knew I liked you. >> Okay. Good evening. Um, welcome to the Thursday, July 16th, 2026 meeting of the Conservation Commission. Um, we're going to begin right away with a
revised plan request from 832310 BSE Group for Valentina and Merka Katchcha. I'm sorry if I mispronounced 52 Wilin Road proposed rinse station and buffer zone to to a boarded vegetative
wetland. You can come up here and talk into the mic. You just tell us what you'd like to do and we'll ask questions. >> Just a little rinse station to have to rinse our feet after the beach. That's all.
>> Okay. So, we want to make sure we do the right thing. >> Appreciate that. Um, anybody have any questions about the rent station? >> Is this an amendment request? I'm a little confused on what this is.
>> Um, just due to the scope of it. Um, we have it's the same. So, the original permit is still open for the house and deck and a pertinances, driveway, all that. um where we had the COC request recently. >> Yep. >> Where they putting they put in the extra
mitigation. The only thing left was to remove the grass in between. So it's just a request for a revised plan because it is such a small item to replace the approved plan under the existing order. >> I think it's a >> but it's also adding quite a bit of
mitigation plantings. >> The revised plan is not loading for some reason. um mitigation plantings were added for the COC scope. They wanted to add the rinse station during the COC hearings and I
told them it had to be separate. So, they've already added those extra plants to comply with the original requirements and the plan was just submitted at the same time. I just requested that they separate it from the COC request. >> So, we we approved the mitigation plan
already. >> You approved the mitigation already. Okay. >> I don't know. >> You look perplexed. >> I I am. Um I I think what correct me if I'm wrong, Britney, but I think we approved
everything and this is just an added request. The rinse station, it wasn't it wasn't on the original plan and now they would like to add it to the original plan. Everything else has been approved. So, >> so the plan we approved for the COC request doesn't have the rent station on
it. I had them remove it and they just added it back for the revised plan request and failed to note that theation plantings were already approved. I can have Kieran edit that. >> Yeah. So there's the existing mitigation plantings and then there's the new
plantings and the new plantings are from the COC request. >> Yeah. So the original permit required the 35 foot buffer to be filled entirely. It was just a little it was short when they applied for the COC and
so they submitted a mitigation plan showing the 35T buffer fully planted. Um it was an asbuilt plan. So they had filled the area and shown the additional plants on the asbuilt plan for us to issue the COC and now they're requesting a rent station in addition to the
already approved work that's been completed. >> So no mitigation plantings are proposed. >> No mitigation plantings are proposed for the 30 square foot rinse station which is outside the 50ft buffer. Okay.
>> Anybody else? >> Anything else for you, Britney? >> Just one more question. Why is it attached to the shed rather than the house? >> We don't have any spot around the house. It's a windows and neighbors. It's two floors, you know, so we don't have it.
>> And is there a wood look around? So you'd be running uh water lines and presumably electricity to the shed. >> No, no, no. >> So just water lines. >> Just water. >> Just water. >> And there's going to be a path or
anything to it or you just walk through the grass? >> Just water. >> Anything else >> for me? I hope my >> anybody in the audience >> and I don't see a name online so I can ignore them today right now. Um do I
hear a motion to issue this permit? >> So moved. >> Second. Second. Christian. All in favor? >> Anybody opposed? >> Okay. So it's uh six of us. So five to one. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Um you'll hear from You don't need to do anything else. They It's just an approved plan. So, we'll replace the plan in the file with this one. >> Is there anything? >> No. >> Just pass it down. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Britney Laser Fisk might be working on uh Safari or Microsoft Edge. It wasn't working on Google Chrome for me. I could also just open the back end, but it wasn't working. Yeah, >> need to have plans up. Thank you.
>> It hasn't been working for several days. >> Oh, bummer. >> Want me to wait? >> No. Okay, I'll go on to the next piece uh which is a continue request for SC 832516 Atlantic Coast Engineering for Scott
Martin 104 and 110 excuse me River Street proposed pair ramp float system and riverfront area and land under the ocean coastal bank land containing shellfish and land subject to coastal storm
flooding. They asked for a continuence to 82026. Do I hear a motion to to issue the continuence? >> So moved. >> Second, Jack. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Uh, next one is SE 832538, Shorefront Consulting for Blue Rock Realy, Blue Rock Road Realy Trust 166 and 172 Blue Rock Land. Uh, FL Rock proposed bulkhead and stand stairs
reconstruction with new landing on coastal beach, coastal bank, land containing shellfish, riverfront area, and land subject to coastal storm flooding. Okay, thank you very much members of the commission. My name is Mark Burgess with of Shorefront Consulting representing uh
this property for this project. Uh at the first hearing we basically discussed you know the goals of the project. Um we are still waiting for a planting plan which is in process and um we did reach
out or Britney reached out for peer review which I hope you have a copy of the letter and my response to that letter. Um the gentleman seems qualified and all of that. He did not visit the site, but um he provided a a peer
review. In my opinion, merely he didn't really state anything definitive. He stated the concerns and and potential options and things like that, but he didn't really make a statement in my opinion.
And what we're um what we're discussing really is the height of the bulkhead. You know, I would like it to be the same height as the one it's joining up to. up river of course we have a much lower bulkhead and that was from a different peer review years ago
um I think that bulkhead's too low and if you balance the performance standards with the functions of the coastal bank so in this case the bank is both a small sediment source and it's certainly a vertical buffer for storm damage
protection to a pre-1978 dwelling um we could lower the height of the bulkheads and fiber rolls above it. Sure, you know, that'll work. Um, what can happen is when we get a flood condition which is fully 4 and 1/2 ft
above the wall as it's designed, the water's going to rip away that vegetation and sediment. So, it and it will have to be fixed. If we do fiber rolls and lower the wall, it's just going to happen sooner in my opinion. And then you're back at it with
the fiber rolls. So I believe with the wall being four and a half feet below the flood elevation, you have a reasonable balance between the bank still being able to provide a sediment source under severe conditions but but protect the property. And in the area of the narrows, we got
to be really careful how much sediment you put in that system because it's pretty shallow there. That's why the current is almost eight knots going through it at a at a full run of the tide. I know at six knots you're moving. You're not moving. So um you want we do want to be careful
in this instance of how much sediment you introduce to the system. So I still feel that having a wall at the height that it's at provides the both functions that it that it um has to function as a coastal bank and uh and just balances those goals.
Um, he did agree that the bulkhead should be as landward as possible and which is where it's designed. And I explained last time that because of the slope, I don't know if I can do this with my hands, but because of the steep slope, if you do a shorter wall, it's got to be further away. Otherwise, you
have a cliff, a vertical cliff to get down to the top of that wall, and that's worse. So, again, I want to tuck it right up to the base of the slope. It might actually be out of mean high water, but we're going to license it anyway. And uh and then of course all that all that garbage goes away.
So with that, um certainly open it for discussion. >> Anybody have any questions? Go ahead. Um yeah, I uh yeah, I I thank you Britney for getting the third party um review
and I thought that yes, he didn't visit the site and he clearly said that, but he used every technology available and I thought did a very thorough analysis and worked I think he worked he or she he
worked with >> with your design and then making some suggestions using a soft um solution and then discussing how it may not be stable etc.
But what I got out of this report, which I I didn't think of before, is the fragility of of of the um the limited beachfront, for lack of a better word.
And so it comes down to just a basic question. Um um is how will the proposed bulkhead replacement reduce or prevent tow erosion
compared with what's there now? >> Well, what's what's there now isn't functioning as any as anything. The water gets behind it so the water can still scour the bottom of the of the bank slope. So the bulkhead of course goes, you know, almost 10 feet into the ground and uh it will prevent that toe
scour, but when it gets over topped in the big one, you'll still have erosion. >> So we'll still have erosion. >> Sorry. >> We'll still have erosion is is what? >> Yeah, the 100red-year flood elevation is four and a half feet above the wall. So
presumably in the big one, you're going to have 4 feet of raging water above the bulkhead doing it, you know, removing plants and soil, but it can be replaced up there and it will happen less. The higher the wall goes, the less frequent that will
happen. Um when you do these replacements or these um uh fixes, do you do you quantify the amount of erosion observed over time such as this
third party did? He had data saying how much erosion was observed between 2011 and 2021 and whether or not that erosion had continued or accelerated since 2021. Um
so I just it you know how much how much analysis did you do compared to this third party review? >> Well he looked at the the data that's online. Um I did not do that. Uh, I have been living on the Cape permanently
since 96 and I've been down here as a teenager all my life. Well, at least as long as I was a teenager. And um, so I know that I know the river, but I can and we didn't do any like baseline study and come back two or three years later and do another another uh study or
anything like that. Um, I look at the site, I see where the pockets of erosion are in either side where the has collapsed, the house isn't in imminent danger. Those are the things I look at and I say, okay, what is the most practical
approach to achieve the goals? That's how I analyze a site. So other than doing a a baseline and then followup surveys which >> um I think that what was helpful about this is that it's and I I don't know
what is required of you and and we may need to look at that more as a commission but you know the macro effect if you will you know the wave impact etc you know um so it just gives me pause on
on you know approving these applications without having that information and um knowing what the implications are going to be. Um anyways, I guess that was a question in there. >> Well, sometimes I cover that in the do
nothing option. >> Yeah, you did a thorough analysis of all the alternatives, do nothing and that's Yeah. >> So, the do nothing to me if you wait for more data. The data you're going to get is that if we do get a category three hurricane and a 100red-year flood is the
bank is going to get wiped out and then you've got much much more restoration work to do. >> Oh yeah. The I mean the third party admitted to this debris falling into the water if it isn't rectified. Yeah. >> Right. So I try to come up with a practical and
reasonable alternative that >> like I said meets the goals >> else anybody else? >> Well from my viewpoint this is sort of a sociological problem
because uh the data is usually not there. Uh, so you have to worry about what the people want, can't afford, and so forth. And you have to do all the balancing. I'm sure that with more and more climate change coming, we're going
to see this back maybe sooner than they want. And so I don't really I see this as a, you know, pretty good solution. So I'd be voting. >> Thank you. >> Do you have a trouble with the height of the um bulkhead? No. you know, if it
should be shorter or >> to be clear, we're not voting to approve this project tonight. There are several other items that we have not received. >> Right. >> Can I ask >> if you're getting into that? >> The only thing I had about it is the connection between the >> bulkit and the neighbors and also
brought up in that report. Why don't you connect them some way so that'll be a little stronger and nothing will get in behind and start erosion and so forth? My only idea there would be a an overlap of some sort. >> That's what they do. If um sometimes
depending on how the sheeting ends, you can put you can pull out a connection and put what they call a three-way >> and it connects the sheeting along. It connects the return, but then there's another tab. So, you start the sheeting there. It's going to be the same sheeting that's there already. And then
you just continue north with it. You you always always still want to put do a separate return in case one bulkhead fails, it doesn't take out the other one. So, that's why call it a cosmetic. >> He mentioned about a gap that might leave erosion, but no, they will physically connect the sheeting to the
other wall. It just won't be structural and it could be repaired if it ever moved, but we want separate returns just so that each wall is in fact separate. >> On the north side, he talked about having the bulkhead stop a little further away from the property line. I
can do that. Um the purpose of the fiber rolls is that return is ex is I believe exactly what we did on the the stover property at number 172 to the south and those fiber rolls are now in need of of replacement but we won't have to do that if we
connect the two walls. So I just took the same solution that appears to have worked for that project so far and moved it >> down upward. So, >> so if we lower the height of the wall, would you just put it further out then? Essentially, >> I don't want to do that.
>> Yeah. But that's what being proposed. Yeah. >> Yeah. I try to keep that slope to where it meets the wall. If we lower the wall, you could put a fiber roll on top. I just think that's a honestly I think with all due respect, I think that's a feel-good solution and it >> I support keeping it further away as
well. So, >> thank you. So the problem with that though is that the coastal beach has performance standards as well since it's a sediment source bank. There is no other place for this bank this beach to get sediment other than this bank. So if you're taking away the entire sediment source except for once every 100 years the
coastal beach will go away. So you need to so the fiber rolls act as that natural green buffer on the top that will require compensatory nourishment to to nourish that beach. Otherwise the performance standard for beach won't be met because it will be damaged.
>> Understood. Um for this particular beach in this particular location I think nourishment would not be a wise thing to do. >> Why not? >> Um >> yeah why I mean just because boats I mean there's a dredge plan. We can't like consider the channel depth. We
consider the beach and land under the ocean. Y >> and that needs the beach needs nourishment because you're taking away the sediment source by hardening this bank. So I I would I would highly recommend the commission go with the lower wall with the fiber rolls on top and compensatory nourishment. >> If if you put the wall further back
though and it's taller, wouldn't you have more sediment in front of that wall for it? >> Say that again. >> I mean, if you're moving the wall back, even though it's taller, wouldn't you have access to more sediment in front of the wall? >> That sediment is actively eroded away. So the source for the beach is gone.
>> That's the balance >> with the wall. >> Yeah, that's the balance. Um I mean even the even the wall up north um Mr. Melo's wall that's short with fiber rolls on top. Same situation exists. You know, fiber rolls stop erosion as long as
they're working just as much as a rock revetment, just as much as a bulkhead, just as much as uh planting the crap out of the bank until the water gets to it. Just to be clear, Christian, when you say move back, you mean move back away from the >> So, if you're putting in a taller wall,
my what I'm envisioning is you're putting it further back into the bank >> into the bank. >> Landward, >> like I want it right at the bottom, right at tucked tucked as close as possible to the to the bank. >> The shorter wall would come further out. >> That's my understanding. Yeah. So, you could >> put the shorter wall at the same
elevation. >> You would just have a little bit a steeper fiber roll. Like I said, I understand that that the you have to maintain the function of the coastal beach. My intent of balancing the height with the with the erosion
with the potential erosion is that yeah, the bank isn't going to actively erode as much obviously, but it still has the ability to erode and provide sediment to the beach, just not as much as it is now. And I don't know. I don't know if
the performance standards quantify that. As long as we can maintain that function to some degree, I think we're okay. >> I think if we quantify that and you can find out the erosion rate and then we can find out the compensatory nourishment value, that would be needed. But you do need to provide that. >> Yeah. But do you really want to put sand
down there? They're talking about dredging that area anyway because you can't hardly get a boat through there. >> Talking about the beach, not the channel. >> Well, I know. But but the beach affects the channel. sediment too. I mean, I just >> I'm thinking about the whole system here.
>> Seeing it differently, I guess. >> I mean, moving the wall back to where it's taller to get like leave more sediment in front of the wall. >> Absolutely. Right. Right. This way, you >> have more of a source >> and that's what I'm trying to say. >> We ended up doing on the wall to the
south was they wanted to put it uh what is it? They didn't want to put it in the same position that the wall was because you were converting a resource area from coastal beach to uh coastal bank. I guess if you put the wall further out. So that's another reason to leave the
wall as close to the bank slope as possible so that you're leaving the beach that's there and you're not converting that resource area into coastal bank. So I I mean I would even drive the sheeting if if the slope comes down and sloughs a little bit at the bottom, I'd still put it right as just as close as I can
>> to that slope. And that way you preserve all of the beach that's there. So the what I need what I would need to walk away from tonight is whether or not there's any other um edits needed to the plan or whether we whether we leave tonight saying okay we're fine with
everything and then we just wait for the planting plan which will be the next hearing and then we can wrap this up. So, I'm still not clear on the height then. You're you're staying with you're pushing it back as far as possible, but
you're trying to maintain the height and how are we with the fill? >> I mean, with Yeah, this a lower wall would mean less fill above the wall. I I I think the wall should be moved landward and shortened, but commission
can decide on that. So, you please just >> Well, that's the third party recommendation >> as well. Yeah, >> as well. It's um >> I would like to see some of Brian's recommendations implemented or at least taken into consideration in a design. Um
what you're asking >> could you just talk a little louder for me? >> I would like to see Brian's the third party uh recommendations uh put into the plan in to some degree.
So either um lowering the wall, putting in fiber rolls, moving it landward. Um if the question is to leave the plan as is or incorporate some of these suggestions, I would like to see the
suggestions incorporated. >> So I can certainly I can certainly shorten the return so that the end of the bulkhead is further away from the north property line. That won't really impact um anything as much and as he says it allows more of a transition zone from the from the bulkhead to the
adjoining property. Um he didn't I don't I didn't get the feeling that he suggested other than that I didn't get the feeling he really suggested anything. He made a lot of he made a lot of statements. Um the landward part we are doing it as landward as possible.
That's a that's a given whether he suggested it or agreed with me. I think he agreed with the design, but um we're we're putting the wall as absolutely as landward as possible. The only question really is what height and all I'm saying is I can lower it by 20 inches and put a
20-in fiber roll up there, but I don't think we've really accomplished anything by doing that. My opinion, >> yes, the So, to be clear, you're proposing 200 cubic yards of fill behind the wall right now, and there seems to be a very gentle slope. There appears to be plenty of room for adjustments,
whether drastic or small, to move the wall landward, shorten it, and reduce the amount of fill behind the wall. >> Okay, let me see. Um, >> is that what you were thinking, Bradford? >> So, the fill is the issue then? Is that >> Well, most of the fill
>> is on the the the sides of the bank that that have already collapsed. That's where the large amount of fill comes from. The fill that's here is quite small. Um, now this is the section line that's drawn through the stairs. It's not as
representative along the whole bank slope north of it, it's much more vertical. So whether or not how it's drawn here or not, like I would put the bulkhead like here. Okay. Um, and then this is the line where I
try to maintain that slope. So if the if the if the wall is shortened then you have to go then you or if the wall is shortened then you have to go further out to maintain that slope. If you put a short wall here now you've steepened
that slope which I don't want to do. >> I think there's room to steepen it a bit. >> Say again. >> I think there's room to steepen it a little. I mean you have to provide us the revisions to review. >> Well I staked it out there. I thought that if you saw the stakes they're pretty close to the bottom of the of the
slope. I can draw this more landward if you want it. It just in this particular section view that's where the the bulkhead would go. But I can certainly just show it. I'll show it here if you want. In practice, they should be doing this this winter. In practice, we're going to
tell the con the contractor at the at the pre-construction meeting is that that bulkhead will go right at the base of the slope or even landward. If if there's a gentle bit here, it would go we'd put it right here. Okay. Um plans aren't perfect. They're not like pinning a foundation in a house. You you deal
with what you have at the time the survey is done. >> So maybe we need another section as well if the slope is so different across the entire property. >> I can ask uh I can ask Dan to give me that. >> So just to clarify our issue with the
height of the wall is how much fill it would take or is it the placement of it? Um, I mean, currently my issue is that I don't believe that this is the least impact possible option to complete the goal of the homeowner and I'd like to
see some revisions to improve it if there's any combination of what we've discussed shortening the wall and or moving it land or landward and or adding fiber rolls. And we'll need to review the planting plan and the annual monitoring and maintenance plan that we
requested last time as well. Yeah, I don't have the guidelines in front of me, but I I think we have to focus on this being a sediment source, and you mentioned the word balancing with other properties, but I mean, it's very it's I'll quote from the the third
party review. Since the project area contains coastal beach and the coastal bank on this property is likely to act as a sediment source for adjacent beaches as well as a vertical buffer, 310 CMR 10.27 and 10.30 3 0 would apply.
So it's those are your standards and um and it will say least impact. Well, the other I guess there's another there's another option um in in some practices where you have
required compensatory nourishment you have a trigger point and that when the beach drops to a certain elevation you have a go there again I am not I think the beach nourishment at this site is is a
negative effect because it affects other resource areas and other functions of I don't think it's a good idea to do any nourishment here at all. The town has been very sensitive to beach nourishment projects over the years before most of you were on this board for that reason
that nourishment can fill in a channel. They've been very sensitive to that. This is this to me is a perfect example of why you don't want to add any more sediment to a place that's microphone. >> Oh, is it? Oh, there
>> y That one's giving us a problem just >> that one's on. >> Redo the whole thing. >> Okay. Is that any better? Uh, where was I? Um, okay. >> Don't want to You don't want to nourish
the bank. >> Yeah. I so I don't know where you I don't know where you want to go. >> Yeah. >> What do you think uh size of this beach if you look at you know two or three
houses or more above and be below this one? What is the size of this beach in comparison to those other beaches? >> Um to the north it's quite similar. to the south. There's not much. There's
only the only beach south of this is is south of the next property 172 where the big rock is and where the scouring behind it. There's beach there. And then south of that is another old wooden bulkhead. I don't think there's any beach there at low tide. And then south
of that is the um the marsh restoration project where it does have beach. So essentially where there's >> where there's banks >> heads and revetments there's no beaches and where there isn't there's beach. So
>> by to me it sounds like you're proposing to just get rid of the beach by preventing the beach sediment and not taking into those uh performance standards into consideration. So, I'm I'm kind of not
in favor at this moment of the project without taking in, as I previously said, uh some of these considerations to um keep that sediment source. >> Yeah. So, in your opinion, Bradford, and if we
lowered the bulkhead by a foot and put a 20-inch fiber roll on top, does that help increase the ability of the bank to provide sediment to your liking? I'd love to see the plans so I can
review it, but uh that's what our third party uh recommended and I would like to see um I'd like to see that option. Uh Britney said um the
the slope of the fiber roll array can be steeper than what you would propose. So, it it seems like it's a doable, feasible option. I'm not sure why you're so against it. >> Well, I'm against it because I, as I said, with all due respect, I think it's
just a feel-good option if >> I think it's the option that better fits our our regulations, >> perhaps. Um, and I would I would encourage you to include some sort of nourishment, whatever the strategy is to keep that beach, either the trigger point like you said or doing some sort
of analysis on the erosion rate and providing compensatory nourishment on an however many year basis. It could be every three years um or trigger point otherwise the beach will go away like the other bulkheads on that area. Paul, you want? >> Yeah. I I just um it's of course
interesting to listen to this conversation, but sometimes it gets a little bit beyond me to tell you the truth. Britney, would you explain again, maybe just speak a little louder in terms of how that fiber roll on top of the wall is preferable to what's being
proposed by Mark today. Just go over that succinctly, right, one more time. Yeah, it's a it's a soft solution, so you have more space for, you know, plants to go in and it can be nourished and erode at a slow rate to provide sediment to the bank. >> It'll let sediment in as opposed to the
height of the wall being more rigid and >> Yeah. which would only let sediment down at a very >> situation that Mark proposes in your mind will um contribute to the what the eradication of that beach in a sense because it doesn't get any sediment
supply. Yeah, in my opinion, just like the neighboring properties that we can see on the narrows that have no beach, >> would it be possible to show, I guess, the placement of the wall depending on the height and just to see, you know, how far, you know, it moves back away
from the bank. If I lower it, you mean? >> Yeah. Or if it's higher or lower, just to show the different placements. >> Well, I can, of course. Um, and with one fiber roll, I could put that almost on top of the wall. If you do more than
that, you're supposed to lay them back like a revet met at one and a half to one or or the slope pretty much the slope that's there. That was what's done up north, the project to the north. So, one roll is fine. You can put that base just about stuff it right behind the wall at the top and anchor it. The
reason why it's considered better is because it has to fail first and then the sediment will be released into the system. Okay, fine. Now you've got to go back and fix it. So, yeah. >> How long does that take? >> Maintenance. >> That depends.
>> Yeah. The other thing I'm sorry to interrupt then if I may. Um, you had mentioned something about this being a feel-good remedy. What do you mean by that? Because once when the fiber roll is working, it's still preventing
sediment from going through it and into the into the water. The same it the same as the bulkhead. What it does allow is to fail sooner and allow sediment more often to go into the water because it's going to fail at some point. But isn't it preferable to as Britney proposes
that the sediment is allowed to go into the um past the the um wall to the beach. >> That is a solution that is a better balance perhaps than what we're proposing because it will allow it to
happen more quickly. I look at it just saying that well now you the area has to be damaged before it gets before the sediment gets in place. the applicant is still going to have to fix the wall, but it's going to be you'll get it'll be damaged more often. You'll have to fix it more often, and you'll get sediment
introduced into the system more often. >> But isn't that the cost of um proper maintenance or proper um uh uh I don't know, >> the cost of doing business on the river? >> On the river. Yeah, >> I I understand. Yeah. >> And and and again, you can't really
predict how long that will be for the owner. You don't know if it's five years or two years or 10 years. >> It depends on what happens. If >> a storm comes in, >> right? I've seen fiber rolls in a shaded area last 10 years because the plants
they they soften as they rot and then plants grow up through them and they become one with the soil and all of that. At that point, they towards the end of their life and and if the water goes up there, it's just going to rip it out. But it can always be fixed. Yes.
So, if the board wants me to reduce the wall by a foot and put a 20-inch roll on top, I'm okay with that. If it's if you feel it's a better balance and more of a compromise, I'm okay with that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I for one see it more better to lower it
and put the fiber roll in. That's >> okay. But I'm only speaking for myself. I just want to be clear. I don't know how the rest of the >> I thought you were taking a vote with >> watching heads move. >> I'm watching heads move. I'm not sure
which way they're moving. >> Could you speak to the connection to the uh adjacent bulkhead that he talks about? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Is there any Go ahead. >> Yeah. You the the bulkhead to the south has already has a separate structural
return that goes into the into the bank and meets the grade. How how long is that? >> Um I don't know, five or six feet or so. Well, it's angled. >> And that's where the fiber rolls took over on the base and then went north to the property line. We're doing we'll do the same thing on the north. But so from
that return, >> they can put a connection there and uh or or they can well, let me start. They'll leave that return alone. The the return for the new wall will go as close to it as possible. turn and go
in into the bank as well. Now, you have a gap there like he was pointing out in his in his uh report. You take out a three-way connection. So, you have sheeting this way, this way, but then another piece this way. You run it across the front to close that gap. And you either screw it or attach it to the
other sheeting. But that's not structural. So, because if the wall if one wall was to fail, it would just rip that connection out. >> Yeah. You don't structurally >> it's not connected enough to take out the other wall. So why couldn't you put why couldn't you connect with something stronger?
>> We like to leave the wall separate in case one does fail so it doesn't take out the other >> on the other one. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> I just get a feeling for what people are thinking so we can send uh >> send me on my way. >> Send well.
>> Yes. >> I'd like to make a motion we go ahead and put it in request the change for fiber roll and the lower wall. >> Mhm. >> Okay. In the lower wall. Do I hear a second? >> Second. >> Anybody want to say anything before we vote?
>> Is it a vote? >> They're voting for the request to revise the plans with a fiber roll and a lower wall. >> Okay. >> What about follow your suggestion about adhering to the guidelines and
>> more. I don't know if we need to have a phone. >> I think we just need to have a consensus, >> right? >> Okay. >> And send him on his way if you don't mind. >> Sure. >> So, >> it's an easy way to get a consensus. >> Consensus. >> A vote gives you a consensus.
>> Um Paul, how do you feel? Yes. To lower the wall. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Jack. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It depends on the placement to me. >> All right. Well, we'll see. I think yeah keep it we'll exclude any seawword
location the wall can't go seawward at all if anything >> I don't want I don't want to if it goes landward more if it's higher I think that could be a benefit >> well essentially the top of the fiberall would be at the top of the wall now so I should be able to leave it where it is and then we can adjust it if we need to
if nature changes things out there between now and then we'll still tell them to put it as landward as possible >> okay and I also agree so have clarity now. >> I think so. >> Okay, great. >> All right, I'm going to move ahead if
you don't mind. >> We would continue this now. >> Yeah. Um, yeah. When do you >> at the commission's request? Just saying that. >> Um, >> for revi for plan revisions. So, >> right to um what's a good date? >> Next meeting is the 6th and then after
that it's the 20th. >> Let me see what my phone says. and we will need a vote to continue. >> There was a date in the the email to continue this too. I just don't know what that is because I can't access a service.
>> Was August 6th, August 20th, September >> six is six is good. I should be here for the other one that you guys haven't seen yet. >> 20th is good. >> Sixth. >> Sixth is good. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Be here, but that's okay. Paul will be
in charge. >> Hey, you need a motion to >> It's a motion to continue to the six. Paul moved. >> So move. >> Second. Anybody? >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. >> Okay.
Um, next one is SE832540 Shaw Front Consulting for Jason and Tina Lily 143 Mayflower Terrace proposed reconstruction of excuse me of a seaw wall further landwood and a new fiber
roll array in riverfront area coastal beach coastal bank land subject to coastal storm flooding. They're looking for continuance to 8626. I need dare a motion to move. Second move. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> All right.
Now, now we're back. Okay. Um, next one is SE 8325 33 Shorefront Consulting for Thomas Dandis 7 Cape Isle Drive. proposed seaw wallalk reconstruction at the same elevation and float configuration and
land under the ocean and land containing shellfish and after the fact filing for a patio and walkway in the buffer zone and land subject to coastal flooding. This again is 7 cape Isisle. >> Thank you again Mark Burgess of Shorefront Consulting for the applicant.
Um yes, so we were waiting for a planting plan which Lyn Hamlin provided. the um applicant removed the patio and the walkway completely and there pictures emailed for that. So that is gone as requested.
Um and there were some minor plan revisions that Britney uh requested which were done and you have your original. So I think we can wrap this one up. Um, I just want to make sure I'm in the
right place in my notes. Questions? >> Yeah, just go ahead. >> Clarification. Um, I think Britney touched on this in her report. I'm not sure, but on your construction notes, you you say
um that um the new bulkhead shall have 12 foot returns or as approved by applicant. What was that? Like or as approved. That's wrong. I shouldn't say that.
>> There's a typo in anything. You were going to find it. Well, >> yeah. Okay. Um, >> what note is it? >> Uh, this is note number two, but I think you found another one or some This is on the returns. >> Yeah. Well,
>> I mean, you can just scratch that part off if they're 12 foot returns. I mean, that's a the definitive statement. That's all I had. Thank you for take doing the revisions. Thank you very much. >> Of course.
>> I have a question about number 17. Um, you have the unpermitted stone patio and walkway shall be removed immediately. Shall be restored at the lawn on native plantings at the owner's option. Native vegetation could be added after the bulkhead is reconstruction
owner's option. >> Right. bothered by the second owner's option. >> The second option is because if he wants to put native plantings there now, it will get obliterated when he does the bulkhead work. So, it doesn't make sense to do that. If if I were him, I would put some lawn there, let it do its thing
and then fix it all at once when when the bulkhead is done. >> Um, you need to revise that note because the mitigation planting plan is required whether or not he decides to do the bulkhead, not at the time or now or later. So, like you said that he may not
do this work because the wall's not that bad. So, if you could just remove that second sentence from note 17, if we're revising anyway, >> vegetation. >> Yes. >> Well, that's only for the patio and the and the walkway. It doesn't that doesn't deal with the um the vegetative buffer
for the bulkhead, which he has to do. >> That's not clear. >> No. >> No, that's what you told me. You're right. Well, all you have to do is add the fact that you're talking about native vegetation can be added where the unpermitted and stone patio
walkway were after the volcano was reconstructed. >> Yeah, I think we just don't need that second sentence, right? We just don't need the second sentence in note 17. >> Just delete it. >> Just delete it. >> Okay. >> And then delete the note to
uh part as well. >> The applicant. Yeah. just 12 foot returns period. >> So the the applicant understands that even if he does not go through with the bulkhead, he still has to redo the do the planting plan.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> You should probably condition it that way. >> Yeah, we probably have a moni and monitoring report annually. Whether or not the work is done should be a condition >> because the bulkhead, as we discussed before, the bulkhead isn't actively failing right now. So he could he could
postpone this. I think he wants to do it anyway, but he could postpone it. >> But yeah, >> that's the understanding we have to >> if he decides not to do it, then he still has to do the the vegetative. >> Exactly. >> Okay. I think a special >> Britney Britney said to me that an email
update would be fine if he's not doing the bulkhead. Is that right, Britney? >> Yeah. So, we'll we'll add a special condition um that the mitigation planting plan has to be implemented by June 2029, whether or not the walls reconstructed. >> That's fair.
>> That's before the season, the spring before the permit would expire. >> Yeah, that's fair. Um can you trust me that I'll get you a revised plan in time? >> Yeah, those two's a little >> Yeah, I could do that tomorrow. >> Okay.
>> And then the person who has to stamp is behind me. and we'll get you an original. >> Anybody else have questions? Bernie, anything else? >> No. >> Anybody in the audience? One person online, if you want to speak,
raise your hand. Doesn't look like you want to. So, um, can I hear a motion to, uh, accept pending, uh, revised plan to, uh, Britney with special
conditions that we mentioned? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Anybody oppose? >> Okay. >> Give me a second and I'll go to the next place. Okay.
Clean everything up. Keep pile. Not that we get lots of papers or anything. And keep a look at that. I already remember this. Okay, next one is SE832534.
Shorefront consulting for Anthony and Jane Compana. 14 Compass Drive proposed seaw wall reconstruction elevation and relocation with fill in land under the ocean. Land containing shellfish riverfront area land subject to coastal stone flooding. the buffer and the
buffer zone to a salt marsh and after the fact filing for patio and deck in the buffer zone to a salt marsh and land subject to coastal storm flooding it's 14 compass drive
yes again Mark Burgess consulting for Mr. Compana who is right next to me here. So the the work that's been done since we were here last uh the plan was revised to show the bulkhead a little more clearly. The after we talked about
the mitigation those areas were shown on the plan the um resource area and mitigation areas were recalculated. Um you have approximately 4 to one mitigation. Uh we also supplied some pictures that
that in my world clearly show that there's stone uh seawword of the wall everywhere along where we're going to put the put the wall even if it's in front. So we we just remove that cobble where we need to and put it in front the
yeah the um rack that's there's there's no vegetation there. The marshes seawward of that line. So we can in that location only put the bulkhead seawward of the wall and not impact any any marsh. Um so the
that's about it. I showed the I showed the three- foot wide pa blocks on the patio and I showed the rest of it as a planting area. Lynn provided uh well diversified planting plan so everything should match. Um there is one plan that
you don't see where I I think Britney asked me to add the wall height and the buffers and then um I updated the area by the after the fact deck that's to be removed and I just put it in there that says to be removed. You don't you don't
see that. It was it was >> done a little more recently. Lynn asked me to do a re the re revision to make it a little clearer for her too. Um so They're not in a rush to do this. If you feel you need to continue, so you guys
can look at this plan. It would be a revision dated 61626 and um we could approve it the next time anyway. So that's not a problem.
And then I still need to get you an original for this revision. Correct. >> Yeah. The one that you sent me yesterday is dated 77. >> Um, >> is it dated 77?
>> Mark, I apologize for ask a couple questions, but I should probably know the answers to >> the unpermitted patio. Is he keeping it or getting getting rid of it? >> He's keeping some of it. We agreed that he could keep a three- foot wide walkway to get from the gate because they have a
first floor bedroom and uh that's where they access that bedroom >> and that's on the plan >> west side. Yeah. >> Can you show me? >> Well, that's on the plan that he hasn't submitted yet. >> That's why I can't see it. >> Is this the draft? >> This is the 77. Yeah. Draft.
>> So, I changed. So, we added this Lynn. I had some writing in here. Lynn asked me to delete that. So, I did for to make it clearer for her. But, yes. So that's the 3- foot wide area and then this is planted. >> Okay. >> That area is planted and up there is planted.
>> And this top the little deck triangle that was unpermitted is going to be removed. >> Okay. Remember there was a triangle there. So I I said to be removed. >> Okay. >> So what's the date of that site plan? What what are we waiting for then? Just like sort of an asbuilt site plan. You
mentioned >> No, there was just a very minor revision between between the last hearing and now that that um we just forwarded. So if you you should have time to look at it. It's not a big deal. We're not in a rush. So I would suggest we just continue it to the
6th. You guys can look at that plan and um if everything's fine, I might maybe get something in advance from Britney. I don't know. But I can get you a a stamp and a and original, you know, quickly. Just to be clear, the commission only
reviews stamped plans. >> Yeah. >> What's that? >> What? >> You only review stamped plans, >> right? I didn't know. >> So, maybe I should just endeavor to take that one and get it stamped. Right. >> We can do that. >> So, we're going to continue to August
6th. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Do you have any comments or questions on the planting plan? >> Right. I was just going to ask that. >> Anybody have any questions on the planting plan before he so we can have it all straightened out. >> My limited knowledge of landscaping, I
thought it was very nice. >> She does a really nice job. >> You did a really good job. >> So, I hear a motion to continue to the 6th of August. >> I move that we continue to the 6th of August and that upon receipt of the of
the uh the stamp site plan. >> Okay. Second, Jack. Anybody in favor? >> Anybody opposed? Okay. Thank you. All right. Awesome. >> Thank you very much, Kelly. I'm joking when I say this, but the torture is
almost over. >> That stays with me. >> We're doing these all at once. You won't see me for a little while after that. >> Thank you very much everybody. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Right. >> Okay. Next one.
SC832541 Down Cave Engineering for Gold Village Wateride LLC 679 681 Route 28 proposed stone reventment with fill and riverfront area land under the ocean coastal bank land containing shellfish
and land subject to coastal storm flooding and this is again 679 and 81. There it is. Did I skip below street? No, that's next. Okay. Thank you. Good evening, chair, uh,
members of the commission. Uh, for the record, my name is Dian Ojula. I'm a land surveyor and civil engineer with Down Cape Engineering in Yarmouth Port. Uh, and we're helping the owners out at the lobster restaurant. This is that scarfed area. You'll recall from the overhead aerials
um that we're trying to repair. It cut into the parking lot. And I think the design was fairly wellreceived. Um it's a it's a rock slope which uh basically mirrors on either side. Uh some of it is buried. So it looks like it's a little bit larger than it really is, but that's
because there's a kind of a scour hole. You'll recall that there's a bit of a water jet that comes out from underneath the Route 28 bridge and a Parker's River. And for whatever reason, it scoured down to minus 6. So we didn't mess around. We dropped those towes well down below that. And um the only
revision here was to pull it back a couple of feet. Uh Britney had requested at least two feet. I think we did two and a half feet back. Sorry. But any in any event, it was um yeah, two and a half feet back was was the request made by staff. And we've got it now. Um if
you look at the at the cross-section, exactly that. So now the good news is there's hardly any fill. Um before there was a little bit more and um the comment was made really shouldn't introduce much fill. So that was uh respected. And I I think the uh we can move on for for
chapter 91 licensing. This is uh below meanh high water. Um we had uh no real negative comments except some time a year restrictions which are which are normal. And again we're going to rebuild and feather it into the seaw wall on either side. It should be a very uniform
look. And we're introducing pulling it back. We lost a couple of parking spaces on the other side but there was enough room there. So we still have a good 25 ft backup. So, no harm, no foul on that. Uh, we'll we'll do less fill, roll, rack it back a little bit, give a little bit
more back to the environment, uh, from the parking lot and, uh, was noted to cap a pipe and put the safety fence and a few little things. Um, so be glad to answer any questions if you have them, but hopefully this is, uh, more or less administrative at this point. And, uh, again, be glad to answer any questions.
Can >> you tell me how much what the difference is in the amount of fill that you're had proposed and you're proposing now? Um um I do not remember, but it's significantly less because there's barely any right now. Um so we could we
could get you that figure. Um >> it didn't look like there was any changes to me. It said 42 and the original said 42 cubic yards of fill. So I was >> uh he probably forgot to edit that. Is that on the on the face of the plan somewhere or was that just in the narrative?
>> He wrote it specifically. So it's got to be here somewhere. >> Yeah. I think you had asked him for it and we provided that. Um but uh I I had him pull it back 2 and 1/2 ft. There's no way there's not less fill.
>> Can anyone else find it? >> I mean I I would suggest it might be as little as, you know, 10 yards now. >> Okay. If you could provide the new value, just an email is fine. Um, >> I'd be happy to do that, but it's
>> shows up somewhere on the plan. >> Yeah, I uh >> Does anyone else see that? My my plan is being weird. >> Yeah. >> Let me see if it's in the narrative. Yeah, we wouldn't have updated that just as a general principle because it's such
a long document, but um yeah, it is it is pulled back a bit and we can get you the exact figure so that when you put it on the on the order, it shows up correctly. >> Apologize for that. >> Anybody else have a question, Jack?
>> Um and first of all, did you find out what that drainage pipe was? Yeah, it was a perforated pipe that just drained the edge of the parking lot. So, it was it was interrupted by whatever the construction was. So, we're just going to cap it. It'll continue to infiltrate
a little bit, but um we don't need it. >> By pulling that wall back and having less fill, what's your feeling about uh being more concave and creating eddies that are going to erode faster?
I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I mean, with a repairarian environment, it's very hard to predict, but um I I think that, you know, because we're leaving the majority of, you know, you've got mean high water to mean low water uh down on the face of the wall quite a
bit. It's not up at the top of the scarp where most of the work is. Most of our work is below the mud line. So, I'm really hoping that the hydraology will not really be affected by what we're doing. Uh we're retreating a tiny bit uh from where we were before. Um right now
>> high water mark. >> Um yeah, it's about 1.4. So that's up about the yellow here. But um all the blue is below the mud line now and that you know will be put back the way it is now. So hopefully it won't affect it. Um you know again this is a pretty rigorous
design. Uh the upgradient wall takes a little bit more of a beating and uh is a little bit steeper. Uh, so being that that's held up for many many years, I I think we'll be just fine. >> Well, it
had no concave to it, right? >> No, it was taking the brunt of the force though and and one section uh you may recall came in under an emergency repair because it was undercut and it failed. So that that takes the brunt of the jet. And then like you say, there's an eddy here, but it's not the velocity because
it's uh you know, it's widened up a little bit by this point. So, you know, it's a dynamic system. It would take a supercomputer to model it perfectly. But um my my gut feel is because we're retaining that mudline and we're giving it plenty of depth for, you know, any
any potential scour, this will be a good safe solution. And uh it'll likely remain almost identical to what it is now. Um landward of of of the scarp or seawword of the scarp. >> I think you're well personally
supercomputers going a little off the wall on that given desktops these days. >> Yeah. But I mean it's it's a tough model. I mean you've got a u you've got a very dynamic system there to model. Well,
I wouldn't think that this would warrant it, honestly. You know, it's it's a little bit of a a little bit of an Eddie pool, but you know, we're we're we're leaving it almost identical to what's there now. >> Yeah. And it kind of reminds me of one of the other conversations we've had
tonight. Something has to be done. You have to fix this thing. And I'm sorry, can't hear me. So, maybe that's a good thing. Um, I'm just saying that uh it's a repair situation basically. Isn't that correct, Dan?
>> Yeah, that's accurate. There was um there there was at one time a very small piece of uh 15, 18, 20 years ago, a little tiny piece of salt marsh here. It's the only reason it wasn't hardened back then. That's long gone. And uh the ends of are failing of the licensing on
either side. So it's basically an infill uh project of a very short section of a hardened shoreline and um you know you're so it's basically a repair. >> I'm sorry. So my point is that you may have to go back and fix it again at some point in time because >> there's no question. Yeah. This is
nothing's permanent in in a repairarian zone like this. No. >> So there's no perfect way to do this. It's just the the best you can do is the plan you've devised and um we move on from there. short to 4 inch thick stainless steel, you know. Yeah, it's the best we can. >> We probably would want to do that.
>> Okay. >> This is better for the environment because it gives the rock crabs and things, you know, room to get in there and uh and live. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> It's not my question. And I just want to commend you for I spoke earlier about doing you know analysis beforehand and
and um I I mean I don't take for granted the work that you do and your landscape legend you know showing existing seaw wall you know above mean water level and proposed and doing the analysis there and and also there is some urgency in
this project. So I I would I would definitely support this moving quickly. I mean I don't think it's much I mean it it's And it also demonstrates the impact of hardening where, you know, with water finds the least resistance and it's going to keep chomping away. You know
what I mean? They just take took a bite and it's going to keep biting. >> Yeah. And and and honestly, were it not for that uh undersized culvert under Route 28, which is the state of Massachusetts fault, um we wouldn't even be here because it'd be a much slower uh
uh uh situation to the where we wouldn't need a hard solution. But, uh, this is the hand we're dealt and we've got to deal with it. >> When do you expect if we once it's approved, you get all your permits, when do you think they would start working on this? >> You know, it could be a year. You never
know with the state core of engineers. Um, I I you know, we're hoping a little less, but >> I think we voted on emergency. I don't know when, but >> the emergency was to repair the existing revetment, not to do anything in this game. that had a license which is a
different animal. This is a new license because it's a infilling between two other licenses. Yeah, that's accurate. >> Anybody else have a question? >> Britney, >> my only comment would be um when you're doing your revision notes, if you could write what the revision was, then I wouldn't have to go crazy looking for
the volume of fill um instead of just peranscom comments. Unless that unless we ask for like 18 things, obviously you can't list them out, but if since it was just the two um and if you could provide the volume needed now in an email. Um the previously discussed special conditions
were all the DMF comments, time of year restrictions. So boom, and the COC request for the other permit being submitted and approved prior to the pre-construction meeting of the new one. Um with that, I'd recommend approval of this project. >> Anybody in the audience?
Anybody online? Nobody's online. Okay. Um, I hear a motion to approve pending all the things that Britney just said. >> I'd like to uh move for um approval um
with the um special conditions and uh the request by Britney. >> Okay. A second. >> Get that filled number up there. Can I ask a question before we vote about the fill just for a second? >> So, let's say for example, you plan on a
certain amount of fill and then you begin the construction project and you discover you need more. Do you come back to the committee? >> Um, you know, if it's a dimminimous amount, you know, we wouldn't, but certainly if it's a lot more, this thing has is a ton of rock coming in here. So,
almost everything is rock that we're doing. Um, so and yeah, I I I think on a project like this, unless it was something marketkedly different, we wouldn't say anything. If it was six inches off or something, but um anything that's out of the ordinary, absolutely would would check in with staff.
>> Thank you. >> Ready to vote then? Any favor? >> I opposed. >> One opposed. Okay, Britney, just just for uh an email on the fill is okay and those other comments you'll handle with the
conditions. >> Yes, that's correct. Just >> really appreciate your time on this. Thank you folks. >> Thank you. All right. Um got too many papers here. >> There you go. Okay. Um, next one is C. We don't have a
number for this. >> A number was issued. SE832548. >> Okay. >> So, this is SE832548. Capecon Engineering for Lisa Garcia and Miriam Keeler. 689 Willow Street. after the fact filing for a patio in a
riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flooding and a buffer zone to a bordered vegetative wetland. >> Only one of the mics is working. So, can you >> My name's Bob Perry. Cape Cod Engineering is the company. Uh Lisa
Garcia is here tonight. Miriam Gelfer is um unable to attend and I know that um Lisa wanted to address you before I go into the details. >> Thank you. Um we've owned our home at 689 Willow since 2012. And in um April
of this year, as we were preparing to replace the stockade fence down our driveway, um we discovered that while that requires a permit, we went through talked with Britney and Joe. >> Excuse me. Can you just move the mic closer? >> Certainly. >> And discovered through that process that
when we installed a patio 5 years ago, that also required permission. And I apologize, we didn't get that. Um it was not at all intentional. And um we since engaged Keith Johnson from Blue Flax
Design and also of course Bob Perry from Capecon Engineering to perform the work that we should have done five years ago. I've asked Bob to take us through that work. Um and I appreciate your time tonight. Appreciate Joe and Britney. And again, I'm sorry we didn't have this
conversation five years ago. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> I've got a microphone. I think it's working. Okay. So, 689 Willow. Um, I'm just going to explain what we've noted and what we've
provided. Um, this was a larger piece of land as a residentially developed. It was divided back around 1997 um really between 1992 and 1998. The plan was recorded in 98 into three lots
and uh the home was constructed in 99 and the uh applicants uh took a property over in 2012. Um there had been I think a conservation uh agent visit to assist with the shed and uh the area where the
patio wound up was approximately 740 ft of of paver was an area that was formerly gardened. There were little rock gardens and a lot of Andromeda. Um but it was um close to a bordering
vegetated wetland that is associated with what we call the run which is a coastal river by apparent um proof of the blue line on the USGS map and there there is occasional tidal flow pushing up in
there. So we have the bordering vegetated wetland from the creek channel. We have the riverfront area and we have the coastal flood zone. The patio wound up in the outer riparian zone and is within the 50ft buffer to
the BVW and the patio is closer than 35 ft. It is 25 ft from the line of the bordering vegetated wetland. And so early discussions
uh were well is it 35 ft away? And if it's 35 ft away well the process might involve a request for determination. And so the wetland was flagged survey was done and we find that we are uh 25 ft
from the BBW. It's pretty clear to me that um a lot of folks don't know what a dry bordering vegetated wetland looks like. Yes, there's hydric soil, but there's um lots
of growth uh and yet it is a BVW. So, I think a fairly honest mistake was made here. Um, we talked about the alternatives that are outlined in the notice of intent where you you could rip the place up.
Um, but in looking at the way the area had been previously altered, uh, we discussed the prospect with the applicants of mitigating it. So, we have 164 square feet that's within between
the 25 and the 35 foot zone. And the mitigation that we have in that zone is 5.6 to1. The zone from 35 to 50 we understand there's a 3:1 mitigation requirement and
that's just how the numbers work out. Um because of that crescent uh that would be um the 10 ft difference. So the I think the good news is the patio's been there for five or six years. It
looks very well established. There has not been any discernable adverse impact erosion. Um, it's an area that was previously altered. And the mitigation, which is a combination of uh native plants and
shrubs that you can see here, is a it's an overall 3:1. Uh but it it it it's a large area and the effect of it where it's kind of a
stratified height. We have shrubs closer to the wetland boundary. Then we come down into a rose grove and we get into some of the smaller varieties and some sweet fern. And I think it'll make a significant improvement to this area that lies if
you're walking out here to the left of the patio um uh walkway that you use to get to the patio and that zone which today has mulch in it. Um it's just a terrific enhancement to the buffer. Um
if somebody had come here before it was constructed, you probably would say, "Well, you'd prefer that it be 35 ft. And so we have this 10-foot problem, but I think it's more than amply mitigated.
I think that the uncertainties of impact have been shown that it's not a problem. Um, and it was just um one of these things that happened. It was an honest error. And I think you're going to see
um a bounty of of native uh plants that would represent a pretty significant improvement. So, um, we, you know, we filed the notice of intent rather than an RDA because we had the 10-ft issue. And so, the project gets the benefit of
the mitigation, but it also gets the benefit of an order of conditions that requires a certificate of compliance that requires survival over the term of whatever you choose. So, all things
considered, um, we felt that it was a sound application to bring before you. Um, Britney and I discussed it and, uh, I think it does require variance because it's within that 35 ft zone. And so if
you see this um as considering all the factors that it was not a virgin buffer that was altered, it was already a yard. Um and we have a terrific mitigation component to this. It's one of those, I
think, careful consideration cases that you might find in favor of allowing the applicant to mitigate. So be happy to take your questions. Any questions or comments? Yeah, Jack. >> The only thing I have I thought I had
heard that maybe last maybe at the while we were out there visiting, but that that's a imper that was a permeable patio. Well, it's it's pavers, but they're shouldertoshoulder.
And I understand it is silica sand. There's one part around um I'd say 1:00 2:00 where it looks as though some mortar was packed in on the perimeter just to firm up the bricks, but otherwise it's it's hard to say that any
kind of patio is pvious. It's it's more permeable than if it had been mortared. >> It's it's sand joints. >> But yeah, it's it's silica sand. But the important point is that it's been there for five or six years. There's no signs of any erosion. >> Yeah, I think that's right because I
tried to put my fingernail down between those and not possible. >> But but without, you know, any problems, I don't see a problem. I was out there and I it's a beautiful piece of property and uh personally I have no problem with
with what you propose, especially with the mitigation you proposed. Again, that's just me. So, >> yeah. So, I'm sorry I didn't get to that properly. I don't remember why, but anyway. Um, so you're proposing further
mitigation or existing mitigation? >> Well, there there's no work on the project itself. The only work that's left to be done would be mitigation that would be required if someone were to propose this. So, it's just the mitigation that is the proposed. >> It sounds like it's well planted now.
>> No, it's not planted. >> Not. Okay. >> It's just >> It's right there right there. Yeah. Filling this up. >> So that would be the area that where potentially there would be further mitigation plantings. >> It's a portion of it. Okay. >> And a little bit past >> there's a little bit on the other side of the path too.
>> Right. Got it. Thank you. >> Yeah. I don't have a photo of that part. >> A lot of mitigation. >> I think the fence comes out. We talked about the fence coming out. It'll be lost in the mitigation if it doesn't get moved out. >> Was this continued from 72 or
>> No testimony was taken? It was just by request because there was a short there was only four commissioners present and the applicant wanted the full board. >> Okay. So I can't make a comment. >> Um no testimony was taken so you can >> we never >> can participate since you
>> okay >> you didn't miss anything. >> Great. >> Um then I have one comment and one question. Um, I don't think that this commission would have approved a patio within the 35 foot buffer zone five
years ago. Um, so to me it feels like we're allowing the mistake to stand and granting that variance for not coming in front of us. So I have a hard time dealing with that. Um,
and uh, Bob, you mentioned that the mulch is an enhancement to the buffer zone. Can you explain? >> I hope I didn't say that. >> I hope you didn't hear me say that. Um, no, I don't believe the mulch is at all. I think I mentioned that there's an area that is mulched that will be uh taken
over by the mitigation plantings. >> Gotcha. And and I think I also said that I don't think this would have been u approved within 35 ft. um whenever it would have been proposed, but we we are here now and it is one of those cases
where I don't think anybody did anything willful and I I I just think we have a very good opportunity to fix a lot of the place up mitigation wise for native plants. It's a tough case. >> I I just want to say it's it's always
better to leave something better than what it was. And um I understand, you know, the reality we there is reality here and and and and you've dealt with this reality very well and I think one of the
key things you said was the patio has been there for six years and there has not been any visible um water you know coming no puddling um so
>> he wants to come and you know present something that that is a violation It's not I don't think we're encouraging anybody to do this. It's just >> we're rectifying a pro. We're rectifying something that went that was wrong. But
I I think we we we the land benefits from it. >> They told me that it's a joke. >> Anybody else for a comment? >> Britney, anything? >> No. Thank you. >> Anybody in the audience?
Nobody's online still. Um So, do I hear a motion to accept the proposal with special conditions? So, move, Jack. Second. >> Second. >> Second. Uh, okay. >> Wherever. >> What are what?
>> Uh, all in favor? >> Anybody opposed? >> I'm opposed. >> Okay. So, it's uh 5 to one. keep using my thank you very much for your consideration on behalf of Miriam and Lisa.
>> Thank you all and again I'm sorry for the timing. Appreciate it. >> Is that the right one? >> All right. >> Um you're still up. >> Say what? >> Never mind.
>> Okay. All right, we have a couple of uh COC's to deal with. Um >> nice paper clip. >> First one is or actually the first two.
We'll take them one at a time. Sorry. First one is for SE83204 Cape Cod Engineering for Yeping Ding. Hope I'm saying that right. 185 Cranberry Lane. Uh Britney,
>> I don't know why Bob left, but we I guess he's not presenting this. Um so this is the a permit for a septic septic upgrade reconstruction of a deck and um closing in an existing porch on an
existing boat house that's located beneath a coastal bank at this property. Hold on one second while I open this up since our online portal is not working. >> Okay, Bob's back. This is a COC request
that you submitted, Bob. >> Okay. Um the existing the deck first. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, this is the boat house. Um, the boat house was constructed mostly in
compliance except there was an expansion of the deck on the seawward side by approximately 300 square feet. Um, and so let me bring up the asbuilt. Oh, there's no asbuilt plan for this, right? >> It was just the deck that was
reconstructed that I'm >> trying to pull up a photo of. Mohass was always there. >> Yeah. So, the proposal was for a septic and expansion of the deck. I guess Joe didn't take a picture of the
deck. Anyway, the deck is on pretty much in the marsh. Um, it's elevated, but so the deck >> right there with the fence. >> Yeah, it's over there. So, it's pretty much directly above Salt Marsh and
Coastal Beach. And it was expanded on its on the seawward side. the only permitted deck portion was on the west side which exists there. So, um I would I would probably recommend either denying or continuing this so
that the the homeowner can file for an after the fact notice of intent for the deck expansion because it is located on the coastal bank above the coastal beach. Um, and I don't think it's something that would originally have been permitted
to give them the board an opportunity to review it. >> Anybody questions for Britney? >> Um, you said it's over the salt marsh and bang. >> Yeah. Let me just pull up the near map. >> I sent you. >> I didn't get the photos. I didn't get
the photos. Yeah, you must have I don't know. I didn't get them, but I can um pull up the >> My question is how's the vegetation under it would be? >> It's pretty much rack >> and some coastal beach vegetation right
underneath the deck. So, you can see the deck here. >> Yeah, I think uh the marsh and was always I see it's beyond the deck. The water never should come to the deck or
underneath. I have additional picture. You look at your email. Um this is old picture trees. The marsh is is near the water. That's where the marsh is. >> I know. But without a surveyed plan,
it's it's very close to the to the river. Um so this part part of the deck was approved on the side. It's just this front part >> was not approved. >> Wasn't originally peritted. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, it did have the foundations, the original foundation. I have
additional picture I sent you. So, we basically just set another foundation next to it. >> I I pardon. I'm Bob Perry and the um Cape Cut Engineering and I was not involved in the septic system work. This
is from 1992 I think. But I did work on the next COC. So, but I did my research on the COC and the order of conditions was for a septic system for that building that you just saw in the photo.
And there was mention in the order of conditions about closing or enclosing a screened porch. But the records that I went through, and Britney may have better records, but I could not find any indication of what screen porch were
supposed to be closed in, but the boat house and that deck have been there since the 60s. And that that little deck on the left side, we know from aerial photography that the boat house and that small deck on the left has all been there for a long time. And it's that
front deck approxim I think Joe estimated at a 300 square feet or so that there is a concrete block or post foundation below it that was supporting a deck that was there at one time. So it's my understanding that the applicant
must have rebuilt that deck of course as far as we know without a permit. So, you're looking at either a enforcement order to remove it entirely, uh, which is always an option or a notice of intent to come in and and have a review.
There's there's the old there's the old foundation. So, >> so that it's cut and dried in that sense and and I can certainly understand postponing the COC uh because it is this building that >> you didn't use the previous foundation.
So you've actually doubled the impact that >> would have occurred because in any future notice of intent that you review >> uh to discuss that type of thing. >> So you're going to submit that extra square footage of deck for permitting.
>> I I'm not sure I'll be doing this. I sort of shifted away from after the fact uh as much as possible, but I'm going to talk to uh the owner about how I might be able to assist, but I don't know for sure. I just volunteered to do the COC.
And when I looked at the building, I said, "Well, obviously that deck's okay." It was never part of my plan. It was never part of anybody. I I just I said, "Well, that must be must I We didn't even think that it was unpermanent." So unfortunately that's
something that has to be dealt with. Um and and the septic system portion of this we check the asbuild plan. We want to make point that in the order of conditions the only condition was the septic system be installed and if the
septic system was installed the screened porch wherever it was could be enclosed. So we couldn't find any record of the screen porch but since the septic system was documented through the board of health and we checked that there's an
asbill plan and a certification we wrote the certification letter that the septic system installation could be certified and if the screen porch wherever it was was closed in
it was done so with the proper conditioning that the septic system be constructed first and that's that's where we are and then Joe um went out saw the deck and he had a different impression of the deck than we did but I I >> yeah without any any history of its
permitting um I would appreciate in the future for you to include any deviations in the letter that you provide so this is a pretty big deviation that was omitted >> we do we do yeah but I it didn't dawn on us that that there might be another permit or not so it's an oversight there
two choices are to uh vote to have them remove it or allow him to have an NOI filed by by September 3rd. I make a motion to that effect that that um we give the applicant opportunity to
file an NOI um by the spec specified date. >> That way I think it gives them a chance to kind of re um to look at how this could be rectified. And to be clear, the notice of intent would include a variance request because of the location of the deck.
>> That's that's my motion. >> Understanding that if we deny that notice of intent, it can still be appealed. Um so if we're not comfortable with that addition now then
just putting that out there. >> Yeah. Yeah. They can >> what? I didn't hear that last part. If we vote no on a future notice of intent, um they can always appeal to the state and if the state determines that it's fine, then they get to keep that
additional square footage. >> If I could through the chair, I would like to qualify that. That would also be a appeal through the Yarmouth Wetland bylaw. And and that's that's a harder road to ho. >> We need a second on this. >> Can we be more clear on what we're
doing? We're continuing. I mean your options are >> options are the way I understand it Britney can correct me is that we could vote >> to tell uh owner that he needs to remove the uh deck or we can vote to allow him
to file an NOI by no by September 3rd. >> Sorry correction. This is not an enforcement hearing. So, you can vote to deny the COC request and in the denial letter, um, we can issue violation notice with the deck and everything. Um, or you can vote to continue the COC
request and we'll issue a violation notice telling him that he could see >> We have a motion on the on the table, don't we, that I just made. I mean, it was that inappropriate. >> We want to make it clear what we're doing with that motion. >> No, no, you need a second before you discuss it, don't you?
>> Can we get a second? Okay. >> All right. So, >> I didn't hear that. So, can I >> I heard me, but I didn't hear. >> All right. So, can that be discussed now? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. So, I think >> I have a motion. It's seconded. If
people have questions about it when they present them. >> Well, we have to make sure people understand what they're voting for. We're voting for to uh ex >> to >> I didn't understand your motion. Paul, did you make a motion to issue a
violation notice allowing him to file? What was your motion? >> My motion was to um give the applicant an opportunity to file an NOI. Uh so that >> that would be through that we have to do that through violation notice. >> I'm sorry.
>> That would only be allowed through a violation notice or an enforcement order. >> All right. >> Okay. You want to amend your motion to to um >> No, I want to give the person an opportunity to go back to the drawing
board with an NOI and bring this to the commission and have the commission act upon it. Okay. >> In order to do that, we have to uh give him a violation order in which he can then come back with an NOI and as built.
Correct, >> Britney? Yeah. And then we could make another vote on this what to do with the COC. >> Yeah. >> So, are you saying that the motion I made was um >> just have to amend it to to to uh that we will uh give him a violation
order which will allow him to do an NOI. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Then add the violation order to the motion. >> Jack, you want to second that again? >> Sure. >> Okay. And then we'll have to go back and look at the COC.
>> Okay. Okay. So, um, >> so what the status of the septic and the deck? Well, >> the septic is fine. The western side deck was in compliance. The additional deck was not in compliance. >> Okay. So, that's jeopardizing this addition entire project.
>> Yeah. That is jeopardizing the entire project. Okay. So, we're going to look next time at at the attempt to rectify that violation. >> Yeah. If this vote goes through. So, um
Paul's motion will allow the owner to come back with a uh with an with a proposal to ask for an amend acceptance of asbuilt and we'd have to give him a very a very
correct >> you'd have to review the notice of intent >> right and that's what you wanted. So just just to to further so let's say for so so the the owner comes back with that >> the commission could turn him down. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. And then it would have to be
discovered what he does at that particular point. >> Right. We are not we are not voting to uh keep approving >> at this point. while we're voting is to allow him to >> opportunity >> the opportunity to come back and uh ask for permission to keep the >> correct
>> with a with a >> the only thing I would I would say is if the commission already agrees that they want the deck removed it would just be a waste of the applicant's time. I was just going to say why are we prolonging the agony here unless unless there's I I just
>> that deck is bad and I I think it's g it's going to be rejected. Am I wrong? And so why don't we just take care of that tonight? And >> I understand what you're saying. I think what we need to do is vote on Paul's motion. If you vote against it, okay, >> it means that you can then come up with
another motion to have him take the deck down. Is that right? So, we have a motion on the floor. It's Paul's motion. >> It was seconded. >> Ask PE and was seconded. I'm going to ask people to vote individually just so we can all hear your vote. So, Paul >> I
>> I >> nay >> I >> nay. So, it's three. >> So, does not pass >> means it does not pass. >> Okay. Next. So, now we're back to may the applicant inter uh involve himself in this discussion. And I I wanted just
to say or ask a question really. Um at what point is the applicant um I think an applicant can always return to the committee for a notice of intent, >> but that would be concurrent with an
order to remove or how >> the if the commission votes now to deny the COC and issue an enforcement order, there'd be another hearing for the to discuss the enforcement order. So if he wanted to bring anything up then this this technically is just for the COC. Um
but in the interest of time they wanted to give you their thoughts on that as well. >> Okay. >> So >> I'm confused. >> So we're voting on the COC. We have to vote whether to continue the COC request or to deny it. It is not in compliance
with the original plan. So, I'd recommend the committee vote to deny the COC. And in the denial, the next step is that I could issue an enforcement order from the from the office with whatever you guys agree on. If it's whether to remove the deck, there would still be
another enforcement hearing in which we discuss that. >> So, but when do we have the opportunity to approve the project again as a whole, the septic and everything? I mean, >> it's all connected. So, we would that would have to wait until the deck is resolved. >> Okay. whether it's removed or permitted
>> and that couldn't happen in the same meeting. >> No. >> No. Okay. So, this does delay obviously. Yeah. >> Right now we need I need a motion to accept the COC. You can accept it or deny it and uh and move from from there.
Am I right? >> Yeah. >> So, can I hear >> I move that we deny the COC request because it incorporates a violation right now. Um, >> so the motions are always in the affirmative. So if you >> we should move to accept it. You don't have to vote to accept it, but we should
move to accept it. >> Oh, okay. And then you our vote is right. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So is that what you're moving to accept it? COC. >> Yeah, I guess so. If it works that way. >> Okay. And a second. >> I'll second. >> Record. Okay. Um, here we go again. I'm
going to ask again for individual votes. >> Now I'm confused. >> Oh, you're confused. Okay. So we have to move in a positive >> motion has to be positive to accept but you can vote to deny if you feel it should be denied >> you vote no you vote
>> so if we accept this what happens >> if you accept this motion the certificate of compliance is approved and therefore approves the deck as it is right now becomes permitted >> I don't necessarily agree through the chair I I think you can issue an enforcement action I I I could not find
any record of the screened porch the deck there was nothing about the structure of the boat house that I could find in the order of conditions that we filed the COC for. I only found mention of a screen porch and I scoured the plan by Paul Sweetzer and John Schneijable
and I never found any record of anything structural. I think you have two separate >> not on the plan. I don't I don't really understand your >> There's there's >> there's no deck on the front. >> See? >> Well, there's Oh, no. There's no deck on the front. Of course not. >> Existing concrete pilings.
>> Yeah. >> Right. But >> but no deck. >> But there was no proposed work on the boat house in the order of conditions that we're addressing. It was a septic system to handle some kind of facility
that's in that thing labeled cottage and the the deck is in my opinion it's a separate vi it's a violation of course because you can't find a permit for it and it's brand new but >> has nothing to do with >> you. You're welcome to hold up the COC
for the septic system if that's what you choose, but I think it's still separate. You're not appro I don't might be hurting my my client, but I don't believe you're approving a deck by approving a COC for a septic system for the cottage. >> That's why I'm asking.
>> Actually, the original was >> I never found a plan of it. >> The original filing was an enforcement order. Construction of a room and deck on existing cottage within 100 ft of Fawn's Pond. The enforcement order required an order of conditions. >> Where do you see see that? That's in the
order of that's an enforcement order. >> Oh, I what what's the date on that? >> 911. >> I never saw an enforcement order. >> It's all in the same file. Um goodness. I I mean just >> Okay, but that's where are the plans that we would for somebody walking into
this? I couldn't find any record of any structural changes. Uh but that's just my story which is happens to be true. But I don't my point is I think the deck is separate and and clearly the project is not in compliance
with an extra deck. So you can feel free to deny the COC or to table it. But if you happen to approve the COC, I think you still have a deck problem. >> In my summary of the original project, it says reconstruction of existing deck.
So I think the deck is included. >> Okay. I'm not going to argue that. >> If you want more time to look at it, we can continue one hearing. >> Oh, no. There's there's no uh case being made that we're in good shape here.
>> I think either way, the the original COC is going to be delayed. >> Yeah, reconstruction of the deck. >> Oh, I see. It says reconstructed deck. Well, I'm forgive me and I'm perfectly willing to admit mistakes when I make them, but I had no idea this was an
enforcement action because we're looking at the town records. I'm reading it on the screen and I I didn't come up with that document. So, the fact that it says reconstructed deck, it didn't occur to me that it was part of the NOI. They were talking in the order. If you go to
the order of conditions, you'll see, >> yeah, all the conditions are relevant to this >> to enclose a porch. And there was no >> which was after the fact work. >> Okay. So now >> but it doesn't matter really. We just I think we need to go back to uh Ellie's
motion. >> Yeah. >> Which is to accept the COC. >> Well, let me clarify m Let me just clarify my mo I move to accept the COC request which does include a violation um of of a deck extension. So it's a
clear motion. You're approving the COC. That includes a violation. >> But if you approve it, then we are accepting the deck. Is that correct? >> So >> that's not what my motion says. No. >> Your motion is to accept the COC.
>> Oh, okay. Right. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. If you accept the COC, we're accepting the deck. >> Yeah. >> If you vote no, then you're saying >> Yeah. >> We're not accepting the deck at this point, >> right? >> Okay. >> Yeah. And I heard I think Bradford seconded that. So now I need a vote. So
Paul, >> well I I just I think it's unfortunate that such confusion um kind of emerges in these kinds of situations. Um, is there any type of um, apparatus or whatever you want to call it or
procedure to table this so that it could be further investigated and presented to this commission in a way that we could basically understand what's going on because I hear about I hear about >> um, screened in porch. I hear about a
septic system. I hear about this unapproved deck and it's it's again it's it's just very difficult to follow and somewhat difficult to decide what the right course of action would be. My initial situation my initial initial um
proposal was to kind of give an opportunity for the owner to go back to the drawing board and maybe even work with Britney in terms of well what do we do now? We have these things existing on the property. We want to get this right and um we want to present this again to
the commission in a way that makes sense because right now it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. >> I know what you're saying, but if we're if they go through all that money and payment to to come up with a plan that we're going to say no to anyway. And I think that's what Ellie's point is.
>> Maybe not. >> Yeah. >> Maybe not. Maybe there'll be a plan that we will appreciate, >> right? You know, if if the if the if the owner comes back with, I want to keep the deck where it is, and it's clearly a >> a violation of the wetland protection act, then we're not going to approve it.
And I think that the the consultant and the owner would know that. >> So, there would be some other opportunity to remove the deck on their own valition or something like that. I don't know. >> What does that mean remove the deck on? Oh, you mean >> Well, in other words, just say, "Okay, this isn't going to pass, so we're going
to take it down." I don't know. But again, it's a confusing situation and we we we kind of bump into this every now and then and it's too bad, you know, >> what's the difference? >> I don't think there's an objection to a continuation of this. If you would do
it, it would give me a chance to re-examine the record. We're not going to find any proof. Uh that deck wasn't there when the dock was done, which is your next case. Uh, and I think you still have a deck issue,
but um, the fact that this is an enforcement action, notice of intent back in 1992, uh, we were not aware of that. And so we didn't address this project as if it was an enforcement action. We didn't scour
the building department for files of for building permit. someone was going to build a deck, they might have gotten a building permit. Um, and so that's I don't think there's any objection to that
at this end. >> Well, we do have a motion on the on the floor. It has been seconded. >> We have two choices. We are we we we voted no because of the tie on the first and then this is the second choice.
Right. >> This your your the motion on the table is to issue the COC >> that includes a violation. Yeah. It's I got to be clear that the COC as it stands right now includes a violation. So that's what we're approving.
>> The you issuing the certificate of compliance would confirm that the site is in compliance correct with the original permit. Correct. >> So, we're essentially saying that the violation doesn't matter. >> So, if the vote doesn't pass, then we'd have a a third vote to issue the
violation notice >> if you want to now. Yeah. >> Oh, that will speed things up. >> So, to be clear, you're going to vote now. If you vote yes, you are issuing the COC and therefore you are saying yes
to the to the deck. If you vote no, you're saying no to the deck. And then we come back with a violation vote in which the owner can come back with a with a plan like other violations do. And at that point, we would hear his
plan and vote yes or no to the deck. Or maybe he would do what you said, Paul, and just say, I'll just take the deck down. We don't know. >> So >> motion's on the floor. And yay means yes, I going to keep it down.
>> Vote means no. Uh he need to vote a violation after that. And if we do vote the violation, he has to come back with a plan or he has the option of coming back with a plan. I think that's as clear as I can make it. >> Thank you for that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Got it.
>> So everybody who votes yay, raise your hand. Everybody votes nay, raise your hand. Okay. So we >> All right. The COC has been denied. >> Now I need a motion to um have a violation.
>> Move that we issue a violation notice for the unpermitted portion of the deck um and request removal or a filing of an afterthe-act notice of intent by September 17th,
2026. >> Okay, >> I'll second that. All right. >> It's pretty clear. >> So, does everybody understand what we're voting on now? Go ahead, Paul. >> So, that that motion that was just made will allow the applicant to come back with the plan as you described. >> If you if you so wishes.
>> All right. Thank you. >> What will come with the violation? I'm just curious what that entails. Is that just >> a violation notice is standalone. So, it doesn't require a hearing. If it was an enforcement order, there would be hearing. So, the violation notice gives him clearly two options and a deadline that he can do either one by the
deadline >> without seeing us again. was September 17th. >> 17th. Yes. >> Okay. All in favor of the violation. >> Okay. I don't see any opposed. So, I think we're finally set with that.
>> Okay. Um, thank you for bearing with me. Um, so next is SE831713 Cape Engineering for Ying Dang, uh, 185 Karenberry Lane. Um, Britney
This was for the deck uh sorry the dock this was to construct the dock ramp and float. The dock ramp and float are constructed in compliance with the original permit. However, there are additional float there were additional floats stored on this salt marsh that
the homeowner removed this week already because we told him they shouldn't be there. They're in these photos. They were just the dock. the extra floats were over here on the shoreline and he's removed the floats portion. Um the other
component that is that um there's just a substantial amount of storm debris um located on the coastal bank that I would request be removed. Um so I'd just recommend continuing this
one hearing so that he can one or two hearings so that he can remove the excess buildup of storm debris, limbs, etc. on the coastal bank. Um there's also a note about boats stored on the shoreline that Joe had put in there um that I was a little unclear about. I think they're on the top of the coastal
bank in the in the lawn. Are they in the lawn? >> I think right now the boats are stored behind the boat house. That's always the case. >> And is it Yeah. Yeah. >> So this is like the top of the coastal bank. Are they on the slope at all or are they at the flat part of the lawn?
>> I think it's flat more or less flat. The whole thing has a little slope. >> Okay. >> This place and people walk by. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, as long as these So, these are the floats that you've moved upland, right? >> Yeah. >> Those are gone.
>> And then, just to be clear, those have to be stored upland all the time. Um, yeah. So, I just recommend continuing this for one or two hearings. However long you think you need to remove that pile of brush on the on the slope that's like here. >> Yeah. We're going to remove the brush. >> Yeah. But for the boats, I don't know
where to store. >> I think the boats are okay where they are. Maybe just hop frog, that first one that's closest to the slope to the back. >> So storm debris that was blown in by a storm. >> Um, no, it looks like it was dumped.
So it was just >> it was there because of the move there. >> Somebody placed it there. Right. Okay. >> Yeah, >> understood. It made it sound like the storm pushed it in. No, it's it's after the storm the whole slope all the debris.
>> So I have a choice. >> Pull all those thing all the way up here. >> Yep. >> Or my intention is hopefully those will help the >> bank stay >> banks. >> But expert told me that's not the way it is. >> Yeah.
>> Sorry. My intention was hey have some organic stuff going. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, I need a motion to uh would that be August >> 20? >> How long do you How do you How long do you think you need to clean that up? I
>> I I don't know. Uh >> you have guests. >> September time frame. Maybe >> we could do September 4th, but >> September 3rd do the same day. >> Oh, well, he doesn't have to come back for the other one. >> He doesn't have to come back. Okay.
>> Four or 17. >> Think it's September. >> I need to come back anyways. September 3rd, I think. >> Oh, third or 17? That's third is fine. >> I move that we continue
see 831713 to September 3rd, 2026 for removal of brush. >> Thank you. Seconded by Jack. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, we are done
with those two. Um, thank you. Next one is SE832307 Cape Down Cape Engineering for Carlen and Richard Oberton for River Drive. Britney,
do I have to sign anything for Cranberry? No. Sign the first one for Cranberry. >> Dan, this is you. Do you need anything from me? >> Um, yeah, I think so. Sorry. >> But before you go to that, do I have to sign anything for Cranberry? >> No.
>> No. Neither of them. Neither. Okay. Thank you. Now I'm ready. Um, the COC for River Drive was for an addition. Um, the addition was completed in 2022. Mitigation was required to be
planted in the first growing season after construction was completed, but it was never done. Typically, the commission likes to have orders closed out before we file for new work to be done at the property. Um, they have a notice of intent in a minute
for a pool, which includes the original mitigation to be planted. Um, I would probably be inclined to continue this certificate of compliance until the mitigation is installed. probably this season. So that would be
October 15th. >> Would that u prevent us from hearing the other >> It wouldn't prevent you from hearing the other project. Um I just I don't see a reason to issue the COC when zero plants are installed as the mitigation. Um, I would just wait
until they're at least installed and then if you if you decide to permit the pool project, you can monitor them under the new project. But I don't see the reason to approve something that was the planting was never done. >> Okay. So clearly the mitigation wasn't
done and so we want to the idea is to move it to recommend continuing till October 15th so they can put the mitigation in and then come back to us. Is that mitigation what is shown on your plan that shows the additional pool?
>> Yeah. >> Yes. It's broken out uh as a separate line item. >> Yep. >> Yeah. So it's all Okay. >> Okay. Um so do I hear a motion to um continue to October 15th?
>> Jack second. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor. >> Anybody oppose? No. So, do I sign something here to tell me? >> Are we jumping right to the pool one? >> No. >> No, I didn't mean to. I was just saying.
>> Yeah. >> Next one is SE832438 round Cape Engineering for Michael Dodd 158 Pleasant Street. To my notes, >> this is a COC for a pier expansion and
float reconfiguration. Um the site visit showed everything was in order. Some additional plants were put in for in some bare areas. I'd recommend issuance of the COC with ongoing conditions 12, 18, and 19, which include that the boats can't be stored
on the marsh. >> Okay. So, um you're uh >> so moved. >> So moved. >> Seconded, Jack. Sorry, Brad. All in favor?
>> I I >> Anybody opposed? >> Okay, >> appreciate that. Michael Dodd was here just in case. So, he appreciates it very much. And we also moved that Osprey pole that was after the season that was successful. So, good project. Thank you.
Okay, next one is notice of intent SC832545 down Cape Engineering for Carlen and Richard Overberton for River Drive proposed in ground pool and riverfront area land subject to coastal storm flooding and a buffer and the buffer
zone to a coastal bank that some green charge Good evening, chair, members of the commission. Um, for the record, Dan Ogula from Downkeep Engineering. Um, this is related to the one we just discussed where, um, there was a small
addition a few years ago. I think the order was still open or with the permanent extension act certainly, but we hadn't got a chance to do the mitigation plantings yet. So, um we reminded the owner of that. Um we uh looked at expanding the um wildflower uh
meadow uh um area um to to offset the very very small swimming pool. Um this is a a site that's on Bass River. So, you've got a number of resource areas. You've got uh starting with the the river itself. Um land underwater.
There's a coastal beach. There's a little seaw wall there. There's a coastal bank. Uh and then that's the most landward resource area other than of course the um the riverfront is a a resource area itself. No no no buffer to it. So you've got a 35 foot area. Um
there's a a set of licensed stairs down there or um it's been there for many years. Um there's a um very little opportunity on the site for for a pool. They were hoping to do it in the backyard. We said, "Well, that's just really not something that you guys like
to approve is things, you know, 35 uh feet off a bank or even, you know, closer to 50 as they would be if we hit the steps." So, their only option to um to get their toes wet and get a little bit of exercise is a small 8 by8 pool on
the um south side of the house. And um so what we were able to do is uh um find do a small enough pool that can go in the yard setbacks. It's not a structure under the building code. We worked with the uh building department to ensure
that uh zoning compliance was met. It's u in a lawn area so you're not really losing too much. You know anytime you put a little bit of hardcape where there's existing lawn you can always look at it that well at least there's not fertilizer being put in there. Um
there's u u staff uh Britney and had uh asked instead of expanding the wildflower meadow if we could look at some woody plants. Um we do love the wildflower meadow for for the pollinators and and u um that's the thousand square foot of sort of the
pluses that are on the sign on on the plan. And then so behind that we introduced and changed it to um Pastor Rose Bush Blueberry St. John's wart, Sweet Fern, and Inkberry. And um Andrew Gerlay from my office uh worked out the
coastal plantings at the correct spacing. Um and uh so that was uh uh put on the plan and uh per your uh current guidelines uh we put rocks to mark the mitigation plantings 10 foot on
center uh and um in that manner uh carefully uh delineate so that there's a a no m zone with the woody growth especially there shouldn't be a problem the wildflower meadow sometimes you do an annual mowing in the fall just to
knock down the woody growth Uh so um I don't think it's a it's a a hugely um controversial. I think you're getting a nice benefit. You can look at a at a ratio of um 550 square foot of mitigation where 540 is
required and of course that's a a multiple of the hardscape. So the riverfront um will be improved nicely. Um it's a house which predated the the the act. Um, we checked the number of square footage that put in there,
including the pool would be about 3,000. The act talks about, um, you know, 5,000 or at least enough to get a, you know, three-bedroom house with a septic in the driveway. There's an exception for doing what the best you can with what you have in the riverfront. The D didn't comment
on it, so I think it would pass muster. Again, it's a tiny teensy little pool in an existing lawn area, and you're getting uh an additional 551 square foot of mitigation, bringing the total up to 1,500 ft of riverfront being restored um
in in total. Again, that I don't mean to double count it. We did get a small addition earlier, but uh clearly uh for the work that's proposed, you're getting a a good two multiple um and some woody plants as well, per staff's recommendation. So it's again it's
against a river. It's a developed area. It's pulling back and and quite a ways from the it's more than 50 feet from the top of the bank uh which is a stable bank. Again there's a seaw wall that protects the toe to keep it from slumping. Be glad to answer any
questions if you have them. Thank you. >> Any questions, Paul? >> Yeah. Um it is a small pool. There's two things other there's a big tree right near where the pool is going to or proposed to go. Is the installation of
the um pool going to necess necessitate the removal of that tree or do you think it'll damage the tree at all? The root system? >> Um we're hopeful that no. Um we didn't mark either of those for for removal. Um they're plotted on the plan on on either
side. >> I see them. Uh, and um, you know, we're hopeful we can get we can tuck that right in there. It's uh, it's only 4 foot deep, so 3 foot eight. Uh, and and um, so I I think we can do it without damaging those trees.
>> Okay. Second question is, is there going to be a little walkway around the pool? >> Um, not really. It's just an auto cover, so there's a coping. >> Okay. >> So, it's it's you wouldn't really call it a walkway. Okay. And the final
question I have anyway is this. So the the lands slopes down to uh towards Bass River Road they have marked on it. You're going to have to put a little bit of fill in there. >> Well, what we'll do is just leave the edge of the pool up. It's almost like a pre-cast bottom half of a septic tank to
just set in there. So you'll have a little reveal on that. That's how they do them. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Oh, just a quick one. And >> yeah, in regard to the ma um the mitigation um could you explain the comment irrigation system to be
maintained for establishing meadow and maintenance during drought periods? What is what is the extent of the plan wise? What is the irrigated area? >> Um so that would just be you you have a regulation against doing lawns. Um but
you do allow um irrigation for plants. So, that would be a drip line along the existing um uh or I'm sorry, a drip line, a temporary irrigation system, which which you guys generally do allow. You know, newly
planted plants uh really need some attention and and if you're not watering them diligently, they'll die. So, um that would just be a drip line run in a pattern uh through the the wildflower meadow and the woody plants. >> Um and uh would be temporary in nature. Once that's well established, again, the
uh the wildflower meadows are pretty hardy and uh as well as the coastal shrubs, which we've chosen, fairly drought tolerant, so we'd expect after a few growing seasons to be able to strip that out. >> Got it. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else?
>> I've just two minor ones. Um one, I appreciate you putting it on the side of the house and not having us have to say don't put it in the 35. Um, and then, um, if you could reduce the the spacing of the
stone markers to every 5t, um, I think that'd be a little bit better at demarcating the mitigation areas 10 feet. I'm just worried about, you know, someone on a ride-on mower just going right through it, not realizing the those stones are there. Um,
>> that sounds reasonable. I I think we could do that. Thank you. Anybody else? Britney. >> Um I would I would just recommend to the commission if you're considering approval of this project that no work to
begin until the entire mitigation area is planted since they have a history of not putting the mitigation plantings in. I think that's a reasonable request. Um and other um do you have a draw down pit for the
pool? It doesn't look like it um right now. It's a extremely small pool, but we could certainly sneak one in if if you'd prefer >> if you think it's necessary. I don't know the volume of a pool like that. And is access from Bass River Road. I'm
assuming you can't drive over the septic. >> Um yeah, you you would you just plate it. You'd put a road plate down so you could protect the septic and then you'd sneak in that way. >> Um it well honestly it looks like Bass
River Road's a little closer now that I examine it. >> Just because this area is fully vegetated so if it's damaged through access it would just have to be restored. >> Okay. Well, that would be we could note that um and probably tuck our our access pretty close to the septic.
>> Okay. So to be clear, you want us to if we do approve it to uh one of the conditions being no work until the mitigation is completed and approved by you >> is installed at least. >> Yeah. Installed. Okay. >> Don't we didn't we say that on the
previous is the same. >> No, it's one year. >> Just reiterating. Yeah. So the the last one >> we want them to >> install the mitigation by October 15th. >> Yeah. Um, >> and it would just be a fail safe. So, no
work on this to begin until the mitigation's installed. >> Could I ask a question that is totally like just random? Is um I was just curious on on the previous application. There's there different owners for the same property or am I missing something
that I was just curious. That's all on the on the on the pool. It was It's Carlen and Richard Oair and then and then and then on the on the on the um the addition it's Kelly and Matthew. >> It probably sold
>> and that's probably none of my business but it was just weird. >> Am I wrong? I don't >> I don't recall. >> Sold in uh Yeah, it sold in 2024. >> Oh, was Okay, that's why. Okay, it's a date.
>> Yeah, that's fine. Previous owner. Sorry. previous owner. >> That's right. So, we hear a motion to approve pending um conditions which include also um that work on the mitigation be installed before they
start their work on the pool if we approve it. >> So, just the planting of the >> Yes, the install installing. >> Being that we're new owners um and it's the middle of a hot summer, any chance on reconsidering that?
>> Yeah, I just I mean, >> we could put the stones in and it maybe, but boy, uh, >> in the middle of July. >> Yeah, I was thinking maybe if they would get to use the pool maybe, you know, November or something on the current
plan. I would agree that we should try to um accommodate this a little bit differently. >> Well, I would be happy with the condition that the stones be placed and u and you know, even the wildflower meadow, we could probably well I would just leave it at that. You'd be better
off in the fall. I think >> if the intent is to have uh to start the work this summer, then I would be okay to have the condition be mitigation plantings by uh October 15th, same as
the >> the other planting. So, they all go in at the same time. Um and that one gives them a deadline and doesn't hold up installing the pool for them to enjoy. All right. So, you want to make that motion? You want to make that into a
motion? >> I will make that into a motion. Okay. >> Anybody second? >> I I'll second that. >> Yeah. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Okay. Great. Sounds good. And u I I
suppose I could bring a revised plan to staff showing a five foot on center rocks, the reveation if disturbed, and the draw down pit. Would that be appropriate? And I'll get it today just so you can Okay. And if you can decide on the access, throw it on there. But if it's undecided, that's fine. I'll just put a condition.
>> I'll put either either or >> about the access. >> Now, um I appreciate your consideration very much. And thank you. >> Which which of these should I sign and one I shouldn't sign? Correct. >> The only one that's for an order of conditions.
>> Not signing order of conditions. >> Oh, you are signing an order of conditions. We're signing this one but not the previous one. Right. >> Can't tell which is a diff. Oh, there's order. So, I'm signing this one. Okay. I'm not signing the top one. Got it.
>> Thanks for putting up with me. Only sign one. Don't sign both. >> I don't know who made the motion on that. I missed everything. >> Seconded. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Dan. Okay, now we're into the next order of business, which is an
enforcement order for Francis Poli or Polyif Poli 57 Lewis Bay Road unpermitted construction of a retaining wall and removal of vegetation with land subject to storm footage RFA and the buffer zones to a coastal bank and salt
marsh. >> All right, thank you for your patience. Um so this is as says um this owner has an open and sorry open or expired um
expired I think order of conditions that was issued a certificate of compliance for a retaining wall and work around the house and the pool. It required mitigation as shown on this plan. Um the retaining wall as I
understand it was failing. So the homeowner decided to redo it without permitting. But so the prior required mitigation area has been destroyed. Some fill was added and a new wall was installed along with um a little parking
area I think maybe was earlier. Um the homeowner has been very cooperative. Thank you. Um but so there is a draft enforcement order in the laser fish which has been down. So, I don't know if you've been able to look at it. Um, so the draft enforcement order requires a
new surveyed plan showing existing conditions along with a revised mitigation plan allowing them to use the original mitigation and expanding on it for the additional work done. Um, it would obvious it would have to be
updated by a professional, but he seemed willing to plant this area down here and wherever else is available to attempt to permit the new retaining wall. And that would be deadline September 3rd to review back by the commission because we
don't know exactly what buffer zone the wall is in right now. Um, which is what the asbuilt site plan would be for. and with very hopeful planting by October 15th, but with ordering plants by the early September, it may not be available
by then. So that's the enforcement order would require a new survey plan and a restoration plan knowing that the wall may be within the 50ft buffer. I'm sorry, here's that near map of the original wall that skirted the 50 and
then the new wall at a right angle. And this is all the 50 foot buffer to a coastal bank um and riverfront area. >> So the old wall was curved and the new wall is right angle. >> Yeah.
>> So hi, I'm Frank Poli. Best for last. Um so originally if you know when I looked at some of the even on that mitigation plan you notice when on the mitigation plan the pools an oval
the pool actually as you could see in the true picture is a rectangle and so but the wall was curved and the the one corner was very close and the wall was kind of failing because it wasn't done right and the retaining wall should have
mirrored the rectangle of the pool. So that was was recommended to square it up to have an equidistant in terms of water drainage and everything like that. So anyway, so that's that's how they did it. I mean the the walls the same where it hits the house and where it touches
on the other side. They just squared off the corner. Um, and as you could see from the um, if you want to look at the picture of the round the you know wall, you could see that the it was a decade ago when we put the mitigation in and
you could see that it already burned out. If you see that like burned out area there's you know there's no water or you know down there anything like that. So all the so the the cedars all you know the cedars lived that we put but all the smaller I don't have the right terms for them but the smaller
floor and vegetation kind of just burned out. So we're more than happy. Look I want to plant back there again to fix the wall to sit it correctly. Those those blocks are 2200 lb and so they they needed to have a big uh you know backho type things to go to uh move them
to set them correctly and all of that. So that's what they they they did. But and also you can see my neighbor planted some very big big trees between us. But um anyway, we're more than happy to put, you know, mitigation down in that in that whole whole area. Um again, and and
unlike last time, you know, I saw in the order we could put some temporary water down them >> that would help them uh stay. So the only thing um that you just we would require an updated survey of the
site so that we know exactly where the wall is. >> Yeah. Uh definitely I'll do that. I already talked to um people from Blue Flax and >> Okay. >> Uh Teresa and Nick Crawford came over the house already. They're going to give me a proposal um
>> to to to handle this. And I don't know if they do the other thing to get would you call it? They're not surveyors, but they all work with surveyors that they could connect you with. >> You'll write you write up the things that I need to give. >> Yeah. After the commission votes, make sure we answer any questions they have.
Um, it'll be exactly in writing what you need to do to give to them. >> Okay. Um, is there is that a picture? Is that from the >> This is near map. Can you go to this? >> I can open near map and do that.
Where do you want me to go? >> Um, yeah, there's a Trying to see it on the little area I noticed where you store a boat. Um, to the right of somewhere down there. Is that the house?
>> Yeah, this is the house in the wall. >> Oh, the boat's in my driveway. >> Right. Okay. >> I I just have a hard time. There's a you have that little dirt there's a little there's a little >> there's this there's a little dirt path that goes to your gate into the >> as you're looking at to the left of that there's a little area
>> there's a little >> Yeah, >> it's probably within the 50 foot buffer if you could store it on one of the driveways instead. >> Excellent. >> Thank you. Okay, anybody else have a question? Yeah. I was curious if that that addresses your last sent in your
report. You say some you say about a new wall and parking area. Is that what you're talking about? >> That's this one. Yeah. I think that one was installed recently, but before the work on the wall was done and I don't know what buffer zone it is in it. I think it would might be in the 50 and
there may or may not be enough space for him to mitigate for it. So, we just kind of have to review the survey plan and see what Blue Flex comes up with. It's probably within the 50 because the marsh goes right on the other side of his property right to the road.
>> It might be here. >> So in the mitigation area. >> Yeah. So it have to be >> the other thing that I was thinking >> okay >> this old plan is tough with the 50ft
buffer but this little dotted line >> yeah but there's a closer resource areas here's the closest resource area top of coastal bank >> over here >> basically surrounded by >> Yeah, you're surrounded by >> What's interesting is because I was the most recent person to we bought the
property in 2006 and we we rebuilt the place in 200 around 1516. Um, so we're the most recent build except for there's a p new person down the marsh uh that's building pretty big place >> on the other side uh of >> the other side down he's very close but
I'm but I'm all the other properties are I'm further away from the marsh and the river than everybody else they have lawns they have irrigation you know but anyway it is what it is >> well I know at least two people in Crowwell have had violations
I walk there a lot Yeah. >> So, you can guess that I know the area well. I live around the corner, so I'll admit to that. Um, anybody have a question for Britney? >> Did you want to
>> Britney, you want us to vote to accept enforcement order? Right. >> Did anyone get a chance to read it if laser fish was down? a professional plan
um by September 3rd. It's kind of planting by October 15th typical. And then in the enforcement order itself, it also says the survey site plan. Oops.
>> Submit existing conditions survey plan. So that kind of covers it. for the mitigation. Do we know what we required the last time or what was planned for the last time just to kind of avoid I guess the same
>> I yeah within the in that area I said they could just use this plan and revise it or expand upon it. He's got two ecological restoration companies going to work on it or one of them obviously um they could change it. They don't have to go with what was originally there. I
just gave it as an option in case I didn't want to rework everything. >> The area of the mitigation area should equal what was previously. >> Yeah. Or it probably needs to exceed it because there's that little corner that goes in.
>> Yeah. That's my suggestion. We could go down. >> Yeah. And maybe >> and also >> and the top because the driveway is going to be here now. It may not be able to stay the driveway, but we'll have to see about the space available at the
property when we get the survey plan. >> Um, on Can I You mentioned the survey, but I just want to make sure you've got like a trifecta here. You've got the land subject to coastal flooding, um, the buffer zones. Can is he going to
indicate all of those those three things? Um, >> everything has to be updated on the survey. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The most landward resource area is the coastal bank. >> We've never Well, just since I've been there, we've never had I mean the that
marsh does fill up >> in the winter time. >> It's title, too. >> Title, but it's never come No, our property is a little higher. >> Yeah, the flood zone is the 100year flood zone. So, you really hope to never see that.
as we all do. >> Yeah, you don't want that. >> So, um can I hear a motion to uh accept the enforcement order or issue the enforcement order? >> Yeah. >> Um >> so moved.
>> So moved. Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Get that Bradford Ellie. >> By October. >> All in favor? >> Anybody opposed? Thank you. And thank you for being cooperative, too. Hope we have a rainy fall. >> I I did
>> You can wave to me when I walk by. >> I just I did talk to I guess I talked to the wrong people. I did talk to the building folks and other folks about, hey, I need to repair my wall and do stuff and they said, you know, they kind of gave me they gave you the thumbs up.
So, I did try. >> Is the wall less than four feet tall? >> Is the wall less than four feet tall? Does it because they would have given you the thumbs up if it doesn't require a building permit, you know? So then they'd be like, "Yeah,
walls below four feet don't need a building permit." >> Yeah. I don't Yeah, I don't think it is. >> Sometimes we don't uh get a chance to review everything because if you had filed a building permit, it would have flagged me automatically. So >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Thank you for
coming. >> How come I have 158 Pleasant Street here? Did we approve that? >> Yeah, >> we approved that, right? >> We approved that. >> Yeah, we did. >> 158 and then Lewis Bay. We have to
approve. >> Okay, >> there you go. I think I did it all. There are lots of little loose letters here I just put in here. Okay. I think they were I was asking these
continuing. >> Yeah. So, Joe will take care of filing it. Okay. We still got to come back to comments. All right. Um, our next order of business is approval of minutes for 72 and 618 and we'll take them separately
because I don't know who was here when. So, if you're here on 618, do I hear is there any issues with the minutes? Well, I'd like to ask first for if anybody has submitted any changes because I'll have to just tell us what they are. >> None. >> None.
>> Good. >> I read them over. >> I hope I do. I hear a motion to accept the 618 minutes. >> So move. Second, Jack. All in favor? >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. And the next one is the 7226. And that's our last meeting. So, I think we missing Bradford and Christian. >> So, can I hear a motion to Did everybody read it? Did anybody see any issues? >> No. >> No, I didn't. Did you see any, Jack?
>> Nope. >> Okay. So, you want to make the motion to accept? >> I don't do that. I >> Oh, right. He wrote them. So, I I'll move to accept them. >> Okay. And second. >> Second. >> Second. Actually, Joe writes them. I'm right. >> Writes them. >> Just that Jack is in charge of making
sure they're correct. Um, all in favor? >> I I Okay. >> Nobody against. That's good. Other business. >> Two abstain. >> Yeah. Two abstensions. >> Two obstensions. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Oh, you weren't here either. >> No, it was Brad and Christian. I didn't.
>> Who was our fourth person? >> You mean you, Ellie, Jack, Paul? >> Ellie. You were here on >> It was here. Yeah, I was. >> I thought you said >> I was quiet. It was It was We wanted a short meeting. >> That was the day we wanted to get Paul. >> You wanted a short meeting. So, I was I was I was muzzled.
>> I have another business. Um, we got a late breaking email at like 4:45 from the D that the 1.0 resilience regulations will be promulgated before the end of the year. So, there's going to be an update to the Mass Wetlands Protection Act. There will be trainings.
Um, but yes, it's they first proposed those in 2022. >> Which regulations that >> the 1.0 No resiliency draft regulations. >> Really? >> But not land subject to cost. >> Yeah. No, that's in there. >> Oh, it is?
>> Yeah. >> Oh, wow. Okay, cool. Yeah, >> they're going to be radical changes. >> Some of them are uh Yeah, I would I mean I last looks like them in 2024 when they revised them. >> But yeah, so they've just been
>> Can you send us or >> Yeah, it's online. No, >> would you send me the link? >> There's one last application that was the RFA. >> She'll send us the link if you're interested in looking at it. >> Good one. >> Um, anything else you want to talk
about? Our possible new member. >> Um, there will be someone on the select board agenda for appointment on Tuesday for our vacancy. Hopefully, she accepts. >> We'll see.
>> It will be a full full commission. uh on the next meeting which I will not be here. So Paul is going to be the chair. >> Should I talk about the email that I wrote to you? >> Yeah. >> Um so I maybe I should send the email to everybody. I don't know. I I sent an
email after reading that third party review um and all of the information. I thought, well, gee, why don't why why didn't the original application include any of that information or reference,
etc. So, I >> excuse me, back up some. >> Yeah. >> What are you talking about? >> Oh, the application for the um >> the wall. >> The wall um and the third party review that we got. So after reading that third party review I and knowing that we're
going to get because of sea level rise we're going to get a lot of these applications coming in and I think that the the engineer that submits them should do more of an in-depth analysis similar to what the third party review
did. You know he's they're both engineers and they are both they both would have the same information. So, I kind of drafted a sort of a I wouldn't call it a checklist, but >> yeah, I think Ellie is proposing right some regulation updates, which I think
are a good idea. Um, then we can have I was thinking when things slow down, we could just talk about it on the 820 meeting if anyone has any ideas for regulation updates and then I can draft them into a more formalized thing to
post. We have to like post it online public meeting and everything. So just come with ideas for >> email us her her ideas. >> Yeah, Ellie, you did the right thing. You can email me, but don't email. >> No, I No, I I meant to say you could you email um
>> the commission. >> Yeah, if anyone has any ideas um or concerns for updates, I think I would definitely be proposing an update um to the effect of bulkhead replacements, new or replacements have to have an 8 foot
or 10 foot vegetated buffer. No questions asked. It has to standard >> since we don't have that now and we don't want gravel and there's no argument why you shouldn't have plants. And then a couple of small things I think may be covered in the draft 1.0 resilience rags but I want I think we
should clearly define um hardscape which I don't know why we don't have right now. So like couple small things that I have in mind but definitely if you have anything you want to add or see changed let's work on it. Um, if we have really busy agendas, we
can try and do a working meeting as well on a different date. If we don't want to be here talking about regulations at 8:00m, um, we can try and get everyone available for workshop instead. But I think it's a good idea. >> We have pizza. >> Yeah, we just have to post a meeting.
Pizza and gelato. Will the new state regs uh us to update our bylaw regs at all or >> as long as they're not less strict? So if there's we would have to change it if there's something specific in there that's less strict.
>> Okay. >> Otherwise it's just like assumed we have to those we enforce those as well as our bylaw as long as it's not contradictory. So maybe you're saying we should wait until they're promulgated to make sure that there's nothing in there. We could start drafting.
>> Yeah, unless they have like draft ones posted that >> they have draft ones posted >> post of and usually post proposed draft. >> We did I used their draft ones for land subject two for ours and I made ours stricter based on the Cape Cod
Commission draft ones. So, we should be okay there. But I can definitely should double check. >> You're going to uh send us a link. >> Great. And um you you don't know timeline for any of this to become real. >> This is the first update we've gotten in four years. So no, I don't know a
timeline, but it says clearly >> um when it say public >> says expect promulgation in 2026. So >> okay, wasn't there something? Go further down. Wasn't there something about com public comment sessions? >> No, that's all over.
>> Oh, okay. >> All toast. Go to the first part about the air quality. Does it go through what day? >> The particles through Thursday. Today was very clear though. >> Today was better than >> until about 2:30.
>> Really? Yeah. Okay. >> I was running back from sandwich at 2:30 and I said, "Oh, it's bad again." >> Yeah. It's only sensitive groups still right now. Not >> Oops. >> Yeah. >> All right. That's all my other business. >> Okay. Anybody else have business?
>> Yeah. just uh just a couple comments in in in tonight's um hearings. Um a couple of things or I'm going to reference one, but I'm not going to talk specifically about it. I don't think we're able to do that. But um the application type was listed as an NOI, but then there was
further information put uh in there by Britney about how we could uh recommend a a violation notice. Okay. And again, I um express some concern about things getting kind of muddled, and it's
probably more me than anybody else, but um it it is a little um unclear sometimes which way we're going with certain things because then like in in one maybe one of the last things we considered was a violation notice. And
to me, there were parallels between what happened in that particular violation notice and the one that was discussed earlier. Um, and I don't mean to be confusing myself, but um, it was on uh, Cranberry. So, so
you know, um, a combination of things, you know, I mean, I know that there's a lot to deal with, I guess, and there's a lot of intricacies in terms of how things proceed. But um and then coupled with the fact that you know I do have my hearing aids
on today but I still have difficult time hearing down that end of the table and so things are missing sometimes. I don't know >> some some like us to talk louder. I would like you to talk louder, but also it's like we take things. It's almost
like out of context sometimes, you know, and I'm not understanding the whole cont context of what is being discussed. And maybe that's erroneous, but it just seems like it took a while to understand what the heck was happening in that particular in one of the cases and how
it conflicted with one of the last decisions we make, which was a clear violation. the way that proceeded. So I think part of the problem is that we don't discuss we talk about workshop opportunities but we don't do them. Okay. The other the other thing I'll add
to this is you all had um that uh third-party um information. I didn't have that third party information. I don't know where you get it. Okay. I pick up the packet and it seems like sometimes things are missing. Well, I I think it's you got to
click the links in the agenda, right? And you got to look at laser fish, which >> it's great if you you can sit down in front of a computer. >> Yeah. >> Well, that's the problem in a way. >> Sometimes I don't have time to do that before the meeting or it comes too late. >> I'm sit down in front of the computer
and then print out how many pages, >> you know? I mean, I I think, you know, I look around sometimes. Where do these people get these things? >> Well, I didn't remember getting a third uh the were in the packets. >> I didn't get it. >> No,
>> it wasn't in it wasn't in my packet, >> but you called it and you're right. I mean, you you I don't know if I would have you called attention to it in your administrative report and that's got me back to the computer to download it. Otherwise, I don't
>> It wasn't in the packet. >> Yeah. Yeah, it was it was in the packet, but >> was that was probably >> But that what you're referring that was a really confusing application. You know, finding a violation after the fact when you're just about complete with the
original application that I mean that doesn't happen very often, does it? >> And I also want to point out the last thing wasn't a violation was an enforcement order. >> It was it was labeled as a violation. Not on the agenda. on the agenda it says enforcement >> yeah that's just
>> there's a difference >> okay >> I'm not going to print out everything for the packet >> that's fine >> but I understand what you're saying about >> the stuff for the packet right >> yeah they provide it and I mean but like for a COC there's nothing in your packet
but it's ex kind of you have to look at it online >> yeah I had a hard time getting to >> do my best but it's not I mean, I I work a job full-time. I can't, you know, >> I get these to get the packet. So, I
literally have to deal with online. >> It would be Yeah. I don't know. There's got to be a better way. Maybe attach it to emails or, you know, I don't know. There's got to be a better way than having to go on to this website each time I come to a meeting. >> Yeah. I That's the portal we have. So, there's no going to be no alternative to
that. Um, but we can have the >> Yeah, it's in the links on the agenda. Um, sorry guys. I can't do better than that. But the applicants are it's their responsibility to to represent a clear >> project. So if you don't get that, just continue it. >> Yeah.
>> I I would also say to for that specific project, the representative did not do a thorough job in his uh research. >> Yeah. So, uh, that also majorly confused
things as well, um, because he didn't know what was going on. >> Well, he said he did anyway, but he didn't. >> Yeah, but he was also not necessarily hired by this guy. He was doing a favor. So, I think there's a lot of >> area was >> like we're talking about different
>> Yeah. Which one are we talking about now? >> The Cranberry Lane, he was he was hired for one of the two, but he did all the research, but he didn't I saw we were talking about the wall the steep wall the
>> well the issue is really the laser fish the laser fish is confusing >> that's >> I think that it's about as well labeled as one could >> and I don't know how that was set up do you know when was >> that that's what the town uses I can't
use something else >> what is it >> I mean the document should be there but maybe we can get an email for each site with all the documents That's then that cover sheet that Joe puts out. I guess >> on the agenda >> the cover sheet Joe >> then it takes you to laser feature.
>> But you really need to expand the idea of that cover sheet. I think >> I'm reading stuff >> so that we include actually not just what the new thing sent out but what are important things like those two previous uh unfilled
you know things that never that got approved as COC's. So I think that that's going to be experimental in a sense that we try to expand that sheet that goes out as a
cover sheet and actually goes back and maybe identifies some of these critical papers that you know are three layers four layers down. >> I mean we can do our best. >> Yeah. No, I I think it's a group thing
that we have to work with. last year. We have more filings. We have for the entire year of last year by now. So, we're Joe and I are doing our best. We can expand the cover sheet. We're not getting rid of laser fish. It's what the town uses. So, sorry. You're still >> No, no, not talking. >> But yeah, we can try and add things to
the cover sheet and where like where to what's needed. I thought Joe was doing that now. >> Yeah. I mean, he's >> but then you got to go into laser fish and it's not conductive like if you're reading things on a phone because that's the only chance you have to read something. Yeah, >> you don't have time to sit in front of a computer where it's much easier to
navigate. >> Well, I have a little bit of time. So, >> I had more. >> Well, and and the thing is that we, you know, we volunteered for this kind of work. So we it kind of in a way can't say well we you know with all due
respect we don't have the time but the thing is if all I want is more clarity in terms of what are the issues or what are all the components of the things we're going to be talking about um because they come up and this is this is
this committee it's also previous committees where to me sometimes all the business happened down the end of the table and and you didn't you kind of missed things. So I don't know what the solution to that is. Um how we can be
better informed about what will be discussed because you also have um u public meeting kinds of constraints and so on. >> But you are you do have time to uh if you look at things we get on a Thursday before and if you look at everything and
you have questions oneonone you can talk to Joe or uh Britney. >> Yeah. But David, the questions don't come up until you I mean, you look at the stuff, okay, I understand what we're we're we're going to be disc seeing, but then all of these kind of um uh
complications come into the picture. They say, "What the heck are they talking about?" You know, how can I get this information either in this meeting or prior to this meeting? you know, it's just like um it's it it you know, I want I want to uh participate in some sort of
competent way and I feel like maybe I'm not doing that all the time because I'm missing things and am I supposed to spend more time on the computer or am I supposed to do other things and if I can't succeed in this, I'm going to have
to not do this. So, um uh we'll see. you know, again, of course, speaking for myself, but I just want I just want to be able to um appear anyway to be competent in dealing with the public, you know, and fair to them, you know.
So, anyway, >> this might be silly because, and I'm only suggesting this because you mentioned it that you um sometimes can't hear what's going on on this side. Is there some I mean, can I switch seats with Paul that he's >> Well, I'm gonna tell you, I there's a
there's a there's a system Oh, >> that is being put into >> a lot of places so that people with hearing aids can tune into that and in concert halls in >> movie theaters in rooms like this
anywhere and it's not a lot of money >> you know so that's one solution to that problem it's not like my hearing is just >> it's not like I'm >> but we all talk soft too >> you talk soft you talk fast >> well also too sometimes I you I'm trying
to pick up information that I'm missing and I don't think it's something worth bringing up in front of everyone. >> Well, I think the microphones are a little low. >> Okay. >> Generally, I think we ought to first of all, first step would be to increase the
>> I think we need to talk louder too, you know. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And the lady tonight, she said, "I can't hear you." So, I just went closer and I could even hear my voice being amplified a little bit better. So yeah, but that's kind of beside the point, you know, >> but it's the other organizational things
that, you know, are kind of bothering me that I'm missing stuff >> and I don't understand it. And um so luckily I've never had a big problem asking questions. So sometimes I don't think you should stop. >> So I I I could fight. >> Sometimes your questions are what I have
in my mind anyway. >> Yeah. >> I love your questions because you clarify everything. >> Well, thank you. You know, voting on. >> But I do think that the one thing that we went around with different motions was an unusual >> Yeah.
>> On the one hand, we're trying to be nice to the guy. On the other hand, he has this violation that's really >> Yeah. >> a big violation. >> Yeah. >> I know. >> I think what you said, you know, should we really have to go through this to have him? But now he has the option. He can
>> he can decide, yeah, I'm going to go forward and then we can make a decision or no, I'm not going to go forward. I can maybe read the uh read it. So >> I think it came out well though. >> We came to the right result but just took time. >> Yeah.
>> Believe me on that. >> Um can we uh have a motion to adjourn? >> Oh yes. I I so moved. >> Moved. >> Second. second.