recording in progress. >> Okay. Welcome everybody to the um December 18th meeting of the Arth Conservation Commission. Before we begin, I'd like to welcome a new member of the Conservation
Commission. joining us for the first time tonight is Christian Boba and thank him for his voluntary efforts for the town and um wish him well in this uh important work. >> Thank you. >> First item um on our agenda is a request
uh for a determination of applicability. Robert Kelly 146 Mayflower Terrace proposed second floor addition in the buffer zone to a salt marsh and coastal bank. introduce yourself and present your project.
>> Uh, good evening. Thank you for allowing us to be here. I'm Robert Kelly, uh, owner of 146 Mayflower Terrace, and this is Keith Goyier, our uh, home remodeler for the proposed uh, remodel at 146 Mayflower Terrace. >> Hey, do you want to tell us a little bit
more about your project? We are uh changing the pitch of the roof from a lower five pitch roof to a 10 pitch roof, which allows us to put a second floor in the top of the of the project. It's uh it's currently set up like a ranch now.
>> And as it finishes, it'll be more like a salt box with a second floor with a raised up rear facing the water trying to take advantage of the natural setting. >> Okay. Thank you. So, I know that in the um proposal originally there was a a
deck included and um it seems that that you might um approach that in a different way with a different u another uh application. >> Yes. Okay. >> We're hoping for some guidance before we left tonight on that. >> I hope you get some guidance. >> Okay. I'll open up to the commission.
Any questions, >> Kelly? >> Uh no. You clarified the the deck expansion. Um that's the only question I have. Okay, Christian. >> Okay, Jack. >> No questions. Okay, we'll turn it over
to uh to Britney. >> Yeah. So, for the deck, um just so the commission knows, the the proposed deck that they would be hoping to submit under a separate notice of intent filing um is a 20 by 12 deck expansion. So, the deck would go across the back of the
deck and it's entirely within the 35 foot buffer. So, the notice of intent would include a variance request and perhaps some mitigation plantings to to go with it. Um, we just can't do variance requests under an RDA. So, they have to go a different route. It wasn't included in the abutter notice. So, they
can't do it in this filing filing. But um with that, I'd recommend a negative3 determination for for the second story work and the gutters component um with special conditions including that once the work is complete, the site be fully stabilized as soon as possible and the
two trees um required for a previous admin be planted in the next growing season. >> Okay. Do you have any questions about that? Yeah. Any comments or questions from the u attendant the audience?
Seeing none. Anybody on Zoom? Okay. So, we need a There's nothing there. We need a motion uh for a negative three with the uh stated conditions. Uh would anybody like to make that motion? >> Jack. >> Second.
>> Second by Pat. All in favor? >> I >> Okay, you're all set. Thank you. for my earlier question. Is there anything that you could coach me on just when we do come back about trying to expand the deck that would
>> I would stick around for the next item. >> Okay. >> They're requesting >> a similar thing. Um they had a notice of 710 application. They provided a 12oot vegetated buffer. Um in their case, there was coverage to begin with. Um so they were just kind of modifying the
coverage. Your case is new coverage. Um the location of the coastal bank on your property may be beneficial for variance with lots of plantings. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks everybody. >> Okay. The next item is um notice of
intent SC 832503 6 Chilton Road um for Jo Joseph and Danna Dipio. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Joe Deio, owner of the property at 6 Chilton Road. Um I believe
my engineer Scott Vanara Vanara is on uh Zoom. >> Okay. >> He was going to attend the meeting through Zoom. So >> Okay. So this was a raise and replace of a single family dwelling. Um no added encroachments into the 35,
no additional coverage into the 35. Is that correct, Britney? And also I in in the um in the applica in the discussion last time uh there was a request for cross-section of the steps included in the plans but I noticed that they are
availing no questions we'll move on to Britney. Uh Scott, is there anything you wanted to add? Um they they looked over your revisions and you made everything that they requested. Um eliminating any additional coverage in the 35 foot buffer, just reconfiguring the space
that you had, including the detail on the deck and the swale within the mitigation area. So we appreciate all the work you did on this plan, unless there's anything else you'd like to add. >> Yeah. No, that that's great. I don't really have anything else to add, but I'm happy to answer any questions if
there are any. I would recommend issuance of an order of conditions with special conditions. >> All right, say that again. >> I would recommend issuance of an order of conditions with our standard special conditions. >> All right. I don't Did I go to the audience? Anybody out there have a >> not yet?
>> No. All set. And Zoom. Anybody else? >> Just one comment, sir. >> I think that uh you're to be commended for sticking around for the several long meetings and that you have responded
well on this after last weeks and appreciate that. >> No problem. Thank you. Thank you for your help and getting it through. >> Yeah. Thank you for your work. Okay. So, we need a motion for um Would you say that one more time, please? >> An order of conditions with special conditions.
>> Order of condition with special conditions. Jack's making a motion. Second. Second by Ellie. All in favor? I >> You're all set. >> Thank you very much. Have a good night. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. The next item is a notice of intent SC832506. Um, myron Sons Incorporated for James Igo, 21 Her Heritage Drive, proposed new construction of a single family dwelling and garage within land subject to
coastal storm flowage and age national heritage priority and estimated habitat. >> To go down, >> everyone sign that first one. >> Be right with you. >> No worries. right there.
>> Did you see our late breaking NHSP comment today? Okay. >> Good evening. My name is Darren Meyer. here for my own son's representing James Igo. He's the applicant for the project. Uh the proposal is to construct a single
family 4-bedroom dwelling uh with this onecar garage on a 24,000t property that's in an AE1 flood zone subject to coastal storm flowage. Uh the property is also entirely in an
endangered species habitat uh which we've gotten an opinion from Misa on and um have made some revisions to our initially proposed site plan to accommodate their concerns. Uh the proposal is to remove
approximately 14,000 square ft of woods areas to accommodate the dwelling, the driveway, some grading that will need to be done to accommodate flood zone issues as well as a fully compliant title 5 septic. Uh we're proposing probably to
bring in about 800 yards of fill uh to get the front yard and rear yard up to uh an elevation that works with the foundation. Uh the property itself uh the the dwelling will be constructed to meet all state and local flood zone requirements.
Um there'll be some minor landscaping in the front of the dwelling. Um along with a modest lawn area. Um the driveway at this point is proposed to be paved. Uh I know that the suggestion was maybe a pvious a pvious
surface, but I'm not sure um with the grade and everything if that'll work. uh to try to climb up that driveway. But at any rate, um happy to answer any questions you might have. >> See, um I have nothing. Ellie,
>> yeah, I'm just um I have a letter here. It's in the documents that has um a survey of the existing trees. um 62 pines, 51 white oaks, 36 eastern
red cagers, and one black cherry tree. It It's It says these are it are these the ones I assume these are the ones that are a present and also b targeted for removal. >> Yes. What I did is I did a earlier this week did a count of the trees within the
work area that we had staked out. And I'm not sure if you actually did a walk through on the property to see what it looked like, but the majority of those trees are on the smaller to middle end of the caliper of those trees. So I would I would say at least 50% of those
trees are probably 6 in to 8 to 10 in saplings. Um, as far as the higher end on the range of diameter, I mean that may be 10% of the trees that are there. It's it's it's a very small caliber tree
growth in that area. Um but when you count it, that's that's what's there. >> Um so what is the respective mitigation for that removal? I could not I could not find that in the documents. Um
there's no mitigation plan that I saw unless I'm missing something. And yes, I agree with the the nature of the trees. >> Sure. >> I guess >> we just figured I think with the rest of the lot that was completely wooded, um
you know, the area that we were clearing would not really need mitigation. I think that between some of the small landscape that they're going to put on and uh some of the other grass areas and whatnot that that would be sufficient. So the entire area of uh extent of
disturbance is is proposed to be uh lawn. >> Uh no, I think the front yard would be lawn and I think there do wood chips around the side and back. >> So you're also getting rid of I assume you're getting rid of the 8 foot of sand that's there and then importing bill to
replace it or >> right they would Now, they would construct the foundation, obviously, excavate for that, and then um you know, we would probably have to peel off the >> the you know, the top and subs soils and
then fill that and then bring that back in and create a a top and subs soil, you know, on top of what we bring back in. Just looking at the drainage with the with the high slope as you
>> Yeah, we did a perk test and a soil evaluation and it is all sand there. Um it very well drained. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> Christian, any questions? >> Nope. Jack
>> just uh Britney, what's the ration or what uh rare species are in the general area that it's named for? >> It's um the letter today that we received uh identifies it at eastern spadefoot toad habitat. It identifies
that the work is directly within the habitat but it will not adversely affect the resource area. Um, and they added a list of conditions to be attached to the order of conditions and recorded with the deed >> and and including the per permanent monumentation that's on the original site plan. But you said you had made
some edits to the site plan to in response. >> Uh, I revised the initially proposed site plan that I sent to Misa. The revised is in your Okay. >> this package showing the monuments on the corners of the work area. >> Okay. >> Have you seen any truth?
>> No. >> It's based on documentation. I know >> an observation within the past 25 years. So I I don't know if they were there recently, but >> all identified in observers. I'm sure >> it has to be approved by by MISA the
observation. So there was one in the past 25 years. >> I'm not joking about this because I I do have a wildlife management undergraduate. So So don't think that I'm just putting it off.
All right. Anything else? Jackie has something. >> I just have a question then just let me know if it's not in our purview. Um my understanding from reading the the notice of intent is that and I quote this is not an acceptable um the
alternative would be to not construct the proposed dwelling and leave the property undeveloped. This is not an acceptable alternative for the property owners. The property is assessed as a buildable lot. The owner wishes to sell the property and part of the contingency is that a building can be structured on
the property. So, is this building going to be built or not or is this just to say that it is buildable? >> No, the the applicant intends to build the building. And I think the um the one thing that I wanted to address is uh a
very similar project was approved a few years back right behind this property at 15 Baldwin. Even more clearing than we propose, a similar size dwelling, probably bigger. And um their intent is is to construct the dwelling probably in the spring once
we get the approvals. Okay. >> All right, Britney. Anything else? >> Um, I just have a question. I see that you're capturing all your ground your u storm water runoff from the dwelling in dry wells. What about you said this driveway is pretty steep. Are you cap there's no trench drain or anything at
the bottom. Are you planning to capture that storm water somewhere? >> I we could if it's required. I just I didn't think it was significant. I mean, it's 400 square ft of paved area, but I, you know, and you know, we could pitch it out to
the street and the streets got drains on it. >> Okay. Um, and in general, so in the flood plane, obviously, you're only you're keeping this limit of disturbance close to the work that you need to. Um, so our regulations require they allow
clearing in the flood plane where on a buildable lot and removal of trees to the extent necessary. Um, as long as you're attempting to keep all trees where possible. And so if and when if or when the homeowners decide to do a
landscaping plan, we would just ask that they submit it to us prior for approval to make sure they're all planting native plants. Okay. >> Um, except for the foundation, they're allowed not some non-natives. Okay. >> Yep. With that, I would recommend issuance of an order of conditions with
special conditions, including the list from natural heritage. >> What about the pvious driveway? Is that in your conditions? >> That is up to the commission if they'd like to require a pvious driveway or a trench drain or something.
And in the flood plane generally, we would prefer a pvious driveway of some sort, but it it's up to the commission. I think because of the slope I I understand the material paved. >> Yeah. But so then there should be some kind of um trench drainer catch for the
runoff because of that slope. >> Yeah. We generally prefer all the storm water to be >> contained on site instead of shunting off into the town's MS4 system. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So So that >> so that would be the only condition.
>> Imperous driveways. Okay. But the recommendation is for a drain, a French drain or something at the bottom of to collect the water. Is that what I'm understanding? >> I believe so. >> Yeah, correct. >> Okay. Okay. All right. We go to the
audience, please. Any questions, comments, concerns? Thank you. And on Zoom, anybody? Okay. So, we need a motion. Uh could you help with the motion again, please? to issue an order of conditions with
special conditions including the requirement for drainage to be captured from the paved driveway and natural heritage comment. >> I'll move that verbatim. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Second, Pat. All in favor? I >> Thank you. Thank you. Okay, moving right along. Um, uh, ESC Group Incorporated for Steven and Allison Brinkman, 361 Great Island Road, proposed raise and replace of a
single family dwelling in land subject to coastal storm flowage in the buffer zones to a coastal bank in Salt Marsh. Hello. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, members. For the record, my name is Kieran Healey, and with me tonight is the build of the project
hopefully, and the owners, uh, Mr. and Mr. Brickman. Um, what I've done is because the the lot is small and there were so many different items on the lot. I showed the the planners in two ways. One with the existing condition on the
left hand side of your plan and one with the proposed conditions on the right hand side of your plan. Um, we originally started this project planning to modify the building, but as we got into the building, it was discovered that we would trigger the 50% rule for FEMA. Um, where there was considered a
substantial improvement. Um, so as a result, we had to go back to the drawing board and prepare a a brand new building to comply with FEMA regulations. Um, that requires the building to be elevated approximately 3 ft higher than it is today. Um it would be going from
elevation 11 up to elevation 14. Um the site itself is extremely difficult with um multiple buffer zones, flood zones. Um we have a coastal bank along the top of the the bank at the water's edge and
um we are walking within the 0 to 35 35 to 50 and the 50 to 100. What we the way we looked at this was that with the existing building there we tried everything we could to make sure that we did not increase the lot coverages in these areas and we were
able to reduce it minimally but we were able to reduce it less than what is there today. Um the driveway on your plans you'll see it I've shown it as a brown colored layer um just so that you could see that there was no plan to change the existing driveway at all. Um
the garage slab is onetenth different from what the garage slab is today. So as a result we'd be able to maintain the driveway as it is. It is made out of gravel. Um so there are there is no drainage proposed for it because it is a gravel driveway currently and it's the
existing driveway. Um the building itself will be um the same square footage. You'll notice on my um buffer disturbances um for the structures, the 0 to 25 works out with the decks in the portion of the building
that's in there works out to be exactly the same. Between the 25 and 50, we're reducing it by 21 square ft. And between the 50 and 100, we're reducing by 12 square ft. Overall, a reduction of 33 square ft within the resource area. Um
we have proposed a work limit line around the property. Um, we are looking to maintain the septic system as is. Um, it's a title five septic system, so we're not looking to uh modify that or to increase the bedroom count of this property. Um, with that, we'd be glad to
answer any questions that you may have. >> I I do have a we don't have a D number for that and um I I don't know if there was a recommendation to wait until we get it to to um approve this
Maybe Britney could chime in. >> Are you asking me? Okay. Um, it's up to the commission. Sometimes we issue pending a D number if we don't expect there to be any comment. >> They haven't been providing much comment lately on on projects for single family
dwellings. Um, but it would be up to your comfort if you'd like to issue or wait pending the D number. >> Okay. >> Unless there are any revisions as well that you would request. I don't have any questions right now, Ellie. >> Um, so my understanding from from the
mitigation is that it has it has to be revised to uh give different weight to the different um locations. Is that >> that would be my preference. So um like in the previous project that we just issued >> um they
>> first one >> Yeah. So, usually we have the but the mitigation table. I understand you're seeing a reduction in coverage instead of um adding coverage, but it's separate deck and home dwelling um because decks are considered a minor structure in our
regulations and dealt with separate planet sort of a different way. Um that being said, I see that I mean you're doing very minor changes here and I don't necessarily have an issue with them. I would just like to see it broken down as we usually require on the site
plan. Um, so there's no mitigation plantings because the area right up in the back of the house is already mitigation plantings from another project. So none is currently proposed. It'll just so you're able to do all the work without damaging what's existing or it will need to be replanted. >> Um I we're proposing to do the work
without damaging anything. The reason being is if you look at the deck area, there's already a stone um gravel stone bed underneath the deck. So it means our excavation won't extend into that stone bed. And if it did a few feet, we still have stone beds. So we should not
interfere with the the plantings that are there. >> Okay. >> Great. >> Great. Christian, any questions, comments? >> Not at this time. >> Okay. Thank you, Jack. >> That just uh when we were out there, we
noticed some um mulching around the mitigated plantings in the front and just should be noted not to do that. No additional mulching law. >> Yeah. So, and um our mitigation areas are intended to naturalize in
perpetuity. So, instead of maintaining them as a regular landscaped bed with mulch, you can go in and hand pull weeds um address anything, but it should be allowed to naturalize instead of adding a layer of mulch every year, especially since it's so close to the salt marsh. Um my only other comment um is I know
you're in the flood zone. You're you're increasing that foundation. Are there flood vents? I just don't see them on the plan or do you need them? >> Um we will need them but they're they're not show on the plan. They're on the architect's plan. Okay. >> They are there. They're just not on the site. Okay. On the site plan.
>> All right. Britney, any other comments, questions? >> Uh no, that's all. Thank you. >> Anyone in the audience? >> Anyone on Zoom? I think the one consideration we have to have is whether we want to wait for the D number. We can approve it pending um
uh the um what is it? Pending the >> Yeah, pending the D number and revised mitigation table if you'd like to see that. >> I I I need clarity on on on that. um because we've looked at three of these
now in the last meetings on on decading versus you know the footprint of the the the structure what have you. So if I'm looking at his his mitigation table now, how do you differentiate and should he have a subheading under
structures could separate out deck? Yeah, >> but the square footage is the same, right? >> Deck and dwelling. Yeah. So it might end up being >> is that what you want to see? Because I don't think we've seen that >> proposed. I'll show you for the >> I just so you know, I have never split out deck and bu and structure. I gladly
can, but I've always sided, you know, poking out decks and buildings as structure and then landscape or patios or things like that that are not >> actually built with nails. >> Sure. How the weight is calculated? If it's if it's treated differently, how
how is that addressed? Because right now we just see equal square foot net square footage differences the same. So would >> So inoring the square footage. >> Yeah. So, in theory, I'm going to use the site plan as an example, the one we
just did. >> So, if we if they had a deck here originally, >> Yes. >> we wouldn't eventually allow that to become living space within the 35 ft buffer. >> Um, so that's how the decks treat it differently than the dwelling since the decks are permeable, fully, they don't
storm water, and they're part of the dwelling. It's kind of just their minor structure instead of >> But the square footage used in the mitigation is this the same. Uh that's what I'm confused is how do you weight that square footage differently? Is is
anyone else confused about it? I don't know. >> I don't know. >> We pretty much always considered the same >> the same that's if it was deck and building we considered a structure and then we would say what we needed for >> and for mitigation values. Yes. But our regulations allow decks closer than the
building. Um so in the future if you would be proposing to replace this deck with building, we would not allow that. >> Yes. >> That's why >> and we fully understand that. Yeah. >> Decks are decks buildings of buildings as far as what the Z5. >> Yeah, >> we fully understand that. >> Okay.
>> All right. Thank you that. >> Yeah, I think so. Yes. >> All right. Now we need a motion um to approve this project. not to approve to issue an order of conditions. >> An order of conditions >> with special conditions pending the D
number and if you choose the plan revision. >> Oh, that's a that's a great um motion. Yes, Jack. To approve. All right. Second. >> Second. >> Second, Pat. Okay. All in favor?
I >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. Thank you, Britney. >> Thank you, Karen. Pass down for signatures. this. >> This is heritage. >> This is 21 Heritage. Is this all you want the whole time or
do you want me to show anything else? >> This should be it. I put copies of the plans at the end if we need them. Yeah. >> So, all you >> Okay. Next item is a notice of intent. Um, zero Rosetta Street
with ecological restoration by restoring tidal flow of former cranberry box with boardwalks and sitting areas within inland bank BVW riverfront area land underwater bodies, salt marsh, coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm
flowage. You can introduce yourself and present. >> Good evening. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mark Forest. I'm here as the chairman of the Cape Cod Conservation District. That's the hat that I'm wearing here tonight. And I'm here with Julie Busuff, our project
consultant from Fussen O'Neal. And before I turn it over to Julie, I just want to make a few comments and just make it clear um you know why we're here uh before you tonight. Um this project, this restoration project is a collaborative effort involving the
conservation district and u just so that everyone knows conservation districts were created by the legislature years ago. Uh our district was created in 1947 and our role in the Commonwealth is to help land owners, property owners, um
protect and conserve land and natural resources. And uh our district works closely with a federal partner called the Natural Resources Conservation Service. And so lately we've been incredibly busy helping towns uh throughout the Cape uh
undertake ecological restoration projects uh throughout Cape Cod. Um this project involves um the owner Cape Cod Hospital and our other partner is
the uh Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration. And I think you'll probably see the district and deer involved in, you know, in the coming years with with a with a number of projects uh here in Yarmouth. Uh over
the years, we've worked on uh a variety of conservation projects here. We were involved in the building the fish ladder uh at the Grismill uh mill pond. Uh we provided funding and assistance for the Parker River Bridge Replacement Project
and uh with uh the efforts and the hard work of the friends of Bass River uh and Rick Bishop and his team will be back probably in the near future with some other very exciting projects. Um we're
very excited about this one and um we are looking forward to uh working with you in terms of what I would say is an important part of the town of Yarmouth. The Bay View Bogs has for years been for many years has
been an asset and an important resource for the West Yarmouth community and um the district has led the effort to work with the neighbors, the community, the residents. Uh we've held numerous public meetings and public discussions about a
collective vision for not just restoring the environment which is basically an abandoned cranberry bog um but not only restoring the environment but providing benefits for the broader community including the hospital. You'll see in
this plan um a component of the overall project that involves providing some kind of access to patients and people involved in the hospital community, whether they're workers, patients, family, people dealing with a crisis
situation in the hospital. I think one of the things that I've learned from my experience in being in the hospital is that they do a wonderful job in providing access and to the environment. Um, if you stay in the the Mugar wing,
you have this incredible uh overlook of Hyannis Harbor and a good portion of uh the waterfront. And our hope is is that after this area is restored, it'll probably provide even
more visual benefits, but also providing passive access for, like I said, the hospital community as well as the neighbors of West Yarmouth. So, we're thrilled about this project and uh I think Fust and O'Neal have done an outstanding job in developing this
project and we're like I said, we're excited to be before you tonight. So, I'm going to turn it over to Julie and uh we'll bring you up to speed. >> Great. Thanks, Mark. Um I know that we were before the commission with anformational meeting about this project back in June. So, some of this may be
familiar for some of you, if not all of you. Um but we have a lot of abutters to this project. So my intent was to give an overview of the project and then talk about some of the more specific elements of our uh application as well. Um I do have with me Michael Sores, our senior wetland scientist on the project and we
do have a few other members of our project team online as well. Um so the the project is located immediately across the street from the hospital. Um as Mark was saying, it's a former abandoned cranberry bog. The
whole site is about 90 acres and it's about 46 acres of former cranberry bogs. Um, as you can see in this image, a lot of development around it, which is why we have so many of Butters. Um, and we're including in the project all
hospital properties. Um, but there are uh not only the the main parcel that you see in the center, but there are um bits of the work that expand onto several other adjacent hospital-owned properties. And so there are um a number of total parcels that are included in
the application. Thank you. Um I wanted to make a couple of points about the historic hydraology. Um the as as many of you are probably familiar here in cranberry country uh cranberry farms were significantly modified in order to create the
appropriate hydraology. And in this case, um, the wetlands across Route 28 on the opposite side, the north side of the street from Arbog, uh, there was a dam put in place here further to the
east to backwater up into here and then a canal was dug to bring water down into the site. And I mentioned that just to point out that there was no natural stream coming through this site. Historically, the only natural influence would have been upwards from Lewis Bay via the Tidal Creek. And that's our aim
is to restore that title influence. Uh so these are the existing conditions on site and in particular this is the ultimate outlet that is the title restriction. So this is at the southern end of the site. Um this here is Park
Avenue. So we're a bit above that internal to the parcel and this is the downstream side. So we do know from logger data we have a title uh signal here. So, we do see tides coming up to this point. Um, this is freshwater title at this location, but because of the
burm and the drop inlet water control structure here, tides can't ever make it up and over and into the site in the existing condition. So, this is a big piece of what we're looking to remedy. Uh these are existing conditions elsewhere in the site and this is
typical of what we see of former cranberry bogs with the exception that this site has been abandoned for a number of years um several decades at this point and so we see a lot more tree growth on the site. Um we are seeing most of those trees as either invasives.
There's a tremendous amount of gray willow on the site um as well as some upland species because the site is currently trending towards upland. And that's because we have again all of these modifications to hydrarology. And so all of the remaining ditches that were created are collecting the water,
concentrating it, and moving it through the site quickly rather than spreading it out across the surface as would happen in a natural wetland. So that is causing all of the the bog surfaces, the bog platforms to trend towards uplands in many locations. Um, and that again is
is part of the restoration that we're seeking to correct. There are some areas in the site that have done a better job of restoring themselves. Um, and you'll see on the plans, those are areas that we're labeling as light touch. So, we're intending to do a lot less work there,
capitalize on some of the wetland vegetation that's already there as sort of a a starter to have those communities spread beyond there and really only do the work that's necessary in those locations to eliminate the ditches that still remain. Uh we also have evidence of buried pete
below the surface and that's important to thinking about where different types of wetland habitats would naturally occur or can be uh reinstated. And so uh I show this just to to demonstrate that you'll see that the deeper pockets of Pete are corresponding to areas where
we're seeking to do some excavation to create deeper marsh habitats and have a variety of different wetland types on the site. Ultimately, and this is um below the active work of our site. So, we're looking at two culverts on Park Avenue. The one um
which is the primary title connection to light to Lewis Bay that we're looking to restore. That is this culvert um and this is what it looks like looking um upstream and downstream from that culvert. And then this is the secondary culvert further to the east which is um
you don't see the culvert. It's generally submerged. It's it's filled in. I think DPW tries to clean this out periodically. Um but this is a an we believe this is a dug connection, not a natural channel and um significantly less functional. And so we're looking to
uh focus on the primary outlet uh for the title restoration. Why restore retired cranberry bogs? I've touched on parts of this already, but because of the historic modifications, um, and you can go ahead and flip forward, Britney. Um, because of the
historic modifications, we don't see these sites typically restoring entirely to wetlands on their own without some support. We have to undo all of the interventions that were put in place for agriculture. And so in places that means removing some of the sand layer that was placed on top of the wetland soils to
facilitate agriculture. It's undoing the alterations to hydrarology by erasing those ditches uh erasing those ditches, removing the berms that were put in place to separate different cells, removing the water control structures. And the other things that we see are landscape simplification, right? These
bogs um if you weren't seeing all of the trees, they would be very smooth, very flat. you'd be able to see that it's a very uniform landscape with a lack of physical diversity and um generally a lack of biodiversity as well. And so we're looking to restore that. Um and
restoring cranberry bogs uh helps to address water quality concerns as well because wetlands do a tremendous job of filtering water that's flowing through them. Uh, so these are just some images for folks who are not familiar with a cranberry bog restoration. I know
there's a lot of these happening around the Cape and so many people have started to see them at this point. Um, but it's important to understand that during this work it looks very messy. It can look a little alarming if you don't know what you're seeing. So these are images from our recent project at Windswept Bogs on
Nantucket. And you can see the before on the left. Um, this was a much more recently retired bog and so we didn't have the tree growth. You can see what it looks like during. It's going to look a little bit like a bomb went off. You're going to see a lot of exposed mud. Um, and then after uh I'll note
that there I thought there were dates on here. Um, but our construction finished in March and the below picture I believe is from September. And so that's just a handful of months later and you can see how much it has grown in. Um, no seeding or planting was done here. That's all
from the natural seedbank that was buried in the soil. And um if you didn't know that this had been restored, it looks very much and functions like a natural wetland. And so our process-based restoration is all about again undoing those
hydraologic alterations, re-engaging the groundwater to allow that pete to um hold water and keep water in the site, exposing the native seedbank, slowing flows by reducing the peak flows across the site. And we're thinking forward
here in terms of uh climate change and adaptation and planning for climate refugeia and future marsh migration which as a title restoration project is a big piece of our goal here as well. These are some additional pictures from the windswept project just to show what
it looks like during the process. Unstraightening ditches on the left. Um this is the process that we're referring to in our plans as creating diffuse flow paths. So the idea is to create um just sort of these messy nonlinear paths where there were former ditches. And
then on the right is an example of microtopography which is shown in some of the um further north a lot of the further north portions of our project. So that's a typical sort of why restore cranberry bogs. Um and in this case we have some key additional co- benefits.
The first being salt marsh migration because of our proximity to Lewis Bay and the existing salt marsh that is um already north of Park Avenue. We have the opportunity to create therapeutic landscapes as Mark was saying that really add to the healing mission for
the hospital and to offer passive recreation resources for the community and surrounding neighbors. So, we began our design process back in December of 2024 with a visioning workshop where we talked with neighbors, we talked with town staff, we talked
with the hospital, and we really kind of centered on this theme of healing the landscape and healing the community. Um, and these are some of the things that we were hearing from people about what they would like to see in this project. Community, therapeutic landscapes, healthy functioning wetlands, all being
some of the core ideas. And in terms of concerns, invasive species was a top one. Um, I think the commission is familiar with the fact that we are already working on invasive species management under a separate NOI. We're looking at balancing planning for
immediate post restoration tomorrow with future sea level rise and accommodating that on our site. Managing pedestrian and vehicle conflict. There was a lot of concern from neighbors about parking and how people were going to access the site. So you'll see it's intended to be uh walking access with lots of trail
heads out of the neighborhood and then also improving safety and the perception of safety by opening up some of the sight lines and making the site feel um less sort of socked in as you're walking on the road. So this is our site today and I show
this just to um orient you for the next slide. So south is now to the right and this is the overall restoration concept that we developed uh about a year ago. Um and I'll get into a lot more detail on this as we move forward. But this is
again our restored title connection. We're looking to allow the tides into the site at the southern end immediately planning for future expansion of that title zone as uh sea level rises and waters are able to come deeper into the site. We have some pockets of deeper
marsh further up in the site um where we're doing some excavation to activate those pete layers. In the the nearer term when we're both those areas will be freshwater wetlands. And another crucial aspect is connection um restoring a
former connection from the bogs at the southeast corner of the site to the main portion of the the bogs to allow to take pressure off of that secondary culvert here and allow those waters to flow back through this way and out to Lewis Bay.
The next several slides, um, if you want to just flip through, Britney, are images and renderings of what that would look like ultimately featuring some of the trails and network um, accessible elements. This is in in here to demonstrate how the connection
would look for many of Butters. Um there is in most areas a difference in elevation from where the existing bog road is to where the homes are and we are proposing to to leave that vegetation buffer and trees intact to maintain that distance between the
trail. This is the therapeutic landscape area which we'll talk more about. This is existing buffer zone and so we have sort of this upland node within the site. Um, and this is immediately across from the entrance to the hospital. And so these would be the more programmed elements in
the buffer zone to allow for full ADA access. And that ADA trail would continue around the pond to give a little bit longer loop. And then all of the trails beyond there are proposed to be natural surfaces or boardwalks. All right. So our particular application
and I can pause if there's any questions at this point. >> I have a question. And I don't know if this is a good time to ask it, but this is very interesting, of course, very valuable, uh, very exciting, but bringing back in history when when these
cranberry bogs were put in, did did the folks just identify a low lowlying area that was marsh land and so on and then start to construct and and brought in um uh fresh water or whatever they needed to
grow the cranberry. They know they brought in sand because the the um cranberry system needs sand and so on. So, will this restore the uh area to kind of look like it did prior to its um
development as a cranberry bog? >> Generally, yes. >> Yep. Yeah. Mo there some bogs were cut out of uplands, but generally they were constructed out of wetlands. Um, many are on kettle ponds or or formal kettle holes, areas where you had those deep
pete deposits or areas that were likely former salt marsh um or or adjacent to salt marsh. >> Okay. Are we talking like 150 years ago or how long ago did they start growing cranberries out here? >> We know the the earliest aerials we have from this site are 1938 and the bogs are
already in place. So, we're prior to that for sure. I don't know the exact origin date of this particular bog. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Um follow-up question. Are the areas where you are seeing Pete, you know, that was salt marsh before or is it there's a chance that that was also
still freshwater marsh at that time? >> It was probably a mixture of freshwater and and potentially some uh actually we're not we're not currently seeing freshwater or saltwater influence um at Avia outlet. We're seeing freshwater title. So it it may not have been salt
marsh before. Yeah, >> before we get into more detail, I'll ask my question. Um, how are final grades established? Um, you you know, my understanding is you're deleting the BMS and and the existing brush of water and
so to prevent this brush of water. Um I don't see any sort of sequence here or phasing so that you know you are controlling that and establishing you use the term um you use the term replace with earth great
control um could you explain that a little bit about that process and the phasing or control of this >> yeah yeping it on a drawing or something >> yeah and we can flip forward um maybe to
some of the plans. >> Um that actually that one will work for now. Yeah. Um so the earth grade controls that you mentioned are in a couple of particular locations at the more northern end of the site. So we do have an elevation gradient across
different bogs. Um and so the the purpose of the earth grade controls is to uh where we have these bogs that are a little bit higher elevation. We don't want those to drain out and and lose their water when we remove the BMS that are helping to backwater up into those
right now. And so based on the groundwater monitoring data that was collected, um I don't remember the exact dates, but um I believe starting in 2022 or 2023, we have groundwater monitoring data. Based on that data and understanding of where the groundwater
ranges across the season, we have identified the the target grades for the surfaces of these bogs to be um creating wetlands where we have saturation within the top foot of the surface to support wetland vegetation. And then we're
bringing those BMS down where we've indicated that they're going to be grade controls. We're bringing them down but leaving a little bit uh of a sort of a speed bump there so that we don't see the water draining out that we're holding it just a little bit higher. Um but then obviously if we had a big storm or something it would be able to flow
over and connect and spill into the other bogs. Um in general the way that the grades are are established and the way that the sequencing goes we utilize all of that existing infrastructure for most of our water control. It's actually extremely
effective not only for the agriculture it was built for but also for aiding in construction when we're restoring the bogs. And so um one of the last things to go will be our our ultimate title outlet because that protects anything below it. It protects Lewis Bay. So
that's sort of our last line of defense um to hold sediment, hold everything back as we're working in other parts. I can also say from our experience at the Windswept project um which was 40 acres of restoration. so similar in size. Um, our ultimate outlet there, we checked on
every time we were on site, never saw any turbidity there. So, you've got such a even though there's so much disturbance, it's such a lumpy site that you you really don't see a lot of material flowing across it or or migrating. Um,
and then the the grades are generally determined again based on our targets for that area relative to the depth of groundwater and wanting to have uh the right hydrarology for our wetlands. And then we're we're creating variation. So
that microtopography gives us not only a more natural kind of hum surface, but also gives sort of microhabitats where some pockets are going to be wetter, some are going to be a little bit drier. So you get that natural variation. Um, and we're moving a lot of material
around in place to so there there's a tremendous number of ditches and some very large ditches particularly in some of the central bogs. So we'll be pulling material from the adjacent surface to fill those ditches um and just kind of blend everything together and leave everything sort of a semiuniform but
within sort of a 12 to 18 inch variation of of highs and lows. I think I find it fascinating that you you know you do this messy excavation just for that reason. Yeah. You're trying to establish some sense of equilibrium. >> Right. Right.
>> And the one key exception to that is um this slide is focused on freshwater wetland but if you go back I believe a couple. So the key to our title restoration aspect is this low slope transition zone. And so when we remove the burm and
the water control structure, we'll be able to extend the tidal creek up into the site and then sort of carry the existing elevation from both the creek and the marsh up into the site. Um, and this zone will be the the sort of immediate expected extent of tidal
influence under present- day conditions. and that does not have microtopography because we want it to have positive drainage to um best facilitate development of marsh down the road. And then we have the blue here is sort of a a transition zone between the zero slope
or the the no microtopography and the full microtopography that is sort of a 6- in roughness. The idea being that as we see sea level rise and we start to get wave action or tidal action across that, it'll start to smooth out and turn into another zone that marsh can continue to migrate up
through. >> While we're on this slide, um can I ask if you So this dark blue area, is that the extent you said of tidal um under current day conditions that you expect? >> Under Yep. Under current, it's the the
sort of teal. And did you model conditions with the elimination of the park culvert? >> We did. Um, we did not. >> Okay. So, we would assume an additional area of expansion of title influence
with the elimination of that culvert. >> You're you're talking about the one that's here, correct? >> Project. Yeah. >> Yeah. I think it um when you say elimination, do you mean enlargement elimination of the restriction? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So there could be some additional um my understanding is that the early
examinations of that culvert didn't find it to be a tremendous block to title action. So I don't know that you'd see a lot more. Um but we designed this area to have um sort of the outer limits of this are at elevation three and the
highest tides that we were recording in Lewis Bay right now were 2.96. And so that's designed to accommodate that full range of of potential future potential current title conditions. >> And then with sea level rise, are we accounting for the opportunity for salt
marsh to migrate in that in that small bumpy area with sea level rise? >> Yeah. So that would be the first place it would migrate to. So we're just sort of giving it a little bit of an extra leg up and then it can continue to migrate into this area as as obviously sea levels continue to rise. Um, but we
had a lot of discussion about how to balance future marsh migration with current conditions. And by current, I mean what we expect the site to do for the next, you know, 30, 40 years. Um, and so we we wanted to preference having really healthy freshwater wetlands in
the areas that aren't going to see tidal action for probably several decades, but also make sure we were really facilitating that transition. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Okay. >> Any other questions at this point? >> No. >> Wait.
>> Okay. So, I think I covered this one. If you want to flip forward. Um, these are details that are in the plans that again sort of walk through that low slope transition zone. Um, again making the point that we have this title restriction. Now, this is looking you were to cut down through the burm and
look at it sideways. So, the the tide is not able to get past this burm and into the site. So, we're looking to remove the entirety of this restriction and we would be replacing a pedestrian boardwalk there for continued access. Um, and then you can see how that that
lows slope zone gets continued very low slope so that the marsh can creep across it as sea levels coming up. Um, and that carries into the site up to that elevation three that I was referring to a moment ago. And this is a detail of that proposed boardwalk. Um, it would be supported on
helical peers. We have it fully spanning the tidal creek. So there are no peers in the creek. Um and then peers as needed uh on the the platform um to make the connection to the existing burm on either side.
And overall we have 47 acres of wetland restoration that's proposed um in the former bog cells. That is, as I was saying, removal of all of the irrigation infrastructure, the BMS, the water controls, eliminating the ditches. We are naturalizing the pond edges where we
have these constructed ponds that have very um unnatural shapes currently. So, just proposing to soften those banks and make it a more natural transition. Um, the most southern pond already has that and so you'll see, it's a little bit hard to see on the screen today. Um, but
we have a low that low impact um low touch zone immediately around that pond. So, we're not proposing to change anything there where it already has a really nice kind of emergent wetland buffer between the pond and the adjacent bug platforms. Um, we talked about the
lows slope transition zone. These green areas are uh areas of excavation where we'd be creating a little bit lower low to have some seasonally flooded wetlands. Um in those areas where we have the deeper pete deposits underlying. Uh and then all of the sort
of yellowish green is microtopography area where we'll be roughening the surface as we talked about. And then these other yellows are again those light touch areas where we're already seeing uh that the wetlands have done a pretty good job of self-restoring and we're seeing some nice plant communities
there. Uh this is a summary of our resource area impacts. Just two things I wanted to point out. Um the the WPA form doesn't allow us to distinguish the cranberry bogs, but I wanted to make the point that 40 45.8 8 acres that are
currently identified on the form as BBW are actually the retired cranberry bog and so those are getting restored to a much healthier fully functioning BVW and then we've included uh for land underwater salt marsh and coastal bank we've included the entirety in our
tallies of those areas on the site to be conservative but we're not currently anticipating any active work in those areas um there may be some minor impacts to land underwater from that um bank naturalization activity. Um and it's possible that once we've treated the
fragmmites adjacent to the salt marsh, we may see um some other restrictions or BMS in there that we want to be able to remove. So, we've included those numbers to have them already within uh the permitted impacts so that we wouldn't have to come back and amend in order.
But I wanted it to be clear that we're not anticipating um any active work in those areas. And then I wanted to also speak to our buffer zone impacts waiver request relative to the town's regulations. Um and so our overall project will result in significant ecological uplift to 90
acres of wetlands in Upland. Um the buffer zone impacts that we're asking for where uh that are associated with the therapeutic landscape area where we have hardened surfaces uh within the 35 ft zone those amount to just over a quarter acre as the maximum. And I say
maximum because we're they may be impervious, but we're still discussing exactly what those materials may be. That rises to a total of.37 acres if you include the pvious boardwalks in the 35- ft buffer. And then the the impacts in the 35 to 50 foot zone are.13 acres. Um
and all of those areas currently are highly degraded. there. I I was mentioning to Britney um that if you try to go out and actually get to those areas there, it's virtually impenetrable with invasive vegetation. There's a lot of fragmitees in that area um or sorry,
I think it's fragmitees and notweed. Um a lot of invasives, very dense. You'd have to sort of crawl on your hands and knees to be able to get to some of these edges. And they're also um on the next slide you can see that area is all sort
of framed by these dug agricultural ditches. And so uh this is not specifically one of those edges because this one you can actually see through. Um but this is the sort of condition that you have where you have a a dug ditch and then this very steep abrupt
transition. So, these aren't healthy sort of natural transition buffer zones um that we're acting that we're asking to have trails on. Um and then I did over the next couple slides provide a really detailed breakdown of what that looks like. Um and the color coding here
is to help link up with the color coding I provided on the map which is on the next slide. But I also wanted to point out, if you go back for just a moment, Britney, um, of the impacts in the 35 foot zone, 86% of the square footage is,
uh, applicable to the walking trails. And on the next slide, I just wanted to make the point that you can't get into the site or uh, through to the next portion of the site without going through that 35 ft buffer zone. It's it's a necessity to have trails through
those zones in order to allow access. And uh in particular, the impervious surfaces are really critical to the hospital's mission of wanting to be able to give genuine allpersons access and have ADA accessible trails and
opportunities for people to experience this site, experience the therapeutic benefits of being immersed in this restored wetland environment. Um, and so that's why we're asking for the waiver in these buffer zone areas. And I'm happy to speak in more detail to those.
Um, all of the colors I've highlighted here are specific to the 35- ft zone. Um, so it's the the pvious areas are the two oranges and those are boardwalks. And then the greens, the different shades of green are the potentially hardened surfaces in the 35 ft zone. And
on the next couple of slides, um, again around the trail, same deal. Um, we located a lot of the trail here where there's already a trail and it happens to be in the 35 foot zone. So, we could locate it uh probably outside of the 35,
but I think there would actually be higher impacts because we'd be creating a new trail instead of using the existing. And then the next slide just highlights the the same things for the 35 to 50 foot buffer. And I'm happy to to answer any more specific questions you may have about that.
Any questions from anyone on the commission? Jack? >> Um, first of all, are we here just for information purposes tonight? >> Um, no. We have a a restoration notice
of intent before you that we're looking to be approved. >> You want a decision tonight? >> I >> we've opened the hearing. We don't have a D number and you're welcome to request. So it's uh really until we got that number and >> sorry
>> until we get that number and so forth there's really no reason to make a decision tonight. Uh, same as I said for the last project, D sometimes provides helpful comment, right? Occasionally, um, >> recently not heard much from them, but on a project like this, you may want to
hear if they have to say anything >> and keep it open. >> But otherwise, it's up to you if you request any revisions. >> You give them time to make them in return. But >> archaeological, if you found anything,
>> we have not. um we had to submit to the mass historical um commission and um I don't believe that we received anything back which typically is a def de facto
no impact >> and you'll have an active uh monitoring as you go along through the whole project. >> Yep. A lot of the activities, if you look at the plans, there's a number of things that are indicated as to be
fielddirected. So, the design team stays very involved with the construction. Um, one thing I didn't talk about in detail, I did mention all of the tree growth on the site, a lot of which is invasive. Um, there are a lot of white pines that will come down in um sort of the northern northeastern section of the
site, but there are some other areas where there are some nicer um red maples. And so you'll see notes on the plans that the intent would be to preserve um some of those nicer hardwood trees where it makes sense as sort of these um little upland habitats within
the the wetlands. And so we'd be directing all of those kind of activities on site as well. There's a lot of field decision- making that goes into um the actual on the ground work and that's a very active process between the contractor and our
team. >> You mentioned mosquito control activities. Uh do you have the I forget the name of it. The commission mosquito control district. Is that what you're >> That's not on your list. So >> we have consulted with them. We we have
we have met with them and reviewed the project with them and they've been very supportive. >> But I'm just talking ongoing continuous. >> You mean for monitoring >> in terms of what they're doing now? >> No. >> No. in terms of what you find, how
you're doing things as you go along over the next few years. So, you'll be constantly talking to them if you need to. >> Yes. Yep. We've already started those conversations. And, you know, it's worth noting there's a lot of standing water on the site now that's not moving. And
so, um, my hope is that certainly we wouldn't expect things to get worse and my hope is that we might actually make things better by spreading that water out and allowing more of it to be held in the soil. Um, I'm going to be a little unfair in the
sense that, um, I was a program manager at NRCS for the salmon restoration work in some parts of California, Oregon, and Washington. How do you consider
the Cape's approach to the res restoration of the wetlands and so forth as a mature approach that everybody different companies different agree pretty much the same or are you do you think that
there's a difference between firms or agencies and how they look at this? >> Sure. No, that's a totally fair question. Um I Mark pointed out at the beginning that one of the key partners on this project is the division of ecological restoration. They have a
cranberry bog restoration program and not all of the projects going on but a large number of them are part of that program and so masser has amassed now um I think we're coming up on 20ish years or maybe more of cranberry bug
restoration evidence and they are tracking the outcomes the designs sort of what works what doesn't and there is a lot of um unlike some of the other work going on in the design field. There's a lot of collaboration and discussion and meeting of the different
um designers that are working on this kind of work. Um we're all kind of learning from each other. So there have been some changes from the early days um to some of what's being done now, but in general I would say yes, there's it's it's generally the same methods or you
know slight variations on the same methods where we've all learned from that collective experience. So hydraologically, do you think that the hydraologists are pretty much all on the same page? >> I would say generally, yeah, I mean, there a a lot of cranberry bogs have a
flow through stream. Um, and so that creates some different activities, some different approaches. There's often a lot more attention to fish passage. We don't have that condition here. And so that that creates some variation in how we deal with the hydrarology. But generally, yes, I would say it's it's
pretty broad consensus. because uh Britany mentioned you know the modeling that you're doing and I hope that you're doing as much as you possibly can. Funding always is an issue for that kind of activity. Mhm. Um
Paul and Ellie mentioned I think really good had really good questions and I think they really got a at a lot of my the way that you talked about approaching the water and the hydrarology and where what you find where things are what
what you find is leading you to answers rather than going in with predetermined Um, I guess for now that'd be about it. The previous discussion really cut down on my
questions a lot. >> Hey, Pat, do you have anything? >> It was just a little question about a a tide light. >> Oh, yeah. I saw those and I just wanted was wondering where exactly you were proposing them just to ensure that we're not introducing like pollution into the
in inner buffer zones. Um I don't think that was in the plans but it was in the notice. >> Yeah. Do >> you know where those are going? >> They're they're not shown. So that was something that um was in the renderings and um I probably have a paper copy but I don't have them in here. So it was an
early idea that came up during our workshop last December. The intent being to um provide something that could be seen from the hospital for patients who aren't actually able to get out to the environment to connect them with the natural cycles of the tides and just
sort of have that that draw and connection to what was happening outdoors. Um and yeah, here they are. So this was, you know, this was a very conceptual rendering um sort of drawing on the hospital's logo, the lighthouse motif. Um, and the idea being that the
the the sculpture would sort of change colors as the tide was changing. So, if you looked out and it was green, you'd know it was high tide. If you looked at it and it was yellow, you'd know it was low tide. Um, and that could be reflected somehow in the rooms as well for rooms that didn't have a view. Um, so we're not currently showing that on
the plans. It is something that um we may want to discuss further with the hospital but um I think since that would be strictly in buffer zone we would probably come back and talk to you about that separately if it is something they wanted to move forward with. >> Okay. As long as it's I mean you would envision it would be located in the
initial plaza right like in the welcome plaza not in any inner path. >> I think I we hadn't gotten that far as to talking about that but I think that would certainly be um an option that that would work. Yeah. >> Okay. Hey,
could I follow up on one? >> Huh? There's a effort at the state level as well as other levels to try to speed up the review process on these kind of projects. Have you gotten any pressures
responding to any of this? >> Streamlining. Has it worked? Hasn't really started yet. Streamlining yet? >> Yeah, started. It hasn't really started yet. Um, we're hoping. Um, there is So, we we did uh submit this project to
MEEPA as a notice of ecological restoration project and did receive back from them and it's in the filing um that they were okay with that and as long as the commission ultimately issues an ecological restoration order of conditions, they accepted that we did not need to go through a full MEPA
process. Um, right now that's the only streamlined piece that's actually in place. There are discussions about streamlining other permits as well, but that's the only piece that's applicable to this project. >> Not that I'm not against efficiency or streamlining for that matter, but in
fact, I'd say we need the ways, but it takes a lot of innovation to do a good job and yet streamline. >> Yeah. And >> just as a as anformational note, it wouldn't affect your process very much at all. I don't think the intent is to
to ease some of the other permits that have extremely long timelines. Local conservation commissions generally do a pretty good job of moving projects through. >> Yeah, I'm not worried about my job. >> Is there anybody in the audience who has a question? Mr. Bishop,
>> good evening. Rick Bishop. Uh my wife Mary Gresie and I own property adjacent to this this project and we are 100% behind it. It's extremely extremely important. The environmental benefit, the community benefit is really significant and should not be lost on
this this commission this evening. It's really that important. I am personally however unsure um why more emphasis hasn't been on the H&H study for the unders what I would say is an undersized culvert under park. Um, that's something that certainly as sea level rise
continues will will play a bigger role in this project and you know I think that H&H study for that might might be worthwhile. >> Yeah, I'm I'm happy to speak to that and Mark may have things to add as well. The the two culverts under Park A are owned by the town. They're not owned by the
hospital and there are separate efforts underway. Um, and we've been having conversations with them. Mark has been having conversations with the town about pursuing funding to improve those culverts. Um, with our design, we intended to um do everything that we
could to help alleviate the pressure on the the worst culvert. And that one is, you know, not having studied it in great detail, but just looking at it and understanding its elevation, even the roadway there is very low. And so without raising that road significantly,
I think that culvert is going to be difficult to really improve to the point that it would function the way you would want it to. And so our goal was to uh allow the water that's accumulating here that currently can't come this way because this is um there's a bunch of
fill that was placed here when this pond was dug out. And this is there's no current connection here. Um so this water has no way out except across there. Uh and so we're giving that an outlet this way, which both connects the wetlands, which is good for the overall system, but also allows all of the water
to exit through what was uh the original natural title connection. Um and so ultimately, we're we're hopeful that that will make it easier for the town to address the culvert issue because they'll be able to focus primarily on this one, which as I mentioned before is
not a significant restriction right now, although it could certainly be improved upon. Yeah. And if I could just add the we are when I say we the district myself we have been assisting the town and identifying funding sources potentially
for that improvement. It is on the town's radar screen and it is a priority. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> I'm Christine Marciano. I'm president of the Conservation Trust. We're most
supportive of this project. Um the conservation trust has uh li uh conservation restrictions on about 2/3 of this property on the southern portions. Um the conservation restrictions do say that there can't be
any structures. So we'll be working with them to amend the conservation restrictions so that the boardwalk uh can be constructed across the middle. And this is going to take a little you know, but right now we've given them a
limited consent for the perimeter, but the board will need an amendment to the conservation restriction and we will be working certainly working with them to achieve their final goal. Thank you. >> Okay.
>> Hi, my name is Julie Silver. Um, I own the at 30 Highland Street. Um, I'm just curious when you start to address the cover on Park A or Park Street. >> Is it Is it off? Can you hear me better?
>> Do you need me to repeat this? >> Anything I said? >> Oh. Oh, there it is. Oh, sorry. Um, so yes. Oh, that's really loud. testing. >> Good. >> Just keep better. So, I own the property
at 30 Highland Street, which um is is a small a small piece of property, and I'm just I'm just curious as to when you start to do the renovations or you start to address the culvert on park, what is that going to do to the water levels there? And I specifically asked because
I know of at least three instances and I have pictures of them sent to me by my tenant over there on January 10th, 2024, March 4th, 2023, and January 17th, 2022. The tides were such that it came into my
backyard like up to the fence that I have there. And I'm just concerned that if you're looking to put in or do something with that culvert on park that's going to increase the water flow in that area and what impact would that
have on those houses there? >> So I want to be very clear first that we're not currently doing anything to the culverts at Park Avenue. As Mark was saying, that would be a separate project by the town. um and they would as part
of their permitting process have to do hydraulic and hydraologic modeling that would answer that question specifically. Um I do have some figures and I can speak to the modeling that we've done which um looks at how our project will
potentially change the the movement of water during both tide conditions and um inland storm conditions. And I can show you some images there. But the the short story is that with the existing covert in place, um you will not see any
increase in uh expansion or depth of flood waters onto any of the adjacent properties. We'll see a lot more water held in the site, which is exactly what we're hoping to do. Um but we have done modeling to demonstrate uh and and uh
confirm that there won't be any impacts to to adjacent properties that are not owned by the hospital. >> So that's providing there's nothing done with the cover on Park Street. >> That's correct. But there would have to be an additional just as we had to do that modeling for our project. Park
Avenue would have to similarly demonstrate um what the impacts would be if they were to change that covert and they would have to adhere to all of the the appropriate regulations with regards to um mitigating any impacts that were shown where it would raise waters on on
adjacent properties. >> Okay. Thank you so much. >> Okay. Is there anybody on Zoom who would like to enter the conversation at this time? Yeah, Chris. >> Chris. Hello, Chris.
>> Hi. Um, yes, I'm Chris Gley. I actually live on Glenwood Street in uh down below uh where all of this is going to take place. And historically, I had very interesting situation about the bug when
we went to pass papers on this property back almost 45 years ago and were stopped by the bank because the bog had uh deed restriction on our property for the removal of sand at their leisure
whenever they wanted to. and we actually had to get a vote from the board of trustees at the hospital to remove the deed restriction from the property. So there may be some interesting stories around some of the abuing properties. But I I also have been a long-term uh
member of the Hyannis Park Civic Association and I am not talking on their behalf at all. I'm talking as an individual, but during conversations that I've heard with various individuals in the neighborhoods, some of the uh butters further up and around sort of
into I think the Park Avenue area and that have talked about having to have sump pumps in their properties because of the fact that they have um a lot of water uh that is very unpredictable that seems to be coming from um the bog. And
so I think that's a very um you know important issue uh for people to know about. Um I also think that um when you been presenting some of these plans I would love to be able to look at them a little bit closer than through the
computer screen. And so I think it would be interesting, you know, c during the course of this meeting at some point if you could link or talk about the links that people can go in to go look at it more specifically. And then um I also think the issue of the lighting and
everything, one of the problems that's going on concurrently is the air traffic over the hospital and over this whole area. And so I would think that if there's going to be any lighting or anything going on there, it may need to also be discussed uh to make sure that
it's not in conflict of any of the restrictions or requirements of um the uh airport and airport approaches would be a concern that I would have. In addition, um I'm very glad to see that this is taking place, but I think as in
a butter obviously very concerned about, you know, having too much public access into our backyards and things like that because as it's well known and one of the things we're hopeful about is the removal of some of the activity that has gone on in there and has not been
noticed um which has included even a meth lab and a lot of encampments. And I know that part of the plan in this is going to make this property much more visible, much more able to be securely monitored to have, you know, hospital
security be able to see look out and see what's going on. But I also think that for some of the abutters that some of the concerns are, does it mean somebody can now walk into your backyard and up into your back porch or something? And so I think that you know some some good
work about really taking a look at how close to the adjacent properties things are. In addition, I will add that I did submit a picture of a turtle I found in my backyard one day. It was kind of a fun experience. I had never seen one that size and color. I I want to thank
you. There's obviously been an incredible amount of work that's been done. And I think um like for so many of us uh back 45 years ago, I know my daughter as a as a child used to skate out in some of the ponds out in the in the bog at times during the winter and a
lot of that has disappeared and things have really changed. So I think this putting it back into a much more natural and uh ecologically supported um environment is going to be very important and I thank uh everyone for the presentation tonight and the opportunity to comment and see this.
Thank you. Okay, >> thanks Chris. I can at least speak to the um availability of the plans. The agenda is always linked if you want to look at any item that's presented on the agenda on the computer. If you'd rather see it in person, they're available at
the conservation office anytime town halls open two weeks prior to the hearing and up until the project is done. So, you can come in and look at we have full-sized plans at the office if you'd like to see them. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you.
One other thing, I'm sure this is just the not that necessarily the beginning because you've been working on this for a while, but there'll be other public hearings and sessions and opportunities for Butters and other people to learn about everything that you're doing and
and um and and provide as always some suggestions or concerns. Is that correct? >> That is correct. Our intention is to sustain the public engagement and public involvement process throughout this. Uh the neighbors have been incredibly
supportive. Uh we did a on-site open house in June. Uh that was very wellreceived. We got a lot of people show up and enthusiastic. Um and what we want to be able to do is to continue that. So we're going to do that from time to time. I I didn't know what an
on-site open house looked like at a site like would look like at a site like this, but I was pleasantly surprised at the number of people that showed up. Um, so yes, I in to the extent that there are other uh permitting requirements that might require some public hearings.
Yeah, I I we welcome the public input. These these questions are incredibly helpful and uh we're happy to respond to any concerns and questions that people have. >> Sure. Okay. Thank you, Ellie. >> I just wanted to um call attention um to
the um regarding turtles that you do have exclusionary exclusion fences to protect existing turtle habitats in you know at least a half a dozen areas. So I commend you for that. >> Yeah, I was going to to add that as well. We did there there were um some
anecdotal sightings of box turtle on the site that we've been hearing about from folks. And so we went ahead. not mapped by natural heritage, but we went ahead and proactively did a study to understand what the habitat did look like. Um, that information has been passed on to heritage and we've talked
with them and they said, you know, they basically said it would it would not show up in time to permit this project under their regulations regardless, but they also didn't think there were enough sightings that it would end up getting mapped. Um, but they do have that information. And based on that study
that we did, we have, as you noted, a number of areas that are um, sort of a light purple outlined in red that are exclusion zones. So those are areas that have good nesting habitat now, and we want to keep all construction traffic out of those. So they'll be fenced. Um,
and then we have darker purple areas which are areas where we're looking to expand and enhance that nesting habitat, which is going to to mostly look like some scarification. Um, so that we're exposing the the good sort of sandy soil that the turtles like to nest in that's
already underlying there. So, we are definitely looking to encourage that habitat on the site. >> I forgot to mention that. >> Yeah, >> you thought of another question. Sure.
>> Um I may have missed it, but what are your monitor continuing monitoring uh plans for restoration, how well it's doing and so forth? >> Sure. funding. >> Um, we did provide a detailed restoration monitoring plan in the NOI
and I don't have all of it memorized, but key elements um are photo points for before, during, after, always taken from the same place so we can actually visually show and demonstrate how it's changing. Um, we'll continue to monitor
hydraologic response across the site. We'll be monitoring vegetation. Um, as I mentioned, uh, what we see with all of the the cranberry bog projects pretty much that have been done so far is that they need very little, if any, planting because of the natural seed bankank that's buried in the soil. Um, but we'll
be monitoring vegetation recovery, seeing what comes up. Um, if there are areas where we're not seeing much come up for some reason, that's something we would certainly want to to look at addressing. Um, we're also, thank you, Britney, if you can find it and remind me what I'm skipping. Um we we look at
soil development to understand when immediately after restoration um everything's been churned up so you don't see a real natural profile by any means but we're looking to understand um are we seeing hydrarology? Are we seeing the hydric soils and and evidence of
water within that top 12 in during the growing season where we want to see it? Um, so we're looking at soils, we're looking at vegetation, um, we're looking at just sort of the overall flows of water through the site. Um, we'll certainly be monitoring the title
restoration area to understand, you know, are we actually seeing the tides come in there. Um, I'd mentioned wanting to once the fragmitees in the salt marsh area is knocked back, we will be looking there more closely to see if there's any other restrictions that might need
follow-up work um to make sure the tides are really getting through there nicely. And the invasives monitoring is a is a huge piece. Um there are so many invasives on this site now. That's why we started early to treat them. And we know that's going to be a long-term um
monitoring and and ongoing maintenance project. Um, so that will be that that's the biggest thing that will be sort of a an ongoing intervention, but we'll be monitoring all of the um kind of key indicators of wetland performance. And um, DER also has, and I think it's
mentioned in here as well, DER has been developing over the last couple of years a standard monitoring program for all of their restoration, all of their cranberry bog restoration sites. And so they also now have a protocol that they're starting to implement um, that has some additional elements as well.
And I I'm not sure if that's publicly available yet to to read through. Um, but we could certainly get you some more information on that if you'd like. >> Typically, our only monitoring the our standard monitoring requirements for restoration projects are just contractor qualifications. Um, so like the
monitoring and work if the property changes hands would continue to be done by a qualified professional, probably a SER in this circumstance. And I don't know the deer monitoring requirements, but it would be at least annually in the fall, I'm assuming. >> So that would be the same as ours. You could just submit the same report.
>> And we'll also we expect to have three to five years of monitoring required by Army Corps as well. So we try to kind of align all those programs so that we can provide everybody with a good suite of follow-up data. >> Okay. We need a um everybody else set.
>> I have a couple more comments. >> You have Okay. The only I have a couple of questions. They were I didn't see it within the materials, but in late in the slideshow, um I think you mentioned some coarse woody debris being as part of the micro topography, and I was
wondering if you were planning to source that from on-site or off-site sourcing. >> Yes, on-site. Um and that I think I addressed this in the narrative there. we need to to think in a little bit more detail about what's going to happen with all of the woody material because there
is a lot of woody vegetation. Um some of it will definitely be repurposed into the restored site to add habitat diversity, add roughness, um large wood as part of any wetland. We won't you won't see much of that in that low slope marsh transition zone. We want to keep
that much simpler. Um, but we'll we'll have a lot of that wood incorporated into the the hummock and hollow microtopography areas. Um, as I said, we'll the last time I was out there, I was really paying attention to the size of the trees. Besides some of those really nice um sort of specimen red
maples and things, most of the trees, other than the the white pines, which are an upland species, um, a lot of what's out there is pretty small. A lot of it is that grey willow. So, we don't have a good handle yet on how much actual biomass there is. Um, so we're
still thinking about what that's going to look like in terms of incorporating into the site, but we have plenty of wood. So, to answer your actual question, Britney, yes, it would come from on-site. We're not looking at bringing anything in. >> Okay. Um, that's great. And I saw some reveation for for different types of
trees that you want to implement in the therapeutic landscape. if you could once you have a planting plan just submit that for appro approval prior to implementation. Um and I just do have a suggestion for moving forward since this is a large restoration project. Um I would uh
suggest to the commission to allow me to draft all the special conditions and continue either close the public hearing and continue just for DV comment and for review of the special conditions since they may be a lot. um so you can get your eyes on them and provide edits where needed um instead of just
continuing for everything if you'd like to close the public hearing and approve with some some conditions to review. The only other um question that I had um that may result in a revision is for this the crossing here. We talked about
this very briefly on the phone um just because so you're eliminating this title restriction. It's a wonderful improvement to the site. You're proposing this boardwalk. Um the difference between the bottom shringer of the boardwalk and the marsh platform, oh sorry, the high tide, the high water
line is just one foot. Um and we are expecting this to in the future become salt marsh. Is that correct? Maybe in the deep future, but within 50 years it should become salt marsh, right? >> We hope so. Um, and so with our u
adaptability to climate change, it may be beneficial under our current regulations, recognizing this is not yet salt marsh, um, in the future to have an additional bit of space between the boardwalk and the marsh platform. If it wouldn't be a burden to increase the
elevation of this tidal crossing, it probably would be beneficial to the impacts of the landscape. And yeah, because we had talked about that earlier, I did chat with our engineering team a bit. Um, the existing Burm elevation, I'm not sure if it's listed on here, but it's it's roughly
seven >> seven. >> Um, so I I think that it would be easy to bring that up and and have rather than sort of sloping down to the boardwalk, I think we could um extend this out, have it drop a little bit more steeply. The reason that this is pitched
the way it is is for ADA compliance. Um, so we should be able to bring that up to to sort of match the existing elevation of the burm top. Um, and just have this be a little bit steeper connection down here. Um, and and be able to provide
probably an additional two or two and a half ft of clearance if that's >> that would be perfect. >> Yeah, I see no issue with that. >> So that we can just allow some adaptability for the salt marsh to grow under there and have sufficient lighting as to not damage those salt marsh grasses. Um, so that would be my
recommendation then to close the public hearing except for the DE. If the D has anything to say, we could discuss that in addition to the draft special conditions, but overall you've put in a lot of work on this. I appreciate it. Great plans. >> Okay. So, help me out. So close the
hearing and then how do we >> um so I would recommend the motion would be to close the public hearing and uh continue for review of special conditions only for the next meeting and for the DB number. >> Okay. >> Um could I just um do you think it
warrants um some sort of a salvage plan? Um I know that in the documents you say as directed by designer like removal of the the salvage. the tree the trees >> wood and all I believe it just says as directed
>> by the project designer do you >> do you think it warrants like what does that mean exactly where is it going or am I missing it somewhere in the documents >> yeah so that's as as I was explaining um I wish I had some pictures of how we've used large wood and I could certainly
get those and provide them um but sometimes we encounter wood buried in the the wetland soils Um, and sometimes we have trees that we're looking to incorporate that have been removed from the surface. And so, um, one thing that we do is just to to
lay them on the surface as you would see fallen trees in a natural wetland to sort of replicate that and add that roughness and, um, all of those little sort of hiding places and things. Um, we also sometimes will sort of half bury a piece of wood. So, it's sort of sticking
out at a, you know, kind of a natural skew like you might have found it if it had fallen over and just kind of toppled there. Um there's also a chance that we may use some of the the trees and woody material here to help um to fill in some
of the ditches and sort of put them in the ditches and then mash soil around them and kind of use them in that way. So it's it's a little bit dependent on how many trees are in a given area. We don't want to be sort of taking trees from this portion of the site and moving them all the way over here. So, it's
going to be a little bit variable depending on what we encounter in any given location. And for the field direction, um, a big part of how we're thinking about approaching that is that we would sort of have before the contractor moves into a new bog cell or a new section of the site they're going
to be working on, we would do a little fieldwalk with them, flag any trees that we want to keep for those sort of clusters of, you know, this is going to be an upland habitat. flag those, mark those off for them, and then talk about, you know, which other ones are coming down and how we might incorporate those
into the site if there's particular ways we want to use them in that area. So, I anticipate we would have a number of those field checkpoints with the contractor. Um, and that would be written into the documents that they'd have to have those check-ins before they they proceeded into a section of the site. >> Exactly. That's what it was sort of
missing. Yeah. For >> project designer to meet blah blah blah blah. Mhm. >> Okay. I'm not sure how to >> So, yeah, >> and I I do actually think that that I think I captured that a shorter version of that in one of the the small notes in
the plans. Um but yeah, no, no worries if you didn't read all the notes on the plans. >> Very detailed documents. Thank you. >> Um I'm sorry, I have one more too many notes in in here written. Um so you have a detail in there for a turbidity curtain and a coffer dam. Um do you So
that's just what for the final piece of the work when you eliminate this. Is that correct? >> That's our anticipation. Yeah. Um and the the real my my primary thinking is that we're going to want the t the um coffer dam on the downstream side mostly
to be able to keep the tide from coming into the work area. Um the con the types of contractors who are going to go after this project and have the experience and qualifications to do it are very comfortable working in the wet. They're used to this. Um, and so it's it's really just the the clean tidal water
coming up from below that I'm primarily consider uh concerned about controlling. There may be other locations where um the contractor decides they need to do a little bit of water control. Um but we're not currently planning on it because as I said earlier that existing infrastructure in the form of the BMS
and the the existing uh water control structures with the weir boards are are generally very effective for isolating areas that we need to isolate for work. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. >> Um >> I'm sorry. Do you have something else? >> Go ahead. is that uh on the placement of
trees and so forth so that you get the right kind of flows and so forth. This is where really get differences between people, contractors and so forth. And I think that uh the money can run out for making modifications
and even monitoring of course. But can some of these trees, if there are enough, be saved at some point so they can be put up land a little bit or and moved down if and retrieded in a different way that if you find that some
things aren't happening where the general water movement is. >> Yeah. So our our site again doesn't have a stream running through it. So, I I think potentially what you're alluding to is some of the times where large wood
is used sort of at a bend in a in a stream or something um and may not perform the way it was originally anticipated and needs to be adjusted to keep the stream where you want it. >> We don't have that issue. So, we're really not using the wood as an engineering element. It's purely a habitat element. Um and the fact that we
have all of this wood that needs to go somewhere. And so rather than, you know, trying to to chip it all and ship it off site, we want to work it back into the the natural habitat and provide that additional um diversity of of physical structure and all of those other niches that come with it.
>> Beavers to come in. >> I you know, I I do a lot of work in the more inland part of the state with using beavers as part of a resilience strategy. Um but I don't think we really have that discussion on the Cape. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry, Britney, you had another
item. No, just my final comment. I have to amend my recommendation because just right now we don't have another hearing within 21 days. So we have to keep the public hearing open um because our requirement to issue within 21 days if you're going. So we would continue for
the sole reason to review the D number, the revised um bridge plan and to review the draft order of conditions. >> Okay. So >> just also continue. But we're gonna make a motion to continue this. >> Okay.
>> All right. Well, before that though, I want to thank you for the for the presentation. You know, it's just amazing just >> what you do, what you know. And um the thing that strikes me about this is this is not a plan for us. This is a plan and I don't want to get like sappy about or
anything, but this is a plan for our grandchildren and for people in the future because things have been deteriorated for not for a bad reason. people farmed and things had to be that way and all that kind of stuff. I want to thank you for this because it'll bring back such a incredible um uh
ecological gem to this area and I know there are other crampary bugs and things like that in the area that need the same kind of attention. So, thank you very much. If I could have a motion to continue, Jack, >> have a second. >> Second.
>> Second. All right. >> We're looking at January 15th. We don't two meetings you into seconding. >> Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. >> We had did we move the motion? >> We didn't vote on the motel
like that. >> Comments. >> All in favor? >> There we go. Thank you. >> And thank you. >> Thank you. >> Kind of oxygen deprived after a good excuse. Thanks.
>> I'll get you those special conditions at least a week before the meeting, probably sooner, so you can look at them. >> Um, okay. Where are we now? >> More things. I lost my agenda someplace. >> That shore. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. That shore. SE 83 request for certificate of compliance. >> SC83 2123 Dennis and Lois McCarthy 142 Thatcher Shore Road. >> Um this certificate of compliance request is all set with ongoing special
conditions number 18 through 21. >> Okay. Okay. So, I just need a motion to um accept the >> issue the COC >> to issue the certificate of compliance. >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Solar panels. >> Thank you.
>> Who seconded? >> Second. Pat. >> Pat. >> All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. We have the approval of meeting minutes. I think Britney, this this afternoon you said 116 we have to hold off on. >> Yeah, we can table that. We don't have enough voters,
>> but um 124 one of the best set of minutes I've ever seen. >> Um >> well then you should >> Has everyone reviewed the 124? >> Look good. Any revisions or questions? >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> Request that we approve. >> Motion to approve. Jack >> to approve. >> Second. >> Second, Ellie. All in favor? >> I >> Okay. And um
I have one other thing. There might be others. I don't know. But um >> CPC uh is doing a um what the heck are we calling it? A >> yeah, your annual >> annual plan. >> Annual plan. And um if you It was sent
to you, I believe. And if you look it over in the conservation area um section, it's pretty pretty minimal. But if there's anything that you could suggest to be added, I already talked to Britney about there should be a couple of things. Like for example,
she was instrumental in um uh getting the approval for a the purchase of a um a lot of land over in the Braay Farm, Taylor Braay Farm area. Um I think that land was what $600,000 or something like that. uh that was approved and it has to
it went it went to town meeting already so it's already been approved that was a big accomplishment there's been fragmitees management >> and the chase park >> there might be some other things >> yeah fragmitees Chaseburg park >> yeah so if you could if you have anything that you want included in that
just you can let me know and then I'll just forward it to our chairman and she'll put it into the um into the new plan and also there is a um a public meeting. The CPC has to have a public meeting every year and we haven't had
one for a couple of years, but but um that is scheduled for January 28th at 300 p.m. in this room in case you want to come and find out more about the CPC. >> Great. >> Is there anything else that we have in this >> um just keep your eye out. We're going
to have a working meeting in January. We only have one meeting because our second one fell on New Year's Day and was cancelled. So, we're probably going to plan to have a working meeting when everyone's available to review some minor regulations updates and the plan requirements that we talked about a couple of weeks ago and to review our
goals uh for the year and do some position reorganization within the board. >> And you have that scheduled for what? >> No, I'm going to send a poll to schedule it because we have to find a time that >> Yeah.
>> But that's all. Thank you. Okay. So, we're all set. Yep. We just need a a motion to adjurnn. >> So, move for >> Christian made the motion and and second it. All in favor? >> I say first.
>> Nobody's in favor. >> Favor in favor.