recording in progress. >> Okay, I think we're ready. >> Good evening. Welcome, Conservation Commission on Thursday, June 18th, 2026. We're both in person and remote. Uh before I begin with the agenda, I just
wanted to say today is Pat's last meeting >> after eight years of being a great commissioner and we will miss you. >> Unless you change your mind in the next two weeks. >> Going to miss all of you.
>> Thank you so much, Pat, for your service. We really appreciate it. If we could get a round of applause for Pat. All right. Now we'll move ahead. First uh order of um is uh cons conservation fund requests from the ar from the DPW
for the upper bass river restoration. >> You to introduce yourself and >> Hi, my name is Connor Clifford. I'm a civil engineer at the Yarmouth DPW. And >> would you like to tell us a little bit about your request? Yes. Uh the Department of Public Works is requesting funds to bridge a funding
gap to continue the permitting schedule related to the Upper Bass River Restoration Project in the amount of $36,500 in consulting fees for Stimson Associates Landscape Architects. The town of Yarmouth with it with its partners have received over $9 million
in from state and federal funds to transition to construction of the Upper Bass River Restoration Project. Previously, Friends of Bass River received community preservation and other funds to aid towards the design and permitting for the project. We road covert replacement and cranberry
restoration was presented in front of the board in February 2026. Upon completion of the review of that NOI submission internally with the Yarmouth Town staff, staff concluded the maintenance of the proposed foot bridge and boardwalks would be challenging.
Yarmouth town staff visited two recently completed projects with the Harwitch Conservation Trust and through discussions with their staff on what would be a more practical approach and concluded a simpler design would be desirable. However, none of the funding partners are able to cover this scope
request. We request this revised scope from Stimson as attached. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Um just uh I'm sure you all read the administrator's report, but we do have money in there to cover this and we
would leave money um fund would still leave about $26,000. I asked um Britney this morning, we don't get money that come in. Um so this is it's not a um an account that gets uh
more money each year. uh since Britney's been here and uh it's something we probably should ask at sometime when the money gets down to lower amounts for the town to give us some money every year even if it's only 10 or $15,000 so we
can do things like this. Um anybody have any questions? Um Jack, well you elected me secretary last time. So if you look at the different kind of
activities that the secretary does in different towns, you might not want to have elected me, but u that's really just an aside. Um >> I was wondering what it was >> on this particular item. There is not a procedure for us for
people to make applications to for using the funds. And I would like to uh propose that we do set up a procedure at some point. But on specifically this, I was really worried about the general language that you have in the where you
talk about uh uh well first staff discussions um scope of revisions, the details of pra practical approach versus simpler design. You don't point out what those
mean. And in the accompanying application from Stimson, um first of all, they talk about three bridges and then yes, you only talk about two. So there's a confusion right
there as to what is was actually planned and um how what the work was changing and why you needed this money to mostly I guess look for uh permits and other administrative
overhead. So if so do you have any more information on the specifics? Um the changes to the bridge were regarding easier maintenance for the town. >> Well,
what specifically? >> Uh >> I can try and pull up the bridge specs. So the bridges that Stimson had originally proposed were creative in their design. They went for an innovative approach. Um, if I can find
them quickly, the use of materials was an abundance of what we would want for a simple constructed bridge that's easily maintained and the type of materials used were not easily accessible for DPW. So, as Connor said in his letter, we
visited other parks of similar scope nearby and wish for a more simple bridge design. >> I'm sorry that doesn't answer my question. What is your question exactly? >> What do you mean going what size to bridge to another size? What are fewer
resources needed to make them? What materials are going to be used? You don't think that's in our purview? >> I think that Stimson hasn't designed it yet and they've requested a simpler design to work for. Well, I'm not going to push this to the
point of I presume this is your staff here in town has pretty well over you, but you can see where I'm heading on giving out this kind of money and and uh when we don't I guess we don't have any specific uses for it right now other
than this. Is that true? No other requests or from us or from other parts of the town? >> I use it as match funding. So I'm I'm using it currently as match funding, but the monies that I've already encumbered are not reflected in the available
value. So they're separate from what's available. >> It's as Dave mentioned, we'd have to go back to the board to get more. >> I'm sorry. >> We would have to go back to the board. From what I understood, he said, >> who's we?
>> You mean the commission back to the board? have to go back to the board to get more this money in this. >> As far as I'm aware, money has not been added to this account for any reason in quite some years. It's just available. Um, they used to add money to it, but they haven't in a
very long time. So, town meeting. >> So, I'm not going to object to it, but >> I think this is an excellent example of what this fund is for. Um, without projects like this great giant restoration project, what would we use the fund for? I mean,
these are projects that are active and ongoing and need additional funding. Um, I don't I don't see the purpose in keeping a cache of money for projects that have yet to begin. I think it's a wise spending of our funds and it wouldn't limit me or the commission in
future projects because we do have some money in there and there are many grants available that we can also use. just have one one question. Um I I know it's to maintain you want to maintain those trails and the what you put in
there. I just do you maintain all the trails that are conservation areas because just the other day I was out on the um the trail in West Yamoth that's off of Woods Gray and the boardwalks there are in terrible shape and I do
remember several years ago when I was on this commission that we had to take funds from this from this particular fund to pay for construction of bridges there. It came out of our money here. So, I just wanted to say that there's some other places that that do need
attention >> and it does come out of this fund for the other uh areas. So, maybe you could look at those bridges down there. >> I'm sorry. Yeah, that's it.
>> Yeah, I this is a little confusing to me. I don't know what I missed, but the thing is that could you explain again why you require this? This is to maintain some bridges that don't exist yet. >> No, this is to redesign um the the original design.
>> Redesign the original design because the original design was too what? Exotic, flamboyant or something or >> uh it's not what the town wanted. >> You can see the design. >> So why does it cost more money? I mean they already paid for a consultant to
design those bridges, right? >> Right. And now we need to pay >> because the town doesn't want doesn't like the design. You're going to the conservation commission to ask for funds to come up with pay a consultant for
other designs. It seems a little bit um convoluted in a way. I I there must be a really good reason for it is a wonderful project over there. I think that's clear. But um I guess and my other question is so you want $36,000 from
conservation, you know, because the money is there, but the money isn't any place else in the town budget, >> not in the CW. It's not in the >> I don't know what you know. >> It's my understanding. Yes, that's correct.
>> And aren't there some kind of um aren't there funds in a um what a free cash kind of a thing? There's no money there. I don't know exactly what that budget looks like right now. >> Yeah, I don't know because this this this account I remember a comment a long
time ago about the fact that no money has been put into this account by the town since like 1978 or something like that, you know. And so all of a sudden somebody discovers this money, oh, I know where we can get the money instead.
Was there a thorough investigation of other places in the town to get this money besides this conservation fund? You know, you probably don't know. >> Uh yes, that would have been done by my boss who was the town engineer. >> Okay. Well, it just
in a way it's and probably some of it my confusion is because I I think I I missed some of this information along the way. I picked up my packet, but I'm not sure where it was supposed to be. But um but it's what I used to call
when I was working management by mystery in a way. I'm not I'm not getting it. Why why you need the $36,000 from this particular fund, you know? So anyway, which I guess if it's there and it does, as Britney says, it does conform to some
of the uh definitions of what the money could be used for, that's fine. But it just seems like it's a convoluted um late late occurring type of a request and it just makes me I guess a little bit uneasy too as maybe Jack is.
>> Uh yes, just just two questions I think. The first question is understanding the budget that we have. Um if we don't use it, we lose it. Is that how it works? We don't use it. >> No, the conservation or does it carry over >> carries over each year and has been acrewing interest
>> which is has been the only addition to the fund and What? ACR acres interest. >> It acrus interest and and Okay. And then when does the fiscal year start? When does it kick in? >> July 1st. >> So it's July 1st and and um
Okay. So we haven't used for fiscal year 2025. We haven't we we've >> um if you're asking if we're using it for other things. Right now we do have money encumbered for invasive species management and Chase Brook Park right now. So it has is being used but that
money is separate from the available. >> Okay. And I know you'll probably talk about the scope of it but I my understanding it isn't the ad isn't so much for a scope. It's it's time it's it's wages. It's time. So what I'd like
is if you could if we could turn to that because it there's a little disconnect. You give unit you give um salary um on one part of the estimate. you you give the the wages or whatever. And then
this the second part you I'm not sure how you get to the total. How about if I ask it that way? It's um the the number is pages. It's just two pages because you do say it's lump sum. That's it. It's not time and material. I think that's I want to make sure it's a lump
sum and not you know oh we spent more hours in coordination so we're going to ask for more. >> Right. Yes. This is a lump sum one time. >> It is lump sum. Could you just walk us through how you came to that 36,000? >> So, to be clear, this was submitted by the contractor Stimson, not the engineering department.
>> Oh, okay. So, you don't know the answer to that. Okay. >> How they got those specific numbers, I'm not sure. >> Okay, >> Dave. Yeah. Well, give me one minute. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, so I don't have an answer for that. Okay. >> I will. I will. Okay.
>> The commission gets to ask questions first, Jack. Okay. Anybody else have anything to say up here? >> Yeah, I just just wanted one one question. Yeah. >> So, the money is is for consultation
regarding the redesign of the bridges. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yeah. At the >> actual redesign. >> It also >> actual redesign. It also says that um upon completion of review uh staff concluded the maintenance of
the proposed foot bridges and boardwalks would be challenging. So how does the design relate to the maintenance? Why would what do you need the money for? The the design the consultant for the design or for maintenance in the future?
>> It's for the design. >> Why does it say maintenance here? That's how they came to the request. So I was in all the meetings where Amanda and um the director of DNR, Dave, who would be maintaining the bridges, who is the one who maintains our other trails,
discuss the materials and their challenges. So this is the design that was approved. Um and Rick knows about this as well. So you can see it's a very unconventional kind of like Lincoln log approach. And they're proposing to use
12-in diameter black locust palisades which split and crack frequently. They because they know this because they've used them at one of the playgrounds um which was funded through CPA and they have documentation of this material being difficult to maintain and they
don't want to use it again. And so this would be difficult for DNR to maintain because of the difficulty to obtain the black locust palisades and to prevent it from splitting. Um, and so you can see how much area it takes up as well. It's
like 14t wide where we want to reduce impact. So the foot bridge is only four and a half feet wide. So it would be also reducing impact in from a wetlands perspective to use a more simplistic bridge design.
>> So I'm sorry. So the design has already been been established. >> The original. >> This is the original. >> Original. So we want to go to a new design >> because with this other kind of material >> and it's going to cost $36,000 more dollars to maintain it.
>> No. to design it. >> Redesign it. Okay. So, that was erroneous in that in that letter. >> No, the letter is correct. It's due to the difficulty to maintain the structure that they designed originally. They're requesting a redesign.
>> So, because the town is requesting the redesign, correct me if I'm wrong. >> Contractor doesn't want >> contractor did the work and now the town is saying, well, you need to do more work because we need to redesign. And therefore, when a contractor needs, it's
like hiring hiring an architect and you say, "Well, I don't like that. You need to redesign it." He's going to charge you the extra money to redesign. >> I get that part. >> And that's what's happening here. >> It's a maintenance part of it. I don't understand. >> It's not It's not the other way around. It isn't like the town. So, so the money is because we the town
asked the contractor to redesign it and he says, "Sure, but it's going to cost you money. Someone has to pay for my time." And that's where the $36,500 comes from. Is that simple? >> Correct. Yes. >> Yeah. But it says something about the maintenance there. So, but >> well, that's part of the reason they
wanted to red >> the redesign will allow for better maintenance. >> It will be better, easier to maintain. >> Okay. >> That's the reason. That's way I understand it. Am I right, Britney? >> Yes. >> All right. Sorry that I'm being so >> No, that's okay. I'm just trying to simplify it. Pat,
>> just want to bring up my my subject about the maintenance of the other bridges and the other areas in this town of the conservation um conservation areas. I walk them all frequently and they're all in need of assistance. So, I'm just throw that out again. You're
worried about the maintenance of something that hasn't even started and you better go out and take a look at all the bridges we do have out there that are pretty sad shape. >> I understand that, but that's not what we're voting. I know. But I bring up my point. >> Yep. I appreciate that. And I think >> it's our money that's going to go into
repairing them, >> right? Well, no, it's doesn't have to be our money. That should be something that the town should >> Well, they have to be asked by >> I just want to let you know that I was on this committee >> and and we had to pay out of our fund for all the lumber,
>> etc. Workman did the work, but we paid for all the supplies. Anybody else up here before I move on? Britney, you have anything else you want to add? >> No. >> Okay. Now, Rick, you want to say something? >> Yes. Good evening. Uh Rick Bishop,
executive director, Friends of Bass River. A couple points to clarify for you. Friends of Bass River paid for the original design with Simpson Engineering uh approximately a year ago. Um, after these designs were submitted and in communication with Yarmouth EPW, it was
concluded and I think rightly so, that these designs were a little too fussy, if you will, and they would be a little more difficult to maintain on a regular basis. Pat, to your point, uh, the Yarmouth Division of Natural Resources maintains the paths and the foot bridges. So, that's who does it. It's
not a DPW function. It's a division of marine of natural resources. So they're the ones they've also weighed on in on this and they thought that a simpler design was would benefit them in terms of ma maintaining the structures. You know this 57.2 acre wetlands restoration
will have some of the I think the best walking trails in the entire town. So these designs are are in place to make them accessible to everyone and easy to use for everyone. So, I think it's I really would uh urge the the commission
to support this this uh request. We paid $45,000 for the the first first run for these designs. And what what David said was absolutely right. You get into a point when you're working with engineering firms and if you don't like it, you you send back for a for a a
redesign, you pay for that because it's your choice. So again, I would ask you to please support this this evening. It's uh it's really critical to the timing of our permitting process. Uh right now we're still on schedule to begin construction of the wetlands restoration and the wear road bridge
construction next year, but we need to resolve this this evening so we can we can get it uh in process. Thank you. >> Anybody else in the audience have a comment question? Anybody online? If you do, raise your
hand, please. Having seen none, can I hear a um >> I have a follow question. >> You have another question. >> Um sorry, >> since you were unhappy with the first design, will you be receiving um kind of
preliminary designs before the final redesign is complete so you can weigh in so that you don't have to redesign a third time? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, sounds like that wasn't done on the first time, but could have saved
couple thousand dollars. Um, I I can make the motion if anyone wants >> Jack wants to ask another question. >> I just have precautionary point that you're asking for twothirds the price of
the original design to redesign it. And I would normally have a lot of questions about why 2/3 it took two/ird of the same amount or the original amount of redesign. Are you doing that much redesign versus
He's shaking his head? Yes. So I'll go you done. >> I'm done. >> Okay. >> I have one regarding our Britney regarding this this um amount of money um in the conservation. What is the the
um the the just a conservation fund, right? Which hasn't been contributed to by the town for many many many years. Could we have some sort of a proviso that's included with this that requires the town to make at least a nominal contribution on a regular basis to this
fund so that these kinds of things come up in the future. We uh we're not running out of money in that fund. >> Uh we can't do that in this committee. You would have to ask the select board and it would have to go at a town meeting. >> Let's go to finance committee too. So we
can't it's okay to to dip into this fund and provide $36,000 which you know clearly sounds like is necessary and needed. But it's it's kind of this convenient pocket of money that very casually I think folks have gone
after. But at the same time we can't ask. We have to go through jump through hoops probably to get the town at long last to contribute any money to this particular fund. >> It's something we we can do as a commission to when they start to put the
new budget together for the next uh April or May's town meeting and ask for x amount of money for the conservation commission fund. And just like they vote, you know, for 100,000 for this and
20,000 for this. Um, >> we have any idea why they haven't contributed? They probably asked us in another meeting since it's like 1978, right? Something like that. >> It was before Munis started. So, we can't find it.
>> Oh, say that again, please. >> It was before we started using Munis, so it doesn't go back. >> Yeah. The the thing is >> it's hard to ask for money when we have this money sitting there. So I think when we get to a certain point maybe we
are at that point with uh the money that's left over that we do ask for it um when they start putting a budget together in the fall. And I don't think we'd have to ask for much maybe 10 20,000 which in a which in the amount of money that the town spends I don't think
is a big a big ask. So, we put it in there so that when trails need to be maintained, we can say we can help. But we can't, you know, when this money is gone and the town's going to have to figure it out for themselves. So,
I'd like to further emphasize on your point that we need to be careful that that money's been sitting there for so long and somebody will come back and say, "What the heck are you doing with that amount of money around there? We have so much problem with our own trails and having process to look at
alternatives uses of that money and that's it. >> The whole point of the fund is that it has to be approved by the conservation commission. So if nobody comes forth with a request for use from the conservation fund, it doesn't get spent and all the fund requests have come from
me in the past four years. So no one else is asking for it. >> We have approved money from this fund for other items. Yeah, the open space recreation plan was $35,000. Um the invasive species management plan was $15,000
and there have been smaller here and there 1,0002,000 for maintenance. >> Y I think what makes this hard to decide on is is um I don't know. I kind of feel like the little guy here and and you know I don't know deep I don't know
DPW's budget. I don't know how much they've contributed to this. I don't know how I don't know who else has contributed to it. So that's makes it just difficult that it's like well gee why did why do you come to us little
guys and DPW I'm sure has a big budget and what happened that they can't afford this that's all it just makes it more difficult to um approve in >> I think I can make a recommendation um for a special condition that the project
team continue their effort in finding funding for this and if the commission approves that any difference be returned to the conservation fund. >> You want to make that motion, Bradford? I'll make that motion. >> She's already You've got
>> I'll second that. >> Okay. And anybody else have anything else to say before we vote? Okay. All in favor of uh of the conditions and putting this issuing an order for this conditions and approving
the money. Say I. >> I. >> I. >> Anybody opposed? >> Okay. >> You thought it was going to be easy. I think >> I was going to ask us for money again. >> That's one way to handle.
>> Okay. Um I'm going to go out of order just for uh number switch for number two for number three. So I'm going to go to Hamlin Consulting for Daniel and Deborah Bianke 35 Ocean proposed addition to land
subject to in proposed addition in land subject to coastal storm flood. >> Thank you. Um Lyn Hamlin representing the applicant. I'll keep it quick for you. It's a simple addition in a land subject to coastal storm flow. There's no other resource area within 100 ft.
You can hear Route 28 from this property. Um, I'm gonna stop right there and see if you have any questions. >> Before we go, is there something I have to sign for what we just voted? >> No. >> Sorry. Um, anybody have any questions? >> No.
>> I know some of you have been there. >> Okay. >> Um, so do we want to issue an order of conditions for approval? >> Uh, no. A negative two determination. >> RDA.
>> Okay. Yeah, I forgot to turn the page. Okay, for an RDA forgative -2. Can I hear a motion? >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> That was quick for you, too. >> Thank you. >> That one I have to say.
>> Yes. >> It's somewhere down here. Okay. >> All right. Now, back to number two. TEC Associates for Mass Coastal Railroad Railroad right ofway ongoing vegetation
management on railroad right away within the NHSP and the buffer zones to several BVWs and water bodies. And um I don't think am I right that nobody is here for that but we
>> I don't believe so. So we got an um email this morning from the TEC associates representative saying he has two other meetings. Um so we won't be able to attend but this is I'll just read the rest of the email. The commission reviewed these maps in 2021 and the railroad's most recent
vegetation management plan expires at the end of last year and is in the process of renewal. It requires an RDA be submitted to each municipality to renew the wetland delineation. Um they're asking that you make a determination in their absence and the
work that they do for to maintain the coastal railroad is detailed in um their operational plan that was included. Um, and this is mostly
it's reviewed by the U Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources and is the work is generally exempt under the mass wetlands protection act, but they have to let us know about it and we have to review the wetland delineation portion of the work. So, we don't necessarily review the treatment aspect,
but they do have separate treat separate treatment areas for different levels of sensitivity. There's, I think, at least four um no treatment areas, sensitive areas, and regular areas. And so, if they're in a zone one, zone two, or within 10 ft of a wetland, they're more
sensitive than areas outside that. Um, but we generally have issued these in the past without any issue. >> We do receive a courtesy note for spraying before they spray. Yeah, they they notify us when they're spraying and they're scheduled this year to spray between August and September and then
ongoing in the non-sensitive areas throughout um November. >> They're requesting a positive two determination which is confirming the wetland boundaries from the mapping program since it's expansive. >> To Ellie's note about being the little
guy, we can't even get a representative for this. This is >> unfortunate. Unfortunately, we cannot continue an RDA. That's right. >> So, you can either do a positive 2A or say that they need to do a notice of intent. >> Um, but you can't continue an RDA.
>> We don't have any say over what they spray, what they can't spray. >> I know. I just think it's very inconsiderate of the railroad. Um, >> I did call Ed to see what they did in 2021 because I wasn't here then. Um he
said all they did was they took a ride on a pickup truck along the railroad to look at the areas, but they didn't get off. So they just viewed the general treatment areas. Um but they didn't review the wetlands because they're not delineated in the field. They're just
delineated on the map. >> Well, I have two issues. Um obviously we are going to pass it. The issue though is the maps are are terrible and I think that they ought to make it not send us maps that are so convoluted
and irrelevant that uh we can't even tell what their zones are. Second, I think that there's an issue that maybe we do have at least ability to comment on is that two to 100 10 to 100 feet on some of
those areas of the range is ridiculous. And that uh if you're certainly some of those there bridges, there are marshes areas that maybe they have to have a minimum of or let's say they have to
because you're talking about being able to uh send, you know, repair crews down. You have to have certain kind of limits for or let's say the ability to spray enough to really make enough area to get at
problems they have. So I'd just like to know if they're really 10 feet is really or should maybe it ought to be 30 or 40 feet to 100 feet. >> Yeah, I think we can definitely work on submitting a comment letter. Um I'm happy to draft one um per this
conversation and we can have more discussion about it what we want to include in it because that is something I think that is important. I agree with you >> should definitely let them know even if we don't have the authority to change it >> here we could have told them that. >> Yes, this is correct. Well, I just want
to make these comments on the basis of my father having been back in the 1940s, well actually 25 going down and repairing some of the western railroad rightways. So anyway,
>> David. >> Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry. >> So am I to understand that um we could for example vote to continue this so that we get a representative here. We can't >> we can't continue it. They'd have to redo uh an NOI.
>> So what happens if they have to do that? I mean they can't begin the work. >> No, I think that's not they'll overwrite us and say >> can do anything. >> So they can do what they want, right? >> So why are we even involved? >> It's policy.
>> A rubber stamp. >> Rubber stamp. >> It's like a notice, but they're required to submit this. But there is a bureaucracy there that says, you know, okay, what are those two to 10 to 100 foot limits? And the bureaucracy is
still alive and could be possibly like Britney said, maybe we could impact it. Yeah, the health department um and conservation have in the past submitted a letter requesting different concentrations of herbicide application and the like and I think it would be
prop to submit something similar and include those buffer zones. Not necessarily. I'm not sure they'll respond, but I think we should submit it. >> Well, I think there might be a there might be a interest on the part of the community to know what if they especially if folks live in those areas
and near those bodies of water or whatever the case may be, what they're spraying and how they're doing it and as Jack says, how far they go, all that. I mean, there are those are reasonable questions, aren't they? >> And they do provide that information in the um in this report, all of the
herbicides that they're using and what concentration and where they're going. But they it is basically just a notification letter. They send it to us letting us know this is what they're doing. But the uh people who live in the area don't know it's being done. They they don't get a notification. Am I
right? >> I I not aware who else gets notified. I know we do. And the health department, select board, US, board of health, MDR, rights of way program. I don't know who this last person is. Oh, Mass
Coastal Railroad. So, individual homeowners don't get notified, but the town does through the Sockboard Board of Health and US. I mean, I think you I understand what you're saying. It's I feel like we're helpless in in doing anything. I've been I went to a big meeting way back eight or nine years ago
about electric company utilities doing spraying. Uh it was in Barnstable and uh people said, you know, we don't know what you're spraying. You give us these names. They don't mean anything to us. I mean, there were some people there who did know what what they were and talked about casenics and
>> and all that. that nobody knows when it's going to happen, but I think Bradford's right. It would have been nice to have somebody here to uh to answer these questions. So, part of this says in 2026, brush controls limited to manual and
mechanical cutting in sensitive areas and buffer zones. In non-sensitive areas, the fuller fuller application of herbicides will be conducted. So right now they're not spraying in the sensitive areas or buffer zones, just outside, >> but they could be in the next five
years. Is that what this is for? >> This is a fiveyear plan. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah, I mean the question I had and I'm sure there's a simple answer to it. um is that they enclosed u there two maps uh rep that they say represent the locations of the permanent marking
setbacks for sensitive I was just curious on why there one is dated 2011 I mean it looks like it's a continuation of the line and then one the other one is dated 2026
it kind of makes makes me nervous to look at I mean I guess it's two different lines I don't know that's why I you I really don't understand um where number one why is one dated 20 I guess the cape that's the Cape main line and
then the other one is the south does Dennis branch which I guess has been updated in 2026 so the question would be why hasn't the Cape mainline been updated since 2011 you know for I mean because it does show groundwater source or I mean things must
have changed since 2011 11. Excellent question >> for the Cape Main line. >> So, just to get this straight, if we vote not to give them permission, they would have to come back. If we vote, they'd have to come back
and redo it or they could go ahead and do it anyway without our permission. >> You have to issue something. Is it in here? >> Just look it up. >> May I point out something? >> Sure. >> The letter they sent us points out at
the bottom, please consider a positive 2A determination. All we're doing is confirming the accuracy of the resource area boundaries. >> That's correct. So these questions that we have really don't relate to that and I would
>> yeah the work is exempt but the what they're asking for is the wetland boundary determination. So I would like I don't see how we could actually confirm those boundaries with these maps or anything
which is maybe what Ellie is saying but that also I think that they're just going to go on and put a footnote in and say they didn't get a response from us from from what I took away from some of the other papers.
And I think that I'd like to ask if the representative come back to us and answer a lot of these questions if we could. Yeah. So the other option is so they're requesting a positive 2A confirming the
boundaries. The other option is a 2B which is not confirming the boundaries. You're welcome to do that. I'm not sure how much it will change the outcome, but >> just because we don't confirm the boundaries doesn't mean they won't go ahead and do their job.
>> That be fair to say. >> I would say that's >> I can't answer all these questions for them because I don't know. >> Okay. But again, as Jack, we have no way of confirming the boundaries anyways. I think Jack said it. I think this representative should be aware that we are
well at least I am deeply unhappy that he did not show up but it sounds like the rest of the commission would have also appreciated that. Um >> yeah they made a choice of way to show up and where not to and we were chosen not to. >> Y >> we have a reputation
>> and though we meet every >> we meet very consistently. I mean, I have a hard time personally. I agree with you, Brett, that I think that um to approve something that I can't ask questions kind of bothers me. Um
I don't know, you know, from what I understand, I assume that if we compared their map from today from five years ago, who's to say they've gone out to even redo the map of the wetlands?
None of us. you're welcome to to issue an 2B um and have them come back with a new RDA if they can be present. I'm unsure if you know they will. I will try to get them to you don't have enough information to make a decision then issue a 2B.
>> I would like to do that. Anybody else? >> Agreed. >> Repeat that though. Excuse me. If we issued the 2B, not the 2A, we're basically saying Can you put up 2B again? I'm sorry. >> Yeah. It's just the boundaries are not confirmed. >> We're not we're not agreeing. We're not
confirming the boundaries and um they would have to come back with the new RDA and speak to us, >> you know, and be present >> with a clear delineation of the work >> or at least have someone show up to
explain it, >> right? Yeah, I would agree with that. >> Good idea. >> Okay. >> So, are you making a motion? Would you like to make a motion? >> I'll make the motion for you. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Um I move that we issue a positive 2B determination.
>> Second that. >> Um all in favor? >> I. Anybody opposed? >> So I don't sign this. >> No, you still have to sign it and we still have to issue a 2B. >> Okay. or not to be. >> I couldn't uh flip that window.
>> Not after teaching English for 35 years. >> Okay. Well, I hope we're not scaring the next person off. >> Sorry. >> Uh next is uh Stacy Joyce, 27 Holly
Lane, proposed addition in land subject to coastal storm flood. Hi, good evening. Stacy Joyce, owner 27. >> Not really nice people. >> 27 Holly Lane. Um, >> can you talk a little louder? >> Sure. Stacy Joyce and I'm the owner
applicant for 27 Holly Lane. >> Would you like to just um talk about what you would like us? >> Sure. Um, as you could see from this view, we're looking to extend um, simple extension addition five feet beyond the
current footprint, which will come right to the middle there where you see those little landscape rocks um, before the driveway, just to the side, not front or back. >> Okay.
Anybody have any questions? Thank you for showing up in person. >> Thank you. >> So, um >> I'm sorry. I got to find my notes again. Um so, we're going to issue >> just have one question. >> I'm sorry. I forgot to ask about you.
>> It's okay. Um are you going to put gutters on the addition to downspouse? >> Yes. Um you'll see in my notice that we are going to um there'll be no regrading, no soil added and the gutters on the addition will connect to the to the existing downspouts on the house.
>> Okay. Down spouts will stay in the same spot. Excellent. Thank you. >> Anybody in the audience have any comments or questions? Anybody online have a comment or question? Raise your hand. Don't see anybody.
Um, so can I uh have a motion to accept uh the issue issue an order of uh with as a negative two? Negative -2 is a positive thing by the way. >> I'll do that. >> I heard. >> Okay. Second. >> I'll second.
>> Thank you, Paul. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Anybody opposed? No. >> See how simple that was? >> Thank you so much. >> It's simple when people uh come and they have a clear
I'll release your building permit now. >> You have their you have their letter in the file, right? The to whom it may concern. Yeah, >> you have that right. >> Uh >> that's what because that's where she had the down spout. >> Okay. >> Just want to make sure you have it. >> I think so. Is that the narrative?
>> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. That was Paul Lane. Okay. >> Okay. Next is BSC group for Joseph Leer. Hopefully I pronounced that right. 20 perch pond way proposed addition in the
buffer zone to an inland bank pond and any NHSP priority habitat. >> This is again uh 20 perch. Good evening chairman. For the record, my name is Kieran Healey. I'm a land surveyor with the BSC group representing
the owner of the property, Mr. Mrs. Leapoui. Um, we are proposing a small addition to the rear of the existing house facing the pond. Um, as you mentioned, it is in the NHSP. We did file with NHSP and then they did
respond to say that it was not considered a take. So, it's acceptable to NHSP. The reason being is that we filed under the exemption because it is already on a disturbed lawn area and as a result there is an exemption for that. We filed with them and they said that we
were good to go. Um it is also within the 100 foot buffet to wetlands. You'll notice it's right at the outer edge. It's 82 feet. Our proposed addition is 82 feet from the wetland. The addition itself is 176 ft. Uh we've shown you a
chart on the top left that talks about the disturbance. Um the the area between the 0 to 50 is completely filled with vegetation other than the trail down to the water. There is no space to add any additional plantings in the um 0 to 50
foot buffer. It is completely filled. Um there is also an open order of conditions that was discovered from 1997. We had researched the property under 20 PC pond road but the open order was in issued under lot six PC pond road. So
when we did our initial work we did not catch it. It was here with the town that John Britney saw that it was still open and active. Uh we will be filing a certificate of compliance request for this. Um earlier today I took this original plan from 1997
um and um overlaid it with our current plan of the fieldwork that we had done and the the approved house from 1997 was actually approximately 7 to 8 ft closer to the pond than was what actually was built. So it worked out should we say
better for conservation, better for the resource. The house was pushed back approximately eight feet from the approved plan that's on the screen right there. Um we will be coming back for a certificate compliance on that. We're already working on it and I hope to have it in file before the next meeting to to
get approval. Um but we do have an RDA in front of you tonight to get approval for this um small addition at the rear of the property. With that, I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have. >> Anybody questions? Um
>> just actually just a clarification. So it looks like um the addition is adding 176 square ft of um hardscape but you have zero mitigation proposed and and
the reason for that from what you just said is that because there's no place for it or or is >> that is correct because the 0 to 50 is completely filled in um other than the walkway down which obviously we're going to maintain the the pathway down to the
water. There is no place to add mitigation in the 0 to 50. >> Thank you. >> Was there any opportunity to do u invasive species management? >> Um I don't believe that the the client
has necessarily looked at invasive species management. Um, >> and I personally haven't been on site and honestly I don't know invasive species so I can't speak to that. Um, but I can mention it to our client that uh, have you been out Brad and you saw
invasives? I didn't uh just to echo um Ellie's comment that even if there's no space for planting of mitigation plantings um invasive species management could also be an option as far as doing
that. So like you say it's an entirely vegetated bank but it could be entirely morals honeysuckle which is an invasive. Um, I did not have a chance to go out there, so I didn't see what the vegetation is, but
>> that's it's not currently in our regulations. That is a good idea to add. Right now, we just have if the 50 is fully vegetated, no additional mitigation is required, but I think that would be a great addition um when there is no space.
There was a curious occurrence on site that we did ask the homeowner about a little bit, but um a lot of the plants along the boundary of the lawn are experiencing cherosis or turning white and this is usually a side effect of a topical herbicide. Um he
said that he has no knowledge of any herbicide being applied on site, but since it is within the buffer zone and NHSP, any herbicide application would have to be approved by the commission. So, if there's anything going on, he said he gets the property sprayed for mosquitoes from Fairway. I don't know
what they use, but it's definitely doing something to the plants. Um, and it should be investigated a bit because they're all turning white at a three-foot height, and it looks very consistent with some sort of spraying, >> including other neighbors. >> I didn't see anything. We only went on
this property, not any neighbors, but it was pretty. >> Yeah. As we left, I saw >> that was his property. That was his property still. >> Oh, was it? >> Yes. >> So, I was curious. Um, and I think I would recommend including that as a condition that no no herbicide be
sprayed unless it's approved in an RDA. So, what would the um my concern in the picture that Jack was in? I >> think this one. >> Well, the one that shows the deck. So, what happened when the deck was built? Was there mitigation then? The I mean,
not the deck, the patio. There's a concrete patio in the buffer. >> No, I don't. I think the patio might be the only thing that's inconsistent with the original plan. It is rather small and I think it was built at the same time the house went in. I'm not sure. I
didn't research it, but >> So, but if if we did require mitigation, what what would be the calculation on 100? >> It would still be nothing because the 50 foot buffer is fully vegetated. Um, so in our regs under mitigation, Sorry, your frags.
Newer replacement hardscape when the 50 um is sorry where a 50- foot undisturbed buffer exists, further buffer zone enhancement is not required. But if it doesn't exist is when we have mitigation for like all those properties along Parker's River where there's lawn
up to the edge. Um, but where there's properties like this that have been built the sufficient distance away, we don't usually ask for anything more. >> Yeah. It's a slope that's worrisome. That's all. The slope is very
>> worrisome. >> It's well vegetated. >> Fully vegetated. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And this site does not disturb down to the 50ft buffer. It's approximately 62 feet to the edge of the closest point of the clearing. So there's additional
beyond the foot that is well vegetated. >> Lots of trees, lots of shrubs. >> Yeah. >> Anybody else? >> There's Jack. >> Jack, sorry. Trying to keep you guys out of the photos. Sometimes it's impossible. >> Jack loves to be in the picture. That's the problem.
>> Yeah. Right. >> And mean looking. >> Any other? So, I'd recommend a negative two and three with the special condition, no herbicide application on site without pre previous approval.
>> Um, anybody in the audience? Anybody online? Raise your hand. You see anybody? I don't see anybody. Rod, you see anybody? you. Um, okay. Can I hear a motion in issue
an order with conditions uh that Britney mentioned about herbicide? So, move Jack >> second. >> Paul, all in favor? >> I opposed. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members.
>> The next two are going to be continued. Karen, if you want to stay. >> So, >> this is uh >> uh Perch Pond. Perch Pond. >> Okay. Uh the next one is SE 834516
Atlantic Coast Engineering for J. Scott Martin 104 and 110 River Street proposed pair ramp and float system in riverfront area. land under the ocean, coastal bank, land containing shellfish, and land subject to coastal storm flood.
They uh have a request to continue to 716 um >> for waterways. >> All water. Why does it say all waterways? >> It's supposed to say for waterways. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Waterways continued.
So, Waterway still wants to uh make their comments and then we would we would hear from them. So, can I hear a motion to continue? >> So, moved. >> Second, Jack. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. That was a good one.
Right. That's That's this one. All right. Next one. SE83-2531 BSC group for Steven Catz 703 Route 28
proposed site redevelopment and land subject to coastal storm flood um riverfront area and buffer zone to a coastal bank. Um okay I'm just making sure I'm in the my
mind is in the right place. Um, this two is a continuence to um >> July 2nd. >> It's not on here, but July 2nd. Okay. I think it's in my notes. Yes, it is. Um,
and this is one that Christian wrote a nice note about. >> Yes. Yeah. So they said that uh the cleanup is underway and don't start any site sampling yet because we they might have further discussion about if the site sampling will be necessary um per Christian who is a hazardous waste
specialist. So Christian's not here, but he wrote a a note to Britney who will send out the note to us about >> it's in laser fish >> about his his expertise and why why we might be asking too much for the
>> sampling >> for the um >> we did get some initial costs and it was uh quite steep. So >> that's that conversation is open. >> Yeah. I you would you know if uh
a good history I mean of the property ownership and uses would at least alleviate in my mind what >> there are a lot of >> I agree with you on the cost >> I know it's had two specific uses since
I got here in 1985 >> but I'd like to see for sale and it was a furniture sloff office >> store. There were some other things that went on there. There was some storage of things, but the as far as I know, they
there was only two uses primarily on the property in the last 41 years. >> And they do have a section in the house department section of laser fish of all the there's a section called hazardous materials and they did handle and store hazardous materials on site from 1990
through 2009. Um, and there were no reports of a spill. So that's why Christian is thinking that it might be egregious to ask for six samples, maybe just two at the septic site location, but we can talk about that. They did request a
continuance, so we probably shouldn't discuss too much about >> Oh, I Well, um, regarding dirt, I just wanted I couldn't tell. Can I look Can we look at 3.0 C 3 point? Because there's three test pits soil. There were
three test pits done. and they weren't, you know, uh, very deep, but could you walk us through where those were taken? >> Um, I can't because of requested a continuence. Okay. Tonight, but >> Okay, we'll do it next time. >> I I can because I was the one doing who dug the hole. So, I can definitely do
that, but >> I think Okay. So, when were those done, the test pits? >> Last year. >> Last year. Okay. >> Okay. So, let's hear a motion to continue to July 2nd. So move.
>> Second. >> I gave it to Ellie. Jack second. >> All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. So that's what I do with them.
>> Talk about dirt next time. >> Did you not even put that in here? >> I don't prepare those. >> Okay. So the other one was in here only because it came late. Okay. Um it's right here. Never mind. Okay.
Next is Celsius. Um notice of intent for SE832543 BSE group for Odesset Capital and Thomas and Linda Fallon. 286 South Seav proposed new dwelling with ADU and septic and land subject to coastal storm
flood and national heritage habitat. Um, that must be you. >> Again, Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Kieran Healey. I'm a land surveyor with the BSC Group representing the owners of the property and also um this property was before you in 2019
and a um order of conditions was issued at that time to build a home in pretty much the same location as the existing as the proposed home that we have right now. Um at that time, also went to national heritage and national heritage
approved this as a note takeake at that particular time. It is an unusual site in that the endangered species is actually a plant and the um the radio tower next door needs to maintain and cut grass a couple of times a year just to give the plant an opportunity to
grow. So it's not your typical species that we're protecting in this situation. But as I say the uh NHSP approved it and we have submitted again to them um for um approval. Um we did check earlier and there was nothing posted on it. So we
don't know where that is but we did we have submitted to them. Um the we are proposing um drainage trails along the outside of the property. As mentioned the uh there is no resource here other than the um land subject coastal storm flowage. Uh we do have to bring in fill
to make the house flood zone compliant. Um we are um paving the driveway to get the uh slope up into the building. Um the septic system will be title five compliant. We have a limited of uh hay
straw wattles and walk area that is similar to what was approved before. There's just a minor minor change to it on the nally side of what was previously previously approved. And um other than that, it's a a proposed dwelling in ADU that we're looking to put in on this
property at 286 Southad. I'd be glad to answer any questions you have. >> Um I'm going to actually start this time. Um I noticed there were a number of trees taken down. Um
>> 20 60 >> 20 mature pines and 60 mature oaks. Is there any um any chance they would replace some of those? Certainly not replace all of them. Um the problem for us is that we're
we're clearing the the smallest amount possible because when you look at the area the septic and you look at the area of two buildings, we're limited in what we could plant there. Now the commission feels strongly we could possibly put in some smaller trees on the easterly side
towards the NHSP line. Oh, sorry on in the area where the NH is most most prevalent. Um the whole aside from um where it widens out is within the NHSP. So all of our work area is pretty much other than driveway coming in is within
the NHSP. Um but I mean we could I guess we could add some trees to some of the slopes um on the north side um and then possibly add some more on the um
southeast side. just ones that wouldn't get too tall where we wouldn't have to worry about get overshadowing the building. You know, that's that's one of the issues with the trees because we our walk limit line is not that far away from the building. So, um
but yeah, we can definitely um look at adding some personally I'd like to see that. Um the driveway I believe is going to be concrete. >> Yeah. By two months concrete flattop. >> Yeah. would they uh consider instead of
that change it to pvious? >> Um that's one of the problems we have with these flood zone construction houses is that you got to get up onto the garage slab and when you have a slope like this getting up there um the
tires just spin out and the stone just gets kicked up when you have to accelerate up the hill. Um so it's an issue that we always have. I mean if if the commission would like we can know add some additional drainage, you know, in that. But, um,
>> is there any possibility to just have only batuminous on the slope and the flat part gravel? >> Um, I can definitely talk to my clients about that. Um, obviously we can't close because we haven't heard from NHSP. So,
I can I go back and talk to about them about that and if they, you know, really want black top then we'll add some additional drainage. And if they are acceptable with stone for halfway till it starts getting to the slope, then we'll we'll deal with that accordingly. >> Is the slope natural or is the slope
something you you're adding? >> Slope is something we're adding. >> Okay. Because I walk by there a lot and I don't not that I see inside all that heavy woods, but certainly the driveway between the road going to what I used to call radio city and to the house next to
it is flat. And we did attempt back in 2019 to use utilize um radio lane as our access and no agreement could be um agreed upon between the parties. >> Shock surprise.
>> Try it out. Um okay. And um uh swailes um seem to be I don't have the exact size but they seem to be
seem to not have enough details about the swailes. Can you give me an idea about them? >> That we're proposing swailes on the south side and on the um west side. Basically, the tow slope is 5 ft from the property line and we're proposing a
two-ft wide swale at the bottom that would be approximately 6 in deep. Um that will run along the Westley side and will run along the subtly side. The one on the southernly side is is
pretty much only where the driveway is. Um it's not needed over on the easterly side because there is enough uh flat area at the bottom so it's not going to shed onto somebody else's property. >> Are you thinking of planting anything on
those soils? >> No, we were going to grasp them. I'm sorry. Can you say that again? You're gonna what? >> Going to put grass. >> Oh, grass. Okay. >> I misheard you. I think you said blast. I'm saying. Okay. That's not
>> need to blast in this area. It's all sand. >> Paul. >> Yeah. Um David, you had mentioned something about trees being removed. Now, as I was out there, but where where in this I don't remember seeing place where trees were removed or was that some time ago? No, the trees have not
been removed. >> Oh, they have. I thought you said they were and claimed to be. >> He did say. >> Is it in the area where the >> There's some trees in this area right here and there's some trees in this area. There is a little kind of cleared area in this area. >> Yeah. >> So, the trees will be in this area and in this area. >> So, the the trees that have to be
removed obviously are where the house is going to go. Right. >> Correct. And and the slopes. >> And the slope. Okay. All right. >> Because there are a lot of trees on the property. >> I know. How many are they leaving?
>> Well, the site is quite big. We're only utilizing about, you know, less than half of the overall site. >> So, we're not going into the beyond the walk limit line going into. So, >> whatever's there, >> all that remain. >> Now, some of the area has been cleared because of the um the endangered species
and it was mowed at some stage. Um it's not being mowed now as far as I know, but it was mowed at some stage. So, there is some clearing in the backside that was previously done in this area right here. >> At one state, at one time this was all
part of the radio facility and the radio tower then became separate about 20 years ago. These lots became separate about 15 years 10 years ago. >> So this is where the radio station used to be. >> Yes. The house right in front and the house just to the north of that was where the old radio building station
used to be. >> You must remember that, Paul. >> I do. Some of us were old enough to remember. Do you remember what radio is Bradford? >> Oh, stop ci. Um, a quick question. >> Go ahead. Sorry. >> Just um, so
not in our perview, but just curious. Why was there a septic tank? >> Why? >> That used to be the septic tank for the radio building >> for the building. Okay. So my question is on your note um you and and in your narrative you say
that the septic tank an existing septic tank on the site will be pumped crushed and removed from the site. Does that include your arrow points to the septic? But does that include the the the leeching field next to it? You know
there's a small triangle and there's a big triangle. My question is, is the big triangle being excavated out? >> Absolutely. Because that's where our new driveway is going. So, we want it's not wasn't designed to be driven over. So, it will be removed.
>> Okay. So, everything's going to be removed. Okay. And um I I'm pleading ignorance. What is concrete bound to be set mean? >> Um >> it's basically a boundary marker. It's something >> concrete boundary marker to be set. It's
5 in by 5 in and it's three feet deep. >> Okay. Um and then my last question is I'm just as far as the limits of work. Um there is a note here about an existing driveway to be abandoned and maintained as open space and annually cut per. So
I don't know when you say abandoned is it what does that mean? What is it just there you are where there >> that was the formal access to the radio station but the access now comes from >> right >> seagull lane >> so are they going to reg re vegetate it
or what when you what's the scope there and is that part of the application or is that NHGSP >> that's um this way >> yeah off to the right there yeah >> this right here's our property line >> this is belong Okay. That's what I
thought. So, it's not part of this application. >> Probably should. This was a note that we had on when we were working on this as well. You can take it off if it's confusing, but that was the intent was that they were going to work over that. >> They'd be interested in some trees in that area. >> Well, I think I
>> they're not it's not our land and actually NHB is not interested in trees in this area. >> No, I meant the radio. >> They specifically do not want trees in this area. >> I understand. >> Yeah. I' I'd like to add as a condition. I think it's a no-brainer that those trees should be replaced. Even if it's
small trees, there has to be room on this site to replace in kind um the trees. There has to be. >> Are there any other alternatives where we can pull the house any amount forward to not have to get rid of? So, these are
like on the very edge of the grading. Is there any way to steepen this up? So, we saved some of those or some of those. >> Um, if you notice underneath those trees on the south side, that's um >> future reserve area >> reserve. But obviously, we don't need to put that in now. So, we can look to pull back the slope a little bit on that
southeasterly side to reduce some of the trees. >> Um, it's an unusual site um in that HSP do not want us adding trees in the areas that are cleared right now. So, the obviously the site is large. there's an
extra half an acre that's outside of our work limit >> and it's easy to say yeah we plant trees in there but in this particular case >> they have jurisdiction over that >> and as far as I know it's the only case I've ever come across in my career where plants with the endangered species where
they didn't want us to plant any so it's just it's a unique site >> is it that new uh NHSP doesn't want you to plant anything or there is there habitat enhancements that could be provided that would benefit that
suitable habitat. >> Last time we filed with them, they wanted us to cut it every six months on the radio side to be sure that everything had an opportunity to grow. So, >> this one says you may cut per the vegetation management plan, but it doesn't say required,
but obviously they'll reup their comments. Um, it says it's permitted. Periodic mowing is permitted for the vegetation plan in the winter through spring.
No other work shall occur. So, we'll see what they say because there there are two species. There's um an amphibian and a plant. I don't know which one. >> What year was that? >> 2018.
>> Okay, I see it. Yeah. Who knows? New eyes might come up with new. >> Great. Well, we as I said, we have filed with them. We're waiting for that comments. >> Yeah. >> In the meantime, I will look and see if there are some spots where we can add some trees in.
>> Yeah. Or pull in a little bit. >> I think it might be easier to save trees than to plant to haul them. >> I I have to ask this question only because of what you said. Um you mentioned we talked about trees and you said the applicant was didn't want shading. Is there um are some of these
trees coming down because of the shading? >> What I should have said was the proximity to the building >> in that if they're within if they're too if you have a pine too close to the building. >> I know it's not good for the building. >> It's not that that's what I mean as opposed to sunlight purely the
>> So it's not an aesthetic decision. I just have to make it known we've received two um letters of opposition from neighbors at 278 South Cav and 282 South Cav um concerning if the storm water management by the swale was
sufficient and some irrelevant concerns about the ADU which are not in our perview but the storm water concerns are. Um but I think you've addressed that the swale is sufficient in size for the project. Is that correct? >> Right. And we can extend it a little bit if the neighbors are concerned. We can,
you know, extend it so it goes all the way down to the the driveway. >> Yeah, I think which which house was it? Southside. They have concerns that it will displace water
and they're at 282. I don't know which side that's on. a little confused just by who wrote that letter. >> The owners of 282, but I'm not sure where 282 is because they're not on the south side. They're on the >> say Thomas and Linda Fallon.
>> Yeah, that's 282. That one might that you have the cross on. Yeah. And then 278 is just to the north of it. >> Got it. My confusion is when I read this in it for 286 it says you're you're working for Thomas and Linda Fallon as part of
the desert capital and Thomas and Linda Fallon and now you're telling me Thomas and Linda Fallon wrote a letter >> they did they did yes to clarify Thomas and Linda Fallon are selling the property to Odess so Tom and um the felons are on there because they're the
owners of the property And they signed the application for us to go forward. >> I see. But they want you to expand as well. >> But they want what? >> It's an unusual situation. Apparently, they're not happy with what the plan is. >> What the plan is. >> Okay.
>> They're developing it. >> Well, that's not our jurisdiction on the ADU. >> Storm water definitely is, but if you, you know, if it's sufficient, then it's sufficient. >> The swells swel that would probably help. Yep. >> Um,
anybody else questions? >> Uh, more just a comment. Um, I just wanted to echo uh Britney's comment about uh putting gravel or something more pvious along that flat section of the driveway. Um, I know you said you
would check with the homeowners, but um, that is what I'm more in favor of um, as opposed to black top across the whole thing. Anybody else? >> Do you have anything else you want to add? >> No, that's all. Thank you.
>> Anybody in the audience have a comment, question? Anybody online, please raise your hand if you have a comment or question? I don't see any. So, um, obviously we need to continue
this. Do you have a date you want to continue to? Um, we should have got the answer back from NHS by now. NHSP by now. So, if I could continue to July 2nd. >> Okay. So, do I hear a motion to continue this to July 2nd with probably new
plans? >> Yes, we'll get new plans in next week. >> Motion. >> So, move. Second, Jack. Thank you. And all in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. >> This goes here.
All right. Can you Sorry, Karen. Can you just confirm they received it? I don't see it on their pending list. >> So, I don't know if they got it. You could just follow up with them. >> I believe it was submitted on May 7.
>> I have the receipt, but I just usually I check the their portal to see if it's on the list and it's not on there. >> I will follow up on tomorrow. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh, next one is
SE832541, Cape Town Engineering for Gold Village Wide LLC 679 and 681 Route 28. Proposed stone reventment reventment with fill in riverfront area land under the ocean
coastal bank land containing shellfish and land subject to co store. And that is again 679 and 681 through 28. Good evening chairman, members of the commission. Uh for the record, my name
is Dan Ojula with Downkeep Engineering. With me is Philip Tano who is a EIT engineer training. Um Phil worked carefully with the other stamp on the plan which is Varn Philbrook our structural guru who helped uh uh design the wall that you have in front of you
tonight. Um this is a project which you may be familiar with somewhat. Uh it was um they did an emergency repair on a failing section of the wall and uh then uh Coastal came in and did a um the prior to tying bond I believe it was
still Coastal did a large sheet pile uh redesign. The owner um asked us to take another look at it and varn to look at it and see if we could come up with something that was a little bit more uh in keeping with what was there. Um so we did do that. Um we uh are proposing a a
rock reventment that's basically going to match on either side. Um you can see from the photographs that there's a u a large chunk taken out of the wall. Some aerial view there and um it's uh
scared in. Um this is in part because of uh the route 28 uh overpass is fairly narrow and it chokes the river down and uh because of that you get a high velocity on an outgoing tide and there's swirling and and other um unusual activities due to the man-made sources
just upstream. So a lot of this area has been revet revetments and licensed over the years and um there formerly was a little little chunk of salt marsh here. I remember back from my childhood that that's why this one wasn't done. But that has since succumbed to the the
swirling of the currents and fallen in and is no more. So I think the time is now to uh just kind of repair that up and put it back. Um we feel that it's a reasonable proposal. Waterways and shellfish looked at it and um asked a
few questions. Uh one of the things they wanted to know was you know gee this kind of looks like it sticks out a little bit further. We want to remind them that it really doesn't that's buried tow because of the weird uh jetty eddy effect in this area. We wanted to
make sure that those tow stones were were plenty far. So we buried them and then uh we'll simply rake the muck back the riverbed back up over them. So the the true line of it is basically going to line up with what's there. This is all buried. You could see on the drawings it's a lighter font but it
didn't project particularly well on the laser. And so um It looks like it's bigger than it really is, but that's all buried there above the surface. It'll be very similar to what's uh matching on either side. Resources are, you know, land
underwater. Uh and and the man-made uh bank in this area. Um the lobster boat restaurant has a number of floats and licenses over the years uh we've worked on with them. Those are all going to remain. And this is just this one little
infill to kind of patch a hole in the wall um where there's an eddy currently um and some pretty significant damage. So you recall that that was approved before. Uh staff did ask us um you know gee what why did you change from what the approved plan
is now? And um I believe it was Nhasper somebody had called up to and asked a question and we mentioned that you know we're concerned about the energy um when you put a a large sheet pile in you need a high energy hammer slamming and we don't want the rest of the rocks settling. We don't want the restaurant
settling and also that's a bit of an unnatural thing. Rocks are inert. They're natural steel and subject to corrosion and and it's a um it's not a natural element along the front and we think this will blend in better. Um the
other tow stones were just kind of tossed in front of a front of the bulkhead and we think a more integral solution will be better. We'll carefully fit them in on either side and make it a nice smooth wall. Um
there's um no coffer dam required. We'll get Robert Bau with a gigantic excavator. We'll just scoop down, set the rocks, set the fabric and and and stone and uh work at low tide and in the water a little bit. But um it'll be
quick a couple days um and it'll be um buttoned up. Um again, it's all all natural material. It's consistent with the existing shoreline protection on either side and um just a little bit of um you know clean fill is landward of
the wall where it has been scared in. Um there were some older orders uh we've got a COC request obviously for the one that's approved now. If you guys approve this, we'll request that COC. And uh there was another order that uh was closed out and we can record that prior
to any work on the site as well. Um we checked with the owner that won't be a problem. So um without going through um with um great detail the um the narrative which which does cover your performance
standards um for the riverfront the bank land containing shellfish again waterway shellfish approved it and hesp um didn't have any real issues it was um you know basically what very similar you know to the design that was approved before uh
honestly it's just a little bit of a design change um and probably be a little bit of a cost savings too as well as getting rid of that kind of unusual um steel bulkhead. And we're planting up gradient. We've got um you know safety rail going back in and um some uh sweet
fern bushes up on top um to uh touch up the buffer once we're done. Um we went through the alternative analysis um and uh decided that the stone revetment was was preferred. Again, it matches what's there. It's natural and um we think
it'll blend right in and be a good solution. Varn's looked at the structural stability of it and by placing the tow stones extra deep does not have concerns about the scour. Um be glad to answer any questions if you guys have them. Thank you.
>> Okay. Um anybody know you do? Go ahead. >> Oh, me? Oh. Um I apologize. I'm gonna have to read this because I looked at this. I wrote my question and let me just and you might have already answered
it. Um, thank you. It appears that you really looked at the least invasive application and I we really appreciate that. Um, and I understand that you didn't look at, you know, other hybrid, you know, like living shorelines or
limited stone, but my my question is, um, the scour um, have you evaluated I'll read it, have you evaluate have you evaluated whether the existing reetments adjacent to the site are altering the flow patterns or
concentrating energy in a way that contributes to the scour observed in this gap. If not, then how are we to conclude that extending won't perpetuate or weaken the condition?
>> Sure. So, um it's a good question and you know, you can see on on a on a slack tide, it's it's very placid and calm. Um but what we observed was um on a on a it's a real jet flow coming out on on an outgoing tide which curls around and and
has a little bit of a swirling effect here. Um I don't think there's too much that we can do u to help or hurt that. We had talked about putting a few rocks upgradient to kind of deflect the flow out a little bit but um you know that's
that's kind of an unusual situation here. Um it's only for a few hours on the lower tide before it gets enough water in it that the the backwater slows the flow down. Um I think the best we can do is and and the coastal plan hadn't really
uh fully shown that the depth of that but it goes down to about uh what do we have minus uh - 8 almost - 9 down there. So uh what the plan is is is is to simply roll with what we've got there. push the toe stones well down below any
scour line that would be would be um expected and uh put the bottom back the way it is and um and uh you know being that the the general shape of this is already uh you know in place it's just got a small gap in it. Um I do not see
any reason why the hydraulics should change significantly in the area. It may um you know increase the flow line a little bit and cut down on the eddying to have a smoother surface there. it won't have as much, you know, momentum to curl back behind the existing wall. So, I would think if anything, it'll be
a little bit better than what's there now. Um, but, you know, again, where we're just infilling between two rock walls, the entire other side is all rock wall. Uh, and it's a pretty wide river. Um, I do not think it would warrant, you
know, a more detailed hydraulic hydrogeeologic analysis than than um than what we looked at, which is just to uh smooth that transition out and and make sure the stones are deep enough so if a little bit more scour does occur, uh, we're not going to have a catastrophic failure.
>> Thank you for that very thoughtful response. Um, this diagram, I'm sorry, I'm not don't remember that is of the new face. >> Yes. >> And how far down do the rocks go on the
connecting both ends >> still there? >> Yeah. So the the existing rock walls um do go down um about four feet below grade as I recall and uh but the grade ALS so we'll they will they'll build it up to meet those but the deepest section
is certainly section AA where we're down at you know um five feet below grade um plus um and um you know it goes up to minus four on either side and I would say those are probably around zero um
you know just minus four minus four be about minus eight on either side. But um we'll certainly um um you know remove a couple stones and fit them in and transition that smoothly.
>> My next question is how are you going to actually tie them together? >> Yeah. Yeah. Um so the way they do that is is simply um get stones that fit together and carefully fit them in uh you don't just dump them on on on something like this. They're all carefully keystone. You usually lay them
on the flats kind of points out so they they stack like pancakes. Uh, and the guys that do them are are experts. The hydraulic equipment has big thumbs and they can adjust them and and and fit them in very nicely. >> They take stones out.
>> Yeah. They make a zigzag and and fit in fit them back in precisely. Yeah. Okay. >> They'll have a pallet to work with. They'll look for the right size stone. Sometimes they take one, it doesn't fit, they'll get another one, they'll fit it in. And uh that's how they work. Yeah. And it'll it'll look uh you know, it's
not like a mortared finish. Nobody really does those anymore. Uh they're frowned upon, but um it'll it'll be as as tight as you can get without mortar. >> So the current um recommendation is to have as rough a face as possible and not as tight a face as possible.
>> Yeah, for sure. I mean, we points out will give you a nice rough face, but you don't want huge gaps in it either. So that's the when I say to key them together, you're going to have a very rough um um surface but a tight fit. >> Okay. Is there a metric you can include
to reflect that that is the or note to some effect to say like the the idea is to have a very rough I mean your your detail shows a very smooth face riet, >> right? >> It looks pretty smooth. So, so the way we did it, uh I think note 8 would cover
it that um I'll just read it real quick. Armor stone should be specified the granite boulders with the weight of the typical profile. Um you you you know select generally um non-elongated angular stones and fit them in place for maximum stability um subject to review
by the engineer. that firmly contact the bed stones and the armish u um stone directly and um they shall be uh placed so they interlock to avoid shifting. Armor stone shall be set in a points up orientation. And so what that means instead of a smooth face, you're looking
at a at a more pointed u and rougher surface than like what you would have across the street is the old old like you say the old way of doing them where it's smoother. Now they're they're somewhat rougher, but they're they're pancaked up um kind of on their backs with the points out and um I think that
note the points up orientation and in note 8 >> and I'll make sure that they they uh are aware of that. >> Thanks. >> I have a couple concerns I'd like to ask about um if somebody else has something first. >> I do if
>> Go ahead. Um I was just wondering what's happening with the uh the parking lot and the asphalt since it looks like it's literally falling into the water. >> Yeah. Um so um basically we're there's enough room there uh so it's not
critical that we you know gain back a few inches. We're squaring it up uh back filling it and and just repaving the edge putting a um a code compliant safety fence along there. So, um you know, there'll be a ve maybe a very
small pocket um where that third lumber is on the side where we'll square up the edge, but other than that, it's basically we're going to leave the edge as it's as it's eroded, plant on this side of it. Um so, we're going to retreat just a little bit from where it used to be.
>> I'm going to pick the asphalt out. >> Oh, no. That's going to stay. >> Yeah, that'll be a number one. Get the get the asphalt out of the river. Yeah, good point. >> Is there any reason we're not retreating further in this severely eroded scenario instead of filling the Parker River?
>> Well, again, um it's it's a recent um a recent scarp and um you know, it' be unusual to leave a you know, a pocket there. I think an S turn it'd be maybe a little bit more natural uh than than to have a you know, a reverse little pocket
left in there. Um, you know, I >> what's natural is what happened. I don't I don't see any reason we can't pull it back to decrease at least the amount of fill we need to be adding under meanhigh water.
Is there any possibility to pull it back a little so you don't have to add quite as much fill into the Parker's River? Yeah, I mean it's um um I would say it looks to me like we'd lose one parking space if we if we backed that up a little bit, which would be the parallel
space that's that's opposite those. Um so I I think we could we could probably live with the edge that's there now rather than >> Show me what you're talking about. Where would you expect Britney for a line to go >> straight through?
>> What do you mean? I I would be really against any kind of change in the uh rather than the curve continuing the curve there. You're going to create currents that are going to battle the wall itself and get a suction mo going
even as little as you might just put in. I just don't think any kind of indent. I think you're going to need a yes straight or curve slightly between the ends of the wall. The plans that they have provided don't show the existing
conditions clearly. So they're filling the top where they I think there is an opportunity to just start the revetment as proposed where this top is. I'm not sure. I'm not an engineer but I don't. So they're proposing 42 cubic yards of
fill. So section A I think can be revised to show the existing grade where it has eroded to get us an idea of where the fill is going because it is going below mean high water. So, we're filling the Parker's River, which is generally frowned upon under the Wetlands
Protection Act, >> but that's where it was. >> It's not there anymore. >> But it was it was and once you start fooling around with the the u currents by by indenting that at all, you're
going to create a a different kind of current, slight as it might be. Well, my question was going to be how much of this got uh got ruined or changed because of the
redoing of the Parker River of the bridge on 28? >> Well, I would argue all of it, you know. I mean, well, the redoing I I wouldn't go there, but they don't they didn't widen it to my knowledge. Uh any and that's what would have taken to to slow that current down. Um, you know, when
it's filling up, you've got a you got a you got a wide neck, but then when it's coming out and you got a two or three foot head drop and it jets through there, you get a tremendous like a like a jet ski on steroids pushing water uh right against this and you know what's a
big scour right on the wall and um it's it's it's definitely not a natural situation. And and that little bit of salt marsh that was way out there at the time, you can look at the old maps. I remember it um just just was undermined and succumbed and fell in and and and that was the end of it. And it's been
gone probably for 15 years or something like that now. But um it's um you know I I think retreating to the line that we have now is is is giving up something. Um, we'll just we can we can saw cut that off and and give you a couple of feet and uh and then that would would
put pretty much a straight line between the you know, you know, I think that that's again the um it's a little bit deceiving because you've got to go down to the bottom of that scour hole with the toe, but um the mud line will be pretty much a straight line. >> Yeah, that's what that's all I'm saying.
>> Yeah, we can make that. possible to show the existing edge somewhere either on a separate sheet or in your section. It's just we have no understanding of how far the parking lot has eroded in these photos because you only show the proposed conditions.
>> Yeah, this this you you you can see it graphically right here that you know it's it's only a foot and a half or two of asphalt mix has fallen in. But um >> wouldn't you also want to avoid any unnecessary load near the top of this revetment? So, why would we want people to park up that close?
>> Yeah, the the the rock wall is is um you know, with the wheel stops, you wouldn't be putting much of a load on that wall, but >> not not significant considering the weight of the stone, but um you know, you know, fair enough. You know, it's uh um we can we can certainly pull it back
a little bit and I think we'd only lose, you know, you know, one parking space. I counted three or four, but either way, it's it's a huge parking lot. I don't think you'd >> have a problem with losing if it was a small parking lot. I'd understand, but
>> more parking spaces than I've never seen that parking lot full. Let's put it that way. Maybe occasionally, >> well, right now, >> and you don't have the spaces now anyway. So, >> yeah, they're they're not they're not able to be used right now. Fair point. Yeah. But, you know, again, I think what
we'll do is move those back and and uh would lose a couple behind them would be the most efficient way to do it. >> Do you know what that uh fall >> Yeah. >> the pipe coming out there? >> Um, no. I could look into that. Um,
>> that'd be great. >> And how you're going to be sure it doesn't interfere with >> Yeah. >> dump onto the rocks in a road. >> Yeah. Oops. >> There there was a little drainage trench upgradient. So, it's I think we can cap it off and and and that'll be that
infiltration trench years ago. >> And this looks like an irrigation line that should be removed. >> Yes, 100%. I agree. >> As part of the emergency in 2022, it was required that we gave you we >> shut it was required to be shut off at
that point. I think they had no access, but now it's accessible, >> but it certainly is now. >> Okay, >> so that one. >> Yeah, Paul. >> Yeah, Freddy, can you go back to the picture that shows the um the existing
um area that needs to be repaired? Not that one. The one more over the top. >> This one. This one. >> Um >> sorry, that's only only four. >> Well, anyway, it gouges in pretty far. This one? >> No. Yeah, that one. >> I'll get rid of this.
>> Maybe the one on the right there. >> The snow one. >> Yeah, that one. So, could you show me after all this explanation >> how the wall is I think you you might have already indicated this, but show me >> with your cursor where the wall under
the proposal would would where the line of it would be. >> I mean, they're proposing like very close to straight across with some towes very deep over here. that extent. >> And that's that's where you're concerned about putting fill into the Parker's River, right?
>> I'm concerned about the Phil closer. >> You think it should be closer to the >> I think he's without changing it drastically, he said he could pull it in a little bit. >> A little bit >> and save some fill. >> A little bit satisfied or concerned about putting too much fill in the river. >> We'll see what they come up with.
>> Okay. All right. And also my other question is what existed there before? What did the wall follow like that line that was just put up on the screen. >> It was salt marsh. >> It was all salt marsh. >> Yeah, it did. Well, yeah, there there
was serious erosion at the property and we were allowed to armor the the side of the of of the of the of the bank, but there was a small piece of salt marsh that was right in the middle of that and uh the commission at the time says, "Nope, don't touch that." You know, and as we know, salt marshes. Yeah. That was
How old is that? >> 2016. It was pretty old. I would guess it was. >> So that explains it. So that just sort of >> that was the reason that there was a whole a gap in the wall otherwise we would have connected them at the time. Uh and so the salt marsh uh kept us from
doing that and then the salt marsh just you know by the na nature of you can see the the current that whips through there. Uh it just succumbed to being undercut and fell in. >> Good uh photo of that actually. >> Good jet there. Yeah. So it's you know it's an unusual situation. Obviously you don't see that anywhere else in the
river. Why not? Because nowhere else in the river is that narrow. You know, when you narrow the flow, you know, Q equals volume times area. You reduce the area. Uh Q stays the same. You know, velocity goes up. So, it's just direct directly proportional to cross-sectional area. So, it it creates a jet and that
creates, you know, odd currents and and we just need to protect the uh life and limb there. >> What so what would be the setback to the parking lot? Do you have a defined set back to the pavement? >> Um, well, we could scale it off this plan, but it's about five feet between
the top of the wall and and where the where the um guard rail and and and wheel stops would go. >> You're okay with that? You don't you're just >> Oh, I live on the edge. Yeah, >> that's a good one. >> No, it's it's uh you know, we'll we'll we'll we'll put a nice guard rail there
and and again, it's a rock. It's got a little bit of a flat surface on top and then it slopes down so it's not only five feet and uh you know um >> just don't do their deliveries there. You know, >> the weight of these stones that that the
parking lot's not going to go anywhere. No, it's that's that's not a big concern, but um you know, obviously you don't want kids running in there. So, >> are those dead men? Like what are those what are those doing there? >> Um those are to keep people from driving in. Yeah. Yeah. That's that's our little
>> test. >> Dynamic. just drop them once in a while, see what happens. But no, that's for vehicular. Uh once the once the post went down, they had to do something there. Um and Britney, you have anything else? >> No, that's all. Thank you.
>> Anybody in the audience? Anybody online? >> I see none. We need to continue. What do What's uh good for you? The 2nd or the 16th of July? Um, I would say, um, uh, I
would go to the 16th, um, just to make sure we rent it by Vernon and and the owner and everybody's happy, not not try and rush it. So, can I hear a motion to continue to July 16th? >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Thank you. All in favor?
>> I. >> No one's opposed. Okay, great. Thank you. >> I appreciate your time. and we'll get a revised plan back at least a week before the meeting and uh hopefully we'll get wrapped up at that. Appreciate your time. >> Okay, >> the next two uh I'm going to take them one at a time, but just uh if you didn't
hear that we just got a notice that we they would ask to continue to July 2nd. So I'll read it in uh SE 832539 shorefront consulting for Barry and Judy Lass
7 Tide Lane proposed reconstruction of existing seaw wall in a riverfront area land under the ocean and land subject to coastal storm flood. Can I hear a motion to continue July 2nd? So moved of Jack second Bradford. All in favor?
>> I. >> Okay. And the next one is SE8320-2540. Again, Shorefront Consulting for Jason and Tina Lily 143 Maris Mayflower Terrace proposed reconstruction of a seaw wall for the landward and new fiber
roll array and riverfront area, coastal beach, coastal bank, and land subject to costorm flood. Again, can I hear a motion to continue to July 2nd? >> Why are they continuing?
I was just curious on why this one um I requested revisions. >> Say that again. >> For this one 143 May Ferris I requested too many revisions for him to provide >> so he moved
>> motion. No I think Paul did and I second >> Paul and then Bradford second it. All in favor? >> I >> thank you. Um, okay. Let's see. We have two COC's. The first one is SE 832310
BSC for Valentina and Merch Kachcha. I apologize if I mispronounced 52 Wilin Road. Uh Britney, >> at your last meeting, which I'm going to pull up the voting
sheet for, you requested some things, including um planting the 35 ft buffer fully. The mitigation planting was planted, but not sufficiently. So, they filled the 35 foot buffer. They removed the fire pit and supplied a revised
asbuilt plan to reflect those changes. Um, Joe did a COC inspection and everything that was requested has been completed. >> Okay. >> Revised plan >> about that for anybody?
>> Um, I sorry, I do have a This is the first time looking at this. >> It says relocated fire pit. >> I thought we were going to do a temporary one. >> Correct. That's where the relocation will be. It will be a temporary fire pit. Maybe it was confusing the way I welded it, but it's not a fixed fire pit. It's a
temporary fire pit, but that's the location that we're proposing to put it in. >> Okay. So, here are the plants and um there is lawn between them. We discussed very briefly that you kept that in place. How sloped is this enough for
you don't want to have bare soil in between? >> Well, right now the grass is stopping um water from running down into the wetlands. you know, it's capturing it. If we change it to anything else, um, we have the we have the plants to stop people from
going in there, but, uh, if we get rid of the grass, then it's just going to allow water to run down through the wetlands quicker. So, >> what about a native ground cover? >> Yeah, >> that would mean excavating all the grass out, which we thought would be
something that was not worth the effort to let it go. So the mitigation area should be able to be maintained in perpetuity without any um you know interaction with it. So it's supposed to be allowed to naturalize with the grass there. It would kind of
kill the plants over time if it's not mowed which we want to avoid. So it's up to the commission whether or not they want to allow that to stay. I would not be in favor of allowing lawn to stay within a mitigation area,
>> especially if it kills the uh plants. >> Else. >> So, you were just afraid that it would be more disturbance by doing that or >> correct. Yeah. I mean, we'd have to dig it all up machine and dig up the top s
>> to me that, you know, >> um, risk and reward. The reward wasn't as good as the as bad as the risk of leaving it the way it is. I mean, we we plan to, you know, we actually put in more plans to call for to fill it in. So, I think we're trying
to do everything we can. The Mr. Mrs. catch with with me tonight if you have any questions for them. But I think we've attempted to do what the commission had requested. Um I don't really want to bring a machine in there to dig out the 4 in of top soil
to remove the grass. >> How long has this uh mitigation planting been in? >> Um between the last between the two meetings. So probably a week after the last meeting which was a month ago. All of them?
Only some of them are replaced or >> only some of them? The ones at the wheel are um were in there before. >> You can see the ones >> Yeah. in this area. So, >> if we're allowing the medication area to naturalize,
I'm confused why the grass is so short. Is it being mowed? The grass has not been moved behind once that wire fence that's chicken wire fence that runs all the way across the fence would the grass would have been well I can ask the scratches.
Have you cut the grass this spring in that area? >> There's hardly any grass there. >> But did you cut in the spring before we planted >> a little bit? So yeah, it was it was cut once before the plant before our last meeting and then the plants went in and
then the wire you can see that you can't see the chicken wire well there but that goes from one side to the other side because there's a huge issue with rabbits. So we had to encou in case the entire area to keep the rabbits out front and back question.
>> Yeah. So, you don't want to get in there and remove the grass because that would be a disturbance to the area, right? And you're thinking that the grass now prevents some water from going down into the wetlands. What was the original um intent of the plantings? Was a lawn or
grass was not included in that? Right. It was just a matter of um the various plants going in there that conformed with the with the um the COC. Right. >> Okay. So what would have been there um
what could have been there um according to those COC specifications rather than the grass in the original. >> Well probably at the time this was approved um we might have put in mulch but the commission does now >> mulch is not allowed in this area.
>> Yeah. So so what is the alternative? The thing is you can I don't know if this would work because of the fact that you can't use mulch anymore. But you can get rid of the grass just by covering it with something like plastic or something for
a time period and the grass will die, right? But then what do you put down instead? Maybe I'm asking Britney this question. >> Native ground covers. Yeah. So >> another ground cover. >> Yeah. The proper um way to establish a mitigation area would be to remove the
lawn at the beginning so that it all grows in with the ground cover between um >> what's an example of the ground cover? Just give me a name. >> Air berry. >> Yeah, there's lots of >> So could could the grass be removed as I
said by by covering it up, waiting for it to die, and then planting the ground cover? If yeah, if the commission wants to allow that, that would be fine. >> I mean, that would be a >> that would be more time. Yeah. So, we would have to continue the COC until they could
>> kill the grass and then >> planted. So, probably to the fall. Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't know. >> But that would be a reasonable approach. >> We had asked for if you could put up the the site plan. We had asked for a vent
station on the right hand side. It's completely outside the 50ft buffer. So, um we are requesting that wind station in that area. You can see >> I thought we were going to >> inside the shed. >> Oh, that's has to be separate from the COC
request. >> But we did submit a plan and >> with an admin review or what? >> It was submitted um dropped it off either yesterday or the day before. Okay. I don't know. Um,
that has to be reviewed separately from the COC request. So, we'll have to address that at a different time. >> Just want to bring you up so that the commission knows about it, you know. >> Yeah. But if we're voting on this asbuilt plan, we're approving it. >> Yeah. We can't really have a proposed ren station on the asbel plan because
it's not there, >> right? And because the commission is not likely to approve us tonight, um that's I guess the word proposed isn't enough for asbill plan with a proposed
station. >> I mean, even if the mitigation plantings were adequate, I wouldn't vote to approve this solely because of the rinse station on the asbill plan. That is not part of this project. So, I mean, that's just me. I don't know how the other
commissioners feel, but um I'm not going to approve something that hasn't been reviewed yet. >> I think we need to focus on the area that we've been talking about, not on the uh proposed rin station.
>> So Paul's idea though, you still have to contend with the the root system. I mean, you kill the grass, it turns yellow, but you still have root system to get. So, it's it would be a lot of hand work, right, to get that grass up or what would you how would you get that grass up?
>> You don't need to get all of it up. If as long as it's dead, you could plant right into it. >> Okay. So, >> because then it won't >> that then it isn't as I mean, I'm hearing from you that if we got removing the grass would be a lot of disturbance and I'm just trying to zero in on a way
to do that with minimal disturbance. Um, and it sounds like we can get the plantings in there. Um, in what's to prevent us from getting more plantings in there?
>> Um, practically it can be done once the glass is done, but you know, my clients have put a lot of effort into putting putting it back to the way that the commission wanted. You know, we said at the last meeting, this is what we were going to do. um plant this area. Um it's a lot more
time and expense to get the grass out of there and plus we can't close the COC because of it. >> Did I'm sorry, did we specifically say we wanted the grass out of there? >> No, but it is the best management practice to establish a mitigation area to remove all the lawn first.
>> But Karen is saying that >> we did not specifically say it. No, we didn't. But you're right. We didn't specifically say remove the lawn and plant the mitigation area. So in good faith, the thing is we didn't say that and now this is the existing situation and now it seems like we're going to
require the the owners to do more work and >> to meet the original conditions of the order. I think yeah for a mitigation to be mitigation has to naturalize and I don't think it can naturalize with lawn in between. >> I would agree. I I
I'm having a hard time talking about disturbance of removing grass when the entire project was to raise and replace a single family dwelling. So, the amount of disturbance that has occurred on this site has been tremendous and they didn't
adequately put in their mitigation plantings. And so now we are going to we have to remedy this fact years later about an inadequate mitigation because we don't want to disturb
the ground a little bit to put in a more appropriate planting that should be established within a year or two. Um it just it seems a little asinine in my opinion. So, how long has this been going on? You
mentioned years ago. When when was this order? >> The order was issued in 2021. >> So, how many of us agree with Paul's um like to see Paul's um idea, >> which is what? >> Which is uh cover the grass, let it die
naturally, and then plant with ground cover. Is that fair to say what you said? >> Yeah. you know, and I mean I don't Ellie asked the question. I mean, if I I was doing it myself and unless uh um
>> yeah, I don't think we have to specify the route they choose to remove the lawn if you just decide lawn has to be removed and the area seated with ground cover. >> Well, the question did come up about how it would be done. So, I was trying to answer that question. >> Yeah, it's a good option, but I don't think you need to.
>> We just need to require it. Yeah. Whether you want it removed or >> Okay. >> or killed or removed, I think is fine. >> So, can I hear uh you have a question or can I make a motion? >> A question
statement. >> There are lots of methods out there for doing what we're talking about. And I don't see how personally we could decide covering the lawn,
digging it up, burning it. There are 20 or 30 main methods out there of putting in new plants. We say no mulch, no irrigation. And I would think that there rather than
saying let's do a certain method give them a deadline that it has to be done and it's successful and I like three four years what would you think by any method that you would recommend to them what how long time do you think
it take to to get a good set of natural plants? you know, native plants >> depends on the growing season and the number of growing seasons that the the commission wants to see. >> Obviously, we're here because we want to close the citative compliance
>> in a lot of years, >> continue it for three growing seasons because that'll be three years from now. um you know so if if we could come back with you know dead killed bombed glass of some sort and
then with ground cover installed um >> but the record is not very good record of that what's been accomplished so far so I'd say three years okay that's seems
like a reasonable time >> I I would hope that the commission would consider something different than that. That is substantial amount of time um to add three years to the project. So >> our standard is >> we come back once the ground cover is in
and healthy and have a discussion with the commission at that time >> and then maybe staff can review and see how they feel at that and make a comment to the board. >> Yeah. So the basically the motion would be that they would have to replace the grass with um
with ground cover and that's basically the motion. Am I right, Britney? >> It's up to you. >> Well, would that be good as far as your >> timeline, >> experience? And >> I would just need you to have a timeline.
>> So to come back in the fall um once they've seeded. Yeah, >> they seated it. >> Yeah. So, I guess by the fall we'd see that the grass has been taken care of.
We wouldn't necessarily see that uh any seeds, native seeds respouting. Um and then we'd be able to see any additional plantings that went in. So I
would say the sec hearing in September maybe. >> Okay. >> How is the how is the ground cover planted? I mean is it seeds that you put down? It's like wildflower seeds or something. I mean >> could be both. >> Yeah, >> it could be both. So it's it's no mystery. I mean you could plant that
kind of stuff if the if the area was prepared. You can plant it in September and it could be it would be up in end of October, wouldn't it? Not necessarily. Some seeds need dormant period. >> What? >> Some seeds need a full dormant winter before they grow.
>> They'll be there. >> Seeds. >> Unfortunately, a lot of >> you brought up a you brought up a great point. I mean, I was going down the rabbit hole of means and methods and that's really not, you know, with the burning. It doesn't matter. What we're saying is that this is inadequate and it
has to be it has to be a redo regardless of means and methods. it has to be a redo and um >> I think we also want to be sensitive. >> We're trying to help you know understand I was trying to understand the disturbance element but if it's not acceptable >> again I mean Karen's bringing up a good
point. You're going to put folks through three more years of this. I mean is there something that could be done by the fall that would >> Yeah. I think >> three months. >> Yeah, >> that's what uh Bradford I think is >> but he was also if I understood you were also concerned that it wouldn't be accomplished by then
>> it will not be fully naturalized like we would normally see in a mitigation planting that was done correctly and allowed to establish for two seasons. But we're well beyond that point. So, we're just trying to remedy it at this point and make sure it's on the right direction
>> to being a natural >> established >> mitigation area and not just long in a year from now. >> So, do you want to make a motion? >> I move that we continue. Yep.
>> I won't be here in September if we go for the first meeting in October. >> Okay. I don't know the date of >> October 1st. October 1st >> over there. >> I move that we continue to October 1st
for uh removal of grass and planting of native ground covers. >> I'll sec. >> Oh, you want to second it, Jack? >> Go for it. >> Okay, >> we look forward to it. >> All in favor? >> I so moved.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. Okay, >> you seconded that, Jack. >> Yes. >> Okay, the next one is >> uh SE832198 ride in Wilcox with Derek Johnson, 37
Moss Road. >> And Stephanie is here on Zoom. I think everything has been addressed since our last hearing, but I didn't want to tell her she didn't have to come in case you had questions. that at the last hearing um the commission requested that lawn be
removed from in between the mitigation plantings and native seed applied and they have completed that. Um so here is what the mitigation area looks like. Yes, it's bare. >> Um yeah, they've completed it. >> Possible. >> It is possible. Great intro. Um they do
have some irrigation still in place and they've added elbows to the down spouts. Um but Stephanie is online. Um, can you just confirm that the area's been seated with something? >> Hi. Uh, can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes, we can.
>> Okay. Um, I honestly I have not been to uh inspect the plantings. I just had a a message from the landscaper saying that the the work had been completed.
And then our our field crew did go and and locate the newly they expanded the mitigation area to cover a bigger area and we did locate that and and updated the asbuilt plan. >> Okay. Yes, we did receive the revised asbuilt plan.
Um, so I think I would recommend that the commission issue this certificate of compliance with ongoing conditions >> 135 >> 1315 and 18 um pending confirmation that the area has been seated. >> Anybody want Jack?
>> Oh I have no discussion. >> I'm going to have Pat make the motion motion. Yes. I make a motion that we accept this um COC with ongoing um
SC1 1318. >> Nicely done. >> I'll second it. All >> in favor? >> Okay. >> Thank you, Stephanie. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Next is approval of minutes.
Um, I read it right. Jack, you have any problems? >> Well, first of all, let me point out that last time it sounded like you were just handing me the job of reviewing the minutes for everybody, but in fact that that's not possible. Everybody has to
read the minute. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. >> No, you just have to make the motion. >> Have to make the motion. I think that first of all, we need a correction that uh Christian was at the meeting. He's not on the list and he did actually make a motion or something. So,
he must have left halfway through. >> No, he didn't leave. >> No, he was here. >> He was here. >> And I will make a formal request, Jack. I need you to send these in writing via email. >> I need you to send your revision requests in writing by email so I can fix them by the time we vote. Oh, >> so then we got to
>> Well, no, but we can go with that Chris back. >> Yeah, I know. But it's easier if you know we fix it and then it's all in there. >> Yeah, but anybody if that's the case, then anybody with a correction needs to talk to you. >> Yeah, that's the usual protocol. They email me. >> I email Joe
see something. >> Joe is minutes. Christian attended. >> Okay. I didn't have that in mind. I didn't know about that. >> Okay. >> Unless you want to do the minutes. Yeah, I'd bring a DVD in here with it. >> I'm just kidding. Joe's fine. Took us a
week to read it. Um, >> it was practiced. >> I make a motion approve. >> Okay. >> With the Christian vote. >> Yeah. >> With the addition with the uh amendment. >> Anybody second? >> Second. >> Wants to >> second. Okay. >> All in favor? I.
>> Anybody opposed? >> All right. Anything else? Do you have anything? I don't think so. >> I think our next meeting we >> I have something to say. I just want to thank you all >> for working with such a um dedicated
group of citizens, wonderful administrative staff here between you and Kelly that I worked with. I wish you all the best in continuing your pursuits to protect our
wonderful Yarmouth wetlands. So, Thank you all of you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Pat. >> We'll miss you, Pat. >> And Pat's going to stay busy. She volunteers with APCC um counting horseshoe crabs and water quality testing. So, the environmental
commitment lives on. >> Thank you for all your work, Pat. >> Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Move to somebody. >> Second. >> Thank you. All in favor? I >> we adjourned at 711 according to the
clock behind Britain. >> Recording stopped.