment conditions um including a grain analysis and volume reporting for any nourishment to the rolls um and that they remain
covered with sand to the extent possible and for in this location since there's two locations where there's salt marsh directly adjacent to the to the rolls instead of annual monitoring I'd recommend by annual monitoring which is twice in one year not every two years. Um,
but yeah, I approve of the concept, but I think there it could be a less impactful and more stable approach if we just make that slope a little bit gentler. That's all. Thanks. >> I I for one have a hard time um deciding
tonight without seeing what Bradford asked for, which is the rate of erosion and seeing where you'd put extra trees. Um, that's and just that's me. So, and how
people feel. >> Agreed. >> Can I ask a follow-up question regarding that? Of course. >> So, if we get the information regarding the erosion rates, is there something specific you'd be looking to see in terms of
like what kind of um what are you trying to determine with that information? >> Me, it's determine the need of of doing this project if there's very little erosion rate. Okay. >> What about you, Bradford? >> Yeah, it would help us better understand
um how imperative this project is um to know if you're losing two feet a year or is it two inches a year because that's those are drastically different erosion rates. Um so
it it just helps us have a better understanding of the project and uh the goals. >> Okay. Let me let me ask. So if you leave it the way it is, okay, is and you you know the erosion rate and
let's say it's a foot a year, then it is a foot a year and the trees are going to fall into the water and the rest of it. So that's the way it goes. That's what happens. If you work on the bank and you place um fiber rolls or whatever in
place, they might would those fiber rolls and would the approach that is being suggested or maybe even the approach that Britney talks about in terms of if I'm understanding it a more gradual type of a bankment would that
um you just kind of slow the er erosion that's going on whatever that measurement might be. And would it also no would and also would the um substitution of native species as
opposed to these invasives make a difference in terms of again strengthening this area or slowing the erosion or creating a beneficial effect? >> Yeah. So, as far as the fiber roll array
design goes, kind of like what I was saying regarding uh Britney's comment earlier, if you lay the fiber rolls back at a more gentle slope, like a 2 to1 slope instead of a one to one slope, it's not really making much of a difference just because with the design the way it is, you still have the
nourishment that's at a 2 to1 slope in front of that. And we'd be maintaining the nourishment at that slope. So, if there was a big storm and that got washed away, we'd be replenishing it. So in theory, the fiber rolls are not going to be exposed. Um, so the slope of them doesn't matter so much. It's more about
preserving the form of the bank as it is. Um, but to your point, adding native grasses over the bank is an improvement um, over the current condition because right now the bank is almost entirely oriental bittersweet, which does not have an extensive root system. Um, we
originally proposed the American beach grass just because it does have a really strong root system. Um, that's what you always see growing in dunes. Um, it grows really well there and it also holds the sediment together really well. Um, we added a few other species. Um,
which is a good call. I mean, it adds diversity just in case, you know, certain things are growing at a different elevation and they're going to grow better there. So, it's good to have a little bit diversity um a little bit more diver diversity there. Um, so yeah. Uh, does that help answer your
question? >> It does. Yeah. Thank you. It just seems to me that it would be a worthwhile thing to do. And you know, I I didn't hear anybody besides you, Ellie, you did bring up this whole idea of beautifification. I don't think I heard that at all anywhere along the line. Um
but this is an effort to to um improve, stabilize, correct uh this this um this bank. and it sounds like it's a worthwhile thing to do instead of letting it go the way it is and then, you know, having problems
later on with trees falling down and all the rest of it. Maybe I'm um not as informed on this as I should be, but it just seems that that that it's it sounds like it's a it's going to be a quite an extensive effort and expensive effort, but people are willing to do this to
protect this particular area and we are of course always about protecting uh the the the coastal banks and so on and so forth and the land and the water and so on. So it seems reasonable to do this work to me.
Yeah, I appreciate your comments and I I want to kind of echo the fact that we tried to design this the best way possible. You know, we understand it's maybe not essential because there's not something behind it, but we did try to design it in a way that, you know, worked with the existing profile and made improvements over the existing
condition in terms of invasive species management. uh the species that we chose to re replace or reveate the area with um including the sacrificial nourishment um including the buffer strip at the top of the bank um you know so it was the
the design was intentional even if it's you know not maybe essential I I have to I just sorry I add to it I'm sorry I used beautifification but you know you're adding four roses five sweet ferns three beach plums that black oat,
bayberry, peach plum, blah blah blah blah that you're subject to eroding again. So that that was my my defense of the word beautifification. >> I need to defend it. I just had >> Yeah. No, I I appreciate your comment. And the the shrubs we intentionally put
them at the top of the bank um just because you know obviously on the bank they're a little bit more susceptible to erosion um and maybe not being as permanent. at the top of the bank. Um they're intercepting runoff. Um they're
creating habitat where there isn't any right now. Um so you know that was an intentional choice and we do think that it's a benefit um in terms of the bank stability and you know extending the naturalized areas on the property.
>> Um nothing else from you Britney? >> No. Go ahead. I hear >> essentially this is title, right? >> Uh yes. >> And but it's more of the force I would argue is probably coming down
uh from the up upper areas and you get uh more erosion from the northern the water coming down. >> I mean >> word tide. >> Yeah. I mean, it's likely a combination
of both. I mean, during severe storms, there's probably some tidal action that's part of it. And then, uh, like you suggest, there's probably some overland flow that's contributing to it as well. It's probably a combination of the two. I'm a little biased probably, but I would think that I would compare
that to maybe a stream where you're going to as on a curve you're really getting the undercutting that's happening is going to be the forces are going to be more to create a overhanging bank
and to or or you know eat in at the bottom not an even kind of flow. low as you would for the water going up. And I I'm just suggesting that maybe there's a
rationale there for why you would want to use these roles rather than than a slope. I don't see how you're going to come up with any kind of equation or
uh how much erosion has occurred or how at what rate. Do you uh do you have a feeling about that and being able to do that? >> Um I guess my question is if you know if we determine what the rate of erosion
is, is there some sort of and I don't know maybe this is just because I haven't done other fiberal jobs in Yarmouth before or at least I can't remember any. Is there a threshold for when you would consider something like a fiber roll array to be necessary based on erosion rates or is that kind of more
so just at your discretion? >> We don't have anything to find, but we've also never seen a fiber roll proposal on a non-developed property. >> I'm a little nervous about taking a vote. I have a feeling it might be a three to three vote and you would want
that. So I'm wondering if we should in my opinion continue with getting the rate of uh erosion and where the trees might be. I think you might find more success. >> Okay. Yeah, we can get that information.
Is that okay with I know we haven't voted on it, but I get the feeling just looking at at the six of us that it might be a three to three vote and uh that would kill the project. I don't I'm not ready to kill the project. I'm just
need more information. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um I need to see if there's anybody in the audience who have anything to say. Anybody online? Okay. So, can I hear a motion to continue till
>> April second? >> April second. I assume you get get the information by next meeting, right? >> Yeah. And could I just ask is there specific information regarding the erosion rates that you're looking for? Um is is that just just the rate? Um like inches per year or
>> Go ahead. But since I asked for it, I'm I'm particularly looking to see what that rate is. Um when I was reviewing the project, I got the feeling that there was maybe just a one-time event that um occurred and it's not
actively eroding. Um but without some science behind that, I don't know for sure. Um so I was looking for that just for confirmation that it is still kind of an actively eroding bank. um that there is some concern there.
>> Okay, understood. >> I can speak for myself. I don't have a a number. Um I'm not even sure whether it make a difference, but I think I you know in good conscience I couldn't vote on this without knowing knowing the
information. Well, would the Google Earth picture show you over the years show you where the bank is? No, >> it's really impossible to tell. >> What's that? >> It's too difficult to tell without geio referencing. You cannot with aerial imagery.
>> Okay, it's okay. >> You know, the thing is that is the bank is definitely eroding. I mean, you take a look at the thing and you can see that it's being decimated at some rate. You know, I don't know if this number, you know, makes a big difference. Maybe it
does for folks who um just, you know, know a lot more about what those numbers mean. But you take a look at it, you can see that it's it's being eroded. There's no question about that. And I don't think anybody's denying that, you know. Anyway, >> I I I don't I I'm torn as far as getting
the erosion rate, which which I'm I'm thinking you may find difficult to do. I I don't know. Yes, it's eroding. I don't need those. I don't need the numbers. I I I just have a different view of the project that you know nature
take its course it's eroding but I understand why you're asking for I definitely understand definitely understand why you're asking for it to justify but I I don't know um well we'll see I I don't know what what
you'll find >> yeah so to be to clarify the commission can continue um without consent of the applicant only if you need information that you cannot otherwise make a decision on. Um so you
can also request a continuance if you feel more comfortable providing that information or you can vote. >> Yeah, I'm ready to vote. >> You ready to vote? >> Oh yeah. >> Okay. So >> chance to request a continuance if she'd
like one. But other people >> I'm sorry. Are you requesting a continuence? >> No, she's giving the option to. She hasn't requested anything yet, but >> Okay. Um I just I guess we can be we can be ready about
>> Yeah. You want to make a motion, Paul? >> I mean, you have >> Yeah, I guess in this case, I'll I'd prefer to request a continuence and and keep it open. Um, and if I understand correctly, you're looking for erosion rates and then um inclusion of a couple more trees
within the buffer strip. >> Okay. So, now let's go back to a continuence to April 2nd. I hear a motion. >> Is that enough? >> April 2nd enough time. >> Uh, so that would be revised plans due a week from today. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah, I think that should be fine. Do I hear motion? >> Make a motion that this uh be continued to April 2nd. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor continuing. >> I. >> Anybody opposed? >> Okay.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Give me one minute to organize myself. All right. Um, next one is you're all right. >> I was say don't ask me which one. I don't know which one is next.
>> Next one is uh SE83212 Capen Islands Engineering for Harbor Haven Associate Associate Associates. Yes. 26 Grand View Drive. proposed drainage improvements, beach nourishment, planted burm on a coastal
beach, land subject to coastal storm flooding and riverfront area. Introduce yourself and let's go from there. >> Good evening again. Mark Dib with Capan Islands Engineering uh representing the
Applicant Harbor Haven Association. Uh this is a continued hearing. Uh we presented the project the um this is a essentially a recreational beach lot for the association. There's parking on the
west side along Grand View Drive as well as the Bass River is to the east. Um, I'm going to We did submit a uh a new a new plan, a landscape plan,
um, and a response to kind of comments from both the agent and the commission. Uh, I'm going to go through those plan revisions first. Um, so on the plan, um, we we relocated the, uh, rip wrap
splash pad. um behind the existing fence at the property. So basically off any sort of uh beach area um and directly adjacent to the uh parking lot. Um so we've removed
that from the resource area. Um we did provide a planting plan by ECR um who is a wetland scientist that does this type of uh mitigation and restoration and
planting plans for areas like this. Um we did revise um the overall plan view to a 10 scale so basically everything is twice as big um so that it could be more easily uh reviewed and seen. Um there
was some didn't go into detail in the response. There was a couple um general notes um throughout the the plan view that we revised per the conservation agent suggestions. Um we made a minor
revision to the um beach nourishment uh limit on the Bass River side. Um we're proposing to nourish only above the mean high water line. We did have our wetland scientist um go out to the site and flag
the limits of salt marsh on both the northeast and southeast um portion of the property. and added a uh 100 foot buffer zone um for those uh
salt marsh areas. I also provided a summary of um the storm water management standards. Um since this is a uh drainage project, um there's no new you know, we didn't add parking, we didn't create new
parking spaces or anything like that. um should be considered as a redevelopment project. Um and I provided some of these sections that um you know the project must comply with the requirements uh of the
operation the maintenance plan that we also supplied um and also must provide upgrades and improvements to the maximum extent feasible. um you know based on this parking area already existing um almost every uh square inch of it
underneath is already an existing subsurface drainage system. um these controls, the the asphalt Cape Cod BM that will provide a little additional storage on the site as well as a
controlled overflow. Um and the swale that would allow the water to if if it even happens um would allow the water to filter through a a vegetated swale. uh hopefully never even meeting getting to
the end of the the the swale that's proposed. Uh but we're instead of uh washing out the beach, I think you've seen some of those wash out pictures. Um I do believe it meets the um redevelopment section of the storm water
management standards. Um so as I mentioned, we did provide an operations and maintenance plan which the owner has reviewed. um which outlines the different um components at the property. Um provides an inspection
and maintenance log form. Um and with that, uh I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> Anybody have any questions? >> Just a comment, Britney. I did not receive a hard copy for this one.
>> Yes. I just, you know, we're finally able to get out there and actually see it because of the snow. And one of your neighbors, I think it's your neighbor to your south, um, has my note has drainage coming off
their land and there's a pipe and I assume some of that water must come into your There it is. there. So, I just wanted to mention that um whether you can work something out or something, but the one to the south.
>> Yeah, >> they must be an association member, right? >> Okay. So they're they're part of the hood >> comes from their spout straight down into the >> down spout and then it it makes it
across their lawn and washes out their own landscaping and then into the >> in theory. >> That's that's my only comment. Um anybody have any questions or comments? I'd like to point say that
this the diagrams are major improvement particular me about the by the parking lot and all that corner the way it works it's appreciate that >> yeah you have anything
>> I have I just sorry okay Jack having said that um the the pay parking area I'm I'm struggling a little bit to understand are there changes that that can happen there or what will they be?
>> There is not. There's an existing catch basin. See it says C basin on the south >> edge. Um there there is going to be an asphalt bur a Cape Cod Burm around it which will provide a few more inches of
storage. It does you know the system does work. Yeah, >> it drains down relatively quickly. Um I just think they've had a couple events in the past um where it could not handle those events and washed out the sand.
>> Um so by you know it so no there's no particular changes to the parking. >> Okay. So the the parking area will remain ashwalt and okay. Yeah I know there's trains out there. All right. Thanks.
Anybody else? I ask again, Britney. Anything? >> Thanks for making all the changes. Um, the only thing that remained of moderate concern for me, fabric is still remaining on the beach where we're going to have that vegetated swell, but it's
overall a great improvement to the site. The special conditions I'd recommend if we choose to approve would be um volume reporting and grain analysis for the nourishment on the beach. Um and by bianual monitoring just because those salt marshes are there the same as the
previous project and um the limit of work you have it just shown on the extreme edge of the property. Um we can do the limit of work in consultation. I don't know if it's necessary for just the nourishment portion of the project to have that in place. um it just might
be more disturbance to put it in than we really need. So, a limit of work in consultation with me at the pre-construction meeting. That's all. Thank you. >> Anybody in the audience? Anybody online?
So, can I hear a motion to uh approve with special conditions? >> I move that we approve this project. Thank you very much for the revisions. um approve this project with with the special conditions included. >> All in favor?
>> I opposed. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Have a nice night. Another Okay, next one is 20 uh SE832520,
Cape Cod Engineering for Bass River Property LLC, 222 Pleasant Street. proposed reconstruction and raising of an existing pier on coastal beach, land under the ocean, land containing shellfish, salt marsh, and land subject to coastal storm flooding.
This is I think I said a 222 also don't have a hard copy for this one. continued. >> Yeah, I don't know. >> That's why. >> That's why. Okay. >> Do you have one?
>> I think that's the same one. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Hi, I'm Bob Perry, Cape Cod Engineering. >> I'll share. have been working with the Lloyd family at 222 Pleasant Street on their dock. We were at the waterways
committee last week, so that process was completed. Um, they may have sent you some communication on it. Um, go into a little history. Um, most recently, uh, there was, I think, a
enforcement action here because, uh, the Lloyds made a request, um, of a local marine contractor to relocate their float so that it was more practical because it was installed incorrectly in the first place
about two or three feet from the platform so that their ramp was taking a real steep shot down. And when that float was relocated, I believe it was done without any kind of a permit or authorization from your group. And it
was stationed 11 ft off of the end of the platform. 11 ft. If you're familiar with Bass River docks, most every dock in Bass River has a 14, sometimes a 16 foot ramp, but a 14t ramp pretty much. And it's almost
without exception. The floats are about 11 ft off the dock. So that's what they did. And it was inconsistent with the waterways license that exists for this facility. And naturally 3 feet is 3 feet, but it's
encroaching on the channel by 3 feet. So we have the license. And in trying to find a location for this float, we referred to the license, which shows the separation from the platform
to be the same width as the platform, which is 8 ft. And that's still narrow, but it's functional. And so what's before you tonight is a reconstruction of this existing dock facility um with
the improvements that were discussed the last time this project was reviewed. I'm understanding the dock was built from somewhere in the late 40s. Actually has a twin dock over at 232 Pleasant Street. And this dock was
damaged severely in the hurricane Bob and it was rebuilt or re repaired then and that's when the waterways license was obtained for it. And so what's been the case is the Lloyds
have had an interest in in trying to rebuild this. And they boked at the elevation um over the marsh initially and I think the rules were a little different four or five years ago and um in rebuilding the dock.
The commission wanted the platform removed and the platform is licensed and there wasn't any interest in doing that since it hadn't been something that was uh extracted from any other project. So the rebuild straightforward rebuild was actually denied. We we just let that
happen. Well now the dock is back before you was another notice of intent. We are elevating above the salt marsh approximately six feet. used to be four, but there's a one one and a half to one ratio nowadays. And there's a dock to
the north you might be familiar with that is also very well elevated over the salt marsh deposit. So that in order for it to be more practical for this narrow distance between the platform and the float, we've bringing the deck down to
elevation five at the end. And my belief is that's a perfectly good arrangement. So the scope length of the dock is is consistent with the license because the license was predicated on an actual survey of the dock because it was
existing in the '90s. So that was one of the conditions of the waterways committee was that they wanted the they certainly were talking with us about the channel. I did not like the encroachment of the float placement and
so we're putting the float where it is licensed and um I had talked with um Britney early about maybe was Joe about the fact that when the notice of intent was filed whatever you know whatever problem there was with
that float would be resolved through this process and whatever restrictions were levied as a result of the enforcement would be lifted. That's not my business because I don't have any other projects at the property. But we are building something that by
elevation will be different. Uh but um it's effectively the same facility is what is there now and licensed. Um so nothing too um outrageous here. Uh it's just probably time for this facility
because if you've looked at it, it's got some rotted segments and um it just before it becomes wreckage in the river. It it should be rebuilt. So that uh most of this would occur, you know, from the waterway. When you get inshore, pilings
can be set effectively by um small apparatus for getting them pounded into place. And um we actually shortened it. It's a shortened landward on the landward side. We had extended it farther, but we've
gone back to basically what it is today. So, I'm happy to take your questions if you have any. >> Can I start? >> Stop. >> Sure. Um, you keep referring back to the 1991 chapter 91 waterways license. Um
but the configuration that it is currently in does not match that plan. >> When you say configuration, what are you saying about that? >> So in the chapter 91 license that was provided um the plan show that the width
was like 2 and 1/2 ft. >> Oh, when you go to the landward edge. when you go to the >> edge. Uh, well, down down by the on the landward end of that, I believe I believe that the license does show a narrow walkway, but that I don't know
why that is. It may have existed that way then. Um, but it's it's a 4 foot wide dock. It's pretty much a standard 4 foot wide. At >> some point, it's been rebuilt since 1991.
>> Well, I I think it's possible that that it was repaired or worked on in some fashion. I think two and a half feet is pretty narrow for a dock and you don't see too many of those in the Bass River. I know that the license also called out some
4x4 posts as well. >> And so that might have been a good reason why it broke up. And um so in in our work, we don't want to put anything back that's substandard.
But when you get out to the >> I'm just saying we're we're working with a new dock, not an existing 1991 dock. >> Well, in the in the navigable area, you have a dock that's very similar to what was on is on that license. But I agree with you. There's a narrow segment as
you go toward the the Lambert edge. I didn't differentiate because we're dealing with what's there today. And minor differences in a 91 license are typically forgivable when you're within 10 10% of the projection of a facility.
And if we had to get a new license because there was a width issue, we would we would file for that if if you had no problem with that. I don't see the um I just don't see the negative to having a safe facility. I think we're asking
for a railing on one side as a minimum. >> Is that covered by ADA? >> No. And in fact, docks and stairways on coastal banks hardly ever get building permits. So no, but actually the ramping of it would be consistent with a we usually
try to make ramps for human use to be consistent with that. So the one on 12 approximately 8% is consistent with that rule at ADA. >> You have another question. >> Anybody? >> Yeah. So, this is a 4 foot wide dock or
pier. >> This is a standard. We're we're building a standard 4ft wide pier. >> Okay. And I guess I'll find out if there's an issue in terms of lowering the end of that dock. >> No, there isn't because there's no salt marsh out there. And I would like a dock
to be a little higher, but with a ramp going down to a float over eight feet, dropping to five is okay. And it will take the steepness out of that ramp during low tides. Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> I forgot I had a question. I don't remember in the documents if you had a shellfish survey. >> We did. >> Yeah, I thought so. Thanks. Yeah. Okay. >> Not it's not this year, but it's very, you know, within a few years. >> If I remember correctly, one of the concerns
one time we were talking about it was was the platform. >> Yes. um prior to uh that was put in prior to us. So um that would be non-conforming to our
regulations. >> Non-conforming to our regulations now. Um that's where I'm having a little bit of trouble keeping the platform. Well, I I can understand the idea that if someone was proposing a dock today,
you wouldn't be getting a platform. D looks at that the same way. um a number uh the year before we were here visiting with you the first time I had the 232 um Pleasant Street dock where there was
a complete rebuild of the dock and expansion of the float and commenurate amount of area was taken off the platform but the platform was not removed so even though we always go along with the committee's decisions and
your preferences I was unable to um without the applicant here agree that evening to the six-foot height. Certainly I couldn't agree to removal of the platform because the year before under the same rules that had not been required.
So we we bring this back and we've given um elevation to it, but we believe that the platform has been there since 1946. It's in an area that's well elevated above the bottom substrate and there's just no
reason environmentally to to pull it, especially since it's something that the applicant does enjoy. >> So, there's a float at the end of this, right? >> There is. >> And it's um 200 square feet.
>> No, it's smaller. It's 8 by 16. and we're not proposing any change to it. >> Okay. And what else do I want to ask you? >> What's what materials are being used? >> Well, it would have to be consistent with your rules. Um, everyone wants
minimal rot and if you don't object to CCA pilings, it does um uh last longer. Uh there there's a construction lumber uh 3x8s for stringers that are also CCA,
but in Bass River there'd be no reason to overdo the treatment. So there's different grades of CCA. You can get 2.5 pounds per cubic foot and you can get one. And I don't see why the timber for this dock would need to be
treated harder, harsher, heavier than one pound per cubic foot. But if that's consistent with your rags, that's what would the preference would be. There's been green heart tried here and there. It can rot.
>> It can clear the rainforests. Um, and I have done some dilution studies for CCA in the Cadam area. And I I I know we're trying to minimize these things. Um, but I I don't I I think there may be a
trade-off that once that piling is is um spent some time there. It's not going to give off anything. >> Our current regs do allow CCA now. Um definitely preferred reused or the lower grade if possible. >> Right. And I've brought that forward for
you in one case. And um I encourage contractors to look for good quality repurposed or keep the concentration down. No reason for 2.5 up here. >> Anybody else? Pat,
>> I'm just talking about the platform. We have not allowed it with other projects of rebuilding um years. So just bringing that up. >> Well, you have >> regulations. >> You have um and I don't want to sell you
things that you've done because that's not what we like to do. But just to be consistent, um 150 South Street, >> it must have been a a variance then for it. No, it was an existing it's an existing condition that you're allowing
to remain. And I did look at your regulations and I thought it was an interesting topic. I tried to have a a chat with Britney, but we all run short of time. But I know that there's something in your regulations that speaks to applicable regulations.
And Britney might be able to add to this, but if a dock exists that was legal when it was permitted or if it predates permitting, um, which this one does
for the most part. Um, there was something in the 90s where it was damaged and there was some conservation review, but it was sometimes just a yeah, go fix it type thing. Um, but it is licensed. So, the owners were trying to do something legal.
Um, and if if you had a facility that was not properly permitted, uh, and you had it before you for a rebuild, I could see making it conform to current regulations. But that's
that's unique to take something that was conforming to regulations in effect at the time and then and then to to pair it down, especially if other recent cases haven't been required to do that.
No variances were issued for 232 nor 150 C Street. And and I sympathize because nobody wants platforms. E won't approve them anymore, but this is already approved.
>> Well, can Ry could you comment on that opinion regarding the uh >> I'll comment on an adjacent opinion. Um so the regulation I don't know about the applicable part that you're talking about but the one >> speak speaking from memory but go ahead and read it if you want.
>> 3.0122 122 existing peritted structures, including those that predate the relevant regulations, shall not be con reconstructed without the approval of the commission and compliance with the current regulations to the greatest extent practicable. Um, so that's what's
in there. Now, allowing the structure and its platform to remain maybe something different than reconstructing it. Um, but that is that's what's in there. Would you read that more slowly? I'm sorry.
>> So, existing permitted structures, including those whose construction predates the relevant regulations, shall not be reconstructed without the approval of the commission and compliance with the current regulations to the greatest extent practicable.
Although I would see its reconstruction at the higher elevation as an improvement over its existing condition. So, does that say to you that a permitted structure cannot be rebuilt unless it meets it? That does what? That is what that says
to me. Completely reconstructed. So, it can always be repaired. But if it's demolished or you choose to demolish it and reconstruct it, that's what that note says. >> So, what is raising? What is they're completely demolishing it and
reconstructing it? would be complete. >> Well, we you know we we can >> but it has been there since there's a lot of >> we can um when you say to to the degree practical I I know that that's one of those words we just love. So I mean we can take this thing piling by piling. I
just didn't want to um do half of it. I mean, the the there was a point in t time I thought the regulations had changed to um and I'd have to put that regulation in front of me and read it myself, but um
when did that regulation come in? U >> I don't know off the top of my head. >> Well, these are the new ones and >> usually says up the top when they were >> Yeah, but it doesn't it's not the um track changes. These are from 2023 four, but I don't know if the that part was
altered. >> New and reappears. >> Oh, sorry. 22. I'm going to scroll down to 22. >> Thank you for doing this. >> Approved about the approval of commission. Well, we know for a fact that you need an
order of conditions to rebuild a dock. So the first phrase approval of the commission goes without saying and compliance with the current regulations to the greatest extent practicable as determined by the commission. Unpermitted structures shall not be
reconstructed or extended without the approval. Well, okay. So this is those two sentences. I I would submit that it's reasonable that you you want to think carefully about treating a permitted or licensed structure the same as an
unpermitted structure. That if you're not reading that carefully, you could say that an unpermitted structure cannot be reconstruct without the approval of the commission, which is what it says for a permitted structure and compliance with the bylaw and
current regulations. So you have the leeway of allowing for the retention of the platform and I've tried to explain to you that it's a platform that's out in deep water. So it's not creating um a an
environmental problem is it's a source of enjoyment for the applicant and it's been there for more than half a century. We're not proposing to change it
and we get into the neighboring cases and all that and I don't want to do that but I think in fairness when we talk about practicality and practicability um it just strikes me that to take that
platform away and and we're weighing environmental reasons I I just don't see the value in doing that. Um, and that's what I would, you know, submit as a as as a case combined
with the fact that I also don't see any significant environmental degradation as a result of it. It's been there for so long and you can go there and look and you don't see any negatives except maybe it's shading the bottom a
little bit which can sometimes be thought of as a something. you know, fish get into the shade sometimes. So, I I I don't know where you've removed a platform from somebody before. >> Well, I don't know if we've removed it
from somebody before, but to me, item 22 on page 25 is very clear. Uh shall not be great constructed, improved, modified, or extended without the approval of the commission and compliance with the current regulations. Then it says to the greatest extent
practicable, which is very possible. And I know you you know you um you have a lot of information that you provide. Okay. But to me this is pretty clear and it doesn't seem that that plat that end
but why would you treat a unpermitted dock that might have been built illegally the same as a dock that was here since 1946 and somebody actually got a 91 license for it? >> Because it says so right here. >> The regulations. >> The regulations says it. Well, it it
gives you the leeway. I think the regulation gives you >> asking for a variance. >> Well, if I'm asking for a variance, then then I would I I'm actually asking for your consideration and your judgment. But if it's a variance, then we would
ask for that or we would have to search for an end run, which would be to take the dock in pieces. If that's >> Could you bring that up again? That is that a hard the language >> the language personally since I feel
like we should probably all provide comment but I I don't have a problem with the uh the platform as is. It is a nonconforming portion of the pier, but it has been in place for quite
a while and does not seem to be having an impact to the surrounding environment. That's just my opinion. Um, but I wanted to put that out there. >> But but the thing that I'm saying is that it's being presented as if the
commission has no choice to pro to um to >> and I I agree with you many ways, but the thing is is our decision to make and if this commission votes not to approve the reconstruction in the way he's suggesting that we have that ability to do unless I'm really misunderstanding
something. >> No, I'm just preventing my comments. >> You're raising a great point. Um I I have not presented this as as if you have no choice. I obviously from the applicant's point of view they would like you to approve what they propose.
But the discussion that we just had, the discussion that we are currently having is completely indepth with regard to my recognition that you can make any decision that you want, that it's your call. But I'm trying to
point out that if you were to treat this dock like an unpermitted dock, it just wouldn't be fair. And I know fairness doesn't appear in the well, right? >> Within within the regulations there, the last sentence specifies unpermitted
structures. So that's a continuation of the regulation dealing there specifically with the unpermitted structures. The first part of it talks about um structures that were permitted in the past but now fall seemingly within the current regulations. So
there's a division there. >> But it says you have the ability to call for reconstruction to the degree practicable as determined by the commission. That's the difference between the permitted structure and the unpermitted structure. >> I don't read it.
>> Yeah, it's I read it. >> It is up to you. >> But but I but you don't see that difference. We'll see. >> So anyway, I don't know. >> At the end of the day, it's still up to us to decide. >> I think maybe the commission should vote. I don't know. >> I'd like to. >> It isn't like you went above and beyond
and you ignored what was there. I mean, I think you made the best effort and I think the first part of that language gives you that leeway. The first part of that item 22. I think I'm agreeing with you on you have
>> Can you see that again? because we're into it and that's >> the first sentence the first part of 20 2022 is addressing a permitted dock that's getting reconstructed. You're basically saying there >> to the greatest >> you don't get cart blanch. You don't get
cart blanch. Committee can make a decision to the degree practicable. >> The greatest extent practicable. Those are that's an important phrase for you. >> Well, it it it relates to fairness, which isn't in the regulations, but it does have to do with your consideration for whether there's an environmental
impact that's negative. >> Greatest extent practical is not on the commission. It's on the applicant to comply with the current regulations to the greatest extent practicable. >> You're making that determination. The commission as determined by the
commission. All I'm trying to say is that I'm trying to find a difference between >> Yeah. >> You know this I I don't want to get into a big debate with you, but I don't want to I'm looking for a difference between the two cases.
>> Good point, Bob. I'm just going to um jump in and say the commission can always apply each regulation as they see fit. There's and they can always grant a variance if they'd like. And so I'm just going to comment on a couple of other teeny items in the event we make a vote. Um I would be requesting
one inch spacing instead of 3/4 inch spacing if you can accommodate that. Um if you could please show the steps the access steps on the plan view since they are shown in side view. >> Okay. Um, and the the last item is
there's some unpermitted plastic fencing on site that I would like for to be removed immediately. And I know they might be coming back for future work um for the house. The ingra steps leading to the platform are
severely eroding and there's a gully. Unfortunately, the photo didn't come out, so there's a gully erosion coming down. if they would consider replacing those railroad ties when they do the housework. >> That would be a good idea. They're just single timbers they can undermine from
below. >> Yes. And so in this, you always have the opportunity to request a continuance, but I'm asking that the board please take two votes on this project. One under the wetlands protection act only and one under the bylaw only since the
platform issue really is only under the bylaw. So this doc is fully compliant with all of the wet regul regulations in the wetlands protection act. Um so that's what I would be asking you to just take two separate votes. >> Okay. So the vote for the just to be
clear the vote for the WPA is uh is this doc is >> fully compliant >> fully compliant with the WPA and then our bylaw >> whether accepts the um
platform or not. That would be the second vote. >> That clear. >> Are you good for a vote or are you requesting? >> Oh, I can't take a vote. No, I could took a straw poll. I know that on the wetland protection side, uh, the wetland act side, I think you're probably okay
with that. But any kind of a denial or a failed vote on the bylaw side moves the project into never neverland as far as uh civil court. Um so what you're asking us to do is to craft a
notice of intent where we can very carefully rebuild this dock in segments. Now you might still not allow the platform if we were to do that. I have to go back to my side of the of the of
the fence and examine different ways that this might work piling by piling because I know the family they've got kids, grandkids, they love the dock. It's been there forever and
for the commission to take the platform away and it's you you haven't voted on that yet and I understand how you may feel because you're the conservation commission. You have your purview and your mission. Um but I don't see the
environmental reason to do it. >> Um but >> what I what you're suggesting is we take a straw poll. You don't want to see you >> right. I would I would like to know if commission can support the platform. >> Anybody in the commission have a problem with doing a straw poll or you
>> no problem or no? You wouldn't do it. >> What would you know? >> I have no problem with the straw. >> So Paul, which way would you vote? >> I would go along with this. Which way on on which item? >> By the on the bylaw. >> Bylaw. >> The the other half I think is >> a float.
>> Whether we're whether we're meeting the bylaw, whether this >> right whether you would accept it. There's a variance >> as it is. No, I vote no. >> Platform >> no. >> You'd vote no. >> Yeah. >> No. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> I vote yes, too. >> Well, then I appreciate you giving us the straw poll and I want to make it clear there's no objection to your recommendations. We'll we'll do anything to make this a better dock as long as it has the character and the use that it
had. Um given that and I thank you for the courtesy on that one then I don't have to continue um just >> what you can do >> good good faith approach to this do one vote >> do one vote if you're one
>> before I do any votes anybody audience besides falling asleep um have anything okay anybody online >> okay sobody >> do you see somebody Uh, no. >> No, neither do I. Um, so, um, I need a
motion to, um, with spe to accept with special conditions and changes. The changes are okay to go to to your for your approval. >> Yeah. >> For the administrative for the >> So, the motion is to issue an order of
conditions with special conditions pending a revised plan. >> Right. That's good. Okay. I'll I'll move that we approve with the special conditions and the revised plan. >> I'll second. >> All in favor the vote on whether forms
do both at once now. >> We'll do both at once now. >> Unless you prefer to do >> No, >> I know you want to go home. >> No, it's not that. No, believe me, it's not. >> No, I'm not saying anyway. All in favor of of the motion
>> I >> I >> I say four and two opposed. >> Yeah. >> I mean I'll I'll speak for myself. No. >> Well, thank you and I understand you know I'm going to certainly read all those regulations. Again
>> very much for your time on this. It's been a long beach jobs next >> should be by design. I did put them next. >> It's early, right? I hear the airplane going up. >> More worried about getting through.
>> Need our other guy here. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. We are now at SE832522 Cape Cod Engineering for RJ Resorts Resort Owner LLC one Southshore Drive
proposed beach management including raking and nourishment on a coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flooding. This is the first one of two. separate. >> Yes.
>> Ready to go. I'll try to Yeah, these are Let me just get started this way. I am uh for the record, Bob Perry, Cape Cut Engineering. And sitting to my right is Ryan Olaflin, one of the principles at the resort, Jeff Strereer behind me, and
Chris Dale of uh the um Blue Water and Red Jacket Resorts, which is a nice nice operation, and I'm trying to help them with their beaches. So, a little bit of history. uh you issued certificates of
compliance this evening for uh the former beach management and beach nourishment projects and those permits did expire and I think that the natural heritage and endangered species portion of that would have expired anyway. I I those were five-year terms and I just
don't know that they go on with the permit extension acts or anything. Now we're at red jacket here on the screen. Um Just want to say that the application addresses beach raking and beach
nourishment. Beaches that we're going to discuss are quite healthy with respect to sand replenishment. We put this in the application on contingency so that if
nature were to change course and the beaches were to get scoured away that a permit would be in place for these sites to be a disposal site for dredge material and or upland source sand. And I've spoken with Britney about the
practicality of having a plan that's prepared in 2025 or six, which is late 25, early 26. It might not look like the beach at the time that you need to add sediment. The beach might be different.
And so we had recommended that that the nourishment be included in the order of conditions. have tested the material, but that a you know some form of documentation beach profile would be called for if perhaps maybe even just an
observation at the time that beach nourishment might be needed a few years from now if the orders are extended. So the the beach nourishment is a kind of a contingency portion of the application. What we're getting into
are clever habitat issues and the beach management and beach raking. So the big component of this is the practice that the resorts have to clear certain, you know, exorbitant amounts of seaweed and
I rack material when it builds up to a point where it's not workable with the clientele. And there's a significant governor on this activity between April
1 and August 31, which is the fact that the natural heritage endangered species program closely monitors the activities here. And I think because it was an ownership change, compliance was spotty. Although
for the last three years, the Red Jacket has had a good uh track record of having these summary reports prepared for each summer with designated refuge areas for the birds and an ongoing contract for
immediate service with a bird monitor so that the beach activities like beach raking can be done with supervision. And the supervision is by someone who has
authority and familiarity with how to deal with um nesting pairs and all of the requirements for the plumber habitat regardless of whether you have any birds. So,
one of the main things that was requested was a beach management plan that would be memorialized in the file, mentioned in the order and and adhered to uh and so
with close counsel with uh Devon Harrington, who's the the representative that we're dealing with with NA NHSP She provided a lot of information that helped us prepare a fairly simple, straightforward beach management plan
that's not finished because we have not heard from NHSP about it. They have it, but they're still within their comment period for this project. We decided since it was pretty far along
and that it would be good to get this information to you um that we would explain what the project is tonight and then depending upon what comes back from Natural Heritage on April 2nd. You could
uh close and take a vote and that would be with the benefit of NHSP oversight. So that's where we are. And um on the beach management plan, my understanding is
that the refuge areas of the previous year are to be marked out in case there's some return to a particular geographical area by the hatchlings or their predecessors or ancestors. So, this is just a two-page outline, but it
doesn't just talk about beach raking. It talks about other beach activities that do go on here. And, um, I think the best way to put it is to recognize that with, you know, the
police action that's paid for by the resort, it's an Ottabon sanctioned um, qualified bird monitor that keeps the record which is the summary so that it's as well done as you're going
to expect. I think it's ironic to have the habitat in a resort area like this, but it's it it is it's mapped and it's been working. And we have three summary reports with refuge areas marked off on them uh which apparently indicate that
there's good clever activity here and it's been successfully managed at the Red Jacket. So, one thing to mention, there are dunes developing against the seaw wall. Um, we have spoken to the
resort and they can cord on that off with snow fence. No objection to doing that. We have dunes on that west side. Same thing to keep people out of there. And I've mentioned that to them and they're on board with that. So part of
this, you can't just say, well, there's a dune line because this place changes every six months. And uh, these are growing. they're they're developing and so um we have delineated on the plan and that's
approximately where the snow fence would go. It's you have these imperceptible rises in the sand level. So what what's difficult sometimes is to get a beachside boundary of a dune. Everyone's mostly interested in the landward side
boundary of a dune because everyone wants to build something near it. But the beach side is difficult to pick. You look for the beginning of the hill mound or ridge. And in this instance, it's actually beginning to vegetate. So you can spot that. So that's where the fence
is going. And that's just a general guideline so that come the spring season, those dune areas that are indicated on the plan will be marked off with fences. And there isn't much more to add at the
red jacket. I know that they've got some volleyball, they've got beach chairs, those are all going to be managed in accordance with the bird monitor's directives. That's it's all you can do. So if each nourishment was needed and
this was nourished, I think you find the gravel. It wasn't very good when it was done 20 years ago. It could have been better material. Uh but um it will be this time if it ever needs it. But like I said, um we did one
transect. Um I think photography and probably redoing that transect would be something that you would want if someone came to you during the life of the order and said, "Hey, we have to put some sand on the beach." That's all. It's a way to govern the
existing condition that exists at the time and then go forward. No fill or sand. Seawward of the high tide line. just simple upland beach. Now the and I thought these might get
discussed together. Um but if I don't know I should take questions on red jacket if you have any. Now >> I would think um do one at a time since we're going to have to vote one time. >> Yeah. >> I just we got two sheets. Which one is
it? They're not dated like different. >> Okay. Which title? say project narrative notice of intent. >> One's a page and a couple of lines >> and one's fit like five pages and I just didn't know.
>> Oh, well, let me take a look. >> Yeah, they both they both just didn't know which >> the project narrative. >> There's a beach management plan and a project narrative.
>> Just didn't know which one. They're they're different. They're obviously different. >> There's a lot of the same on the front page. >> We expanded. Um I think Britney asked for something more. We need management outline. >> Oh, so that's the good one. This was an
early one and I apologize for you not having >> Yeah, they're they're they're in the online files. >> It hadn't been passed by NHSP yet.
>> So, we have a project narrative. Just for clarity, we have a project narrative and then ti attached to that is the beach management. >> That's our initial beach management plan that we submitted with the notice of intent. And as expected,
once that got reviewed by Britney and begins to be reviewed by uh Devon Harrington, Ivonne sent me critique. So we've revised the beach management plan. you also have now and if it you know if
it needs to be redated I'll redate it. >> This is it. >> So is the beach management plan the beach management outline or does it include the project narrative? >> The one that's included with the narrative is an initial preliminary and
we've we've redone it according to Devon Harrington's guidelines. >> I know that may be confusing. The one that I have looks the same as >> our beach management plan that we're currently working with is dated March
12th. >> There's no dates on these. There's no dates on any of this. That's why I think part of our confusion, >> right? Well, you should have something that's the notice of intent. And there is a date on the notice of intent. >> Yes. >> So everything that's in that notice of intent.
>> See, the problem is they both say notice of attempt. the one that's a page and three lines and the one that's five pages. Sorry, I don't know why you have all those. Did we bring those over to you? I guess >> Joe puts the packets together. >> Hi.
>> Let me just clear it up. The narrative goes into performance standards having to do with what's going on. We did try an initial beach management outline >> that's now graduated to a second rendition and that's in my hand. We have
two separate ones though. One for Red Jacket Beach Resort and one for Blue Water. >> Three. Okay. So, we're still What are we talking about then? >> We're talking about the Red Jacket. >> We're on Red Jacket. Okay. All right. So, yeah, we have that. I guess the original jacket.
>> Ask a question, please. >> We don't have the revised one. Yeah. >> Um, we don't have one marked March 12. >> No, that's not everything that we receive is in hard copy. And so, this you received a digital version. and it was in the cover sheet referenced to be
that it was available online. If you'd prefer everything in a hard copy, we can do that moving forward. >> But yes, definitely the one dated March 12th, the only one that has a date. >> Okay. So, >> Mr. Chairman, >> yeah, >> ask a question.
>> Sure. >> Says in some notes are provided uh here that the beach management plan submitted uh is waiting for NHSP comment, >> right? >> We haven't received that comment. That's what >> So should we be hearing this plan prior
to receiving that comment? >> Yeah, I don't see why not. >> Don't see why not. >> Is that going to vote tonight? We just >> Okay. I just wanted to know because I don't want to put the cart before the horse. That's all. >> Well, it's a matter of we wanted you to be familiar. I think discussing this
preliminarily is is got some value so that you you get to see. >> Yeah. Thank you. That's that was our intent and I I asked Britney if it was a good idea >> or it could be done succinctly. >> So So I I would just say that the
narrative in the notice of intent addresses certain things having to do with the bylaw and and the wetland act. Each management plan is strictly NHSP and you can separate those two things and hopefully get a hold of
the March 12th management plan >> which is online. So we should be able to three different. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, the project narrative um has that been revised to what's in front of us?
>> Okay. >> Uh hold on a second. Um >> says project narrative. >> I don't think it has. No. Okay. >> Can I speak to that? Um, I had a hard time reading that and and without being nitpicky and going through the specific
lines. Here's my comments and you can make note of it does it doesn't define the work precisely. It doesn't state the exact location relative to the resource areas. There's no reference to city regulations. It should replace your vague claims with
measurable facts and eliminate the, you know, absolutes when you say no impact. There's no data to support that. The writing is just for example and I'm sorry I don't mean to be a likely manner to convey the intent to proceed with nourishment will be either photographic
depiction or beach transex to graphically show a future profile to reflect a future condition at such time that it develops. I mean that was sort of the language. It's all over the place. Who wrote this? >> Well, you would be looking at them and uh I could send >> I'm sorry. I'm really sorry.
>> I could I could send it to chat GPT and and maybe that would clean it up. I it it's all over the place. I'm so sorry. Are you an English person? You teach English? >> I William Faulner is my hero, so go for it. >> Well, I studied engineering and I tried
to take tech writing and uh you know I >> I I same here. But >> but here's here's where we are. We have a narrative. My effort, if you understand what I was you read a paragraph or a sentence, >> I read it all. Yeah. Yeah. We are um
>> it kind of says what you just said previously about the sta status of the project >> such time that beach nourishment might be deemed necessary. >> Exactly. >> Future transsect would be done. >> Yeah, >> that's >> so maybe
maybe >> I mean we could just add that as a note on the plan >> instead of having it in the narrative. Yeah. >> Um I would so a transsect with any survey equipment. I mean, how are you visualizing that profile >> surveyed? I I kind of thought that's the kind of thing that would show up in a in
an order of conditions that it would be written if you can take it off the plan. We can put it on the plan certainly that um like I said, >> are we approving all of the activities in the beach management plan under this? >> What part of the Yeah. So, it' be
contained in the approved materials would be the beach management plan. Um, and usually the narrative as well. But yes, I would how would if you wouldn't do a transct with I'd like to see like profile make a profile before nourishment.
>> Well, that's a transct. Profile is a transect. Yeah. >> And um that was what we talked about because the beach today is going to be different than the beach when sand would be needed. >> We would want to model the beach for you. I don't want to make these guys do any extra work, but taking, you know, 12
ground shots on a profile and updating is not a lot of work. And then photographs so that everyone sees what the conditions are. >> But I I can't approve stuff like this. Storm water management is addressed in the NOI in a manner commensurate with
the project. Although no no specific exemption from storm water standards is applicable, the nature of this work as a beach management project with the location on a coastal beach within the flood zone sends the activity into the category as a form of redevelopment, the closest applicable category and from there the standards relate to appropriate prosecution of the
maintenance activity, care of machinery, blah blah blah blah. I I do how much weight is on this narrative? I mean is this >> I mean also I don't I don't I don't personally find anything wrong with that. Um there's no well from a storm water p they're not doing any work on the storm.
>> That's a long way of saying it. I mean >> true but there's storm water is inapplicable. >> Not applicable would work. >> I appreciate the feedback. >> That's all I'm trying to I mean I cited William Faulner. There's a lot of that. It's like stream of consciousness. Exactly.
>> Well, no trouble there. I I'm I'm with you 100%. >> Just so def more definitive. I I don't want to do a total rewrite, but so you read this and I'm I read I read it and I said, "Okay, so what are we doing? What are we doing here?" Um I'm not sure how
to in my per just let me explain if I might. My opening paragraphs that narrative, you'll read everything we're doing and then we broke it into pieces and each segment of the narrative discusses a segment of the project. Yeah. Yeah, >> but we're happy to work with you on it.
No, any way we can to make it make sense. Um, first there's a history and then it tells you it's mapped by NHSP. Then we told you we attached a civ report and um you know that actually I I don't
know what narrative you have. I have a >> I hope I read the right one. >> I have a just see here. Oh, that's >> that's just an old document. >> Three of them. I will, if you need any changes on that, just let me know. I'd like to help you understand the project.
>> Yeah, just more definitive. Put your name on it. >> I signed the notice of >> everyone else enjoy reading it. I don't know. >> I'm a little confused on what we're supposed to be asking questions on. If we're waiting for Natural Heritage comments on the beach management plan
and there's no activities being proposed, >> what are we talking about? >> I they're just looking for Yeah. >> questions about your activities, but I also feel that Natural Heritage would ask them. So, is it appropriate for me
to ask them now or just wait for your natural heritage? >> I would suggest you ask them now. that they can have time to make those revisions maybe in time for natural heritage to also respond. >> So then on
I have to go with the one that's in front of me. Um the one that's number eight on the beach management outline, you talk about vehicle access. I believe there uh yeah, right there. Vehicle use and
parking shall be restricted within a 100 meters of unfledged chicks. Um, it's my understanding that there is no OSV driving on this beach, >> just the tractor that runs the beach rake. >> Is that what you're referring to when you say vehicle use and parking?
>> Well, it it is, but um, you know, I I I can't speak to any incidental rare very rare vehicle use that might occur here. these guys would know more. But we're addressing vehicle use generically because it takes care of the beach
raking vehicle. >> So I and I'm asking that I think you should outline what vehicles those may be. If it's a tractor, if it's a K Cabota, that's fine. My second question with that is
no vehicle use under the guidelines within a 100 yards of unfledged chicks. Your beaches only >> I think it's flexible. I think those are guidelines and the bird monitor >> without a COI without a COI certificate of inclusion.
>> Right. Well, this this this is where 100 meters puts you off the beach. >> That's what I'm getting at. Yeah. >> How does that work? that must work through Ottabon and NHSP and some day-to-day management that I am not privy to any decision
>> beyond the beach beach raking. So you need to get all your chairs out there but there's unfledged chicks is mass coming out and surveying. >> Correct. So yeah, anytime we do beach access >> that in the beach management plan.
I I'm it there's so much information that you could put in that has not been included in this plan >> precisely and it is you you get to a point where and I'm not going to in any
way belittle the process but minutia of what people do on this beach during the summer season. It's it's mostly just people and beach activities with occasional beach raking which is the primary item that we
brought before you. Knowing that a beach management plan was also an expectation that is in the process of being worked through with your input if if necessary and the
expert information that's available from NHSP. I'm using guidance to provide a beach management plan, a bit of a liaison. Uh uh so I'm here u doing the best I can
to present where we are and you either call off if you have nesting pairs and I I I believe there have been >> um these three reports indicate that um
beach activities have still occurred and I don't know the history of any you used an acronym or an abbreviation for what was it the certificate of inclusion into the state's habitat conservation plan for piping clovers.
>> Okay. So, a certificate of inclusion means an activity that can be included. What does that mean? >> It it's a whole separate uh forgetting the term because I'm not an NHSP uh analyst, but um
it it allows you to u make For example, let me give you an example. Someone walks ahead of a vehicle on a barrier beach with by special agreement that in order that the >> you can have variances to the guidelines
if you filed this whole other permit uh conservation management plan. That's the term I was thinking of. Um you're not requesting that in this case. And so I'm it was unclear that the
vehicle you're referring to is simply the beach rake. So I have to assume that vehicles and parking means that there's vehicles going out on the beach and that does not lie under the guidelines. So
>> right, there's no vehicle use on this beach per se. If you think of someone driving out on the beach like you do in Corpus Christi, you know, nothing like that's going on. But um we were just treating it generically. The tractor is a vehicle. Uh it wouldn't apply to
emergency vehicles. In the Blue Water case, your committee wanted a some measure of safety applied toward a portable stage. If there was a storm warning, a watch of some sort and the
stage would have to be removed. That's a vehicle. >> Yeah. But we're specifically talking about red jacket because we'll get >> right. So it's a it's a tractor pulled beach. Is that >> So we just we'll reward it. We'll put tractor on there because that's really the only vehicle that we put out there. >> Only vehicle then just write tractor.
>> Sure. >> Yeah. I'm surprised it's not in here but um I thought it was but that's okay. We're going to get it for you. Um and >> we need to just simplify what you're writing, you know, um to be
more specific. So we it can't be um somebody else can't come through and say, "Oh, vehicle." Okay. Well, then we can put uh you know, some other vehicle because that's not what you're saying. You're saying tractor only? >> Like how do you get the chairs out there? Do people physically carry them?
>> Yeah, we actually physically carry them. >> Okay. But you know, some people might say, "Oh, now we can use a small tractor to take the chairs out." And that's not what we what we want to approve >> unless motorized transport is required. Yeah. So, just clean this up, add as
much detail as possibly, you know, humanly possible. I'd also like to see, um, you only have the guidelines for what you're doing between April 1st and August 31st. Obviously, you might want to rake in March or in October. Um, so add what you're going to do then as well. Um, what the guidelines would be,
if they'd be any different, and we'll take it from there. Anything else for anybody in my side here? >> Um, one of the issues that I see is that there's not the kind of narrative
history possible here. Is I we getting into from a situation where there wasn't the kind of oversight on the ground so you could say the fence were here this year and they were now been moved over there ways to getting
in. we're more often dealing with more complex situations in this. So, it's sort of hard to write about it. And I I see that uh looking at it, you know, as a total plan and just saying here's where these
things and here's how they've changed. And maybe uh it's a lot simpler than I'm even saying it because I think a lot of things haven't happened. How many clovers have been there over the years? How many sites have there been fenced
off because there were clovers? Uh that's just my impression of what how I see these things. >> Three summary reports uh 203, four and five after the place changed hands into this
group which documents it and that gives a history after enough years. So that's in process. >> If I could speak, Ryan Offen with the Red Jack Resorts. actually been with the resort collection for 15 seasons, even under Davenport. Um, prior to the three years, Mass Ottabbon would come out. We
just didn't have any nesting. So, three seasons ago is when they first found the first nest, and that's how we reacted to it. and uh working with conservation, we've worked with, you know, how we work the chairs out to the beach, how we've maintained the beach within those parameters, and we've actually brought
them into the whole um Jamie and Finey with Mass Autobon is actually a nature walk. So, we actually um educate our guests of why those areas are fenced off. So, it's just not signage, it's not just ropes. We work with them in educating our resort guests to
understand what we're trying to accomplish. So the three seasons at Red Jacket Beach, we've had to work with Mass Ottabbon because of nesting, Blue Water Riviera has not had any nesting other than last season. So that's why we only have the one year for Blue Water. I know we haven't reached that one yet,
but we do work with Mass Autobon. Um being with Davenport for the prior years, we've done I've managed the beaches the same and have a I hope I have a good relationship with Britney, but um it's educating me on this. Three years ago, I sat in front of you to
extend the Green Harbor one and I thought that these were also in coordinates, but they were under >> Yeah. NHSP. >> Yeah. And and I that was an educational part on my uh my end. But um all we're trying to do is work with the town. We have some beautiful beaches. We got some
great resort guests and we want mass autobomb. We we actually like the pipe and clovers because it brings a whole different activity to um the resort experience. So, we're just trying to file everything and uh we'll work on our verbiage. It's really just um a tractor that we want to get out there to
maintain the beach just like we do on our neighboring public beaches on keeping up on that rack line during heavy storms. >> To that point, uh that was going to be my next comment was uh we recently six months ago um approved the beach
management plans for those town beaches. Um so those would be great examples to uh model your own after. >> We did that. I've read yours. Um, let me just read you what our management plan says about raking. The mechanical beach
rake vehicle parentheses small tractor use shall be minimized as governed by the resort staff in concert with the resort bird monitor. I don't know what else we can say about beach management practice that would make it any clearer,
but we're going to work on it. >> Well, that's a clear sentence. >> That was the point that's here. you were saying you didn't read it. So, so the the noted noted difference between a public beach I thought was not worth noting even though it may not make a difference is that here's a resort with
a professional staff, a lot of people that are making sure that this beach does not have trash, food waste, and a lot of things that would be left behind and otherwise ungoverned at a public beach. And yet the beach management plan
can be quite similar. The management plan that appeared in the notice um was taken from your municipal beach management plan except for you know parking and and all the things that would relate to that. And there are
storm water management things. The storm water management outline is completely unnecessary for a beach job but it's commercial. D has a requirement that if you're filing a notice of intent for commercial
do the storm water management outline. So you're reading that really not good reading unless you want to go to sleep. But at any rate um we have something very similar for blue water. Um and we can talk about that if you like. But you
want to stay on red jacket for a little bit. So no I think we need to move ahead. I think you're getting a >> How about Ditto? But >> yeah, I mean just tell us if there are any differences between the two or three properties.
>> There's less going on at the other >> two sites, two plans, one beach management plan because they're contiguous. Um I think the stage gets moved with the tractor. tractor. >> Yeah. >> No vehicle
>> and fewer and the history of the nesting is fewer times. >> Yeah. And um we've only had the nesting last year for Blue Water Rivier. >> Okay. You say Blue Water Rivier. That's two >> 327 and 291.
>> I thought so. They one place called Blue Water. Okay. Got it. Should know that. I go by it enough. But okay. So, I think we've given you instructions and simplify your verbiage.
>> I don't think you're getting any you're not going to get a rewritten narrative from me unless you want it. And if you do want it for the record, just let me know. >> Yeah. And we can't do anything pending um hearing from NHSP. So, >> I think the beach management outline is
really what governs here. You know, that's that's >> that was all of it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> April 2nd. >> Do we need to vote on >> to continue? >> I'm sorry. What? >> To continue. >> Yeah. Okay. So, can I hear a um
>> motion to continue April 2nd? Be back. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Great. So, see you. April 2nd. My plane cuts in. just read the next one in quickly and say the same unless you want to discuss
anything. >> Um, >> you could just table it. >> Yeah, I just need to >> applicants permission. >> Find my sheet. Here it is. SE832523 Cape Cod Engineering for RJ Resorts
Bluewater Resort Owner 291 301 and 327 Southshore Drive. proposed beach management including raking and nourishment on a coastal beach land subject to coastal storm flooding. We're just going to table that until the next
meeting. >> Thank you. It's nice to meet you. >> Appreciate your time. >> All right. All right. So our next one is SE832527 shorefront consulting for friends of Knob Hill Shores Diner Pond entrance
channel Bass River proposed channel dredging and land under the ocean and land containing shellfish and and good evening Okay. Hoping this is simple. Um, >> we are too. >> Do my best. Um,
>> let me move the move the microphone closer to you. >> Okay. I heard it. Sorry, there's something wrong with >> something wrong with that microphone. Bit of switch. >> Okay. Any better? >> Um, okay. So,
little bit of history. Um, obviously this the inlet and the pond's been there for, you know, eons. the neighbors decided to get together. Um, it's been shing up mostly on the west side to the left of where the channel shown
in the in the aerial there. Um, I had a 19T boat and I went in there at low tide and I got stuck. So, it's less six to nine inches deep in some some tides more on the west side. So, they came to me and they said, "Well, can we open this
up a little bit because They were mostly concerned about water quality for the pond. So, we looked I looked into it. We had the survey done. It's pretty flat out there. And we're only dred we're dredging really less than a foot, but
it's a wide a large area. So, the the volume get that gets increased is is sufficient enough to move more water in and out. I expect that the increase in flow will increase the high tide. But similarly to the effects of the opening,
the bridge opening for Kelly's Bay, it won't low, it won't lower the low tide. More water will come in and out and it will increase pressure. In addition to that, it provides a channel that can be used more often. Right now that they really can't get out
of there with a normal boat, 19 foot, let's say, is normal. Um, at low tide, it's very, very difficult. So, I looked into the volumes. I like to keep it under 99 cubic yards just because 100 100 over 100 yards triggers
a water quality certificate. Actually, probably not a big deal for something like this because it's all sand. Um, you can walk out there. It's nice and firm. When I got my boat stuck, I would I didn't sink. I just pushed it out of the way. Um, we did a shelfish
survey. It's a abundant area. We did meet with waterways uh last week. I do not have a copy of whatever they sent, but um what was discussed was what what do we do with the shellfish? And
depending on who does it, Yarmouth certified person does it. It's a commercial area. They can fish it out and sell it or if we choose to relocate uh the smaller species, they can be broadcast off to the side and and relocated.
In general, for all the projects I've done with this board, they've all been 99 yards or 100 yards or less. We have simply broadcast all the shellfish off to the sides. We can cross that bridge when we get to it. Um, what waterways was saying was if it was going to be
commercially fished and the and those shellfish were sold, the big ones, that would have to be done by somebody licensed in Yarmouth, not the gentleman that did my survey. However, if we're going to trans just transfer all the shellfish off to the side, my guy could
do that. So, again, one of the conditions will be to consult with the National Natural Resources Department at the time of dredging to determine um which they want to do with the shellfish. Either way, they would be removed from
the footprint prior to dredging. Uh dredging will be mechanically uh by mechanical means probably a pretty small excavator actually because it's so shallow you can't get a big barge in there. And I've done a number of these small jobs in shallow water. So the way
that they do it is they bring in a they bring in one barge with about six oneyard boxes on it. And if you've seen those bags from Home Depot that you use for for debris and they've got straps. They put those in the box, fill each one
with a yard of sand or a yard of dredge material, and then they transport barge and all over to what we're hoping is the west side of the pond where a crane will lift it off of the barge and put it onto a truck. And the neighbor that owns the
cranberry bog just to the west of Donna's Pond is has offered to receive the material for beneficial use for his cranberry box. So it won't be used for beach nourishment but will it has a beneficial use. Um a project like this has public
benefits. Uh obviously just the ease of boat traffic. Um the dredging for this particular channel is not on any radar for Dennis or Yarmath or anybody. So the applicants formed an association decided to take it upon themselves and uh as I
said the main focus is to increase flushing. They're worried about the water quality in Dinus Pond. Um I think they test it themselves and it's reported back. But um either way, they're concerned about water quality. So certainly I don't see any any
environmental deficits to a project like this. It's it's all good. We increase flushing. We allow better boating without um boats and props hitting the bottom. And um everybody's going to chip in to to pay for it.
I think in the narrative I said that an al well we have several alternatives to where to dispose of the material. I want the number one focus to be at the west end of the pond. So there's a private way that's owned by the association. Um
I sent a picture in of it and they should be able to park a crane there the decent size crane. The barge can come in. It'll only have to they can only do this barge at higher tides anyway because the channel is shallow. So at a
higher tide, it would come in as far as it could and then the crane will just pick those bags off of the barge, place them right into a truck, off they go. So it should be very nice, clean and neat operation. A short commute to that area. So the project shouldn't take more than
a week. And uh let's see mechanical Um the barge of course has to come up Bass River from likely um uh the boat ramp south of um
>> I can't land bridge. Yeah, the park. >> Yeah, forget what that one's called. >> Say again. Wilbur Park. Yeah, >> yeah. >> Yeah, I know. I just Yeah. Can't think of it all. Um DMF wrote back I think fairly standard conditions. Um there
would be a time of year restriction January 15th to did they say this one? Uh June 30th and then we should co coordinate with the shelfers constable which we will that'll be a condition of the of the
permit um restricted two hours before and after high tide. Yes, that nature will govern that whether you put it in writing or not. and uh everything the placement of D materials is not yet determined. Um well, we know
where it's going to end up. We just we're 99% sure we're going to use this. The other alternative would be to offload it at um in Fallen's Pond or I could ask there's a private marina close by and he might let us offload it at his
bulkhead. So those are alternates, but my primary focus would be to use a crane right in the same pond that we're dredging. >> With that, I'm happy to answer questions. A >> quick question just to make sure I understood. Time limit meaning they can't >> they can't
>> they can't do it between January 15th and June 30th. >> That is correct. >> You can do it during the summer months. >> Yeah, I guess they could. Um it's it's it'd be their detriment. >> You said it's going to take a week. So >> the goal the goal is to push push the rest of the permits through and do it
this before this January. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> It is I've gotten a chapter 91 license with dredging in four months if I get the right person. >> All right. That was my only question. Anybody else have a question?
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. Um did the Army uh the Army Corps are they going to look at it? the Army Corp of Engineer. They are okay. So because the only concern from like a lay person perspective engineering background is
>> are we overflushing it and and um you know is there there's going to be some kind of change in the title um no pun intended there there's a change in the title exchange if you will you know the velocity
and I understand how that would improve the water quality and the stagnation but I'm just afraid of you know all any sort of intended unintended consequences. So I I don't mean who determines that without having the data or do you have that
data? Do do you understand my concern on the overflushing? >> I think obviously you're opening it up. Um >> I don't know that you can overflush because the influx and and exit of nutrients is is good for everything. You want to get >> let all those nutrients in. Yeah.
>> And it it helps curb algae blooms and things. And you want to get you want to flush the bad stuff out, too. >> I I don't I can't even think of a way to overdo it. I mean, there's a huge project going on at the head of Bass River eventually that's going to >> huge.
>> Yeah. >> But, um, I don't know that you're going to overdo it. Um, and maybe if this might help. I don't know if there's any degradation in the in the water quality from uh Kelly's Bay, but remember when they opened up the railroad bridge that
as I spoke I think sometime before, but the tide went up 4/10 of a foot, but it did not go down >> because more water could come in and out, but but more water couldn't leave because they didn't make it any deeper. >> So, you're not worried about any consequence. >> Yeah. I mean, all all that flushing is
good for every >> experience. Yeah. And this is not we're not digging a four foot wide a four foot deep channel. We're really just skimming less than a foot. >> Yeah. That isn't much yardage that mentioned. Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, they can under the permit they can go back the dredging permit
will be written where in any the dredging permit is good for five years and at any time during that they can go back and do maintenance dredging as long as any one event does not exceed the original permitted amount. So, and you're allowed a one foot overdredge
also, but you have to stay within 99 yards. >> You have to measure those trucks. >> So, they can Well, that actually makes it really easy because they're going to lift it out and it just count bags and and remember, so the dredging company's only getting paid to do 99 yards. So,
it's not their benefit to do more than that either. So, it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. >> Tell you've done this before >> many times. Yeah. >> How do they mark? Sorry, Bradford's gonna ask a question. Sorry. >> How often do you intend to dredge?
>> It's never been dredged >> that I know of. So once and done. >> I would honestly I'd expect once and maybe once more within the five years and then by the time it fills in again, you know, none of us will be here.
>> Maybe you will, but not me. >> It's a lot. >> Careful. There are a number of people I'm going to tend to be here. Paul, did you have a question? >> I do. You know, it says um shellfish relication shall be accomplished before the start of any dredging. Whether they
just go in and dig up cohogs or something, how do they do that? >> Yeah, they basically, like I said, if it's a commercial area, so if they chose to fish it out, commercial guy would go in there and and break it all out and sell them. If he found little ones, he'd have to broadcast off to the side.
>> And this is like a a narrow um um piece of bottom like >> it's only 25 feet wide. >> 25 feet wide. And as you say, 99 what? Yards of material taken out. >> Yes, we're we'reing about that much.
>> Most of it on the west end. >> And you just mentioned I think that you've done this before. Is private dredging like this common? >> Yeah. I know it's common, but yeah, it occurs in the bathroom. >> I don't know if I've ever
>> We did one in um >> Grand 80 Grand View just last year >> was permitted like three years ago, but yeah, 80 Grand View and um the other >> um and I've done a number on the Dennis side and a and a bunch a bunch a few in
Haritch as well. So, >> a little bit. >> Okay. They have to consult with natural resources with it too. Yes, that's for the for the shellfish. >> The town didn't want to do it, so the neighbors had to get together and do it. >> They're >> they're kind of redoing they're kind of redoing their procedures, but what was
what they said to me, if I paraphrase, was that normally one of their guys would be would have to do it because if a commercial area, they have to be certified to commercially shellfish in that area. So, they would designate somebody and they're in the process of gathering a list of eligible individuals
that would do it. So, if they choose to do that, then one of those guys has to do it. If they just said, "Okay, just go in there and grab them and throw them off to the side," which is done all the time, then my guy could do it. No big deal. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Anybody else? Yeah. >> Um, do you have any history that people know about how deep that has ever been? >> No, I I don't. even in recent years or >> No, I mean this this project's been two
years to get to this point and it hasn't changed that I know of. I really don't know. >> So you're saying this has been so they have large enough boats in this pond and the landowners
have boats that have not been able to get out >> at low tide. At high tide they certainly can. >> Okay. It is limited to low tide. Okay. And what about the um I've got the actual uh minutes from the
meeting of the shellfish. >> Oh, okay. >> And it's very confusing language in that. I don't know. But >> um what you said about shellfish being
sold and Mr. Condan said no. Do you have any idea what that means? >> Yeah. So that >> what he said? >> Yeah. >> No, we're good with shelfish. Um the DNR will handle their regulations. Um, we'll put in the order as a special condition
if it's approved that under the direction of the natural resources department, the shellfish will be removed from the footprint and the overdredge area and notice needs to be provided to them two weeks in advance before that. Um, and so whether or not the commercial shell fisherman does it
or someone else will be up to natural resources and obviously the applicant to decide, but if they need to commercial license natural resources, we'll be there because that's their regulation. Somebody >> Condan said there would be only be re by
re relocating >> none would go to market >> if that person who's relocating them does not have a commercial shell fisherman's permit in Y. Yeah. So if they had the person who did the shelfish survey do it, he couldn't sell them. >> Oh, okay. That might be what what he's
trying to say. So yes, if my guy does it, he can only relocate them. He cannot sell them. If a Yarmouth certified person does it, they have they could sell them in any instance. Anything smaller would be relocated to the sides.
I think that's what he's trying to say. >> Well, yeah. I guess the purpose would be to be sure that it gets added back into the population of the pond, not taken away. >> They will have the ability to sell them if it's under their commercial
shellfisher permit. would >> there are a number of commercial shelters. >> No, I understand this, but >> I'm just trying to see what how the minutes which are confusing.
>> Well, I would assume the area it's it's it's a commercially shellfished area and there's an abundance of shellfish there. So, whatever they're taking out seems to be going back quite happily. >> Okay, that helps. Thanks. >> Anybody else have a question?
Yeah, my only concern is the reuse of the sediment. And from my perspective, the beneficial reuse should really prioritize locations around the river to keep the sediment load at its current quantity and not be removing sediment from the river and bringing it somewhere else, keeping it in the river. Maybe you
can talk to the people at 26 Grand who want to nourish their beach to bring the sediment over over there. Um, so I think uh maybe you can consider beneficial reuse on nearshore. Not saying that's a requirement, but when you do your Army Corps permit, consider that. And if you
are not um familiar, the Army Corps has a new type of permit. So, look into that before you apply apply for it. >> Oh, great. When you say beneficial reuse, meaning you'd like to see it on a beach somewhere? >> It would. >> Oh, I see. >> Because what' you say?
>> I said I know a beach. >> Usually not. >> Yeah. Unfortunately, it can't go on like it has to be permitted that way. So that's why you'd have to include it in your army corps. >> Yeah. >> If you go that route. Um just saying that would be preferential. Not that it's a requirement. >> Our typical special conditions for
dredging would be as built survey post dredge um and quantity dredge reporting. Other than that the time of year restrictions, but consider that reuse. That's all. Thanks. >> Okay. Okay. Obviously there's nobody in
the audience. Uh anybody online? >> I don't know why you couldn't I don't see any hands raised. >> I'm sorry. What concern? >> No. >> Are we talking about approving this now? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Without the cors
>> the army corps permit requires the order of conditions and so yeah >> four. Yeah. >> Right. Same as the license. I have to supply them with an order of conditions as part of that application which is next tomorrow. >> Okay. So, do I hear a um motion
to grant uh with the uh order of conditions? >> Motion to issue an order of conditions. Yeah, >> I've got it right. Boy, >> I move that we issue with special conditions. >> Okay, >> I'll second that. >> All right. All in favor?
>> I post. >> Okay, here comes the last one down for the night. >> Thank you, everyone. >> Luck with the Army Corps. Hey, careful. >> These are usually, honestly, I know the a lot of
these projects seem like they were a big deal, but when you look at what they handle, this should be >> Yeah. >> And I've I've never had actually in years of doing all these smaller projects, I've never had an issue. >> I'm glad they look at it. I'm glad I'm
glad they look at it. >> Army Corps. >> Well, they haven't they haven't seen it yet. >> No, but I mean, I'm gladeneral. >> In general, projects. Yeah. >> Well, we'll see what they say. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. >> We need to move ahead because we all want to go home. Um, draft regulations
update. >> Anybody have any questions? I think we've all seen them. Do you want us to vote on them? >> Nothing changed from last time, right? This is just a second hearing. It was the second hearing after we added the variance um details that we added the first time, but it's been posted on the
website and posted in the newspaper and all that. It's been available to review by the public. >> Have you gotten comments? >> None. >> So, no comments. We have any issues with our >> with our and our writing is probably
clear. So, that's good. So, can I hear a motion to accept the new regulations? >> I'll move to accept them. >> I'll second. >> Second. Okay. All in favor? >> I >> When do they go in effect? >> Tomorrow. >> When do they go in effect?
>> Yeah. Effective date. Um, probably would be fair if we put it the effective date after the next deadline so that people who are working on their projects >> Yeah. So effective date, April
3rd should probably do an even number. So let's just do a month from now. April 19th. >> Sorry. Say what? >> Even number. >> You don't want to do it April 1, otherwise people won't take it seriously. I have the hearing that day. It's going to be fun.
>> What? >> Um, okay. And the last thing is minutes. Anybody read them and have any issues? >> Okay. >> Make a motion, Pat.
>> Make a motion to accept those minutes. >> Second that. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Um I assume there's no other business so late. Is there Britney? No. Anybody else? Business. Okay. Uh,
anybody want to make a motion to adjourn at 8:28? >> Some move. >> That was quick. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Thank you. >> All right. Nice to nice work. I'm sorry it's so long, but we got,
>> you know, it shows that we don't rush and that we work hard. So,