have dinner and then >> good evening already down there. >> Good evening and welcome to the conservation commission meeting on Thursday, June 4th. We can begin right away with the request
for determination applicability. Steve Marco 39 D Lane proposed three season room on existing deck subject to coastal storm flood flooding. Uh somebody here representing 39 D. Come on
up to the mic and tell us a little bit about what you plan to do. >> Good evening. Uh, my name is Steve Marco and I have a summer home at 39 Dy Lane. And this is a cottage that was built in 1948 and has basically been unchanged uh
since then. And uh there was a wooden deck in the back and uh it's it's built like a U. So there's um two little short wings and then the front and in the wing in the in the center of the two wings is a I guess like a patio area and uh wood
and deck is there and um it was getting old and ratty and splinters and nails coming up. So thought I'd take it out and wanted to put a a slab in there and then put a small threeseason room. It's about 10 by
10 and uh basically the whole cottage is a threeseason. Um but it would just be for a kitchen table. I'm not going to put heat in it. It's just going to be um enclosed from the weather. Um it's just
a small little thing. I don't >> What What would you like to know? >> Anybody have any questions? Um, no. I don't have any questions. I'd recommend a negative two for this project. >> Anybody in the audience have a question
comment? Anybody online? Oh, look. There's nobody online. Okay. So, can I hear a motion to accept the proposal with two? Are are we not discussing the shed? >> Are we what? >> Not discussing the shed or is the shed
already permitted? >> The shed was approved under an administrative review a couple of years ago. >> Okay. >> Yeah, the shed um I had the building inspector come out and he looked at it, you know, I had the sauna tubes put in and Pine Harbor built it and he
inspected it and everything was fine and as far as the building inspector went. So, and that that was October. as administrative approval. >> Okay. >> Anybody want to make a motion? >> So move.
>> Okay. Second, Jack. >> All in favor? >> Anybody opposed? >> Okay, that's it. Negative two is a positive thing. A negative two is actually a positive. >> Good. Okay. >> And will send you all the information. >> Thank you very much, everybody. Thank
you. >> Hopefully they're all that tonight. I don't think I'm going to eat it. Okay, we'll go to our second um item which is SE832270 BSA BSC Group for Channel Point LLC to
Channel Point Drive is down there. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Um for the record, Kier and Healey BSC group. Um what we did is we um we had requested that the COC would be continued but this is to do with the uh bank that is not
stable out there. Um when we were in front of you asked for two different notes to be added to the plan which we did. One being that access would come from the uh existing lawn and the second would be that the uh when the invasive was removed that it would be replaced
with Carolina Rose. Other than that I'd be glad to answer any questions that you have. Can you put up the plans? >> Plan. This is the plan. >> Okay. >> That we're reviewing. Do you want photos? >> Sure. Just kind of remind us.
Remind me. >> Okay. Now I remember. Okay. Um, is there any update on the status of the planting of the plugs on the bottom part of the bank? Paul mentioned those might get done before this hearing if possible. >> I don't believe they have been done as of yet. >> Okay. Have they been? They are working
on it though. I just don't know exactly when that they're going in. >> Okay. >> Be best if that could get done this spring before the fall planting season. This one is >> questions. Jack, was that out of hand?
>> Yeah. >> Uh, is there any chance the neighborhood would join in on Frag Mandy's removal? >> Um, I can't say if that conversation has been had, but I will ask my client to see if they is there any interest in doing that. Um, I think my client would
be open to it, but I just can't speak for >> Okay. >> the neighbor. But I'll pass that along. >> Anything else? >> Can you just provide us um notice when you plant the Spartina at the bottom? >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> I recommend approval of the invasive species management plan. >> Say that again, please. I recommend approval of the invasive species management plan and continuence to September 17th to review the first round of work. >> Okay. >> Anybody want to make a motion?
>> Jack. So, we're going to approve the plan and then continue the COC. Correct. >> I need to I mean, you have to ask about discussion. >> Just want to make sure that's what the motion is. Y. >> Okay.
>> Anybody second, please? >> Second. >> Any other discussion? >> I just want to verify is that the the management plan online dated May 19th, Britney? >> Yes, this management plan that's dated March 25th
>> um in the folder for today's meeting. >> I have a motion and a second. Um, all in favor? >> I. >> Anybody opposed? >> I'm going to abstain because I don't fully know what we're voting on. >> Yeah, you can abstain.
>> I missed the motion also and the second. Who? >> Um, who made the motion again? >> I did. >> And then second >> that second. And so we have a six six to six votes. Yes. One
abstension. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. >> Forgot to ask. Anybody in the audience had anything to say? >> We don't ask for that for certificates of compliance. >> I literally don't know what this is.
Remind me. >> This is Wayne and this is Channel Point Drive. All right. Our next item is SE837-75 BSE group Steve and Catz 703 Route 28.
Um before you start, I just want to make a comment about 70320 Route 28. I've been doing this for this is my sixth year. I've never been to a site that was so messy, dirty, whatever you want to call it. I mean, abandoned cars,
couches, things like that around. So, I hope your client is ready to >> with the hopefully of the approval tonight of this uh request, um everything will be removed and the including the buildings.
>> Okay. Well, we'll talk about that when we get to it, but Okay. Uh again, for the record, my name is Kieran Healey. Um with me is uh Paul Manuso from my office. Um we're requesting a COC for the an old uh
filing that was done at this property at 703 Route 28. >> Okay. So, we just look at the COC now. >> Yeah, this is the COC hearing. >> Okay. Um, anybody have any questions or
comments about the CLC before I make one? I already made one. I have a hard time voting for it until it gets clean cleaned up, you know. >> Yeah, I have a question. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Okay, so within the COC, what were the
um requirements? >> This is Paul Manuso from the BC group. Can you hear me? >> I can. Um, this is for a very old order of conditions um that was done uh I believe it was in the 70s. I might might I don't
might not have the year right, but this is for the rip wrap seaw wall that is along the river on the western side of the property. um was permitted long ago and the plan of record that um with the permit is is a very old drawing and um
as part of our um notice of intent application, we surveyed the property including the seaw wall and we um can confirm that seaw wall was built as far as we can tell as it was permitted to be. Um and we were we only noticed that this old order existed when we went to
um start putting together the notice of intent package. I think it's the first thing on the notice of intent checklist is is there an open order of conditions on the property. So we checked um on the arm records and we found this old order um that BSC had nothing to do with that.
The current owner had nothing to do with but the rip wrap seaw wall was built long ago um and it appears to have been built um in accordance with the approved plans. And so we were simply trying to close out that order in order to permit um the notice of intent the
redevelopment of the um already developed um degraded riverfront area. So the notice of intent would be to clean up the whole site um and get rid or get rid of the pavement and the existing buildings and we're proposing the the duplex structures as well as a a
vegetated buffer. But so I believe in order to open or according to the notice of intent checklist, we were trying to close out the old order first. So that was the goal. Um but the old order was news to us when we were searching um the town records, but it's a very old order
for the seaw wall and it appears to have been built in compliance with the approved plans. >> Anybody else? Go ahead. >> Yeah. Hi. Thank you. Um I I have uh could you put up the site
plan um >> for this seaw wall or the new one? >> Wait a minute. C2.0. What am I am I looking at the wrong job? Wait, this the um >> Yeah, this is 703 job. It's just that
you're looking at the proposed work and this is the COC for closing out the seaw wall from the 70s. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Sorry, wrong one. >> Okay. Anybody else?
>> So, we can get to the cleaning of the site when we get to the next piece. So, this is just to close out the COC. >> I jumped the gun also. Sorry. Um, so can I hear a motion to close out this? Do you have anything else to say, Britney,
before I do that? Um I the health department is also reviewing the site for any health violations because the commission does have a valid point that there are potentially hazardous materials on site. Um while prevention of pollution is an
interest of the act. The revetment was built in compliance. Um but there could be additional issues with the storage of the materials that are presently on the site that would need to be remedied before a new project is begun. But I would I would still recommend issuance
of the COC. >> Can we issue pending cleanup of the site or would that hold up the NOI? >> I think you can do that. >> I think that would be appropriate. >> If possible, we would like to close the old one and then put everything onto the
new one so there's something that's current and everybody knows what's going on. you know, the keeping the old COC from the 70s open, I don't think is going to further anything, especially if the commission were to agree to the other project tonight. As far as I mean,
it's obvious for us to construct these buildings. The entire strike site has to be completely laid bare. So, everything will be removed from the site. I'm not sure if the NOI will be passed tonight and I would rather approve the COC
pending cleanup so the cleanup can get started right away. >> That's just my thoughts. >> Paul, >> yeah, I I I tend to agree that it might be a good idea to start with a clean slate. I mean, this is since 1975.
Okay. and to to leave any shadow of a COC on it uh unapproved to me seems to be kind of unnecessary if the next step is going to be a description of what's going to happen with the site and it sounds like what we're going to be told
has something to do with cleaning the entire site in preparation for the next uh building project. So I I I personally would be in favor of closing out the COC if possible. >> Jack, >> I would agree. Um, essentially the COC has got nothing to do
>> with anything but the good construction of the wall and the it's held up for however many years. It' be nice if it would already been done, but uh nothing to do with current uh uses. Uh unless you wanted to tie it into
something that had happened in 70, what year was it? >> 75. >> 75. Um, I just think it's best to clean it up. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> So, in your comment, you were talking
about the the next project when you said you didn't go talking about clean up in the next project. >> Yeah, it's more applicable. Okay. >> I I would just say though that the order of conditions is a permit to perform work. It's not a requirement to perform work. So they could have that permit and
not decide to do the work and the site can still remain as is with hazards that can have impact to our wetland resources. So I I would agree with Commissioner um Bower in that cleanup should be a requirement and not pending a potential permit for a potential
project that may not happen. >> What cleanup means? Um I mean the the riverfront area is degraded. If we were to remedy that situation prior to, you know, hearing this notice of intent, then we wouldn't be redeveloping a disturbed riverfront area that the
situation is a disturbed riverfront area and the whole project is to redevelop that and clean it. And with the proposed conditions and the um native plant buffer, um this I'm just not I'm not sure what the
cleanup would be. I mean, is it just removing materials with the pavement? All the buildings are going to stay. I mean, >> no. So, I think we're primarily talking about all of the potentially hazardous materials, including oil and other mysterious liquids on site that could be pollutants. So, everything on site
that's loose in these buckets, barrels, bins, sistns, there's a lot on site that are active pollutants. Um, where we it is overlapping with the health department in hazardous materials. Um, and we could pursue it that way, but it is
>> it could be >> clearing the stuff basically off the pavement. Anything near the pavement that >> Yeah, debris. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that we're not talking about like cleaning up the site so that construction >> we wouldn't be redeveloping a disturbed riverfront area. Um, >> no, definitely not.
>> I guess is the thought that with Mr. um idea that we would keep the certific compliance off the books and keep the old order open to get the cleanup done, but that wouldn't interfere with us going forward tonight to get permission
hopefully to to do the work that we are proposing to do. >> I guess in theory I I have a lot of questions on the project. So >> that's fine. That's why we're here. That's why there's two of us here. So, um, to answer those questions,
>> I think just the hope is to get the work moving to get those potentially hazardous materials out of the riverfront area. >> Okay. Is it okay for us to keep the open order while we go forward with the additional order, one being for seaw wall and the other one for being the
redevelopment for the site? >> I think that's fine as long as they're both on the path toward closure. >> Okay. Then I would request uh um through the September 17th hearing a uh continuence of the certificate compliance request so that we have a
chance to clean up the site. >> Do you think it'll take that long? >> I I don't know. I just we're back on the 17. So I said that's as good a day as any. >> Can't we have >> three months from now >> approve the COC now just pending the >> That's what more of what I was thinking. Yeah. >> So get started on the We can approve the
COC tonight. get started on the cleanup tomorrow and as soon as you're done, let Britney know and she'll >> send some photos. Yeah. >> COC. >> And that'll be perfect. If we can get the COC approved subject to us cleaning for it to be issued, then that's fine. >> You want to make that motion? Oh, wait a
minute. >> I want to know what Britney or anybody else thinks that how that cleanup relates to a wall. >> Well, it's the site conditions as well. When you're approving a COC, you're kind of approving all of the conditions >> that are
I mean it doesn't have anything to do with the reetment at all. No. Um but the site in itself is not in compliance because of potential hazards. I think it's pretty easy to remove them. >> Yeah. Could we um could we make the condition for the
COC? I mean there should be a sense of urgency in getting rid of the hazardous material. I mean that should not be there. You know OSHA could come there and so in our due diligence we should not approve a project knowing that. So I
think the best that we could do is approve the COC for it for the revetman but contingent on on getting rid of the hazardous material at a minimum. I don't think we're talking about cleaning the entire entire site like site clearing.
It's just you got to remove the you know the >> crap. >> I guess I have a question. And do you expect to encounter more materials as you, you know, get into the buildings and uh continue with the demo? Because I could see um how it might be beneficial
to um get rid of some of those things at the same time. Perhaps I walked through the building about 6 months ago and everything I saw on the inside was metal and wooden desks and chairs. I didn't see any storage of of liquids,
>> but not to say there isn't something in there. I was walking in general through it, but I was just it was the the majority of it was chairs, tables, desks, and stuff along that idea. >> What's going on in the back of that building? We when we were there, there were people working back there with the
machines and saws and >> there is a workshop back there. I'm not quite sure what I wasn't in that section. >> Okay. Not quite sure. >> That's where I think we have potential for for something because we didn't go back in in there either. We just did it from the outside.
Chuck, you wanted to say something? >> Um, I'd like to know before really the history of uses of that site. Do you have any? >> Uh, when I got to Cape Cod in 1985, it was known as the Gardner tile business
and it was a tile shop. I'm not sure if it was connected with the tile factory that was behind the West Jam post office. >> I'm sorry. Tire or >> tile? T I L E. And in the 80s, 70s and 80s and early 90s, I believe it was used as a tile shop. Since then, it's been
used as different types of furniture and office sales, you know, office um tables, chairs, type of stuff. >> Well, really hasn't been that much of an active business in the last 30 years. >> Well, like David says, when we were
there, there were machinery. They were obviously cutting plastics and metal >> and to assemble windows possibly. And I really have a I think we're going to have to do some drilling to get I don't know how far to
get tests of the soil. That's what I'm going to propose in the future. And I think that uh unless we have an absolute good description of the uses of that building, I think we have to worry about the
health of the river. >> So go ahead, Paul. >> Yeah, I I in a certain way I I feel like we're putting the cart before the horse here a little bit because clearly this place is being purchased so that it could be cleaned up, re revitalized, and
renewed in terms of a new building. Okay. And um the condition of it now as somebody as a couple people said has nothing to do with the reevettement is what condition this place was allowed to kind of deteriorate into which is the whole purpose of redeveloping the site
and making it a better um riverside kind of a um building and so on. So, you know, again, I I don't know if it seems to me we should be able to grant the COC and then move on, you know, and then and all of the things
that we're talking about could be addressed as we hear the presentation and and the people are presenting presenting probably are going to tell us a lot of things about what they're going to do to clean up the site. So, you know, I I would recommend we pass the
COC and then go on from there. Maybe I'm maybe I'm misunderstanding something because sometimes it's hard to for me to hear what everybody's saying down that end, but um that's what I'm gathering. Okay, >> Jack. And then go to >> maybe Britney, you could explain to me
again the connection between current condition of when you're approving the COC versus uh somebody saying, "Well, you're not really worrying about current condition. and you're referring only about the
um original condition and quality of work. >> I mean, that's up to you how you'd like to view the work, the the possible hazardous material on site. It could be a violation. We could be addressing it that way. >> Could be a what? >> It could be a violation. You could address it that way. But since you have
a certificate of compliance request open in front of you, um it's another venue to get action on the site, which is required action as opposed to issuing an order of conditions with special conditions, which would only then be required if work takes place.
>> I'm going to just go to Paul uh up there. Paul, >> what? Um I I mean I I totally understand what you're saying. Um I the our client the purpose of the
whole project I mean we've done we put a lot of work into this is to redevelop site and clean it up and put the duplex buildings in and establish the native buffer. If the permit is issued um I'm very very confident that that is what he intends to do. He I don't think
he had us do all this to get the permit then not do the work. Um, but I I do understand that you want to get it cleaned up. I understand that you could attach it to the COC or the notice. I believe either way the client is going to clean up the site as we are going to propose with the notice. Um,
it's up to you guys how you decide we do it. But the site will be cleaned up either way. Whether you make us do it before you issue the COC or as contingent upon the COC being issued as whether we clean it versus attaching it to notice. that that's part of the plan
for a client regardless. Um, so I mean, however you want to proceed with that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. We're not redeveloping this site because there's garbage bags on it. I'm I'm getting a little frustrated here.
This site has junk on it. All we're asking is for that junk to get removed. You're tying it into the redevelopment. like the redevelopment is because we have again trash bags on the pavement. But I I can't believe I don't have I don't I don't hear any sense of urgency
from the applicant or the representative to get rid of those buckets. Do you see them? We can't in our good cont at least I in my good conscience can't look at a project with that crap in it, especially if it's a safety hazard. I'm not talking
about the whole site and clearing. That's part of a redevelopment project. clearing and grubbing and all that, but this removing that. Come on. I mean, what's stopping you from removing that? >> Okay. So, we need to get to a
>> Does someone make a motion either way? >> I move that we uh issue the COC pending cleanup of hazardous materials. >> Second. >> Second. So, everybody clear what we're voting on?
>> Yeah. >> Are you going to include uh how you're talking about surface removal >> right now? We'll get to the uh we'll get to the dirt removal, >> buckets, and easily movable things, >> things like what's up. >> Yeah. soil conditions later.
>> Well, you do leave yourself open to some interpretation in terms of what what um removing hazardous materials because as soon as you open a door, put a shovel of dirt in the ground, you find something else. It's just cleaning up any freeze, whatever the heck that is and things like that.
>> Why wouldn't that why wouldn't that happen >> in the next phase? >> Why wouldn't it happen now? Because yeah, because we're now in the ne the next phase, >> was there a was there a requirement to move it by anyone other than the conservation commission, for example,
did the health department go in from 1975 to this moment in time and say, "Hey, you got to clean this place up." >> It wasn't like that in 1975 to be fair. I mean, I don't, you know, I know when I was growing up here or coming down for the summers, it was a what you said, a
tile place and then a furniture place. I think a lot of this stuff is relatively recent and yes, the health department is looking into it. >> The health departments do what they do. You know, I mean I mean I I'll go along with folks here, but I I think we're
again putting the cart before the horse. We knew we know that there's a um application for a permit to re re redo this place and certainly what that's going to include I would think would be the total and very specific
cleanup of the property not just worrying about a few gallons of something out in the back loading dock >> which could spill. So I mean let's get rid of it now. That's my feeling. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Fine. I don't know. Yeah. I also don't know why people would leave stuff around like that
anyway. You see a lot of places in this town and other towns where people don't take exactly perfect care of their property. And this is another example >> and it's an egregious example because of the fact that it's right on the river, you know, but there are there was a
there was a building on 28 that burnt I don't know how many years ago and I don't even know if it's still there or not. But >> you talk about the one near the post office, >> the the old um western supply store there. >> You know, there are things around that are dilapidated and messy and dirty and
and and probably dangerous in terms of some of the stuff inside them. >> So, I think that's for a vote. >> Have a motion on the vote. >> A vote made a motion. >> You seconded. Okay. All in favor of
of uh approving the COC with >> ending the cleanup of of of visual waste, >> hazardous waste. >> I would certainly approve that, but I guess I you know I would be open to adding it to the next
>> I think we're going to add other things. >> The motion is call vote on this. >> Right. Let's call the vote. >> Those in favor? >> Those in favor? >> I. >> Anybody negative? I'll abstain. >> Okay. Didn't see you vote. So, okay. So, >> thinking about it.
>> Yeah, I can see the smoke. >> Can I I know the vote just happened, but can I ask a question? What when you say the health department is looking at it, are they looking at this application or the next application or are they just looking at the property? >> Just the property. >> You're right. So, there's exposure there. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> They just haven't gotten back to me on the outcome. >> Right. and and they're looking at it because when we went out there, Joe went and talked to them after we came back. So, um I don't think I don't think they're they were conscious of what was
going on there until we pointed it out. So, okay. So, it's uh six to zero to one abstension. Do you have that all? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. >> Okay. So, I think that was good. Um,
>> please. >> What? >> Find that COC, please. >> Which one's the COC? >> The top one. That's >> this one. Can I send this down separately? Okay,
>> there you go. All right. Now we'll go to the next one which is SE83-2531 BSE group of Steven Catz 703 Route 28 proposed site redevelopment and land subject to coastal storm flood uh riverfront area and buffer zone to a
coastal bank. Okay. >> Good evening Mr. Chairman. For the record my name is Kieran Healey. I'm a land surveillor with the BSC group. With me tonight is Paul Manuso, wetland scientist with BSC Group. Um we are proposing the redevelopment of this site
at 703 Route 28. Uh currently the property is made up of one large building with multiple roof lines. We're proposing to remove that and to build three duplex buildings that will be flood zone compliant. Um being compliant
means in this case that we are going to have parking garages at the current grade and we are going to have the buildings elevated to above well above the flood zone so there will be no flood zone issue. This is an AE flood zone um
and it is uh right running up right up along Parker's River. Um, as far as disturbances go, uh, currently there are,359 square ft of existing disturbance within the 0 to 35 ft buffer. We're proposing
to eliminate all of that. Um, so there will be zero um, structure within the 0 to 35 foot buffer. Currently, there is um, 591 square ft of structure. We're going to remove that to
140 reduce that to 140 square ft which will be a net reduction of 451 square ft within the top five to 50 foot buffer. Currently there's 20 sorry 2,758 square ft of minor structures and
hardscape. We'll be reducing that to a total of 370 square feet, which would be a net reduction of 2,388 square feet. On the 50 to 100 foot buffer of the coastal bank, we have an area of
structures of 3,196. We have a proposed structures of 6,426, which will be an increase of 3,230 and 50 to 100. In the area of minor structures and
hardscape within the 50 to 100, we currently have 8,619 square ft. We're reducing that to 2,259 square ft, a net reduction of 6,360. Overall, we're reducing from basically
almost 12,000 to 8 and a half thousand. A reduction of exact 3,130 square ft of disturbance on the site. The entire site is within the 200t riverfront as well as there being flood zone throughout the entire site. And we
do have the 50 and 100 foot buffers that also cross the site. Um part of our proposal is to literally remove every single thing that is on site um and then start working on the buffers. You there
you have a landscape plan in the set um will depict how we are proposing to do that. Um the property is a little unusual in that there are um a couple of easements on the site that are subject to the um benefit the town of Yamat.
There's a 15 foot wide vehicle easement that is between the zero and 35 foot coastal bank. We have no idea where it went in. We've done research on it. We've asked questions about it. We don't know why it's there, but it is there and it's entirely within the 0 to 35 ft
buffer. We don't plan on using it. We don't plan on doing any there other than putting grass. And if the town of Yam come to us and say they want to um enforce their easement, then that's something that they will have to file with the conservation commission to do. But we
are not doing anything at all with the town of Yamut's easement um other than planting grass and removing the existing pavement that is there. Um we have some uh mulched pedestrian paths down to the
um top of the bank where there is a 20 foot wide pedestrian easement that runs right along the top of the bank. For those of you out there, you'll have seen that there are some benches adjacent to the bank and that easement is also to the town of Yamat inhabitants where they
can utilize that area. We're not looking to block it up even though we are planting it and trying to enhance it. And the the benches that are there along the top of that wall will remain. You can see some stone around those bud those uh areas on the north side of that photograph. And there are also some
benches with some basically viewing areas through the middle of that. Um we are proposing a subsurface drainage system for the entire uh area for the driveways and the um buildings themselves that will be completely
captured by an infiltration system. Um we are uh proposing to remove the two cub cuts that are out there and reduce it to one. As I mentioned in my list of uh changes earlier, there is a substantial reduction in the amount of pavement that is on this site within the
0 to 200 foot riverfront area. Um I guess at this stage you have a set of plans that uh a full set there which show all the things we're proposing. Um if there's any here I could answer, I'd be glad to do so. And as I mentioned, part of this will be the cleanup of the
site, but we will be on that sooner rather than later based on the last filing. >> While your hands still up, do you want to add something or just forgot to take your hand down? >> One thing I wanted to add, Kieran said everything is being removed. There are three uh native trees that have a DBH of
um 4 inches or greater and we have marked those and those are going to stay in the um the planted buffer will go around those existing um native trees and also I believe McKenzie from BC um one of the engineers is also on the call if there are any engineering questions I
believe she is here as well. >> Yes, I'm here. I don't know if you can hear me. >> Great. >> Okay. Um start with anybody at the conservation commission have questions, comments?
If not, I I'll just start. You want to go first? Did you get your hand up fast enough? No, go ahead. >> Oh, >> anyways. Um okay. Um on the site plan, I wasn't clear on um the uh extent of the
new driveway C 2.0. They're drawing the >> Sure. If I could just bring your attention to this right here. >> Yeah, that one. Yeah. >> New driveway is just purely this. >> What material is that? >> It'll be by Tunis. >> Okay. So, >> that's why we have the drainage >> catch up.
>> So, it will go into the buffer zones. >> Oh, no. Definitely not. It won't go in there. We have um drainage. There's a drainage plan there which shows >> catch basins to capture anything in that roof. >> Well, the where the buffer turns um the driveway will cut into
Yeah. On the 150 to 100. Yeah. >> Part of the do >> the existing black top is here >> right >> within the 25 foot buffer and we're pushing everything back as far as we can. >> We have to have this access for the fire department to get in this far. >> But I'm talking about you know how
how do I explain that? Can you point to the buffer line I'm talking about? Right. This one up here. >> Those lines there. So that's what I'm saying. The new driveway will be within >> absolutely the new driveway. There will be a portion in the new driveway within
the 100 foot buffer. >> Thank you. Um, so what is hard for me to see and um and maybe I I don't could you just walk me through where it says in writing in your narrative the area of proposed
impacts to the riverfront area the RFA are significantly less than existing amount of degraded air degraded area of RFA the existing degraded RFA on site is 20,997 which you item ize um
somewhere else. I I think there's a chart and I'm we're just kind of going in good faith here on those calculations unless there's a way you can delineate that on the plans. I'm not sure.
Um it looks like just from scaling that you took the whole entire site because that's about 21,000 square feet. So that that's all. I would like some clarification on how you did that
calculation. Um that says because a lot is a lot is uh is determined on that. Um >> Paul, do you have that? If >> you could walk me through how you came up with the 20,997.
It's a function of um one of the surveyors or one of the the CAD people in my office drawing lines between the structures and the individual buffer lines and we calculate what each one of those is um between the 0 to 25 for
structure between the 0 to 25 for existing >> I think Ellie is just asking about the riverfront the degraded riverfront calculation >> pretty much the entire site fits into the degraded riverfront calculation the whole site is within 200 riverfront >> but not all of it's degraded. It should
just be the pavement areas. Was that the how the calculation was done or did it include other areas as well? >> It would have been the degraded areas. >> So but lawn is not a degraded. >> Say it again Paul. >> The pavement in the buildings the existing hardcaped areas I believe.
>> Yeah. Not but so that's it and it doesn't include any of the lawn area. I >> mean I'm I'm not an engineer. I did not do the calculation but I believe it means you have generally we would have calculated the areas that have impervious surface as degraded.
>> That's correct. We only included impervious areas, building area um areas with buildings and then any hardscape. >> Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Did >> that answer your question? Well, I'd like to see that delineated on the plan somehow, like
just outline the areas that you considered because I I unless somebody else can see them, I can't see them. >> So, the on the plan there's an edge of pavement line which I believe was within the 0 to 35t buffer. So, anything
landward of that is basically hardcape currently. Isn't there any way that you can show your calculation? I mean, you took an area and you that's all I'm asking. If not, it's fine. I mean, I'm
ask for something you can't provide. I guess at this stage, all we can provide to you is to show you where the edge of the pavement is and show that I mean I can draw a perimeter line and say this is it, but then
>> that would be over the edge of pavement line. So you'll be able to see the edge of pavement. >> I don't know. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood tonight. But you digitize something to come up with that quantity. All I'm asking is that you indicate on the plan what you digitize to come up with that
area. That's all. That's all. I don't know how else to say it. >> Yeah. I I think if you could just provide a supplemental um defining how you delineated the degraded riverfront just because a lot of applicants also include lawn as degraded when it's not.
Um so just a single statement saying all existing paved areas with buildings or structures on them were included in the degraded measurement would suffice. >> If I could have you just scroll out just a little. >> Yeah. Sorry. So we do have the edge of pavement. So here running right along
here comes out to here to a little bit to the road and then all the way along the backside the back of the building and back out to the street. >> The driveway is is new and that
>> the driveway the majority of the driveway goes through the building in this area. >> And where's the and is the existing driveway shown? >> Edge of pavement here edge. This is all black top >> and you have an edge of pavement line running right here. EOP for edge of pavement.
>> I know the scope. I just it's a substantial area and I just don't know how you came up with it. That's all. >> Am I right that the existing building is where the driveway is going >> primarily? Yes. The here's the existing blacktop right now and we're running the driveway right along here >> and that's where the existing building
is. >> Correct. This dash line right here is the outside of the existing building. It kind of disappears right here. >> That's minor. >> It actually goes like this, Britney. Edge of pavement. The edge of pavement
picks back up here. >> It just turns down over the >> right. And actually, that's one thing I didn't mention. The leeching field right here is approximately 20 ft from the top of the coastal bank. Um, sorry, 35 ft from the top of the coastal bank in this area. and we are removing this um septic
system entirely and we will be connecting to the town sewer when that's available. We are not proposing a septic system on this site. >> Okay, get back to my notes. Anybody else before I ask a few questions?
Yes, >> just a small one. um the leeching field that's there now. Um I know some you mentioned a tile uh built, you know, tile uh type of
office or was it cons building tile or just selling? Do you know? >> I do not believe they were creating the tile in this place. I believe they were selling >> and that would include cutting and similar activity. >> I don't believe so. Well, I mean,
generally the tile cutters cut on site. >> Yeah. >> My brother's a tile lo and I've never known him to get something cut at the store. He always cuts on site. >> Oh, sure. Yeah. And so I'm worried about what may be being in that leeching field because I know when they,
you know, come to your house, they dump whatever they clean right into the basement sink. Uh, and I worry about what kind of operations may have really, you know, left remnants of
hazardous waste in that leeching field. >> I can understand your concern, but I wouldn't necessarily expect it because they typically would be washing their hands and they were in sales, so they were just literally moving the stuff. Would they be uh
would you folks be willing to just take out that leeching field or would it be too much rather than crushing and leaving it? >> Um if the commission feels that it's warranted. I mean I can't speak for my client but it's definitely added expense
to do so. >> Sure. >> I think my fear is not the not the stores. It's what's going on behind those stores right now and what's going down those drains into the leeching field of the septic tank and the
leeching field. I mean, I don't know. You don't know. Um, >> right. But drains drains are generally not connected to septic systems. >> So, >> I'm talking about if they're sending things down the sink, >> right? Okay. >> I think we might be getting a little off
scope here. Um, I just have a couple things. First of all, I want to say that this certainly is an approval an improvement over what's there now. And I think I want to make sure your client we're not here to stop this. What we're here to do
is make sure what we end up with is is okay. But it's certainly a a vast improvement of what's there. Now, um I already talked about the building in the back and being concerned about that. Um the work limit line. Did I see that
on here? >> Yeah, I think it's find the right page. There's a lot of plan sheets. >> It's shown on sheet C-1.0. Got it. Um, yeah. So, it looks like you have the work limit line at the absolute property limit.
>> Yes. >> Um, why are we grubbing all of the vegetation on site? Is it entirely invasive species? We did go there and sort of inventory the species. There's a lot of autumn
olive which is invasive. There's some um bittersweet that's also invasive. There's a little bit of multifllora rose that is invasive. Um and there are some native things growing amongst that. Um I believe calorie pair was another species of tree we saw that's invasive, but
there there are some natives, but they're sort of mixed up with the invasives. And so by removing it all, I mean, we're going to keep the the larger existing native trees. There's one big red uh big red cedar kind of by the existing building in the back. Um there
the Hawthorne tree out front kind of you can see from the road. And then um I forget what the other one was. Um the three the three larger native trees we will make an effort to keep. But everything else there there's a ton of autumn olive sort of growing interspersed with everything as well as those other invasives.
and we're providing I believe over uh a couple hundred shrubs um varying in height in a few and a handful of trees. Um so I >> So in your opinion as a wetland scientist none of those natives are
worth saving. I >> I think it would be difficult and we're providing a very full uh planting plan for that that side of an area. Um there there may be some that shrubs that
are keepable, but it counting out individual small shrubs over an area that big is I mean when there there's invasives all around them that that's difficult to do. Um >> so is the only invasive species
management strategy to grub everything? Um is there any follow-up treatment planned for respouting invasive species if any root material remains? Uh we have not proposed one. Um if the commission would um would would uh feel
that that is needed um that that could be discussed. Um >> I'm sure the client does not want this area that he's going to put um 200 shrubs in to get over invasives. So I'm sure he has some um shared uh interest in keeping the invasives out, but there
there is no management plan. >> I think the management plan would be a great addition. I would like to see an invasive species management plan if what you're saying is so much invasives there. >> Dave, can I go from that point? >> Yeah, go ahead.
>> I'm just taking note. >> What is the management plan for that whole walkway and that the owners are going to maintain that? >> Well, in our landscape plan, you'll see that we've kept the same um axis and the
same new corridors. >> Okay. So, you're going to have those openings. >> Yes. >> Uh but my point is daytoday maintenance. Are you going to put in trash cans out there for people? Are you going to put lighting? Is there some kind of maintenance for all of that?
>> Um it's the town of Yamoth's um easement. We don't have we're not responsible to maintain what the town of Yam is utilizing. Well, okay. I understand. >> Other than maintain access, >> you did say that you're going to put
mulch down there. Um, why wouldn't you just leave it as a path that's doesn't have anything on it? >> If the commission would prefer, we'll gladly leave it as a stone pad. >> Okay. >> Have you approached the town? Um
probably what I mean uh at the resources or somebody in the town or whomever would be in charge of that how that's going to be maintained and >> I have not >> an area that could be crime could be lots of things police need will have to probably
>> I mean it's an existing easement so anything that's there and happening now would continue I I don't know who probably >> it's a wide open spot so as far as access uh crime area it's it would be on the low level of potential crime because
it's just so wide open. And when these six units go in there, there's going to be people year round living in those units, which is going to also hopefully help uh reduce any risk of crime. >> I think when you look at it now, it's
it's almost an impassible path path we walked. We didn't quite make it all the way. So, it'll be a cleaner path when you move all the invasives out, I assume.
Is your question dealing more with what happens when when plantings grow over the path? Who's going to maintain that? >> Is that the towns? >> It's a gray area, Mr. Chairman, and I'm not going to tell you one way or the
other because I don't know. It's, you know, do the town even care anymore? somebody cares. I believe I believe Mr. our client was the one who put in the benches. >> Um but I don't know if the town of Yamad even cares about this particular location, but the easement exists. So
we're not going to inhibit anybody from utilizing the easement. >> Okay, fair enough. Ask another question on the storm water. As I understand it, you said that the buildings are above
>> correct. They're elevated buildings and with full uh drive on the garages underneath them, >> but you're keeping the first floor open and their parking is there. >> No, it's not it's not a building on pilings. Um it's
>> it's not in the velocity zone. It's in the A zone. So, um we can't finish them in any manner down there, but there'll be concrete with flood vents in there to allow any flood waters to go in and out. And I guess my only point would be that
if you left it entirely open, their owners of each unit could put their own or change the way it's organized so they could put more cars under on that first floor.
>> Um, >> what I don't understand >> I don't understand why you're going out of this. >> You have two cars right now, right? For each floor. We have two cows that can fit in each unit. Yes. >> And some you've been asked if maybe you
could increase that to four, >> but you don't think that's related to the flooding issues? >> No, it's just purely to because the driveway is purely an access driveway. We can't park in the driveway. The cars have to park inside the vehicles or unit
six won't be able to get access or the fire department wouldn't be able to get access. So the vehicles do need to park inside the village. >> Okay. So we have no leverage. That's what I hear. >> I'm not sure what you
>> I don't see there's an issue. Well, if there are storms are reaching that first floor, then you usually when we are setting up first, excuse me, storm water regulations like on the
ocean front, you would say that, and this is pretty close to the ocean front, you'd um keep that if it were a basement, you'd have certain kind of conditions you have to meet. If it's a first floor issue, you have to leave it open.
and uh you know obstructed. >> Yeah, those ones on the ocean would all be in the velocity zone. Yeah, but the because the basement slab slash it's not that's not the right term because of the garage slab is at grade everything is elevated. The you know the
first floor is going to be 10 ft in the air because the the garage floor >> the ground floor will be 10 ft in the sorry the first living floor will be 10 feet in the air. >> Yeah, but I'm talking ground floor or what do you call that?
>> The garage slab. the flood vents meet all the requirements that we have right now. >> No. So, okay. >> I just wanted to find out. >> Move ahead then. Anybody else? I do have a question about um units uh where did I
write it? I think it's units two and four are in the 50 foot buffer. Therefore, we'd have to have a variance. >> Well, you already have structure within the 50oot buffer. So I believe it's a reduction in the amount of structure
within the 50oot buffer. Currently we have um 591 square ft of structure in there and we're reducing it to 140 square ft. So it's a net reduction of 451 square ft of
of um structure within the 25 to 50 foot buffer. I don't see any structure in the 50 foot buffer on the existing conditions. >> If I could right here, scroll up if you would >> down.
>> All of this section right here is in the 50ft buffer. >> Okay, I see. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, obviously we've talked about the cleaning up the area. Um, I would like
to see a soil test done as part of the conditions. So, I don't know what's underneath, what's leaked, if anything. Hopefully, nothing. You probably wouldn't want to build a building over hazardous waste material either. >> There is actually some pete out there which has to be removed. So, we have to
go down a decent bit to uh get to a stable surface. >> So, you have to do geotechnical borings. >> Um, we've done soil tests. Um, I don't think we need to do geotechnical because the peak was down approximately 5 ft.
So, it was still above the groundwater. So, we would remove that and then we'd be into >> good sand. >> So, the groundwater is how deep at that point? >> Uh, approximately 5 1/2 ft. It's on there's a septic design. Oh, sorry, not a septic design, but the there is
information on that on the plan. >> And that's pretty much for the whole site. Say a middle line down through the site. Yeah, this this side is incredibly flat. I think there's about six inches of relief from the front to the back. >> Okay.
>> And that fence that's back there, the high seed fence is already there. It's It's not a new fence. >> Uh no, that is a new fence between us and the um the condo to the east.
And that'll have a 6 inch or some kind of space underneath on the bottom >> if the commission would like then we can put in space. >> It's more of a divider than it is of because it's open on the back and it's
open on the front. So >> anybody else Well, when you say the soil test, how far down are you going to go? Would you say The original P test that were done there
were done went down approximately 9 and a half ft. >> We went through to P. >> Okay. You have anything? >> Anybody else? >> One last question. Um I have a question on the the width of the driveway.
There's no way that that can be narrowed. I I don't there must be some criteria. I'm just >> obviously keeps the buildings, you know, where they are and just um I didn't know why they couldn't encroach encroach
further. >> Is it is it fire code? Is it code the driveway? >> Yes, that's it's fire department that's pushing the size in that location. >> And the zoning requirement requires us to be 10 feet from the property line with the driveway.
>> We're exactly 10 ft from the property line with the driveway. from this way. >> Is there going to be access through to the other road on the south side? >> There isn't. That was our original plan because but that other road is actually has been expuned and is no longer a road and even though it physically exists, we
do not appear to have rights to use it. >> You see about the road in the >> Yeah, the side. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Originally, our all the recall plan showed access and frontage on that
roadway, but there was a later plan that eliminated the roadway. >> Britney, you have anything you want to >> Yeah, I just have a couple more questions on the planting. >> Yeah. >> Um, you say this area is going to be that meadow mix, >> but there's no information on how you
plan to maintain it. Are you going to leave it to grow or is it going to be maintained as lawn? >> I'll defer to Paul on that. Paul, did you hear the question? >> I'm sorry, I had myself muted. Uh, I believe the areas around the buildings
will be maintained as lawn and the the additional seating that will go within the planting area for the erosion control mix that will be left to grow. >> So, still unclear the 35 foot buffer should be allowed to grow as meadow. Is
that part of the plan? Um yeah, I mean within the planting area, that was the plan. If you guys would like to extend that to the 35, um we can do that. Um and they could put in some kind of, you know, marker um delineating
that, you know, no MO zone or whatever. >> Yeah, that would be excellent. I think >> obviously we'd prefer to have a little bit of room there so that people would have some space outside the house to utilize. >> So So I mean ultimately it's unclear. We need to know what you're proposing. Um
the commission I would prefer that it be meadow since it's within the notice or buffer. Um understanding there is that easement there and they need to be able to drive over it. So no shrubs or anything. Um what are the commission's thoughts? >> I
I like the idea of a meadow. Um but I do agree that it should be clearer what's going to be meadow versus what would be lawn. Um so just some clarity on that would be great. >> Yeah. >> So what you're saying is we need a clearer um
planting plan >> for the seeded areas. Yes. We need to know >> and pref preference for me within the 35 as much as possible. Um, I mentioned in the comments I sent a couple of weeks
ago that we should use straight species for the planted trees on the front side. Um, the street trees, they're still shown as a variety on the plan. Can we do straight species for those red maples? >> Uh, yes. Sorry, I thought we had fixed
that. Yeah, we can do regular red maple, not the flame one. >> Excellent. Um, and my last I think question. Um, a lot of the proposed spacing you have on
here is much further than the approved spacing in the Cape Cod Cooperative Extension list and we have an overwhelming majority of small shrubs which I understand. Um, but we are replacing a good amount of large plant
material here. Um, so if the commission, it's up to your preference, but my preference would be for some higher proportion of the larger shrubs in these areas where there were some before. >> I mean, the majority of the shrubs that we're removing that are large are
invasive. >> Yeah, >> understood. Um can we meet the spacing >> um buffer of plantings? >> Okay. But the can we meet the spacing of the recommended spacing for the >> Yeah. Yeah. We pulled spacing from the
Cape Cod Corporate Extension. >> Okay. Um that was my last comment. If the commission is considering requiring soil testing, I would recommend you be a bit more specific or um have someone else
weigh in on the soil testing as needed. who's more familiar with that if you're going to put that in the order of conditions so that they know exactly what kind of soil testing they need to be doing. >> Okay. >> My question or >> you want to go with the soil testing first?
>> Um the soil testing um it would be required within the the footprint of the buildings um specifically because people are living in them. So >> that's where it's already happening, right?
>> Um well, we did test pits out there for um to see what ground water was. We didn't do testing out there to see what was in the soil. We tested to see what kind of soil it was, but not what was in the soil. >> That's what you're asking for. >> That's what I think that's what we're
asking for. I don't know how specific that is for you, though. >> Was there a sale? That's just a redevelopment. It's there's a sale for this property, not just a redevelopment. The the person who's redeveloping didn't own it. The property
>> the person who's redeveloping it does own the property. >> Okay, that answers your question. >> Sometimes they do. >> Second one, they change the answer. >> Just a question on the soil testing is u would that also be a requirement of the health department or some other um
department in town? Do we know or is it just a conservation issue? >> I think that would be it feels like that's not in our purview. I mean I I'm sound I mean I I'm I'm saying stuff that should be said by the building inspector
or the building department >> or the health department. >> Well, protection of groundwater supply um and protection of from pollution and prevention of pollution are in your purview. So >> because it's within the 200 foot buffer
the whole property is >> is it will it be duplicated by the health department or just our responsibility? >> I don't know the answer to that question. >> You don't know? >> I mean they've been they've been told that this is an area of concern by us and
>> yeah that's fine. how much further we can go. >> I I would think that the for example the building department health department would be interested in what's in the ground there but if it's our responsibility it's our >> certainly the health department. >> Yeah.
>> Well building too because you're building stuff on top of it. So maybe there's some requirement there. I don't it's a different requirement. >> Yeah that's what I Yeah. >> So what can you talk a little louder? >> Um yeah that would be a different requirement. It wouldn't be environmental testing if the building department was going to do some type of
sampling. >> It wouldn't be what? >> It wouldn't be environmental sampling if the building department was going to sample. >> That's fine. >> Do you know what kind of things environmental testing? >> I mean, based on what it looks like was happening there. Probably oil and gas. >> Oil and gas and
>> maybe metals. >> Have metals. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Um, but we can get a confirmation of I think just soil testing in three locations at a depth of like four feet would probably be fine. And >> brown water because usually
some >> water table >> water discharge. Yeah. >> I'm just going to ask about the the native tree why there's probably an obvious reason why it's got to go. I was just curious what the reason was. Um, it depend >> um
>> proximity to the building >> at six. It's near the sidewalk native tree to be removed near unit six. >> Is it even there? >> It's this little cedar. >> Yeah. >> Purely the proximity to the building to the building.
>> Anybody else? >> Jack. Yeah. Um the wash out as I remember there's a wash out area that you're putting in or keeping for fueling vehicle you know truck equipment
washing or is that not there is none >> um if on one of the pages you'll see our uh erosion not erosion control but our site control for the demo because it you know once the buildings come down all the black top comes up it's going to get
muddy. So, we have a line of stone along the um along the entrance way that will help decrease the mud that goes onto uh Route 28, which is standard practice. >> But once you're constructing, are you going to be refueling and so forth on
site? >> Oh, there'll be there'll be no need to refuel. And just out of my own personal what can you describe in 20 words? Caltech system. >> A Caltech system. Actually, how about we
let McKenzie answer the Caltech system? >> Sure. Um there's also a detail on sheet C5-1, which is pretty helpful to get an understanding, but um it's pretty much 100% void space chambers that allow um
storm water to fill up within the chambers. And then the chambers themselves are engulfed in crushed stone. So um that will also allow for storm water to be stored within and infiltrate into the ground. Is that
enough or you want to go deeper? >> And there's no uh purification or filtering or anything of >> treatment >> except for the basic. >> Yeah. treatment is provided by the water
quality inlets. So, we have low spots throughout the driveway and so the runoff from the driveway will um be routed into those inlets that will allow for pre-treatment and then it will be sent into the cult. >> Okay. Anybody in the audience?
Anybody else online? They moved where you guys are and that's why I missed them last time. I don't uh Paul, do you still have your hand raised? No. Okay. >> I don't know how to put it down. >> He's gone. >> Got the hook.
>> He hooked himself. Um Okay. So, um do I hear a motion to accept with special conditions? >> I asked for a lot of things. >> You asked for Okay. >> to continue for provisions. >> So, the things we discussed were an
invasive species management plan. um a clear delineation between meadow and proposed lawn with maintenance detailed. So like meadow mowed twice a year or regular mowing of that lawn. Um 6 in clearance below the fence. Improve the
spacing for the planting list to match the Barnesville County and do the straight species for the red maple. So most of that is on the planting plan. So, looks like a revised planting plan and the invasive species management
plan. >> Okay. So, we want to continue to to get to the to get those plans. >> Not to be a pest, but could I have the delineation of the RFA? >> Oh, and the um description of the
degraded area calculation. >> I will create a plan spec specifically for that and put a red line on it so it's easily identifiable with so many lines on these plans. Sometimes it's not clear. So, >> we'll put a bit of color on it and hopefully it's makes it easier to read.
>> Can you put the calendar up? >> That's good for you. >> Um, >> next meeting is the 18th and then we have one on the second. >> I would say the the next meeting um would be possible. Uh Paul, is the invasive management okay for the next
meeting? You'd need to get it in next week. Um, we can do that. Yep. >> Okay. So, do I hear a motion to continue to the 18th? >> So, moved. >> Second. Someone
>> Jack with second. Um, all in favor. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. Thank >> you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Got to get all of this stuff together again. It's going to be a minute before we go to the next one
because I have a lot of papers here. Keep there. This goes here. Okay. Next. Um, SE83-2532 Down Cape Engineering for Robin Griffin
Zero Great Island Road after the fact filing, excuse me, for replacement stairs and boardwalk on coastal dune and land subject to coastal storm flooding. could introduce yourself. And
>> I'm Andrew Gerlay, registered landscape architect with Down Cape Engineering and uh representing Great Island Associates. Um this is a after the fact uh filing on
a replacement of a boardwalk and stairs um to the um Nantucket Sound from Great Island Road. This is um just to be clear, this is Great Island Associates. They rent uh they lease the this
particular part of the land that is owned by um uh Great Island Realy Trust, but this is not Great Island Realy Trust's work. >> I'm going to interrupt you just for a second. Last time we took them to task and it was a mistake on I'll take the
blame, but mistake on our part. >> I just wanted to be clear on it. Yeah. Does everybody understand that in the No. >> Okay. So, last last meeting we took Great Island to tass this is not the first time they've done an after the fact. It actually isn't that group. It's
a different group on the island. Um, which you're trying to explain and I'm interrupting you, but >> that's okay. >> So, I withdraw my my comments. >> Okay. Um, so this this was a a
replacement for kind of a dilapidated um set of stairs and um like a landing and stairs that go up from from the road to a landing and then down to the beach. So, this was a replacement. Um, and I
believe that they just thought they were doing maintenance. Um, but they did not go through conservation and and they built it and here we are. And, uh, one thing that, um, I believe I wasn't here for the first meeting, but I believe one
of the things that was requested was uh, some planting for a disturbed area. And we have um beach plum going in um next to the set of stairs here where there's a little bit of disturbance. And um I think that's uh
pretty well it fairly simple. >> Okay. Anybody? Yep. >> It it could just be terminology. um >> you know uh on previously existing um
gate house and piling is does that are they there or not there now? Previously existing. >> No. Um do you know what I'm >> Yeah. Yeah. That's funny because my boss pointed that out to me. Did I before I got here? Yeah. I I actually did the drafting on this.
>> Um and I was just pointing out it's not new work. It's there. It was there be before um any of this work was done and I just wanted to try to be clear on that and instead I guess I made it less clear. >> It sounds like it's not there anymore.
>> It is there. Yeah. >> All these things you can see in the picture there. >> Okay. >> Y >> So we just take out the previously and we're all set. >> Yeah. >> Got it. >> Okay. Any other questions?
I'm confused who owns this the land. >> I'm confused who owns the land. >> It does say on the assessor's database that the Chase family owns it. >> So, yeah, it's the owner of record is Great Island Realy Trust and uh Arnold
B. Chase Jr. is the trustee. Okay. >> They own the land, but the the part of the Great Island neighborhood that is to the Yes. To the to the I guess it's the east on this one. Um, they lease this particular section for access to the
beach. >> And that's the Great Island Associates. >> That's Great Island Associates. >> So, they lease >> they have the right to put in the staircase or >> they Yeah, this is something they've leased for years and years. This was their set of stairs before. There's no
issue with uh Gray Great Allen Trust. Um, it's it's they this is their access and they are allowed to maintain it. Does that make sense? >> So, you guys did vote to issue a $300
fine. Um, which is still a valid response, but I think you were under the impression that the people who did the work were the homeowners association who do work with us frequently and should have known. Um, obviously still after the fact filing, still a violation, a fine could still be
warranted just so that you have that information. If you want to revote on that or keep your original vote, that is up to you. >> The fine would be to this new group. This the group that actually put the stairs in. >> Yeah. The Great Island Associates.
>> So my Oh, go ahead. Okay. Uh my understanding um from what uh Dan Ojela told me was that that fine was given because they thought this was a a second or third or maybe more offense and this was something that was a first time their first time offender. So
>> I think two votes one is to withdraw the original fine and then decide whether we want to have a new fine. So I'm going to make a motion to withdraw the original fine second. Second, Christian, any discuss that for a second? >> Sure.
>> Yeah. Um, so if I'm understanding, so this is a different entity within the Great Island area. They they built it without a permit. Um, it's still a violation. They should have they should have known. I don't know how
you didn't know, but they um now they're saying because we are not the other entity and we haven't done this before, we should not be fine. Is that correct? >> No, they're not saying that they shouldn't be fined. I'm just bringing the correct information to your attention so that you are aware. What
I'm saying is we're we voted to find getting confused about the names, but uh the Chase people because we thought they this is like the third or fourth time that this has happened. What I'm asking is whether we want to withdraw that fine
because they didn't put the stairway in and then we can decide where they want to find this this >> Oh, actually okay. All right. >> Is that okay? >> Sure. I understand. >> Okay. So, >> they own the land. So, shouldn't they have given permission to put the staircase? >> That's what I asked. And uh
>> they they have permission to maintain this access that they've been using for years and years. >> They just went beyond >> maintaining and rebuilding are two separate things. >> Yeah. >> And I think there was might have been
misunderstanding with the motor association of the difference between that. So, >> so the applicant for this project was Robert Griffin. Is he the contact for the Great Island Associates?
>> But the enforcement order was to the Great Island Homeowners Association. >> Enforcement order. >> Took a year to get this application in. >> Um, I don't think I I think we issued a violation notice.
There are so many parcels in here. >> Emergency certification. >> That was a different >> Where's that? >> Those were for other work. For this one, I think I just um they filed a building permit application and I told them to
permit it or remove it and they did follow. It was a a bit of a time delay, but they did follow up with the permitting, but there was no official violation or enforcement order issued. Okay. >> So, um before we vote, does everybody
understand what's going on? >> Yeah. >> Are we are we voting on the the >> We're voting on withdrawing the original $300. >> Okay. >> All in favor? >> Anybody opposed?
>> I'm going to abstain because I wasn't at that meeting and I didn't >> Okay. >> I mean, I saw the minutes, but I don't remember that conversation. I can't vote. Yeah. >> Okay. >> For the reasoning. >> So, can I just see the vote again? >> I got the vote. 511.
>> 511. >> Okay. Okay. So, that's done. Now, we go back to this this plan that's in front of us by the Great Island Association. And um
we had asked them to come back with a plan for more planting. um which they have added. I'm looking for note three. The note right here says C note three.
>> Yeah. >> And then the note is I just saw it up here. >> Oh, sorry. >> That's where I put it. Okay. So, that's sort of putting in beach plum. Is that I know you had asked about it, Bradford. Do you have any issues or is that okay?
Is that enough? >> That's a sufficient plant. >> Okay. All right. So, before we vote for whether we accept this new plan, do we want to issue a $300 fine any to this group?
That's open for discussion. I I just, you know, the the finder is neither here nor there in some ways, but what needs to be done to let folks know, especially on such incredibly
um sensitive, beautiful area as Great Island that if they do something, whether it be the Great Island Association or this particular assoc association, that they need to get a permit from conservation. What do we need to do? These are
probably fairly sophisticated people out there. Is there do you have a suggestion for that? >> I wish I had the answer. We get we get this after the fact. You know, it's after the fact to us, too.
>> Well, you did the work, right? You did the planning for the for the structure. No, that we did. We got the we got the all of this happened a we drew this all up afterward. >> Oh, afterwards. >> Yeah, we didn't design anything.
>> Okay. So, if you did, you would have said to them, "Listen, you need a >> Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. >> Okay. So, somebody built it without saying that to the folks out there, right?" >> Yeah. I don't I don't know if it was um if if there was if there's woodworkers
in in the in the association or if they hired somebody. I I don't particularly know who exactly were the people that built it, >> but it was under their >> Sorry that I misunderstood there. >> Yeah. >> Again, if they had gotten permission from the land owner to replace the the
structure, then the land owner could have told them that you need a permit to do that. I I don't think that they necessarily needed to ask to do this specific thing. It's like they have a right to take care of it like so they don't need to go talk to anybody. They
just maintain it. >> Maintenance got a little bit >> in >> Yeah. >> It's been in place for some time. >> Yeah. So the the they they were thinking maintenance was the replacement was the same thing as maintenance apparently. So
I don't know. I wish I had an answer for that. >> Maintain my car and buy a new one. >> What's the wish among you guys? >> I think they should still I think I think a fine is still appropriate and then move forward from there. >> Okay. Anybody else?
>> I think I need to see on the plan what portion of this property is >> leased. >> Leased so that we know in the future that Otherwise, they're going to replace it in 10 years and we're going to be back here doing the same thing and accusing
one person and it's actually a different person and it it's just very confusing to me. >> Is that something we could ask for? Um, >> the record? >> Um, yeah. I'm trying to
see if I have the >> Is that something we could ask for for the record? >> Would it be in here if they had it? What? >> You can ask for it. I don't have it. I was confused what you're asking me.
>> He's looking now. He might have it. >> I think it's a particular parcel on the assessor's map that they lease. >> It's kind of analogous to like an easement, you know, delineation. It's all >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. It's um it's lot 54 on the land corp plan 4075J sheet two. >> Could we get a copy of that for our records? That would probably be the best
thing. >> Would that suffice for you, Bradford, if we got a copy of that? >> Sure. I don't know what that says, but I Yeah, I guess so. So, so I'm I'm not sure what you're asking me to >> Well, do I have >> You seem to have a copy of where what
right they where their rights are. It would be nice to have a >> you could send uh >> Yeah. Can you email us a PDF? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> If you could do that, that would take care of that. Then we'd have it in a in a folder so when something comes up in the future
they do we can say well that wasn't in their in their area or that is in their area. It's actually it's actually on the on the face of the plan here. It it's it has the map and parcel and the land courtific
which parcel they they lease. see it on my frame. >> Right at the very top there's accessessors map seven. >> I think what we're looking for is >> something that defines it more. >> Yeah. Not just the map seven parcel one. Okay. >> That doesn't really say anything to me.
I like to see it. >> Well, because just hatch the area and call it out. >> We'll send the assessor's map and and the copy of >> Well, I mean, we have the assessor's map. Map 7, parcel one is owned by the Chase family. Yes. And and this group
leases that parcel. >> Okay. Can you send us a copy of the lease? >> Okay. I'll see what we can be good to have a copy of the lease. That's what I was going to ask. >> All right. So, we voted for the we voted
for the fine, right? >> No, we haven't voted for the fine. We have the fine. >> Do I have a motion for the fine? >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. Okay. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Excuse me. >> Go ahead. Yes.
>> Voting to continue with the fine. >> We're going to uh a new fine for the new group. >> That's what we're doing right now. Thank you. >> We voted to take the fine away from the other group. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, all in favor of this this fine
say I. >> I. I. >> Anybody opposed? >> Okay. So, we have that. Now we have the plan which Bradford you you feel okay with >> uh pending
>> pending information to Britney >> the lease agreement area >> I'm sorry say that again >> pending identification of where the lease area is >> and a copy of the lease itself.
So the motion is to approve the plan pending a >> issue an order of conditions. >> What? >> To issue an order of conditions pending receipt. >> Okay. >> Of the revised plan showing the lease area. >> I didn't ask if anybody in the audience
has anything. Okay. And I do you see anybody up there anymore? >> No, I don't see anyone up there. >> Okay. Um >> just a quick question. Yeah, >> we want a copy of the lease just so we know who has access or who has rights regarding that. >> Yes, we want to see a copy of the lease and
>> for the record. Okay. Yeah, >> that's in the motion. So, did I hear a I'll make that motion. Anybody want to second it? >> I'll second it. >> Second it. Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Anybody opposed?
Okay. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. There you go. >> Okay. >> Pictures. Yeah. >> We all caught up. All right. The next
one is 83-2536 Downcape Engineering for Leonardo Cala and Lana oh boy Sha Mar Deona I'm sorry three Baldwin Lane proposed ingground pool and patio for land subject to
coastal storm flood this one. Okay, >> once again, Andrew Gerlet with Down Cape Engineering. This is a fairly straightforward, I think. Um the the house is the property is in a flood zone. There's there's no
um not any bumpers to any wetlands. It's just a straight flood zone situation. Um very flat lot. And the um intent is to remove a a small circular patio, which you can probably barely see on the plan here, and then to install an ingground
swimming pool with a 700 square foot patio that encircles it. Not going to be any big grade change or anything like that. Straight forward. Anybody have any questions? Go ahead.
>> Oh, yeah. Thank you. Um, I assume the water it's chlorinated water, right? The pool is >> I can I actually have the pool contractors here now. You can >> Oh, it's a saltwater pool. Okay.
>> Okay. Um, the only question I have is um not sure how to ask this. Um, how will the um the the leech pit function or is it designed to function when the groundwater is high during flood events?
Um I mean or another way of asking that is has the pit been sized for you know maximum volume discharged. Um >> yeah, the the the typical draw down pit is able to reduce the u first couple
feet of the swimming pool um for for winter coverage. Um it's it's not um as far as a a flood event, what happens on the a coastal storm, water comes in, more or less sits on top of the water, I
mean on top of the ground, and then it re recedes. It's It's um even if it were to fill up that pit, the time nobody's going to be drawn down the pool during the flood. So, >> no, I know. I just didn't know if it was going to be back um
if if it if >> it's not going to be back. Okay. >> If you're going to speak, can you come to the table and to the microphone? >> Sure. >> They It's not dietmacious earth or sand filter. There'll be cotton filters. So
there there's no backwashing at all. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Was it designed for the high groundwater? Because this is a high groundwater area. >> Yeah, it's it's just a shallow leech pit to take the first uh and it's a small
pool. So it's just to draw down the the top surface of the water. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> Will the patio be dry laid? It is uh a um I guess you can answer that. I like
patio. >> Yes, the patio are pavers which will be pvious. >> Okay. If we could indicate that on the plan that would be great. And then uh where is the fence going?
>> Yeah, the fence is >> that's an existing fence. >> Existing fence. Oh, okay. I just saw the the note on the site plan, but I didn't see where it said fence.
>> Yes, the lines with the X's in it all the way around. >> Just because it is a high groundwater area, uh my only request would that would be that you submit a dewatering plan prior to the pre-construction meeting. Um, and hoping you know that there are
just a couple of requirements for the high groundwater area when you go get your building permit. It needs to be able to stay to be empty and not removed from the earth from the hydrostatic pressure. >> Anybody else from up here?
Britney, you have anything else? >> That's all. Thank you. Anybody in the audience? And I don't see anybody online. So, could we um have a motion with special conditions?
And do we need a new a new plan with some specifics >> indicating that it's uh >> pvious? >> So, we need just and you're okay to approve this. What's is it the plan? Yeah. >> Okay.
Motion to that effect. So move. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Anybody oppose? No. Okay. Thank you. Oh, can you put that in there?
>> Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. >> Send it back. >> Send it back. Sorry. >> Oh, send it back. >> I said the wrong >> Compass Drive. That's what we're doing
next, right? So hopefully we'll see. >> If not, we'll just give a new one. >> Yeah. >> So this goes with that. Then >> this went engineering. >> I just put it. >> Oh, okay. Okay. Great.
>> That's what I get for trying to be efficient. Okay, next one. Um SE83-2534 Shorefront Consulting for Anthony and Jane Compana 14 Compass Drive post seaw wall reconstruction elevation and
relocation with fill in land under the ocean land containing shellfish riverfront area land subject to coastal storm flooding and the buffer zone to a salt mar excuse me and after the fact for patio and deck in the buffer zone to a salt marsh and land subject to coastal
storm flooding. Um, you want here if you give it I'll put it in here. >> I know. I was just changing my head. >> Hi there. Uh, for the record, my name is Mark Burgess with Shorefront Consulting.
You're going to spend the rest of the evening with me, it seems. Go buckle up. Does anybody need to take a break before we go? No. >> No. Okay. >> All right. First one here. Um, and I
think this is an interesting one. So, how many people have been to the site? Okay. And, uh, basically, it's a bulkhead replacement. You're going to hear the those words quite a bit tonight. Um
the bulkhead is being replaced not in its original uh location. Um we have an opportunity to move 40T of the north side landward which I'm sure you're probably happy about. uh that is
to move landward which will increase the width of the waterway but it moves landward so that it meets the the bulkhead to the uh east the adjoining bulkhead. That bulkhead is also about a foot higher. So we'd like to put this
bulkhead at the same height as theirs and that way uh all the water acts the same across both properties. The really interesting part is the west side. Um that's about 90 feet I think.
So the uh I'm sorry. So the existing wall is about elevation 5.1. We're proposed to lift it to uh 5.9. So not you know a modest increase in height in that north section. There is about 14
rocks that are in front of the wall. Now that was from what Mr. from you who is next to me here says it was part of when the dock was put in something that the Army Corps asked him to do as an experiment. We don't really remember what the experiment was but whatever it
was other than putting rocks there it failed. So we have the opportunity to remove those. In my opinion it creates more shellfish habitat. >> Um >> those are on the sorry those were on the north side. >> Say again >> the rocks are on which side? that side, right? The last picture, the previous
picture >> between the float and the bulkhead. >> Yep. Right in there. And if if you were there at low tide, you could see them. >> Where's the float? >> Sorry. >> Where's the float? >> Float's on the north side. >> On the north side.
>> Oh, it's cut off on the plants. >> Um, okay. So, that kind of sums up the work on the north side. The west side is a little more precarious. Um the bulkhead is already failing and I
over the years the river has the soil has just dropped off the side of the bulkhead. Just a few feet out from the bulkhead. It's 12 feet deep. I'm sure that sheeting is not long enough. It might have been in the day but it isn't anymore. Um the piles have shifted. The
sheeting is shifted. There's sink holes there. You'll see that the the fencing is to prevent the dog from sinking into the bulkhead as well as the bulkhead and the soil. Yeah. Um those are all temporary measures to try to save that
land and protect the dog. Um that's only about 12 feet from the house. You can see it's pretty close to the house corner. It's a little bit further from the pool, but still I look at this and go, "This is a mouse trap." I I don't want to touch it. I don't want
to be responsible for designing something to try to replace that wall in the same spot because to remove it basically exposes you to the water to the river. If there was a storm, you're done. You know, you're looking at the house and soil and everything going into
the river. I don't want to take that chance. It's quite simple to just put another wall outside of it and and then um anchor it separately. anchor it independently anchor it in everything. Sometimes you put cementuous fill if
you're familiar with that. It's a slurry. It's not really concrete. It's not but it's not sand. Sometimes you fill them with cementuous fill. Sometimes you just leave it. I didn't put that on the plan because different contractors do things different ways.
Um, but that that has been a practice in the past when you put a wall in front that you fill that void so that it doesn't so that the wall that's there as it continues to degrade doesn't shift. Um, and I could add that to a plan. That's no problem.
On the moving further to the south, there's some salt marsh there. Uh, and there's some rip wrap. All that's permitted and licensed. The bulkhead's licensed and permitted. All that's good. I believe there's plenty of room where the sheeting goes, the rocks go up to
the the rocks go up to that bulkhead. I see no reason why somebody can't remove some of those rocks to make space for the sheeting and then put as many back as possible. They have no intention of of removing those rocks. There should be
no reason to touch any of the salt marsh. there's enough clearance to be able to to uh put the wall in directly in front but but landward of the marsh. All of this would have to be done from a barge. The I had a contractor come in
and look at this and he agrees with me about how precarious the wall is. He did say he could get on the north on the um up that sideyard, he could get a piece of equipment in there, but that would
only be for the north side of the walls. So the west side would have to be done from a barge. And even if this was done, I don't think it would ever be done in the summer. But if it was, the barge because of the curvature of the river, you're still not in the channel or anything like that.
So, I think there's room to accomplish the goal and not not make anybody else's life more difficult. That pretty much sums up the actual project. And as you're aware, there were some add-ons.
Um, there's an after the fact patio and and decking. Um Joe was kind enough to forward me a the diagram in the aerial that that the commission had. Um
and it's I >> superimpose it over the plan. This is this is actually just a markup at this point so it's easier for you guys to look at. >> So the the patio >> which one do you want me to show? The aerial or the >> Yeah, I like that.
>> This one? >> Y follow Kieran's lead here. So, this is the UN this was the unpermitted portion of a that's existing patio. Um, it's a solid solid patio, right? I mean like >> pavers. So, it it is it is somewhat
pvious. >> And then there was some decking here that was unperented. So, those square footages are updated on the plan. I can tell you what they are. The patio is 150 square feet and the
deck is 90. So the purpose of this purpose of this meeting is to sort of figure out what we want to do with those and I would have to come back to you with a revised plan based on the action
that we take tonight. uh if there's a if there's plantings that need to be involved, I need to uh hire my colleague again to uh do a planting plan. So the existing vegetated buffer that's in the grayer that's all
Rosa Regosa that was put in for the bulkhead, I believe. Um >> yeah, 30 years ago. >> 30 years ago >> and it's doing quite well. Um, there was additional those additional shrubs that weren't initially shown in the plan. I I put
them in the in the this draft, but uh, yep, they're there. You know, um, there's a garden area on the north side and that measures about after the bulkhead is is reconstructed, the garden
area is about 320 square feet. So that Mr. Compana has offered that area for potential mitigation plantings as opposed to a garden if you so desire. Um he is also fine with taking the pavers
and using uh putting it leaving it with gravel with maybe one foot square uh pavers. And um he's I'm going to let him take the mic here for a little bit. There's a a purpose for that patio. It's how his wife gets in into the the building. She has some limited mobility
issues. Other than that, the deck we can do what we want. Um he actually I'll offer this. He's fine with taking it out if you see fit um to leave it and there's enough room for plantings that pleases
everybody. That's all good, too. So really, you just want to gather information about how you want to resolve this and then we'll go fix it. Uh, division marine fisheries didn't have a time of year restriction. Um,
don't know why, but they didn't. They had a question about the stone removal and the potential habitat that the stones were providing. I don't know what they're talking about if barnacles maybe or not, but I think removing the stones is a benefit because it's going to allow
the soil underneath to do whatever it wants to do. There's not a lot of shellfish on the site. there was a shelfare survey done, you know, but the goal was you file a notice. I always tell everybody whatever work you want to do, get it done under one one filing.
So, we propose to remove the rocks. That's open for discussion. It's optional. So, there's some wiggle room. Um, go ahead, uh, Tony Tony Kaga. Um, >> yeah. Uh just on the the the wedge of
deck, I'd like to remove that and put lawn in so the dog has some lawn because we're pulling the wall. We're pulling everything in a couple feet anyway. So there's a little bit of lawn um for the dog to go in the backyard and the uh the
the pavers that are on there. I just want to get some doesn't have to be as wide as it is now, but something that is maybe um gravel and just a couple stepping stones so my wife can get in. She likes it going in that way instead
of going up the stairs in front. >> Yeah. So it's >> um we did submit a variance for work in the 35 foot buffer and I'm guessing we'll need a planting plan. So with that I'll endeavor to answer
questions you might have. Anybody or should I start? >> Yeah, Ellie, >> me. Hi. >> Hi. >> Um, the rocks. Um, so I uh Yeah. So, obviously you read the
report. It said um I'm I'm looking at the um the DMF report. Mhm. >> I I it made me more concerned about the rocks the way they said that um they called it um the existing stone armor armoring on the western portion of the
bulkhead has interstitial spaces that helps deflect wave energy and provides as you said the habitat for invertebrates and shore zone fishes during high tide. Um
are will you talk to me about what I think you in the narrative? What's involved in removing the rocks on the west side? >> We just have an excavator with a thumb. Grab them, pull them out. >> Do you totally You're not doing any
replacement. It's kind of what they were asking for. Do you in the in the in their report Mhm. >> Yeah. I think it's like they understood it that it was a temporary removal for construction and then you'd put them back. >> Yeah. They think you're putting them
back. >> What's the reason for removal? Can we leave them there? >> Just because they're not doing anybody any good. >> Sounds like DMF wants to keep them. So, I would recommend we don't get rid of them. >> I don't think DMF knows why they want to keep them >> habitat for what fishes during high tide
and invertebrates as listed. >> And it's not and it's not shorefront protection. It's not like rip wrapped for waves or anything that somehow the the rocks got there. So we proposed to remove them again. >> Do they impact use of the dock in any way? >> No, there no the floats are out beyond
the rocks. So even at low tide at low tide the rocks are about that much below the surface. >> So for the homeowner, does it benefit you any way in removing them? >> They seem silly. >> So no, >> that's all. So let's keep the rocks.
>> You're going to keep the rocks. the >> DMF. >> Yeah, they kind of made a good Okay. Um and then um on your on your narr on your narrative um on page five when you
address the um at the bottom um the the Yarmouth wetlands protection regulations have the following performance standards to consider. on the bottom topography it it says um
you say in red thank you I like the red um there is no net change to bottom topography could you elaborate on that there's no net change in the bottom topography >> so topography to me is this >> okay >> right how the ground
you know goes up and down we're not chang we're not changing that when the bulkhead's brought landward that grade just be would be carried landward in the same elevation that it's at. And then obviously when you go on the other side of the wall, you're just putting putting the sheeting in the ground that's there.
So you're not changing that topography or grades either. >> Okay. All right. That's all I had. >> Jack, how large are those stones? >> Like the rocks with the stones.
>> The rocks again. >> They're staying. So, >> and they're done. >> And um are there smaller rocks that you know in the cracks and things? >> They're they're just plunked >> sort of along the base of the bulkhead.
>> So, you don't see any tiny fish going through those or anything? >> I I don't Yeah, I >> maybe fish or anything? >> EMF says there are >> no sense to me. The Army Corps of Engineers said, "We'll put them in as an experiment and see if
it'll keep the things intact." It all washed away around the >> I see. >> Well, I'm not too worried about the Army Corps. >> That was It was their deal. It was nothing to do with >> anything else. >> Okay.
>> Um, a couple questions myself. um the seawward stuff uh that you're doing. I think that's if I think of three areas. There's the area you're moving it inward or towards the land. Then there's the
area that is the most area that needs the most work, right? And then there's you So the area that needs the most work you you're adding um you're going seawward, not landward. How much how far are you going? Usually
we allow a foot. So the sheeting, these are Z sections of sheeting and the section is about nine inches give or take. Um it's on the the section is shown on the plan to scale. But um you try to put your f well if you use the
old if you use the original bulkhead as your false work, you can lay it as close to that right up against it as possible. So, we generally allow a foot to say that by the time you're done, the the new wall will be about a foot in front of the old wall.
Um, you talked about planting plan. We're going to need one. Um, sorry, looking at my notes and seeing what you've already answered. Um, you're going to move the veggie garden, so that's going to become a a buffer zone. Um,
>> it can be. Yeah. >> And you you would like you have no problem removing the patio pavers, but >> No, the deck. They want to remove >> Well, I'm sorry, what? >> Want to remove the deck and shrink the patio. >> But I was just going to say that. But
what you would do is redo the do it. So there are there's a small path for her to go in and out. You said you >> it was gravel and if that's all right. That's what I would prefer to do. >> Okay. So, gravel >> and I can go out there and measure what
we need and let you know what the difference is and >> put that on a plan. >> I think that's that's my comments. Um, anybody else? >> Yeah. Sorry. >> Go to Pat.
>> Go to Pat. You're going to need some fill, right, for this foot. So, >> so the bulkhead is going up, but we're not raising the yard. The only reason for the fill is to fill in that depressed area that's been that's been sloughing off where the plywood is and
the and the fencing to where the dog could go into the river and you know, all that. >> You say you're going to use use a special sand or something? No, >> no, no. It would just be something that you that Cape Cod, you know, Cape Cod sand, which is mostly sand. Okay.
>> He was talking about like the concrete slurry. I forget what you called the >> Oh, >> in between the new bulkhead, new seaw wall and the old seaw wall. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That's called Yeah. It's called cementuous fill. They pump it. >> So, think of it as very, very, very thin
concrete. >> So, it's a slurry. So, they pump it in. It fills in all the gaps and then it does dry, but you could like you could probably pick it with a hammer. It's not concrete. The purpose of that is to fill that void and secure one wall to the other so that if the wood rots, which it
will, that wood's going to move and you're going to have that void and then you're going to see the land drop. So, I should have put that on the plan and I'm sorry I didn't, but I will on the next one. >> Okay, good. So, so you build a wall outside of the existing wall by a foot,
but you don't remove the old wall that new wall is, um, protecting. >> Yeah, generally, um, they can cut it off at grade, >> but I I wouldn't go get it. I would just sort of leave it leave it well enough
alone. >> Okay. So, what I'd like to see on the plans when you redo them is those three areas. If you can differentiate the three areas, the the in the landwood area, the wall within the wall area, and the
third area. I think that's >> what's the third area? >> Um, well, you're not doing you're not going the wall within the wall all the way to the end, are you? >> No. Uh, Britney, if you can pull up the colored the colored plan. So
the red is the red is the new wall. >> Okay, I knew that. >> Brown the brown is the old wall, >> right? >> And up around the north what would be the north west corner right there is where you go through the existing wall
and and transition to outside. >> So >> that all the way to the end >> all the way around. Yeah. Okay. So it's about 40 feet on the north that you're coming land. And then when you pop out on the northeast corner, it's 100 feet to the south >> in the same length as the bulkhead is now.
>> And you estimate it to go out 10 feet. >> No, one >> foot I meant. Yeah. Okay. >> All right. >> Give or take. Yeah. >> Got it. >> Just a quick one. Um, thank you for doing, you know, the sections of each wall because they're they're different.
But uh the north the north wall you say in the narrative that you're eventually going to you're removing that wall once you anchor. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. There's two way. >> Yeah. Because it's on it that's
transitions. So where it transitions then that last section you're going to be able to remove. >> Do we have a section of that? Do you have >> um Yeah. That's section AA. >> Is that AA? >> Yeah. Okay.
I couldn't see the A and the A in plan. Okay. Is that where I see section B? Where's section AA in the plan? >> The lower right. Lower left. Right below the colored uh portion of the plan. >> See it? >> No, I don't. Sorry, I don't see it.
>> Yeah, I don't see it either. >> Up by the pier. >> I see section C. Section B. Move over to the So section AA is almost north south. >> Yeah. Right at the >> BB is about 10 o'clock. >> This just says A. >> Yeah. And then BB is >> Oh, it's in the small plan. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, there's more detail in the bigger plan and >> less detail inside. >> Well, I zoom it in because it makes it easier to see some things. >> Yeah, but it it cut off.
>> Yes, it does. without going to without going to two sheets or the other option I have is keep this is I can zoom it in and well not show as much. So
>> anyway I do my own drafting. I we we strive to make plans clear but uh there's a lot of information on these plans. >> Anybody else? Britney. We've talked about a lot of small
things, but I have a big problem with the loss of 60 square feet of land under the ocean. I don't think that's reasonable. I also don't have any I don't see how you could possibly
protect the salt marsh. It abuts the the revetment as is. If you're moving the re the seaw wall outward, you would be removing salt marsh. What is your plan for that? So I the the the
seaw wall goes behind the rocks in front of them. It's in it's in front of the existing seaw wall. Yes. But where it tucks in where it meets the rocks, it's behind. So you would just remove >> starts over here. >> You would remove the rocks and put the
the sheeting in there in um >> the plan shows a salt marsh directly abuing the existing reetment. Are you sure that I don't think the marsh grows right up against the bulkhead? I think there's a little patch where there's nothing there. I have a picture. >> I didn't have a boat so I couldn't go
look for us to see because the growth of all the plants. We couldn't see over it >> at low tide. You can walk there. I have I thought I have a picture in there that shows it um when I when I was able to walk out there. I don't believe that the that the marsh goes right up against the
b the existing bulkhead. There's almost like a little path. >> I don't think we can. >> We see some photos. >> Can we see some pavers there or something? Or am I confusing that with another visit right at the end of the
wall between that and the marsh? >> I'm sorry. I don't know what you're asking. >> I didn't get I didn't think I got any photos. >> Let me see. I have it here. So I can pass it around if I see the one I that's in my head.
>> I'm wondering, this is just a suggestion, but the only thing that you guys get is seven copies of the narrative and the plan. I wonder if I should include pictures, but >> everyone can do it. But >> anything that I have for clarity,
>> normally we would, you know, suppose if we in the winter, we would have seen the Um, either way, I agree with DMF. Um, I I don't fully understand the reason this alternative was chosen because we're losing 60 square feet of
land on the ocean and it is a protected resource area and I don't think we should be doing that. Um, I would seed to the corner. I understand that part is actively falling apart and that part should probably be replaced seawward. Um, but I don't see why you can't stop
at the corner and put the rest of it in the same place. Um, so that we don't lose any resource areas, especially because the salt marsh portion is the most important and that's the most unclear. >> That's why I asked about the three. I thought there were three areas and I
thought the corner was one separate area. So either the reason you had in your alternatives analysis is that you cannot excavate close to the house in order to put the seaw wall in the same place. >> I think it's too dangerous to do that. I think it's too risky for many reasons.
Yeah. And the contractor agree with me. >> Yeah. >> It's a tough situation. I agree. But and normally I would never propose it, but this is to me in my opinion this is the only safe way to do it. Now I've got I've got one picture in
here. These aren't on there or >> I don't see them anymore. >> I can pass this around. It goes as far as you can see, but there's a space here. corner where there is no
>> Well, it goes as far >> if you could just provide a photo of of this spot. >> I can try to get a better photo. Yeah, >> it goes about as far as you could see from that picture. And then it's water because it's all it's all gone away. There used to be marsh there, but it's all broken off.
>> Um at low tide, you can still see the pete shelf. >> Yeah. On this corner. >> Yep. So, I in my opinion sure to avoid any impacts to the salt marsh because that's a known net negative impact. >> I know that >> resource area and
>> this I believe is Pete. I don't think there's any marsh here. >> This is where you have some marsh, but that's also where you have rocks. And we're going to go behind Well, the rocks are here, but there's also rocks in here. So, you should be able to take out the rocks and put the sheeting in
without touching the marsh >> and without excavating. Don't you need to excavate anyway to anchor? >> Um the the anchors are driven horizontally. So once they remove the rocks, the sheeting is just driven vertically. They don't have to dig to put the sheeting in. They just driven in
the ground. And um and then and then they would drive the anchors in. So >> and they can't do that on the Sorry, this one you're not proposing excavation on this side. Well, you have to because you're moving it landward. >> I see. Well, so generally when they when
they remove a bulkhead in the same position, they'll back excavate. And I I would imagine that what they will do here is they will back excavate. I think I put that in the detail. They'll back excavate >> and dig it out, put the new sheeting, they'll snip the anchors because now there won't be any load on the wall. And
then they'll snip the anchors, put the new wall in, and then take the old wall out. >> Trip. >> Sorry. Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, we see the rocks go the rocks go really far forward. So, we can remove these to make room for the bulkhead. And
if there's any marsh at all, it's just this little tip right here. And I believe I don't believe there's anything right. I mean, the line goes there, but that's where it stops. >> Yeah, maybe you can get like a drone photo or something. We need more information for just a better picture.
>> Britney, can you go back to the picture with the rock? The reg regular picture with the rocks. I'm a little confused. No, you can't see the rocks. They're under the water. >> No, I meant >> where they are. >> Where the marsh is. >> Oh, >> I don't I don't have a picture of the marsh. We couldn't see over the roses.
>> Okay. I thought Okay. >> Yeah. That picture >> the rock, sorry. The rocks are like about right about from here up >> and the revetment ends like here.
I thought the review that meant Okay, I see now. >> Yeah. >> And apparently um what Mr. Kamaga said was this marsh used to used to go all the way around probably all the way around to here. >> It is 12 feet deep right there. So, it's
just all broken off over over the years. >> Here's your pictures back before you sit. >> Thank you. I just have a qu another just question for the long term. Um in your professional opinion, what what
has caused this deterioration of this bulkhead? It um what what has caused it? Is it >> in my opinion? So the north side of the wall is in pretty good shape, >> right? >> The south side has been undermined
>> from erosion of of the river, ice, you know, whatever. where it's broken off. It's It's first destroyed the marsh. Now it's broken off the pete. Um if you w if you were out there at low tide, you could look down and see the Pete shelf where there probably was marsh at some
time, but certainly isn't isn't now. It's just Pete. And after that, it's a cliff. I mean, like I said, 12 feet deep. So once the wall loses its footing, the sheeting, >> let's say that this here's the ground and here's your sheet, right? >> You've got anchors up here that keep the
wall from going forward on the top, but once you lose your support on the bottom, the sheeting kicks out. Any catastrophic failure? >> Was the the existing dwelling built that close to the water?
There was there was a lot more land >> now eroded. >> Yeah. >> Pictures from 30 years ago. There was about 20 ft more out. You know, when we put the wall in 30 years ago, the the I'm just looking at a picture here.
There was land right to where the you know, that's that's what washed away. >> It's gone. >> So, since you're doing a lot of these these I know >> you are. I know. Um, what is the lifespan of these bulkheads? What? >> So, the the the timber ones that were
made out of CCA and all that, that's they're three by uh 3x8 or 3x10 tongue and groove. They're thick, but functionally about 30 years. >> Some have gone longer than that and some have gone shorter. Um, borers get at the
bottom. That's primarily the reason the wood the wood fails. um the wood borers get in there, they deteriorate the bottom, then you get the sink holes. You'll see that in a in a couple of weeks from now, you'll see that, but you get the sink holes behind and that's the beginning of that failure process. If
the sheeting rots enough, then the bottom kicks out and you got a bad bad thing. So, um about 30 years. These new walls, it it's vinyl. I I mean, I was told by the manufacturer that there's like a 50-year guarantee, but trust me,
it's nothing we're going to ever have to worry about. So, you do it right and you're done. >> Yeah. Um I I don't know when to ask this question, so I'll ask it now because of the all of these applications. What What is the cumulative effect of these um
bulkhead installations? Is there a cumulative effect to the Is there is there So my my opinion is cumulative effect is evaluated when you're talking about new structures. These are all replacements. So you're >> you're just trading one for another.
>> Yeah, it's a good point. >> But yes, there is definitely a cumulative impact of these structures in the waterway >> of of replace of what he's what do you say that again? >> There would definitely be Yeah. >> For new ones, >> he's saying just >> we don't just discount the original
impact. It's still there. We're not changing the impact in this case. We are changing the impact because you're elevating it. But um yeah, there's additional impact >> even if it's an inind replacement. Okay. Yeah. I mean I would think >> just for your reference to the other
question, this is plan was from 1976 and there was 32 feet from the house to the >> Well, that's the property line. We don't >> Oh, is that the property line? There's no other features on here. >> That's the subdivision plan. >> Well, on the north side, there was more
space, too. You could look at >> We have buffer zones. >> I've used I'm going to move us ahead. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Historicials.com has a pretty good 1970 1971 black and white. You could try that. It's free.
>> But what I'm hearing is we're going to have to um continue this. >> And you're clear with what you need to do? >> All except for how much square footage? Well, is if we just use that garden for planting and take out the deck. Are you cool with that? Is that all good? Or do
you want a specific square foot? >> Probably the corner too where you're filling where you're filling should have plantings as well. >> Um, can they just do Cape Cod lawn there? >> Why? >> Because the dog still needs places to
go. >> That's what was there. It just uh >> Britney >> has sunk away. You think there would be any of this planting plan that could use uh deep rooted, you know, >> yeah, >> grasses and things that would prevent
that's definitely >> gravel and so forth are all fine, but nice deep rooted junkus or something like that would really >> hold it better. >> I would agree. Um, so my list from revisions were discussed were plan
revisions to keep the stones, remove the unpermitted deck, shrink the patio, provide a planting plan, note about the cementuous fill, um, additional information on how you are avoiding impacts to the salt marsh.
And I I would like you to strongly consider any possibility of putting that wall back in the same footprint. Um or get an another confirmation from your contractor if he confirmed it with you that it's the only way and the safest
way if he could put that in writing. Um we need something to go on in order to approve taking of the ocean. >> Can we um >> I miss anything? And we're giving we're giving some motion back, you know,
>> but it's >> Yeah, but it's still No, the 60 is including your what you're giving back. >> Um >> well, would the I assume we're going to have some revised landscaping. Will we have a revised mitigation plan, you
know, because it's showing the map? >> My colleague will develop a like we did in the last one. Uh my colleague will develop a a planting plan. So, we're just talking about planting where the garden is. That's 320 ft.
>> Well, there's that's all I mean >> why aren't we providing a buffer here where you're where you're making additional impact filling? I mean, you should provide like at least a twoft buffer on this side. >> Are you okay with that?
>> I mean, you can also provide you'll also need to provide the ratio for your patios. So that'll kind of give you the additional area that you'll need to fill in >> ratio. >> Yeah, you're proposing a structure in
the no disturb buffer zone. So you need to provide at least 4 to1 mitigation. >> Okay. So that that was my question was do we need an is there a number that we're looking for or can we just plant the garden area? So now you're saying that we need a number.
>> You don't know how big the garden area is. Why would >> it's for it's after the wall is moved landward it'll be 320 square feet. It's probably like 10 feet wide now it'll be 8 feet and it's 40t wide. So it's 320 square feet.
If that and a two-ft buffer around where the sandy area is is sufficient then we can certainly go with that. >> You can certainly draft that up and propose it for review. >> Yeah. The commission needs something to review. You can't just spitfire stuff and ask for their opinion.
>> Yes. But the idea of this is to get a direction. You know, >> tough crowd. Tough crowd. >> Like numbers. >> What now? >> Show us the numbers. >> Show us the numbers. >> Um what uh can we see a calendar up
there? >> Um there's no way I'll do this in a week. So, >> right, >> July 2nd or 16th? >> July 2nd. >> That's close to a >> I know >> threeday weekend.
>> Forums are difficult on that one. >> Anybody plan to not be here on July 2nd? >> I don't know. I'll get back to you. >> Okay. Yeah, you're right. >> What now? >> Fair. What' you say? >> Um, I was just seeing if anyone was
planning not to be here that day. You have two may. >> Two may. Well, why don't we shoot for the second? We can always bump it. This isn't something that's going to get done until winter or spring. All the contractors are booked like for the rest of the
year. That's how much work they have. So, not, you know, not anything that we have to finish tomorrow. >> Okay. So we'll So can I have a motion to um continue to July 2nd? >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Second. So Bradford moved it. Ellie seconded. All in favor? >> Thank you. >> Now just to let you know Britney the wrong one down. So they got signatures here. So
>> just like put a line through it. Just need another one. >> Well, you could leave it and hopefully we'll >> No, just cross it out. >> Got it. Sorry about that. >> Okay. >> All right. Next.
>> One one thing quick. Um I during the staking photos that I emailed in. >> Yeah, I have those >> because those uh there was one I took from up above. >> Okay. from the from the deck. And that might show what you were talking about, but I I didn't see any pictures in your
f in your >> um I only got photos for Blue Rock Road, >> right? You don't I didn't give you those here. >> I went up on the deck to to to look down. >> Okay. I'll look for them, but I don't I'll >> still I can go out there at low tide and
see if I can get a better shot. >> Okay. Next one is uh Betsy 832538 Shorefront Consulting for Blue Rock >> Blue Rock Road re realy Trust 166 172
Blue Rock Road proposed bulkhead and stairs reconstruction with new landing in coastal beach coastal bank land containing shellfish riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flooding and This is the one we went out by boat
to look at. >> We did go out by boat. We >> did. >> We had a nice time, didn't we? >> I wouldn't want you to walk down. >> That is why. >> Which one is this? Okay. Uh again, Mark Burgess of Shaw
Consulting and I have Mr. Videlli next to me. Uh, you've owned the property since when not that long, but >> 2002 2010. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Flip my notes, too.
>> All right. So, the the main purpose of this project is to replace uh an existing destroyed bulkhead. Uh, if you've been along the river, this bulkhead's been like this for as many, many years as I can remember.
Um, there's two bulkheads down there. We don't really know how they got there. I'm not sure. There's a chapter 91 license, an old one that shows a dock at this site, but there's no evidence that I could find of a of a dock being here. So, it might have been much further back
in time. Aerials don't show it because it's shaded. And it was way before you guys were there. Um, so for obvious reasons, the bulkheads that are there aren't doing anything. and they're they're coming out. Um,
so the idea is to replace the existing bulkhead. Um, all the debris at the base, which is plenty of variety. All the debris gets removed. Um, there's cables, there's some steel bars, there's pipes, there's all kinds of just junk
down there from probably a previous attempt or whatever. The new bulkhead is proposed at the same height. the bulkhead to the left, that's uh Mr. Stover's property. And um I'll explain a little bit later,
but he also is a co-participant in this notice of intent. He signed he signed the notice because this wall is going to join to his now. And that's about 10 feet from the property line. So this really is kind of a mirror image
of the project next door. Uh it's a rebuilding of a bulkhead. There is expansion to the north agreeably to protect the house. Um same height as that bulkhead. We're going to push it landward as far as we
can. And uh the reason for that is that uh we were in a little bit of a discussion on this bulkhead with Kelly and it was about converting um coastal beach to coastal bank. So, if I put the bulkhead where it is, there's coastal beach
behind that bulkhead, and I'm not supposed to really convert it to to bank, if that makes any sense. So, but also for practical reasons, you just want to put it as far landward as you can. Now, I can put it right up next to
the bottom of the scarf, but the wall has to be at the height that is designed at. And the reason for that is because, think of the grade coming down like this. And let's say here's where it's vertical. Okay. If I put a short wall here, then what
happens to this? It has no support. I would have to move the short wall out so I can maintain that slope to stabilize it. So a I can have a taller wall and move it right next to where it is now. And then you just back fill behind it.
It's exactly what we did on on the project next door. So that's really the summation of of that. Um we're going north. Uh it's 142
feet total length. We presume we propose to do exactly the same thing on the north end of this wall that we did on the north end of Mr. Stover's wall at 166 to the south. You stop short uh 10 feet or so from the property and you put
a fiber roll soft return. Um if you look if you looked at the north wall of Mr. Stover's property. It appears that that return has done its job. Um, where the bulkhead ends, there's still going to be
erosion, but the fiber rolls are still there. Not too much left of them, but they're still there. So, they've they've done their job. The erosion hasn't started really to come try to come up behind it. So the idea is to provide a transition zone for wave energy so that by the time
you get on the next property then the natural erosion process or whatever is happening there happens. That's that's the reason for it. We would do the same thing on the north side for the north property line. So that you can see it there about 17 feet is where that's
proposed. Um that's kind of it for the bulkhead. We did do a shelfish survey. There's some there where there's beach. I wouldn't call it loaded. There are some. Um,
what else? Okay. So, then the stairs, the stairs aren't too bad till you get to the lower landing. At that point, uh, you should stop. The existing lowest run of stairs is a huge timber of stair and
it it goes down to the beach like it was supposed to. Uh, but it has detached. there's a like a comealong and a and a it's strapped to the to the deck. It's not safe. Um, all that would get rebuilt
in time and all of it gets rebuilt. Now, when I do a set of access stairs, this came up from some other hearing, but there aren't any build there aren't any building codes for a coastal stairway. I They might come into play if they were
connected to the building. No actual building codes. You don't need a building permit, anything like that. Having said that, I try to follow the building codes because they're for safety. So, you try to have a resting landing with no more than 12 feet of
vertical rise. In your house, it's about eight, but I think they they allow 12. But anyway, you don't want a straight shot. And these weren't built that way. They were built fine. But I also like to have the same rise and run. Your body knows. It can actually determine the
building code only allows a quarter inch of variance between your rise and runs because your body figures that out as it goes downstairs. So I try to keep them straight. So in doing so the landings get moved around a little bit minor.
Um the lower landing what we're proposing to do the one that's there now goes away. And then because there's a vertical bulkhead, I need to get over that bulkhead now a different way than
they did before. So I'm proposing a um 8 by10 landing that's on top of the bulkhead. Some of it landward. There's only enough seawward so I can hang a set of stairs off that landing and get back down to the beach. So the function it
functions the same as it does now. They have access to the beach. They want to maintain that access to the beach. And um so that landing is really the only way to get over that wall and then back down to the beach and it the outer part of the landing is supported by pilings and I stake that
out as best I could to try to give you the visual. Um, before I forget, either either I submit a request for administrative review or some other method that you might approve. We they want to secure
that staircase for this summer, that lower section. So, that would be some work that we're looking to get approved immediately as opposed to waiting for this whole project to begin, you know, sometime in the winter or next year. We can figure that out. Like I said, if
it's an admin review to to to resecure that staircase, I'm fine with that. I I'll I'll do it right away. But I wanted to make sure I mention that that's a temporary fix. And then when the whole project gets done, everything gets gets rebuilt.
Um see the stairs are three feet wide. Okay. So when so similar exactly similar to the other project when you put the new wall in you need to fill behind it to secure that slope and then that area
would be planted. There's there's most of the slope is quite stable. You know the whole thing is vegetated with woods and and sorry woodland and and duff and things like that. It's not a formally planted site but but the ground that's
not exposed is quite stable. So, I only want to fill to the top of the bulkhead. There's two scarped areas. So, the one to the left, um, between the between the rickety stairs and the bulkhead to the south, that area would need to be filled and
stabilized. Um, and I presume we need a plan for that. But again, this is, and let me explain, the reason I haven't come up with a plan at first is because I'm not qualified to do it. and mitigation in the resource area. You
guys have to decide what to do. I'm not allowed to even guess. So that's why I'm looking to you and then we'll decide. >> Sorry, what is that you just said? That's not true. >> It says any landscape um any any
mitigation in the resource area is decided by the commission. >> That's not true. I don't know where you saw that. >> That's what that's what the table says. um in the >> decided by the commission. >> I'm not sure what you mean, but >> well, so some of the table says variance
required and the part that is the in the 35 or in the resource area says >> at the discretion of the commission. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The discretion of the commission, >> right? But that also means that I I >> that you propose something and they review it and approve it at their discretion or not.
>> Okay. Well, I interpreted it differently. I didn't think I was allowed to even >> Oh, no. Yes. Please propose things. >> Okay. Okay. Um, so that area gets filled and stabilized.
And again, I'll have my colleague provide that to you. And I'm guessing, you know, it's about 200 yards of fill. That's about what what went on next door, a little bit there, and then the rest of it, as you can see, looks quite, I think, just fine to to fill and probably
just put beach grass behind there. And then there's another spot off to the right. Um, do you have one or I gave you one? >> We had to turn around the boat. We got some unrelated photos. >> Yeah, here's it's a little zoomed in, but
>> I have one of those. I think it's zoomed out. Yeah, that's good. Oh, that area also would need to be bolstered up. Looks like about 10 feet up. It's marked on the plan where the top of the scarp is. So that area would get filled and
planted as well. No trees are proposed to be removed. The bulkhead can be put in around. There's no trees down where I'm going to put the bulkhead. So all those trees stay. There's don't have to prune or do anything to it except put the bulkhead, stabilize the grade, and
then plant it around everything else. >> I'd like to interrupt. Um, it seems that there's still a lot of work for you to do. And since this is a long we still have five or six more items, can we just
cut to the chase and uh because you're going to have to obviously come back um themes that you you need a >> planting plan. >> Planting plan. We need um
1300 square feet. needs a professional to do the plan. We um >> say again, >> yeah, that's the same comment. >> I'm sorry, what? >> Same comment. I also, just so the commission knows, I don't mean to um I this is not meant in a way to attack you
at all, Mark, but I did let Mark know that we needed a planting plan for this. And I was unsure the reason that he refused to provide one. Um, so I know that that has been a sticking point and Joe and I do our best to provide our comments to the applicants ahead of time, but not always uh do we receive
enough information prior to the hearing. And so before the hearing begins, you are always welcome to um not hear any testimony until you think that the the application is complete. I think I'm at the point where I'd like to just if it's clear to what you have to do,
>> I think we it would merit a little bit more discussion about the placement of the bulkhead knowing that we need a planting plan and a couple of other things. Um because um just Yeah, the placement of the bulkhead in relation to the bank. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. Uh
>> yeah, go ahead. >> Yeah. >> Okay. What bothers me is um is the purpose of this project to fix the bulkhead or to secure water access? >> Well, it's maintains the water access
that they have now in a in a different way. >> But but in Okay, you're pushing out the bulk the existing bulkhead. You're pushing out to accommodate the last landing of the stair. No. All the bulkhead from the remains of that's
that's out there right now. The the new bulkhead will be landward of that, not seawward, landward. >> So, >> as close I want to I want to put the sheeting as close to the bottom of that scarf as I can and go up from there because the closer I put it, the less
you have to fill. >> So, what is the driver of the height of the bulkhead? It's a function of where the grade is directly behind it. So, as I as I tried to explain, yeah, >> if you shorten the wall but leave it
close, then that that slope won't be stable because it has nothing to go up against. >> Well, you say in your narrative, and I'll be the top of the bulkhead will be at elevation 6.5 ft. >> That's the same as the one to the south. >> Okay. Which is below the flood elevation
of 11 feet. >> Correct. So what do you do? What what what is added for protection or is that >> I'm just confused by that sentence. >> Well, the idea there is that in the big
one, the bank still can provide sediment if it if it wants to or needs to. So we're not totally shutting off the function of the bank as a sediment source for downdrift beaches. It's shorefront protection. The house is right above a very steep slope. So, it's
sort of a um middle middle ground way to provide the protection that we need, but still allow the bank to function as vertical vertical uh storm damage protection and if it wants to sediment to a downdraft beach.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Anybody else? >> So, I think it's clear. >> Yeah, I have some more. >> I know. just >> okay >> clear to hopefully getting clear to what you need to do but go ahead. Uh
>> um I think that there is a less impactful option that needs to be explored. Um as you noted in your alternatives analysis, the wall can be lower and you can put fiber rolls on top of it just like was approved at 140 Blue Rock Road a couple of doors down. um that project understanding it's a
different property similar environment very close on the riverbank was reviewed by a coastal processes specialist and that's what ultimately they recommended and I think that can be um mirrored on this site with similar success um because the slope I mean if you put a
lower wall you'll have an additional slope behind the wall but it it would be more sustainable and less impactful and the commission does have access to that same uh peerreview process if you'd like to pursue that. Um it is a very similar
location and I I believe the results would be very very similar but I'm not a coastal processes specialist so you can always ask to have that reviewed and I would just echo also that it's not an area where you're receiving windblown sand. So I don't think beach grass would
be appropriate for above the bulkhead. >> Okay. I'm going to let Lynn tell me that. >> Yes. I mean, you let let her figure that out. >> Yeah, exactly. Um >> um I can look into that. What I'm afraid of is I low if I lower the wall,
>> the fiber rolls aren't going to be vertical. They have to be back. And I'm afraid that I may have to move the wall a little further seawward to >> I want I want the slope that's there to meet. >> It can be a little bit steeper at the bottom if we're fully vegetating it and
stabilizing it. Um the the similar to the approved plan it was for 140 blue rock. It was moderately steep. >> What do you do with the stair though with a lower bulkhead? >> Here's the missing detail.
>> You I would have to carry the stairs down. It might change the way the the stairs are designed slightly, but >> um generally I would carry the stair down and the landing would be a little bit lower. That's all. Or I could leave it the way it is and the wall would just be underneath it.
That's okay, too. >> And for the commission's reference, this is the project a couple of doors down. He's not planted yet, but the fiber rolls are in the process of being installed. And that's a twoft wall with fiber rolls above.
>> Does look like a gentler slope just looking at >> it would it would be a steeper slope. Um, but it would be stabilized with those rolls and plantings with much lower wall so you get less wave reaction.
>> Is there any possible? >> Sorry. >> Nope. >> Yeah, I don't know. >> That's what I would recommend exploring. >> Very steep stairs. >> Yeah. Let me see what this helps.
So, this is where this is your slope. And I' I'd love to carry that down about the same angle. So, this is where the new wall I'm sorry. This is where the new wall is. So, you carry that slope at the same angle. If I bring it lower,
okay, it it will steepen this. >> Yeah. >> Um, let me see what I can do. Okay, >> great. I'd like at least two rows of fiber rolls. And then if I drop it by that, they're 20 inch, one and a half. I might drop two feet off the wall. >> That sounds good.
>> Okay. Gives me a direction to head. Thank you. >> Not getting quite as low as the other wall, but 4.5 instead of 6.5 would be more reasonable. >> Um, >> anything else? But you're still uh going to carry that
wall clear down to the end. >> Yeah, the slope is the same and the house is really close to the north end. So I don't want to lose any of that bank. And that's the other thing about these projects is you want to get them in time before the whole slope starts to slip. Then it's much more work to to fix
it. >> Are you going to look at lowering the wall? Would you think that you might need to raise it down towards the other end? I mean, is this going to carry clear through the whole length
and still save the, you know, keep the house safe. >> House is quite far away. >> It's it's the stairs that are going to be a challenge. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> You have a typo or something. You say
existing retaining wall remains and then >> to be removed and then you have in parentheses to be removed. >> What's that? >> Um on your plan in the corner on C1. >> I don't know what what you were trying
to say. >> Whereabouts? >> Yeah, I think it's just a it's like the remains of the wall. It's not like to remain. >> Is it one of those? Again, >> you could just call it debris or wall debris or something to be removed instead of remains.
>> Where where is it >> in the pink? >> Oh, the remains is a is a noun. >> Yeah. Up up up top. >> But agreed. That's >> top left corner. >> Clarify that comment. It's it's the top >> the Bass River
>> elevation negative floor. You have a comment. >> Yeah. To the left. Top left. >> Existing retaining wall remains. English is such a nice language. >> It's just in English. Um I just had two other comments. >> I'll change it to debris. How's that? >> Yes, that's excellent. Should have that. If you could provide a detail for the
fiber roll return and um DMF recommended annual monitoring. So if you could provide a monitoring plan. >> Okay, there is somebody with a hand up. You done Britney? >> Laura. Laura, do you have something to
say? >> Yeah, it's just Laura Rickio wanted to make it known that I'm here, but Mark is handling things fine, but if I'm needed, I'm here. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mark. Do you want to pick a date to uh
>> uh there's more work for me to do here, too. So, a month is what the middle of what's the second one in July? >> What? The 16th. July 16th. Yeah.
>> Yeah. My phone says I have nothing. >> Do I have a motion? >> I move that we continue this project to July 16th, 2026. >> Second. >> Second. >> Question. >> All in favor? >> I. Thank you.
>> Um would the commission like to pursue the peer review from the HOIE specialist? That's a lot of time. He could probably take a >> Yeah, you're talking about um >> third party review, but in this case it's free. >> I know >> because it's
>> Brian McCormack. >> I didn't have the pleasure. >> I think we should. >> Yeah. >> Why not? So, usually if there's a peer review, the applicant would be responsible for paying, but that's I suggested it because I know it's a he's a good resource and he does do it these
services for municipalities. >> Extension lives on. I'm glad when mortified. >> Oops. >> We need to vote on that or >> No, I don't think so. I can I can engage him. >> You repeat that though for the peanut
gallery over here and tell us. >> Yeah. Brian McCormack is a coastal processes specialist with the Woods Hole Crant and the Cape Cod Cooperative Extension. Um, and I can seek a peer review from him for this project. >> Okay. And I would like to be notified of any on-site that you're going to have
with him so we can all be there and I can describe and discuss. >> Yeah, I'm might just send him photos if he can't unless um just because access is difficult. Um, but I would definitely reach out for permission for access. >> Um, just tell him it's so cool. He
should be there to take a look at it. >> So cool. The revisions. Okay. Sorry. >> Everything okay to move on? >> Yep. >> Yep. Okay. Um, we're moving on to I hope SE 832537.
>> You're all set. >> Sure. Consulting for Steve and Kimberly. >> Sorry, I have one last question. >> How fast did they want to repair the stairs >> for this summer? So immediately, do you want me to find an admin? Yeah, just do an admin review. >> Okay. >> If if he was willing to wait, it could
be included. But if he wants to stabilize the stairs, just do an admin review. >> I ideally for the week of July 4th would be wonderful. That's when all of us are down there. >> Okay, great. Yeah, if he could submit it like in the next two weeks.
>> I have a guy in mind if he can do it. Should get Richie up. >> Start this again. SC83-2537 Chaon Consulting for Steven and Kimbley Dval 37 Memorial Drive proposed seasonal
dock in the buffer zones to uh BBW and Long Pond. It's this one. All right, short and sweet. This is a typical seasonal dock on Long Pond. I've done three or four of them. It meets all
your bylaws that I'm aware of. 30 feet long, um, four feet wide, 120 square feet. It's to replace an existing unpermitted wooden dock that's going to come out and be disposed of. And this is your standard, what I call standard
aluminum dock with feet that rest on the pond bottom, and it will be removed every season, unlike the one that's there. And I'm just going to be quiet. It meets all your bylaws. It should be uh everything should be fine unless I
made a mistake. >> For freshwater docks, um there's a twoft elevation above BVW on the landward side of it. >> Um I don't think we need that. >> Well, the B because it's an existing
path, the BVW is actually on both sides of the dock, but not underneath it or behind it. >> Okay. So, do you have the clearance or not? It's very unclear to me where the
seasonal high water line is. >> So, the ordinary high water line is elevation six. That's the same water level we've used over all these years because Long Pond is um controlled and um observe water level has been
higher and then the historic is 7.2. So, I set the dock height according to the regs. It's 2 feet above the ordinary high water level. That's what we've done in the past. >> Our rigs reference the seasonal high water level,
which I would imagine is not the same as the ordinary high water level. >> I don't I don't know. I've tried to get other data. Um, but again, this is exactly the same heights that we've that I've used for the last probably three or four docks in the last five or six years
that I've done on this pond. So, I just go two feet above I mean ordinary that's a chapter 91 term, but ordinary to me is ordinary normal. Um, you know, water level can fluctuate obviously
that's the lowest level of the three that we have. So, to me, that's the most conservative. Um, if I'm two feet above that, you know, we should be fine. >> I don't know. >> But it's consistent with what I've done
in all the others. That's all I can >> It doesn't seem like it's the same as the seasonal high water. But if you can't get that data from anywhere, that was my only question. >> I know that's >> and um there is just a minor scale
error. If we could, you're comfortable with me throwing a one in front of that and you can initial it. Um, >> and oh, just change it and initial it on the >> Yeah. Is that fine?
>> Where is that? >> It says 0 520 >> in the left hand side. >> Okay, >> Ellie, I thought you would have caught that. Um, technically I'm not allowed to draw on a on a stance plan. >> Okay.
>> I can either >> just >> I know >> it's not a big deal. Um, >> I did it on both sides. Look at that. >> That is funny. I would recommend
approval with special conditions including removing annually um and removal of the current existing timber dock immediately upon recording of the order. >> Okay, >> Britney, do you have a picture of this from the site?
>> Yeah, there's many we went down the stairs a previous um there's actually better pictures than one I took in the >> Oh, yeah. >> Oh, they redid those. Whoa, >> wait. >> No, that's not the right.
>> Yes, this is a site, >> is it? >> Oh, okay. Well, that must have been part of the other work. >> It was. They were approved for a 4 foot wide replacement of the old dilapidated stairway. >> Yeah. >> Um, and they are required to plant these
bare areas. >> They just haven't done it yet. >> Separate, >> but they have time to do that under a separate filing. But there's the dock. >> Yep. There's some Well, I have some pictures of it and then for the Yeah, that's one. There you go. It's just sitting there.
>> I'm surprised the ice hasn't taken it. >> Quick one. >> Go ahead. See if you make a quick >> Yeah. No, the is there um the length of the dock. Do you you don't indicate that? Unless I'm missing it. >> You say it >> should be. >> Where does it say that? Like in I'm
looking at the section. >> Right up. Yeah, I'm looking at Yeah, it just says I think I'd like >> Yeah, right here. >> 3230 >> on the plans too.
>> On the plan too. >> Okay. Okay. I What is the comment when you say dock? Am I looking at the right thing here? dock extends 17.5 feet beyond OW. That's
>> ordinary. >> Yeah, that that's for chapter 91. >> So, in a saltwater dock, we say how many feet it extends beyond mean high water. >> This is the freshwater version of that, but it it's for chapter 91. So, I I put it here so I don't have to draft it again.
>> Okay. Okay. I was confused by that note with the length. Okay. >> Well, I think the bylaws allow us to go a little bit further. Um, >> but we don't have to. So, we didn't Oh, well, we'd exceed >> We would have exceeded the square footage. >> Yeah, you're maxed out. Yeah.
>> Yeah. It's even in here, too. >> These can be really tricky to to place >> the right spot, >> Britney. We can >> You don't need an extension for this. Correct. >> Good. >> Just checking. Um, what is your
question? can vote on this or >> that's up to the commission, >> but I mean you have everything you need. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, anybody else in the commission have any questions about this?
>> Okay. Can I hear a motion to approve with special conditions? >> Move. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Second. Thank you, Pat. All in favor? >> I Okay. Anybody opposed? Having heard none, we will move on.
>> One out of four. >> This is this one. Okay. All right. Two more. SC83-2533 Shorefront Consulting for Thomas Dandis,
>> 7 Cape Pile Drive, excuse me, proposed seaw wall reconstruction at the same elevation and float configuration and land under the ocean and land containing shellfish and after the fact filing for a patio and walkway in the
buffer zone and land subject to coastal storm flowage. And I think I got that there and that there. Okay, Mark, we're ready. >> Thank you. Uh Mark Burgess again, Shorefern Consulting. Uh I was at the
site today with Mr. Dandis and and we looked at areas where we can plant more things. Um so I'm prepared to discuss that obviously. Um all right, bulkhead replacement. You've heard that before. Broken record. Same height. same
footprint, no seawward expansion, all the same. It goes back right the way it is. Um, when I went out to the site, I told him his floats were not in compliance. So, part of this permit is to bring the floats back into compliance, and I'll have to relic them.
The landing that's out there is in a different position than the original license. No big deal. I'll just It's going It would go back. Everything goes back to the way it is except the floats will be in compliance and I'll have to relic the uh the landing.
Um same height elevation 5.3 and now there's there was there's an existing 4ft buffer out there 4 foot vegetated buffer. It's kind of a monoculture at at this point of mostly
Rosa Reagos or Virginia Rose. I don't know which one, but you know, one of those two. It's mostly a monoculture. There's a few other things in there, but mostly a monoculture. Um, the only comments from Division Marine
Fisheries mentions the float clearance. So, I didn't respond to them. It's a standard comment for them. My response to for your edification is that the small dock and pure guidelines suggest that any dock or any float that's in an
area not significant to shellfish, they want they want 18 inches of clearance. And in an area that's deemed significant to shellfish, then they would want 30 inches, which is 2 and a half feet. This is a we're not doing any dredging, so the the existing conditions remain as it
is. My my interpretation is these sites, especially the ones that are further up in the lagoon are not shellfish areas. It's all poop. It scientific term. Um so I think they have a little over two feet right now. I think that my opinion is
that's sufficient. Um, see. Um, okay. That was that was the that was the gist of everything until we found out about the patio and the walkway. So, I'm
prepared to discuss um how we want to handle the the patio and the walkway. Patio is a is uh 202 square feet. The walkway is 110 312 square feet total.
Um what I discussed with the client was different areas on the property that we could increase the buffer that's there. Um now I'm not not trying to be ky here at all. Okay. I do want to say that is there some benefit that a patio takes up
turf lawn generally. Well, I know I I might get a giggle a giggle out of that, but but think about it. One of the benefits of structures like this or or a deck or anything is that they they take up turf lawn, which
is a better to get rid of. Okay. Um so I don't know if there's any benefit there. That's I just wanted to throw that out. So we could increase the buffer.
What I would propose to the commission that buffer is going away anyway because all this gets obliterated when you when you um do the wall the walkway I we might be able to save the walkway. Um they don't need that much room because it's a short wall, but certainly the
buffer goes away because you've got to excavate behind there. So we have an opportunity to put something back. What I'd like to do is find well find a square footage that works for everybody. I would like to turn that buffer into a diversified buffer and increase its
value. And I would think I would hope that we get some credit there. Um the bulkhead is about 85 ft long. The existing buffer is 4 feet. That buffer was put there because of the decks. So it it's it's serving its purpose. It's
um it has a it has a value for a different previous previous permitting. Um, I guess with that we can uh I'll answer questions and >> questions, comments.
>> Yeah, I have a question. Um, the the wall looks pretty solid. Why is it being replaced? >> He there are when I went out there during the winter when the plants weren't as good, there are some sink holes there. And I told him today, I said, "Look, if this wall isn't moving,
you don't have to do anything. The permit's good for three years. Something might happen between now and then. So, a lot of a lot of people want to be proactive. They came they came to me. His neighbor just had his done and it came out really nice. That was uh Levent
Leventacus. Um anyway, >> he they're all they're all friends. So, he says, "Well, I think I want to redo mine." So, I looked at it and yes, it's not in bad shape. It doesn't it's not wonky. Um there is a little bit of sediment starting to move behind the
wall. So it's starting to degrade to the point where you want to think about it. So I said, "Well, at least it's up to you. You can do it now." He wanted to do it this winter. And I said, "Today?" I said, "I don't think you need to jump. Get the permit. Wait three years. If you
want need to extend it and you want to kick the can another year or two, you're you're still good. But then at least if something happens, you have your permit in place to do it." So that's the strategy. H >> how are you going to handle mitigation? I mean, you have really limited real estate.
>> It's a constrained lot. I agree. >> Um Harwitch has an you don't have this in your bylaws. Haritch has a provision to um to pay into a mitigation fund. Think of it as a shellfish >> in lie of Yeah,
>> it's a mitigation constrained site. They pay x amount. I think it's $7 a square foot and that goes into another fund to do other mitigation in other areas where it might be more valuable here. What I would suggest is enhance the
vegetative buffer that's there now. There's benefit to that. And I would bring it out two more feet. You have six foot buffer across 85 feet. Well, except for the walkway of the um of the uh the
lawn the lawn area. And um towards on the site plan if you look to the right to the east he's got a little more area there. This area >> I'm just going to interject if that's
okay. Um the the buffer exists as 4 foot but actually was required under the RDA to be 8 foot. Um so that would is in violation and is expected to be expanded to 8 feet. Yeah. and that wouldn't count toward mitigation for your new structures that are unpermitted. And our
bylaw, we don't have any sort of fund in place like that. So, our bylaw says if >> um there's existing structures in the 50oot buffer and it's mitigation constrained, additional structures may not be permitted >> by the discretion of the commission. So, I think this lot's mitigation
constrained and some something has to be removed. But yeah, I see where you say this side's bigger. >> It is bigger. He's got a This is actual This is a vegetable. I mean food. He's growing >> He's growing food here.
But yeah, I have a little more room here. We We talked about that today as well. I I I looked through all the permitting for this. I did not see 8 foot. >> I'll send it to you, >> please. I >> I guess I can >> I saw it. It's in the description of the RDA. >> Yeah. >> Yep.
>> Okay. I'm sorry I missed that. Also to just to your point on uh preferring a patio over a grass lawn, um that looks like a non-pervious patio,
which would be a bigger detriment than a uh >> lawn. Yeah. >> Just as a lawn. So, um I'm inclined to not approve that patio. Just putting
that out there. Unless it can be mitigated for, but it seems like that might not be possible. >> Yeah, I think there's not enough space. I did I did some math. >> Another case of an unpermitted structure. >> I know just a comment. Um so if you get
this permitted and he has they have three years to do it. So they have three years to get if we decide. >> We can also follow up with an enforcement order if we want to keep the bulkhead and the other items separate
because this was in response my computer died. Um this was in response to a COC request in which the unpermanitted structures were come to light and we said you can attempt to permit them or remove them um in addressing the COC but we can also address that with an
enforcement order if we want to separate the bulkhead because I don't have any issues with the bulkhead and I agree with your your depth uh requirement from DMF. I think it's fine the depth that you have for the floats. >> Thank you. Well, my only point would be that he's
buying time >> if if for the unpermanented structures you're saying? >> Yeah. So, we can separate them if you also just require them to be removed and then they're not involved in this permit at all. >> Um, you have anything?
>> That sounds like a good idea. >> What's that? >> Separately. >> Well, >> separate them. Yeah, just so that I can understand. So you have three if this is approved for the um the new bulkhead again, it's three years in order to do the work.
>> Is that correct? >> At least. Yeah. >> And and this is just like a pro I don't know a preventative type of a thing. He has the permit in case he wants to do it. He doesn't have to act upon it. >> He's Yeah. He's being proactive, right? And the buffer gets destroyed. So
there's no point in doing it eight feet now only to have it destroyed and then have and then put back again. >> Uhhuh. >> Right. >> So that's >> So So you could hang on to it for three years, keep this 4 foot buffer. I didn't have to do that work. Right. Um
>> patio is still unpermitted. >> Patio still unper. It sounds like a little bit of shenanigans going on there as far as I'm concerned. >> No, I wouldn't call it I wouldn't call it shenanigans, but Okay. >> No, we run into this more often. was the Joe Biden in me coming out. You know >> what now?
>> Never mind. >> I got it. I got it. >> I don't know how these things happen. You You would think people know, especially if they have a permitted lot already and they went through other permitting for the decks. You know, you would think they'd know not to put a patio there.
>> Yeah. You think >> you think and I get caught in this position. I don't pretend to know why or how it got there. >> I don't like to see anything removed. I'd like to see if there's a way to to work it out. Unfortunately, however, unfortunately, I think that's the strategy sometimes to get around the
regulations. >> Well, >> and the thing is unpermitted structures were installed in 20 2021. Okay. >> Around around 20 and 21 from Google Earth anyway, >> after owners permitted decks in in 2015
under NRDA. So, they knew about the process, right? Didn't they? >> I'm as surprised. All of a sudden, what? They forgot. >> Yeah. I'm not going to sit to come out, >> right? I'm not going to sit here and defend. I'm as surprised as you are and I'm as frustrated as you. >> I hope somebody's listening.
>> Well, he might he might be. >> I'm hope I'm hoping somebody's listening because this is so common and it's very frustrating for a group of citizens to volunteer to do this work and then have to say, "Oh, okay. You can leave the unermitted structures." No, I don't think so.
>> No, I I understand. That's why I I come to you saying, "Okay, can we now if it was a 4ft buffer and we can add to it, that's great. I have under no I had no idea it was eight. It was supposed to be 8 feet. So that kind of stinks for him. I don't know what to do. Um I would
rather let's see if I have to come back for with a revised plan to show you an 8 foot buffer and and do you want a planting plan to enhance that?" >> Supposed to have eight foot buffer to begin with. >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So, you're going to need a revised plan showing
that. I didn't I'm sorry I did. I missed it. I don't know how. Um, so if you need a revised plan, I would just like the opportunity to go back to him and say, "Okay, here's where here's where they're headed with this patio. What do you want to do?" Meaning, before you drop the hammer, I just want to tell him that
you're headed toward want, you know, um, removing it with an enforcement order to or or not approving it as part of this order. One of the conditions is the patio is going to leave. I just want to have that discussion with him before you make that decision. And if I have to
revise the plan, we have two weeks before we have to formally make that decision. >> Whatever. >> Okay. >> I would recommend the commission require removal of the patios since they've been there since 2001. >> Yeah, I agree. I think we should remove the patio and the
>> concrete walkway which is close to the >> when we do is there concern about that process too? I mean that patio looks pretty unforgiving. Um do are we concerned about what's involved in the
removal of it and what impact that might have? >> No, it would be an additional requirement a condition to restore it to pre-existing conditions. would be in the conditions to restore it. Okay. >> Now, would that be part of the order? >> That could be a violation notice and
escalated to an enforcement order if actions not done by a time frame that the commission decides. >> I think that's fair because it would be nice to just have it as part of the order and then three years goes by. Either the order expires or he comes he
comes to you. It won't be me. He comes to you with an extension and you say, you know, take out the patio. We'll give you your extension. >> We don't give him three years. >> No, that's not what I was suggesting. >> You're saying take out the patio now? >> Now? >> Yeah. Like by July
>> and the walkway or just the patio? >> And the walkway, both unmitted. >> Yeah. Um, >> it's time people learn that live near a river, you live near live near the ocean, you got to come to us first.
And uh >> we don't believe in the ask forgiveness. Is that >> I mean I'm paid to argue but I just don't have an argument at at this point only negotiation or as to how smoothest to accomplish the goal >> that he can decide whether he wants to
come back and ask get a permit for the uh for the bulkhead or he wants to wait. >> No, this is the bulkhead permit. We're going to remove the other parts from it so that they can get their chapter 91. >> So, we're going to
>> I would recommend the commission. >> Yeah. Separate continue this for a revised plan showing removal of both unpermitted structures with a planting plan. Um, and I'll send and authorize me to send a violation notice to remove
both unpermitted structures by July 1st. >> Okay. And then >> July 10th, >> I have one question. Do you know if the 8 foot buffer had did it have any planting? >> It didn't have a plan. If it did, it didn't have a planting plan associated with it. It just said 8 foot vegetated
buffer. >> So, how do we want to handle that then? >> With a planting plan. >> With a planting plan. >> An eight foot buffer. Right. >> Eight foot. >> 8 foot. >> And I'm sorry, but Britney, where was it in the documentation
concerning the original plan to have an 8 foot buffer. >> It was in the documentation for the determination of applicability that was issued in 2015 um >> for they put in a 4ft buffer and >> yeah they put in just a buffer that was
a bit too small and then added the others >> and you didn't see any of that stuff to let you know that it was supposed to be an 8 foot buffer, right? >> I missed that. I I'm trusted I trust that it's there but I I missed it. Okay.
I hadn't I hadn't counseledled or advised him on on that. I didn't realize. My apologies for that. Um okay. Um it's a simple well simple plan
revision but then I have to get Lynn >> as well. >> One other question if I may. Um so if let's say for example this uh individual wants to withdraw his application he could do that. the enforcement order would >> and however
>> he would still be um it would be a violation then that would have to be issued correct attorney. Yeah. Okay. >> Right. >> I just want to make sure I understand. >> So what >> so was that the certificate of compliance hearing that the commission decided Sorry. Go ahead.
>> I I was going to say the determination of applicability was also an after the fact determination of applicability. So they had already built that deck and then sought approval and provided the eight foot buffer which they then did
not. >> I also have it right in front of me. They said they would plant creeping juniper, sea lavender, and bayberry. >> What now? >> Creeping juniper, sea lavender, and bayberry were the three plants. Um
>> yeah, you can't really get sea lavender anymore. >> Yeah. So, I think a planting plan would still be better because we need three species. >> But you you suggested creeping juniper, bayberry, and what >> that that's what was in the determination of applicability from
2015. >> Oh, >> yeah. So, Bberry is the only plant that stands from that list. >> You're not into creeping. >> Yeah. >> And you're not into it. >> We're not into it. >> It approved it. >> Going back on its own thing. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. So, similar to the first COC hearing you guys had tonight, the if you issue the enforcement order, then that stands by itself. I think it got confusing trying to combine a COC, which had nothing to do with the site. My world, I would have issued the COC, no
problem, and then issued a separate enforcement order saying, "Hey, clean up the site." >> Yeah. >> And then they're they're independent and it would to me it would have been a lot cleaner, but got confused. >> Yeah. We can't issue the COC if the site's not in compliance. So, >> and then I wondered how can you authorize work? Would he need a notice
of intent to to gets convoluted? >> Okay. So, this was messy, but um I would recommend continuing for a revised plan showing removal of those things and a planting plan and authorization for me to issue a violation notice for removal of the patio and concrete walkway by
July 10th. >> So, moved. >> So, move for effort. What date? >> July 10th. I'll second >> 10th. >> That's what I said. >> So, just for kicks, why don't why do they still have an open permit for the
dwelling in the septic? >> That was closed out. That was the COC that you did issue. >> It hasn't been It's been conditionally closed out based until this violation's resolved. >> Took so long. >> Oh, I didn't know you did that. >> Yeah. >> A really weird.
>> Hey, do I hear everything? >> I got July 16th on the last hearing. Is it the 16th? >> So, this isn't a hearing. It's to remove >> Do you want the 16th for the next hearing? >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> It's to remove the uh unpermitted
structures by July 10th. >> Okay. Do I Everybody in favor? Who's in favor or >> rem? We're talking about removal now. >> It's it's included in >> continuing. And >> you say by July 10th by >> removing removing everything by July
10th. Quick. Okay. That could be difficult. >> You can give us a status update at the 7:16 hearing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, uh, all in favor? >> I. >> Anybody opposed? >> Okay, that's that one.
>> All right. And the last one is there last one. >> This is the second to last one. >> That was 7K bile. Uh, >> this one's next door at 11 >> 83 sorry 832182
Shorefront Consulting to Ronald and Linda Lefitkin 11 Cape File Drive. Um, >> I recommend issuance of the COC with ongoing conditions number 14, 16, 18, and 19.
>> Okay, let's see here. Uh, anybody uh make anybody have any questions about that? >> Wait a minute. Are we on >> We're on >> 11 >> 11 Kalile Drive. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Very nice. Yeah, I agree. >> You want to make the You want to make a
motion? Okay. Second from somebody. >> I Frank, why do I keep saying that? Jack, >> all in favor? >> I >> Okay, that one we got. That was an easy one. >> Yeah, we even broke. Very nice. I miss.
>> Thank you everyone. I know it's been a long night. >> Yeah. >> I've got two more to go with you. They're both bulkheads. >> The next one. >> What do you do on the other side of the Bass River? Do you have all Do you Do you torment Dennis?
>> I I'm about to I probably have a dozen. >> I'm in I'm in the design process of those. I've got about a dozen to hit Eric with. And I've told him >> you did. Yeah. >> Okay. We're gonna have to batch them. I don't I can't be at both places. All right, we have an enforcement order for Audrey Egan, 15 Sagamore Road,
unpermitted construction of a patio and vegetation removal within the land subject to coastal storm flood edge and the 35 buffer zone buffer to a vegetated wetland, failure to comply with the building permit and violation notice by
removing and or seeking permitting the pad for the patio. It's a lot of words. You want to explain that? >> Yes. Yeah. So, this is a bit of a convoluted uh violation for past work that hasn't been done um for a small wetland at 15
Sagamore. The building permit was issued in 2021 requiring planting for removed vegetation. At the time, it was never completed. Um later, an unpermitted patio with fire pit was installed very close to the wetland. I worked with the
homeowner who was cooperative at the time and told her she had to plant a 10-ft buffer to comply with the original 2021 requirements and seek permitting or remove the fire pit. We were planning to have that completed with a planting plan
submitted in March. She missed that deadline. She didn't get the plantings done. So, I told her we had to pursue additional enforcement since uh she hadn't complied with the conditions of the violation notice. So here we are to ratify this enforcement order requiring
those things which are to plant the originally required plantings under the 2021 building permit. Um so this is essentially a 10-ft buffer around the wetland and there the fire pit is within pretty much 15 ft of the wetland and so
the other part of the enforcement order would be to remove the patio or seek permitting for it. And do we have a deadline for to do this by? >> I would recommend uh to plant the buffer by October 1st
with a plan submitted by August 6th with the same um August 6th for the RDA or removal of the patio. >> Does the landscape architect know that I mean her scope will be different if we
we um >> it is an eitheror. So, right now we have a an engineer has contacted us saying that um the homeowner has contacted her to help her out with this. >> Um we let him know she probably needs a landscape architect or wetland
scientist. Um so at least she has an engineer or surveyor trying to help her with this process. Um but I knew didn't think that she was going to attend tonight. >> You don't have any pictures of this, do you?
>> I my computer has died. I noticed. >> Sorry to hear that. >> Um, >> it is a pretty small wetland. >> Yeah, I should have brought my charger. That's my bad. >> Um, it's a pretty small wetland and it has fragmitees in it. So, the original
part of the original problem remember >> she was doing invasive species removal without a permit. So, she just removed a whole bunch of plantings there. Um, but yeah, I think it's just to ratify the enforcement order that's in there and I can add additional special
conditions for the planting plan. >> A motion to ratify the enforcement order. >> What does it say though? Does it Are we Does the enforcement >> Yeah, that's what I just said. So, the enforcement order is to plant the 10-ft buffer with submitting a planting plan
from a professional by August 6th and remove or seek permitting for the fire pit and patio by that same date. >> Okay. >> Can we approve that fire pit though? I mean, >> no, it's unpermitted. >> No. Okay. But when she if she applies
for it is >> it's not something that you've >> I mean, isn't it a waste of >> Yeah. Right. The only um other small interesting portion of this is that the wetland is very small. It's on the cusp
of jurisdictional which is why the original component was just to replant everything that was required under the building permit. Um I do believe it's jurisdictional but without having a survey there's not 100%. Um, that's why
I think if she sought permitting with it, we would be able to find out 100% if the wetland is jurisdictional. Um, and then you could approve it because that's what the request is for, for requesting the commission to see if the work is jurisdictional or not.
In this case, it's a little bit of a gray. >> What's the footage on juris I forget. >> I'm sorry. >> What's the footage on jurisdictional? >> 500. All right, I'll repeat. Does someone want to do a motion here? >> Some moved. >> Second from somebody.
>> Second. >> Second. Okay. All in favor? >> Thank you. No one opposed, I guess. All right. Next. Commissioner terms ending 6:30 26. I am ending.
>> Yeah, we've got David. Let's just vote on these one by one. David, do you want to be reappointed? >> I hear a motion to reappoint me. >> I motion to reappoint David on as chair or on just on the commission or >> just on the commission?
>> On the commission and as I think he would >> and as chair >> second. All in favor? >> I >> Okay. I don't think I should vote on that, right? >> No, you shouldn't. >> Because I was going to vote nay.
Yeah, it's me. >> Okay. And the second one is Jack Frost. >> I'll move that we reappoint Jack Frost to the Conservation Commission. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Second. Thank you. All in favor? >> I. >> So that's again
six >> 6 mentioned. And unfortunately Patricia has decided to retire. >> Oh no. >> So Pat's term ends at the end of June. She's spent six uh sorry, eight plus years on the conservation commission.
>> Wow, that's a long time. >> We still have one more meeting with her. >> Thought it was a lot longer. >> I thought it was 18 years tonight. I can see why. >> Yeah, tonight's not a good night to judge. >> Okay. So, we don't have any vote there, right?
>> No. Just >> we could have a vote of sadness. >> Yeah. >> I'll see you one more time. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Uh Okay. Approval of the minutes 521. Jack, >> I approve. >> I move. >> You move. >> I hear a second.
>> I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Okay. Other business. >> Sorry, I do have one other business. Pat's our secretary. Um, so we need someone else to make the motion to approve the minutes and commit to reading the minutes. Who wants to be the secretary?
>> Pat does it all the time. I let him do it. >> Yeah. I mean is I do when I was secretary I >> when I was secretary I actually had to do the minutes. >> That's true. Joe does that >> a lot easier now. >> You have to review the minutes which you do. >> I always do. >> Okay.
>> I know. I move that we make Jack our new secretary as of June 30th. >> Uh July 1st. Yeah. >> July 1st. Okay. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> All right. Congratulations, Jack. You know on the executive committee. >> Sorry I sprung that on you.
>> Oh, really? Yikes. >> All right. Um, uh, could we, uh, have a motion to adjurnn? >> No. >> No. You want to stay here another half hour? >> I move that we adjourn the hearing. >> Okay. Second. Anybody? Second.