Recording in progress. Okay. Good evening. It's Conservation Commission meeting for Thursday, April 16th, 2026. We'll begin right away. Excuse me. Request for determination actability.
Brighter and Wilcox for McClean's malarins 81 Crowwell closed edition in land subject to coastal storm. If you introduce yourself and there
>> hi, good evening. Stephanie Sequin. Um I'm an engineer. >> You might move the mic a little bit closer to you. >> Sure. Okay. >> Uh can you hear me? Okay, >> I can hear you, but I don't know if the mic is on. I don't think there's a light on. I heard it light on.
>> Okay. All right. Um Stephanie Sequin with Ryder and Wilcox. I'm representing Jim and Judy McClennon who are the owners of the property at 81 Croll Road. This is a halfacre lot. It is located within land separated coastal storm flowage. Uh we have an Azone here,
elevation 11. There's an existing single family dwelling in a detached garage. Uh a title five system uh in the backyard was upgraded in 1999. There is a paved driveway and some um
hardscaping consists of patios and walkways. What's being proposed here is um an addition onto the back of the house uh approximately 312 square feet. Um, it will be constructed on a crawl
space, no full basement. Um, it is within entirely within existing lawn area. There's no trees or shrubs that are um have to be removed in order to construct this. Um, the access will be
from the existing driveway. have shown a limit of work on the plan and specified that a fabric silk fence be installed along the limit of work uh throughout construction. The existing septic system components will be protected to prevent
damage from construction equipment. A dumpster will be placed in the driveway. Uh all demolition debris will either be placed into the dumpster or into trucks for removal from the site. the um excavated material from the crawl space
will be removed from the site. Um gutters and either gutters and downspouts or crush stone at the roof drip line will be used to contain runoff from the addition and upon completion of construction the disturbed area will be loned and seated with a native grass
mix. So I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Great. Anybody have any questions? Um just for um the record um could you show unless I don't see could you put the dimensions on the additional on the
addition or and I know you have 300 something just you know you just have it dotted and I just want to make sure the measurement is correct. Do you want that shown on the plan or are you just asking?
>> Just if the dimensions of the addition could be shown on the plans. >> Okay, >> easy enough. >> Thanks. >> Britney, >> can I hear um >> anybody in the audience? Obviously not. Anybody online?
raise your hand. It's only one person and that's no hand raising. So, thank you. Um motion to accept the proposal with the new site plan that just has the
>> There it is. Determination. Thank you. Make a motion approve the plan. We'll make it a smooth determination. >> Thank you. Second, >> Jack. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I opposed. Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Did you take the green card? Okay, next one also SE832198 Ryder and Will Cox with Derek Johnson 37 Moss Road. This I believe is a COC
request so you get to go first. >> Yes. Most of the downs to dry wells on the property except for two. >> There you go. Oh, there we go. >> Hello. Okay. Um, I'll start over. So,
the COC request outlined a couple of minor deviations from the approved plan. Um, all of the downspouts lead to dry wells except for two at the rear of the property, the closest to the wetland. So, they're both within the 50ft buffer.
These um we have not observed any erosion at these downspouts, but since they are closest to the wetland, the commission might want to discuss if they would prefer they have some gravel at the bottom um or if they're fine with
how they're arranged right now. Um so, that was one of the downspouts. Here's the other. There's no erosion on the site though the area is slightly sloped toward the wetland and the mitigation planting area. The only other potential issue on the
site is that the mitigation plantings have been doing an excellent job at feeding the wildlife and so in result um a lot of them are ve very very very small andor have not survived um and the area isn't fully covering the original
approved mitigation area. uh it's probably just short by a couple of feet. Um and so I would recommend to the commission to continue this item to the end of June to better assess the livelihood of the mitigation plantings and perhaps an additional plantings to
meet the original space requirement and for you to discuss the gravel at the bottom of the down spouts or if it's okay as is. >> Okay. Um anybody want to go first or should I go first? I shall go first.
Okay. Um, I'd like to see the downspouts. I think future rain and obviously the plantings need to be redone. So, I would like to continue to June 30th. >> Um, so you would want gravel at the bottom of the dry wells or at the
downspouts? >> I'm sorry, I meant dry well. >> Dry well. >> Yeah. >> Can I comment on that? I mean I so I was just out there um about an hour ago. Um and yes, I definitely think in a few
months we can see uh what is actually are some buds starting to form. So we'll have a better idea of what has actually survived um or what will survive. Um but it kind of occurred to me that where those downspouts are is running across
you know vegetated lawn and then to the mitigation area. And I thought, well, isn't that maybe a good way of making sure they get as much water as they can? And it is, you know, sort of the low spot on the on the property.
>> I mean, instead of the um the dry wells. >> Yeah. >> Instead of dry well, just have the water run across the the grass area. Yeah. Rather than putting it underground, let it run across the the lawn >> with gravel.
>> No, >> just open >> the way it is now. >> The way it is now. >> So, is there any danger of um of erosion if that's the way it would be left? >> It's it's been that way for
I would say at least a year, probably two years. >> And there's no erosion going on now? No. >> But is that some of the reason it's not surviving? The new plants is that >> I I suppos
the the deer and rabbits I think are what's um the problem. >> So they need to fence fence it fence each planted or groups of plants >> or somehow protect them. Yes. or if if there are some plants that need to be
replaced, replace with something um he suggested like clea or something uh woodier, less appetizing. >> Why is there so much lawn still in the mitigation area? >> I was also going to bring that up. Um,
the mitigation area just needs to we need to ensure that there's no mowing in there and that it should I just was checking the approved landscape plan to see what was specified between plants.
It doesn't look like it's specified, but it was a mix of ground cover. It's all ground cover, so there were no really tall shrubs in there to begin with. Um, so it should have, this was just not the
desired end product. Uh, so at the planting time, the ground covers were supposed to cover all the space and not leave any lawn in between. Um because it can't be maintained as lawn in the mitigation area. >> That a drip hose or just a regular hose?
>> They have spray irrigation setup. >> David, so are You're saying that that grass should be tilled up and um the plantings remain so that the grass doesn't compete with the other things or whatever. Is that what you're saying, Britney?
>> Should the grass be removed? >> The mitigation areas are meant to be allowed to naturalize and >> but like that. >> That's a lawn. >> Well, that's why I'm asking the question. It's my opinion that it should be removed, but that's just one opinion.
>> The grass, >> correct? >> Yeah. That essentially, it's supposed to fill in either get rid of the grass right away or putting enough plants in that it's going to cover in the right kind of plants. And I think you're, you know, letting
the down spots go ahead probably could fit in with that, but I doubt that it would supply much. It's got a long ways to go that it's going to drain into the ground. >> So you you've um was it June 30th that
you >> meetings in June or the 4th and the 18th? >> Are you saying to have it done continue to June 30th? >> Is that what I I was asking? There was a date thrown out and I um >> Yeah, the 18th is the meeting in June.
>> Okay. Um, would it would it be appropriate to set up a an on-site meeting with either you or Joe or to take a look like I don't know two weeks prior to that or
Yeah, I guess we have to determine a path forward. Um, so the commission would need to vote on what they would want to see initially. Um I agree that there should be no lawn in the conservation mitigation area though the it is providing some level of stability
at this point if it want if they scratch it up and plant some native seed in between instead of tilling the whole thing might be more preferred. Um but the intention is if they were planted at a sufficient quantity and coverage they should have filled in the spaces in
between and they shouldn't have become lawn. I also think that the spray irrigation is promoting the lawn. Um, if they had done a drip, there wouldn't be enough water for the grass to grow in between. Um, that might be explored. But I think some of these we won't know if
they'll need to be replaced or if we want to just have them plant additional plants at this time um, in the in between spaces to get that coverage >> because right now it is predominantly lawn. Is it obvious which plants didn't
make it or you just >> right now they I mean they may be alive but they're less than two inches tall some of them and they were so they were bear berry they weren't supposed to be very tall to begin with but that's favorite rabbit food. >> Yeah. Seems they need to rethink what
they're planting. Um, so I would probably suggest having the landscaper suggest some additional plantings or replacement plantings, um, and continued to a shorter time so you can review the the new plan and then have them plant them and see how they're doing later on
in the season because it doesn't need to be revamped entirely. Just scratched and seated and some additional plantings to ensure that the boundaries of the initial approved plan are are met.
What about the down spouts? Well, one thing it would be that if they haven't shown erosion now you can say well it probably won't but on the other hand is we get bigger storms
I guess uh and it shouldn't have to the natives shouldn't have to depend on something like that to grow the down spouts. So, I would make a swale or some kind of a
either a gravel area or whatever they rather have so it doesn't start eroding. >> I agree. I think I think you need something to direct the flow and obviously away from the house as well. And
you know, trench and gravel. >> Rain barrels. >> What? Oh, no. >> Rain barrels. Yes. >> Yeah. So, right now the down spouts are going on lawn, isn't that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um,
and how many downspouts are we talking about? Because only two. >> So, there's not going to be a great deal of water in any situation from a normal natural rainfall. Um, storm would be a different thing. So I I would say just
leave the down spots alone and work on that other area because where the plantings are that's that grass is just going to take over all the plantings as as the summer proceeds because you're not going to mow down there. Right. >> Correct. Supposed to >> so you're not so the grass is probably
going to out compete those small plantings that you put in there. >> Yeah. Isn't that so? >> Yeah. I think you need larger >> larger And also, you know, ideally, I think you need to get rid of that grass, >> you know, just till it up or something.
I I don't know if And then maybe more plantings or I think Britney had a suggestion for some other kinds of plantings. That That's what I I think I would do. I don't know. Well, yeah, I'll stop there.
>> Anybody else comment? I'm just speaking I'm I'm out of my I mean I'm out of this purview from a constructibility standpoint. That's a faulty downspout installation. It should always direct the water away from the house and that will just you know saturate where it is. But that's out of
this purview. I think I'm just speaking of the downspout itself. That's that's wrong. They they shouldn't just end like that. >> The other one goes straight down. >> Goes in. Yeah,
>> they definitely need to have something >> and put extensions on those, >> right? >> Yeah. You know, whatever. Anything. Yeah, >> that's that's open underneath there. That's not like right at the foundation.
Those those two down spouts are coming off the porch roof, >> right? But they're they're kind of negating your point about having going down towards the plants because they aren't going to. They're going to go straight down
>> and flow down the bank. But >> even if you had a little elbow on there, you probably would direct the water. But that's not going to direct any water. You said it's open underneath that lattice area. >> Yes. >> And it's not obviously there's no basement under there. No.
>> All right. I don't know. >> So, I think the bottom line is we're going to um we'd like to uh continue to June 18th with uh plantings that are approved by >> Well, would you would you want to review
the plantings or do you want me to just review them? Um, personally, I just think it'd be easier to just have you play with them. But if you don't want to, anybody have a You want to Anybody here wants to
>> No. >> What was the question again? I didn't hear it. >> Question is, do do we want to review the plantings or do we want to have um Britney approve them? >> I say she approves them. I'm comfortable with Britney
approving them. They'll most like >> I'm comfortable with Britney approving them. They'll most likely come from the uh Barnesville Cooperative Extension list. So, >> yeah. And they just need to fill the 35 foot buffer. >> It'll be a lot quicker if Britney as
opposed to having to come back to us. >> Okay. >> And so, is that enough time though um to order plants and plant them? It might be we can continue to the 18th, but the if you're not able to get the plants, we can continue to the fall. Okay. I will
um check with the landscaper and see what he thinks about the schedule. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um June 18th though, >> buffet, >> but I will make sure he's in um we get
something to you well before that. Um, one question I saw where the you have put a swale in at the end of the driveway. I think it is. >> It's really quite flat down there
already. >> It is. I don't see we we have some spot elevations on the asbuilt plan and it is sloping very slightly from the road down
into the property. We've got um uh elevation 5.1 out close to the road and then down to 4.8 as you move into the into the site. So, it is definitely not draining toward the road. And I think that um well, I know that requirement to
or that condition to create a swale on the property was um as a result of the the neighbor was concerned about runoff. And it doesn't show on this plan, but along that that northerly property line,
there's a uh there's a row of I'm not sure if they're cedars or arborites that are it's kind of burned up. So, it's definitely not going toward the the neighbors property. It is being contained. >> Okay. >> At in that area even though there's not
a defined swale. >> All righty. >> Okay. So, um I guess I'll make the motion to uh continue to June 18th with um a new planting um
list approved by uh approved by the um by Britney and uh and there will be no lawn. The lawn will have to be taken up. >> And what about the downspouts? Um, I'm
okay with keeping the down spouts the way it is. Well, extending an elbow to >> putting an elbow on though. >> Anybody else? Anybody want a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I thank you. >> So,
>> who made the motion? You did. >> I did. >> Not supposed to. >> The audience. >> Yeah, we didn't do the audience. >> Yeah. Well, there obviously nobody in the audience. Anybody online wanted to comment on this? >> Okay, good. >> Do we take public comment for COCs?
>> Not usually. >> Not usually. So, >> okay. Thank you all very much. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I don't sign anything on that one. >> Okay. >> All right. Next one is SE83
2049 BSC for Paul Butler, Jesse's Lane LLC, 29 Parker's Neck Road. Um I was told by the we're okay to issue this. >> Uh yeah, this um project is in significant compliance. So I'd recommend issuance of the COC with ongoing
condition number 10. >> Okay. So anybody want to make that motion? >> I move that we issue the COC with ongoing conditions. >> I'll second. All >> in favor? Thank you. >> Great.
No one opposed. Anybody online? I forgot. Oh, no. It's a COC. That's all right. I should Okay. Next one is SE83 2414 profit land management for Scott Peterson 10 and 20 Susan Road proposed
land stabilization using quir acquire I never know how to pronounce that one. Fiber rolls and invasive tree removal and coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage. This is they've requested uh continuence. Uh this is
from what I understand their first their first request even though it has been continued but mostly by us. >> So this is their first request to continue. >> Didn't they request? >> It's their second. The first meeting we were going to vote and they requested to continue.
>> You told me earlier they was their >> Oh, sorry. I was wrong. >> I'm sorry. I had misinformation. >> I counted this as their thirdest. >> Okay. Um, so, uh, let's see. Uh, do I hear a
motion to continue? >> Okay. Anybody second? >> Second. >> Paul. Okay. All in favor? >> I I 57. Okay. Next is
SE832526 Shorefront Consulting for Riyol Shall >> I skipped one. >> What? >> You skipped one >> skipped 104. I'm sorry by mistake. All right, we'll try this
one. SE83 2416 2516 Atlantic Coast Engineering for Scott Martin. >> Still skipped two, >> David. I skipped two. >> We're on 61 pheasant Cove. >> All right.
>> Really screwing up. All right. Bad day today. SC 832525 down Cape Engineering for Ann and Robert Wiggins 61 pheasant Cove Circle. Proposed addition and land subject to coastal storm flowage and buffer zone to
a bordering vegetated wetland and the after the fact filing for a boardwalk and deck in bordering vegetated wetland. veloc velocity flood zone. >> Thank you. >> I knew we'd get to it. >> Yes. >> Good evening, Chairman Bernstein,
members of the commission. Uh Dan Ogula. I'm a surveyor and civil engineer with Down Cape Engineering in Yarmouthport and helping uh Mr. Wiggins out on his property here. Um we had a a productive meeting last time. We talked at some length about the possibility of a
variance for a boardwalk that had been constructed um without permission. Um the board it was not wellreceived. The board really thought the best thing to do would be to to uh take that up and and and and put it back. So um we did
that. It was um a note um the the latest revision um we had given you April 9th but uh Britney wanted it us to touch up the wetland lines and so we did that. The latest revision is April 16th which is which was today. Um we met with um
with Brad Hall. uh he did some soil testing out there. Unfortunately, you know, this is this is one of the sites where you've get that veneer of clay on top and the clay will hold water and show hydric soils right up to near the house area. Um I'd remind the the board
uh the commission that um back in ' 91 and all the way through 94, we were permitting on this and the wetland was um much lower. It was down around elevation um six, the same datam as we're on now and uh basically out at the
salt marsh, a good distance away. And so we were permitted to have lawn uh in the area where where it is now. Um the soils uh and again this had been you know since the pilgrims or whatever it was a sheep's field or whatever had had not supported a wetlands line. uh as you
recall in you know 94 the wetlands bylaw was well established been doing orders and conditions for almost 20 years the um rivers act had come in came in only two years later in 96 and um this one has actually appealed the D looked at everything they had some comments they
they allowed a disturbance up to the work limit line um and uh and um the house was constructed with a septic and um so in in in light of the fact that there's that veneer or even up near the septic system that would could show some hydric soils because of the the
impermeability of the soils. The fact is that the water drains off this land and so the upland plants can out compete wetland plants. Um they they keep their feet dry enough and um we feel that if we put a struck a line at about elevation 7.4 four, which again is a
full foot and a half above where we were out near the salt marsh before. Um, then that is a a reasonable common sense uh line. It does move the line a bit on the corner and but it doesn't affect the project too much. It we adjusted a few
square foot here and there um by removing the boardwalk and not removing any mitigation. We're we're we're strong on the mitigation. Uh, I think the commission uh thought that if we put a salt tolerant fescue out there and allowed them, you know, just to access to go out to bird watch and to to
explore. It's a a very pretty site out there. Um, then that would be reasonable. So, we we did leave that. Um, you'll remember that the there was some clearing down there, which you have another mitigation package to restore all that. There's a lot of nice high tide bush and everything. I'm sure we'll
will infill down there around that one little narrow strip. Um so uh it's all keyed in with uh comments two and three the modest changes but again the wetland boundary flagged um was adjusted uh in
the northwest corner the 7.4 based on the existing soils and you know a common sense topographic. Um, again, you can't grow a wetland on the top of a hill and it's sheeting down pretty well in that area and has been historically maintained as a lawn for many years and
or certainly a landscaped area for many many many years. So, we thought that was not unreasonable. Um, and again, if uh if you're okay with leaving that little grass strip down there where the boardwalk was removed, note 10 covers that carefully. It says it's existing and unpermitted. It's uh boardwalk and
its associated son tubes had to be removed. salt talent fescue lawn will be planted in its place in the existing boardwalk and it's to be maintained uh just for access in that one area. Um so um those were the the majority of the changes. Again, they're all keyed on the
plan for your request. Um and um I'd be glad to answer any questions. Hopefully this now brings it into a situation where you could approve and uh we can we can move forward with all all the plantings. Thank you. >> Okay. Go ahead.
>> Um, okay. So, document control, we're looking we are we agreeing to looking at the April 16th plan that we got today or not? >> Nope, >> I'm not. >> It's fine if you continue. We're we're in no great rush. It'd be nice to get the plants in, but they can they can
wait till the fall or, you know, even if we get it in two weeks fine with us. Again, we had it we had it in time for the April 9th, but there was that um you know, a little bit of give and take on the wetland line. So, we would appreciate u you know,
continuence to shooting care. >> Just spoiler alert, what happens to the soil sampling note? Um, so the the thought on that is it's just confusing to put out there that that there's um hydric soils on a on a on on
an upland. So they were removed so it's it's clear where Yeah, it would would not be a pertinent um note. So the um it's it's I think best left as a judgment call on a site that went through a superseding order conditions,
a court case on the on on on on the local permit. It was approved as a as as a lawn and landscaped area and then to um you know delinate a little bit of his wetland is fine, but to come way up by the house just because there's clay soils did not seem uh particularly
um smart. else. >> Yeah. Can you know you you talk fast and you use a lot of words. So, let's get to the bottom line in terms of that lawn area. >> Sure. >> So, you want the lawn area to remain as is in in this plan.
>> Um well, and I did uh Britney caught it at the last meeting, but I had said we're pulling up lawn and planting. It's it's uh yes the lawn edge is where where it is uh today but all the um uh mulched and you know exotic plants will be removed and native species planted and
the latest plan uh Britney did point out which was which was redone today and uh I could I could have mentioned had I thought of it was um we did introduce some more um you know plants in with very wet feet don't do well unless they
have you know adapted to hydric soils, which is why you have bordering vegetative wetlands. The the wetland plants, you know, don't mind the bacteria in their roots don't mind being wet. So, we introduced wetter plants down in that area. So, that's the revision two on on the plan. But, yeah,
all completely infilled um with with new plants is that garden area. >> Okay. I'll be interested to hear what Britney has to say about all this. before Britney. Anybody else? Just sorry if I'm having you repeat
stuff, but is the wetland delineation changed from what we originally got? >> Yes. Um we're conc you know Brad Hall felt pretty strongly that we should leave it there but um we um we said that um
um um it's going to move to up to 7.4 which is about a foot higher than he had it and that's just what we feel is a common sense compromise between um you know the the mess Yeah. So, a common sense
compromise because you could call hydric soils if you were particularly um you know super uh careful quite a bit higher right up near the house area where it's been you know septic system in a house for 30 years. Uh just it's just
nonsensical. It's been a manicured lawn. Let's go to 7.4. Uh we'll give you a little bit u give a little bit on that. But to go up much higher, I don't. It's just it wouldn't support the plant community because it just sheets off and it's dry most of the year. So, a wetland
has to have enough moisture in the ground to support hydric, you know, plants that um have roots that like hydric conditions. And that's that's the difference. And and we feel that up here uh air, you know, there's there's uh
backup plants that would easily out compete wetland plants because it's much higher and dry. during the majority of the growing season. Again, it's Britney's absolutely correct that I mean, it would be lovely if we had, you know, skunk cabbage or whatever that would give us a nice clear line,
but it's been a a lawn for 30 years and we feel that's a that's an excellent compromise. >> I just have to put on the record that I don't think the word compromise has any place in of our professionals using the data that's collected to
determine the boundary. And so if this boundary does that, we wouldn't know because the data sheets weren't submitted completely what you had on your last showing the data to support your line. I'm fine with that. >> Okay.
>> But the word compromise has nothing to noted from the 1991 planet can change. We just need to know on the ground that you prove that this is the line and the board needs to be convinced of that. >> Yeah. >> Frankly, it sounds like it what it's
where you're compromising where you want it to be and where it should be. Um that >> when I hear compromise, that's what I'm hearing. >> Yeah. But but again, anem stricken from the record.
But I I think you know what we're we just need proof. >> Absolutely. But just just for the board's edification on on when you're dealing with north side clay soils, you can have a hill and you can have hydric soils on the top of a hill that is not a wetland. And it's just the it's just the way that the water moves through there.
You're going to get models. You're going to get signs that it's holding water. And and it's just the way that it is. You have to use professional judgment on the gradient and you know and and look at plants and and in a combination of things in many many areas hydric soils are easy. It's but in the in these in
these particularly the custin deposits that were laid down in the glacial lakes it's very very difficult to rely on that solely because they can they can run up on on nles they where that doesn't belong. That's all I'm saying. But we'll get you some additional data to back it up. >> Yeah. just put it all together in a
cohesive way so that even down the line if my someone who comes after me looks at this they need to know that we approved it based on data and not based on our observations that are anecdotal.
>> And that's all. But in general um my only other note is that no mulch fertilizer or permanent irrigation is allowed in the mitigation area. Um, and that fescue you were thinking of, um, no
mo fescue because no mowing would be allowed in the wetland. Can they maintain it? It grows very short, right? That fescue. >> It sounds good. Yeah. Yeah, it would be a native native normal rescue. >> And the um planting plan
um sorry, one more comment. There is a gravel apron. Sorry. A gravel pathway and then a granite apron. Is the gravel pathway remaining and the granite apron being removed? Um, your
folks call. I don't recall ever seeing that on a permit plan. So, uh, if you feel that that inert, you know, stone isn't hurting anything. Would be glad to leave it. If you feel it is, um, we can replace it. It looks like it's open joint impervious, but uh,
I don't know. It's open to suggestion. >> It's just not noted. So, we'd have to decide. >> Well, I would say that first of all, that kind of thing is not supposed to be in that situation. So, I take it out. Second of all, I think that the soils
data or the NRCS core EPA soils agreements are very clear. So that you have the right data. It's going to show whether or not that's wetlands.
>> Yeah. And again, it's in clay clay like soils. It's very hard, but you know, it is what it is. We'll we'll we'll we'll we'll do what we can. And I would agree looking at it that thing's mostly in the wetland. So out it comes. And I want to point out that you know the criteria set
up by those three agencies and agreed to cover the US they cover situations exactly like you're talking about. There's no getting around it. So I don't want to see this kind of uh
thinking that there's a gray area in there. Well, again, I' I've been out with some of the best of them in the field and they said, Dan, in certain situations like this where you've got a null and you get the clay soils, you pick your topo line and run it and back it up and that's all you can do because
>> they they do show that. That's right. But you get the agreement of people out there and see it and show it. >> Um, >> it's a lot easier when there's vegetation. Absolutely. But, uh, I hear you. So, are we also looking for a
revised besides a revised plan uh different plantings? >> No, we don't I don't think we need to revise, but we're happy to revise again, but um I think uh you we did uh revise um the lower area to be more wetland
tolerant. >> Okay. Which we which I haven't seen yet. >> Okay. >> So, go ahead and review that. And you've got it now. Anybody in the audience or online have anything to say? Raise your hand.
Okay. So, we are going to continue to May 7th. Is that that sounds fine? Yep. Um we should be able to get our ducks in a row by then. >> Can I hear a motion to continue to May
7th? So moved. Any by Jack? Second. >> Okay. All in favor? Hi. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate the careful consideration. All right, just make sure I know where I'm at now. Okay. SE832529
Cape Cod Engineering for Dwey and Margaret Awad 911 921 Great Island Road proposed new reventment on coastal uh coastal bank coastal beach and land
subject to coastal storm flow flow and that too wants to be continued. I have a letter here to May 7th. Do I hear a motion to do so? So moved. >> Thank you. Second, Christian. All in
favor? >> Thank you. >> That is already 104. >> Yeah, but I don't have the thing here. So that's okay. It's probably attached
to the back folder, but I can um the you just read it in and we can uh >> Wait a minute. Maybe this is it. >> What's the letter that you're holding? >> Yeah, that's the letter, but there's no folder to it. >> No. >> Okay. You want me to read this? >> Yeah, you have to read in the item
first. >> Okay. I did read it in, didn't I? >> No. >> Okay. You going to fire me? Um, yeah, I did. 911 921 Island Road >> Round 104 and 110 River Street. >> Okay. Sorry.
This is I don't have the All right. Um SE83 2516 Atlantic Coast Engineering for J. Scott Martin 104 110 River Street proposed pair ramp and float system in riverfront area land under the ocean coastal bank land
containing self shellfish and land subject to coastal flowage and >> we've se received a letter requesting continuence till May 21st because the waterways and shellfish advisory committee meeting was continued until May 14th.
>> Okay. So, do I hear a motion to continue? >> I'll do it. >> Okay. Second. >> Second, Christian. All in favor? >> Anybody opposed? Okay,
moving along in spite of me. >> Okay, >> that was a good one. >> I don't know what I'm doing tonight. >> Need some caffeine. >> No catch up. >> Too busy with my other stuff. Don't
>> was the one that they saw before. >> So, >> all right. Next one. Got it. SB832526 shorefront consulting for Rayul Shalifogs or Shalifogs. Apologize. N 49 Depu Lane proposed seaw wall
reconstruction relocation of pier and float expansion and riverfront area. land under the ocean, land containing shellfish, and land subject to coastal storm flowage. And I think that's okay.
Now it's your turn. Got the wrong file first here. >> Okay. Um, for the record, Mark Burgess of Shorefront Consulting. um for the telephone.
Um so this project it's basically a replacement project um of an existing permitted bulkhead in in the same footprint at the same height. No increase um no extra fill or
anything like that. So, it's an inkind replacement of the bulkhead across the front of the property. Um, the other part of the work is an existing deck. And yeah, if you're out there today, you saw two stakes
in order to better utilize the float space. The ramp overhangs the floats quite a bit. The floats are where they're supposed to be, but the ramp overhangs overhangs them a bit. So, we want to
just move that landing and leap frog it a set of piles. So only two piles have to be relocated because the piles on one side will be used to support the other side when it gets there. Does that make sense?
So you just relocate two the two piles on the left hand side to the right hand side. The whole thing leap leap frogs forward. Right now is an odd section of float. Yeah. 6 foot by by 5T. So the there's
two 6x4 floats and uh and then there's a 6x5. It comes up to exactly 200 square feet. third float was never permitted. We went to waterways with with this project and they they voted to support
it. Um so that that float right now is an odd shape. I think they have to they're going to have to modify it to be exactly six by five. It might be like six by six foot and six inches by five feet. But it will be it will be made conforming
beaten into submission. So it's uh so it conforms. Um so again, the reason for sliding the the deck over is just so you have more float space to walk around. The ramp covers like a a lot of the available float area. Floats don't move.
Nothing gets bigger. And you know, all that's good. Um, the gravel I'm sorry, the brick walkway will be re uh, you know, repositioned to meet up with the new position of the dock. And I was able to
talk with Joe Jerem um, a little bit earlier today. So, I know that you'll be probably be asking for me to to show that, and that's that's no problem. I do my drafting, so if there's any heat in the drafting, I take it.
the um there's a set of landing there's a landing and stairs on the north side. They wanted to replace those even though they're they're probably not used much, but there is beach up there at low tide, I'm told. Um however, you I
think you guys have another suggestion, so I offer it. I'll listen to what you have to say first, but I did I did speak to the homeowner today, so I have more information for you. Now, there's an existing looks like five foot wide gravel buffer.
And I know that the permit plan where all those red flags come from. >> Don't know. They were there. >> Really? >> Did you not put those there? >> No, they were there yesterday. >> Someone did. >> What the heck? >> I have no idea why those are there. And
they weren't there when I staked it out last Friday. >> Those are pink. Anyway, okie dokie. somebody else doing my job. Um, all right. Well, there's an existing five foot gravel buffer there, and I
know from looking at the original permit plan, so this was permitted in 1993, and the project received a certificate of compliance in 1995, and there was no, you know, I guess it received a full a full certificate. Um, I'm working with
the son. Parents are elderly now. I'm working with the son and his recollection, his words are that this is exactly the way the the site was built at the time and it's never changed. I know that's different than the permit plan, so I'm told by Joe. So, that's
another item up for discussion. I'm happy to work that out with you guys. Um, and I know that one of the the neighbor to the north had some questions which I hope I addressed. And um, other than that, like I said, It's a perfect
It's just a replacement in kind. The drainage pipe that's there. Now, I actually have done one of these before. So, they can take apart the wall around that drainage pipe and when they put the sheeting back in, they'll cut a hole and put it >> put it right back. They shouldn't they should not have to disturb that pipe.
They can work around it. So, that's my expectation. Um there's an easement and I I don't even know where the source of that pipe is, but we're not going to touch it. The intent is to leave it there and work around it if you had any questions about that. So
I guess with that I will open it up for discussion. >> Yeah. Um so you the source of the pipe is not their land. >> No I think it's from the street. >> Okay. >> There's a drainage easement. Um it's shown on the plan the dashed line. It goes all the way to the street but I
couldn't tell you where you know where. I don't I don't know what fills it. I assume there's a >> okay >> basin out there somewhere. >> So, one of the things when Britney and I were out there yesterday is we questioned the placement of those stairs and wondered whether you could move
those stairs to the new >> um >> landing >> to the new landing. >> I talked with the owner today and he's amanable to that. So, that eliminates an extra landing and we would just hang the stairs off the side. Excuse me. Down to
uh whatever beach is there. >> That's no problem. >> Anybody else? >> So, are we approving the float? >> No, it it's already approved and licensed and we're not changing it or touching. >> Yeah. No, the additional Yeah, the little one.
>> The extra I'm sorry. Yes, the extra little one. >> The extra little one >> would be approving. It totals 200 square feet. So, you're within your bylaw. Um and it's not changing position from where it is now anyway. I'm sorry. You're you're correct. >> Wouldn't the ramp be covering that
float? Why why do they want that little one if they're trying to use the length of the floats they have? It's just the ramp is going to cover it. >> Yeah, I don't know. Um they might store stuff there. I don't know how they use it at this point, but it was my
suggestion to move the to move the deck to the north because it was covering up even more of the useful part of the out there. Yeah, there's a boat there. Um, so it just gives them a little more footprint to work with. And I I don't know what they would do with that little
guy. Um, >> that's the one right underneath. >> Yeah. And the license for this whole thing is about to run out. He's got about another year left with all the extensions. And I've been tasked with relicensing everything once we do all this.
And they would attempt to do the work sooner than later. So, another question um or something I did not say. So, we anticipate that all the work can be done from the land. You might have a little barge out front for
people to stand on where they're bolting things and stuff like that. If they do this during the summer, I've already told them, I go, you can't put a barge or we we would tell the contractor, you got to do it from the land if you're going to do it in the summer because nobody's going to tolerate a barge out there in the summer.
Um, and you could condition it that way if you want, but you I would tell you that I would tell the contractor, you know, we anticipate doing this entirely from the land. The backyard gets obliterated and put gets put all back and the access should be over the cobble
drive on the on the south side there. This room enough to get an excavator back there. Um, we'd like to do is put the gravel buffer back exactly the way it is. I had to I had to say that. >> Yeah, you you'd like to, but the gravel
was according to my notes was added after the COC was issued. >> How did you know that, >> Britney? Challenging. I'm saying I don't know that. And and the the the son that I talked to doesn't know that. So, how how did we know that? >> Images.
>> Excuse me. >> Images. >> Images. Real images. imagery. >> Oh yeah, I know. So that look at >> um just to that point as well in your resource area table um under
structures within the 0 to 75 proposed mitigation. It says there's a 5-ft vegetated buffer. Therefore, no additional mitigation is proposed. >> Right. So when I look on your when I looked on the table and this is like one
of four bulkheads for me you're going to see in in the near future. So there's others coming. Um when I look at the the mitigation table any mitigation in the resource area I it is subject to the commission. So that's why I didn't offer
it. I'm happy >> this is just >> I'm happy to work it out with you. We've done one before me. I mean, we >> But you say there's an existing vegetated buffer, and you just said that they want to keep the five foot gravel buffer. So, they're conflicting. >> That's incorrect.
>> It's either gravel buffer or a vegetated buffer. And clearly, it is not a vegetated buffer. >> Okay. Where did I say that? >> Structures within the 0 to35 buffer. Um, fourth line. >> Oh, >> so that just I mean, we're going to ask
for a vegetative buffer anyway. So, Um, you're right. Vegetated would be a typo then. That's an error. >> But we're going to >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There is vegetation to the north. It's not five feet across the entire site. I might That might have been why I did that. But I agree. It's not a five foot vegetated buffer all the way
across. That's That's incorrect. My my my bad. >> But I think we're going to ask for that to happen is what I'm saying. >> Which to happen. >> Vegetative buffer. >> Vegetative buffer. Yeah. >> Instead of the gravel. >> I actually
10 ft originally. Um, so the commission will have to discuss if they want a 10- foot. So in the permit 1226, >> no launch will be planted or maintained within 10 ft of the proposed bulkhead planted with hearty shrubs and plants.
>> And when they So we don't know what they certified when they when they submitted the CLC. We don't there's no way for us to know what was there, right? Or does did is Google Earth was it clear enough? I didn't look but was it clear enough? >> We'll say Joe did this, but if he wrote
it in his notes added after then I believe him. >> It's he said it was added after the COC was issued. So um and anyway this the plans are approved in perpetuity unless changed with the COC. So it would have to be reverted to comply.
Well, I I so I did speak with the owner and he's happy to um convert the gravel buffer to a five foot vegetated buffer. I can supply you with a a planting list that'll be similar to what you've already seen only I would pick shorter
shorter growing varieties um like a bear berry or the uh the fern. I'm not the fern the um juniper creeping juniper. I think it's lower. >> Not that one. Say again. >> Definitely not that one. >> No. >> No. This board does not like creeping
juniper. >> They don't like it. >> We don't like it. >> It does. No, it doesn't. >> Okay. >> Appropriate wetland plant. >> Um, >> it's on the list, right? >> It's a facultative upland plant. It's more appropriately an upland plant, but
can tolerate being inundated in a wetland, but to be that close to a the water most likely will not succeed in the long term. So, more appropriate wetland plant would be preferred. >> Okay, we'll defer to your expertise for that. That's that's no problem.
>> There's a comment >> and if similar to the previous Well, let's just see where we go with this. I can get you a planting list. I can put it on the plan. If you're headed with a revised plan, I can do all that. So, >> that's where you are headed.
>> Okay. So, do we want a stamped uh landscape plan because that's the um update to the regulations that we just passed this winter.
>> That's true. >> You did make an exception for the last project that we had that I could at least do the a buffer planting. >> Well, that was that's correct. But that project there was already one existing. >> Yeah. And I am also looking. Okay, I'll let
you resolve that first. >> Are we just doing five foot or are we trying to >> You have to decide. >> Right now, the gravel is five feet. >> Yes. >> Can I have a clarification on that too, Britney? You had talked about 10 feet.
>> A previous plan required a 10-ft vegetated strip. >> Why are we going to five? Because that's what the gravel is now. That's what we're discussing. >> Do we want it to be five or 10? >> Can you show that section again, Britney?
>> Photo of the growl planting. >> So that's >> could be more keeping with the regulations. Five or 10 feet. >> That's the area there is >> 10 ft. >> 35t. Right. >> There it is. I think um
>> 10 feet would look great there. >> So, are we in agreement on 10 ft? >> What What are we replacing there? What is >> placing the gravel and the five feet of >> I mean, we're extending in another five feet in that veget >> into that grass.
>> It kind of looks like Cape Cod grass. >> Yeah, it's definitely not a manicured lawn, >> right? That's why I don't know. It's a lot of gravel. >> No, it wouldn't be gravel. It would be plants. >> Say again. >> We would put plantings. >> Oh, okay. You kept saying gravel 10
feet. I'm like, what? What planet are we on here? Okay. So, >> initially it was supposed to be 10 ft, but now we have 5t of gravel. >> Okay. And then the next question is whether or not we need a a licensed landscaper. >> Yeah. >> Which we would under our new restrict regulations.
>> Yes, we do. we would under a new regulation. >> Yeah. Unless we >> So, to be clear, um we're looking at and moving the getting rid of the gravel and
adding five more feet of um vegetation. Um moving the stairs to part of the uh new construction. um brick walkway be realigned, which I
don't think anybody has a problem with that. Just has to be shown in the plan. And uh am I missing something? >> I haven't gotten to it yet, but um a detail of the landing. We just need to know the spacing materials to make sure
they comply with our regulations. You just have a detail of the wall. If you could provide one for the landing. So, like just material and deck spacing. >> I thought they were just going to take the landing, put it off to the side, move the pilings, put the same one back
in. >> Oh, it says reconstruct. So, I It's not clear. >> Are you just using the new one, the old one? >> Well, that's a good question. Um, it didn't, from what I remember seeing it, it didn't look like it was in bad shape, but
>> um your the only difference would be you want 3/4 inch decking or is it one now? You could just Yeah. Okay. I didn't realize. I thought you were making a new one. >> We need to have a CLA. In the plans, are they keeping or reconstructing?
>> I assumed they were going to keep it. >> Okay. >> And um the other thing was no barge in in the water during the summer. We should add to our conditions. If they do, I presume they'd need a
shellfish habitat survey >> for the barge. >> Not for the barge. >> The barge doesn't ground. >> If it grounds. >> Oh, well, you always have special conditions that avoid grounding and the water gets the water gets deep there
very very quickly. >> Well, what what about to your point, Jack? What about the what what concerns me is that this um there is a lot of work here that you don't really see like the the new piles and all and and that does bring up this the shellfish survey
with the new piles. Um I I don't unless I'm missing it, I don't see much about those new piles and whether it's enough to require some sort of shellfish survey or not. Um can you speak to that?
>> I'm sure the We would be relocating two piles. That's about two square feet. Um, we actually did cover this in waterways on a project that's coming to you, but not here yet. And they said that uh they kind of laughed when Oh, no, it is I'm
sorry, it is the next the next project. They kind of laughed, but they said that all any relocated piles at all shellfish in the in the location of the relocated pile would be um transferred um not taken, not fish but trans
transferred to adjacent resource area which is about three scoops of a rake but that I don't know if that was in the waterways letter for the next project but that was discussed so we can get uh get a guy out there he'll know exactly where the piles are going to be and he
can scoop it and transfer the shellfish to the side >> okay we'll have that as a condition >> 20 minutes worth of work but >> anybody what we're doing. >> Just just make the corre you're going to make the corrections on this note about
>> as Brad pointed out the conflict with the the gravel comment and the barge. You're going to make these notes more definitive then on on C1. >> I'm look the construction notes on C1 need to be revised too. >> That's the one that was underneath
>> the little float. Yeah. >> Was a little float. Um, unpermitted >> at this time. It is, >> but we don't know where it's going to be put. >> You're seeking to permit it to keep it, >> but we don't know where it's going to be placed.
>> Question. >> Same location. Okay. >> Right. None of the none of the floats move. >> Just moving the landing. So, we have more. >> Yes. >> Just so I can catch up here. The um the
brick walk is going to be realigned. Could you just review that again, please? >> How it going to be realigned? >> How? I'm sorry. I >> Okay. Is it going to go across the um vegetated buff now? >> No, it it'll have to be it would get it
would get destroyed anyway, but it needs to be redone and just shifted so it curves and meets the new the new location of the landing. That's all. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. Yeah, I'll show that on the plan. They may not I mean they may not do it exactly the way I
draw it. You know how that goes, but we'll show a relocated walkway. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I mean a relocated um yeah brick walkway. >> Very good. Thanks. >> And we're reusing all the existing pilings. No new ones are needed. >> Actually, when you rebuild a wall like
this, you don't need any of the pilings out front anymore. >> I meant for the landing. >> Sorry. >> I meant for the landing. Um, we intend to reuse them. >> They'll You'll know when you pull them. There's a bit of a blind date when you pull them. So, you don't know what you
have until you yank them out of the water. But, if they're if they're suitable to reuse, the intent is to reuse them. >> And then you have all these to choose from if >> Sorry. >> And then you have all these to choose from if you don't need them anymore. And >> good point.
>> Okay. >> And they're already used. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah. reduce, reuse, recycle. >> Um, when would we be continuing this too? >> Well, if I have to do the landscape plan, I'm not really sure. I have to
find somebody. >> I don't know if Lynn is still working or whether she's retired, but she's usually my go-to person. Um, >> so the next are May 7th, May 21st. >> Yeah. Um, this isn't a rush, so why
don't we say that the 21st and um I will endeavor to put those together for you. >> Okay. Um anybody online want comment or question? Raise your hand.
Don't see anybody raising their hand. Um so could I have a motion to continue to May 22nd with all everything we discussed? Jack >> 21st. Second, third.
>> All in favor? >> I >> Great. All right. Just move this to my pile. Okay. Does not get signed.
Okay. Next one is SE83-2530 Shoref Shorefront Consulting for Jeffrey Chismas 66A River Street proposed float expansion new piling and land under the ocean and land containing shellfish
and um I guess you're on. Thank you very much Mark Burgess again for Mr. Chismas um So this is simply he just wants to change the size of the float. It
actually goes down in square feet from 192 I believe to 187 on the plan. Um so he knows he needs to stick within his permitted with within the regulations
and um so he wants to go from the current flow. Sorry. Let me get the plan in front of me so even I know what I'm doing. >> So he has a an 8 by 24 float now and he wants to go to a 52
by um by 34. So he goes from 192 square ft down to 187 square ft. The float does not extend any further seawward than it does now. So that narrowing of the float by two and a half ft is coming from the
landward side. So you will increase the depth, the available depth. Even though it conforms, you'll increase it as you move that landward edge seward. Um his license shows three piles. So I'm
assuming he was permitted for three piles. There's only two there. Now, I suggested to keep this more stable since it's longer now to go ahead and use the third pile. They would be repositioned as shown.
So, yes, we we would be relocating two piles and adding another one. Um, waterways supported the project based on us uh relocating the shellfish for the three pile locations um
laterally, I guess, to the same habitat. the ramp because the seawward edge moves because the landward edge of the float moves seawward the ramp has to be extended. It's currently 16 foot and it
needs to go another two feet 18 foot ramp. Yep. And nothing else is changing. No, there's no work on the dock proposed. We're just changing the size of the float. If you're interested, this would this is
an exact um candidate for a chapter 91 minor project modification. So the license allows a certain square footage and a certain uh position horizontal position of the structure as well. So we're not increasing the square footage and we're not going further
seward. So chapter 9 would would chapter 91 would consider this a um a minor project modification. He has two years left on his dredging permit from the extensions that have
been given been granted by the state. And uh that's about it, I guess. Um if I'm still working in two years, I would probably relic it for him or I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Back up. The the permit that runs out in two years is
for his dredging maintenance dredging. Sorry. I I I can't I don't have it in my head how long is that. That's a different with that I will answer questions.
>> I believe the depth is of the 2 and 1/2 ft or 5T. >> The current depth is shown 4.9 ft. >> Y 4.9 on the landward side and 5.2 two on
the seawward side. >> All right. I just didn't see the bottom of this. Okay. Anybody have any questions? Yes. >> Oh, yeah. Um, so I'm confused. Is this is this a safety or a navigation
necessity or is this just owner convenience? >> Um, I would call it owner convenience. >> This gives him more time. Is it reads? What does that mean? Okay. So, the the u the applicant has had 12 back surgeries.
>> Okay. I'm going to feel bad now by asking the question, right? >> It's basically public knowledge at this point. Um but he's not as mobile as he once was. And by the time he throws a line and the boat drifts, he runs out of float to get to the if he starts at the back, he runs out of float to get to the
front. So, he needs a little more time to uh be able to dock the boat. So, he has been docking the same boat there before. Okay. >> Yep. That's Yes, that's what I was told.
>> Anybody else have questions? >> So, he doesn't plan on getting a new boat longer. >> I don't know. Boats >> boat is never seem to get shorter, but I know a guy down just down river who sold
his boat because it was too expensive. So, who knows? But from our viewpoint, the only thing would be whether a bigger boat would ground. >> That would have to be a really big boat to draw five feet at low tide.
Yeah, that would be a huge boat. I guess I'm saying I'm not sure you have to worry about that. But it would if you if you can afford a boat that big, you don't want it on the ground. The props are probably $10,000 a piece. And we are using a barge for this.
>> Um the one guy that I talked to that could do this, he would the float is made offsite and he would just put it in the water. And um there'll be another gentleman working on a project of mine up river that will have a pile driver and we'll just coordinate those efforts so that the float and the pile driver
show up at the same time and they'll position it and drive the piles. And before that, I'll get the shellfish guy out there to make three scoops. So from your point you're making is not going to go to a sailboat.
>> Not that I'm aware of. No. No. >> The size of the boat and all of that is not relevant to to us unfortunately. But it's not >> only the grounding. >> Only if the grounding >> barges though.
>> Jack. Yeah. >> You have an anticipated material for the pile. Can you have your other project sell this guy a used pile? >> The flow piles, we usually go 30 foot with the flow piles because >> the other ones would be too short.
>> They would be too short. But that top bulkhead is only at elevation. >> Seven. Okay. But reused piles would be preferred if you could find one available. Um or the low concentration CCA instead of Greenheart. >> Okay.
So you the board's act you've gone back to pressuret treated and I'm guessing yes how is that an issue not an issue but guess of two evils between greenheart are you mowing down a rainforest to protect the water from CCA what's the better battle right
>> yeah so now the preference is the low concentration CCA or reused um if possible I know fiberglass is very expensive that's obviously not deforesting anything but yeah the green heart is not uh super sustainable Okay. Um I'm I'm hip to that. If you I will
forget that. So if you could put that in the order. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Great. And >> happy to >> I would I would assume he would reuse two of the piles that are there again if unless they pull them out and they're garbage. >> Yeah. >> And add another.
>> Fair enough. Thank you. >> I just have a dumb question. Why are they so tall? >> Why so tall? >> The piles. islands. Ah, >> they're like over 10 feet. >> Yes. So, in the big one, your flood
elevation is about elevation 12 >> and in the V zone, it's up to 13 with two foot waves or maybe the 13 is accounts for the two foot waves, but figure 12 or elevation 12 or 13. Float is another foot and a half or so off the water. So, what we don't want is in the
big one is having floats go up over the piles and sail away. So, I always I specify that they don't always go in that way because some people look at them and go, I don't want to look at that pile. It's too high. Okay, it's your boat.
>> That's why I do it with my design so that hopefully everything stays put. >> So, in a floating dock, you kind of have a provision for a rigid. So, yeah, I guess I get it. You don't want it to break away. So you have the taller piles
to hold it. >> Yeah. If Yeah. >> This is your pile and this is your float. If the floats if the pile's too short and the water keeps rising. >> Yeah. This is why I say instead of a floating dock just here
will be. >> Um anything else Britney? Um, DMF comment was minimal. Any activities requiring a barge be limited? Um, that was it. And then the previous permit for these
this spot for the float required float stops, but the dredging kind of has eliminated that need. Though the dredging permit, like you said, does expire in two years. Um, so when they come back for the COC for this project, we might have to look at float stops
depending on how much the area has filled in. Um, but I mean right now you're the dredging doesn't have an elevation that it's dredged to. It's just listed as 50 cubic yards, but I guess you dredge to minus 5. Um, so I don't expect that to fill in very
quickly. Do you? >> He's dredged a couple of times, so Mother Nature really is the one that drives that bus. But he He has dredged at least twice, I think. And the the sand gets used on a beach to the south, >> but um at this point in time, I'm not
aware of him wanting to do any dredging >> any. >> So, we might need to do float stops then >> because the natural grade you don't have the depth needed, which is why we had to do the dredging, right? Um >> I guess
>> but the float stops would be underwater right now. Yeah, I would say cross that bridge when you when you get the COC. You cross that bridge when you when you get to it and it >> probably won't be me, but
>> Well, I can close out the I can this order I could close out in my limited time. >> Okay, we might just put in there. We don't usually require soundings for the COC, but so for this one, we might just need to know the depth at the time of the COC so we can
install float stops if dredging is no longer pursued, if that's okay. >> If you'll accept me going out there with the measuring tape at low tide, I'm happy with that. >> Um, I just have something else. When Britney and I were out there yesterday,
the there was a long guy there who was putting down um putting down um >> fertilizer. >> Fertilizer. I knew it's the word there. And it was within the 200 feet to the riverfront. So, you can tell the grass
is beautifully green. So, it's been fertilized all the way up and that shouldn't be happening. >> Yeah. >> That is that something new? I'm I'm I'm aware of it in other towns. I wasn't aware of that here. >> Yeah. since 2023. But um we do have a
couple of other so outside the scope of your project. We will just have to um talk to the owner. There was a couple of items we saw while we were there um as violations. So the lawn is encroaching significantly into the mitigation area that was approved under a previous
permit 2041 and a significant portion of the upper mitigation area plantings have disappeared. Um, so this will need to be replanted and some sort of barrier installed so that that lawn is not encroaching in the mitigation area. Similar to that project we just saw.
This lawn probably also has to get removed from the mitigation area. Obviously not relevant to the project you're working on, but we will be reaching out to the owner to let him know. Um, >> what's that line across the >> That's the mitigation area. >> How is it still? Is that What is it? What What is it?
>> It's just an edge. So they edge it and then they keep mowing into the mitigation area. Um and just two years ago the COC was issued and there was some grass in between the mitigation plantings but there were a lot more survivors at the
top. Um so we will just need those to be maintained in perpetuity within reason. So but we'll reach out to him separately about that issue. Yeah, I would imagine if rather than do a violation, if you write a letter, I'm sure that they >> Yeah. So, we can discuss since we're actively
>> involved or not, you know, >> Can I ask just a general question? Um, you mentioned you have a lot of bulkheads coming up and all that. Is are you required on all these to submit um an asbuilt for all these to you and
>> the COC? Yeah. >> Okay. >> Most everything >> it's just getting crazy. like just along the uh Bass River. Okay. >> Keeps the surveyors busy. >> Um yeah, usually when there's a structure, >> so certainly a new one.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So when the only projects that we don't require an asbill plan for or if they're completely landscape based or if they're extremely minor in nature. >> Um makes sense. >> But everything else that has a structure, it's always a standard
condition. We can go through all of our special conditions that are standard if that might be helpful. Um but yeah, it's 90% of projects. >> It's not a surprise for us either. >> Yeah, especially for these structural installations. Yeah, >> the the fertilizer just educate me
briefly. Um is that does that does that apply? >> Right now it applies within the 50oot buffer of all regular resource areas and within the riverfront area. >> Whether or not there's an active permit, it just it's townide. Yeah, it is. >> How do the people how are they made
aware of that other than >> posted regulation updated? Um yeah, so it's difficult definitely difficult to enforce. So we are focusing on projects with permits and education. Uh but yeah, we are in the preliminary stages. So active pursuit of enforcement of that
item is not something we're focused on, but letting people know education and when it comes up during meetings is our priority right now. There's another town that has the same uh restriction only they're not going after anybody unless they file. So when
they file it becomes a special condition that you know no fertilizers yada yada yada you know when they file. >> Um >> something trying to educate people because that fertilizer ends up in the river. So >> of course >> trying to clean our rivers not make them worse. >> But until they come here it's very
difficult to get that message out of the people that are there. >> Yeah. >> Communication is They ignore it anyway. Some do. Um >> it's like the water ban. Some do. >> Um >> twice by the way already. >> I we do have to acknowledge
>> that's with the water bill now. Sorry. >> It's okay. I interrupted you. We did receive two butter comments in opposition of the project um with concerns basically on boat length. Um we did have the opportunity to discuss with
these people that the boat length is not in our jurisdiction but we did get two public comments um about that in nature and there was some evidence that at our prior meeting um
there was a lengthy discussion which was true about the boat length and it was ultimately decided that it wasn't in their purview. So it wasn't included in the order of conditions at that time to limit the size of the boat. Make sure I didn't miss anything essential.
And so yeah, that was the first one. And then another one with significant concerns for the for the increase in the length of the float. And they're requesting that a boat size limit be added. reference to some minutes. Yeah, so they
there was a lengthy discussion included in the minutes um but it was not ultimately included in the order of conditions in that 2011 meeting. But yeah, so at the waterways um we have the chairman here. I think he's going to make a public comment, but yeah, the waterways
committee did discuss at length the boat size issue and ultimately also decided that it was not in their purview to limit the size of boats, but it is a concern. Um, many voices were heard and it might be something that either DNR or
we consider to add in the future, but right now it is not in our regulations. >> There's at least one town that has it in their regulations. Yeah, I I I believe Barnstable does limit vote sizes. Um but we have to make sure that it would be
enforceable and um allowed under the law. >> Barnable has the best doc rags I've ever seen. >> We based ours on theirs partially in 2014 2016 when Kelly >> they imagine how much work they put in
to get to that point. But it's the basic thing I can say about it is that they went around and evaluated all their shellfish areas from 1 to 10. And in the high value areas, they want three feet of water. In the low low areas, it's you can have as little as a foot. But they already did that homework. So there's no argument.
>> That's awesome. They really really nailed it. >> It's a big town. >> They have a big staff, too. >> Yeah. Big budget. >> Staff maybe. >> You want to uh Okay. introduce yourself and go from there.
>> My name is Julian Mallet. I'm the chair of the waterways and shellfish committee. Thank you very much for listening to me tonight. Um this particular case came before the waterways committee last Thursday. So this is obviously on a fast track,
right? And uh has given folks limited time to look at it and to understand it particularly about it, I guess. Um we uh debated this one fairly extensively, right? Until we reach we
had a split decision, right? But we reached a position where we recognized that the uh waterways does not the town of Yarmouth waterways does not have regulations which govern the size of a vessel that's put on a dock. Right. I
did uh check later uh to see if the conservation committee yourselves right have any uh means of governing that and I understand that you do not right however that's not necessarily the end
of the story right there are uh additional state laws and other laws which can govern this right the dock uh can go ahead as far as I understand uh as stated uh in the plans.
However, the issue becomes what size of vessel you put on it. In my experience, typically uh when someone lengthens a float like that, they are planning to put a larger boat on it or if they do not, a future owner may do so given the
length of the dock, which is something which could happen in the future. This particular dock happens to be at a very narrow choke point on the river. Um I used to moore a sailboat right across from there. So I know that area
intimately. Uh as well as the dock and the vessel that's on it. Right. There is a navigation buoy which further restricts uh um the space to n for boats to navigate up and down there.
Um given that the owner has not indicated he will put a larger boat, we hope that is so. Right. However, if a larger boat is placed, you can see from the um pictures here that it already reaches
the side of the channel. If a larger boat by width, right, impinges on the channel, right, that then would be considered a hazard to navigation and can be ordered removed.
So he could buy a larger boat, but he wouldn't be allowed to put it here, right? With the regulation. The second point, so that is something that waterways can adjudicate through uh the H master.
The second point that I wanted to bring up, right, uh dates to the uh what's called the Pennsylvania rule from 1865. And the Pennsylvania rule, right, uh came from a court case where an
obstruction um heeded um navigation up and down a waterway, right? In that particular case, someone hit the obstruction and uh that could happen here. If someone if he if there's a larger boat
here which impedes on the channel and someone hits that boat, it is his fault under the Pennsylvania rule and whoever hits his boat can sue him for obstruction. I think that's um something that's worth the uh applicant knowing,
right? that um he is putting himself at risk by impinging on the channel and also um that the um waterways through the harbor master can require that vessel be removed and not placed
back there. Right? So those are a couple of points that I wanted to make. waterways uh as a as a committee waterways plans to examine this more carefully in the future and to understand what is within our purview
and how we can uh control that. Um so whilst we at the moment have no jurisdiction over the dock and the dock size right we would have jurisdiction over the vessel size in the future depending on what is put there and what
impediment it makes to the channel. So, thank you for hearing me. Uh, those are the points I wanted to make. >> Thank you. Very clear. >> I'd like to say thank you for coming over and making the effort. Uh, coordination like this is really important.
>> Thank you for >> One question, Britney. Um, can we put a a um something in about future size of boats? I wouldn't be comfortable with that. >> You would or wouldn't? >> No, it's not in our purview.
>> Okay. >> Anybody else? Anybody online have a question or comment? I see three people, but no hands raised. Okay. So,
where do we go from here? We're not asking for any changes, right? >> Think so. >> No. So, I need to have a motion to uh accept plans with conditions.
It's uh not a negative anything. So, >> issue and order conditions with special conditions. Yeah, >> we didn't talk about um any kind of fencing or uh marking of the
installations of the >> Oh, labeling the float you mean? >> No, no. On the mit mitigation, >> I'm sorry. >> The the mitigation and around the path. Do we need anything to mark? >> This is not an enforcement hearing. I
brought it up so that everyone would know. I'm happy to talk to the owner informally about it, but if eventually if we need to have an enforcement hearing, we can um I would imagine that he would be compliant with the previous plans. So, we have previous
plans in place that he can follow um to get compliance, but if there's any issues, we can have an enforcement hearing. >> I'll be speaking with him on my way home, so I'll I'll tell him to expect a letter, but that's what it's about. Just have to bring it into a compliance. >> Yeah, just an email. Um, probably with
the old plan. >> Fair enough. That's okay. >> Yeah. >> Need to go. >> Could just wait till you be deferred until such time as waterways have a an adequate chance to review um what our
purview is and what what um regulations and state laws might apply. Um I don't believe that any decision that you make would we would be able to incorporate in our board of conditions.
>> Um so I I'm not sure about deferring. Um so basically the commission can continue a hearing in only two circumstances if they cannot make a decision without additional information or by request by the applicant. Um, so we do have all the information that they need to make a
decision. So I don't think they could accommodate that type of request unless the applicant requested a continuence which I don't think they wish to do. >> Thank you. >> Apologies. Um, there was just yeah DMF comment we mentioned. I think that was the only
thing. So >> So we're looking for we have a motion outlined but no one has made it. >> Right. So moved. >> So moved. Second from anybody second. Jack, all in favor?
>> I Anybody opposed? When >> opposed? So, what happened to my sign sheet? >> Probably on the back of the one in top of it. came here by mistake. If >> I can just make a comment. I think
chapter 91 deals with uh the number of boats and the length of votes. Um don't they? >> No. I Well, I've never in all the years I've been doing this, they haven't there hasn't been a comment. >> Captain 91's >> must be just sitting there.
>> I want to license the footprint for the revenue. >> Yeah. and their other main purview is preserving public access along the shoreline. >> Yeah. >> But I've never had a case where they have said um oh, you know, the float's
too big or the or certainly not the boat. I've never never had that come up in 25 years. >> Interesting. I used to apply for chapter 91 permits and they used to always ask me how many boats and what the lengths are, but I don't know if they limited
it. But anyway, that's that's out of this. I haven't run into it and I >> glimmer of hope for those out there that were looking for state purpose. >> I think that that actually the very purpose of it is g giving the owner
access to the water >> that hasn't that is not followed through the regulation but that is actually >> for the owner to have access or for the public >> in this case. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, >> I'm pretty sure it's the owner.
>> So I I know that they preserve public access. They they're very stead >> Well, this is an old old law, is not. >> Was it the colonial laws of 1600 or something? >> I think that that was the original purpose of a owner having access, >> right? >> And I think that's been continued, but
you don't find it in the rest of the regulation. And you might find it funny from for this to come from me, but to me people might come here and say, "Well, I have a right to have a dock or I'm entitled to have a dock." Neither one is true.
You know, my job is to make it as easy for you as possible to permit something like that. But nobody is entitled to a dock and and nobody has >> access is not defined. >> No, they have the right to apply, but they don't have a right to have
Yep. >> Okay. My opinion anyway. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much everyone. I'll be >> like these three other four trickling through. You'll see me again soon. >> Thank you. >> We'll be here. >> Maybe I'll do a better job this next.
>> You're fine. >> Approval a minute. approval minutes for 4226. Um, >> anybody read it? >> Okay. You want to make a motion? >> Yeah. Make a motion to approve April 2nd. >> Yep.
>> I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I oppose. >> Okay. Reappoint of a rep to the community preservation committee. Paul, you've been doing a great job. Do you want to keep doing it? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can we uh hear an motion to
appoint Paul? Somebody else wants it before we do that. >> I move for Paul. >> Okay. >> All in favor to name Paul. >> That Paul. >> Thank you. >> Reminder, the updated regulations were
effective as of well are effective as of 419. So that's Monday. >> It's a Sunday. We just put a month out. Um but so a next deadline is the last with our current regulations before we move to the new ones. >> Okay. Um
volunteered for cleanup day. There's You said you had 80 people so far. >> Yep. Cleanup day April 25th, Saturday starting at 8 a.m. You don't have to arrive at 8 a.m., but we'll be here until 10:45. Come clean up and grab a coffee.
And last thing or so maybe not but we'll see. Parker's Landing grand opening and resiliency fair. I'm going to um charge of a table. Uh I think Jaw is coming with me but we would love to see if some other couple board members would
like to uh volunteer to stand there and uh >> pass through >> about how wonderful the conservation commission is and remind them what they need to do. if you're available, just tell Britney. You don't have to decide this minute. Um, and Joe and I will set
the table up, but we certainly could use some help or even if it's only for an hour or two. And if >> you provide a chair, >> eio chair, >> if you if you want to sign up for an hour at the specific time, that's fine. I'll probably just stay there from 10 to
3, but it' be great. So, >> what is the date of that again? I >> May second. This is Saturday. >> It'll rain from 10 to 3. You said >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Let me know. >> Oh, really?
>> One of those popup tents. So, maybe we will take >> I think they they'll have tents. >> You think they'll have it? >> Yeah. That was >> And the message I sent >> You're going to be away. So, if they have it, >> I don't have anybody to play. >> Be away, too. The text said the tent company will be providing tables. So, I
assume the tent company will also be providing a tent. >> All right. Any other business? Do you have any other business for us, Britney? >> I don't. That was all my business. >> Okay. Anybody else have anything they want to say or do or >> All right. Well, thank you very much for
another great day. Um, anybody want to make a motion to uh adjourn? >> Could I just say one thing, please? >> Sure. >> Remember town meeting was today? >> Oh, yes. meeting is the 20 >> 8th >> 8th
>> at the intermediate school 6 o' yep um CPC does make recommendations for projects and of course with other town business so >> library is a business library >> that takes a chunk >> yeah it's always fun too you know so
>> great thank you for reminding us >> um okay anybody want to make a motion to adjurnn >> so moved Anybody second?