we're still reaping stuff in the same place I have invoking the name of CO recording in progress indication of anything so yeah that's supposed to be pretty good okay tell me all all right uh welcome
everybody to the Yarmouth Conservation Commission meeting this is the meeting for Thursday April 17th 2025 uh see our first order of business is an enforcement matter for the town of Yarmouth DPW drainage easement between
20 222 and 228 Pleasant Street and land under the Bass River an unpermitted activity impacting a resource area dewatering efforts for sewer installation led to scour and displacement of sediment in salt marsh and land under the ocean and Bass
River t wants to start um I'll leave it to you if that's okay okay yeah thank you for the the great summary here um I did put together um a little figure in regards to the efforts um in July of 24 as part of the deatering efforts um as
part of contract 2 which is under contract with Robert Bau um their discharge from their wells um was discharged into our drainage system which is a 33 acre whed uh over the years Rick did a great job infiltrating
that so that it um eliminated and minimized how much was coming out of this outfall pipe which we obtained an easement in 1946 for uh so over time that beach area had healed over the rip wrap as part of the dewatering efforts
it was beyond the capacity of the drainage system so that outfall did see water um it did expose the rip wrap that was laying beneath it and it displaced it a little further down here as you can see from the aerial
photography a couple other pictures um they continued their work on Old Main Street as part of their contract too and um we waited until they were done uh and to basically take the material that had been removed from this area and had been
displaced by these boat uh dock areas so the survey was completed in February of this year and it's estimated that 40 cubic yards was displaced from the um from the outfall heading south here and then was deplaced over here and that
also concluded to be 40 cubic yards so we're looking to remove those 40 cubic yards so that um the property at 228 can properly use their dock okay um did you did you write the enforcement already
um printed yeah there's one in there so the conditions for the enforcement order allow them to restore to the pre-existing conditions by dredging that 40 cubic yards within an existing permitted dredge footprint under a permit that is held by the owners at 228
Pleasant Street um they'll refill in the scour left behind and provide an asbuilt plan when they're finished there is an existing salt marsh over there which will be protected during the work and evaluated over the summer to um determine whether
or not plug planting may be needed to restore the salt marsh if it was damaged during the work okay do we have a time frame on that when the work is done um they want to complete it prior to the summer before the summer right right yeah to remove
the material in the summer and then to restore in the fall okay uh questions from the board i'm just a little confused you said they before the summer and then you said during the summer and in the fall so yeah so the dredge work and all the
sediment work prior to Jul end of July probably a little earlier and then assess the salt marsh to see if it needs any supplemental restoration and that'll be done in the fall okay yeah mhm i was just curious on who made the estimate of the displacement the 40
yards um an engineer that's um contracted with DPW they did a survey correct yeah ci is the consultant that helped us with the survey and GEI is helping us with the dredging permits anybody
else paul yeah okay so just so that I understand so there was unpermitted dewatering it caused some erosion and deposited materials in one of these areas that you're pointing to is that correct correct yep okay and so
the solution here is that it's going to be dredged out at a point in time correct during the month of June is where we're targeting okay all right thank you and that's not we don't we're not running into any uh time of year restrictions on any of that that time of
year restriction for the open permit do you remember 31st may 31st is when it ends yeah no it ends on May 31st may 30 oh May 31st okay so between May 31st and end of July they would be with Okay for some reason I thought they were going till
the end of June but All right uh anything else britney anything else nope that's all uh would somebody like to make a motion to approve the or ratify the enforcement order as written so moved there second
second all those in favor i opposed carries unanimously thank you thanks Amanda our next order of business is a request for stick compliance for SE83-2328 uh Steven Bickerton 122 Exit
Road britney we have issues um so for 122 Exit Road was a new construction on an undeveloped property in just the flood zone um the original plan required a swale and four trees be
planted um neither of which were found on site during my site inspection and so here we are here we are um for the record my name is Kieran Healey a land surveyor with the BSC group i was out to the site and um I
inspected the site and on the back left hand side um there is a swale that is not large but it is a swale and it is capturing water on that back side the water when it comes down from the side of the building um flows down towards that area where you can see right down
there along the fence line um not is not a large area but it's capturing the water that comes down from that hill uh there are also downspouts to go to dry wells so all of the roof area is captured through the dry wells so there's not a substantial amount of water coming down that slope towards the
heading from the east towards the west um as far as the trees goes um it's my understanding that he has planted six trees on the site the species aren't exactly the same as what was approved in the original plan he planted two red
Japanese maples three Cusa dog woods and one sigmo tree um so he planted a total of six even though he was required to plant four um they are not very large and that could be one of the issues out here is that the the diameter of the
trees is more like an inch as opposed to 2 in but uh he has planted six trees on the site um so the if the commission would feel comfortable with the trees that he has used um then we could go forward issue I had yeah with the plants that he
had put in is that none of them were are native um and some of them were like shrubs this is one of those non-native dog woods and it was barely four feet tall um so when we put in the plant
requirements on the plan in general if they want to if you want to make substitutions we ask that you get them approved in advance because we would never approve cusad dogwoods or Japanese maples for plants that would go in to satisfy a conservation requirement um and definitely not at that small size so
we wanted 8ft maples and six foot cedars um to make up it was an entirely wooded lot so I think that was the only reason the commission at that time requested that it be planted yeah i mean I would I would agree that
tree selection was poor at best um and I'm you said there was a you said there was a swale but I'm not seeing it on the asbuilt and I didn't see it in the pictures when you were it's adjacent to the fence on the northwest side so
there's a gully of approximately 1 foot wide with 4 in deep so there's okay um Oh I see you marked it on the I was out there during a rainstorm to inspect it and water was capt being
captured in that area and so what about the water that would come off the front and the other side where there's you know it was graded up i know it's a gentle slope but the swale was put on all three sides in the approved plan and implemented in only
quarter of the area that was proposed in i was not when I was out there during the rainstorm I did not see water shedding off the off the ground towards there as you mentioned it is a gentle slope um there is in front of where the car is in that picture it gets does get
steeper up to the house but because it flattens out so much where the car is I didn't see any evidence of it sheeting across the property into the street the grass is basically capturing that runoff but I think the biggest thing is that the house itself because the downspouts are going into dry wells that's
capturing a substantial amount of the water that's coming off the site and as a result that water's been not leaving the site i don't know i don't really see that this I mean it's a flood zone i would like to see something at
least if what whatever was said you were going to do i mean granted that the trees are not sufficient um I I would not support this issuing this right now at this point i I would
deny this but that's just me i the rest of the board have their say yeah David I agree i mean I think we we approved a plan and I think the plan needs to be followed otherwise why approve plans you know that's why we're
here and uh the builder and the owner needs to follow the the plan and if they don't they need to correct it period anybody else yeah I agree with David you know I was out there and um I don't know about the the runoff but
the trees are really uh in insufficient unless there's any further discussion among the board would somebody like to make a motion to approve the COC mr chairman if I could question um would it be possible to
request a COC a partial COC for the house um and then come back with the after speaking to the client about the trees that he's got to replace and submit that because I think the you know the house is the biggest portion of this and that has been taken care of and the
drywalls are taken care of and the parking area is acceptable i don't know if I would is there a reason why you just need the you need a partial yeah they're looking they're looking to
sell the property well you're coming back either way then right you got to you got to get the full COC before you can sell the property no you don't so what's happened in the past as far as I can remember is that people will sell
the property and then they find out later that they didn't check into the what was needed to do and and if I could because of the partial COC that very specifically about what items are remaining and my client's goal is if the
if the commission did want changes that he would get that done but because trees take time to grow and I think you got two planting season or two growing seasons in the previous requirement um two growing seasons would be another year from now so the plants would be in
but two growing seasons would be another year yeah i I mean I'm willing to do with the with the COC uh I want to see the the trees planted and then we could do ongoing conditions to to uh monitor for the two years of
monitoring i don't I don't I wouldn't be holding up a COC for that uh but I think if we issue the partial certificate then they're out the door and we're not going to see those trees getting planted
so that would be my I'll go to Paul first yeah that's kind of you know I mean wouldn't it be appropriate to go ahead and get bigger trees and plant the species that um the plan called for put
them in and then u follow Ed's advice as far as um issuing the COC in that way because those you know um I don't know if there's any hold up on the COC because of the drainage but it's certainly because of the trees if if the commission is more is willing
to allow us to plant and then come back for the COC before the two growing seasons uh we'd be more than happy to do that at least you have them in the ground right i don't have any issue with that how many trees though are the plan call
for Britney they called for four trees four that's all jeez that's an awfully big piece of property for just four trees but if that's what it calls for that's what it calls for there got to be bigger trees out there to plant i fully I fully understand that they're small that's um I actually mentioned that when
I originally spoke they're pretty small um are any of them of any use Britney in your opinion i wouldn't choose to I mean I would say no so there we got six ornamental trees i have four other trees there are other of a better size of a
better size yes a bigger size ellie did you have a question just so I understand it you're asking for a partial for construction of the new dwelling is that what As of now I'm not looking for a partial i'm going to go off and get the work complete and come back we just won't have the two planting seasons
underneath the trees before we come back right i mean because you keep in mind the new construction is what is contributing to the ground you know to the runoff and and the impact to the groundwater so I mean so the you know what we're asking is not an afterthought
it this is you have to look at the project as a whole okay so would you rather continue this then or just you want to continue it can you I assume you're trying to get them in as quick as as you can then correct yes but
I wouldn't like to say that we could get it done in two weeks so if we could continue for a month that would give us I'm willing to do that uh so we're Can we clarify if you're just looking for the trees or both the swale and the trees you said you have to what both the swale
and the trees the trees the trees with the swale tell me about that is it adequate the swale the swale's adequate i think we're asking the expert over there well I don't know i mean
I I'd say it's barely how much of a swale that's I mean it looks to me like it's just I mean if I saw that I wouldn't
call that a swale i would say somebody ran out of out of fill between at some point and that's where it stops but I don't think it's a a real good swale but I think at the same time you also
have a fence that seems to be smack dab against the grade too so guess that's kind of acting as the far side of the swale isn't it um it's not large but it is 6 in deep and it is
1 foot wide it does capture the runoff that comes down that grass right now as I say the the biggest thing is because the house is all being captured um we don't have as much runoff as you may think might be on the site i mean I guess I would say I would defer
to an engineer and if the engineer wants to sign off on the on the asbuilt as it is and then if there's an issue it's not our it's not our issue or our call it's it becomes a civil matter if there's any kind of flooding but yeah would you verify on
that no storm water is leaving the site right now when I visually inspected through the rainstorm I did not see any storm water leaving the site now the rainstorm that it was inale was a regular rain if we get five inches of rain like we did or 4
inches of rain we get in an hour like we did two years ago then maybe but this was just a regular rainfall and there was no evidence of leaving the site but that would be under the regular condition i mean a swale is not supposed
to is not designed for a 5 in rain event so I'm good as long as you get the trees back then and I will uh I will I'm sorry i will ask him to ex to increase the size of the swale adjacent to the fence let's pull it back another foot wider
and make it I'm good with that then uh excuse me um my name is Richard Kilroy i'm via butter um the fence in that picture is actually mine and that ditch along the fence is
actually on my property if you look at the picture you will see in the back the back fence the old wooden fence ends at um this lot's property line so you'll
see the ditch and the fence is on my lot so I have a very strong feeling and I've communicated this um with uh Miss Drienzo um multiple times that
um I'm very concerned about the runoff undermining my fence and I'm concerned about the plan not being followed with the swale on the opposite side as well uh for my neighbors and for the front
for the water running off into the street um I appreciate that uh the surveyor was there during a rainstorm but my concern is the worst case scenarios not the best case scenarios
okay thank you Mr kilroy uh I mean if you have if you have issues that you feel you're you're being uh damaged by your neighbor then that's a civil matter that you need to take up in a court i I understand i'm not it's not
the purview of the conservation commission totally understand that my my concern is that the plan as submitted be followed all right so Can I ask one other question please
um so was there more specificity regarding that swale how big it how how you know where it was supposed to go how it was supposed to be constructed in the in the original plan that was approved well the fence does not appear that there is very much
I think the fence has been put in after the plan was approved that is correct there is a concrete bound at that front left corner is there a swell on the other side of the house too it's shown on three sides and
implemented in in this small section on the on this side that abuts Mr kilroyy's property can we ask for a section or a detail on it on the on the little ditch that's been
implemented proposed correct correct um unfortunately we know we can't really person who prepared this plan is is no longer with us so what is if you put a swell on a plan Karen what is it generally without any detail what is it assumed to be
a certain width a certain depth um depending on the volume of water you just make one of those bigger um but in this particular case it's not a huge volume of water so you know I mean as I mentioned it's now 1 ft by 6 in i can ask my client to make it 2 feet by 6 in
which will increase the capacity quite a bit how do you just not along my fence line please how do you make sure that the new owners don't fill in the swale with you know
plantings and and therefore no longer is working as a swale well I mean if it was a then they'd be creating the soil then you'd almost encourage plants in it but I believe the soil was also a continuing
condition on the order of compliance mr kroy I just want to let you know so this is a certificate of compliance hearing it is not an an open hearing for a public meeting as a as a public u comment okay so I apologize i I was
willing to listen to your comments you've you've made your comments we understand what you're concerned with uh but we are trying to trying to deal with the the certificate of compliance at this point okay um so yes or no do you need more swale
i stated at the beginning I'd like them to to adhere to the original plan so I'm going to stick with that that's my opinion and again the original plan calls for more of a swale and it's it's wrapping around wrapping around three
sides it might say wider deeper is that is that accurate is that what you're right well there's no there's no cross-section of what was approved so we don't know what was intended to be put there when it was approved isn't there some standard of
the industry in terms of what a swale should be it's based on the volume of water that you're expecting yeah okay and so when you were out there you didn't see that much water so you're figuring that swale is okay but it's been pointed out that the swale isn't
even on the the applicant's property but that's maybe something else to Well if I remember from being out there the fence was very close to the concrete bound that's in the front the concrete bound being the property line that's something for somebody else to decide if it's accurate well what I'll
do is I'll take a measurement from we have a foundation as built the new foundation so I'll take a me measurement from the foundation to the fence and see where the fence is in relation to the line and if it's an issue or not i can't speak to that right now right thank you all right so I'm getting that so you
would like to see the swale a better version of the swale if I could doing a better version of the swale along the westerly sideline on my client's property is relatively straightforward digging up the front
yard to put in the swale and having a dip right there would be a lot more difficult to do okay no I understand that i guess at the same time because you can see how flat it is right just noted where Kaso is right
now that's pretty flat is that why it wasn't put in in the first place i can't speak to that i'm sorry i don't know but I mean it the plan wasn't followed and so a swale supposed to be in the front right so why didn't they follow that plan probably
because they felt it was so flat that the water wasn't going one onto the street if that's true why' they put a swale in to begin with then on the plan i can't I know you can't but that's my point so yeah I So I mean we're going from the plan shows the um that we're
going from elevation 12 down to elevation 7 and that's why they want a swale is because the water would sheet out into the road that has no drainage that would make sense
well I mean again if you would have just followed the the plan in the beginning then we wouldn't be having this discussion so you know I get that you don't want to dig up your front yard but you should have built it the right
way in the first place then we wouldn't be having this discussion and I I would say at that point are are you going to be able to do the do the swale relatively quickly um I believe he'll find a way to to do
the swale relatively quickly will you Huh do you want to provide an industry standard for the swale to be implemented so it doesn't end up being just like the small one that's in the back well I don't know what the industry st I don't know if
there is an industry standard uh that we could we could go off of um I mean given what we have and what we have for the for that the original approved plan we can just say you can
put a swale in but again there's nothing saying how deep the swale is how wide the swale is or anything else but you know you would have to address it so that it's going to at least uh be characterized so that it will
handle at least the average type of of rainfall uh and keep that on the property okay I understand what the commission wants i will go back to the my client and we'll get it done and hopefully back here in the second meeting in May
second meeting in May is 15th uh 15th right may 15th yeah personally I won't be here but I'll have somebody here okay thank you thank you Karen uh do I have a motion to continue
to May 15th so moved second in favor i I opposed carries unanimously uh next order of business is a is a continued notice of intent for
SC83-2470 William Hearn 104 River Street proposed replacement and elevation of a seaw wall fill tree removal within the riverfront area coastal bank velocity zone flood zone and the buffer zone to a coastal bank good evening Mr chairman members for the
record my name is Kieran Healey i'm a land surveyor with the BSC Group and with me tonight is William Hound the owner of the property uh we were in front of you a couple of weeks ago and the commission made it clear that they did not want the style of um anchoring system that we had proposed and you
wanted to switch it out to helical piles um we went back to the drawing board and we put in helical piles we reduced the amount of disturbance reduced the amount of trees that had been needed to be removed um the amount of fill is the
same we also um removed the canopy that we were proposing over the deck to allow something that was temporary every summer but would not be there in the winter time um there are a few trees on the north side that still need to be replaced because they're just too close
to the wall um we are proposing to replace the four trees in that um norly area just outside of where they are right now so the next time the wall needs to be replaced in 40 years time we hope um we won't have to deal with trees in that area other and with the pathway
we had proposed a um gravel pathway we've removed that just so it's going to be a natural pathway between the trees um other than that I'd be glad to answer any questions that you may have okay thanks Karen it looks like you have addressed the concerns of the board if there's
anybody have any any further questions yep um just as far as document control I'm just a little confused on on your notations i forgot to ask this last time you you call out in a revision one or for example your revision two is is
changing to the to the helical anchors but however you don't reference that as um I was just seeing a revision in the plan itself you just have a log of your revisions but you don't indicate
them you don't match it up in the plan you don't bubble it you don't bubble the changes i don't see what's changed in the plan it's just docu you know document control do you know what I'm saying i know what you're saying but there are occasions where I've come back to this board with three different sets
of plans and three different meetings and if I was to label each individual one it would be there would be a lot of ink on the paper it would be difficult to see it's not like a technical drawing where you got more space to put these things there was so many lines on these plans right now that a lot of the
commissions are asking me to reduce the amount of ink that I put on the plans i don't know if you understand all I'm saying is in your revisions you you should note them in plan view not just as a log do you know what I'm It's document
control 101 i understand so that you know we know what the final we know what we're approving guess I can put a list to the side of those changes that we've made going forward just bubbling the changes am I correct you know what I'm asking yeah I
understand what you're asking um sometimes this this one change had a ripple effect of changes where it may be difficult for him to encompass all of them so like all the trees that he was proposing to remove prior are now staying the mitigation area is smaller
the planting area is smaller and so I understand what you're saying right i mean the objective is you know with document control is that somebody does that doesn't even know what we're talking about will look at the plan and know what you're doing um so yeah just I guess be cognizant of that in future submitts that
you reflect the changes in plan view um more clearly so we know what you're doing i mean for example on this one where you're you say the the anchors I can't see in plan view where they are
and I really you know I'm I'm really happy that you're doing them but you you don't reflect it in plan view i've got 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 black lines coming off the face of the wall going approximately 15 ft right i know that it
doesn't label as such so and I do have a cross-section yep a cross-section that also labels them on the plan so okay I think it's a fair point um that can be applied as you know as you see fit it's just a little more attention to it but I
understand it might be difficult in every scenario thank you i would agree we try and make a list to make it clear okay anybody else uh Britney anything else oh thank you
anybody in the audience anybody on Zoom raise your hand digitally would somebody like to make a motion to approve the project with special conditions so moved second and
all those in favor i opposed unanimously thank you Mr chairman thank you members thank you very much who was first and second on that i missed it uh Ellie ellie and Paul
uh next order of business is a new notice of intent for SC83-2475 Keith and Claire Felton 61 Baker Road proposed garage and driveway in a buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland yeah plans
great thank you i don't know what the difference is but yeah something good evening again for the record my name is Kieran Healey i'm a land surveyor with the BSC Group representing the owners of the property um Kee and
Cla Felton um we are proposing a um garage on the uh property um the property is unusual i'm sure most of you been out there in that it is uh drops down from the roadway when you come up
off of the road down into kind of a hollow and then um goes back up again a little bit as you go towards the rear of the property um we are proposing to fill in the existing driveway that's there that is within the 0 to 50 foot buffer
and we're proposing this garage outside the 50t it is actually going to be 64 feet away from the closest edge of wetland um we do have to remove some trees um to do so and that's the additional sketch that I gave you today
was the the tree location of what we need to remove um it's approximately nine trees pines and cedars and one juniper um I do not have the proposed any proposed plant trees to go
back in um all of this area is outside of the 50ft buffer i do understand your regulation talks about um anything within that 100t buffer every tree has to be itemized and replaced at um one tree for every
um sorry one an equal amount of inches for the uh diameter of each tree for the example we have a 12-in cedar that would require six trees to be planted to meet the current bylaw um with us replacing nine trees each
approximately n um each approximately 10 in on average that would be 90 in and based on the current regulation if we put in 2 in trees that would be 45 trees we'd have to plant on the property and I just
don't have that kind of room to do um that kind of planting on a site like this um so part of what I'm here for is a little bit of guidance on how we're going to do deal with that um I have infilled any area within the 0 to 50
that was open um and the area that's between the zero and sorry the 50 and 100 um currently the majority of that area is where the driveways are where the house is and where the proposed garage is going so um you know we could
plant some trees on the back of the property but it would be outside of the buffer um which doesn't really meet what you're looking to do so we're trying to enhance it as good as we can this particular stretch right here is actually it's funny um Baker Road
becomes a paper road or unbuilt unconstructed road along the front of this property so that walkway that's right there is actually not on the property and people use it to go back and forth along Baker Road to the south so I didn't fill that in even though
it's an obvious place to fill in um so we kept all of our mitigation on our property and um I've infilled the best I can i have submitted a plant list for the planted uh the plants that we're proposing and uh with that I'll open up
to any questions or comments discussions on this one all right so not to be a nudge here about this but I thank you for for putting the trees you know giving us this this
supplement that shows the trees that you're taking down my only issue with this is that I have no idea of knowing that this is what you're doing you're taking the trees down i just have the trees marked as 8 in you know 8 inch cedar 12 inch
cedar 8 in juniper um I to be fair we didn't have very much time so we did site visits on Monday and that's when I realized a lot of trees needed to come down so that's when I reached out to Karen to let him know we would need additional information i'm
surprised you got it to us for the meeting i was expecting to need it to continue to get it after um all all the trees that I mapped are coming down so I understand that but there's no way of knowing that based on what I see here and I'm just so I'm just asking if at
some point you can put like a X if you just mark it on a on a plan that uh shows the shows these trees and then put on like an X just so we know or or do something that that says these are the trees that are being removed anything anything that's labeled has
been removed then put that down on a on some put a note on it or someplace that that we know that so somebody five years from now uh when we're all dead and buried um I hope more than five years i do I do
have a note on the plan years could you go 15 sorry i'm feeling particularly low down right now but that's I do have a note on the plan saying nine trees to be removed okay so uh my other issue is I'm looking at your
uh mitigation plantings and I'm seeing all sorts of things that are interesting low and yeah I mean and this is not meant as criticism
but I think uh you could benefit from having a a horicultural uh professional help you uh select um species and and varieties because you're basically putting things the
mitigation areas in what were treed areas forested areas forest that might be a little a little strong but um like everything that you see there are things that are growing out in the
open for the most part and so they wouldn't they they are not ecological equivalents so I would just ask that there be a little bit more um thought as to something different in terms of the planting pallet i don't have a problem with what you're proposing but just
having a different planting pallet ellie okay so um what I understand is what you're telling us today is that you are removing nine trees nine existing trees however in your proposed remediation you will not be able to
replace them and uh so there's that and but my question is and it and it's to to to to us I guess is what what I do not know the requirement adjacent to a BBW and how how extensive the the
remediation is i mean I would think that if you took down trees next to a a a BBW that you would have to replace them and the fact Yeah so the fact that you can't is is very alarming to me that this project
should be re-evaluated in that sense let me uh try and shed light on that i mean so yeah the the treat the the ideal is to replace inch for inch what is taken with something new uh but clearly when
you're removing mature trees you're not going to be able to you just in this case particularly you don't have a lot of extra room where you're going to be able to maybe plant what was it 50 trees that would that would require you to
whatever whatever that was so again I would say you know some prudence and reason has to has to prevail here so make an effort to uh fill the areas that you can uh but
you're never going to get that i understand you're not going to get that 45 those 45 trees planted so that you're going to have 40 45 new trees growing to full maturity so I just ask that you try and do some sort of a reasonable uh
compromise in between that's you're you're never going to get the get the full the full effect of of you know doing inch for inch replacement unless you sit there and make them replace a 12-in tree with a 12-in tree i understand that i I just don't know what
the proposed remediation is for those specific nine trees like what is the remediation well it's inch for inch that's what we're saying they're they're requ the bylaw says inch for inch uh but okay you can't you can't do that because
of this site yeah I know it's a sliver so yeah well that's unfortunate anybody else did you say uh you were relocating the garage from the other side of the building or did I misunderstand that i
didn't mention that there is a garage on the other side of the building a onecar garage but because it's where it's located zoning wise we can't do anything to that garage so they're looking to put this one further away from the property lines and 64 ft from the wetland okay so they're not planning on getting rid of
that one this is that okay thank you anybody else no Jack i guess uh based on the cost of tree replacement what do you feel that uh they could afford or would be
reasonable to get 4 inch trees in there and or what size how big a could they go on the trees well there's there's a huge cost difference between a 2 inch and a 3 inch and a 3 inch and a 4 inch huge cost
difference yep um you know if the if the commission wanted maybe we can go back out to the site and see if we can find a spot for 10 2in caliper trees it's as you can see from the photographs there isn't a lot of space
to do that it's not an open lot it's a very you know thin slot all the way around so I think on site is required for us brittany is that approach that you would
Yeah I have um a couple of things to say is it Is it not a private road this paper road is it is it a private road it's shown as It is private road yes so um they would technically do own halfway
through the private road yes but you can inhibit even on a private road you cannot inhibit other people from using it mhm okay um but it's not a road to be driven on right it's just
right right now there's a pathway that goes through from northeast to southwest that pathway right there but I think what you're asking could you plant some trees on the and I don't know if that would necessarily prohibit you from using it is that up in back of when we were there
up in the back of the proposed garage closest to the wetland where we were able to walk through yeah I wouldn't call it up in the back it's closer to the wetland from No I'm not talking about I'm talking about in in this area here
is not she's talking the wetland i'm I think you're saying there is space there to plant trees right i'm sorry are you trying to say that there is space back there yeah yeah i can ask i wasn't sure exactly where you were talking about but in back in that back area can't you put
trees back here i mean those are incredible trees that are coming down so um could it could they go back here some could that's that's the question i mean does that help in any way i mean the these true trees do enormous amount of
um it has enormous benefit to the wetland but would something back here or would that be a factor at least you'd have some trees in is a shame that those things are coming down but I you know it's their property so um to me it does appear that there are
alternatives to accomplish a similar end product with much less impact um so I am surprised to see a proposal where you're taking so many trees down not being able to cut them back when you may be able to have a garage similarly sized without having to remove that many trees if you
abut it to the existing house um and then you wouldn't have to replace any of these large trees that serve in the wetland buffer anywhere um just to comment on that one thing we cannot um abuted to the house because we
would not be able to drive up onto it because of the the way that drops down from the roadway for those of you out there the house is about 4 and 1/2 ft higher than um roadway the garage typically is eight inches below that top
of foundation so you'd be coming up four feet in a very short distance so right here you can't put it you can see how I got the grading right there space we're coming down from elevation 10 11 12 13 14 15 up to 16 for
where the garage is located because the existing top foundation is 158 so a new garage would be at 15 and I just wouldn't be able to get drive up into it but we did consider that and that's why we So you have it coming down um I'm
confused with the grading lines these two aren't labeled but I'm imagining 12 13 14 15 and so you'd be at 15 right here no correct but you just doesn't fit you wouldn't It just wouldn't fit the grade wouldn't work
without an extremely steep driveway if I if I may if you can't replace the trees you're taking down I feel like the plan has to be reworked so you're making less impact i I think you can do better i just ask a question on the history of
this property were those trees that are are being um selected to come down were they placed there when this was originally um developed it's probably way beyond the wetland protection act but way before in order
to protect that wetland there's no record of that in anything i don't know that wouldn't be a factor this is the first filing for this property if that's what you're asking yeah so they've always kind of just been naturally there
okay me again it it wouldn't it is a concern but it's it's it's sort of more of a concern with the topography here those I I would think removal of those trees is going to
increase s add to significant runoff and I don't see anywhere where that's considered or evaluated or taken care of and the slope is substantial you're you're really building on
a like I call it like a sliver of a slope and um I I just think the plan should be reworked so that you're not building on this slope and and and having to remove these trees and just you're just jeopardizing the whole existing
topography i I would disagree with that because the entire site is a slope correct all the way through correct so there is there is no way around we're proposing a 500gallon drywall with 1 foot of stone all the way around which is more than enough to handle the roof
from a structure of this size that would be all of the rain water from that roof is going to be captured easily in that size leeching pit with stone so we're capturing all of that so that design is on the plan so I'm not sure how you say we we don't
um discuss that when I have that particularly drawn on the face of the plan calculated that runoff with or without these trees removed with the trees removed because the building wouldn't be there if the trees were there so with the trees removed
yes ed uh if you look at the diagram of the trees in the car I mean sorry the garage and the car what else is in there besides garage space just garage space because
this there's a second floor the second force for storage but it's it's funny i've never I made sure that there was any livable space like a bathroom or anything else in there but I didn't ask him i presume all garages are going to have some sort of storage
overhead because that that's a looks like at least a shop or something else is going to go in there with that extra space for those cars and I'm asking given that the number of trees being removed is that appropriate
size of building to be planting in the first place looking at the way the trees are positioned even if you made it shorter by four or five feet you still would affect almost all the same trees maybe
one cedar might be saved if you made it smaller but that's not going to change the overall issue i mean to me it looks like you can save three trees by moving it forward by forward I mean closer to the patio those
back three 8 in juniper 12in cedar 8 in cedar if you can relocate further we can save all those i just do think that it can be nuanced a bit to make the impact lower given that you're not even proposing to replace any trees
well that's one of as I mentioned at the beginning we're going to discuss tonight is you know and I think that I know you mentioned this but if you plant a couple trees here people will still be able to walk on this path just a thought
okay so we seem to have discussed the heck out of this so if I could look for continuence on this um and see if I talk to my client and see if we can move it closer to the house and make it steeper
it might save those three trees on the on the back side and um and then possibly find other places on the lot um that we can plant the trees i just even though we have rights in the road I'm really concerned with making it
difficult for anybody to access the road i I don't want a legal issue out of it i get that trees i'd rather do it in the back they're still on the site they're still within 200 feet of the resource they're just not within the 100 ft of resource
yeah I think you've got alternatives um and I'd also look into that mitigation the mitigate selection of mitigation plants but uh before we go on with the continuence uh I'm just going to ask does everybody in the audience have any comments questions on this anybody on
Zoom few weeks one month two weeks um yeah that that's the first right fourth may 4th 1st oh that's right may 1st um would somebody like to make a motion
to continue this to May 1st so moved second all those in favor I opposed take you off your tents be on the first next order of business is a new notice of intent for
SC83-2473 uh John's Carolyn McGillicuy two powers lane proposed addition patio and relocation of driveway and land sub coastal storm flowage and the buffer zones to coastal dune coastal bank and BBW John good evening John OD from
Sullivan Engineering Consulting uh this parcel is located at Two Powers Lane it's on a corner lot with Radio Lane existing single family house was rebuilt in the 80s uh we have a coastal dune
located across the street across P Lane to the south and we have a bordering vegetated wetland uh and a coastal bank across radio lane to the west the project as proposed is to construct a garage addition onto the side of the
house it is located outside of the 50ft buffers uh it's about 58 ft to the bank across radio lane and about 60 ft to the dune across Powers uh we are proposing to relocate the uh stone driveway that
currently goes to the south and put it uh off to the west and doing that results in a reduction of um disturbed area within the 50 foot buffer um we do have a slight increase in the 50 to 100 and I believe we've provided the
mitigation calculations uh there is a sand bm along powers and radio that was constructed under an RDA in the past and we're just sort of looking to expand upon that natural landscaped area with
that mitigation um we have called for drainage for for all the roof runoff um I think with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you all may have okay questions from the board
no britney anything um no that's all thank you we've talked at length about this over email over the past two years so anybody in the audience on this
one anybody on Zoom if not would somebody like to make a motion to approve the project with special conditions second all those in favor i
opposed carries unanimously very much thank you for your help britney do you need these cards or anything yes please good to see you in Yarmouth come back again we'll be around next order of business is another new
notice of intent for SC83-2474 sounds good a Clifford Betron 9 Flakeyard Lane proposed extension and raising of a stone revetment stairway modification of the Velocity flood zone at Coastal Bank good evening Chairman Hoops members of the commission my name is Dan Ojula
i'm a land surveyor and also a civil engineer uh with Downkeep Engineering in Yarmouthport and helping Cliff Petron out and his wife uh uh who live here part of the year with um some protection for their home that they've purchased
uh many years ago at Nine Flakeyard in West Yarmouth so this is on Lewis Bay um as you know or many of you aware the ferry traffic uh tends to run some pretty good wakes up on the shore here and many of the um people along the
shore uh it was uh have have had to protect it with revetments over the years so this whole area is is quite well uh revetted um we've been talking with John Barker um uh next door about updating his but he hasn't pulled the
trigger on that yet just to the east of there you can see you recently approved a big wall it's a tiered wall the top of it's up around seven and a half um to our east uh there's kind of that very landmark large building that was um
permitted many years ago and that was um they took down a couple houses and put up one great big one but there's a a massive wall around that and actually is not even flat mapped in the flood zone anymore he pulled himself right out of the flood zone with a with 10 we're not looking to do that big a wall it's um
but we are looking to just enhance what was there there was an old concrete um you can see pieces of the old concrete wall that was there uh that's fallen down and then there was a wooden wall that's mostly still there but you know obviously the top cap and the upper
section is knocked off and the tiebacks are gone um but uh you know some of the larger events in the in the ferry wakes have have damaged uh the shore a little bit here um I think the nice benefit of this one is that you're not really worried as a sediment source because it's already there it's already armored
the neighbors are are fully revetted um you know if if there are any more dredge swils put here would take them but I know that's quite a process it hasn't happened in a number of years but um uh the situation is that um there's a little bit of erosion on the lower area
we worked with Cape Organics Lindsay Strode to come up with a plan um to to re uh he he likes to use the woven bristle cooer logs uh to pull in um stabilize the top there's quite a bit of wind in the area you know southwesterly
blow all summer and winter winds um but uh to try and anchor that down and get the plants to grow uh he's got uh some cord grass up there in combs uh on top of a woven bristle ko or blanket and he uses a heavy blanket
um and u and stakes it in with natural oak stakes and then uh that'll taper back a little bit to the to the lawn so we're not looking to do much fill at all just kind of capping off what's there um a little bit higher than than what is existing i think it's very approximate
to what was there in the past nowhere near as high as the wall to our our west and east um uh again Barkers being the the same wall as us it was one property at one time but um the ones on either side are much higher so you know similar
to that bulkhead that you looked at earlier it was raised up a couple of feet we're looking to raise this one a little less than that one was going from 47 to 68 but again that doesn't count the upper um remnants of the concrete and wood that were there which I think
are probably right around 68 um so the narrative goes into some specivity on on your regulations and how we feel feel we meet them um the um um goes through the obviously dealing with land under the ocean and there's a
high water uh coastal bank um this would be classified as a coastal bank um and um the well the dwelling you know predated the act so you can armor it again it's already armored so that point is a bit moot but um again the neighboring reetments being higher on
either side um there's no increase in the footprint um you know especially seawward uh we're working in an area that's previously developed or disturbed um by the tags by the the rock walls and you know the the lawn has kind of fallen
in a bit so would like to increase the beach grass i think we'd had a small sliver of um vegetation approved here before we'll enhance that we'll work with Lindsey Strode to to beef up the uh the plantings at the top of the wall make it a more coastal resilient site so
that if we do get a decent um you know halfway decent storm it should should hold it back again we're we're not saying that this will hold back every storm that it's a V13 and the top of the wall is uh is seven so um there'll be
breakers rolling over this if we ever get a a big category hurricane with with rollers from the south but uh for moderate storms for high super high tides when the wakes the fairies you know deceivingly sneaky quick when they go across there and there's some energy
in those wakes uh we hope to uh divert that and keep that from from impacting the site um so uh again um the construction protocol will be all from the upland um he'll have a path down there and and redo it afterwards uh standard back hoe
and and loader to transport the rocks uh we've got a nice driveway that comes in from upland area and um the um u rubber tired machines uh will be utilized where possible to to minimize it there's some photographs showing the situation again
highly developed uh u shorefront uh just basically enhancing and and and supplementing what was there uh to try and protect the older home someday he may have to go up on open piles but for now we're we're we're trying to avoid that it's very livable and low and kind
of a nice campy building there's much bigger structures on either side he's living pretty modestly there um Britney did point out you may recall some years back we did a u a little uh out building in the back for him and uh we did put the certificate compliance request in
for those um and uh there's couple little issues he he the the good news is the driveway he reduced it's it's smaller uh but there's little um I don't know if they're emergency egress and I'd have to check with the building commissioner on that but uh some small decks on the side there's about 60ish
square feet of more hardscape back there so hopefully we can deal with that as a separate matter and of of course that order should be closed out but um just our focus tonight is on on the Lewis Bay side and um working with Lindsay from Cape Organics to to um kind of uh
freshen up and and and create a little bit better environment for the beach grass and um and for the property so I think with the mitigation that we're proposing and the uh the enhancement to the to the to the rocks that already there it's a permittable project our narrative again goes through your
standards and explains why that should be the case be glad to answer any questions if you do have them thank you thanks Dan questions from the board could you go back to um two slides there's a picture a really good picture
uh I think the one before that perhaps um I'll just go through them so you're looking at the bulkhead oh yeah that one works so could you speak to is that bulkhead you have a note in your in your in your plans saw
cutting you know saw cutting that bulkhead down okay could you speak to that i It's just So it's just uh it's just if we're trying to fit new rocks in there that's going to get in the way could we hammer them down maybe but I just figured they'd get a high-grade you
know a strong sawzaw and cut them off so that we could fit the new rocks in there that was all um it's it's a little bit in the way of construction and if you were to try and keep a perfectly straight line with round rocks you'd have big gaps in the wall so either knock them down or or or slice them off
and transport them off site I think might be more appropriate and then we could fit the rocks the rubble underneath and the and the fabric and the and the and the rocks in there a little bit better so so you're basically saying the the the existing bulkhead is sort of def defunct is that a word 100%
yeah defunct sounds fine i mean it was there uh it was obviously deteriorating they backed it up i would likely say they probably put the stones in to uh when the and you see the concrete one to the east of that so you know who came first the chicken or the egg i'm not
sure but my guess is uh the concrete was first then the wood then the rocks but we're just going to get some of that um foreign material out of there so we can properly construct the wall have it look like a nice um you know um nautical open joint um rock revetment and then uh the
coil logs on top with some nice beach grass to uh to round out the nautical look thank you anybody else britney anything yeah I have a question so um do you I guess you have found that
it'll be a better solution to just add to the top of here and so you don't think kind of peacemailing this revetment will have any negative impact on its structural integrity as opposed to just getting rid of it and building a new one perhaps with a more gentle slope this is a really steep one yeah um well
it seems to be relatively well built um I I do know that they like to go back one and a half to one um I think if we were taking more uh regular big storms like if we're on the north side and had a uh you know the open bay but this is
this is a bit of an embainment and and um u the cost benefit of of that I don't think is is really there uh certainly if it if it starts to fail then we'd rebuild the whole thing it would ro roll it back but um my estimation of it right
now is those towes are going to hold um and uh it can take another couple of feet height without any impact to it so less expensive you know they're they're not made of money i mean they're obviously successful people but rather than um redo the whole thing it it seemed to us that just placing some on
top enhancing it would be the way to go rather than a full depth rebuild so what at the wooden wall you're going to cut it and everything below it is going to remain but you will have to redo the the crushed bedding stone on top exactly yeah we'll we'll pull it pull that out get some get some bedding stone some
fabric under it and again that just helps hold the soil if there's a uh if there's an event that the waves get in there uh and then um some Yeah so that basically be the limit of work which saws all those off down below grade filter fabric crush stone and uh this
will be removed off site yeah those look like they may be creassed so we'll get get them off site to a properly licensed facility and you said it it won't match um it'll be lower than the neighbors yeah especially the one to the east which is
up at 10 and we're down at 68 so this is all the way up at 10 yeah we'll be well under in fact if you look at those green ribbons that's the top of what we're proposing it's not particularly high but you know still for some storms uh m medium storms I think it'll be helpful
not to have the waves breaking up one little area okay my last question is um it's to me surprising to see salt marsh grasses planted far above meanh high water um I just haven't seen that before
i missed that so this is salt marsh bartina alternative flora calms 8 inch on Yeah we we may go with regular beach grass up there i don't know if if uh if if Lindsay had called that out correctly so I I I think that'll do a lot better with with a beach grass than than the
salt marsh grass so it's like a a daily dose of salt that's not going to get that up there that's what I would recommend and perhaps interplanting with some seaside golden rod for some diversity i know beach grass is widely loved but we love to see more than one species
that is all thank you you need a revised plan to show that um I would I would prefer um I mean I we'll be happy to revise it yeah if you could just revise we don't need to hold it hold the hold the hearing yeah subject to a revised plan
showing the plantings adjusted for for our conversation i would be happy to do that otherwise we'll end up with alternative flora for sure up there so yeah I just don't I think we'd be back to adjust it honestly that's a good catch britney anybody else anybody in the audience anybody on
Zoom any further discussion among the board would somebody like to make a motion to approve the project subject to receipt of a revised plan showing the change of planting at the top of the uh wall from uh alternative flora to uh
beach grass american right um amafa bravaligulada nailed it you can just say beach grass if you want to Dan yeah American beach grass okay i I know one takes more fertilizer than the other so I'll screw
it up but we'll coordinate to get that scientific name correct there a motion to that effect jack uh Bradford second whoever right all those in favor i opposed carries unanimously i appreciate
working with us thank you very much okay right our next order of business is an enforcement matter for Susan and Robert L57 feeasant cove surf cutting and or removal of vegetation within the velocity zone bordering vegetated wetland and its buffer zone so this was
just continued from last time so that we can uh could issue special conditions with the enforcement order um you you all reviewed them uh the applicant wanted me to clarify the fence one it does say that a single rail fence
ballards or similar may to be deployed to demarcate the no disturb zone in the past we have accepted large stones andor small boulders in place of an actual fence um good evening um members of the
commission i I uh assume that you received my letter is it okay for me to say something yeah I mean so we are The commission will go first yeah so the commission will address any questions they may have concerning the special conditions in the uh enforcement order
okay so did anybody have any questions so do Sorry go ahead britney anything else i just wanted to point out it is a little different than usual since it was um a clear cut but the stumps all remain
um the special conditions that I have in there that's not a great photo but the special conditions are for an ecological wetland scientist to reassess in July mark any respouting vegetation and build their plan off of that in case there's anything there that they want to keep
that's growing back and also I imagine much of it will be invasive species so it'll be growing back pretty relentlessly so that they can address that in their restoration plan okay anything from the
commission would you like to say anything Al it was just um the letter I sent um I sent before I I was able to read the order so it didn't contemplate everything that was in the order and one um item in particular Britney and I
spoke of uh this earlier today the there there is a natural border along that area the area that we're talking about and as I said the last meeting we've been there for 20 years we've never had an issue this was this issue shouldn't
have happened it was a miscommunication it won't I assure you it won't happen again so to when I saw number six about erecting a fence I thought gosh you know there's never been a fence there it's a natural border there's there isn't a
fence anywhere in the neighborhood the town has land bank property that does that isn't fenced so Britney clarified for me that we could put stones or rocks in you know along that border and the
concern is that a landscaper will not will it'll be a visual border for a landscaper so that they won't you know go past it and it has never this is this is a one-time deal this is not going to
happen again so I would rather have the natural water uh and that was my reservation when I when I saw the order and the other item if I may is number 10 it calls for a full
restoration by 10:30 does that mean what does that mean exactly does it mean the whole thing has to be restored by October yes so you would do all the planting and everything oh okay so just the planting it doesn't have to be fully grown and resto the planting completed
okay thank you planting completed okay any further among the board yeah I know that in other situations like this fences have been required so um what would be the justification for not requiring a fence right now yeah it
is kind of one of our standard requirements when there is a like a significant infraction into the wetland especially not just a buffer zone this is a wetland habitat so um we use those we need a boundary a visible boundary and I know fence sometimes can be
difficult but the stones usually are a good uh compromise in that situation and I know you have you know your driveway is pretty close there's like a small strip of lawn um I don't think that the boulders would have too much of a of an impact on that area um so I I do think
it it should remain unless the commission would like to remove that requirement i mean there are other alternatives to that as well i mean there's a whole variety of different things you can use to mark that so I mean it doesn't have to are you opposed to the boulders or are you
opposed to something else or just you're opposed to marking it period i'm happy to compromise i'm happy to compromise i saw a fence and I thought you know and then Britney explained that it doesn't have to be a fence it could be other things other than fences be boulders it could
be 4x4 cedar posts it could be stuff with like posts with rope in between it can be split rail fence it could be granite ballards there's a whole variety of different things that you could you can use uh it doesn't it does not have to be a fence per se okay but it has to
mark the mark the make a demarcation so it's clear that you shouldn't be going beyond that okay so a visual demarcation okay thank you thank you for the
explanation okay uh if there's no further discussion among the board would somebody like to make a motion to uh ratify the enforcement order with or as as written so moved is there a second second
thank you i give to Ellie the minutes will reflect Ellie all those in favor sorry sorry about that opposed carries unanimously right next order of business is another enforcement matter for Ann
Wigan 61 pheasant Cove circle cutting andor removal of vegetation within the velocity flood zone a bordering vegetated wetland and its buffer zone so this is the property directly adjacent to 57 um Cove Circle and um it the
clearing just across both properties so the draft enforcement order conditions are exactly the same for both properties and the property owner is here on Zoom because he's currently out of state um but I think he's re had a chance to review the conditions um not sure if he
wanted to comment but just Oh Ann are you there i thought it was going to be I thought it was going to be her husband he called me shortly ago bob Higgins higgins bob Bob Wiggins bob Wiggins
yes I'm here so Mr wiggins do you uh understand what the enforcement order is uh requesting you to do yes I do okay and did you have any questions for the board
uh no the one I guess one thing it mentions trees there were no trees removed but it doesn't sound like I'm required to put trees in there u that's the only question I had okay so it it it does um it was unclear
obviously it's hard to tell with just the stumps remaining if they were large woody shrubs or trees so um part of the requirements are for a brief report to show to give us an idea of what the pre-existing conditions were so if no trees were removed then none have to go
back obviously we would recommend some small trees that wouldn't grow up to be into the academy go back in there um but your restoration professional will be able to help with the uh plants that go in the plan yeah well that's good we're not We're not against putting trees but
we just didn't want to leave a record that said we'd take any trees out because because we did not okay okay thank you right anything else anybody else on the board Britney anything else no uh would somebody like to make a
motion to ratify the enforcement order as written so moved second jack all those in favor i opposed carries unanimously uh next order of business another
enforcement order for Rosangela Colliero and Mark AOT 59 Oyster Cove Road failure to comply with enforcement issued uh January 2024 uh Britney um so this is an enforcement order draft
that was issued um under the bylaw to remove the entire dock structure that is currently in place at 59 Oyster Cove Road um and the requirement is by June 1st in the draft order uh enforcement order sorry and it has been issued to
both Rosangela and AOT owners of to recuse myself okay yeah thank you we'll let the record reflect that Pat Mohern recused herself as she is an butter to this uh is there anybody representing the these these individuals
um the AOTS are on Zoom uh AOTS oh there you go robert AOT yeah the AS are here okay and just so do you understand what we're asking you to do well um yes um but the person who
constructed all this I thought would have been here to remove it we have no problem removing it by the way um obviously Yeah unfortunately because you are the the uh homeowner or the homeowner of record uh the enforcement order has to go
against go to you because you are the official um representative of and the homeowner for that property uh so I understand that it's a it's a unique situation but uh did you have any other questions for
the board well because when she put it all in she called it all her property and and kind of um sent us scolding things not to touch it so we're a little concerned so I guess if you send us a scolding message back saying that we
have to remove it as the town we uh probably are we'll have to remove it and it'll just get rid of it but just just so you understand kind of where this all is it's it's it's a little bit of a an issue for us unfortunately we we we
definitely understand the the background behind this one so yeah so and we're not arguing trust me we we would prefer to have a set of stairs we'd like to come back to you put in an NOI with a street to repair and put the stairs back down
that the previous homeowner took away from the street to be able to get to the water but that's a separate issue obviously um so so we're not opposed to getting rid of this we just probably need a very strong um enforcement order
instructing it to be done I guess um and you have sent that right it will all right yes so so you have sent you you have been issued the enforcement order we're going to uh ratify that for uh this evening um and so that is that is
your your uh strongly worded u enforcement order okay and I I'm just coming out of hernia surgery so what was the date on that does somebody I think I have it in front of me when do we have to have it out by just cuz I want to make sure that we It
says June 1st it says June 1st okay yeah yeah we should we Do you mind if we got till the 15th just cuz then my son's home from college and stuff and I can get him for a little bit of help and muscle with his friends i would be happy to give you until the 15th of June to do
that don't don't uh cause any damage yep yep and then uh and what uh can we just review exactly what you guys want removed just so I I we can be clear on it and we know or do should Britney come out and tell us or So right now it is
the portions of the dock um anything that can be considered a dock well everything from basically from the wall out to the water right and all the posts that go with it and such and everything okay right that's pretty
clear guys that's that's pretty simple so okay thank you all right thank you uh is there any further comments questions anybody else uh there's someone named Steve with their
hand up uh Steve it's enforcement hearing right yes hi can you hear me yeah steve so how do you relate to this matter uh I'm the homeowner's
son rose son I'm sorry can you I'm not the landlord but I have been involved I've I've not been involved with this application process uh I'm here to contest Mark Aayoth's um uh claims that uh Can you
say your name for the record again i don't I don't know your name can you say your name for the record steve Miller steve Miller steve Miller and can you say your association to the property
again i'm Rose Col you're Rose Cro's son is that what you said having a hard time with your connection Steve he lost you can you hear us Steve
now says Steve you there yes I'm here okay uh can you So do you understand what we're asking to be done i'm not the land owner i'm only here to contest what Mark has said
well I I don't know what you're asking about they they said they would they agreed to to remove remove the dock you're contesting that i'm I'm also contesting that you cut out Steve steve you are cutting
in and out so we cannot we cannot understand but every every third or fourth word can you hear me hello yeah go ahead should I get Yeah hi so I'm contesting the fact that the town of Yarmouth cannot force someone to remove private
property well this is where we're going to uh park part company so you've been issued an enforcement order do you have anything to talk about that one i'm not I haven't been issued anything i'm not the land owner all right uh
thank you very much for your comment uh would anybody else like to say anything would anybody else have any questions nope nope all right uh anybody uh Yeah so what are we doing here uh enforcement
enforcement order with the uh as amended for the date uh June June 15th that uh somebody like to make a motion to second is there a second all those in favor i
opposed carries unanimously i don't know whether Robert a wants to say something but I think No he's hands up all right next order of business is other business uh we are looking to approve the meeting minutes of April 3rd
2025 only David wasn't here i'm sorry what david wasn't here everyone else is fair i mulanize myself but Oh for the minutes got it for the whole meeting anybody anybody want to make a motion
what minutes if you read the approve the minutes I'll move to approve okay is there a second i was there right all those in favor opposed carried unanimously uh next order is do we have minutes from December that we still have
to vote on or yeah we pushed them till May because we weren't sure when you'd come back oh okay can we do that now or do we have to since you now um next order is uh discussion of proposed fee changes so Britney has sent
you uh a brief statement of what the the um select board are looking to accomplish uh I think she did a very good job of I'm just gonna summarizing everything what matter were you here for i apologize i was I'm late i had a ton
of traffic i'm here about Ninth Lake Flakeyard but I guess I could just ask you after what happened it passed i'll send you an email oh sorry about that no thank you so much sorry um so I'm just going to read them like the note that I sent to the Conservation Commission so
on April 1st 2025 the select board requested all department and division heads be present at their meeting for preliminary discussion of townwide fee updates the conservation commission sets its own fees which are last updated in 2011 the commission reviewed updates in
2022 but these were never implemented due to a preferred strategy of implementing fee updates simultaneously across the whole department the select board will be having the official fee hearing on May 6 2025 um the proposed conservation fees for 2025 are attached and are generally
calculated using inflation which is a cumulative 46% since 2011 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the newly proposed fees were um where there previously was no fee were generated by analyzing the fees imposed by other Cape
Cod Commission conservation commissions and estimating the cost of the service the fees in the past generally accounted for approximately 20% of the rel the related portion of the conservation division staff salary budget the pro the
proposed increases have the potential to add an additional 15,000 in fee revenue to then cover about 30% of the portion of the conservation division staff salary budget assuming the number of filings remains similar so staff salaries in the conservation department
are also supplemented by the wetlands fund which is the town's portion of the D notice of intent fees so that was a lot um but so we have fees for each category of um application and it has been similar to
the D fees in the past um and we're proposing pretty much some fee increases across the board um with a couple of exceptions that a certificate of compliance would remain the same at $75 because we do want to encourage people
to apply for certificates of compliance um there is one caveat to that if it has been longer than two years after the expiration of your order of conditions um or if you've already received a COC denial there is a price there is a fee increase proposed um some fees where there were
none before include for administrative review request for approval of a revised plan request for an amendment um administrative reissuance and an after the-act filing which would double the original fee so if you guys have a chance to look over this and discuss
I did I gave you my comments about the my only comment was about the um Yeah so what do you call it for category five um the chairman noted a potential typo or clarification um that it should be $3 per linear foot
plus a flat fee of $750 for saltwater peers and docks and perhaps a reduction for the freshwater docks to 200 instead of 400 could you I'm sorry this about the $3 but could you give
don't go over the next two on category five what were the changes yeah so for category five um chairman hoops is proposing it would be $3 per linear foot so just so category 5 is work on docks peers revetments and similar um so $3
per linear foot plus a flat fee of an additional 750 for saltwater peers and docks and or an additional 200 instead of 400 as written for freshwater peers and docks thank you i think we should
um if there's a change proposed we should vote on an individual change and then the whole thing how we reducing the fresh water yeah the two um it's that's always been a stand i don't
know why it is it's always been a standard because the the freshwater docks tend to be a little bit They tend to be seasonal less seasonal and less uh less obtrusive shall we say
um the storm water management permit stays the same is that the same logic as the Yeah so the storm water management permit um just for some context last year we had four the year before you know we had I think around three or four um and the applicant does have to pay for the entire peer review through the
53G process um which is in general you know it's much more costly um than the $200 so the $200 is just this board's fee to review it but they are also responsible for covering the third party
consultant that reviews their their application how many um administrative reviews do you usually get is that hard to Let me pull up my spreadsheet david I knew you'd have
um I think last year there was about 85 okay um and I think or 2023 I think there was around 60 um but not all of them it's harder to document all of them so admin administrative reviews you have to go out to the site still yeah so an
administrative review are generally the smaller requests that staff would handle instead of bringing it to the board um most most of them are um removal of you know damaged or dead trees so we they mostly all entail a site visit um and
discussion with the homeowner review of next steps if they need another additional additional permit but it does take up a lot of staff time $25 seems low this was um since we didn't have a fee um I used all the other towns and this
is generally what other towns are charging for administrative reviews britney I a little confused by the language in there that says uh conservation commission sets its own
fees does that mean that the select board does not have to approve those so you propose them um so the conservation commission has to set the conservation fees um they're then ultimately approved
by the select board okay but the select board is responsible for other divisions fees um in general so us along with like old Kings Highway the commission is responsible and then the select board gives the final okay yeah okay i just it was a little they just don't set the
select board does set some other fees it just looked a little conflicting there yeah it is a little confusing well no it's just that the statement there says set its own then you but you know you don't really say the select board has to
review or is the final word of it that's my understanding of it fine with me the way it is as long as we agree have a couple questions on my favorite topic
um in your in the letter yeah okay in the letter it says that um the fees uh haven't been um they were calculated using inflation
a cumulative 46 cent 46% since 2011 11 um so why is it that some of the fees have been increased by 75% 100% etc sure i'll go through the outliers most of them do um fall into that um the
ones that the two that stand out um for me is that I proposed an additional increase for the extension permit um I think the extension permit is is very powerful and hasn't been and I think it's a little overused i think if you get an order of conditions three years
long if you can't get it done in that three-year period um you get another three then it's six years long and it can even still be in effect through regulatory changes so if we this commission decides to update its regulations and impose stricter standards you now have an open permit
under the old standards that's still in place and open so I think it's a really strong it gives you a lot of um leeway and I think it should be used as a last resort um so that's why the fee increases used as a last resort therefore it's been made to be more
expensive yeah yeah I want I want people to to reconsider filing for an extension permit um obviously $75 is not the end of the world but hey I have another discourage go ahead Jack okay finish up the other thing is
um um it says the proposed increases have the potential to add an additional 15,000 in fee revenues to then cover about 30% of the related portion of the conservation division staff salary etc so is this to say that so right now this
the salary is covered by town appropriation plus some money from the fees that exist so now will will that same appropriation exist and 30% will be added on top of it so that for example it'll be you know I
would like to see um administrative staff receive an increase in pay is that going to happen yeah so um this is including a an existing wage edit that is going to be
in place for fiscal year 26 um in which includes our cost of living expense increase um so it is projecting that okay that's all I have and I didn't even lose my mind here so that's pretty good
thanks proud of you yeah well continuing that uh you say calculated using inflation accumulated 46% what you are you talking about
uh in the overall economy inflation or are you talking about labor what were you talking about i just I Googled it Jack and that's what I got from multiple sources um so that's what the rate of inflation showed to be
so not any specific type of construction or office work inflation they're all different um no no I didn't differentiate it is overall yes so if the dollar So if a dollar was worth $1 in 2011
$146 I just multiplied everything by That's fine with me i just Yeah and so um this I think is important because since 2011 all the staff have been getting annual cost of living increases and so if we barely already barely cover
the staff with these fees it it's easier to keep up a little bit if we keep up with the value of the work so I do have another question um if so this this list of increase fees you put this together with Joe for
example or how did you do it i put it together with my brain an Excel spreadsheet and um all this information from all the other towns fees now one of the things about the information for the other towns we don't know how they arrive at their number right we just say
Barnable charges X number of dollars and that sounds good and so we're going to charge the same thing right that's true and and do you think that's a good I think it is um a reasonable value of the services provided for example like the the value of a request for
determination is fair to put at $100 if you're putting an you know compared to the work associated with a much more complex notice of intent i think it does account for the value of the service that you're you're paying to get from the conservation commission and the
conservation division staff um but that but that doesn't cover the like the service i mean it doesn't cover it no but it's it augments it yeah okay well correlated with the value this is
the kind of thing that people say what the hell does the government do and um I think that the select board does not give any instructions to the different departments on how to use
inflation for instance that's correct so I think that in that sense we need to be prepared i mean your explanation that you gave is great and I think that's I'm not sure how we can go any further without really getting a
lawyer or a labor person in i agree i think this was um and just so you guys are aware of the response from that first meeting it was a very overwhelmingly positive response the board the select board wants uh is
willing to do they want to support the conservation commission and they want the fees to be increased at least a little bit from 2011 to attempt to cover some of the staff well of course they're always looking for money okay as taxpayers we know that
and this is one way to get some more money and your service is remarkable so I'm glad you're being supported by fees i wish you would be supported by the um appropriate amount of money from the
town um uh you know thing but but the thing is that what I always think about is when somebody comes to me and says "Hey the um uh let's say the notice of intent went from $1 to $150 why did that
happen?" What I don't want to have to say is well we just picked a number out of the air yes you know it has to be based on something and and so far that eludes me in some way i I want to thank you though for for doing this because this is a heck of a lot more than we we
got prior to other discussions about fees i appreciate it and you're welcome um it is loosely based on the fees that have been implemented by the D under the wetlands protection act so the notice of intent fees they have all their categories and all their reasonings it
is all loosely based on that um previously we just charged half of what the state charged um and now we charge a slightly tiny bit more than half um so it is loosely based on the state fees that's good okay thank you
i tend to agree with Pat on the $25 and I do see up there is 50 but the logic I mean based on the assumption that um not the assumption but it this is this it pays for service which is our
staff um and I understand that so when you look at an administrator review to me that's sort of a double review you have to look and see if it if it is the new project comes in and then you look at it
and decide if it's going to go or not well in my mind it's almost like a double review on your part and I think could reflect that and you could argue that and I I I really would
propose that we raise that to to reflect I mean 30 looks good to me um if if the board could reconsider looking at that that's a good point i agree i agree i
think also that we have to realize that Yarmouth is like the third busiest um conservation commission so it's not just a matter of you going out and doing administrative reviews it's all the other things you do or Joe does uh your
your department does uh office um that adds up and I think we need to you know if someone comes to me I'd say well that's one item you know one category but we're the third busiest in on the
cape and therefore there's only so much someone can do and we want to reflect what what what that is so I I agree i don't I was going to thinking 50 but 30 is fine too it's even better i like 50 yeah we can vote on that it's also
another that um she does 80 a year and I I've been out with I think all of us have been out with with Britney and and seen her work with the public and and uh it is not a matter of a minute or two she's willing
to spend time and uh talk through the whole process with people so in the end they're saving money by not having to do an NOI and uh and it's worth it's worth $50 to me to have her come to my house
and do something i agree um I wanted to go back to the extension permit actually sure um if we're going to make individual Okay let's jump to the extension permit and then we'll talk about either if everyone is cool with approving all of
those changes or if any of them are contentious and we want to do one by one but let's do extension right um I I kind of felt that the essentially doubling of the extension permit was a little strong um it is I
totally understand your your point to um not just extending the permits in forever um but I do think there's other circumstances um certainly in like the coastal environment if you're applying for state
and federal permits take a lot longer and they end up running out your uh wetlands protection act permit um so it kind of seems a little unfair i think a maybe a more like 100 120 or something
like that would be error we have had people who had extenduating circumstances and needed extension we understood as opposed to other people just didn't get started yes yeah where would where would So if somebody came
with that extenduating circumstance would could we vote not to charge them the 150 or whatever it was yeah I feel like having a more reasonable increase would overall would be better than Okay deciding later um
I'm fine with 100 okay i think I've asked you this before but with the legal advertising Yarmmouth has some sort of special tough special deal on on advertising right so our current um contract with the Cape
Cod Times we have a good deal apparently compared to other towns um but so apparently our legal ad the way we do our legal ad in conservation is that so this week we had three new notice of intents i put it together and I send it
in as one legal ad it's impossible to estimate how much that legal ad will cost until it's been posted so the we charge each applicant $15 to hope to cover the cost of the legal ad sometimes we make a couple bucks sometimes we lose a couple bucks but it usually comes out
you know somewhere close instead of making them pay for it it never gets in the legal ad or having the paper you know give us an invoice to have them pay because that would just never happen so it's really difficult to estimate but it the 10 to$15 has been getting us close
enough where it's okay we're not losing hundreds of dollars every month but we're not making any money i know the last time I tried to get a legal ad somewhere other than the Cape Cod Times I was astonished at the price and it's that is not a that is not the
legal legal advertising fee is not extended to all of the conservation commissions on the Cape for the same i have no nothing to say about what the deal is um it's just we're glad that it's there like Yarmouth did it because since the
register closed I think they had something you know to help the town of Yarmouth since there was no other advertising opportunities somebody was doing crafty um crafty negotiations when the register folded apparently
all right I'm good there's one other question which I don't think can actually be directly addressed but I'd like an opinion on uh none of these well these are all paid by the owners by the applicant yes and
generally generally it's the same sometimes it's not uh and is any of this reflective or impacted by uh on the impact on people and their ability to
pay i can't see how this would but if you have a feeling of anything on here that uh there are some people that do one of these things and don't get to the others or you know what I'm saying um I do have a hard time with what you're
saying because there's you're never required to do work it's always an option and most people are doing it because they can afford to i presume going to put a dock in they can afford
the the money to argue the the filing fees of minuscule yeah they're not inhibitive cost yeah that's so it's such an it's such a small part of the overall cost of permitting
that the whole permitting process is Yeah yeah well I just it up as a possibility that's all but I think if somebody was really We've never had a situation like that before encountered something like that
but Ed Ed if you haven't No I'm just saying I don't I don't ever recall having somebody That's what I said that you've got a lot of a long record fall back on and I mean I I mean I
certainly want to listen to somebody like that but you know I haven't run into it yeah in my in my time so Okay or do you want us to vote on each one separately um is anyone have any problem with voting on all of the
changes we proposed if I summarize them no which ones are you changing so the board proposed the administrative review at 50 instead of 25 the notice of intent category five to replace the word or with
and and replace 400 with 200 and to change the extension permit from 150 to 100 other than that voting on as you can see it
are you all okay with with uh voting on all of them as one yes I am yes yes okay great do I have a motion to uh approve the fees accordingly
so moved there's a second second all those in favor opposed carries unanimously great i have a usual any other business not reasonably anticipated
um I do have a couple of announcements short ones karen is leaving the de department of community development her last day is on April 30th karen who karen Green karen Green's leaving um if you would like to stop by and say
farewell when is she leaving april 30th is her last day okay in the afternoon in room A um we're doing Vernool certifications again this spring um one by necessity we stopped at the Madakis
there's tar pond in the back there and we found overwhelming evidence that it is indeed a vernal pool which was very exciting um and I can show you some photos if you'd like and we will be continuing on our endeavor in other locations that we've identified that
would be high likelihood of being a vernal pool well those look like egg masses this is approximately 35 egg masses in one one spot um and so where is this again this is in the back
of the Madakis school location there's one there that was kind of hard to see but I mean what what is the size of that p that pool in comparison to the say the average of pools it's it's enormous
that's what I thought it's and it's very unique um in the fact I'll see if there's Is this what you're I mean what they've always been referring to as the pond yes tar it's called Tar Pond on the maps that is how big it is and it's completely open full sun no
trees and it's very shallow um my boots topped but I think it wouldn't top that much more if I walked straight through the middle of it so there's Joe there's Joe really small i'm standing it's really is very large pool britney is there a trail around that at
all i don't think there's a trail around it um we walked just straight to it from the backyard of the school the back of the school cuz I going over so you'll be able to walk through the woods a little bit and it's on yeah it's not that dense either
and it does have some a storm water discharge into it this Well at least it's just storm water just storm water so that's that was fun um so we'll be continuing our rental pool
certifications and lastly our annual 10 meeting is on April 29th the only item of note that we have for conservation is request for funding through CPA and the capital budget for the Chase Brook Park project which I have been involved with
along with Karen and Nate Weten um and that's a very exciting park project if you don't know about it we can talk all about it um but Paul will be there with CPC um for the Chase Burke Park project that's all
anybody else i'd just like to reinforce the what to me is the importance of this vernal pool and that we as a group have a responsibility that is massive and Britney was saying how
um you know there are shopping carts or other kind of there's a lot of tires in it tires things out there that whatever happens with Madakis that we actually pick up on it and if nothing have some Oh it is big wow i
mean that is of course fence is three four months maybe at the most so you're talking about this being essentially grass land if you will the rest of the time so it's a very hard kind of thing to put your finger on how to
manage and you know whether you ever put trails or not and uh it came up at the Madaks meeting where people were downplaying and complaining about how Parker's River how long it took and uh
and I made the point that I think that the 35 or whatever the number really is that years that have been take to work that out is something the town needs to be proud of not something that it needs to worry about
oh it took me 30 years and we ought to put it down to five or two which is what I feel the Madakis thing is really being shunted off and I think that uh well maybe I should make a bias right
now but from a viewpoint of uh the way the the negotiation is going on is actually the kind of negotiation that you hear uh for contractors and towns who come down and say oh this is
the way we've got to really worry about the final year you know before we sign contracts here's the things we have to negotiate And I think that um this is a very it's a trade-off analysis approach that is not planning
planning itself is a whole different kind of thing and I worry about what's going to happen to all the 80 or more proposals that are out there and we come down we're doing five and the public hearings haven't even been held so anyway I think that there's
nothing wrong with long-term planning then I'm exfederal so I'm used to long plans core of engineers but on the other hand natural resource conservation service too is not
that they have long pans but plans but they know how to shorten them up and there are ways of doing that that's just my and I will roll more of this out in the future as we go
is that a full acre a full acre yeah it is and they never put the the little landing uh in there did they there's no landing at one point one of the science teachers from Madak that's what we're That's what we want to put as
one of our priority items is obviously protect the 200 feet and use it as an educational opportunity it's it's very unique telling me talked to them about that probably 10 years ago well very good glad to see that there's
some exciting vernal activity occurring anybody else have anything if not would somebody like to make a motion to adjourn so moved there a second second
all those in favor opposed carries unanimously