Recording in progress. >> Okay. Good evening. We're here for the Conservation Commission meeting of Thursday, May 21st, 2026. We are going to be both uh excuse me, on um Zoom and in person. Our first um
request for determination of applicability is on Zoom. Uh also it's pollen time as you know so I may be taking a sip every now and then. So uh this is just de Mars for Anglewood Beach Condo Association one shore road
proposed replacement of chain linking fence with split reel fence and coastal beach and land subject to coastal storm flooding. Attendance is on Zoom approved by me previously. So, if you'd like to introduce yourself
and tell us what your plans are. You're um you're muted. We hope that's you. No, >> we have one person on Zoom. In two minutes, we'll go to the next item.
>> So, unmute. >> So, Jess, if you're on Zoom waiting to come on in, you need to um mute unmute yourself. Can you mute? >> Can you hear me now? >> Yeah.
Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can hear you. >> Oh, good. This is Jessica. Sorry, I didn't realize you have to unmute. I have to unmute myself. Um, thank you. So, okay. I submitted a um request for determination of a flexibility due to a
dilapitated fence that needed replacing. And so, I um I've submitted I've done the um the abuters request. So, that has been sent out. and that individual has been contacted. Um, I provided all of that documentation um to you
electronically. I paid the two fees and um the very last post or picture that I had sent over is a picture of the fence that we would be replacing the guess it's the wire fence today um with this nice um New England Post type fence that
would be cemented into the beach. It's that one shore road in West German. Okay. Um, when you say it's uh split reel fence, is it wooden >> picture?
>> Um, yes. This one is going to be wooden, I believe. Uh, I don't know actually. It's a good question. I don't know if we've confirmed whether it'll be wooden or vinyl. >> Okay. Well, we will >> but it will be white and it will >> we would not allow a vinyl. That's why I'm asking. >> Okay. Then it will be wood.
>> Okay. Okay. >> Um, with the New England wood post cap. >> Okay. Um, the issue with the caps sometimes is they come off, so you need to find a way to make sure they stay on, especially with high winds. >> Sure.
>> That's a major go around and pick them up all the time. >> Um, okay. Um, anybody have any questions before I ask others? that >> it looks here that um no no uh concrete
footings. So I don't know how she's how she plans to uh secure it. >> Do you need the footings? >> Concrete footings. >> Yeah. Can you just drive the posts into the ground? I mean on the coastal beach the footings would create much more of a disturbance than I think is necessary to
put the fence in. >> Sure. I mean we'll have to talk to the contractor. Um I am not a contractor. I just know that um we had cement would make the most sense given the high winds there. Um but certainly we can address it in other ways. Maybe we dig deeper
perhaps. >> I mean there is a fence there today with cement footing. So it would be a replacement of what's currently there, >> right? But you when you replace something like that would come under new restrictions and that fence that you had
there was there for many many years. So, we need to replace it to what >> I know and but but we also are going to be spending money on this fence and want to make sure that it does not fly off or or and there's any liability towards it as well because on the other side of the fence is open public beach area and want
to make sure there are no issues. Mhm. Um there are other problems uh issues are there are two um large um concrete debris that need to be moved as you can see. I don't know if you
could see our picture but um anyway there's those need >> those need to be removed. And then uh we notice as we're walking around there's a um cut metal post in the sand that'll kill somebody's feet and that needs to
be cleaned up and removed. >> Yeah, we have not been there because we have been instructed not to do any continuous work. So the reason for me pushing to be in here tonight is so that we could get somebody out there to start doing that and making it a safe area.
>> Okay. So yeah, those things need to get taken care of. Yeah, absolutely. I agree with you. Absolutely. >> Um, anybody else? Yes. >> Um, yeah, I I I find this submitt um
sort of unacceptable. There's no there's no correlation to what the application is addressing, which is, you know, land subject to coastal flooding or coastal beach. You know, where's the where is this site? Then that's all I ask is that
there's some point of reference on where this property is unless I'm I mean I looked online. There's not any other >> well it's a beach property and I did provide the latitude and longitude and I also provided a picture of the property
and the fence. So I'm not sure I'm sure if you go on Google you can I mean that's where I get the pictures is on Google. So it's all there. Yep. I mean it's an existing beach area that's been there forever. I mean I I don't know. I guess I don't know. >> Well, we we just revised our our
application requirements for documents and this this doesn't, you know, meet the mark, but if if my colleagues think it's acceptable, we'll we'll work with it. >> Well, so I was just given this unless it was changed yesterday, that would be kind of unfair because I was handed this
from you all to complete and so then I walked through it with um Joe to also just confirm I have everything before submitted everything. And so I just it becomes a little bit of a shock to me given where we are. >> To be honest, I would also echo that I
didn't really know what I was looking at. Um I realized that it was a beach parcel, but I couldn't tell where the where the fence was going. So um but I understand it's, you know, going along the road and then going along the
property line. So I can put two and two together, but it's uh a lot of leg work on our part that um could have been easily resolved if you just provided a no massmapper uh print out.
>> Yeah, I don't I don't I don't know what that is, but um >> Google you could have >> I don't know like when I handed this stuff in, it would have been great to just receive an email that it's missing additional information. I would have been happy to provide it. Um, but at this point in Juncture, uh, we have a
beach that's actually unsafe for not only our residents, but those beachgoers that will be going to the beach in within a month. >> Anybody else? Paul? >> Yeah, I just have to agree. I mean, this is pretty sketchy. So, uh, typically,
um, don't we require kind of a plot plan and, uh, to be submitted with this kind of application? So, as everybody has said, we have a specific idea in terms of where the fence is going. Also, the fact that there's a note about and this has been covered the the post cemented
in. We don't even know if it's a what kind of fence it is really. It talks about wood, but then they talk about New England cap. So, it's very very sketchy and so um I'm not sure I would be comfortable voting to approve personally.
>> Yeah. So, this was a >> I guess I'm a little distraught as to where we are at this point. I'll be honest because I've gone through all of this. If if additional information were required prior to this meeting, I would assume you would ask me, right? >> I mean, I don't attend the I don't know and I don't
>> I just I guess I'm a little takenback is what I'm saying. >> Just hold on, please. We're trying to say >> um so this is an RDA submitted in response to an enforcement order and so they were trying to do it very quickly. Um Joe review Joe and I review for
completion not necessarily the you know quality of of the submission most of the time. Um it's not something that we can do in the time frame of the submitt period but they they provided the bare minimum. I know it's not up to the standard that you usually expect. Um but
it is in response to an enforcement order which had a deadline. So, they did scrape this together to get on the meeting date and additional information would definitely be helpful. Um, so I see where you're coming from, but I just wanted to clarify that that they did
submit a technically complete RDA application. So, they were scheduled for the meeting. >> I will say that um I don't know if Jack will agree with me, but going out to the um beach, it was pretty obvious where things were going, you know.
Um >> yeah, I I would agree that um it may not be good and we do expect people to have gone into the regulations and have some professional help in getting a plot plan and so forth like everybody's mentioned.
But I think that in this case um I would vote for accepting what it is. >> I mean there are some um obvious things we've just already talked about. We don't want the um we don't want the posts to be cemented. So that'll have to
be changed. We want make sure it's wooden fence and uh post caps need to be >> uh in such a way that they won't come out in some great wind as they would on some uh some aluminum or plastic or
whatever you call the other kind fiberglass. >> Yeah. um >> and obviously the debris cleaned up. And we also would not allow any um any machinery on the beach. So, they're going to have to not that they're going
to have to obviously hand dig the posts and no machinery on the beach. >> Anything else that you would add to that, >> Britney? >> No, I think with all of those conditions, um I would recommend a negative two and three for this fence >> and um and
You can't do any work till Britney would send you the paperwork. Am I right? >> Till the DOA is issued. Yeah. >> Right. >> Can we just put in the files a plot plan just for documentation? >> That's a good idea. >> Um
>> there's an image from our Jarmth GIS with the location identified. >> Okay. >> Um is there something else that you'd prefer? >> That that's fine. >> Okay. >> Also go ahead. Sorry. Also there needs to be I think there's no list of plants
mentioned planting. >> So the planting portion of the enforcement order was to be assessed and only required if it was deemed necessary and the beach grass is already regrowing in all the places that had been disturbed. So at this point I don't think that's necessary and I think by
the fall it'll be even more filled in. But we can always take a quick reassessment in the fall but I don't anticipate that beach grass planting will be necessary. Okay, just in order to meet the requirements of the um of the process here, do we
need to know what the fence looks like? >> I think as long as it's a post and rail fence. >> Okay. So, and what is the what is the date? This is a little bit of a rush job. I understand that and that's fine. But is there a date by which this has to be completed? No, the the filing of the
the request for determination. Sorry. >> Um complies with the enforcement order. >> I'm sorry. Say it again. >> The the decision that you make tonight would uh finish the enforcement order and resolve it. >> So, we don't have to worry. For example, we don't know who the contractor will be
or how they'll um they've been they've been hired to to construct the fence, etc. We don't need to know that. Just the permission to with the filing resolves the enforcement order. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Yeah, the cap should be wooden also.
Yes. >> Um, anything else? Anybody in the audience? And I think Oh, there is somebody else online. Anybody else on Zoom have any questions or comments? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to accept
with a negative with the um special conditions in the negative two and three. Negative two and three, by the way, is a good thing, not a bad thing. >> Okay, thank you. >> Always confuses people. >> We'll make that motion.
>> Okay, Jack made the motion. Um second for anybody. >> I'll second. >> Second. Okay. Um all in favor? >> I. >> Anybody opposed? >> Okay, you're all set. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate everyone. Have a great night.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Next classes. Continued notice of intent SC83-2526 Shorefront Consulting for Paul Shaveal. I hope I I know I didn't pronounce that right. Sorry. 49 Neptune Lane proposed
seaw wall reconstruction relocation of pier float expansion and riverfront area land under the ocean land containing shellfish and land subject to coastal storm footage and I think we've talked about this one already once right >> yes for the record Mark Burgess of
Shorefront consulting uh representing the shallop yes so we were directed to make some minor uh drafting revisions to the plan which we've done uh letter was submitted. The um vegetative buffer strip on the plan was increased to 10
feet. Um a note referring to the landscape plan was added. The beach act stairs beach access stairs to the north were moved were moved to the relocated landing as suggested. Um and all of the other existing landing and stairs will
be removed. Um and a brick path was shown in its new location. The resource area table was updated and note two was revised for the buffer strip width and uh Lynn Hamlin was gracious enough to put together a
planting plan. I believe those are the items that we had to address for you. So I'm happy to answer any questions. >> I'm reading this right. You've got rid of the stone area. >> Uh yeah, because the planting plan is plants and >> Okay. All right.
Anybody have any questions? I don't see any >> just go ahead so they don't ground that barge >> the barge. >> Oh yeah. >> Well, we were think they they want to do it as soon as possible so that if if
it's during um the summer it'll be from the land and they know that. >> Britney, you have anything to add? >> Nope. Thank you for making all those revisions. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you. And anybody in the audience?
Anybody online? Can I hear a motion to accept um proposal um with the revisions? >> So moved. >> Thank you. Second. Anybody? >> Second. >> Second. All in favor?
>> I. >> Anybody opposed? Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks very much. >> Okay. Next, >> uh, SE832531 BSC group for Steven Cats. >> I'm sorry, what?
>> Um, Mr. Steat 703 Route 28 proposed demolition of abandoned retail store and replacement with three residential buildings in land subject to coastal storm flood. Uh riverfront area and buffer zone to a coastal bank. They
asked for a continuence to 6426. Do I hear a motion? This is their second continuance by the way, right? >> Yes. >> This is their second request. Do I hear a motion, Pat? Second, Christian. All in favor?
>> I. >> Thank you. No post. Uh, so we're done with that one. We just approve that. So, I get rid of that. That goes You didn't put it in here. Good. All right. Moving along. Number four, SC832529,
Cape Cod Engineering for Dwey and Margaret Awad, 911 921, Great Island Row, proposed new reinventment for coastal study. co coastal sorry show coastal bank coastal beach and land subject to coastal sto and floodage
and uh yes thank you Mr. Chairman, I have some green cards to turn in. For the record, I am Bob Perry. Company is Cape Cut Engineering. We are working with Margaret and Dwey Awood at 911 uh
Great Island Road as well as 921 Great Island Road. Margaret Awad is in the audience tonight, taking keen interest in this project. A little background. Um it was 2008 um when the efforts to
stabilize the shoreline here began with um there was a nourishment project and then that u morphed into a fiber roll revetment that carried across 911 great island road and then carried over onto
921. There was a long-term management of that. The order of conditions ultimately expired. Um there were remnants of of the seaw wall of the the fiber roll seaw wall that was remaining some of it buried
some of it showing up from time to time and I believe it's finally been removed um about a year ago we proposed sediment nourishment here uh which has been a practice on this property since the
fiber roll reetment time of 2008 2009. So there is a pretty well-intentioned and dedicated uh effort to provide sediment nourishment. What we have is a segment of the coastline that's between two
groin bays. Those groins all surrounding and on the perimeter of Great Island are all licensed. They were licensed in 1976. I think it's license number 197. And it provides kind of a special case for this
coastline. It's not it's not an unperturbed um natural coastline. It is this segment is trapped between two groin bays which lends some value to arresting sand
nourishment. So just want to tell you what we've got. we have a uh increase in the integrity of a coastal erosion structure. First was the fiber rolls. Uh the Awads worked with that. It
disintegrated uh pretty quickly on the south end and um various storms broke it up because it was really inconsistent with uh the energy that that exists out here. We have southwest wind. We have the wakes
from the feries on calm days with a moon tide. You get breaking waves here because of the boat waves. Stan Humphre, coastal geologist, uh couldn't be here tonight. Um Caroline Smith Teada of the office of Gregor
McGregor is I believe on Zoom, but I don't know where your Zoom screen is. She may be there. and I believe she's on this call and I just want to just state for the record who's participating. Stan Humphre is a coastal geologist who
provided a report. This report examined the site, the erosion rates and our project. And he provided a summary um of impact that my reading of it is that it's supportive and it's supportive
because of the specific conditions that we're in between two large stone groin bays. We have pretty dramatic erosion that has occurred especially in the last five or six years. It's on the order of 3 to 5 feet per year. Large glacial
erratics that were once in the bank are now well out onto the beach and the owner applicant has very significant concerns for the stability of the property. And Stan's report concludes that with a modest
revetment feature with the groins that tend to um slow down the departure of sediment nourishment. uh we have a combination of efforts that would contribute toward a much higher
level of bank stability than what has been afforded by the fiber rolls or the most recent sandfill. That sandfill we thought it wouldn't last the a year but it did but it could disappear in in a
storm in a single storm. So to go back to the project, we have a stone revetment proposed. We've taken care to sight it as far into the bank as possible. We're tapering the
ends of this so that there's a very small cross-section at the boundary. Um, the owner who has put, I would venture to guess, upwards of several thousand cubic yards of sand here, has
established a track record of being willing to do that. There's a dedicated access route shown on the plan that's on the north end of the of the proposed revetment where sediment can be delivered. Now that location is where
the the beach is high because it is at the um kind of the enttrapment zone on that re on that groin. So we initially felt that we would carry the revetment over to the groin and then decided not to um
just to see how that area responds to nourishment. So the revetment has a very very small cross-section at the north. Then it develops a cap of um 11 I think. Then travels along the coastal bank, begins
to diminish in cross-section. As we get to the south, we drop down through 10 and we have a a cap of eight, which is just slightly above the beach elevation at that end. The nourishment would be targeted to both ends.
Um there's no beach vegetation that would be affected. Work effort would be consolidated inside of a work limit. Uh the the the general understanding is that there would be a narrow zone at the
top that would probably be required to be reveated, but there's a thicket of vegetation very close to the top of the bank. There wouldn't be any disturbance of that. So it would be that three or four foot zone right at the top where a
very dense array of beach grass would be planted. The application went through the performance standards for this project. We have a a pre78 building situation
that was rebuilt. We have a settlement uh source bank and we have a a desire and and I think it's important to consider an applicant's concern for the rate of erosion um to
take action now. It's not irreversible. Reetments like this can be adjusted. They can be overtopped by storms. They can like any coastal erosion protection measure. You can have a a superseding storm
elevation that could cause for more erosion and the need to rebuild this, but it would simply be another phase of the ongoing management of this segment of coastline. So I if you've read the order I should
say the notice of intent then you know that we went reasonably deep to discuss the performance standards as those relate to the wetland act for coastal beaches and coastal banks. We also went through the tenants of the Yarmouth
wetland bylaw and given the special conditions of this particular reach of shoreline, we didn't come up with any significant collisions between what the regulations would allow
and um this project. So, we put a chart together of alternatives and that is also part of the application. It just um it's something that I've done before where we look at
gabons and sandbags, fiber rolls, core lift doing nothing, a revetment of a higher uh cap or a revetment of a lower cap or a vertical wall or some
you know, equivalent um erosion measure or similar erosion measure. And then we just sort of discussed what those tactics um how they pan out. Some are more durable, some are less durable. Some are
unnecessary. Um a vertical wall would be too reflective. A taller revetment would be unnecessary. This applicant is willing to stay with a relatively low crested revetment with sand nourishment
uh to to manage the coast as she has been trying to. Um it it seems to me that it is a work area. um the interest of the applicant is to um continue to try to manage this, but if we're going to be out there every
year with machines um putting in new fiber rolls or new measures, um it it's been my observation that a carefully tailored stone revetment project is something that will
reduce the amount of work that would need to be done each year for 20 or years. The nourishment would be that steady annualized effort. Um I think as
an example um just to the north there's a groin bay um that I participated in a stone revetment project in 2001 2002. It hasn't had any nourishment. I don't
believe any was required at the time. Um things have changed now when you're going to uphold the sediment that your bank would donate. You are required throughout the Cape. It's been my experience to bring in a
commenurate amount of sediment and and that is a manageable task. That beach is still doing fine and the revetment um has been successful to uh hold the line on
the upland erosion and I haven't noted any collateral downdrift effects and it's been 25 years now. I could go on with points about performance standards and what we've
done and what Stan Humphre put in his um summary, but I think at this point I've introduced the project to you and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have about it. >> Thank you. Last thing I would say is I did speak to both Britney and Joe about
this project. I'm aware there's a typographical um mistake on the address for the lot to the south. It should be 921, but computers are almost like word processors and sometimes wrong numbers
get copied in. And the other thing was the revetment being carried on to 921 is it's following the approximate footprint of the fiber rolls. Um, it's a judgment that's made about making a choice where to build the
rebuttment to give it the effect of protecting the dwelling. Um, and so, uh, that 78 rule pertains to houses, buildings, houses, but not necessarily lots. We can talk
about that more. So, I'd open it up to your questions. So, thank you very much. >> Open it up to the commission questions. Yeah, I guess so. >> All right. Um, just I I know I read your application not recently. It was a
little You had submitted it a while ago, so refresh my memory. I know that you had options in there which is is um you know you explored other options but could you tell tell me why the um
for lack of a better word the bioengineering options didn't meet your satisfaction such as you know beach grass or um you know wood slabs >> the um they're vulnerable to drag. Uh we have wave action here that comes in
occasionally with storms and fiber products. U fiber rolls, they're there's no mass to them. You anchor them and as soon as you've had a a hit from a storm, you typically get a little bit of
dissolution of soil behind it and then your anchors lose tension and there's just no stability. So they're just temporary. And while you can get several years out of them, you wind up with
repetitive work, they function the same as a revetment. They're lining the bank. They're preventing erosion. You'll still get some erosion when that thing gives up. But then you'll be back in there extending your permit, coming back
before the committee to rebuild the soft solution. And while soft solutions absolutely have their place in calmer areas up in estuary where you don't have the energy um this is where you've got forces that
are incompatible and if you mitigate for a lowcusted stone revetment you effectively have something that's yes it's heavier yes it's rock but it's effectively functioning similarly. So my last question
um because there'll be some nourishing with sand even if this is in installed in the it in the application you had tickets or whatever for sand deliveries and it um well first off could you talk about what what you did there? There
were if you had 200 >> Yes. >> You had about 420 no 500 yards which is about 420 tons. It's a lot of sand. It's a lot of sand. >> That's in the photos. And um >> what was the what happened there?
>> When we last visited you for this property, we obtained an order of conditions for um sediment nourishment here. >> Yeah. >> Um and that I think was born from the applicant's concern for the rate of erosion. It was sort of something that you can quickly get a permit for. Yeah.
>> And that material >> um was added >> Yeah. um about a little more than a year ago. And >> yeah, >> that's what I mean when you're just trying to save your bank with sand, those are the volumes that you wind up the truck.
>> Yeah. So, if we're with the rebetment, who how do you calculate what is going to be required for the sand replacement? Good question. point >> shoreline change maps can shed some light on that with coastal zone management but it typically tracks the beach
>> the mean high water um I believe to arrive at our um volume of 45 cubic yards which is about three 10 wheelers full of sediment we looked at a aerial photography um imagery to arrive at a
approximation for erosion over a period of time >> okay >> and and we multiply by the height of the bank. We usually don't go to the from the beach to the top of the bank. We usually go to uh somewhere around zero.
So, let's just pretend that we have a coastal bank that goes right down into Nantucket Sound, which isn't the case. We come down and then we have a beach. But to be fair, um um we have a much higher
profile to the bank to come up with the volume. >> So is there a way maybe this is a question for Britney? I I don't want to hold it to a yardage, you know? I mean, could we >> Yeah. So actually Natural Heritage does did agree with the volume and they would
require it as compensatory nourishment as part of their conditions for when they did the review of the project. >> So they they committed to a yardage that was going to be okay. Okay. >> The 40 yards. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Their conditions were of course not after um April,
>> but I've had a number of um cases with NHGSP and they are really >> hot on sediment. So I was pleased with our um estimation that they agreed with it. So that was that was good. >> Thank you.
>> Anybody else? Um I have just a question of um bringing these rocks and you obviously you have the you have the uh space coming down. Um I I love the that wooden bridge. I mean
how do they make make sure they're not going to because it's not wood. I mean it is there there's there's wooden piles. >> There's um I actually um am aware of several evaluations on the bridge. Um at
one point about 5 years ago I was asked to check um has the bridge settled and if you think of all the homes that have been built on Great Island it's really I think the island which was you know 6 or 800 acres was divided into 49
lots. So it's very low density, very nice, could have been a lot worse. And the tonnage of for the revetment we showed you in the aerial shot. And I just want to also tell you that in 1994,
again, this is sort of aging me, but I was involved in a about a,200 foot long revetment that was permitted and constructed on the southeast perimeter of the island. again relative to the flood level it was low crested and it
was built by at the time Gilmore Marine and it's been wholly successful and you you go look at it it's the bank that's remaining uh you know the vegetated part is thick vegetation and the beach is what the beach pretty much was then and
all of those rocks were carried over that same bridge all of the concrete trucks it's really incredible but if you think about what's carrying the bridge at the midcape highway over the Bass River. It's wooden pilings and they're working. I think
it's a little threadbear today, but that's why that bridge is holding up. And I I see um nothing but improvements that have been made to that bridge in the last several years to grout the approach, to check whether it's
settling, and it hasn't. And so I I'm not worried about that loading. Um my other concern is um the plantings that you've chosen is just beach grass. So have you looked at other more combination?
>> We can I mean it's nice to add golden rod in there. There's already the thicket which in a very short period of time once that bank stabilizes it will grow right into it. you won't be able to find the top of the revetment but there's no objection to increasing diversity
>> even just be happy to do that >> something else >> I know beach grass is just the reason we always do beach grass on immediate treatments and you didn't get a detailed plan but it's quick you plant it at the right time a year you get stability
within a couple of growing seasons but adding to that that's perfectly fine and and I welcome that. >> Can I ask why we didn't get a detailed plan? >> Because it was such a narrow area. It's not a big broad bank. >> 50 square feet.
>> Oh, it's got some it's it's 7800 square feet. So, we can do that. >> Happy to do it. >> Uh our regulations were updated at the beginning of this year prior to this filing that would require a landscaping
plan for areas bigger than 250 square feet. We're we're not objecting to that. I think the way I looked at this was it was just the narrow top of the reventment, but but
that's since we're on the topic of diversity and improving that it's better to have it in your record. So, we'd be glad to do that. >> Yes. Um, while I'm on that topic, um, the
site plan also doesn't have the area calculation table. Um, and I'm a little confused on the order of processes. This might be a question for
Britney, but if they have an open order, don't they need to close that order before we can approve this one? Yes, I told them um in the interest of this project being a proposed new revetment that they could keep the old one open and I would recommend if the commission approves it that a special condition be
added that prior to the pre-construction meeting for the new revetment because we don't know I was going to ask what your timeline would be if you were going to put this in um if you wanted to try nourishment for another couple of years they because it would stay they could keep it open if they want to keep trying
the nourishment before they tried the revetment, but they would have to close it at the same time they're putting in the stones if they do. >> That's an interesting question. I think if uh when the revetment goes forward and I think you can condition that a COC application comes in because the order
for the revetment covers nourishment. Um and you know it's it's probably unnecessary to have both >> recognizing they are for the same exact area for the same purpose of coastal erosion and
>> um they just are not if we issue they're not required to start work right away. So they might want to try nourishment a couple more times. They might not but it would definitely be required. >> It does take some um time to get somebody lined up. I I think though it's safe to say um the concerns for what's
going on with this bank in this particular location in uh if with an order of conditions it probably proceed in the winter of 2627. >> Any other questions? Jack, >> I'd just like to make a statement after
the vote if you don't mind. >> Okay. Um Britney, you have anything you want to add? Um, no. Answered all the questions I had. >> Anybody in the audience?
Anybody online? Zoom. No. I don't see any hands raised. Okay. Okay. Can I hear a motion to accept the proposal um with special conditions? And
one of those being a list of plantings maybe approved by by Britney if you don't have a problem with that rather than us approving it. Is that okay with you, Bradford? If >> if the rest of the board is okay with that. >> Okay. Um I I guess my that's my motion.
I'll make the motion. Do I hear a second? Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Anybody opposed? >> Okay. One. Nay. And um guess that's it. We can work with Britney to to get the plantings the way
you like them. And I know that the applicant wants to have something that's native and natural. So, she's going to be excited about what she can plant. Jack. Yeah. >> Uh well, some of you may know I'm a bit
of an old-timer and it's my career grew up in times of uh multiobjective planning uh and just uh looking at alternatives and I've worked actually in helping
develop some of those systems and I want to say that I think what your proposal is probably an epitome of bringing that kind of activity along a framework along where you can look at
the alternatives you getting the comments were great from the commission and I think that uh it's not just you but the whole system is to be commended from my viewpoint of getting to this point to have such a thorough ongoing
activity and that a homeowner is willing to participate in this process and I think that we don't give enough kudos for that kind of activity and uh we're usually running so fast that we don't
have a chance but I'd like to make that. Thanks. >> Thank you for that. >> Great. Going to move ahead. Uh SE832535. I did send it down. Yeah. >> Yes. Cape Cod Engineering
GIA for GIHA0 Great Island Road proposed reconstruction of beach access j coastal beach coastal dune coastal bank and land subject to coastal flowage and um >> thank you Mr. chairman.
I sent the other one down. I'm right on top of things here. >> Bob Perry for the applicant, which is the Great Island Homeowners Association. Craig Fleming, the general manager, is here. Um, and Great Island Homeowners
Association, not to be confused with other Great Island Associations. Um, we were brought in to look at a a very wellestablished and old set of steps up at Point Gam. Kind of hope you got to go there because it's a very special place
and um it is unique in the sense that uh the stairway comes down very close to grade, but it has worked very well with its exposure to the south. Um, and the vegetation on the coastal bank is very thick. There is a concrete seaw wall
there that's protecting the old lighthouse. And our proposal is to reconstruct the stairway in kind as it is today. Most stairways you see are four feet. This is 2 and 1/2 ft. It's actually the treads are 24 in. The
stringers on either side make it a little bit wider, but everybody would like it just as it is. And there's no wind scour working against the bank uh because it's so well grown in. So in and
that's above the concrete. I'll speak to the lower end in a minute. Um so the old materials are simply hand carried out of there and a new set of stairs would be replicated in its place.
The lower end is crossing over a coastal dune. And while that coastal dune is in an area of counterfor walls where there is um an old uh formation there it's working very well because it's not in
the tidelands. Um I thought um that you know with everything replicated you can see the sand is building up in the on the concrete wall but I've seen that with no sand. I've seen the wind and the tide
clear that out of there. So, one of the things that's mentioned in our application is a just a strip of snow fence that would be lashed to the stair posts practically just needed on one side. I think Joe Germo, your assistant
agent, called me and asked about it because we didn't put the location on the plan. We simply mentioned it in the notes. But a little bit of sand drift fence there would slow the wind down just enough. Even though the counterfor
wall does some of it, but counter for like a concrete wall can actually create a reflected wind. So a little bit of fence if we can just lash that if they choose to on the west side of the stair posts would slow the wind down and we might grow a little better dune there.
So except for saying that this is all handwork replicating the stairway in kind. Um there's not much to this. It's a special place. They want to keep it just like it is. And um that is the extent of um of
this presentation. The stairway is detailed on the plan. We made a 10 scale plan so you could see everything very clearly. So that's how this one is going. I'd like to answer any questions if you have any. >> I agree. It's a very special place. Always fun to go out there. Anybody?
Yes, Jack. >> When was the lighthouse built? >> I want to say it's great you're testing me. I want to say 18 uh 80 something, possibly older, but point Gammon was named after
>> Back Gammon apparently. And um I don't know when it was last occupied, but it could have be about 1930. Um >> have they had any accidents on this the ladder? They've or stairs they've had people >> narrowness you mean
>> any accident at all? >> I don't know of any. I would think that you might consider if you you might have been lucky that from my viewpoint that was not necessarily a safe ladder, but I'm not an expert and I just think you should be
looking into something like that. >> The rise and run is 7-Eleven. It's actually a good pitch and um I I would defer to Mr. Fleming, but I don't think it gets a lot of use. It's it's very >> it's a shame really.
>> There's not a lot of traffic there. >> Maybe an age limit something. >> I didn't go down it, but I >> I went down and I didn't find any problems. >> The light lighter ghost might be the most frequent. >> And you mentioned adding plants.
>> I don't see any reason or need to add plants. Um, one thing I'll just mention because there's another thing on the note. If you put a board like a 2x4, a 2x6 on the uphill side of two stair posts, gets lost in the vegetation, but it
prevents runoff from going through. So, we mentioned that there's barely any clearance, but um there's everything's being replicated. I don't see any need to plant, but if there is, I believe we would plug uh coastal hearty grasses in.
I believe we have a note to that effect, but there's no area to plant. We go down into the dune. There's a little bit of volunteer plant plants coming in there, but if you plant there, I don't think it will be reliable to stay.
>> Have you had any loss of land at the top between the bank and the lighthouse? >> No, that's a tall wall. >> Yeah. Well, you have a lot of concrete around there, too. >> Yeah. Right. Um, my last point,
I don't know what your experience is with sand drift fences, but I think you might want to put a tear away in or something because you reach 90 mph and that's go. Is that going to help just bring down the stairway? >> Um, I think a couple laugh L type fence
with a 50% ratio for space. I don't see a lot of drag and it's going to be well suited. Do you think how long that has been there? Um, it's been through a couple of hurricanes probably. I don't think we
have any serious drag with this with the fence, but it will be tied on firmly if it gets put on. >> Good. >> What's the fence going to be made of? Well, L snow fence is sometimes it's treated wood, sometimes it's painted.
Um, I would venture to guess that the stuff you buy down at Midcape could be treated. Doesn't have to be. >> Guess I just saw the note that you might use a composite handrail and
>> avoid splinters, but that'd be it. I think not going to be TX. There's a need to be authentic. Um, if if you look around, there's a lot of nice wood that gets used. >> Questions?
>> Yes. >> Thank you. Um, and thanks for the opportunity to see this site. I mean, it's it's I mean, the Nantucket sound is it just you can't describe it. It's absolutely gorgeous. Um your notes I just have some questions that we can
just talk through real. Um so the your note for the existing S shall be fully removed by hand methods and replaced in the existing projection area. What erosion control is at that time would be used or is do you see a need for that?
>> It's two to three days work. >> Okay. >> So I don't see a huge threat. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. Um, and then in your note five, you said untreated wood shall be inspected at least twice per year to evaluate areas of decay. Which which members are actually untreated?
>> None. I just put it in as a standard because if you use if someone let's say they use um for one reason or another, cedar, they want the look. A lot of people make choices that are outside the plan when they're buying something. >> Yeah. Um,
untreated wood after it gets old, it it can it can get unsafe. >> Okay. >> It's a safety precaution. >> Okay. >> On the like with get you get in trouble with standard notes. Sorry. Um, >> we do have that. Yeah, we do. >> Um, number six, um, you mentioned that
the uh inspection of the um of the um the fasteners because of of corrosion would be recommended. Um, is I guess do you feel that that's something we should have in our conditions? Um, >> I wouldn't think so because the order
will expire in three years and >> this is just a long-term >> it almost sounds like the fine print uh, you know, disclaimer, but I've I've had uh >> um problems when I have uh some uh
construction made of like galvanized >> Yeah. >> joist hangers on treated wood and saltwater environment, they last about eight years. And if it's your deck >> Okay. don't want that. So, I put a note on like that. >> Yeah, I know. That's the problem trying to pin down the notes and
>> they're just cautionary. They're not required. >> I know, but I just want to know what the actual scope's going to be similar to like I was going to ask also about the composite. So, um on nine um you say I'm almost done that
the work access shall be from the upper bank along the existing stair route utilizing as much as possible. um minimize ground and vegetation disturbance. I I would find it really helpful if if we could put um on this drawing if or you for the record or
something the limits of disturbance so that it's not so open-ended like what area are you really going to be displacing if any is do you know what I'm asking >> do the um note intends to prevent someone from ripping uh the stairway out
from the top. What they'll do is they'll go down, they'll take it out, and they'll use the stairway that's there to carry out what they're breaking up. >> And if you've ever looked at one of these being done, nobody goes far a field. It wouldn't
>> be practical to put a work limit in. >> Okay. >> Um they're just going to work in the general vicinity of the stair and they're going to try to get their footing >> right there. >> Right. Yeah. And so it's really that initial go down the stair, take the
bottom out, come on up, and then build from the top down. >> There's always going to be a little bit of disturbance, >> right? >> And uh >> well, that's what I'm saying. It would be in your favor to just say that it's not a major disturbance. Um for people that don't know, >> three feet either side of the stair uh
logically. >> Okay. >> So you don't need any plan to prevent any material from drifting or anything like that. U my experience with this organization is they will want absolutely no debris >> okay >> at that location.
>> Um and then lastly number 12 again it's a it's a general note that it just is too open-ended in my view when you say cylindrical concrete post footings are not advised. Are you having any cylindrical concrete post? No. >> No. Except that when you turn a
contractor loose >> Yeah. Uh, >> I know that. Well, >> you wind up with um options. Yeah. And so I'm bringing that up so that it is a warning. >> Um I'm proposing direct Barry, >> right? Okay. >> But I've got people out there that don't
listen. Um so I'm hoping the plan gets followed. I'm expecting the plan gets followed. >> All right. Um yeah, I would I would I would have liked if the notes were more job specific. Um, but but I understand
and that's why I I wanted to walk through them for the record, if you will. >> Well, next time I'm going to be very I'm going to be looking out for your interest. >> Yeah, I mean, I used to write qualifications just to pin those down. So, but thank you very much. Thank you
again. >> Anybody else? Britney, >> no questions. Thank you. >> Anybody in the audience? Anybody? Nobody's there. They all disappeared. Okay. Um, do I have a
motion to accept? >> I will. >> Second. >> I'll second. >> Second. All in favor? >> Thank you all very much. Good discussion and have a good night. >> Good night. myself. All right. Um,
we're now into continued COC's. So, we go with the first one. >> I can't punch any of these, right? 83 SE 832337 Woodstone 34 L Wind Lindale Road.
Britney, >> the COC was continued from January 8th, 2026 for the planting of six oak trees at minimum 1.5 in um caliber. They've been planted. They're in good shape. There is a care plan in place. Um you're
welcome to say anything. I would recommend issuance of the COC with ongoing conditions number nine and 10. The only thing was is the care plan. Um Chris was he called me. He was all freaked out. He goes, >> "Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. You're going you're going up, you
know, up in front of the conservation board." He goes, "Am I allowed to say I'm I'll prune them at, you know, as needed. Any broken branches?" I said, "Just tell tell her what you'll do and she'll tell you what not to do." So, did everything in the care plan look okay to
you? >> I didn't see anything that stood out. Um, let me see if it made it to the file at the last minute. I'm not sure. >> Yeah, he was just concerned about >> what they do. A few things you might not agree with or the board might not agree with.
>> I don't think I got it in time. >> Okay. >> To look. >> Oh, I'll read it out. >> Yeah. Read it >> because I don't want to mess it up either. >> Okay. It's pretty short. Uh, monitor and manage uh soil moisture. Provide deep
watering approximately two times a week as needed. Monitor tree watering bags and refill as needed until trees have acclimated with environment and conditions. Apply slow re slow release low nitrogen fertilizer early spring as
needed. Provide pruning services as needed broken branches, dead wood, and severely damaged limbs. Um, inspect trees for double leaders, crossing branches, and storm damage on a weekly basis because they cut the lawn, too.
Um, monitor and inspect tree staking. Ensure flexible straps and slight trunk move. Trunk movement. I think you meant trunk. Remove tree stakes within one year of planting. >> Okay, excellent. Sounds like a very standard arborist care to me. Cool.
>> He was kind of >> Yeah, I didn't didn't quite see it, but >> All right. So, yeah, with that, I would recommend issuance of the COC with ongoing conditions number nine and 10, and it's assured that the trees will be cared for. >> Make that motion.
>> I'll move we do that. Any questions for >> Okay, having seen no questions, now you may. >> I I move that we issue with the conditions. >> Okay. Second, Jack. All in favor? >> I. >> Anybody >> oppose?
>> Okay, so that's Lindy. >> Thank you. >> See you guys. >> All right. Next one is SE832270 BSC Group for Channel Point to Channel Point Drive. Britney, >> um, they requested a continuance to June
4th. >> Okay. This will just be to um review a couple of very minor changes they've already made to their invasive species management plan that you all requested previously. Um they just didn't make the
packet. So >> we have to vote on a continuence on a COC. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Do I hear a motion? Can I do the next one to at the same time since that's also continuence? >> Wait, I have a question on that though. >> Which one? >> The Is this two channel point drive?
>> Yes. Yeah. So in the Oh, can I ask? Can I go ahead? >> So in the the stuff um there they did have a letter on March 25th, the invasive species management plan.
>> Yeah, they made a couple of of late late breaking changes. So we got the revisions on Tuesday. So they just didn't make it into the packet. >> Oh, okay. I just had a comment on that. just if to help with the application if they could just say that it will be by a licensed applicator
maybe and that the um the product is is aquatically acceptable. >> We'll see if they put those in. Not I'll ask them for some clarification. just clarification on it just so it see I think you mostly just added that the
um the voids resulting from the invasive species management we replanted with Rosa Carolina and the access that you asked for would be from the top of the bank and not to disturb any bank vegetation yes safe for use in for use in aquatic
sites will be completed by a licensed handler so they did add those >> okay But since it was just a little late, you'll have more time to review this for the >> Okay. >> I have a motion to accept the uh continuence. >> So moved. >> Second. Anybody? Second. Christian.
Okay. All in favor? >> I great. What? >> What date? >> The fourth >> 64. What happened to May? >> Next one is SE 8375 BSC group for Steven Cat 703 route 28
continuence requested. Anybody? >> I'll move. >> Move. Bradford. Second. Pat. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay, good. Now we're into an enforcement order. Mark Doran, for 21
Glenwood Street, unpermitted patio and stonewall within the buffer zones to a BVW um and a coastal bank. >> Britney. >> Yes. I'll just give a a brief um summary
of what's happened so far. Um, Mr. Doran owns both 23 and 21 Glenwood. If I understand correctly, 23 Glenwood had a determination of applicability which required mitigation plantings in this very small corner which is the 35 ft
buffer. There was an a building permit application. So, I looked into it more closely. Um, the mitigation plantings are underway. They're not completely finished, but I also noticed on the aerial imagery that a new patio has been installed at 21 Glenwood. It appears to
be within the 100 foot buffer and potentially the 50-ft buffer of the top of the coastal bank here. And then there's a BBW to a salt marsh at the bottom. Um it was in an existing lawn area. It doesn't appear that any vegetation has been removed, but since it was work conducted in our
jurisdiction, um we spoke with Mr. Dorne, who's been speaking with Joe, and just let him know that the work does require permitting. And so the enforce the contents of the enforcement order um would just be to permit the unpermitted patio and stonewall with an after the
fact notice of intent or remove the structures that have been unpermitted. Um I think by date by September 3rd because usually it takes a couple of months to contract with a surveyor and get everything together. And so there is a draft enforcement order in there saying that.
Um, but if you guys have any questions or discussion, >> any questions choices? >> I could just say uh uh my name is Mark Thor and I've lived on the street for 65 years uh and and cherished the
neighborhood. Um, we actually moved the house at I own the house across the street, diagonally across the street. Um, which is at 34 Glenwood Street, which used is is was Nick Harris's the big stucco Floridaidian home
uh which was built. I moved his house when he was knocking it down and I moved it up the street uh and and kept that house as as an existing structure. And this house that we just talked about 21 was very close to 18 Rachel was a matter
of I'm gonna say 15 feet. I lifted it up and moved that away from it and uh tore down a a band stand that was there as well, which I have pictures of. And on the house that I'm at uh at 21, which is
our home now, uh there was a playground there uh of which I added. So, you know, I'm embarrassed that I had to come before the committee. We didn't know that we did anything wrong. I probably have had 15 inspections on 23 or maybe
even 30 inspections on 23. Uh which is the Brown House. I've been going to that house since the 1960s. And it's a it's a we wanted to keep the existing character and structure of it the same. Uh and we moved it eliminated the cesspool.
By the way, I just want to say in in the 1980s, I we were here trying to prevent Rachel Road from going in and very concerned with the conservation land and hired an attorney to fight it. Uh this is a a very a place that's very near and
dear to our to to my family. Both my parents physically died at 33 Glenwood uh over a great lifetime and we all cherish this area. So, uh, this is the holy grail of of, uh, of living and we're thrilled to be residents of West
Yamoth. Uh, but I'm embarrassed to say that I was asked to come before tonight to talk about this. But I did want to just if I could submit these pictures because I think they're much better than the Zoom. This is the, you know,
That was the structure that was there in the existing house. This is the gazebo as well. I mean, it wasn't We haven't moved any, you know, grassy area or lawn area or anything else. I' I'd like to
think I was sensitive to the conservation to the marsh area. That's what really brought us to that area to begin with. That's the house that threw that in there. as you said, but brought them from the marshland and moved it closer to the highway. And this is the patio that we built, which isn't
obtrusive. It's really just it's Cambridge pavers and some stone work that was already there. Uh >> what's between the pavers? >> Nothing. >> Nothing. Okay. So, when it rains all the pavers, >> yeah, >> we are going to have keep the
discussion. Would you mind just using the mic so we can take accurate minutes? In other words, when it rains, does it >> I don't I I I don't think this I've used the same contractor there for the guy installed the pavers for literally 25
years. uh and Gary Ellis was my architect and all who is very very in my opinion a big uh conservationalist and you know I think we I'm not saying I'm anywhere near your expertise but we tried to be sensitive
to the environment that we live >> Wow you did lift a house >> it's pretty incredible >> we moved two so far and kept both structures >> pretty intact yeah Yeah. >> So, if I understand it right, Britney,
our choices are to approve the patio after the fact. >> No, that's not a choice. >> The enforcement order, um, you can revise, you can ratify it as it states, or you can revise it however you'd like. Right now, um, it says, you know,
unpermitted structure, remove the structure by September 3rd, or file an after the fact notice of intent to permit the structure. Um, it's just I said notice of intent because I believe it's within the 50. You can start with an RDA if you want, but it might result
that it's within the 50 and then probably a notice would be better. Um, but the Coastal Bank is pretty much at the at the Stonewall. So, I think it's within the 50, but up to you. It does need to be permitted one
way or another and I expect that you would like to keep it if you >> 100%. I mean it's not very natural. It's not a it it it's 8 in on the stone wall, you know, that comes up there. It just it really if you look at it I think it
looks nice and it's not considering what we've done to try to improve the conservation issue that you know between get eliminating cesspools and and band stands and and you know some of the other things that we're not perfect but >> yeah it's just a matter
>> we're very sensitive to the to the neighborhood of which we love >> the correct permitting pathways and possib you know mitigation >> I didn't know that that I mean no one ever said and I've had a lot of people from the I'm going to say 30 inspections between those two properties
and and then I've been inspected and then the reason I got involved with this is because I am trying to put to the left of in between 33 and over in that area onecar garage which was on the other side of that screen porch. >> Yep.
And you know, the building inspectors are focused on their work when they're out there and they're not always familiar with the conservation. >> I know, but it wasn't it wasn't I wasn't trying to pull something over. >> No, I Yeah, we understand you didn't act any malicious way, but the permitting pathways do have to be completed either
way. >> Would you like to revise ratify any other qu discussion? >> You want you look like you want to say something? Um, never mind. >> I rewrote the sentence. I I was confused
on the sentence, but I rewrite it as I was about to say something. So, never mind. >> No problem. Anybody Anybody want to say what they would like to have done? >> Well, I just want to understand a little more because sometimes it gets a little muddled. So, you're saying that the
gentleman could um submit for an fact filing. >> Yes. >> And then what is the next step after that >> to attend? I mean, he would have to hire a surveyor, you know, get everything needed for an actual notice of intent. >> Yeah. >> Um it would probably in trigger some
mitigation plantings if the resource area is as close as the the maps suggest, which they are very approximate. So, um >> that seems to be the path of least resistance as far as this whole thing is concerned. >> Yep. And we always put the option on the enforcement order to remove it if they
yeah >> get into the process and they don't want to pursue the notice of intent. So that's how it reads. Remove unpermitted structures or or submit a notice of intent to seek permit. >> So in my opinion the idea of removing this the work that this family has done
over the years is really magnificent. So there's been there's a need now for an after the fact filing in order to kind of straighten everything out forever more. So that I mean it seems to me that would be the the way to go
>> agree in essence >> to approve the enforcement order which gives him the choice of an NOI or >> Okay. So everybody's clear with that. >> Okay. Do I hear a motion to to enforce to uh
>> move? Second. >> Second. Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I >> Do you understand what's happening? >> No, he doesn't. Yeah, I could tell he doesn't. Yeah, he needs clarification. >> That enforcement order, and Britney, you correct me if I'm wrong. That enforcement order, what we've done is
voted to to give you the enforcement order, but in that enforcement order, you have a choice of taking out the patio, which obviously you don't want to do, but you can do that if you want, or or uh go through the process of uh
submitting an after the fact notice of intent. And there are some requirements to do that and Britney would happy or Joe would happy to tell you what those requirements are. >> Yeah. So when we issue the enforcement order um we'll include with the email everything that's required to seek
permitting um including all you know the site plan requirements and everything. So you have to reach out to surveyor to help you. >> I will since you you'll see me probably again just for point of openness. I own 18 Rachel as well, which I just sold. 18
Rachel has an open. >> Yeah. >> Where's 18 Rachel? >> I think it's right here. >> Yeah. Sorry. >> Right here. >> I p these two these two parcels are all by the same person. >> I've always wanted this for 60 years.
I've always wanted this home. I bought it. I own this one. There was two open editions from the from the conservation commission in 19 >> 18 uh 2018 and I bought it 2020 and and
apparently the title was de I didn't find out about it till after I owned it and then I went to close on it afterwards. So you I I just don't want you to think that I'm I'm coming back to you after the fact that oh that guy's back again doing >> not the first person to buy a house. Oh
yeah. It's one of the things my pet peeve is >> it's one of the things that your lawyer should have told you or your realtor and there are realtors who come in and see Britney and say are there anything we should know about this property but there are some who don't because they
want to sell the house as fast as they >> and I wanted the house so bad I didn't even ask any questions >> because I wanted it all my life to the brown one. So >> okay thanks appreciate it. So what what I guess I I just wait to hear from you. >> Yeah, we'll reach out um probably
Tuesday or tomorrow um with help for you to complete. >> This is just I'm not hiding anything. This is just a picture of the patio. >> Okay. Thank you very much for coming. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Yeah. We want Do you need these pictures, Britney? >> I don't care. >> Can we keep them?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah, we'll put them in the file. >> Pass them back down. I'll put them in the file because we're not signing this. >> Yeah, we have to sign that. Leave it there. I'm coming down with it. That's what I meant to say. >> I was coming. >> Definitely want to see the picture of
that. Beautiful. >> Beautiful. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, next um Oops. >> He's throwing things out >> like the game Monopoly. Um, next we have
the vote to accept the deed acceptance pages for land acquisition at Nottingham Drive. >> Also to approve the conservation restriction for land acquisition Nottingham Drive because I have to sign it. I cannot read it into the record. So
Paul's going to use his best voice >> to Mr. Chairman. I move >> Wait, >> what? What? >> There's only I'm the fourth one to sign, but there's only two signatures here. >> Oh, yeah. What happened? Did we skip someone? >> Did I skip you or did I not sign it? >> Did you not? You handed it to me. I
thought you signed it. >> Oh my god. Yeah, I did. >> I should have checked. >> Can you tell them how to do it on vacation? >> Hilarious. >> Now, Paul Okay. I move I move to accept the deed for approximately 3.14 acres
off Noddingham Drive and Hakenham Road the sum of $600,000 pursuant to the authority granted under article 11 of the November 17, 2025 Yarmas Town meeting and further authorizes chair David Bernstein to execute and enter
into any and all documents necessary to effectuate the acquisition of said property. Okay. Anybody want to second? >> Second. >> Anybody have any questions? >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Now you may read the next one. >> I move uh that the commission approve the conservation restriction to the trustees of the Armouth Conservation Trust pursuant to Mass General Law section 32 of chapter 184, section 8 C
of chapter 40, and section 12 of chapter 44B. and pursuant to the article 11 of the November 17, 2025 Yarmouth town meeting. >> Second. Anybody? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I
>> I want I want you to explain that second one, David. >> Um, so these are very important. Please sign both. There's two pages. The first page and then and there's a specific spot for each of your names. I mentioned that Britney has put in a
tremendous amount of work. >> Yeah, congrat congratulations. >> The select board even thought, "Oh, she's done really good work." >> So, thanks. Well, >> select boards. So, >> we closed. So, >> we all appreciate Britney.
>> Now that the select board does, that's even better. >> Um, okay. Minutes. Um, approval of minutes from 5726. I didn't see any issues. Did you check? >> No, that's good. You're good. >> Want to make a motion?
>> Sure. Approve them. >> Okay. Second. Anybody? >> Second. >> That's okay. All in favor? >> Okay. Great. All right. Um, any other business? Not reasonably anticipated.
>> No business. >> No business. Anybody else? >> All right. >> Your business, Mr. Bradford. >> Yeah. Um I just wanted to um it feels like since we passed our uh landscaping
requirements, I feel like we've been not enforcing it or request or providing variances from that. So, I just wanted to in our minds, I guess, to either
be more strict on it or if we don't want to enforce that, maybe rethinking those requirements. Um, I just feel like there's been several uh meetings where I had to remind folks
that a variance or a landscaping plan was necessary. >> Would it be helpful, and I hate to add work to you, but would be helpful to just take that out and email that section to us so we can all reread it and have a >> Yeah, it's on the website. >> What?
>> It's on the website. I also think that um we should review as a group all of the special conditions that I put on the permits so that it's more it's understood exactly all of the restrictions that are kind of automatically
I you do give I mean I kind of just decide which ones apply and then I put every single one that applies onto each permit unless we specifically talk about any during the meeting and they are pretty extensive. um pretty proud of them. So we should just go through them
and so that you are all aware and make changes, edits, add things so that you have more opportunities to use your authority. >> Refresh my memory when we discussed um the landscape um portion. I know that you wanted a a document by a registered
landscaper, but didn't we didn't we isn't there still some discretion in there is discretion, right? the way it read the way it reads now. >> Like I feel like the one today where you brought it up was like a good example of one we where we really should enforce it on >> you know and then maybe some of the
smaller you know >> Yeah. >> ones that were close you know >> threshold was 250 square feet was smaller than that. >> Okay. So there wasn't a discretion it was just that the the square footage >> I mean there's always Yeah there's
always discretion. The last part of the regulations say that you can apply these um at your discretion. But yeah, so here is must be prepared or approved by the following and it's all planting plans. Um so any plan that involves planting
greater than 250 square feet would require it and trigger it >> would require plant professional. >> Yeah. put something that >> doesn't have to necessarily be separate like for this one maybe he could put on the same page and but the planting plan
info it's only a you know it's the same thing repeated across the whole thing so maybe not a separate plan but at least it should all be there all the information >> I would suggest that as we tighten up things like this and this will happen for
decades we also have to be more sensitive to the situation of each individual applicant and we're looking at their >> knowledge background you know how they talk to people >> well
>> that's not really something we should consider I don't think >> true they should be hiring a professional who has the sufficient knowledge to put together these applications I think that should be standard I mean there are no free passes they should >> Yeah but isn't there but you did mention
I think we talked about this once before and you have the ability to approve the plan or or there's a um >> an option the right word but it isn't always required to have somebody >> right that's what I was trying to say
>> hire someone to do the planting plan is there >> yeah if it's small >> it's small yeah okay so so am I understanding the problem is we're not including when it's not small we're not including that
>> requirement in our condition. >> No, I think Bradford's point is just that since we've passed this, I think we've granted three variances to it and it's only been a couple of months. So, we're not being consistent. >> We grant three variances that they didn't have to have.
>> Yes, that's I think I think about three maybe two. >> Can we uh maybe look at the examples and just like talk about them? I guess maybe to hash out what we want to do with this or >> don't I can't pull them up from memory
one of them now handdrawn one there was one hand drawn I think >> in the future sometime >> yeah I think um >> cuz like if it's somebody that's lived here and been here for a long time and maybe is close to getting priced out or
something I feel like if they are close to that limit I would be more willing to make an exception for somebody like that than somebody that comes in and is, you know, putting in this huge preventment. And I don't know.
>> Yeah, it's tough. But we really can't consider the price. >> Yeah, we have to be careful about that. >> That's just that's discriminatory. Yeah. >> You're looking for consistency and then at the same time you're saying, well, maybe sometimes we just let it go because we feel
>> so the thing is some I found that difficulty here in this commission for a long long time as long as I've been is that we don't really have a chance to talk about these kinds of things specifically um it's always kind of reaching for
these things at the end of our meeting or at some other time like that. You can't talk about these things in the car when you're driving around and sight site visits. >> There aren't workshops really, right? I mean wrong. >> We can always hold a working meeting. We we've done that every time we do the
regulations, every time we need to hash things out. >> Um I think that would be a good idea. >> It would be and and we've talked about working meetings many times, but I never attended a working meeting because I didn't think they were ever scheduled. And I'm noting you. >> You attended one. >> It just things happen. >> It's just very busy.
>> We have a shorter agenda. We know we might >> I know >> put it in that short agenda and then if we get to that and that short agenda turned out to be a long agenda as sometimes it does we predict that something's going to be simple and straightforward and then we have to
listen to people >> present their presentation even though we're all ready to vote still talk for a half hour >> well to be devil's advocate maybe we are following it I mean we we have knowledge of it and we had I don't remember these
specific examples but I'm sure we discussed it. I mean maybe the system is working and we don't you know you keep it there and then we discuss it and there will be some >> you know no yet no one yeses but >> but let's not go into a meeting like
that without some more information the costs of contractors uh the size you're talking 20 feet by 10 feet >> is that sufficiently big enough to worry about >> small for our our um
>> requirement It has to be less more than two 250 ft. >> 20 feet by 10 feet. >> That's 200 square feet. >> 200. >> Well, but okay. >> 20 point or 25 whatever. >> I know you're 250 beating me up here.
>> But isn't that already covered by the the conservation agent can accept the plan for that small area without any difficulty? Correct. It's when they're larger. So you already have the ability to um validate the request and approve
the work, right? And you at the meeting you would probably say I can take care of this or something to that effect because it's small as opposed to it's a great big um project somewhere. Am I saying something wrong? >> I don't I just don't understand what
you're referring to. like when we approve a plan pending. >> Okay. Let's say there's an application and there's a need for a planting area and it's 200 square feet. >> That doesn't require a professional plan. Correct. >> No, but it requires a plan of some kind.
>> Okay. All right. Well, we're getting someplace. You want a plan? Okay. That's fine. That's great. A plan shouldn't be a problem. Does it have to come from a professional? >> Not if it's less than 250. And that's another, you know, um, appropriate
thing. So, you have that ability to do that. So, that has to be an understanding when this thing is approved. No, >> when the commission approves it. >> When the commission approves it, right? We still have to approve it. It's just that we don't under 250, we don't need a
>> right professional to do. It doesn't mean we will approve it. We may say, "No, you need to take out such and such a plant because it's not native or else. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> You're really addressing mitigation, the the scope of mitigation. That's the way
to look at it. If it exceeds 250 square feet, then you probably have a, you know, a substantial project that's doing something that will require 250 or more square feet of mitigation. So I understand the logic that you want it
that then that mitigation should be done by a licensed landscaper because it's to be taken seriously. That's the logic. >> That's Bradford's point if I may. I think Bradford's point is where we tend to ignore that >> or have already given them exceptions to it.
>> We're getting to the point of getting ready to vote on it and then I feel like I have to bring up the reminder that we need to grant the variance as well. Yeah, I think so. I do think that one of the Bavarianes we gave to Bob Perry, but Bob Perry has three more years of
experience wetland in wetland delineation. So, I know he's an engineer, but he probably meets these requirements if he did a plan. I know he's not a landscaper, but he does have a lot of years of experience preparing these plans and doing wetland
delineations. So him maybe obviously it's commission's choice but I think he's experienced enough and he could probably provide that you know proof of his experience. Um I think others you know BSC >> so didn't provide the plant.
>> No this time he didn't at all provide the plan. He just said plant with beach grass. No I totally understand >> the key word there is by one of the following. Right. So >> yeah, and the previous one that we let him do was previously planted under a previously approved mitigation area uh
planting plan that they just had to rip out and put back in because of the revetment replacement. So I think that one made sense, but I would yeah like to see consistency as well. >> What was that last thing that >> consistency is good when applying the regulations?
What I'd like to hear more often is from the commissioners is, you know, when I watch other boards, there's a people sit there and they say, "Well, here's why I'm against this or here's why I'm for this." And sometimes I'm not sure where I'm going to be and I would hear the
mostly the con and then make a decision off of that. you know, um rather than be surprised that someone votes negative, you know. >> Yeah. And I've never seen there's never been any explanation as to why someone might vote against. >> Yeah. I'd like to see that come out of I don't know why
>> if they don't mind going on record for I mean they go on record when they vote. So it might be a way to persuade some of us who didn't see that point before. And uh that's just my feeling. It would be nice to hear hear your reasoning why
you're going to vote negative. It might change my mind or someone else's mind >> before the vote. >> Before the vote. >> Before the vote. >> We just need to bring up before the vote. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Is there anything that prevents us from doing that? >> No, I mean you you should be saying who
makes a motion second. Any discussion on the motion? And you would discuss the motion before you all vote. >> We do that, right? Well, we we tend to say that we tend to say it before the discussion and then go to the vote. >> Yeah. >> But either way, I'd like to, you know, well, I'm thinking I think it's also
important for the person sitting there hearing it and suddenly sees that we and this has happened that suddenly sees that the majority of people going to vote no and they say, "Well, we'll ask for continuence." >> So, I'd like to see more of that. >> I think Bob has said that. He said, "Can
I ask why?" Right? Haven't you heard him say that? >> Yeah. I don't think that's appropriate. what's appropriate. >> I mean, I don't personally and and that's what I always try my best to say personally. Yeah. >> You know, and not, you know, because you speak for yourself and then, you know, so on. >> But to to ask somebody, well, why did
you vote that way? I don't I don't >> We're talking about before the fact. >> Yeah. But but there was an instance, I think it was last time. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Bob or whoever it was. >> It was Bob. Yeah. >> Said why. >> Yeah. That was two times ago, but Yeah.
>> Next. would just, you know, say, "Well, we're not going to go on record right now or whatever." >> Yeah. Okay. >> I think they deserve to know why you vote no. That's just my opinion. >> But well, my opin my point is if if you bring it up beforehand, he knows why that person voted no,
>> not afterwards. >> Speaking of also the conditions, there was once a time where >> we used to read the conditions. >> Yes. That was the dark time when there was noition administrator. You want to read 40 conditions? >> Well, we used to do it. I used to do it.
>> You would even did it when Kelly was here because I was sitting watching you guys and I said, "What the hell?" >> You see, and then changes are made. I guess Britney said, "Oh, hell with that." But, you know, >> we I think was when I started, Kelly was still here and we stopped naming numbers. I think we did it during
>> You did it when Heidi was the only staff member. She was part-time. She needed to know exactly what to put in. But then when I started, she said, "You don't need to do that anymore." >> It was very confusing. You know, you'd have your slip of paper with all these things and you have to go through >> still have them in this book.
>> But it was something that was common practice at the time. And then somebody, oh well, you don't need to put that condition in it. You might discuss stop and discuss it for a second. >> It does. If we had to do that, our meetings would be much longer. And it seems to be working the system we're doing.
>> Well, I'm not say I'm just saying what we used to do. and and and the thing had changed kind of without explanation, >> you know, sitting down. >> I never knew why. >> Well, but there are also sets of conditions and some of them like construction things like that.
>> Yeah. They're in categories in groups. We say one, two, six. >> So in this >> Yeah. And in fact, you said read them. There was there was >> But we read it that way. There was at one point in time there's a thing where we had to make sure we had our list of
conditions with us. >> You know that was a requirement. Do you remember that? >> And I'm going back a long time here. >> Well, you're an oldtime. >> I don't know. Anything else? So, we can uh >> Yeah, but u two people down the way didn't sign both. So,
>> make sure you sign on the yellow. >> I got >> Oh, I don't >> two sheets on the yellow. the yellow right right in front of Pat. >> I don't think I did. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Two of two pages is supposed to sign. >> Here it is. There's a template. >> Just for an idea, currently there are 78
conditions separated into >> any category. But then don't we add specific to the project? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Just a template that I use. >> Yeah. That's I make it specific to every single project. >> Everybody else signed to >> it. Just be good if you guys know what these were. >> Um
>> Ellie. Yes, I sign. Yeah. Want me to come over? Are you passing it down? >> Second page. >> I thought it was more than that. >> Nope. Just >> me. >> Okay. Can we um hear a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved.
>> Always the fastest one at that one. Bradford, >> I just asked Brad at the end. I guess >> I just had one about the plantings. Wasn't it more that we really wanted to see what kind of plants that we required? >> The clipboard. Sorry. I mean, as well as the fact that it's going to be a
professional plan, but we also wanted to see what they were so we can see if it's working. >> Yeah. >> When you go back that they >> Yeah. >> All right. Because this was the one we drew up. This was the plan we our new regulations
>> and it was specific more to the not that we were the person. >> All I'm trying to say is there was more than just the fact that it was a professional's signature on there. >> Yeah, it was details plan was permanent
with the plants. >> Now, do I hear a second to adjurnn? Second, Ellie. in favor.