Good evening. Today is the Conservation Commission meeting for Thursday, April 2nd, 2026. We're just going to start right off with a request to amend on order of conditions from SE832382 Lucas Environmental LLC for Diane Morris
and Julie French. 1044 Route 28 proposed redesign of a permitted wireless communications facility and land subject to coastal storm flooding. >> It looks like you're ready. If you introduce yourself and go from there. >> Sounds good. Um, good evening ladies and
gentlemen of the commission. My name is Jeff Mason. I'm a wetland scientist and restoration ecologist with Lucas Environmental. and I'm here this evening to uh request an uh to amend order of conditions for the South Yarmouth W South Yarmouth wireless communications
facility um that's been cited at 1044 Route 28 in Yarmouth have a mass D file number up there we go um you may all remember this project we've come back for a second
bite at the apple if you will here about three years to the day. Um for a little project history, um we um originally filed uh an NOI back in February of 2023 for this project. Um had public hearing,
like I said, three years ago, almost to the day. Um we had no comments from uh the con uh conservation commission on that filing. Um and and April uh April 13th of 2023, we had an order of
conditions that were issued um by you folks. Um just as some brief background, that original 2020 design um for the wireless communication facility um was cited in the parcel woods at 144 uh route 28 uh
in the parking uh just off the parking lot of the church. Um it includes a 55x 60 foot fenced compound and the original uh design for the uh facility included a clock tower antenna. Um it was
approximately about just shy of 120 ft um above mean sea level. um site also had a storm water facility um infiltration basin that was designed um with in conjunction with an input
from the Cape Cod Commission. Um and access if you can see there is from the yellow uh in the southwest corner from the parking lot of the church. Um what came to uh Barrett after um the owning Yarmouth zoning board of appeals uh did
request that we reduce the visibility of the facility in particular. They were concerned about the height um and the visibility of the clock tower. So with that um we went back um Blue Sky Towers
went back to the to the design board and revisited the design. Um, and what we came back with here is a very similar uh design uh to the 22. It retains the 100 foot by 100 foot lease area which you
can see there. This the yellow box. Um, it retains the 55x 60 ft fence compound area that's shown in the green there. Um, infiltration basin hasn't uh changed in design at all and access remains from the parking area of the church in the
southwest corner there. Um what did change in order to address the ZBA's request for uh reduced v visibility is we shifted the compound facility about 22 feet to the west and that also resulted in going up gradient about one
foot uh in from the previous uh design elevation and then um blue uh the tower design um changed from a clock tower design to a 93 foot steel monopole Um total with the antenna that are on
top of that, it sits at about 96 ft above mean sea level uh with the new design. And then the driveway access way into the facility shifted south about 20 ft. There we go. Um this is the new design
um uh based on uh the input from uh ZBA. You can see the different tower there on the side is not a clock tower design. It's a typical steel monopole design that you see on most uh wireless communication facilities. Um the
driveway again shifted south to the um uh to the south of the compound facility. Storm water basin is in the lower left corner. That that hasn't changed in its location at all. Um and the the tower itself again shifted about 22 feet uh to the west uh in the same
footprint. Um just a quick comparison slide here. You can see the new tower on the left hand side uh versus the previous elevation um that was at 22 the 2022 design. We dropped about 20 feet a
little less than 20 feet. Um and then on the right hand side you can see the revised plan in blue and it's a little bit of a jumbo but everything just shifted slightly to the west um from the red which is the original plan design and you can see the driveway um moving
to the south of the whole facility versus the red shaded area there. And again the storm water facility hasn't moved. It's in the same location. Um just some quick site photos on the lefth hand side. This is a view of looking from the uh looking towards the northwest at the church and the parking
lot. Church is on the right hand side. Second photo is looking at where the facility compound access driveway would be located in the corner of the existing parking lot heading up into the trees there. Um on the left hand side that's
where the uh entrance uh access way for the um facility would be located, the gravel driveway. And then on the right hand side is the the wooded area where the compound's been shifted up in up in elevation and and like I said 22 feet to
the west. Um just to recap here in terms of resource areas um we don't have any BDW bank uh bordering land subject to flooding land underwater bodies or waterways or riverfront area. No rare or
endangered species habitat. No vernal pools. No areas of critical environmental concern. standing resource waters or wellhead protection areas that all remains the same from the original application in 2022. Nothing nothing has changed there. Um what we do have is
portion of the facility remains cited within uh both the FEMA zone X and zone AE. Um so we do have about a 3500 slightly larger than 3500 uh square footprint that remains within land
subject to coastal storm flowage. Um however due to that shift to the west um that impact area has been reduced by about 330 ft just shy of 330 ft from that original 2022 uh design and that the original OC that
was approved. Um again just to recap the design shifts west and upwards about one foot reducing about 330 feet of uh impact the land subject to coastal storm flowage. Um
storm water management that was proposed same as uh 2022 design again that was designed with the Cape Cod Commission's review and input and consistent consistent with their regional policy plan. um has an infiltration basin that's been designed for the 25-y year
and 24-hour storm event with no impact proposed on flooding in the 100red-year event. It's designed to treat the first inch of storm water runoff through uh xfiltration through the bottom of the uh uh infiltration basin. 80% of all the total suspended solids will be uh
attenuated and removed. Um and again, this the design meets the Cape Cod Commission's policy. um in particular WR1, two and four that's looking to protect groundwater uh freshwater resources and storm water um water
quality and again um same uh sediment erosion controls and construction BMPPS that were proposed in the 2022 NOI. Um includes u construction entrance and dewatering basins, concrete wash outs and and sediment erosion control uh that
will be maintained during construction. Uh just to summarize uh uh the project will enhance the wireless service uh coverage for public and emergency services. I'm sure after this past winter you can appreciate the importance of that. Um the new design addresses the
ZBAs and the town's concerns about visibility by pushing the project about further up into the wooded lot and reducing the tower height. Um again no no resource area impacts other than the land subject to coastal storm flowage. Similar to the previous application,
we've been able to reduce that impact about 330 ft with a new design. Storm water design meets the regulatory requirements consistent with the Cape Cod Commission's regional policy plan. Um, we have construction BMPPS in place
and and based on this new design, uh, we achieve the applicant's goals, provide the service, uh, increase service area coverage and simultaneously meeting the interests of the WPA and local bylaw. And uh with that uh applicant blue statower respectfully request the
commission to approve the request to amend the existing order of conditions and with that I will open it up to any questions or discussions might come from the commission. Question go ahead. >> I just have a quick one just for due
diligence if you will just because the the site was shifted a little bit into existing hardscape. There's sort of an open-ended note in the documents that I just want to make sure um is okay. It's in the general site work notes and it says all existing inactive sewer, water,
gas, electric and other utilities which interfere with the execution of the work shall be removed and or capped uh plugged or otherwise discontinued at points which will not interfere with the execution of the work um subject to the approval of blah blah blah. I just want to make sure because I don't have
utility plans that that you know there's no uh surprises underground that would impact um you know excavation or just make the make this work a little bit more involved than what currently shows. Have all existing utilities been
inventoried and and >> there is a utility easement and um my knowledge those have been inventoried and there obviously be the you know call before you dig um requirements that are you know associated with new utility or infrastructure construction.
My understanding that has been addressed and and shouldn't be an issue as all as well. I should have mentioned earlier that that utility easement hasn't shifted as as well. It's in the same exact location as previously. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you for a very comprehensive application.
>> How many antenna are is this supporting or could >> in terms of carriers or or actual >> well actual physical >> it can I believe it can in uh it's got at least three antenna um that are indicated in there. Um the town actually
does have some RF um antennas that will be utilized by the town for emergency services and local services on the top. It is set up for multiple carriers is my understanding. So, um, in terms of who's going to lease space and and antenna
bandwidth on it, um, I don't have an exact number of the number of carriers, but it is designed >> substantial number or >> um, I'm going to say two or three. I believe the previous application had two um, communications
um, um, applicants or designed for two on the plans. I haven't seen that change. Um, but it is available. It is designed so that multiple um you know multiple antennas can provide service for multiple carriers.
>> So you're thinking that' be a long time before this would be overloaded and you'd be back again with a bigger antenna. >> Not an engineer so I can't speak to that specifically but I my understanding is it was built with some future bandwidth in mind. So,
just curious if would that mean taller, more another tower or you wouldn't be able to specify? >> I couldn't speak to that directly, but I don't think it would necessarily require a different or an additional tower, just a reconfiguring of the antennas that are
on >> the existing tower. >> Thanks. Anybody else have a question about fencing? >> Yes. >> Um, we would need the fencing to have some um space clearance up for the flood
water possibility. >> It is designed with the slatting slats so it does have um uh ability for water to pass through it. Um it is not exactly flush with the ground. There is a small gap but understood that it does have it
is designed with cedar slats and is not a solid uh wall. the detail didn't show the clearance between the slats or underneath. Um, if you could either provide that or I can just put a condition that there be a
couple of inches between the slats. Um, I just didn't see it on the detail. So, >> yep, understood. >> Um, just a comment. I' like the clock. I'm sorry. It's going to be gone. >> Is that was that the zoning board telling you?
>> Yeah. I just wanted to comment on that as well where they would prefer a monop pole to a clock tower is interesting, but it sounds like a very comprehensively planned um project and I wondered where it went because I've been on the commission for a while and I kind of always look over there say where's
that tower you know but anyway but thank you for >> I think the main thing was the height um request to reduce the height um and so the design for the clock tower wasn't really conducive for the smaller height so they moved to the steel monopole Yeah, I guess. Okay, thanks.
>> Okay, I forgot to mention at the beginning of the meeting, we are both in person and then remote, so we're going to have to do uh voting um differently. Do you have anything else to say? >> I'm all set. Thank you. >> Anybody in the audience have any comments or questions? Seeing none,
anybody online? Okay. So, can I hear a motion to accept the uh order amend the order of conditions with special conditions? So, move Jack. Second. Paul. >> Um Christian, we're going to vote for
you first. I or nay. >> I. >> Thank you. And right down the line here, starting with Paul. >> Uh I >> I >> I set. Thank you. >> Thank you for your time this evening. Appreciate it.
>> Thank you. All right. Go on. Oh, no. I sign this. >> Our next uh is a request for certificate of compliance SE83105 Down Cape Engineering for Robert
Wiggins. 61 Feeasant Cove Circle. And since this is COC, we'll begin with um Britney. The COC is um pretty old. It was for the original development of the single family dwelling. There have been a couple of permits and additional work
done afterwards. Um but it's all been approved except for the boardwalk that we'll see later. So, I recommend the commission issue this certificate of compliance. There's also a superseding order that they've also requested to be closed out with D.
>> We hear any questions to Britney motion to accept. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Um, we'll start again with Christian. Do you accept the COC? >> Yes. >> Okay. Start with Paul.
>> Hi. I >> I >> So, there's two signature sheets for this because what the top one's the COC? >> Yeah. Just do send the top one by itself down. Keep the folder with the bottom one.
>> Yeah. Oh, yeah. >> Okay. That one goes by itself and the second one come down hopefully. All right. Next we have SE 832525 down Cape Engineering for Ann and Robert Wiggins 2061 Feeasants Cove Circle
edition and land subject to coastal storm flowage and buffer zone to a bordering vegetative wetland and after the fact filing for a boardwalk and deck and board bordering vegetative wetland of philosophy flood zone.
would you introduce yourself and go forward? >> Good evening, Chairman Bernstein. U members of the commission, uh my name is Dan Ogula. I'm a land surveyor and also a civil engineer uh and helping um Mr. Wiggins out with permitting at 61 Feeasant Cove Circle here up here in
Yarmouthport. Um this is on the north side. Um it uh the house uh as you heard was constructed some years back and u a little bit of a struggle to get through permitting at the time. I wasn't involved, but uh and the owners have
since changed hands. So, we've got new new parties involved, but u it's a um a home with a um sort of a walk out and uh they're doing a small addition on the east side. Um if you look at note 7 on the plan, um you folks had approved a
application for a determination of applicability for a small bumpout off the back of the garage that's that's under construction now. So, it's a small addition. This is a little bit bigger addition, but not much. It's on the east side. Um we're putting the slab up at
127 and um matching the floor height. U so it'll be FEMA compliant. Um it won't be quite as high um as as as could be, but um as long as it's not a substantial addition that is allowed under under the current FEMA code. So that's that's what
they'd like to do rather than have an awkward floor height. Um, we're introducing a new roof drain, 6x10 drainage trench with a big strip out. Uh, there's some tougher clay soils in the area. So, we're going to punch through that and get the um get the um
roof drainage into the into the ground. That'll take some of the gravel drive and other areas that had been uh infiltrating towards the the salt marsh to the north and and put it in the ground. So we feel it'll be a net improvement on the property from a stormwater perspective and um swailing
the the the uh the ground in the back uh into vegetated swailes as well. So an important part of this is um u there's a lot of mitigation proposed pulling up lawn and putting in native vegetation. Um you can see on the plan there it's a
pretty extensive list and there's a separate landscape uh plan that Andrew Ger of my office worked on. Uh we worked with staff to even snug it up a little bit tighter than the normal recommendations of spacing to make sure that we infilled it nicely. Um and it'll
be a 4 to one um uh improvement over existing as a a rather large mitigation calculation table which I I won't bore everybody by going through all the numbers but bottom line is if you look at note 10 there there's a little a little
boardwalk which um was put in uh without permission. um would like to keep it. Um we think that um you know if you if you go to the site or look at the photographs, it's it's a fairly benign thing. The owners do like to go out and
bird watch. uh if they if the boardwalk wasn't there, um you'd normally allow a path uh to go out there. And the concern is, you know, you'd get with the silty and clay soils, a lot of mud tracking and and damage to vegetation plus
siltation where the boardwalk, you know, kind of keeps the feet clean and and and and just has nice spacing so that um the water could go down and infiltrate into the ground naturally. And while it is disturbing a little bit of wetland there, um you know, we're we're we're
creating a nice habitat at a at a ratio of 4 to one plus on the on the all around it. And um you guys had already required under note 9 on the plan, a restoration plan um that was um uh
infilling a lot of the um sort of clearing that was done down near the salt marsh. So that's all going to be restored. that's on the side, but the area will be much nicer, we think, when it's done. And then plus, you've got um 21 25 square foot of mitigation uh all
along the uh resource area kind of coast to coast across the back of the site. So, um it's a small addition. Um it's well mitigated. Um the boardwalk, um our narrative went through it would be a variance to to retain it because you
don't really allow structures in the Vzone. So, we know it's It's a it's a tall ask, but uh when you look at it, it's it's a pretty benign little boardwalk, we feel that by avoiding muddying up that area by walking on it, it it, you know, probably serves it does
more more good than harm, especially when we against the amount of mitigation that you're getting in return. So, that would be the request and I'd certainly be glad to go through any of the points and uh and answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. If >> you have any questions, raise your hand
so we'll know. Okay. Okay. >> Anybody here have questions? >> Um yeah. Um >> sorry. >> Um so just for clarity um the where is
it identified in the mitigation table? The boardwalk. Um so that would be um uh area of um u minor structures, decks and sheds and hardscape I believe is um the
area. Let me see. Um so it's a 4 to one. Okay. So in the notes down below the single asterric uh in that in that calls it out um to your attention. The proposed minor structures within the 0 to35 includes the unpermitted boardwalk
which is 127 square foot and That's portion. Yeah, because usually you go 0 to 35, but we just tacked down the portion that was within the wetland uh because we certainly would want to discount that. >> So, the boardwalk was was built without a permit and and so removing native
vegetation and altering the soils. Why why wasn't a variance not obtained at the time? >> Um I we were not involved with that. It was it was I guess sort of a homeowner special. They they just weren't aware that it was needed. um you know I think
they might have been familiar with the fact that you can often have a walkway but um the the you know unexplic unexplicitly uh constructed it without permission. >> So the applicant didn't know at the time that to pursue any other alternatives or
anything like that. Um >> it's my understanding yeah they were just ignorant to the regulations and they apologized for it uh but would you know respectfully asked it with a with a big dose of mitigation that it somehow be allowed to remain. So what troubles me though is when we do the mitigation
calculation, it isn't just a math, you know, equation. It it it's really what how much of the the BBW was altered, you know, including, you know, not just the hard, not just
the structure itself, but the staging and the access, etc. And I don't know if it's because we've seen several of these recently, these after the fact, but I I just think that we should
be very cognizant of of any precedents that we set here and how these future violations be prevented. And I'm I'm speaking to my my colleagues here um because now we're left with a decision on whether or not if we leave the structure, does leaving the structure
cause more harm than removing it. Um, and that's, you know, what guides our action and that's an unfortunate position to put the commission in. Um, so I don't really have a a question
other than, you know, when the commission looks at the mitigation, it isn't just, you know, again, like a square footage numbers game. is like what what was impacted and does the replacement really serve the same
purpose and in this specific situation I don't believe that it does you know when you put something elsewhere where you've done this initial disturbance um so I'm just bothered by it and and I that's all
I have >> I hear you anybody else >> yeah um It's interesting. Um, it does come down sometimes to being bothered by the fact that folks go ahead and do things and say, "Well, I didn't know
when they're buying and building on this beautiful piece of property on the north side of of the Armouth and they don't know." Um, maybe they didn't think about it or something, but to me, I I agree with Ellie. You know, it's it's not so
much that the mitigation won't in some way contribute to rectifying the situation, but the larger issue is that folks do things and then after the fact ask for per ask for forgiveness. >> Well, I think we have to stop forgiving
because there's a little bit too much of it where things are done and later on you come back, oh, I didn't know. I didn't know or the landscaper did it or whatever the case may be. So, I would I would not be in favor of uh even keeping this boardwalk. I don't see any purpose for it, you know, and um and again, it's
that kind of um claim of ignorance that is just hard to accept on a regular basis. >> Else, Jack, >> well, also it's built too low. Has it's poorly, you know, doesn't follow the
rules if it were legal, it were allowed. So, um, what would you do as far as either making it better as a contractor or would you uh change it, raise it, put it
in a path? What would you or just put let it go back? >> Um, yeah, you know, would certainly leave it up to the board's discretion. But I guess my recommendation, you know, if if we were and and and I I I get it. It's, you know, forgiveness rather than
permission is is a bad bad bad route and we we would never advise that. But, um, to try and make good with what we've got there, um, you know, you have disturbed physically, you know, an area that would normally be like a grass path um down
to, you know, a bird watching area. Normally, you'd always allow, you know, people to access the back of their property, but, you know, nonetheless, the the footprint of it takes up about one times the amount. And then you've got three other times that we're adding, you know, additional uh pulling up lawn
and putting in planting. So, you've got some benefit there. I think to make it better, um probably widen the gap in the boards a little bit. And and I'd only saw a couple of them uh clamp down to the the sauna tubes. I I think would probably recommend, you know, a
stainless steel uh and epoxy drill in to to make sure that it doesn't lift up during a storm event and, you know, and and move around. Um and um so those two things you you'd widen the gap in the in the spacing and and uh I from
aesthetically and and and because it's um you know it's it's a it's it's if you look at the photographs it's just a low site. I don't think putting something up in the air would be uh particularly um aesthetically pleasing in that area. I
think it's it's it's a low profile. Um, if you put a good gap in between them, I think you'll get some vegetation to grow between them. And that's uh probably what I would recommend is is reanchoring with stainless steel and uh, you know, epoxy drilled into the sauna tubes to really bolt it down and and and widen
the gap up to say an inch um to let a lot of light through it. And if you would somehow allow that, my my clients would be extremely appreciative. Uh, if there's any other thing that you would think of, uh, we would certainly do it. And, um, sort of that we'll accept
whatever the board decides. >> Audrey, anything to say? >> Um, I echo a lot of what my colleagues have already said, um, asking for forgiveness. Um, as far as I can tell,
this was put in fairly recently, so we're not talking about something that's been there for decades. Um, I do have a major issue with the Sono tubes, actually. If it were any other sort of uh base structure, I might feel
differently, but I >> helical files or something would be would be better. >> Yeah. So, I think if it had it come before us before it was installed, I think we could have helped uh guide it in a way that would have been a lot uh
less of an impact on our um our wetland resources, but it it wasn't. So, now we're looking at something that is in my opinion quite impactful um because all the vegetation underneath has died. It's not designed in a way that would have allowed continued growth of the
vegetation. Um, and to your point of the extensive mitigation, I I appreciate the the 4:1 efforts, but um, you say you're removing lawn, but where you have the mitigation
is currently uh, garden beds. So, we're really just converting garden bed to natural area. Um, we're not reducing the amount of lawn as far as I can tell. Was
A lot of it is juniper, which um that's not native. >> Nope. >> So there's your ratio going down. Really? >> Um well, I think it is on the coastal wetland, you know, coastal list.
>> It is. That's true. We just strongly others >> wetland to the Cape. I think >> it's on the Barnesville County approved shrub list. It is, but we have in the past requested that be replaced with
general agreement from our applicants with something more high value. Um, so I see that as something that can easily be fixed. >> We have a substitution on that. Um,
well, um, I do realize it's it's a tall ask for for a variance for for a new structure, you know, in the velocity zone. Uh um but um um I I don't know. I
I I guess were we to raise it up a bit and and do through flow panels or something like that? Is would there be any way we could get a variance on this or do we have a any thought on that? Um I just don't
know um whether there's any appetite for that or whether we should just with you know withdraw that request. Yeah, I don't want to belver it in a way, but the thing now just a question. This was this was installed by the current owners.
>> My uh honestly I I'm pretty sure Well, I'm not not entirely sure. Um not entirely sure, but I think so. I you know I think the the the rest of the plan the additions all that stuff. I mean it's a incredibly beautiful house
and location and this thing was done in in a way that also disrupted the the the marsh there because the sauna tubes had to be put in the concrete had to be poured. I mean it was a kind of a semi- big job in a way and it was just like so
flagrantly um I don't want to say illegal but inappropriate because it didn't have the permitting. I just they don't even understand the disconnect between the care that the folks are taking now to make sure they do everything right and the um and the fact
that they put that thing down. Um again, you know, any of us who know the north side, you know, you can walk out on that marsh a different put on a pair of boots, you know. So, I I kind of get it in a way you want to just kind of go out there, but it's not
allowed. It's not recommended. It's not appropriate, you know. So I said enough. >> I Yeah, I I understand that and we know it's a tall ask. So if if that's the consensus of the board, we'll we'll acquies to that and remove it. Um you know, the owner would really love to
keep it, but uh if there's no path forward u that's reasonable, we're not going to be stubborn about it. >> I'm getting the sense that it is the feeling of the board. And um I just want to add that seems to me when people buy a house that's on the water or on
wetland they the first thing they should do is figure if they want to do something is called conservation commission and ask what's what's what they can do and what they can't do even if they've inherited the in this case. So, I think it's best if
um two things. If you come back with a revised plan with the boardwalk removed and um but the other problem has to do with the um soil there was no soil sampling. There was no wetland work. Um
the the BVW sheets are are incorrect. Am I correct? >> Yeah. So, um the delineation forms were incomplete. Um so we don't have sufficient data and it's just very convenient that the BBW was delineated
along the fence line um when there's BBW on both sides. So the whole perimeter perimeter of the property and then he used vegetation alone where you can't do that in a disturbed area um because it wouldn't key out as wetland since there are hydrangeas in there. Um, I do
recognize that it won't if even if the BBW is moved to 10 feet, it won't impact the mitigation for the project that we're proposing. Um, but in interest of a complete site plan, if you could complete the BBW forms with the soil
evaluation to ensure that the that the BBW is properly delineated because it may very well come up through this mulched area. Um, but we cannot be sure with the information provided. I also think there's some trash out there that needs to be found and taken
care of, which I'm sure is easy. >> That that that absolutely that's embarrassing and we apologize for that. That can certainly be taken care of. >> Anything else, Britney? Um if so if we get additional information about the BBW if you could
also just denote on the plan where the sampling plots are located so that we're able to compare them in the field just because there's a lot of vegetation out there and I was having difficulty finding where he his sampling plot was based on especially since he only used
vegetation to evaluate. >> Sounds good. Yeah, there's there's um it's a tricky area because there's silt loom on the top and you know you stomp your foot, it wants to form a wetland. It's it's a tricky area down a few feet. You we did punch into medium coarse sand. You can see the test hole lodge
there. >> Um so >> where was the test hole? >> Um those are not particularly close to the wetland but in the middle there. >> So if we did one like over here in this corner because I have a feeling it might come up. I mean, even 10 feet fully recognizing the work would still
maintain outside the 50 foot buffer, but if we're approving the plan, we are approving the BBW delineation as well. >> Yeah, fair enough. Um, that we'll have our consultant look into that and and fix that up for you. Those north side
wetlands are they are tricky when you get the clay layer, but uh we'll do the best we can with it. >> Great. Anybody in the audience have a comment or questions? Anybody online? So,
think we want to continue this with the new plan. >> Yeah. And uh the directions my notes are are um remove the boardwalk and would want to reveate that area I would assume or at least a grass path. >> They want access into the wetland.
They can walk the path >> um depending how wide you want to have it. I don't have you're doing all this um restoration planting for this other project. It's already been implemented. It's a 4 foot wide boardwalk right now. Is that correct?
>> Yeah. Uh 2.8ish. Um the end is six foot. >> So what does the >> about three foot wide? I think a three foot path would be sufficient. I think a three- foot path for a foot path is fine to remain if the commission agrees so that they can still walk out there.
>> Native fescues, something like that. >> Whatever we get to grow in there. >> Okay. >> Salt tolerant. >> And we want to have you change the creeping junip bird or something else. >> All right. It's leftover from Ed.
>> Oh, yeah. >> I don't know. I kind of like the Um, fair enough. >> And what's a good date to >> Well, we'd love to move forward with the addition. So, yeah, we can get this done. I Well, I don't want to overpromise the consultant on wetland
consultant. What What's it Is it three weeks or what's the >> The next meeting is two weeks, the 16th, but then there's a couple there's a fifth week in April. So, the meeting after that is three weeks later, >> the seventh.
Um well um if we could uh put it for the 16th, we'll push hard for that and I'll give you continuance well in advance if we need to if that would be appropriate. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much for your careful consideration here and I do understand that was a tough ask and I appreciate you being um at least considering it.
Thank you. >> Anybody want to make a motion to continue to the 16th? So move Jack. Second. >> Second. Thank you. Um, Christian 16th or I >> Yeah, >> I
>> I >> I >> Okay, thank you again. This goes over here. Do you want me to send this down as is since he has the other one? >> Uh, yeah, sure. Attach attach that
>> sign for the sent down single Oh yeah, I have >> just attach that. Thank you. >> Put this with that. >> Yeah, please. Next is SE832150
Shorefront Consulting for David McCarthy, 110 River Street. Uh request for a COC. So Britney, you get to go next. >> Uh this original permit was for a bulkhead reconstruction or seaw wall
reconstruction at the same elevation. Um the work's been done for a couple of years. There was required to have a 5- foot vegetated buffer. They have that in. Um there's some additional plantings required for an enforcement order that are moderately complete. Um they need some minor adjustments, but the work on the
bulkhead is complete and compliant. So I'd recommend the commission issue the certificate of compliance with ongoing conditions 17 and 18. >> Okay. Anybody have any questions or comments?
Okay. Um, so if I'm cor No, if I understand this correctly, they had an auditor or conditions from 2022, >> uh, of an enforcement order from 2022. Yeah. So that included more extensive mitigation plantings. It does also
appear that the homeowner has mowed the mitigation area, which is not allowed. So we'll include that as an ongoing condition as well. Um the whole area has to remain natural. >> Okay. So >> revetment work is or the bulkhead work is fine.
>> We'll have to revisit the the violation. >> You want to come? You can comment. >> Yeah. Mark Burgess from Consulting. Um so I just want to understand the pictures that I took were just a couple of weeks ago. Um the applicant sent a
picture of the vegetative buffer when it was during the growing season when it's really uh nice and robust. Um there is a the it was five feet of beach grass along the bulkhead and then some diversified plantings landward of that between that five foot and the patio. I
think those are in um the picture shows stuff what some like this this tall. >> Yeah. But this is in a landscape area so he can't go in and chop down all the grasses every winter. When I saw that, I said, I know that cutting promotes growth, but only for certain plants. So, >> no, no, it's a no touch zone. Yeah. And
there's also some plants mi missing um toward the south of the stairs of the granite steps. I'm not sure if Joe got a photo of that exact spot, but south of this area from the concrete path landing to the south, there's a whole area. I'll
show you the plan. This top two rows is missing. So it has to be planted fully and not maintained. >> That's a 20. >> We'll need and he's missing monitoring reports. So we'll need monitoring reports for two falls >> for when
>> for the fall this year and another subsequent because he'll have new plantings. >> Oh. >> In order to resolve the enforcement order. >> So he still has work to do. Yes, we're missing some plants. >> Okay. Let me work with you on that separately then.
>> Yeah. So, it's So, you see the landing on here. These two rows on the top are are missing. So, it's about >> Okay. >> And shrubs and some grasses. A row of shrubs and a row of grasses just needs to go into >> to complete it. >> Just let it go. Don't
>> Yeah. We'll need two falls of monitoring um since he hasn't done any monitoring yet. But you're approving the COC then? >> Well, yeah, the COC was just for the bulkhead replacement. So, I don't have an issue with the COC. >> Now, I understand. Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. And you wanted to have the plantings done by June 10. >> Yeah. So, they should go in this season since it's a couple years old to finish it out. >> June 10th. >> So, to be clear, what we're voting on is the CRC for the bulkhead and the other is
>> it's just discussion. >> Just discuss and needs to be done. >> Do I hear you have any questions? >> I'll move the um approval of the proposed reconstruction of the failing
bulkhead with um conditions. >> There a second. >> I'll second. >> Thank you, Christian. Uh I a >> I >> I >> I >> I >> I thank you. I vote I.
Thank you. Thought you would see you in a little bit. >> Oh, you can stay. The next one's continued. >> I'm sorry. What? >> You can stay there. The next one's a continued item. So, I left I had you back to back theoretically. >> Okay, then. See, we're getting through this just for
you. >> Did I mix this up? Oh, I did. Oh, no, I didn't. >> No, you didn't. You're okay. All right. Next is SE832514 Crawford land management for Scott Peterson 10 and 20 Susan Road proposed
bank stabilization using core fiber rolls and invasive tree removal in coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage. They asked to continue to 41626
as do I hear a um did I send something down wrong? Yeah, that's for this one. >> Okay. >> The continuence request. >> Yeah, >> just went along with >> Why are you putting that in that folder? >> I just put that on the side.
>> That's her side. >> I don't have a folder for Susan. Okay. >> Um, do I hear a motion to continue? >> I move that we continue to uh April 16th. >> Okay. Second. Anybody? Second, Jack.
Okay. Again, Christian, you accept that. >> I I >> I >> I >> I >> I Okay, great. like those easy ones. All right. Next is SC 83259
shorefront, excuse me, consulting for Thomas Grimes. Tensor side terrace proposed seaw wall replacement and raising by one foot in land under ocean riverfront area land subject to coastal storm flowage and
coastal bank and um again this is 10 surfside now you may start. >> Thank you. Good evening uh Mark Burgess again with Shorefront Consulting and Mr. Grimes here is here as well.
>> Good evening. So the uh when we walked away from the last hearing, there were some changes that need to be made. Uh we submitted a revision. Um we lowered the the bulkhead. So it's only up it's only
proposed to be raised by one foot to elevation 4.9. Let's just say five. We eliminated the fill. We modified the plant list. Uh we updated the resource area table. added some flood zones to the to the plan, changed some notes to
reflect the height and the deletion of fill from the project. The brick walkway was added and the bulkhead detail aa was corrected and um to change the height and delete the fill.
I I believe those are the concerns that we left with and I think my hope is that eliminating the fill greatly uh um simplifies the project and um obviously we're here to answer any other questions you might have.
>> Anybody have any questions? >> I just have a comment. Um thank you very much. We don't see this very often but it's very helpful. Um it's very mentary that you identify the revisions as such with revision one and revision two and specifically say that it's per our
comments. We don't see that very often. So I just want to commend you for doing that. >> Thank you very much. >> Good example. >> Thank you. Anybody else? I do have a question about the wall. You said it's going to be now 4.9. You
lowered it uh a foot. I'm still ask asking your uh opinion of how that might um affect the neighbors and and uh erosion. >> It in my opinion it won't it won't
affect the neighbors. Um you got to so remember and I'll try to be brief here but remember that the one um an elevation a wall of only four foot high is the lowest wall that I can remember of any bulkhead I've done in Dennis
Yarmouth or any other town. it's really low. Um, if it's been there for 70 years and the bulkhead was causing any kind of scour, that would be evident already. When you raise the foot, when you raise the bulkhead up, you got to remember that the the water has to be up there
for that one foot to affect it. Now, you're in four feet of water. So, that that energy that's up here is not getting back down to the beach. So, I just don't see any any way how wave action or anything else can impact uh any of the adjacent beaches. and it
would have by now if it was gone to. Um, and the there's a bulkhead two doors down that's at elevation five. So, it's in concert with the neighborhood. It's it is one of the lowest bulkheads I've ever proposed to be reconstructed.
>> Yes. Questions? See up there? Do you go ahead? Go ahead. So describe to me how you think the ends of the Uhead are going to protect your neighbors
or at least so the regulations don't allow us >> if you the regulations don't allow a say a bulkhead the the bathtub that you're creating right by you're containing the flood waters on the applicant's property
the regulations don't allow us to exit have that water exit off to the sides onto a neighboring property. That's why you keep the bulkhead at the same height all the way back till it reaches grade. So then when the water recedes, it's at the top of the bulkhead. And as the water continues
to recede, the water that's on the property stays there. It doesn't spill out and it will infiltrate direct straight down. So it doesn't go onto the neighbors properties. Well, if you look at CZM, I mean CZM,
coastal zone management of Massachusetts, it gives a little different opinion. So that you sometimes shorten those the wall or you uh can put a
ripper or stone above the wall instead of increasing its height. And so I just wonder how you uh compare what you're doing with what's in that CCM number seven >> storm water.
>> I'm not familiar with that. Um when you say placing rocks >> well rapper >> there are there are many cases where people have put a small amount of rocks in front of the bulkhead and that helps absorb some of the energy from the
vertical of the bulkhead and absorbs the wave energy at the base. Yeah, then you're putting rocks on a coastal beach. But that that's the only instance I know of putting rocks >> talking about making a slope so that it slopes back from the top of the wall.
Instead of adding height to it, you can be able to slope across and up towards the house. The bulkhead. So the height of the wall goes till it meets grade. So that the grade in this case the site >> you're talking about putting fill in.
>> No. >> Okay. >> No. No. The the walls just stay at the same height, but they go they run landward until they meet until they meet existing grade. >> And that contains everything within that footprint.
Can't go anywhere but down. >> And And how about the ends of the sides? What regard? >> Not neighbors. >> No. Um,
see when the whole area when if the whole area is flooded's underwater, right? >> If let's just say the flood water is right at elevation 4.9 and then it starts to recede. >> I think we're talking about erosion. >> I don't I'm not sure I understand your
question and I'm not sure I can answer it. I'll support you Jack on on this one. Um it is it is studied that bulkheads and this is a seaw wall since it's below mean high water they do have end effects and they cause end scour to the degree
it's different at each property. Um so Jack's wanting to know how you are decreasing the end scour impacts from your wall by expanding it landward. Um, we're not changing any of those conditions. And like I said, the at scour is going to be where there's soil.
That's down below at the base of the at the base of the wall, not at the top of the wall. >> No, I understand. I was talking about two different things. >> Apparently, we are, but I can't. So, ncour, when CZM or anybody else wants to talk about ncour, they talk
about wave reflecting off of a structure onto the soil. >> So, >> yes, that's right. Okay. Okay. That's what that's >> that's down at the level >> on the ends. Yes. Sorry. Didn't mean to confuse it. >> Okay. So, that's down at the level of of the beach. But if we're only if we're
raising the wall one foot, we're already 3 feet above the beach. So, the any anything that's going on here and that foot up above isn't affecting the ground. >> No. No. I'm talking about the ends impacting the two things. either
constructing your wall differently so that it protects the towards the house all the way along at which you're planting in plantings >> right >> and you're going and that's going to be at the top of the wall
>> it's down they'll be a foot and a half below the wall because the grade isn't being changed so you're getting I guess when I look at projects like this I say what is the overall net uh change overall. It doesn't in my opinion
doesn't change any any erosion or any chance of erosion from endscower because that's at the base of the bulkhead way down here when you've got we're only changing it up here. >> You have the benefit of a of a very nice vegetative buffer that's going to be enhanced with a more diversity of
plants. So that's a benefit to the environment, to the uptake, to nitrogen uptake, to all of all of those things that plants are good for. >> I'm just worried about whether or not that's going to be with increased
water levels and storm intensity and so forth. That's going to be enough to really last in the long run. and whether it might not be cheaper to put in a sloped area which you may not be able to do. Sounds like you can't towards the
house and even adding instead of fill which you're not going to put. >> Now I think I understand. Yeah, the the grade goes up. So I there's no way to slope it back toward the house and we and you could only the grade at the at the base of the patios
and everything is only at elevation like So there's nowhere to go with that. >> So that's lower than the wall. >> No, it's the grade is a little bit higher than the wall. When you by the time you get back to the to the house, but directly behind the wall, the grade
is about elevation three and a half. I think we agreed on because right now the wall is about this far above grade. That grade doesn't change, but it it slopes up toward the house. So I can't make it slope away from the wall. >> Well, correct me if I think that I'm I
was thinking that the slope was higher towards the house than what it turned what I'm hearing now. So I can see where that my idea or the CZM's idea wouldn't really work in this case. But then if we go look at the
end walls and the impact on the neighbors, CZM really says you should have a wall that stops 15 to 25 ft before your neighbors and then you take it and that'll take and you build in plantings or other kind of
things on the land and it won't it'll lessen the impact on your neighbors and you actually end up sloping from the end of the wall down to the ground Okay. So now I now I think I understand
that is that's down at at ground level. >> If if it was a new bulkhead. >> No, they're talking about replacements or anything. >> Well, so there's a lot of new bulkheads that I've done and what we've done is stop the return 15t from the property line and put fiber rolls there to soften
the return. We don't have that option here. The bulkhead's already there. >> Well, okay. All you're doing is adding to the top of the bunk to the seaw wall. >> Only the top. Yeah. >> And so you're you're not it'd be too
expensive to take out some feet some of the bulkhead to make it so you could have that sloping. >> The bulkhead's been there for 70 years. It it's be more disturbance to do that as well because right now you're just >> pulling up about protecting the
neighbor, not the disturbance. >> Um >> if I may add, I'm the homeowner Tom Crimes. I've spoke to both direct neighbors and they're both in support of this >> letter without increasing the height and so forth. >> You seem to have a question.
>> Well, no, I was trying to rephrase the question just to be really simple in h how can you convince us that this installation will re will not redirect the water negatively? How can you reassure us? What is that's our concern
is a redirection that this may cause and that's what you know that's what we're speaking of in that document all the time is that sometimes this does more harm than good. So how can you convince us that this will not redirect the water?
>> In my opinion it doesn't change any way the water acts than it does now because the bulkhead is is already there. raising it up by one foot only interacts with the water that's that's way up here which is away from any any I mean
everybody else is flooded at the same time remember it's not that this thing changes that so in my opinion there's no change >> that's a good way of putting it >> so there's no change and you get the benefit of a better an enhanced vegetative buffer
>> there's no net free >> no net change no >> I think our original concern is how it affects the neighbors. And you just said that the neighbors have no issue with it. Beginning to understand the difference between 3.9 and 4.9 and how
it uh how it has to be up there in order to even have an effect. If it's a 3.9, it's not going to make any difference to what it is presently as far as the amount of water in front of it. Anybody else before you turn to Britney?
Britney. Um, as Mr. Grimes said, we do have two letters of support that were submitted from these two neighbors. So, the direct neighbor to the east and west and um the neighbor to the east has a bulkhead and
hers is elevation 4 as well. Um, so they're both in support of this project and we do have an additional comment from Mr. Morasco, who was present at the prior meeting, um who is at this property back here. He's a directive but
to the landlord side and has access via an easement on Mr. Grimes's property. I'm not going to read verbatim because he already provided comment, but I will attempt to summarize. Um he's opposed to the project because of the potential to cause adverse impact in the velocity
zone and to erosion. Um he feels that it's prohibited by the bylaw. Um and he cites in the potential for increased downdrift erosion and scour um recreational beach impact and end effects
but this has been in the public document for since it was submitted on the 31st. Um so hopefully you had a chance to review it but he was not able to be here today but made public comments in the prior hearings. Everybody in the audience, yes,
>> you introduce yourself. >> Uh, members of the commission, uh, my name is Paul Rivere. I'm an attorney in Centerville. Uh, and I represent Mr. Morasco. He asked me to come because he could not make it here tonight. And I'm not going to completely reiterate his
comments because you have them in the record. I have some comments my my own. Uh, I've spent, it's getting scary now. I counted this. I can't say I've uh done complex environmental permitting for 38 years. All I can say is 37 years and 11
months. Uh, I spent a lot of time dealing with this and I was really somewhat surprised by this project and that is uh and the way it was going. The concept that I've always thought was we want to have soft solutions. We don't
want to increase hardscape uh in an area subject to wave action. And Bill has pointed out that your regulations uh specifically say quote no new construction or expansion of any structure that redirects or channelizes
floods including retaining walls, fences and seaw walls shall be permitted. A few minutes ago we were talking about 110 C Street and it was replaced same height and Mr. Morasco has no problem with same
height. It's already there. It's we're going higher. We're building higher. As he talked about in his matter about erosion by reflection and I kind of when I looked at the history of this, a couple things came up. One was, well,
how did it end up there? And I brought a couple of documents with me which I marked up here uh which show the history. And I only have three copies. And so I will of course one here.
You can see it. But if you look at that >> all the momentum actually the seaw wall is not 70 years old is actually uh based on a license from 1935 as you see I've given you plan
uh plan book 51 page 111. Um and you can see there's solid fill that's placed in there and a seaw wall along the Bass River. What what stood out to me was and if uh Miss Dorenzo had up uh the aerial
there is you'll see Homer uh I all know where it's Homer a is it uh there um you can see where Mean High Water is on Homer Avenue. Okay. And if you look at what I've given you, uh, plan book 51,
page 111, that's basically where mean high water was in 1935. This whole seaw wall was brought out about 30 ft farther into the Bass River uh, in 1935.
Uh, and it comes across as you see there. Um, and that second plan I gave you, which is uh from plan book 486, uh, page 54, is uh, a 1992 plan for the dock. And I just threw it in there
because it shows exactly the same historical mean high water is way up uh, into the property. And this was all this was, for one of a better term, a land grab. That's why the water comes up in here.
It's because it used to be underwater. It's been filled and pushed up into that area. Now, there's a lot of talk about Vzone here and we can all see the Vzone and I'm sure it's accurately done on the
plan. In fact, I talked to an engineer and he said it's really easy to make them accurate. Now, Mr. Perry used to say to me, when you you put a onetenth of an inch line on a four mile plan, you end up with an area at least 40 50 feet wide. But nowadays, you can make it very
accurate. But the Vzone is right there and it's right on uh the edge of the bulkhead there. So we have three-foot waves uh that come into that area. If you look though more closely at that plan, there is something called the
limit of moderate uh wave action and I don't know how often you've run across it, but it's on the newer and M. Diorzo is pointing out to it. uh it goes way into the property and that is an area
uh which I'm now going to pull out for some D explanation. The moderate wave action zone is inland of the Vzone and contains wave heights greater than or equal to 1.5 ft but less than three feet. My
point being is that yeah technically most of this is not in the V zone. Um, but it is clearly significant wave action. This is not the Vzone 50 ft away. The Vzone's right at the edge of there. They're
three-foot waves that are coming right to that edge of that bulkhead. And uh, Mr. Grimes has asked to increase it by a foot. Now, D hasn't finalized its uh land subject to coastal storm flu
regulations, but in those regulations, it talks about how buildings on solid foundations in elevated structures below flood elevation can redirect waves and obstruct flows during storms, increasing flood velocity, elevation, and volume on
other properties. Now, volume, as has been pointed out to you, is not really that important in a coastal flood zone because the ocean is giant sink. As Dan Ogulo once said to me, it's like throwing a pin inside a
bathtub. There's too much there. So, but more what we're talking about and what uh Mr. Morasco's concern was because he has the easement and my understanding is he also had a partial ownership in the adjacent property but he does have an
easement right to use the area uh at the end of Surfside um is about erosion and reflection and therefore the proposed regulations talk about these are the D proposed ones say that any new buildings
in this moderate wave action area must be elevated on open piles. My point being is is there's very consistent science and use uh in the area of conservation that this area has
issues of reflection and the like. Now it's kind of funny. I was sitting here watching this and you know Mr. Morasco talks about, you know, concern about adjacent properties and the like. And I'm sitting there thinking about, God, I
remember when I was an attorney in Michigan. There's a lake called Lake St. Clair and it is the size of Cape Cod Bay. It is completely armored on the Gross Point uh side of it. And I used to sail at Crescent Sail Yacht Club. And as
we talked about, I'm actually incredibly fast sailor in small boats in choppy weird waving conditions because it was armored and the motorboat waves would bounce off that shore uh waves coming from multiple directions. It's not only
the adjacent property owners. Basically, what you've got here is you've got Bass River, you got waves that reflect all over the place. Hard shorecape like this is a problem. Mr. Morasco couldn't be here tonight because he's out of town,
but his essential point is we conservation commissions are trying to do soft solutions. We have has nothing to do with Mr. Grimes a long ago built out hard sea
wall here. No problem. Replace it in kind. It would be fine thing to do. But don't put another foot of reflection in the Bass River. Thank you very much. >> Anybody else have a comment?
Anybody online? Anybody? Anybody have any questions? >> I guess my question is I don't know. I don't know what one foot does. Does Can anybody help me? I mean I How do we I'm
believing you that there is no impact that raising this one foot will not increase the flow, but that's all I have. Uh you know I >> then you have the other side that says it will. >> Yeah. I mean I my personal feeling is
that the hardening happened in 1989 unfortunately and in looking at this and in looking at the view the the attorney is exactly right. This is all land grabbing. Everybody squared off their property by pushing it out and putting up bulkhead and that damage was substantial at the time, but raising it
the one foot I don't I personally don't know. I'm not a scientist in that respect. Um I mean, you're assuming it hits it and it and it reacts more than it does now. And
I I don't Can you explain to me your position that it doesn't impact again >> just veloc velocity wise? I mean talk scientific to me. I'll believe you. I mean I'll try to believe. >> Well, as I said again, erosion happens
down where the soil is. >> So let's take an extreme example. Let's say that the wall was 10 feet high. I mean the flood zone is quite a bit higher than than the bulkhead is, right? So let's just say the bulkhead was 10 feet high and the water's up at 10 feet.
Is do you see any way that that wave action up there can affect the ground because that's where erosion is is on the ground. So when we build new bulkheads, we do we try sometimes we come back from the property line and we soften it so that
reflective energy is absorbed. But we don't have that opportunity here. It's been there at least it was licensed in 1935. So, but my major point is that any any difference in uh any reflection that's
going on is already going on. And the only additional reflection that's going on at the one foot, you're already in four feet of water. So, that energy is not going back down and causing erosion. It's it's too far away. >> My problem is we you know, I have to
take your word for it because I I'm like you. I don't have I don't have that expertise. What happens if you're wrong? And then to the you know, how does it affect the neighbor then? What do we do then? If if if it is a if if you're wrong and and it
does affect and that's where I have a issue to be honest. What what to do about it. I don't know if Britney can help me or whether she even wants to. >> Well, could I go ahead? Um, if you have three feet of water, let's say in a
tube, your round tube, and you add, let's say it's three feet, and you add a foot more, is that weigh more at the bottom >> that you actually end up with more >> in affecting bottom. >> Yeah, in a controlled environment, I
think you're right. I think in this particular case >> the natural inclination is saying we have four feet of wall five so there's a foot of water that's going to hit it. The reality is it's 4 foot and a half an inch then 4 foot and an inch then 4T 2
in that's water is already being absorbed on both sides of the river. It's soft. So it's not this impact as if you were in a laboratory and had walls and you increased it. That force would be very measurable. This would be measurable, but I think it's
infantestimal because it's being absorbed throughout the entire dispersion of the river from my house to a mile out to the mouth and a mile all the way back. And you're looking at the gallonage that is one foot back maybe 30
35 feet until my my property is five feet. From that point forward, it doesn't matter if there's any wall because the water in every area is five feet going higher. So it is in that small teeny little window of one single property spread out of all of a vast
river. So technically is it measurable? Probably at some degree but it would be so minute I can't imagine it would affect anything. Having said that we also have one of the lowest seaw walls that's there. I mean you go to the mouth of Bass River some of those seaw walls
are up eight and 10 feet by necessity. So I that's why I'm suggesting that here's your seaw wall. Here's your property a little bit higher. You've got a slope. And I would suggest that you can instead of raising it, put
in rip wrap several feet up that would actually dissipate the in fact impact because it would absorb that one foot. >> Are you talking landwood above my wall? Because then you're actually making
stone wall in my backyard. >> Well, I'm looking out at a storm. >> Well, the other alternative would being if you can show us that that without raising it, the water coming in would just be go in and go behind and red, you
know, drain back underground. And I don't understand why you worry about one foot. >> Why I personally wanted to raise one foot? >> One. No. are adding a foot. >> Obviously
levels have been increasing to some degree. I mean whatever the mean high water mark was in 1935 whoever the engineer built the wall it was most likely some analysis saying let's be x inches feet above that to absorb it.
It's grown a little bit. I don't I'm not a scientist. I don't know how much more but I am getting agreeing now for a moderate storm. And I think the damage of that coming into the property and the cleanup, I have 2x4s, I have floats, I
have life preservers, I've had a kayak, things like that on a major storm, you can't prevent. for the moderate storm, for the time and effort to put a bulkhead that I think would be safer, more protective of the environment, an
extra foot seems like a reasonable moderate change to what's there. >> Well, I agree. I agree though that I would suggest that if you put in a sloped area, >> Jack, I understand. I'm not sure. >> And I think in the long run that would
work lot better and be cheaper than raising it a foot. It would actually, you know, I think from an expense standpoint, the wall is wood and it needs to be replaced. Adding a foot or not,
>> it doesn't add any expense. Those sheets are 10, 12 feet. They drive them down in the ground. >> Yeah, >> that's not going to be the issue. >> Well, I'm not arguing about I'm just >> We could come decision >> you I think we need to you know I agree with you pretty much that
>> I would ask the consideration for what we're talking about would be so hard to study and to measure that I'm asking you for some consideration of what I think is a reasonable compromise between the two I can't imagine what a study would
be going to Woods Hole and asking them what it would do and I think every town project would probably subjected to that both municipal and private I I don't see the influence of that. >> To your point, >> can I just say something? >> I think um by doing something like that,
you're going to even impact the river bank more >> than what they're asking to do. >> Just more destruction. >> I think the what the solution that you were looking at from is more for where the bank is much steeper and higher and
there's a much more vertical distance between the proposed wall and the house. So, I don't know if that's fully applicable at the site. I I just do want to add that I I do believe >> it's my opinion that this is a permittable project under our current bylaw. Um, we allow seaw walls. We don't
specify to what height we allow seaw walls. We have permitted things like this in the past. Not saying you always need to do the same thing you've done in the past. Um I believe it's a permittable project and they some of the lower impact alternatives are simply not applicable or possible at this site
because it was more land more seawward than a traditional bulkhead was. It's a seaw wall. It's in the ocean. Um that eliminates a lot of the lower impact possibilities to replace it. The ones that we would want to see if it were a new wall might not be possible. >> Well, I'm on a campaign to be sure that
we're looking at these in more detail. Yeah, I agree that the alternatives analysis could have been more robust, but other than that, >> um I don't think any of those alternatives would have been chosen. They could have just been explored deeper. >> We could move ahead. I would appreciate
unless someone else has something desperate to say. I think >> Paul, can we just confirm um you missed the first hearing or did you review? Okay, perfect. >> So, we have a full quorum to vote. Um,
>> do we have conditions? >> Um, the condition I would recommend the typical bulkhead replacement conditions including DMF put it I believe they put a time of year restriction on. Um, so all DMF conditions would be included
and our typical inwater work would work be from the upland or do you need a barge? >> Be entirely from the upland. >> Yep. Are you all ready to vote? >> Okay, let's do that then. Um, I need a
>> I move that we >> approve this project with the conditions. Oh, does somebody else want to move? Did I >> No, no, I was just going to second it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Is that clear? Okay. Um,
Christian >> nay. I >> I >> I >> I >> I surpasses uh what do we seven six to one? >> Why do I think everybody's going to come
back at us with one foot height height increases? >> Well, we we take everything one by one. >> One by one. >> Literally one by one. >> If there's any Dennis's tilt point is two. >> I don't know what that means. Tilt
point. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Do we uh you want me to put those? >> How about the thing he gave you? >> He didn't give me one. >> He only gave you one. If you could put that in >> Who has the maps that the attorney gave?
>> Oh, where's that paper? >> Just when it comes down this put those maps in here. >> Oh, yeah. >> With the attorney. >> Oh, yeah. Got them. >> You want this to go in also, Britney? Does this go in? >> Yes, please. Yeah, throw that in there.
>> That was a tough one. >> Surf. >> Okay, next. SE83 2524 wet wet tech.
Wet tech land design for Amy Rakowski, eight Flint lockway post expansion of a permeable driveway and patio, coastal bank and buffer zones to a BVW and coastal bank border bordering vegetative wetland for those of us who has to be
reminded and give me one second to get to my notes. Okay, introduce yourself and >> Okay, good evening. Uh, for the record, my name is Wayne Tvaras. I'm a landscape architect and a professional wetland
scientist. Um, we were here and, uh, the board gave me, the commission gave me good direction as to how to improve this plan. Um, there were five different issues and I provided a item by item or
itemized list of those issues. Uh the board was concerned about um driveway expansion. Uh we're trying to get two car wide uh driveway. So we showed the old driveway. We showed what we're
asking for. I reduced the width of the driveway to 17 ft. That means I increased the distance to the property line of the owner. And also I'm trying to explain by way of graphics the difference. So I showed the new and has
new contours on it and the old contours are uh dotted in the background. I also showed a cross-section of the uh driveway uh you should all have in front of you and it shows the fill area at the greatest amount of of fill on the
crosssection. So that whole area goes from uh 10 feet 15t excuse me from the tupelo tree near the roadside and all the way to the garage. So that area is to be filled but minutely in the
beginning and as much as you see in this crosssection at its worst total film 15 cubic yards. Um the cross-section is very explanatory. It shows the garage. It shows the two cars parked at rest.
Shows the driveway edge. And also we promise to um provide well the driveway itself provides penetration, no erosion control, a gravel base. It's a properly designed driveway. Also, one of the commissioners
was concerned about water exiting into the street. And the contour, previous contour shows the 15 foot contour is concave and actually pushes the water along the edge of the road and not on the road. So we will continue that.
It'll be like a little boeing of the the apron of the driveway before the road. So um a there's a almost a twoft pitch from the garage out to the road. So we have positive pitch. It's approximately 2%. So, it's very shallow.
Even in torrential rains, um the driveway will work. Uh on the side slope that you're most interested in, uh we replace the straw waddle with a quir fiber roll state to the ground. We're
trying to delineate the property line, make sure the neighbor the neighbor came out and talked to us while we were doing some research out there to make sure nothing entered across the property line. Uh the pitch is uh 3 and a half over 9 or about 2.6 to one. It's not a
great uh slope, not steep. None of the water from the driveway will go to the slope, just the rain water that lands on the slope. Um that's one of the enhancements of the project is the enhancement that we had before. We show the mitigation planting as alternating
along that uh shoreline. I mean along the show I stuck with last the last meeting, excuse me, along the property line. So uh that's what we did with the uh driveway and um going through item by
item. Uh then the trying to justify the walkway and we have a previous walkway and we're uh putting in a permeable um stone as well as a small patio. The patio was shown as the only possible
place for the owner to have a seating area to look out on her view. Um and I explained the response of dry paving areas and the new techniques that are used. My guys, we only use gravel now. We don't use dense processed stone
anymore or compaction. We put stone. We still compact it. We put it under a fabric. We use peace stone on top of that and that's our setting bed. So essentially we have a gigantic erosion uh attenuation pit. It's just like a
drywall. So water will enter through the cracks, go under the drive, under the patio and be lost as uh and entering the um the groundwater um in the best possible way. Uh grass is being
eliminated by the way both on the first issue I talked about it's all grass down the property line edge that is gone. and it's to be um replaced with this mitigation planting and pine bark. And then the um the same
thing with the uh walkway and the small patio grass will be removed. So grass is also being moved. Another enhancement um the justification of leaving the co the coastal bank intact. I think I've
got some consensual agreement about the rear um coastal bank undergrowth is full of invasives and uh there was a great aerial photograph that Britney showed on the last meeting to
show just the notch that's coming out of an immense area of adjacent um invasives. So um to run an owner through a cost we were trying to of the cost between 20 to $25,000
to A remove what's there B to um um cut and swipe so to speak so that the roots die then take that chance of covering that steep slope with erosion fabric and replanting it
to native plants that are going to be encroached upon within two or three years is um I thought was kind of foolish and I thought I had some agreement with some of the owners, I mean some of the commission on that, excuse me.
And then I went uh on an attempt to correct the deficit and the formulaic uh coverage of mitigation. So I took um a hint from the commission and place mitigation plans out uh sort of where
they be where they beong. So, we're trying to create and make sure we have a path around the whole house of 5T. There's an existing concrete walk that's back there and then it steps off and allows the owner to walk around the rest of the slope. Other than that, we
planted it out 247 square ft. Each area is itemized with square footage and the types of plants that are used in that area. So, total within the 35 foot is probably around 300 square feet. So uh
then we changed the shape of the mitigation area uh number three which is uh in front of the arrivites and we we just reconfigured it with um the necessary number of plants and of course we've got
our major mitigation is the slope that I talked about in the beginning. Um I did not get any calls from Britney saying any concerns. So I expect this is uh hopefully able to be voted on this evening. Um oh and the other issue
number five uh we corrected the driveway entrance to protect the tupelo as much as possible. We reduced the width of the driveway from 14 ft to 12 1/2 ft. We took another note from the commission to um to move the wall. There's two or
three boulders, good size, wheelbarrow size stones on the right hand side. We can certainly adjust those and we switch the driveway over more to the right and we're providing uh 3 and 1/2 ft of um
spaceup tree. And I also gave a brief description about the roots of the tupelo tree and how um how they're involved with this project. Uh taking a hint from Britney, we also provided uh sweet fern as a ground cover. We
couldn't see using bear berry here. It's too much shade. We couldn't see wintergreen. It doesn't have enough oomph to the project. But uh around the tupelo tree, it'll show as a twoft uh marking of the driveway. and uh
essentially uh funnel all the cars into using just the driveway itself. Um your meetings have been long tonight. I'm going to try to keep mine shorter than certainly last time and the other meetings of tonight. So if there's any
questions, I'd uh I'd like to >> Anybody have a question? >> So in essence, you're going to not do anything to the back of the house? Yes. Nothing. We're playing absolutely nothing in the back. >> Go ahead.
>> Um, thank you for for acknowledging our questions and incorporating them in the drawings. I've just um actually I found an answer to my question on the on the quo roll being permanent or temporary. And you state that it's permanent in your um what do you say that they
install a permanent quarrel 12 inches. I always say that one 12 in along the property line. um usually they're used for erosion control on a temporary basis. So my my question is um will it
suffice and um or is it your intent to have it temporary until the mitigation matures? >> It's it's your choice really. What we've done in the past we've used it for erosion control. Of course, everybody uses that bigger rolls, 16 in, 24, 20
inch, excuse me. These small rolls are just there to delineate the bottom of the slope and to pick up residual erosion like a little bit of pine bark on a on a on a real rainy day until that pine bark adheres. That's probably after the first month. So, it's there to
delineate. It's there to ensure the neighbor that nothing enters into their property. Uh, and if it's okay with the board, we'd like to leave it. Core rolls are left because it's an organic fiber. It'll take probably about five years to
completely disintegrate. But what harm is that if it's organic? So, um, and the stakes that we use would not be the oak stakes that we usually use. They would be, um, like maple stakes and they pin in and they er, I mean, erode. They also
diminish with time. So, it's more used as sort of a termination than a than a redirection of of I guess. >> Exactly. Right. >> Um, just a minor question. What is the quirk that you show in your cross-section about halfway down the
slope? >> Oh, if needed, there's a notch. We will provide a notch on steep slopes, long slopes in order to attenuate the water. It's a water water bar basically and it allows water to enter. So we put that
in. It's only a 9 foot uh total slope, >> but we'll put it in if you ask for it. It's a notch. It's essentially dug in >> and it picks up the first wave of water. >> Yeah. >> And then if it then it's then that second half goes down to the
>> road. I figured that's what it was. I just didn't see it identified as such. But yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, it's earthn. There's no structure to it. Just an earthn trench. >> Sure. Anybody else? >> Yeah. I just have one question. Um I
asked you about the patio last time came in. Sure. >> In the front of the house. How much space is those are some sort of uh blocks that you you fit together? >> Sure. >> So, how much space between the blocks? >> Uh 3/4 of an inch. >> And what's underneath them? You said pea
stone or something. >> Yeah, you can put in two two things. Past stone if the joint is wide enough if the product is wide enough to accept them. Okay. Uh I was at a project today and they're using big pieces of blue stone and we can get the pie stone fit
into the to the gravel right on. >> So the pie stone is is is level with the top of the >> Yeah, it's level with the top or we use grits which is a smaller piece even and that's if the joints are tighter. So if you have a half or 38 of an inch joint,
you put grits in there. >> And and so the block itself is not permeable at all. It's just >> And and does vegetation grow up between those joints? >> No. No. It's um what's the word? Um
it's clinical and I can't think of the term. It's I'm sorry. >> Sorry if it's >> when you get an infection. >> What? Never mind. I'm trying to come up with a word that I can't come up with. >> No plants. >> Sorry. >> No worries.
>> In essence, nothing grows in between. >> Nothing's going to grow. >> Yeah. >> Sterile sterile. >> It's not organic. It's the opposite of >> I'm just thinking if something blocked it up, it would be the same as the hard packground there. But that's okay. It
seems like you're thinking about it. It's fine. Thank you. Anybody else? >> I I maintenance in the long run. How much maintenance of that drainage area the
on that you're talking about >> under the patio the drainage? >> Well, no. What you were just saying the silt will actually fill the pores the and >> Oh, I see what you're saying. It's sort of the same question they asked in
Province Town when they put that permeable asphalt. How do you clean it? You're supposed Well, there in Btown, they they supposed to vacuum it all the time. In this particular case, we don't plan on any maintenance. The runoff is
straight away from the house. it'll be absorbed in that bed for example that separates the um the walkway from the u the patio the upper patio and uh it'll get absorbed there I mean erosion is
negligible but absorption will slowly go away yes it's always a perfect case slowly goes away >> sorry thanks anybody Britney,
>> I'm just going to assume that the fiber roll is dug in halfway as it's shown on here. Is that the intention? Okay. This I'm not um familiar with any use of these um apart from, you know, coastal stabilization, but if this is what the
homeowner wants to do, I'm sure that'll be fine. And I would be happy to approve hand clipping of vines from the coastal bank mitigation plantings so that the homeowners can try and keep these separate. But otherwise, thanks for making all those revisions.
>> Thank you. Anybody in the audience? Anybody online? Anybody? Do I hear a motion to accept with conditions? >> So move. Second >> second. Start with Christian.
>> I >> I >> I >> I >> I thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> This is Flint. Okay. Moving right along. We are
okay. Um, next one is SE832522 Cape Cod Engineering, excuse me, for RJ Resorts Beach Resort Owner LLC. We'll start with
one Southshore Drive proposed beach management, including raking and nourishment on a coastal beach and land subject to coastal storm flooding. We've talked about this, I believe, twice now, so this is our third visit.
Um, so if we could just try to focus on what we needed to improve that would be great. >> Thank you. We're back. Rhino Laughlin, Chris Dale, Jeff Strereer from the RJ
Resorts. I'm Bob Perry, Cape Cut Engineering, and just have two things to talk with you about, unless you have other things for us. Um, I sent Britney a note today, uh, just trying to summarize what what we're trying to do.
The first thing is beach replenishment. We filed the application not because the resorts need beach sand today, but because it makes sense to prepare and try to permit the site for um, a future
condition as a replenishment site should it be needed. Now, I think if we were asking to have sand approved today, you you'd probably agree that some sediment could be added, but that's not what we're doing. And Britney spoke with me about a trigger.
And there there's just no specific trigger. Um, what I'm recommending is if the resorts observe their beach being killed by a storm or some series of storm events and they
feel the need for sentiment nourishment. They don't have to do the survey, prepare the notice of intent, go through the whole process to get that done, although they can. Uh, but what we're recommending is that they update the topographic information, provide at
least two transexs along the beach on each site, bring a civ sample of the source material because we've already turned it in for the beach material. and proceed with nourishment based on the staff review. And if the staff
determines you need to see it, that would be one way to go. And that's what we proposed on the nourishment side. Contingency so that they have it in their back pocket, but we're not trying to skirt any of the procedural things. And if that's difficult to absorb, no
one's asking for a blank check, but if it's difficult for to for you to absorb, we would I think we would just strike the sediment from the application. So rather than take a question on that right away, second item, which is the
last item, is kind of a package that relates to a number of activities that some of you discussed with us, but it's primarily what we filed the application for, which was beach raking and that comes right into the rare
species habitat of this area that governs any activity that goes on here. Um, and when we met last, I think it was a little confusing because you had a narrative filed with the application.
You had a narrative that we updated at Britney's request that I think you got, but there weren't dates on. And then there was a beach management plan draft that we submitted that you never got. Hopefully you have that now.
Um, but in the interim two weeks, Devin Harrington from Natural Heritage and Endangered Species issued, actually it came from Emily Hold, but it was Devon that did most of the work. issued the natural heritage and
endangered species comment letter and the series of conditions. So I got that Friday and I don't send you things that are less than a week ahead of the meeting, but I did drop into the office. I think it was Tuesday
to talk with Britney and we have a very slight revision to the beach management plan that that you do have and that was to fix some typographical errors, put the file number on it and to
add a little more detail about the procedural things if nourishment was um desired or required or necessary And all it all it does is it
specifies topographic update civ test submitt for source material meeting with the conservation staff and any normal procedural requirements like monitoring
follow-up photography that would normally accompany any beach nourishment project that can be added to the order of condition. Now so this beach management plan that that we gave you sent you that has there now two copies in one for red jacket one for blue water
but I believe we're on blue water right now um it has baked into it two documents which are the guidelines for managing for recreational use of beaches to protect pipe and clovers which is a write up from 1993
and the list of conditions issu issued on March 27th 2026 with the reference numbers for the NHSP file number. Both of those documents are available to the resort staff.
the NHSP conditions are to be baked into the order of conditions. And um it's not full plagiarism, but Devon's guidance to us over the past several weeks
kind of mirrors her conditions and we put those conditions into our beach and management plan as well as referenced her document and the guidelines. And we're basically saying if there's any
difference between the management plan and the guidelines guidelines rule as written. So >> I'm sorry. Where do you say that? Where do you say that? >> Oh, it says um on the copy I have in my hand.
>> Um it says Mass Division. It lists the documents. It says where the terms of the beach management plan differ from the guidelines, the guidelines shall apply. I was going to pro I did send this to Brit Britney today, but it's not fair to give you this the day of the public meeting. I can appreciate what
it's like. We have what nine projects. It's a lot and we don't want to flood you. I just want you to trust us that we're engaging with your staff and it's a I think it's a sound management plan because everything hinges on the
contract the resorts have with mass autobond sanctioned bird monitor and they have to comport with that and and as long as they have this they have an order of conditions that basically addresses
beach raking which was the thing that we proposed but there's every other beach activity out there, playing volleyball, people sitting in beach chairs, going swimming, but that's not realistic to list all of those activities in a notice of intent.
And so that's where we are. We feel like we're ready uh to have um the vote for beach raking which is going to be severely limited
just has to comply with mass natural heritage. And if you are accepting of a contingency circumstance where the beach is um permitted for nourishment,
replenishment, but that the details of that cannot possibly be known today. While I'm on that subject, let me just say this. Natural Heritage manages to I think they limit your beach slope to a 10% grade if you're going to
put lots and lots of nourishment in here. We will never come close to that because if you come back a 100 feet, you go up 10 and it's just not realistic. What I would envision is with the 1,000 yards that was proposed in each notice,
you could envision just stylized a 75 foot length of beach from the water inland raised three feet for 300 ft. That's approximately 1,000 cubic yards. And I don't think we're
going to get there. But if a hurricane came in and it destroyed this beach and there was a sand source that was suitable for them and suitable to you, the site would be permitted for recovering the beach. That's what we were asking for. So,
>> so to be clear, you're asking for two things. And the first one is is really being prepared for the worst. >> Okay? And the second one is breaking. >> Breaking. And there's a caveat that when
the organization came in with blue water for that 12 by 12 deck, there was a mandate from NHSB that a beach management plan be formulated and reviewed. Um, I think there was six months, but we're ahead of the six months. And we
sent that to Devon Harrington at NHSP and and I didn't get any negative feedback on it. And that's that's what you have most of. And I just made we made typographical changes here. And >> any questions? >> Yeah. I So, if I'm understanding, you
have a you have a a beach raking plan there that you've made some adjustments to. Is that correct? as as directed by NHSP. >> I know, but you and you just acquired that. >> Yes, >> we haven't seen it. >> I think you should have. >> Did we?
>> I have. >> Wait a second. Um, those comments from NHSP were delivered on Friday. >> We've seen NHSP comment. Yes, if that's what you're referring to. >> There's no difference between what we're doing and what they're requiring. >> Okay. All right. >> Let's talk about this March 26th beach management plan because that's what they
have. we have March 30 even though and I sent this to you today but I >> today >> well I wouldn't do that and when I did send it to Britney I said this is not for you to give your committee tonight it's not fair >> okay so I mean let's talk about this >> we didn't get our NHSB comments until
Friday >> but you're not required to incorporate them I can always add them to the special conditions so we let's just talk about the March 26 beach management plan if there's anything you want to add to the conditions that's not in here we'll talk about that >> we're okay then with Even though we
haven't really received it, we can we can vote on it. >> Doesn't seem like the changes were substantive, right? >> No, they weren't. The changes, as I said earlier, >> couple of reference file numbers >> and we put more details in about the procedural things for how the beach
nourishment would be managed symbiotically with your staff. >> Can I ask one question about a page four? Um, one of the bulleted items is rack and seaweed handling. Is it appropriate, Britney, to remove
rack and seaweed in a in the cleaning of the beach or I thought that was kind of >> Yeah. So, the in our conditions for beach raking, NHSP allows a portion of it to be removed, but we require it be remain um on the regular high tide line. So if if there's any rack above the
daily high tide line like storm tides, moon tides, you can take that rack off, but the regular rack remains completely not partially. And just so you know, >> in the special conditions, >> it's a good topic you raised because the the change that I made to that in this
March 30 that it it says racket seaweed resulting from a raking event is the only material that would be removed because if you if you read what you have, you you think all rack material would be removed and that's not the case because we can't do that. So th those
are the little things that were based on Devon's communication on Friday that we've tweaked the management plan so that it's better. So we're not removing all seaweed, we're only removing the seaweed from a raking
event. In essence, even though we didn't get this new piece, from what I'm understanding from Britney is we can approve that with Britney. >> I'm not saying that. But I'm saying we vote on the one we have and ignore the new one until we just added to the
special conditions. Um you can't vote on something you've never seen. >> So let's just talk about this one. >> Vote contingent upon receipt of an acceptable modification of it if you don't mind doing that because otherwise we come back.
>> I don't think there's anything wrong with the March 26th one, but let's see if anyone has comments about that first. Can I ask one other question? On page three, fireworks. Okay. Do you typically have fireworks during the summer? >> Okay. All right.
>> And HSP says the word should not. And I believe our says shall not. >> Yeah. >> Shall be prohibited. It it says something about I'm just USFWS
guidelines for managing fireworks in the vicinity of pip piping clover and sea beach emiranth on the US Atlantic coast. It just it I guess I'm just a little confusing. So you you don't allow it anyway. You don't allow anything like
that. >> My understanding um same for pets, you know, unre unleashed dogs. Um, and I think that you're reading something that's uh generic for um, you know, municipal. Well, I guess it would apply to anybody.
>> Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Just a couple small ones on your mitigation on the red jacket and
movable platforms are not in the list. They You may think it is, but it I would like to see it specifically. >> Are we doing both of these simultaneously? Because they're very similar. Did you open both? >> No, I only opened up >> one. >> I only up the first one.
>> We We didn't put a platform. We didn't put a platform in on red jacket because I don't believe there is one. >> Okay. So that when the next one comes up, >> right there, >> division, >> we're not on the next one. >> Okay.
>> Well, one shore, one southshore. >> So, >> just not not to belabor, but for example, um the revision that I have and I think it was something I don't know if you're going to see it in there, but I think you should see it is that the
vehicle we we're speaking about is a tractor size rubber tired tractor. >> I think you made up the size of a rubber tire. >> Um yeah, so in relation to this rack removal. Um, it
also said uh determined by health and safety concerns. I was wondering who determines those health and safety concerns. >> The director of health. So that's in our regular beach rules, but we can we will always add it to the special conditions
for beach raking. It's as determined by the director of health. Um, so they can't claim a safety hazard if none exists. They have to request that it be evaluated and he'll come or they because it's vacant currently they will come out and do an inspection.
>> Okay, cool. >> Smells >> low tight. >> Um are we I'm confused on the nourishment aspect because I have several questions but I I'm unclear where
I ask any of those. >> Uh sure. Um what is the footprint? Um is the thousand cubic yards annually or through the life of the permit and does that include the dune areas?
>> Does that what >> include the dune areas? >> Great question. The nourishment is based upon a condition that doesn't exist yet. And so we would not be burying
vegetation. So, so, let's say an unveated dune might be um eligible, but for nourishment, a vegetated dune, no. and a footprint of
nourishment would be the zone which I'm going presume for a moment that if this condition comes home to visit it would be the breadth of the beach from east to west
unless there was an undulation of the beach and we wanted to make it more less less undulating. So I realized the difficulty here was trying to describe a future condition and memorialize it and you can't do
that. So, I've got beach nourishment projects where the site is permitted for disposal because it's often dredge material and the beach condition at the time the material is spewed and
delivered is only known just before you do it. So I don't have anything specific except it's the hatched area on the plan wherever needed or chosen or selected >> which would be limited from 15 ft
seawward of all dunes. It looks like two elevation three. So not not below high mean high water. >> We're not filling. >> And the third thing you mentioned also
it's it's up to you but it's per event. >> There's no magic number. thousand yards seemed to be realistic if there was a need to protect the seaw wall to buffer wave action because the sediment was
gone. Um, but when we do beach nourishment, it's always sanctioned by a staff review, but I've looked upon beach nourishment as consecutive.
Um, you can qualify that. be clear you wouldn't do any work without talking to >> that's absolutely true >> just want to make sure that's clear to everybody it's not a compos you know go ahead and do it because we voted for he still has to get approval
from Britney or Joe whoever is in the job >> so we as a commission are giving cart blanch for the staff to determine >> you can do And >> I would be yeah in the past I think if
you he says a thousand the survey says 3,000 you can right now put a special condition maximum 1,000 cubic yards. Um the lifetime of the permit re permit realistically three years plus a couple of extensions it would be nine years very very
maximum. Um if you want you can limit how many times they could do the nourishment. um maybe twice or three times if you expect that it's too much for you to approve initially. Now um you can also require that they come back for a public hearing at the time of
nourishment. I think that's the best option so that you get to see the survey data and the cubic yards needed and the civ analysis and it's not just staff and that would give them you know a two-eek window instead of however long it takes to prepare a notice of intent which could be six five six months. Um, so
that's what I would probably recommend. Approval of the nourishment with presence at a public hearing first. >> Good with that. >> Be a special condition. >> Then I also just want >> that because that that that's consistent
with what I would expect. >> I also just wanted to make a note that we don't normally share public uh the specific location of clover nests publicly. Um, I see that it was included in the beach management plan. So, it is
a public document. Um, normally we would take out the specific marker. >> You mean the the refuge area that's indicated in the photo? >> You keep the refuge area but remove the nest location. >> So, we should revise that. resubmit or
do I mean to >> it's already public so it's is what it is but um >> you have to keep everything >> I can take it out now it depends on how many people have already seen it but it was last year's data right >> correct >> but still there
>> natural heritage usually asks that nest not be shared specifically >> page five go ahead >> I just Quick things first. Um document control. Would you please put prepared by the the
uh beach management plan? It doesn't say who prepared it. That would be And um thank you for not submitting the narrative again. Sorry. Um but um I just want to um point out that it's really important what you say in the first general comment about um any an annual
preseason meeting and a lot of your trigger dates of course start April 1st. So, could I suggest that it that we insert possibly an annual preseason meeting will be conducted prior April one? >> Yeah. >> Um just because that's really the
kickoff of the of all this. And then um uh I forgot my lost my train of thought here, but that's probably a good thing. Um the um I know we're not supposed to see it, but you you did mention the prioritization of the documents and one
governs over the other. What was that again? Because we could to the special conditions if it relates to the March 26th. >> Okay. So, we have a we have two things with the list of conditions from NHSP. We also have the guidelines which are the guidelines for managing the recreational use of beaches to protect
piping plvers turns and their habitats in Massachusetts. Now you got that >> NHSP is relying upon that and they reference that in their document and I'm simply saying just because um we're we're doing our best to interpret
and if there is a difference somewhere in this beach management plan. >> Yeah. >> That deviates >> y >> from the guidelines >> y >> the guidelines rule. >> Okay. >> Apply. >> You might want to just do that now. say
that now that would make this >> special condition. >> Yeah, make that a special condition. >> No deviations. >> And and I think if there's any concern about anything that that document in front of you is shows, it's it will really again it's very important here
that it's very important what this first statement says because you say any maintenance or recreational activity not specifically addressed in this plan shall be discussed and at the discretion of the conservation agent. I assume that's Britney. may necessitate a written request for approval by the
conservation commission. So you can't cover everything in this document >> and that's why that meeting is really important and then it is subject to review by Britney on whether or not anything else has to come before us. We could be here forever >> because there will be things that come
up. >> I mean Bradford was the one that said there's a lot of activities and we said well yes but we're here to propose beach raking >> and we're wrapping a lot of other things into it. Yeah, >> that are ongoing and have been for the last 80 years.
>> Yeah, >> just minor but uh and I don't know where it appears in all the documents but on the one I have division. What's that? Massachusetts I presume. >> Oh, the division of fisheries and wildlife. >> So, you need to spell it out at the top.
It isn't on your mind documents. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, I do in the revision. I have an as division of fisheries and wildlife np file number 25. The avatar. We're we're good. You're going to like this one. >> But I haven't seen it. >> I know you have it, but it's it's just
got >> clarity. Do you have We're not changing the terms on it before we have a chance to see it. So, >> well, you know, we were in a compressed situation where we were still working with national. You said we're going to like it, but it's going to be too late at
that point. >> Just coming back else >> Yeah. two quick questions. Uh disposal site in mind for the seaweed and are we >> same as a red jacket? >> So the compost area in there on the
beach and then where does it get taken if it's it's just Okay. Um All right. And I don't think I saw but um we'll probably be consistent with all of our other raking permits and maximize at once a week for raking. Did you have another schedule in mind?
Because I didn't see any. Okay. Once a week raking. Um so at this point I would probably recommend the commission either vote on the plans that we have with the revisions requested. um and that maybe Bob can provide a
redlinined copy of the March 26th with the changes to reflect all the things that the commission have asked um which are pretty minor right now. So, prior to April 1 for the on-site meeting, um adding the division clarification,
um you can add some of the details to the nourishment that you had in today's version. No deviation from the guidelines. And I think that's it. If those are the only items in there, plus some additional details that are nonproatic,
um you can either vote on everything you've asked for. So it would be the same as voting pending a copy of the revised plan showing everything we've discussed or you can continue. >> What about the thousand feet? No limit to that. Did you say that?
>> Um you that's a that's an option or we but you also requested attendance at a public hearing first. So you could just decide then. >> Okay. Anybody in the audience? Anybody online?
Okay. So people clear what if the people want to vote um accepting with those conditions. Bradford, you okay with that? >> Okay. So can I hear a uh motion to to accept with special conditions?
>> Pending a revised plan. >> Ending a revised plan. >> I have a question if I may. The thousand cubic yards. This is a three-year permit and you >> I don't think they decided to include that. >> No, they'd have to come back to us. >> Yeah. So pres any extension >> uh requires um a formal letter and a
revisit and we would come back and speak with you about that. >> Um and so the likelihood of needing a thousand in the next three years is low >> but maybe after. Yeah. >> Okay. Nobody else seems to be okay.
Enthusiasm is overwhelming. >> Okay. Second. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. Um Christian, you want to vote please? >> I >> I >> I >> I
>> I >> Okay, so that is just first one and these are together. Britney, >> there's two separate signature pages, >> but they're I can wait to do both.
>> Yeah. To what? >> Wait to send both down. You want me to Do the first do the first one. >> Okay. >> All right. Hopefully the second one is less time consuming. SE832523
Cape Cod Engineering for RJ Resorts Bluewater Resort Owner LLC 291 301 and 327 Southshore Drive. proposed beach management including raking and nourishment on a coastal bank in land subject to coastal storm flowage.
The only difference that I'll just introduce again folks here >> may >> it's fine you can still sign >> very >> for the applicant. The only difference is that there is mention of transporting
the 12x 12 deck and there is no specific compost area on this site. When when rack material is removed it's taken off site. Um, there's much less vegetated dune
except on the western boundary. We also provided a a couple of plans to Britney last week showing what I thought you were asking for, which was the location of an extra transct to be studied when topographic information is
updated in some long chance that that there would be beach nourishment going on. So, that's it. There's no difference between these beach management plans or the circumstances on the ground
except for those two things. >> Any questions? >> I would like to add um I guess to the special conditions um that the moving of the temporary deck be coordinated with the shorebird monitor if there are
unfudge sticks present. Uh, it did not specify that. >> Um, I think it's generally covered in motorized equipment. >> It was intended to be, but but I I you know, we from our perspective, there's only two things that a vehicle is used
for, so we assumed it was understood, but I have no problem adding that. Okay. >> Anybody? Uh, Britney, you're next. >> No, >> nothing. >> I guess same thing I said the other one.
>> Anybody in the audience? Okay. So, can I hear a motion to accept with special conditions? And do we need a revised plan for this one, too? >> I would imagine. Yeah. A revised plan. >> Accept. I mean, you're gonna make
>> Oh, yeah. I'll move that we um approve. >> You did already. >> This is a ditto basically, right? Second. Yeah. Security move, >> right? Second. I second. Same conditions as the prior one though, right? Yeah.
>> Um Okay. U Christian vote, please. I >> I >> I >> I >> I >> I guess that's it. Appropriate to ask for the reason for the nay or or is that just >> We don't need to do that.
>> Always try to satisfy everybody, but sometimes it's not possible. >> Big issue is it's April 2nd, so when's the >> Yeah, that's a good point. >> April scheduled the preseason meeting. No, you can't do it because you have to wait for the appeal period and record the permit. So, I'll do my best to get
this to you >> next week. >> Please come pick it up so it doesn't spend unnecessary time in the mail. >> We do that a lot. Well, thank you for your enthusiasm. >> Some time on it and you showed us a few things. I appreciate it.
Okay, our next order of business is uh notice of intent without a number. Right, Britney? Cape Cod Engineering for Dwey and Margaret Alwood 911 921 Great Island Row proposed new revetment on coastal bank coastal beach and land
subject to coastal storm flowage. Good news is they asked for a continuation. So, can I uh two week continuation? Can I hear a motion? So, move >> what date? >> Uh what is two weeks from now? >> Just two weeks. >> April 16th.
>> I move that we continue this to uh April 16th. >> Okay. Paul will second. >> Second. >> Yeah. >> Um Okay. Next. Uh Christian,
>> sorry, I didn't hear you. Yes. I >> I >> I >> I Okay, that was a fun one. Okay, next one is SE 832528 ESC group for Robert and Moren Kelly 146
Mayflower Terrace proposed deck expansion the buffer zones to a Salt Marsh and Coastal Bank and get to my notes. Um, okay. We're ready for you.
>> Mr. Chairman, members of the record, my name is Kieran Healey. I'm a land surveyor with the BSC group representing Mr. Mrs. Kelly and all in the audience is Mr. Kelly and also as key. What we're looking to do is to remove the existing deck that's at the rear of
the house and allow the new deck to be go from side to side with a stairway that allows it to get down from the first floor to the water level down. It's an increase of 217 square feet in
the um 0 to 35 foot buffer and as a result we're offering mitigation of a 5 to1 ratio to enhance the entire top of the existing bank water line along the edges and the project itself is just pretty straightforward. removing a deck and
increasing the size a little bit down to the water. As I mentioned, there's no other work associated with this permit. Everything else has been previously approved. A few years back, we were in front of you for the previous
glad any questions that you may have. Anybody have any questions? do um I'm a little confused on is it the whole deck or just a portion of the deck because we have an existing conditions plan that doesn't show a deck
>> existing conditions 4225. >> When was the survey done for this existing conditions plan? or two. Yeah, sorry. Um, the deck was demolished, but it was existing permitted before they started the work on the house. So, they've done work on
the property to elevate the house under improved permit, but they had to remove the deck, but it was existing previously and previously to the existing conditions plan. Um, >> okay. >> Do we have this property for years? So
when we did our original plan out here, the deck was there, but at the time of the existing conditions for the pier, when I put my stamp on the plan, it's as of that date to the best of my ability. So at that particular time, the deck had been removed for construction on on the
building itself. >> Okay. >> I think we have enough evidence that the deck was there existing lawfully as a deck. Um, I understand that's an interesting situation, but it was existing.
>> Okay. I was I was very confused on that. >> That's fair. >> Um, and then my only other note was that the um the buffer disturbance table doesn't
quite match uh what we have in our uh format. doesn't have the 0 to 35, but uh I understand you're not doing anything there, so it doesn't really make a difference. >> Can we notate that on the I'm sorry, just to to add to what could we notate
that on the documents though just because that is very it says existing deck equals 194 square feet. some kind of aster or something that says at the like we've had before where it references the permit number or
something. Otherwise, it's >> we're all looking for a 194 square ft. >> I can see what else we have. >> Something some documentation that says >> okay. Oh, yes.
>> Would correlate back to that. >> Yes, it's on this plan. That's my plan from a few years ago. >> Yeah, >> I can reference that. >> Yeah, just so you don't think you've had too much alcohol when you go on a site visit and you don't see it's a joke.
Forget it. >> It's a good idea. >> Make sure you're awake. >> I'd start going on them if you if there was. >> I know. It would go the other way. So technically, if I understand this right, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Britney, this is a variance,
but the plan but the planting plan is good to go. Would you say that's >> the work is technically within the 0 to35 of the coastal bank. The coastal bank is just happens to be located in a very landward location. Um, but the I would argue that the overall benefit of
a 12- foot vegetated buffer where none currently exists is an overwhelming benefit for a permeable deck that's elevated to the first floor. Um, so I think this project is an improvement over the current current conditions and they've been working with us extensively
to make sure that everything is approvable. >> Okie dokie. >> Um, Tell me what this means uh in relationship to what you just said. We're on uh what third fourth page we're
talking about uh 50 foot that's 62 part 602 and it talks about where a 50 foot undisturbed buffer zone does not exist prior to and goes on and a footnote or one of the elements is if
structures or hardscape already exist within the 35 to 50 foot buffer And additional structures or hardscape may not be allowed within the 100 foot buffer until the 50 foot buffer and its vegetation have been fully restored. And
that does not meet that. Does that >> it says may so up to the commission's discretion. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But that's >> but they are vegetating the 35 to the extent pract because of that situation to enhance it
that little bit more. >> Well, but it's still a variance from this statement. >> 100% we need a variance for walk in the zero. >> So, but if you put it up to the 50 foot, then it wouldn't need a variance.
>> The 50 foot is located near the road. through the house. So there would be >> the house is 25 to 50. >> Yeah, >> it's an unusual situation because basically there's the house, the lawn and the water. There's no buffers in
>> I just want to comment on I think that's you're doing a wonderful job out there. That's a nice house. Looks like approving the property and uh it was nice to see. >> Britney, do you have anything else? >> Um my only comment would be that um
there was two trees approved under an RDA a couple years ago that I'll likely add to the special conditions to to make sure we account for those when we issue the COC. Um and I think the silt fence is fine where you have it now. I don't know when you intended on doing the deck
work. probably simultaneously with the current work as soon as it's approved. Right. Um I'm comfortable with the where the silt fence is now. If you wanted to just put the straw waddle anywhere where there's gaps in the wall. I think on this corner and then over on this corner. I think the wall is kind of
extensive to put the waddle down there if we're just doing plant things flexible on that. Um, and that's all your neighbor did respond. So, thank you. >> Yes. Yeah, the float um has washed up in
his little in the um Oops. I don't know where this is. Uh what would you call this? A boat ramp. >> There's a kind of a boat ramp down there. And the neighbor um didn't take his float out over the winter, so it's on the salt marsh right now. It is past
April 1st now, but he's agreed to move it um for the next seasons and store it in the regular upland location. >> Another reason to res to get rid of your to move your float >> season. >> Yeah. So, I would I would recommend
issuance of this with special conditions. >> Okay. Do I hear a motion to special conditions? Anybody motion? Yeah, I'll make the motion. Motion to >> second >> to uh >> to accept
>> to accept with conditions. >> Did you get the two people? Paul and Bradford. >> Okay, we'll start with Christian. >> I >> I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members.
>> Thank you very much. Sorry it took so long to get to you, but someone has to be last, right? >> All right, next one is Where's my list? SE832270 BSC Group for Channel Point LLC to
Channel Point Drive. And this is a continuing request for certificate of compliance. And >> do you do you want to speak or do you want me to first? >> Um well I'll just introduce myself again. Kieran Healey for the record with BSC group. Also with me is Paul Manuso
who's a wetland scientist who'll be actually making the presentation tonight. Please go ahead Britney. Okay. So, this this was just continued um to a later date hopefully to observe some growth on the coastal bank which was um a little bit unstable and not fully
vegetated which was part of the original purpose of the permit. They did provide an invasive species management plan um to handle some of the invasive species present on the bank that are adding to the erosion issue, but we have not had any growth. So, we can't really see
anything on the bank to help make a decision for this. Um, so I'm happy to hear what you guys have to say. >> Paul, please go ahead. >> Hey, uh, this is Paul Manuso from the BC group. Um, can you hear me clearly? >> Yep.
>> So, yeah, Britney, um, we had submitted the invasive species management plan for this hearing. Um, you and I had had some correspondence about the COC submitt and I had asked to be continued until the first hearing in May, which I thought we had agreed on, but then I was away on
vacation and you and Matt had some more correspondence um, instead of this hearing, which we thought was more to discuss the invasive species management plan and get that on record because that was missing um, and required um, by the previous COC that was issued.
And um we do have some additional files for the COC request, the invoice showing that um the bank was planted with salt marsh grasses spartina and as well to um the spec sheet for the um fiber roll that's on the bank that um is
biodegradable and but so we we we thought we were just coming to this hearing to discuss the invasive species management plan and hopefully get that approved and then at the May hearing we would have the additional materials to you to discuss the CO seed because it's been planted twice
and um the the the bank was destabilized because of invasive species management that was done years ago. I want to say back around 2015 as and so then we filed a notice to stabilize the bank and we we've tried multiple times planting it and hasn't worked. But I thought we were
here more to discuss just the uh invasive species management plan for tonight and discuss everything else at the later date. Um so we haven't given you the additional materials for that. >> Yeah, that's fine. I just Yeah, go ahead.
>> Um so for the invasive species management plan, um we were there the other week. Um the species present on the bank, there's some fragmitees, there is Japanese knotweed and oriental bittersweet vine. Um the fragmitees, there's also a stand kind of extending
from their neighbor's yard. So they have a dense stand right up against the property line. It's going to be very hard to eradicate that entirely, but the plan is to apply a excuse me a glyphosate treatment um once a year
towards the end of the summer in um August September time frame for three years and the following spring we will do a site visit to evaluate the success of the previous year's treatment and to determine um the scope of work um going
forward. The treatments would be done by a certified chemical handler and um would be using a glyphosate that is safe for um aquatic sites. Um I don't know if you guys have any questions about the invasive species management plan, but I'd be happy to
answer them. So are you So we're proposing additional work through 2028. Are you hoping to get this um approved under the existing permit which is valid until 2029 or are you asking to still for us to consider the
COC and consider this as ongoing work as part of ongoing conditions? >> Um I guess the second one you mentioned there um consider the COC didn't have this be ongoing conditions um with required invasive species management and
for for three years through uh 2028. Okay. >> Um but yeah, we were more presenting this plan to you to get if you had any comments and then I guess maybe everything could be sort of finalized at the hearing in May when we have everything else to you. I'm not sure how you want to go about it, but um we
wanted to get this to you because we we didn't realize that >> the previous COC for prior project required this so it been sitting there >> um sort of um unressed. >> I have no issues. Did anyone get the chance to review this? I know COC's
sometimes get um I have no issues with the invasive species management plan though I am not sure if the stability of the bank will be in a state where we can issue the COC after we're able to evaluate it. I don't
know how um the commission wants to proceed on this particular item because the entire point of the notice of intent was to reach stability. They have attempted several times to plant the bank, but it has not succeeded. Um,
the bank is, these photos aren't excellent. Sorry. Um, there is bare soil. Um, there are invasive species. There might be additional bare soil while the invasives are being managed. Um, are we planting after the invasive species are managed? Is there going to
be some additional plug planting or are we just hoping it'll recolonize itself? Um, I mean, our clients planted it twice. I think the first time it was mostly just beach grass. The second time we adjusted the plan and added Spartina
grasses. Um, it might have there might have been Spartanina the first time. I don't I don't have that invoiced. I'm not certain. But, um, it's been planted twice um with very uh, you know, large scale planting and uh, they just haven't taken I'm not I'm not sure what the area
is, but it's been doing a third time. I I would expect sort of the same result. I'm not sure what else they could be they could try at this point um for that area. I mean I I would say I mean it's hard to say but a good portion of the bank is very fully
vegetated with no space in between. There's just those areas that got destabilized when they did I guess when they did the invasive species management >> prior. Um it it just doesn't seem to make sense to continue doing the same thing and
expecting a different result. >> Yeah, that's the only reason why I would be hesitant for the commission to issue COC is is that there's no adaptive management going on and not all permits are 100% successful. But
the certificate of compliance is saying you're in compliance with the plans and I don't know if this is though they did give it a good effort. um monitoring reports were never submitted and I don't know we just it might be better to leave it open for the extent you've you
requested an extension and now it's open till 2029. Um so it may not be the time for COC just yet. >> We need clarity on the sequence then what is the sequence? >> What's the next step? That's what we were going to discuss after we could see
if anything grew in a bit better during the growing season. But this is just from January, so I don't expect a lot of has changed since then. It seems to me if the because of the extension, if the order is open until
2029, that gives the the homeowner more flexibility to resolve the issue than if we were to issue a COC right now and uh
allow these practices until 2028. That's you get one more year out of the permit that way. Um, it would also allow if this really is not working to allow for an amendment to that open order. If we close it now or I guess in a month from
now, um, it limits the ability to come back and resolve the issue if it's not working. But just my opinion, >> think that makes sense to me to keep it open. >> Well, they keep it open because it's not working now. I need more time to work on
it. Is that what you're basically saying? And and the other side of it is it's not working. So maybe some other approach should be taken under another um permit or something like that. >> No, we would just still do the same permit. I think what they're wanting to do is it's not working so they want to
give up and not do any more work, not have any work more work mandated by the commission. >> Just leave it like it is. >> Yeah. Because they they've tried twice. like Paul said, they've they've already given it two attempts, but it doesn't appear that
it was monitored or I don't know obviously. Um, but I would I would agree that leaving it open may be more beneficial to give them another chance to even just look at it, see it how it's doing. You have the open permit for herbicide application and maybe if they
>> can add something else or decide to change something, there's the opportunity to instead of just closing it. Did the invasive species management prior did that do damage? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So the presented the one presented
tonight. How is that different? >> I mean does it talk about access or preventing? >> It's it's essentially the same sort of plan. Prior to this I mean the areas that are destabilized I believe were just overrun with invasives. And so by getting rid of the invasives
>> Yeah. there was no vegetation there in those areas um because they all the vegetation consisted of invasives and they've worked to replant these areas um multiple times with um little to no
success. Um but as as I had mentioned we have other materials that have not been submitted. We can submit the invoices showing exactly what was planted, how much was planted and all that. Um, but we weren't sort we were sort of expecting this discussion tonight to just be the invasive species management
plan. Hopefully get that approved and then I believe the first hearing in May was the date we had requested. We would have everything else to you guys in advance to that so you could see it, review it and then we would have uh this discussion at that point. >> Can certainly request that if that's
what you want. >> They're not mutually exclusive. The only problem I have with the invasive species management plan is that like just what you said, you're not proposing any replanting. So if you get rid of all the invasive species, it's just going to be bare soil again. So there needs to be
some sort of >> plan for that to have a chance at success. Even if that's a that's just seating and blanketing, that's a plan. >> Yeah. Um well, so I I agree. Um most of the invasives at this point are at the top of the bank. They're not really
obviously in the areas where nothing is growing. Um, and along the top they did plant I mean this was back I believe on the previous notice they planted along the top of the bank with um um seaside rose and that's doing well but the um bittersweet vine is sort of growing in
amongst that. So by removing the bittersweet I think those areas will still be stable because there's um good a good uh population of the rose growing there. There is a small area of the notweed and that's sort of concentrated. that area probably would be bare and could use some plants. Um I expect the homeowner might want to put some more
rows there because that's would sort of match the rest or and the fragmitees is right next to that in there. The fragmitees is not um a very large area but it's it's spreading right from the neighbor's yard where they have a dense stand. Um, and I believe there are other grasses growing in that area, but they
they uh we could talk to the the client and I bet they once those areas are clear, they they would be amenable to putting um some native roses or or something in that area. >> Okay, that sounds good. So, I would I would be in favor of
approving the invasive species management plan pending the addition of replanting the various surfaces caused by the management What about the COC? >> They're requesting to continue. Um I'm not going to be here for the first meeting in May. Would you be open to the
second meeting in May? Otherwise, Joe can >> Yeah, I believe that would be fine. >> I would not be here in May. So, >> okay. >> Not to kill us with a dead horse, but does the management plan that we were looking, you had it on the screen, does it address um access
that we don't do any more destruction or anything to that effect. I mean, you know what I'm trying Yeah. >> It it does not, but all these areas are at the top of the bank, kind of at the edge of the existing lawn. So, they don't have to go down the bank to get to
these areas um to the areas that are um currently bare. Um so, they they could probably all be done just from the maintained lawn, the >> top of the bank. Okay. Okay. So, to be clear, to be clear, we're voting to accept the u to approve
the invasive species management at this point. >> No, with the with the revision with the replanting of bear areas resulting and may as well just if you're going to revise it, add access only from the top of the bank. >> Yep.
>> Continue to May 16th. What will the motion be? >> We're going to continue the May 16th. >> That's the motion. >> And approve. Yeah. Approve the invasive species plan pending revisions discussed.
>> Two things. >> Two motions. >> Approve the plan subject to conditions. One to continue till the May 16. >> Let's take the continuation first. Make that motion. I move that we
continue uh this project to May 16th. >> Um second somebody Jack. Thank you. >> I >> Yeah. Thank you. >> I >> I >> I
>> Okay. And the second is to approve the um >> invasive species management plan. >> All right. So moved. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Second. >> I >> I >> I >> I >> I >> I >> I >> Okay. Am I going to sign that for this one? >> No, you don't sign. That's the COC. You sign nothing. >> Sign nothing. Okay.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Karen. >> Thank you. >> The one next to it. I'm sorry. You'll need to just revise that motion. I was looking at April. It's just May 21st, not May 16th.
>> May 21st. >> I move that we continue this to May 21st. >> You can just >> Thank you. >> All right. We next to go to the next movement. Um the other business approval
of minutes 31926. I read it and you read it. Make a motion. I make a motion to approve. >> Second that motion. >> That was uh >> Christian. Were you there on May on the >> observe? >> I listened in.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> I >> Okay. Reminder, updated regulations with effective date of 4192026. That's all that is a reminder. >> Yep. Okay. Anything you want to say about it?
>> Nope. >> Britney's going to uh we Britney did I asked for a hard copy of the new regulations. Anybody else want a hard copy? >> I would like one. >> Four. >> Four. Christian. Okay. >> Four. Okay. >> Got that. Community.
This is just to know the community preservation committee annual meeting is April 8th at 3 PM at the town hall hearing room. Paul is our our our representative >> astounding rep >> very exciting me
>> okay so he'll take care of everything if you want to go that's where it is uh community biodiversity initiative and vernal pool assessments that's you >> this is just an update the town of Yarmouth is official project partners for the community biodiversity initiative led by the Dennis
conservation land trusts and we have u met our obligation of our agreement so far to submit three observations ations of vernal pools for certification to natural heritage and there are three out of the four we assessed had enough data
to submit for certification. So we're on a good track record so far. Um can't get our hopes up because sometimes there's no evidence but it's been an exciting season so far for vernal pools. >> Great. It's awesome. >> Yeah, that's great news. >> And last one is the volunteer for
cleanup day on April 25th. Sign up is now. Yeah. Sign up anytime before the event. >> Okay. And the event begins at >> It begins at 8 a.m. >> 8 a.m. >> Volunteers. We'll have a coffee truck for volunteers. Bring a reusable mug.
>> Right. And that's it. >> Anybody else here have anything? >> Do I hear a motion to uh adjourn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. Okay. Uh again, I've got to ask uh question. I
>> I