recording in progress. >> I don't see you. >> I did. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Okay, we're ready to go. It's uh conservation welcome of conservation commission meeting Thursday, March 5th,
2026. Um we're going to begin with uh Bry just quickly giving an overview about the storm damage tree photos request. Um, the conservation division is just looking to document the damage from the blizzard. So, if you have down trees or
severely damaged trees on your property, email them to conservation so we can document some of the damage. That's all. >> That's it. Quick and easy. Okay. All right. So, our first uh order of business is S83
2270 BSC Channel Point LLC 2 Channel Point Drive. Continued request for COC. Uh they asked to be continued to April 2nd. So I need to have a motion to continue. So moved. Second. Anybody
>> second. >> Thank you. Looking at me like why are we doing this? >> Thought you said someone already second. I was like why are you looking at me? >> All in favor of continuing. I >> thank you. No one opposed.
>> See how quickly we're going. All right. >> All right. >> Second one is SE 832375 Leonard de Orlando 17 Wild Rose Terrace permitted addition after the fact
revision for additional hardscape in the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. And I see our people are here. So you'd like to introduce yourself and >> Sure. I'm Lendor Orlando, wife Maria.
>> Hi. >> And uh here for finding out where we're at with the mitigation plans on our property. >> Okay. Want to go over that at all? >> Oh. Um they submitted a revised plan um
in response to some unpermitted work. And the revised P plan incorporates mitigation for all of the hardscape that was implemented. So they're fully vegetating the 50- foot buffer and removing some fill that was in the 50oot buffer and a wooden walkway that was in
the 50oot buffer. >> Okay. And all that's been corrected. >> Yeah. All the revisions that were requested from the meeting in November have been incorporated to the plan. Um and I would recommend the commission approve the revised plan. >> Okay. Anybody have any questions or
comments? None. Do I hear a motion to accept the new plan? >> Second. >> I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. >> Anybody opposed? >> Abstaining.
>> You're abstaining. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. That's it. >> That's it. >> That was simple. >> All right. >> Thank you guys. >> Thank you. Have a nice night. Thank you. >> You too. >> Okay. Our next order of business is
SC832510 Cape Down Cape Engineering for Angela Kosenzi 29 Lewis Bay Boulevard unit 6 proposed relocation and elevation of a dwelling with additions in
land subject to coastal flooding the buffer zones to a coastal bank and beach. We don't need a signature for the revised approval. >> Have one for the for the one we just approved.
>> That's all right. >> We're ready. >> Uh, Chairman Bernstein, uh, members of the commission, my name is Dan Ojula. I'm a surveyor and civil engineer with Down Cape Engineering in Yarmouth Port. um and um and helping out the Cassenzis with um a matter. Uh Danny Gonzalez's,
the engineer from my office, was here last time and there was just a couple little tweaks to the plan that were requested. Um you had um um this one, you may recall, we're in the process of redoing the the seaw wall out front. And as part of that, there's going to be a
10-ft landscape buffer along the top of the bank. Um it was requested that we nudge the patio back even further. Um you may recall um as note nine on the plan that we had to remove an illegal portion of the patio out front and now we're moving it back um from 14 foot to
17t off of that u man-made uh coastal bank there. So that's three foot further uh than was last time to compensate. We did widen it just a little bit, but you'll recall this one is a nice 507 square foot reduction in the 0 to35. So,
kind of a win-win. Um 27 uh up in the uh in the 35 to 50 and and a few hundred of 554 and the but the net is um because of the multipliers that you we really emphasize the the improvements in the 0 to 35. It's a reduction of 332 foot of
mitigation. So, um we are planting the 10 foot once that wall is done. So, we thought that would be adequate where whereas uh we don't really need to do any. Um and um we did find there's a view easement on the east side uh for one of the neighbors in the back. This
is a tightlyknit condominium structure and there's some architectural guidelines and so forth. So, um we did nudge the building about two foot to the west just to make sure that we didn't interfere with u that little um view easement that runs across our exclusive use area. And there was a neighbor
across the street um that wasn't part of the development that was concerned. He kind of has a peekab-oo view through that same corridor. So I think he'd be pleased to know that we widened that just a touch. Um again, I know you don't look at view uh that's not in your jurisdiction, but just as background in
case somebody mentions that. Um we're fully compliant with all those uh areas. So hopefully those couple little tweaks uh will be what you needed. It was February 26 26 you should be looking at. That's where the town comments. We've got the mitigation calculation uh platted out the way you'd like it and u
those couple little minor adjustments. So, be glad to answer any questions if you have them. >> Anybody have any questions? And uh >> Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the um clarifications.
Am I on? Yeah. Um I I I I was the one that asked for the the um the method of the the relocation and >> Oh yes, >> I and I do understand that these are common. You know, I've I've seen them on Nantucket Island and they're going to be more and more common, but specifically
in coastal areas and and I'm generally familiar with with with the method being proposed. But that said, um what we've been given are um outlines the process, but it doesn't yet demonstrate
uh that the soil conditions have been adequately evaluated to prevent any sort of shifting or settlement. Um and and and I asked that because um we just don't want any unnecessary movement because of the sand
is issue and I and so will this process um be monitored uh closely and and I don't have any stamp structural. I'm sure it's probably on there, but um I just want to make sure that we're
we're protecting the site and the resource area and that all the soil conditions have been evaluated uh to present any settlement or shifting during the lifting of this building.
>> Sure. Um so um I I did I was remiss in mentioning that yeah the contractor did provide a construction protocol which was requested. Um yes uh what we do is use use experienced uh folks so it's not their first rodeo but um it's actually a
pretty straightforward matter. They'll they'll they'll knock holes in the foundation, run big steel beams through uh uh to well off of the excavation area, uh crib it up, and they can they can roll and move it and and adjust it up and down as needed uh very easily. Um
they're always cognizant that, you know, there is soft sand in the area. It's a it's a it's a um usually about a one and a half to one angle of repose that you'd be looking at. You'd want to stay out of the zone of influence of of of that. So they'll um they'll over excavate um
slightly and have safe slopes on the side and make sure that it's uh adequately shored um so that we don't have any problems um with respect to global stability. It's it's quite stable. These are you know glacial landforms out wash plane deposits that
are that are level and it's compacted sand and gravel. All the testing we've done in the area and the septic systems all show that it's uh just stratified sand and gravel. So, it's nothing that's particularly uh sensitive uh except that sand does, you know, tend to to slough
off at a one and a half to one slope. So, nothing out of the ordinary here. Um you've got lawn all around it. Um that'll hold the first, you know, foot and a half and then you'll have safe slopes underneath that. I I really wouldn't anticipate any problems with this one. And it's not like it's an open
coastal dune or um particularly close to the bank as we're moving it back quite a bit. >> Okay. Thank thank you for your um confidence. And I have a I have a question and I'm I'm really ignorant on this and and it's for Britney. Uh forgive me if I'm uh it there's a
note on the drawings that says dwelling to be located entirely within exclusive use area. What is what does exclusive use area mean? >> Must be with us. It's a it's a it's a creature of the legislature. That's a condominiums allow you to have within the everyone owns the common area, but
within those common areas, you have easements where um you can say get off my lawn to the neighbor. Basically, it's it's an area where where we kind of control it. So, it be similar to a lot line. It's just an imaginary line where we have control and the other people can't go over and go n you know, you
>> I thought it was something with the wetlands protection act that I had. >> Oh, yeah. It's just a just a just it's part of the condominium bylaw and uh it's just to kind of um demarcate personal areas around the houses. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Anybody else questions? No. Have two questions. Um one had they both have to do with the patio. What did you say the um uh how far the patio is now from the top of the coastal bank? >> Um well right now it's 2 feet. We're
we're moving we were required to move it back to 12.6 and we had it at 14 previously figuring that was enough move back but it was requested to move an additional three. So it's uh 14 + 3 is 17 from the coastal bank right now. >> Okay. And I noticed the difference shape
of it. What is the uh can you tell me the uh dimensions of the pattern? >> Um only only roughly. I mean, you you're you're probably talking about 15 by 20. Uh the square footage and the 0 to35
would get us pretty close. Um so that would be um Oh, it's going down. That's you can't do it from that because there's uh it's it's a subtraction. But on that order, I could scale it a little bit more carefully if you'd like, but on on the
order of of 17 by 20. >> 17 by 20. Okay. >> Yeah. Maybe 15. Yeah, it it may be closer to 15 by 27 or something like that. But again, it's it's pulled back. It's a big reduction
within that uh 0 to 35. Um and um you know, would would be happy to dry set it if you you know, rather than have it a wet set that tends to be a little bit more pvious, but um >> absolutely. >> Yeah. Just to be clear, that's always a requirement.
>> Yeah. So, that's it's a pretty inert, you know, compared to lawn, it's probably better for the environment. >> Anybody before I go to Britney? Britney, you have anything to add? >> Yeah, just for in the future, um I know
this is one of Ellie's primary concerns for document control. I know it might be easier to put sound comments, but we really need to have all of the revisions shown in the section, the revision section, especially you reduce all these questions. How far away did you move the
patio? Um, how was your response from the revisions requested? It would just make it a lot easier for the commission to see what the changes were. If they were shown clearly in the revision section, >> yeah, we could we could Yeah, that's it's it's it is nice to do that. Um and
um >> or with a cover letter key them in with a little one. Yeah. Yeah. It's it's good practice. >> Um and my only other comment would be that I would recommend a special condition that any landscaping be submitted for approval to the
conservation commission since it's all inside our jurisdiction. We did get a list of um of construction protocol and that's included in our in our approval. We did get the list.
Anybody else? Anybody in the audience questions or comments? I see one person online. If they want to speak, raise your hand. I don't see that. Do I have a motion to accept the plans
with special conditions? Moved >> including that we get that planning plan. >> Yes. She approves. >> Would would we anticipate um a native pallet around
>> native pallet? Yeah. So, we allow >> 50 >> foundation bed plantings to be native cultivars or non-native, non-invasives, but a native pallet otherwise. >> Excellent. Anybody second? >> I'll second. >> Thank you. All All in favor?
>> Anybody opposed? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Appreciate you working with us. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Okay, our next order of business is SC83-2509
JM O'Reilly and Associates for Paul and Nancy Cruz for Glennwood Street. Proposed deck expansions, addition shed, sand nourishment, and invasive species management in the velocity flood zone and buffer zones to excuse me to a salt
marsh and coastal bank. They asked that we continue this to 31926. So I just need a motion to continue. >> So moved. >> A second. Second. Thank you. All in favor? >> I. Anybody opposed? No.
>> All right. You already take that out. >> Yeah. And the next one is 8 SE83 2514 Crawford land management for Scott Peterson 10
and 20 Susan Road. Proposed bank stabilization using Quir uh fiber rolls and invasive tree removal and coastal bank land subject to coastal flooding. This two asked to be continued to 319. >> Okay,
>> moving right through. Um, anybody give me a motion? >> Second. >> Yeah. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. Okay. That was 1020. Okay.
Aha. Wow. This is SE 832512 Capeen Island Engineering for Harbor Haven Associate Associates 26 Grand View Drive. Posed drainage improvements, beach nourishment at planted burm on a
coastal beach land subject to coastal flooding and riverfront area. This two asked to be continued to 319. Do I hear a motion? >> So move. >> Second. Second, Jack. All in favor? >> I sus done over here.
Did I do just two or is that what I'm doing now? >> Just two. >> That's what I'm doing now. Okay. Give me one minute to catch up. All right. Next is SE 832511 Capen Island Engineering for Richard and Carol Dove.
through Driftwood Lane proposed reconstruction of a retaining wall and fill in coastal bank riverfront area and the buffer zones to a salt marsh and coastal bank. You could introduce yourself and let us know what's going on.
>> Sure. Chuck Roland, Capen Islands Engineering. Um I'm here representing the owners of 22 Driftwood. Uh Mr. and Mrs. uh Dove. Um, you guys have already uh reviewed this project and I have submitted a revised plan and I believe
that I've gone over pretty much all of your concerns. Feel like there's an echo. I'm turn this one off. Turn it away maybe. Is that better? Not any better. It's fine with you guys. >> Don't turn that off the microphone. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Um, so I um added some uh uh grass seed mix to the uh disturbed area planting notes. Um, and uh called for a
uh New England erosion control restoration mix for dry sites uh by New England wetland plants or approved alternative. And so I just left that in there in case there was any comments from uh staff or for any reason people
wanted a different uh plant seed mix. I stayed away from uh Juniper your comments. Um besides that I pulled the wall back 1.7 feet. I actually
rotated it um uh as to have a net zero cut fill. I added the dimensions of the uh BDH uh for the existing trees around the wall. Um as I discussed, I added the notes. Um I pulled in the work limit on
the northeast side along the lawn area. I think there's plenty enough plenty of room for construction access. Um but I did pull it in. Um per your comments. Um I cleaned up some of the notes that uh
you had asked me to uh remove. Um and um besides that I I think uh the only other thing I added was uh the native planting uh 52 square feet for um
some of the area that will be disturbing for the proposed wall. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Anybody have any questions or comments? No. Okay. Um, >> are you removing any other trees, I
guess, is my question. >> We're not planning on removing any trees. Um, the only tree that you can see right there, uh, the only quote unquote tree we're removing is that stump. Um, so that is, in my opinion, I don't
would not consider that a tree. Um, uh, but besides that, we left those notes in there. Um, uh, trees to be replaced if disturbed during construction. We really don't think at this point they're going to be disturbed. They're plenty far enough away and I really don't think that the
root mass is tied into it um into the existing wall and I think there's plenty of room to um construct the new wall um around it. Um and actually in that corner um the wall is pulled back uh
landward of the existing wall. So should be enough room to build this wall in there. >> Any comments, Britney? Uh, no. I would just recommend a special condition to um, you noted that structural drawings
may be needed if the wall is over four feet for those to be provided if they do end up being needed. Um, but otherwise, thank you for meeting our revision requests. >> Thank you. Anybody in the audience have a question or comment? Anybody on Zoom
have a question or comment? >> Oh, I just want >> you have a question or comment. Well, just to beat a dead horse when when you do revisions and you squiggle like that, could you make a note of the a date revised date or you know per
conservation meeting D something? >> Yes, ma'am. So, it's um on the right side the title block. Um >> but but the the squiggle doesn't reference it like >> Oh, are you saying this up here? >> Yeah. Like what when did you do that? Revise, you know, just date the
revisions. Yes, ma'am. >> It's a lot easier for us to find them rather than >> Yeah, I I try to to only put oneision note on there, but >> yeah, do that in the future. >> Okay. Um,
seeing no other comments. Any uh could I have a motion to accept the proposal with special conditions? >> So, move. >> Thank you. Second. Anybody? Second. Okay, Jack. Um, all in favor?
>> I. >> Anybody opposed? Okay. >> Thank you very much. Have a good night. >> Thank you. >> Oh, I think this goes in the file that I was >> in this file.
>> Is there only one address on yours? Is it was there only one address? Okay, then yeah, you can put it in there. >> Is a trans is I listened to that part of the meeting, but is a transcript meeting minutes or not? Transcript is a transcript, right? >> I guess that's the
>> the same as the meeting minutes. >> I would think so. >> Here's Christian. He has a few places. >> Okay, let's move that down there.
22 direct through it. A request for COC SC832210 um 10 Surfside Terrace and uh >> if you did turn that mic off, would you just turn it back on?
>> I don't. >> Okay. >> Want to begin this or the COC? >> Sure. This is a COC request for tenser side terrace. Um the original work was to remove let me just bring up the plan
was to relocate an accessory building from very close to the coastal bank further back on the property. They added mitigation plantings on the coastal bank and the location of the relocated building. They installed all the mitigation plants that were required
and they did not fully install a patio that was proposed. Um, I would recommend that the commission issue this certificate of compliance pending an asbuilt plan showing all of the site conditions which I believe we've received today, but
we'll have to review in office to make sure. This was the original plan they submitted. It just missed some of the site features. So, we just wanted to make sure that any as build we have on file shows every feature on the site within jurisdiction.
All right. They want to bring in Phil someplace. >> This is the COC request first. >> Okay. >> So, this address has two applications. >> Okay. Got it. >> Just the COC. >> A certificate of compliance for an open project. >> Okay. >> That they're proposing to close out
which they have completed in compliance and so I'd recommend issuance of the COC. Were there any questions about the COC >> have to then >> or >> this is the asbuilt plan we have on file that you submitted? >> Right. It it doesn't have the walkway
and stuff on the on the other side that we just updated for the project we're about to hear, but it doesn't really apply to this. So, but do you need that one updated as well or is that okay? >> I do. Yeah. Yeah. So the I mean the asbuild has to reflect if he could just take off the proposed conditions from the one that you submitted for the
>> oh >> new project. >> Okay. Either way I can I can import that stuff under into that one. Either way I I'll get that. >> Okay. >> Post haste. >> Thank you. >> Anybody questions about the COC? Do I
hear a motion to accept the COC? >> Some moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. Pat. All in favor? >> I >> Okay, so that's done. That's right.
>> Okay. So now sign this one that's coming down is just for the COC. All right. Now for notice of intent SE83-2519
Shaw for consulting for Thomas Grimes >> and Surfside Terrace proposed replacement and raising of an existing bulkhead and fill in riverfront area land subject to coastal storm flooding coastal bank and the buffer zone to a
coastal beach. This is when you get to talk. So, for the record, um I'm Mark Burgess of Shorefront Consulting. Uh I'm an ocean engineer and I have about 25 years of designing and permitting waterfront projects like this. Um
this project is the simple the simple part of the project is to replace an existing timber bulkhead with vinyl. It's okay. Um the benefit to that is you're re removing any of the pressuret treated wood and replacing it with vinyl. Uh the
bulkhead is proposed to go in the exact same location that as it is with the exception of the return to the west or the left side of the print. Um that return looks like it's slightly over the property line. So that return will be relocated about one to two feet
um inward to the right so that it's entirely on the applicant's property. Um OK is proposed to be raised 2 feet and uh but there's only six inches of fill proposed. And the reason for that
is that during some of these uh m what what is now minor storm surges the lawn gets flooded and eventually that would lead to degradation of the grass and uh possibly exposed soil and things like that. There will be a vegetated buffer
here. There is one now. It's all beach grass. There is a proposal um and we just gave you that plan today, but there's a well there was an unstamped version given a week or so ago that has a planting list on it. So basically the
the what is now a 10- foot wide completely 100% beach grass vegetative buffer in very good condition will be augmented with uh three other varieties of of plants. some of the taller varieties on the edges and some of the
shorter varieties um in the front. So, that's a separate um well, it's a different it's an updated plan from that. Um the the reason for the fill, like I said, is to try to reduce the the
amount of times that the area floods. There's no way to prevent it. You know, it will just reduce it in some of these uh like I said, what are now seemingly normal storm surges that used to be air storm surges now are more common. Um the
same type of lawn would go back in that area with the exception of the 10-ft vegetative buffer. Um all the work is done uh would be accomplished from the land. the you have to back excavate the wall first about 10
feet to release the soil pressure on the wall and then you remove the sheeting in sections and replace the vinyl sheeting in the same section. In theory, they only remove as much as that can be replaced in a single day. I'd still recommend a silk curtain around the
project area and um you know every all the demolition gets removed from the site but this should be able to be done entirely from the upland. There is a um there are two trees on the far left.
I don't think they need to be disturbed, but if they are, they would replace them in kind or at least two to one with with a smaller tree. But I don't I think at this time I think there's room to put the bulkhead in there because you you're just pushing the sheeting down in that
case. They could push that sheeting down behind the new wall and then take out the old one so they don't have to excavate back there. Uh what else? Um there's a in the in the order that just got closed out as part of the boat house relocation. There was
a um proposed kitchen edition. I think it was 5 by8. It was a b a bathroom sorry a bathroom edition and it's 5 by8. That work did not get done from that order and we just wanted to carry it forward so that if they have the opportunity to do that work um they
could do it as part of this order. Um and that is way up very close to the flood elevation. And uh other than that the the um the plan was updated to include all other the resource areas
and setbacks. Um that is about it. So, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Does anybody have any questions, comments? >> We said the plan was updated, but
you be working off of >> um there should be one labeled today. However, there was a digital version. Um I emailed it, I think, before I left. No, I didn't bring it in. I showed a plant list on it.
>> You didn't get that? >> No, you didn't send it. The one that you gave me today. This is the most one that I only digital one. Just the >> beach grass buffer. >> Okay. My >> my dad then. >> So, we need to work off of the one dated
to 126 because that's the only one that we have. >> I understand. I have one original and seven copies that I gave to Britney literally an hour ago. Unfortunately, >> it's three hour before the hearing is not >> I know I got everything done as soon as we could.
>> So, >> I understand >> we're going to have to uh >> I'm going to recommend that we uh continue this one so that we can review the plan. >> Okay. Now, the only changes to the plan, there's no change to the design or the scope of work. The only changes to the
plan that you'd be looking at is the planting list and then we updated the contours and had to add some steps on the on the left hand side of the plan that were that weren't weren't part of the existing uh conditions. That's all. So, if I would like to discuss the rest
of the project if you have any questions or concerns and that way um if we need to make any other changes, we can do it all at once. >> Is that okay? >> As long as he's referencing the plan that we have in front of us. >> He's ref I'm sorry.
>> As long as we're referencing the plan that we have in front of us. >> Yep. >> He is. and you can ask questions based on that plan and then you'll get to review the planting list and the and the the offsets and stuff, but for the purposes of the project, what you have
before you is accurate. >> Okay, >> go ahead. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I I think I'm okay asking this on this plan. Um, and you you explained it, but I don't understand it. Um,
I kind of don't understand the logic. Um, you had six your very thorough application. You had the six options and then you explained why you didn't pursue other options. And so you're basically building up
4,500 square ft of area to 4 and 1/2 ft extending out. And so you're your bulkhead is acting like a obviously like a retaining wall, correct? >> Okay. So, um, what is the fill being used?
>> Okay, the fill is only to raise it to elevation 4 and a half. It's only being raised from 6 in behind the bulkhead, up 6 in more than it is now. >> Okay. >> Level back to where it meets grade. >> Okay. >> We don't want to raise it more than that because then if it does flood,
directed toward No, it'll it'll be directed the flood waters will be directed toward the house. And of course in a big storm the you know the basement gets flooded anyway. You can't >> Yeah. >> So this is to reduce is becoming more and more frequent. >> Yeah. >> Flooding. >> Yeah. >> So it's just a little bit of a fill to
give it six more inches so that it's got to it's got the water's got to raise up another six inches before it floods. >> The bulkhead will contain those waters and they'll flow down through. >> So that's why you returned it um up the
Why am I using my eyeglasses? But you know, >> that's okay. >> But yeah, >> we we run the returns back till they meet grade. Otherwise, >> right, it wouldn't be it wouldn't work. >> It's still out the side. >> Yeah. >> And we're not we're not really allowed to do that. So, >> actually, my glasses were a good analogy. Okay. So,
>> um yeah, I assume you know the Bass River well, so you you understand the flow. So, >> yeah. Okay. I think I I understand the logic. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And why the other options weren't pursued.
Yeah, thank you again for the application. >> No worries. >> Anybody else? >> Uh, could you just clarify? You said it you're raising it 6 in to meet the 4 and 1/2, but you have an elevation three at
the the bulkhead. So, wouldn't that be raising it in foot and a half? Okay. This this section here. >> No, I'm talking about >> the site plan. >> The site plan. >> Well, that's the grade that it is now.
It's three to three and a half. You're coming up to >> And you're raising it to elevation 4.5. So, you're raising it from 3 to 4.5. So, it's a foot and a half of elevation raise. That is what the plan shows.
>> I'm sorry. I guess it's a foot. >> My bad. It says raised up two feet with one one foot grade change. Oh, sorry about that. It's a foot at the wall and then level back till it meets elevation four and a half.
>> A foot and a half. >> Sorry. a foot and a half from three feet to four and a half. >> Um, I see what you're saying. Yeah, the three contour goes up against part of the wall where this where the what the
surveyor pro provides me. >> So, does that impact the volume of fill that you've estimated? Do you need to recalculate that? >> Um, I can check it. It's an estimate from AutoCAD anyway, but I can check it. Um,
>> what is the current estimate? >> Current estimate I think is 7 78 yards. Excuse me. >> In the past, we have >> number four. >> Yeah. What I do is I draw Well, I draw a triangle. >> I don't think we need your
>> times the length to get a volume at any rate. >> Good catch. I can check that if you like. >> Yes. >> Any other concerns? >> In the past, we've kind of um gone
against full of any fill of any sort on the river front. We've denied it on other projects. >> That's true. >> What is it again? Did we I mean how it would be done, but not what it was too, right?
Are you just proposing um standard fill sand? What is the What type is the fill proposed? >> It would be suitable to at least plant some kind of grass there. So, it wouldn't it wouldn't be sand. It would be um I don't know if you want to do it all in
lom. That's a lot of lom. But >> yeah, I mean, you only need out of 12 inches, you only need three in two to three inches of lom to be able to seed it. So, it could be mostly sand with a top coat of lom. So there's a concern about the amount of >> fill
>> or having any fill >> or any fill. >> What are the Go ahead. >> What is the rationale Britney on something like that? Uh if you're going to build up a bulkhead,
what's the rationale not allowing any kind of fill behind it? >> You're asking me? >> Yeah. >> Um well, the it's still riverfront area. Um the values of riverfront area include that it is flooded. Um so we would be
impacting the function of the riverfront area as a buffer to future flooding. Um, I do understand that it is a modified riverfront area, but the the fill in the riverfront area anyway would still
modify it in a way that's not consistent with the values that it currently performs. >> You're talking biological uh the water going down going into groundwater. I don't understand that >> it is altering the flood. You're altering the flood plane and the
riverfront area and the no disturbed buffers >> wall already does that, right? >> That's correct. >> Right. And so I don't see any relationship between adding fill behind a wall that it's impacting anything on. That's my personal >> That's fine. There are um provisions of
the riverfront act 10.58 that do require projects in the riverfront area that are redevelopment to have an improvement to the riverfront area as it relates to the values. So the fill added while may not be the same
detriment to a riverfront area that's undeveloped and unmodified, it still is not an improvement to the values. >> Okay. Thank you. It's not a It's not a detriment to the function of the riverfront area either. And the riverfront, Britney, and I may may
disagree on this, but the riverfront when those regulations came into play, they were first and foremost about freshwater riverfronts. >> Not just not coastal rivers. >> And all of those concerns about regarding flooding are completely
applicable to a freshwater river like the Neponet River and things like that. people fill and you fill in that riverfront and the river has less area for the water to go. So, you have to do something called compensatory storage. If you are in your site and filling in a
in a freshwater environment and you're filling a certain amount, you've got to provide that same volume somewhere else so the water has a place to go because if everybody kept filling, the water would have no place to go. In the coastal environment, it's different because you can't you literally cannot
fill enough to raise the the level of water. Okay? It's it's not even measurable. Um but so these regulations were designed for freshwater sites. Uh you know, not not here obviously. D came along and
just drew a line across most of our coastal rivers, Bass River being one of them, and just said, "Okay, now this is a a coastal river, but they never changed the regulations to allow for any any of the nuances in the the way that these regulations are applied. So while
while you as an environmental person might not see a benefit to the the the fill, the applicant does because he doesn't want to see the plants die or die as often. And but the function of the riverfront, the way that that the site is supposed to function in relation
to the riverfront area isn't changed or degraded. So, while you may not see an improvement, there's no negative um no negative impact from a project like this either >> in my opinion. >> I would be of the same.
>> Thank you. >> Can you share what benefits the fill have to um flood protection that the wall doesn't already provide if you're raising the wall two feet? If the well it means that the water has to flood another foot I guess now before the lawn
gets impacted and before the plants would get impacted >> before the lawn gets impacted >> in a small area and those plants >> the buffer zone plants yeah >> are adapted to coastal flooding >> are can they be inundated or are they
just saltwater tolerant in regards to seawater spray and things like that >> should be adapted to the area they're being planted in >> should See, I understand. So, the the idea obviously when you get when you get areas like this where the bulkheads are low, you see it along the river, you see
it in the in what I call the fingers in um in Yarmouth and Pakanocket and all that. Some of those bulkheads are really low. So, when they flood, it's almost impossible to keep plants there because they they would just if if they flood often enough, the plants will die. So
this is merely to reduce that um reduce the t frequency of the flooding that which helps the vegetation which helps the function of the the soil to absorb absorb nutrients and and percolate um
flood waters back down in the soil. >> Thanks. And I I want to thank my um my colleague for bringing up the the error there. And the question I have um is relative to that is
is the bulkhead at 5'4. I'm trying to reconcile your notes with the drawings. Um so you're raising the bulkhead 2 feet to elevation 5 foot and putting in one foot of fill.
or I I thought okay so an average across an a an average AC again with the 400 square feet what is the average uh height that you're raising it >> um >> probably the average would be six inches
because you're a foot here going to zero >> all right that was a perfectulate yeah if you do quick math of 4500 square feet times.5 divide by Y >> um >> I think what concerns me is that you're actually pushing out a chunk of land
basically. >> Um do you know what I'm trying to say? Like it it's pretty big. It's kind of a big deal. And I think the field reinforces that fact that you're pushing out this chunk of land in the b in the Bass
River. And I think that's kind of what if you didn't have the fill you the water could flow through it is that instead of being more of an obstruction >> the only time water would flow through
this site is when the bulkhead is completely underwater. >> Yeah. >> In which case your basement will be flooded. But it is what it is. >> You have a basement. So the abutters your abutters are okay with this or they're um they were sent notices on
your >> um there may be one person here that wants to comment. We can get to that. But we are not allowed to redirect floodwaters onto somebody else's property. So that's why you build this bathtub to >> correct >> everything within the property. So whatever happens
>> happens within the walls of the bulkhead. >> It has it will have no effect. the whole area would get flooded. Water would recede until the top of the bulkhead. It would continue to recede. That water would stay in the bulkhead and go down through the soil. It wouldn't go on the
other. >> So, it's almost like a coffer dam effect. >> It's a bathtub. It's a bathtub, >> right? >> With three walls. >> Yeah. >> Aren't you diverting water by raising it two feet, though? >> Say again. >> You're diverting water by raising the bulkhead two feet. So, it has to rise
two feet higher before it tops that >> right. That's what I'm thinking. >> Somewhere else, wouldn't it? >> No, no, no, no. It's going to get to everybody at the same time >> is everyone else's protecting to a higher extent two feet higher. So,
you're protecting the neighbors from that. >> How? >> Because they're >> No, it this bulkhead has no effect either way on anybody else's property. When the waters rise, the water rises. Whoever has the highest bulkhead is last to get flooded. That's all. That's all. >> Um
>> Oh, I see your point. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Jump back to Ellie's comment um about the bulkhead height. Um in the construction notes, it says to an elevation of 5.4t. In the aerial site, uh sorry, section
AA, it says to an elevation of 5.8 and pill it says to 5.9. Um, so there's some inconsistencies with the plan. Um, that should be >> okay. I agree and I do my own drafting.
So that is my my mistake. >> Um, why did I say six inches of fill? I don't know why I had that on the brain. I'm sorry. >> Note, >> note two says raised up to elevation
5.4. So the bulkhead's only at 3.4 now. >> What are you raising it to? >> 5.4 or 5.8 or 5.9. >> Yeah, that's a good question. What the heck was I thinking here? >> I'm sorry. I apologize. I'm going to have to check that the
the surveyor shows the bulkhead. Yeah, >> just >> I'm again going to con uh recommend that elevation >> calculation so we can better interpret this plan. >> I would also re request um a note be
added that this plan is based on on the ground survey um because it's unclear to me if you got your elevations from a map or if they were surveyed. Note number three says, "Oh, property lines were shown from an underground survey."
>> Because of all these discrepancies, if he needs to go out and reservey, >> note seven says existing conditions were compiled from an on the ground survey also >> from 2015 has to be updated. >> No, no. And 2025. See, they went back and they went back on November 19th of
2025 and updated it. >> That's note seven uh of the survey notes. So, let me check the elevations. Um, we know you need to review that other plan and it looks like I may make some minor corrections to it, some drafting
errors. My apologies for those. >> Please talk as directly as possible. >> Okay. So, again, my apologies on the drafting errors. That's my fault. Um, you'll you can take a look at the at the the next plan we provided today and I will make
the drafting corrections. The goal, regardless of the numbers, the goal is to take the existing bulkhead, raise it two feet, and start at one foot of extra soil behind it and and go straight back till it meets uh elevation four and a
half. So, if I I think I probably made that change here and didn't carry it through the rest of the note. So, again, my apologies. I'll make sure everything matches. >> I'm a little confused because you keep saying one foot, but Bradford, you said one and a half ft. >> 1.5. Yeah. So, which one is it? 1.5 or
one? My said 1.5. >> Yeah, it should only be one foot. >> So, either the elevation is wrong or the cross-section is wrong, but either way, it needs to be double checked as Britney said. >> Yeah. On the note here, the proposed
grade says from elevation three and a half, which is behind the bulkhead. The bulkheads is higher than the ground is now. So, your grade change is going from three and a half to four and a half, which is one foot. the bulkhead would be >> saying your plan has inconsistencies
that need to be fixed. >> I would just like to point out for the record that we did receive a butter opposition. Um and it did include opposition to some of the fill located on an easement that's directly embedding the neighbor's parcel. Um this board we
don't review property values or rights or issues. Um, but the Phil we've also already discussed um was one of their concerns as well. >> Is that the uh east side or the west side? >> The
>> We're going to let you talk in a minute. >> Just one minute. >> One minute. >> I'm sorry. It's on which side? >> Oh, it's on the west side. Or I guess >> before we get to the event, does anybody
else have a comment or question? I think we've covered it, but I think he's here. He has a right to talk. So would you like to come up here, introduce yourself, and let me know your concerns. I've got uh I've got some If Britney
wants this, my statements go along. >> I'll take them. I'm sorry. >> I've got some copies of what I'm going to say if it might be helpful to >> Is it the same as what you've submitted? >> No. >> Okay. >> Bring it on up and we'll
>> give them out. >> So, uh I am supportive of the repair of the bulkhead uh as it has existed for the last 70 years. I am opposed to the expansion of the height of the bulkhead, adding fill, changing the grade, all of which are
prohibited by the wetland in the Vzone. The bylaw specifically states the following additional performance standard shall apply, and Britney referenced this. No new construction or expansion of any structures that redirects or channelizes floods,
including retaining walls, bulkheads, fences, and seaw walls shall be permitted. The increased height of the retaining wall would cause redirection and changes in velocity of the floods. So maybe they're not going to get the water, but
it's going to go somewhere else and it's going to go to where I am, >> which would directly impact my parcel, an adjacent public beach and park. The town has specific interests in the park and private road in as they were
created ultimately become a public road and a public beach like Homer Avenue is and the other uh parcels along Bass River right near Ship Shops. There's another road that ends in a public beach. There is no immediiacy to the project.
You've you've already seen that the uh existing structures were um moved because they were in danger and you gave a certificate of compliance this evening for that. That work was completed. There are no structures in
danger. There is also no economic hardship created by leaving the seaw wall bulkhead as it is. On the contrary, it is less costly to maintain it than increased height.
The applicant raises the spectre of loss of his lawn and uses this as an excuse to raise the retaining wall and grade. There is currently no lawn damage. The petitioner's land is bordering land subject to an area with low flat
topography in which the bylaw specifically states, as we already had said, no new construction or expansion of any structures that redirects or channelizes floods, retaining walls, fences.
The request for increased height is one of pure aesthetics. The concern by the petitioner at some unknown time in the future his lawn may change to his disliking is the reason why we're here. But
luckily the petitioner's dilemma of is solved by the bylaw which requires a cape coded lawn in that zone when any lawn is reconstructed. Britney mentioned that tonight and the the petitioner said well the flooding the plants can't survive there. Yes, some plants can't.
But if we do the indigenous ones with a Cape Cod lawn, the flooding has been going on long before we've been on the river, and it will happen long after. But as we all know, there are many plants and and indigenous things in the river that thrive.
A Cape Cod lawn is not irrigated, fertilized, or otherwise treated with diverse species, but otherwise has diverse species including native sedges, mosses, grasses, and other low growing plants that are well adapted to the flooding conditions.
The petitioner states that if the flooding occurs, then the area will become devoid of vegetation due to the current lawn not being able to survive the conditions. The current lawn is not a Cape Cod lawn. However, if a Cape Cod lawn were
reconstructed as required, then flooding does occur, not only will the lawn survive, it will thrive. There are many low-lying uh riverfront topography lots with bulkheads.
If now the board uses the criteria of personal aesthetics of changing natural heights, natural topography, then the water front will become peppered with artificially mounded, walled off properties,
destroying the natural contours and flow of the river, which is exactly what this bylaw was attended. And I disagree. This bylaw was intended for all wetlands. If you're trying to parse it and say fresh and salt water, I think is being disingenuous.
I know that there have been other changes in the wetlands in this area which have included reconstructing of lawns, grading and filling, addition of permanent fences, and reduction of permeable surfaces which I feel already violate the bylaw.
In conclusion, I support rebuilding of the current bulkhead with maintenance of the current grade without the addition of fill or any structures that impedes uh water flow or wildlife. And I uh would
like a reconstructed Cape Cod lawn, so one that can thrive in the flooding conditions. I would also ask that pre and post plot plans with elevations of bulkhead and grading be required. We've already seen this evening how deceptive or how difficult it is to know the exact
ratings if there's expected to be any changes. Uh we are just brief stewards of these wetlands and it is our duty to preserve them for for the common good and to prevent them from being disturbed just to suit the personal aesthetics of the
current occupants. I've uh attached the references I have to the bylaw and the underline the quotes that I have in my thing and I just want to make a couple of comments uh concerning what the petitioner had said uh there is a detriment to the what
happens to the flood water and Britney said this if you wall off a certain section you're going to increase velocities before and decrease velocities after he already said you're not going to prevent flooding that fill ultimately going end up somewhere else.
And it's fill. It's not sand. And uh and again, these these properties have been here a while. This bulkhead has existed for 70 years. We've already seen tremendous change in this in this property because of dangers of flooding. Now we're seeing
dangers to the lawn as conditions for raising bulkheads. That's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you. respond to just his regulatory comment. >> Um, thanks for your comments and for reading the bylaw. I just want to point out the resource areas on site do not
include a velocity zone. There's land subject to coastal storm flowage, but it's an Azone. So, the >> that's okay. I just wanted to clarify. Thank you. >> Can I respond to one thing as well? >> Sure.
>> We I thought we already I I realize that uh the butter may not understand coastal processes and hydrodnamics and things like that. But we've already established raising this wall does not redirect flood waters. So in the in regards to
the performance standards of the river area or other bylaws, okay, when you raise a bulkhead, you're not redirecting the flood waters. They're going to come no matter what. Um I I'm not really sure what what he means by
redirecting like from where to where. Okay, the wall is up. The flood's going to come up and whatever property is the lowest gets flooded first along the river. There's some properties way up by the Bass River Bridge that are low. They're going to get flooded.
Neighboring lawns, they'll get flooded first. When the water reaches the top of the bulkhead, then then this then this floods. water doesn't go anywhere else. It's not directed like a I don't know. I don't even know what to what to say to that. It's not redirected. Okay. All of
the any of the um flood waters are contained on the property once the flood recedes below the top of the bulkhead just like anybody else. >> Wouldn't the fill be somewhere where the water could go though if this wasn't done?
>> But again, so the the difference between a freshwater flood area and a saltwater flood area is that there's no compensatory flood storage. Um those calculations don't apply to a saltwater uh riverfront area.
And I'm not disrespecting the regulations at all. I'm saying that when they changed them to include saltwater uh rivers, if you will, they did not look at the impact of of the true
saltwater um um flood zone. I mean, look what they've done in in other areas where there's been lots of fill and all that. Okay, none of that is ever going to change the elevation of of the ocean to any
measurable amount. And yeah, the bulkhead might have been there for 70 years. Times are changing. Sea sea level is rising. That's a whole another discussion, but sea level is rising and flooding is more frequent. That is a guaranteed fact that we have all
observed in our lifetimes. So property is going to have to be adjusted to help meet that challenge. And >> but when you looking at a river or ocean,
the movement of water, the bulk of the water, if you will, the amount of water may not change, but the flow of water is impacted by a bulkhead >> wall. So,
>> how is that please? >> I'm not sure. >> Well, if you maybe you want to measure the amount of water coming straight on, for instance, it's going to hit that wall and it's going to disperse >> or rebound >> or on the neighboring property. It's
going to go up on the ground, wetland, whatever it is, sand. And so, you're going to get the movement of water. There's going to be movement. It may not be a lot. And we don't know how much that is and you certainly
haven't adjusted it, but it's going to move to the sides because it's going to hit that and disperse. So there's going to be angles that you know if you had a ship there, it would show you would realize that that's
going, you know, like a ship going through water, it gets dispersed to either side. Just because this is a a flat surface doesn't mean that that also operates or understand what I'm contending. >> I think I understand what you're saying.
I just don't I don't necessarily necessarily agree because because the water is level and the bulkhead doesn't change. >> But we're talking about flowing water whether from a storm or the river. >> Tidal river.
>> Yeah. Well, okay. So, the tidal current goes up against these bulkheads and everybody else's bulkhead and everything on shoreline every day, right? If um if the bulkhead is raised, then that title current against the bulkhead
before it gets to flood the land. >> But you're talking static. I'm talking flowing. >> No, even the tidal current. When the bulkhead's up two feet higher now, two more feet of tidal current. >> Well, we're talking up there. We're not talking. Sorry. not talking about >> you're right. So it's not it in that
respect. >> I mean it may not be much and hard to measure but it is there >> in a flooding circumstance. It's either waves from wind from fetch on the river things like that. There won't be a there won't be a current per se because you're
in a flooding situation unless it's flooding at a super super super high tide. I don't know. I mean all I'm saying is the bulkhead isn't going to have any negative imp on anybody else's property next door
>> except during storms. >> It's not going to go to um >> you want to ask. >> Yeah, I know we're belaboring this but I'm spending more time looking at these storings. Let me ask you a question and please don't be insulted by it. Are you raising this land?
Specifically, if I look at this section, there are existing stairs stairs to go to the pier. So, if you elevate this, there will be no need for those stairs. And I'm looking specifically at the section A-
So, are you doing this so that you're level so that for convenience so that you can walk right out to the pier >> or is that just one of the benefits of one of the Well, there's two ways to do it. You can raise the bulkhead and then notch out where the pier is. Now, we
don't want to do that because that just leaves an opening for water to come in and and eliminates the benefit of raising the bulkhead. What you would have to do is put a step to go up and over the bulkhead and the bulkhead is looks like it's about one step back down onto the dock. >> So, there's no looking at there's no
need for these stairs anymore with the with the >> Are you looking at those stairs go? >> Yeah, those are public access stairs for chapter 91. So, show me. >> What you're saying is you would need a step, >> right? >> Okay. Just show the step. >> There's no step shown now.
>> All the way to the ground. >> You can draw a step in there, but yeah, you'll need one step up and then step on the bulkhead and then step down on the dock. >> Okay. Yeah, definitely. >> How did you get up to the pier before? >> There's a little brick walkway. >> We didn't I didn't do We don't We didn't do a >> There's a There's one picture in there
that There's one picture in the filing that I think shows it. >> Yeah. But there's a um see the right now the dock is on top of the bulkhead. There's a little brick walkway. Yeah. Right then. Middle picture in the bottom there. >> Okay. The brick walkway is
>> and then you step up to the bulkhead and then step up onto the dock. So when you raise the bulkhead, you you'll have to step up onto the bulkhead and then step down onto the dock. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Please also show the brick walkway. Everything should be shown. >> Yeah.
>> Thought that was there. Um, I'm going to just make a comment while we're talking about the wall. Bulkheads are replaced and elevated frequently. I'm not saying I'm not supportive or in support of the project, but I am in opposition to the fill. Um, it's not
only in the riverfront area, land subject called storm flowage. It's also in the no disturb buffer zone. So, that's my opposition. >> Okay. to just the fill >> which isn't isn't indicated on the documents that no >> it says 35 foot offset.
>> So that's the 35 notice. >> Yeah. >> But that is just my opposition to the fill. >> Bulkheads are replaced and elevated frequently in response to sea level rise. >> We've done it in the past without fill.
>> Without fame, >> I think um need to come back with a plan. Um, I would not vote for this plan with the Phil to be upfront with you rather than waste your time. And I think you I can't I'm kind of I'm only speaking for myself. So,
>> well, I think >> you're five to one vote, but >> I think we'd all prefer to go to the option. There's six options and one of them is in kind replacement. Um, >> I think Mr. Morasco, I hope I pronounced
you right, um has some excellent points in his in his uh his write up and I think you might want to take some of those into consideration. Um I'm not convinced that the uh water does does not get redirected. I'm not an expert by
any means, but uh I I would need an expert to convince me of it, but I'm not convinced. And uh questions, help me. >> May I say a few words, please? I'm the homeowner, Tom Grimes. I appreciate your
time. Um, there's been a lot of issues brought up today, but I just wanted to give you a very quick summary. Um, I've owned the property for 14 years. That bulkhead has been the current bulkhead as it was um built was, I believe, 1985.
when it was built. My assumption, and it's only an assumption, it was built high enough so the water didn't frequently go over. I've owned the property, like I said, for 14 years. It wasn't until 2021, 2022, I started
seeing more frequent spillage. And so, I am looking at as a homeowner doing two things. One, the bulkhead is old, needs to be repaired. I could replace a board at a time. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. It doesn't seem to be very
effective. I'm not sure environmentally that makes a lot of sense. And it was to convert that to a new vinyl bulkhead that seems to be friendlier if I was going to take the time and the expense to do that and dig up the yard. I thought it made sense, and I still do
to raise it because water has risen. It's not cosmetic. It's not getting away from steps. It's not trying to do anything other than we've seen the water come up a little bit more frequently. Can't stop a hurricane. I just wanted to
make sure those intermittent storms or even when there's wind that's wind driven that's been just as frequent and having an extra foot, foot and a half, two feet would be some protection. That is really what it is. There's been some situations here it's cosmetic. I'm
looking for a lawn or a soccer field or something of that nature. That's not the case. And you, this can quickly get off tangent. It's simply we've noticed a a raise in the water. I have to repair the bulkhead at some point. If I'm going to do it, I want to take it a little bit of
advantage and make it a little safer. That's simply what it is. Move the bulkhead. I think it was good for the neighbors. It was good for the beach. It was extreme extreme expense, but it made sense. I benefited from it. I think the town benefited from it. You
mean moving the boat house? >> Moving the boat house. Yeah. So, I just wanted to make sure we get back because we can start going down different tangents about a whole bunch of engineering and things we can't prove. And as a homeowner, I'm just trying to protect my property. I'm not trying to take advantage of anything. And I'm just
trying to use common sense and and a good economic plan. That's all. You're welcome. >> The last thing I'm just going to point out is that it is an elevation 12 flood zone. Um, the bulkhead's currently at
five and they're proposing a Oh, sorry. They're proposing a modest increase to one of those 5.4 5.9. It would still be a very small amount of protection to a 12 elevation flood
event. >> At elevation 12, this is uh six feet underwater at the big one. >> Yes. Nothing matter at that point. >> What are we asking the applicant to do in his next submitt? Um,
>> well, you needed more time to review the planting plan, which which just got submitted. >> That's what you did in that one. >> And the plan was was uh modified or updated to add some contours and the and the flood elevation and and some offsets and things like that. But those are those don't affect the design like I
said. Um, and then I have to make some drafting corrections. So, you'll get another plan. But in the meantime, if you want to review the planting list and if you have any suggestions to that, we I can take those from Britney and um >> we just got so I don't think we're ready to do that.
>> Well, you'll have >> I think there are other things you might consider off of what you heard from us today. >> Correct. We'll we'll consider those. >> We make new plans. Can you please, as we said earlier, tell us what the changes are so we don't have to hunt for them.
So, um, when our next meeting is the 19th, >> is that right? >> That's getting pretty full, isn't it? >> This meeting was going to be really full. >> Now, your next one's going to be impossible. >> But we we can wait. I mean, it's up to you. We could either do it the 19th or
the second or >> after that is the 16th. >> Well, I um we need to get a revised plan within a week. That's the next deadline. Let me see what I'm doing on the on
>> whoever received a rides plan. Can you just look at it quickly and at the planting? Did you do the planting? >> Yeah, it's he did a planting plant. >> It's colorcoded and everything. >> Okay. The commission should decide
whether to grant a variance to the planting requirements then because Mark put the planting plan together instead of a landscape professional. while they're here. >> Oh, I see. >> I'm a ocean engineer. I'm not a
landscaper. And I And again, I understand the content of that regulation. Um, for me, in my opinion, this isn't a landscape design like you'd have with a full-blown site development with maybe retaining walls and different planting
beds and things like that. It's simply a vegetative buffer with a plant list and location of the plants. It's it's pretty simple. I don't think my opinion I don't think a landscape architect is needed to develop a plan that I respectfully defer back to
the board. >> Sheep's laurel salt tolerant. >> Say that again. >> Sheep's laurel is not a salt tolerant plant. So I would at least recommend replacing that one with something more salt
tolerant. Um >> that is also what the gist of like the request is. >> What' you say? >> Is that our our board shouldn't have to >> Yeah. So I >> give >> I'm in favor of
not granting a variance for that >> requirement. >> I think we should at least for the commission to give some guidance for them for more than one person to respond. Would
>> you say the options for a meeting are March 19th, which I'll be here for that? I'll be here then and no matter what. >> April 2nd, April 16th. >> 16. >> April 2nd. >> Are you available on the second?
>> Okay. >> Why don't we do that because then we don't have to rush it. >> Right. >> I'm not sure though. by our regulations and should be having the >> Yeah, in black and white. Yes. But you
can grant a variance if you'd like. >> The question before us is by our regulations, we requiring a professional do the planting plan, but we can give a variance
to allow Mark to do the uh plan and make some comments. You've already made your comment on the plan plants that he has planned there. >> Did the plan that you submitted late breaking for the COC have the plants
other than just on that side that you showed me >> plants on both sides and the whole front is seaggrass >> existing. >> Existing. >> Okay. >> Did you annotate the plants on both sides? >> Yes. >> Okay.
So, there are plants already planted there. Is that what you're telling me? >> I have a hard copy. >> You can have it. >> No, I'm sure your copy and I superimposed. I think >> officially confused.
Okay. >> Wow. Okay. >> Yeah. >> And then I sent you a PDF >> over here in this room. >> And there's no sheep laurel out there, right? >> There's no sheep laural.
So I would I would say generally I would recommend if there was a diversity planted previously approved and a previously approved mitigation plan like we did last week um for one of Bob Perry's projects he was doing a bulkhead replacement they had a previous mitigation plan they just used the same
exact plan. Um, this one there was a previous annotation that it begrass with diversity added and then some was added but not all of it. Um, >> can I add a correction to that? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. When I first purchased the home, we renovated the >> Yeah, there's all sorts of plantings over here as well. >> Ancillary building that it's called a boat house. It's whatever a guest house that was actually on the bulkhead.
On the very first uh request when we were asking for repairs for the roof, the windows and things of that nature, there was an order of conditions. The beach grass was never part of that. It was the whole riverfront. The request for from Kelly
Grant, I believe, and Kelly Mulun was to plant the left side and leave the beach grass across the front. When we moved the boat house, they said, "What are you going to put in place where the boat house was? We recommend you don't put beach grass. You put a variety of
shrubs, of which we did." So, we did everything exactly. Now that we're going to do a new bulkhead, I guess the question is, do we put back the beach grass that's currently there and that's always been there or do we
put in a variety of plants? That was a a different question that was posed to us. So, it wasn't that we didn't do what Kelly asked. She asked us to replace the area that the boat house was being moved with a variety of plants, which has been done. I see. >> And it was done literally within three
months. So, it wasn't something they waited either. >> And the original buffer was only supposed to be 8 foot, but it's 10 feet. But that's the within that 10 ft across the entire bulkhead is what's proposed to be planted and and replanted with and
augmented with another variety of things to give it some more diversity. And um I'm pretty sure the beach grass can be taken out and put off to the side if it's done at the right time of year and just have the beach grass put back. I mean, it's cheap enough to replant, but
the beachrass grew really well here. At any rate, the root the first question, the root of the question was um of the plant list that I gave you, I'm happy to switch out sheep oral for something more salt tolerant. Um, and if you'll accept that from me, it would be
most appreciated. >> Anybody have any opinion on that? >> I've already provided mine. >> We need everyone else's, please. >> I'm sorry. What? >> We just need more input from other commission members so that they can move forward with >> Yeah, that's great.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Awesome. Are we waving the the requirement for the license? Um, >> that's the question. A foot. >> Yeah, we're not talk. Okay. >> That's what we would like planting.
>> You all just agreed to wave the requirement of a professional. >> No, not yet. We didn't vote. >> We didn't vote. But >> no, no, no, no. >> Oh, but that's all what you all just >> said agreeing with with you.
>> Yeah. I don't think people understood what was on the floor, right? >> We're we're just looking at the plant uh planting list. >> The planting list. >> That's all we're looking at. We're at the question was do we give them a variance to allow Mark to do the
planting list or do we have them hire a professional? >> Correct. And so >> there were at least four heads nodding that allowed them. So I need to have a motion, >> right, >> that variance. >> I I I I'll make a motion that we wave
the the uh the current the new requirement that we have for a licensed uh landscape architect to do the plans. So, do we want to wave a motion that we >> now we need a second
>> that I'm I'm motioning to? Yeah, I'm motioning to wave the requirement, >> right? To grant a variance for the >> putting it on the floor. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, the motion's on. Anybody second? >> Okay, Jack. Okay. Um, all in favor?
>> I I >> All opposed? >> I at what is your vote? >> Four to two. >> Okay. hidden here >> at voted. Yes. >> Okay. Because there's no >> Okay. So, that's taken care of. Then you're going to come back with a new
plan. And we said we April second, >> right? >> So, we're going to continue to April 2nd with a new plan and you're going to consider >> Please vote to continue. >> Oh, yeah. >> I'm sorry. >> That we continue. >> A motion to continue. I move that we
continue 10 Surfside Terrace to April 2nd, 2026. >> Second. >> I >> second. Christian. All in favor? >> Anybody opposed? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Are we exploring alternate fill
alternate fill situations in that? >> I'm hoping. >> I don't know if that's clear. Is that clear? >> I gave my opinion about that. Is it clear that that's what we're looking for is an alternate >> bill or when do we do it at all?
>> Right. >> Yep. We will consider that when we get you back the plan, but >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> It wasn't supposed to be that complicated. >> Okay.
>> Next one is >> Thanks. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh, next one is uh S Whoops, wrong place. SE832518 Shore Shorefront Consulting for
Elizabeth Cameron and David Hines 180 South Street filling filing to permit existing pier stairs float and riverfront area land under the ocean and coastal beach containing shellfish and land subject to coastal storm flooding.
And that is again 180 I'm sorry. Yeah, 180 South Street. That is me again. But uh hold on one second, please. Here. >> Can you Can I have those green cards when you get a minute? >> Yeah. Do you want You want >> You can hit them at the end. Yeah, we
always want them >> better in your folder than mine. >> You can give them to me up there. >> Okay. Okay, this is >> a chapter. >> This is interesting. >> Wish I could ask more questions during
some of these. >> You will get to it. Sure. >> See that I reserve the room to myself. Um again, Mark Burgess for consulting for the
uh quick quick backstory for the proper and I believe that Camorian is on answer any any other questions you might have historically. >> I moved the microphone closer to you. >> Oh, again. All right. Um, so yes, Mark
Burgess again. So, a little backstory on how we're at this point. Um, Liz Camboreian, who I believe is online, can answer any historic questions you have. Um, her family's had the property for well over 60 years. Um
so Liz Camboreian is the applicant but the property owner is um David Hines and it was just part of the agreement of the selling of the house that the dock get permitted. So that's why you see both names on the application. So David
Hines is the actual property owner but it's being the the notice of intent is applied. The applicant is the previous owner Liz Elizabeth Camboreian. Um all right. So there is no work proposed for this project. It's simply
the permitting of an existing dock. Um a brief summary of the permitting is in the narrative. So the the dock has been in existence well over 60 years. Uh it was originally licensed in 1964 and
there's a copy of that license in the packet. There was a second license issued in 2002 and that was an interim approval permit and uh that was the license was issued and that license accurately reflects the current configuration.
Unfortunately, we cannot find a recorded copy of that license. Now the 1964 license is a a little bit different uh configuration. The doc was extended somewhat sometime between
2000 no sometime between 95 and 2024 at least what I can ascertain from Google Earth. >> Um >> I'm sorry. Can you say that again? The >> All right. So there was an original configuration that was that's been around since before 1964. >> Okay. >> And that was licensed. That license
doesn't have an expiration date. So that portion of the dock is fully licensed. Sometime later, I'll just say sometime later, uh the dock was modified and extended slightly and um that modificate
or that configuration received a chapter 91 license in 2002. Um that was an interim approval license. We can't find that it was ever recorded. So that license is not valid.
Um, what was I going to say? So, the license that was issued is AC accurately reflects the current configuration. The plan of course accurately reflects the current
configuration and those two those two match. Somehow through all of these years, a conservation permit either never was applied for or we can't find it. We don't know >> applied for >> it. what >> never was applied for >> was applied for to the board of
selectmen in 2002 for whatever reason. I don't know why but that's what it says in the interim license. >> Yes. So the the interim approval licenses and any chapter 91 license is required to do a chapter 91 public notice. in the public notice. Yes, the
board of selectmen are notified, but also conservation and the planning board and I think one other the harbor master maybe that's mandated as part of it. So somebody somebody may have known something about it. For whatever reason, nothing ever got done. So the only
reason we're here before you is to permit a very old dock. >> Um >> so you aren't making any changes? >> Nope. there is no work proposed it and we uh we didn't have to go to waterways because there's no work proposed. I will
say the dock. So if you look at the dimensions and everything, so the dock has the right separation to to neighboring docks as it exists. There's plenty of water depth there and and the dock doesn't ex doesn't extend into the
water any further than perhaps less than, but any doesn't extend any further into the waterway than any of the other docks in the area. And of course, it's been there for a very long time. So, and it's kind of pre-existing non-conforming, if you will. Nothing's
being altered. So, you're not increasing or decreasing anything. No changes, nothing. It just to get a permit from which I'll get another chapter 91 license. The new chapter 91 license will only be for the outer section since the previous
section is good forever. That has no expiration date. The older licenses never had an expiration date. The new license will be good for 30 years. So, this is merely a permitting a permitting exercise. No work is being uh performed.
>> Can you clarify the permitted distance? So, from the 64, which is what we're looking at, >> the one in 1964 was 96 ft and the one in 2002 was uh 48t longer. >> Ah, that's a lot. Okay. >> Yeah. So,
thank you. Which flung longers? I'm sorry. >> 48 ft. >> What's strange is that if you look at the distance beyond mean high water for both it's hard to correlate that. I think
meanh high water was located in a much different location in ' 64 than it was now. Um, it >> does it does appear that you have a lot of room though to still meet the depth of three feet. You have three feet for
over 20 ft. >> Yeah, 3 ft is back a ways. >> So there is there is plenty of depth. >> So you aren't doing any changing of anything? >> Nothing. >> Make sure that's clear. >> No work.
And is the float seasonal? >> As far as I know. >> Where does it get stored in the offse? >> Um, I'm not sure. It depends on who takes the float. Um, I've only been to the property once. I didn't and the float was in, but we can certainly put a
special condition that says float has to be removed seasonally, not stored on resource areas. There's plenty of lawn. If it was me, I would have it hauled up and put on the to put in the driveway, but they can store it if they want. Certainly not on the beach, not in the grass, not in landward of the landward
of the concrete wall. Absolutely. >> Just out of curiosity, what are fender poles? >> So there are um yeah, there's different names. You can some sometimes they're called dolphins if they're multiple
poles, but for you can dock a boat on there's an aerial that shows a dock uh a boat docked on the north side of of the of the dock pier. There's two piles in the water. So, you would tie off to those
piles to keep the boat sort of floating between the dock and the piling so it doesn't doesn't bash up to either one. Just a curiosity question. >> It can help in docking too because it gives you a little bit of a slot to bounce in. But hopefully you're a better
captain than that. >> But those are looks like a neighbor's property in front of it. >> Well, they may they may be in front of it, but it wouldn't be they don't own out. You own mean high water usually.
>> So they okay with it? Nobody's Nobody's here. >> Nobody's here. >> Sorry. >> Anybody have any questions, comments? >> Just have a typo. Under riverfront area fun
instead of under fun. >> What did I do this time? >> Just page three or four under river. It's no big deal. Page three of four, riverfront area. You said no work is proposed under this filing instead of under this filing. And then we would also be requ um
granting a variance for the 8 foot section of decking. >> Yeah. So there's two variances. The 8 foot wide section of decking and the length of the pier is greater than you would generally allow now under our current regulations.
>> Well, I'm glad you read them. Thank you. Do you know the off the top of your head the distance from these to the channel and to the neighbor? Those are they should just be noted on the plan if they are >> I think it's noted but I think it's in a color that makes it impossible to read.
>> Yeah, it's on the colored section. It's >> 27.6 to the one to the south and 80t.4 to the one to the north. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Be nicer to use a different color next time. So the the distance should also be from the fender pile though. So if it's
part of your >> Oh yeah, >> your system. And then we also need the distance to channel. But I think the channel's pretty far away, right? Since that moing field is >> Yeah. So the channel must be beyond that >> because you have the mooring field there. >> I don't know that. Well, I don't know.
They got the moorings that were in the area. I'd have to zoom out to see if it's a field. I mean, I travel that part of the river all the time. You can always get through it, but I I can't say whether it's a Moring Field. >> So, you don't have a date for certain when the 8 foot wide section was put in?
>> It was in 2002 in that was okay. >> The interim >> But when the dock was modified, >> when the dock was modified, >> plan of reference for the interim license shows the extended dock um compared to the 1964 license plan of
record. >> Right. I don't know when that work was done, but it was accounted for in that license. >> Correct. >> It it did not receive an order. The interim licenses when the dock was expanded in 2002. >> Wait, say that again, please.
>> The dock was expanded from the n 1964 footprint to what it exists today in 2002 with the interim chapter 91 license. It was said in the license that it was notified to the board of selectmen for
the town, but it never received an order of conditions that we're aware of. >> Correct. >> That's when the change occurred. >> Well, that was when it was permitted. I know we're splitting hairs, but that's when somebody applied for a license, but we don't know when the actual work was done that modified it. That's all.
>> We're splitting hairs, but Okay. >> But that's when somebody noticed it and decided to do something about it, I guess. >> Yeah. regarding document control like so under existing permits is that first license the original
>> length that that isn't that null and void now >> no because that structure that portion of the >> structure okay so the the 2002 was the extension only >> it's the extension only and um it well depending on how things get licensed so
there are times I've done this for so long there's all different kinds but sometimes I get caught on chapter 91. Let's stick with wetlands. >> That's fine. I just >> Sometimes a new license incorporates everything and other times they say this license remains and this new license is
only for the new stuff. They they D decides what they want to do. >> But the interim license is was never valid because it wasn't recorded. >> Never was recorded for some reason. >> And the blackboard was the ones who were >> they didn't necessarily approve it.
received a notification. >> Great. That seems to happen a lot. I know way more docs that are licensed and not permitted than the other way around, at least in my experience. But and the licensing process just for uh it goes
back to the late 1800s, but that's the oldest license I've ever found was around 1884. Anything else from here? So our decision is whether to whether to grant the variances because he's not do
touching anything and we can be so the doc can be permitted. Am I correct? >> What are you asking me? I don't understand. >> Say that again. You want me to say that again? >> I don't know what you're asking me. I'm asking that our decision is whether to just grant the permit for the existing
dock. >> Yes, but the existing dock does require two variances. >> What would happen if we didn't give the variances? >> They would have to return. >> They would have to what? >> Return with a permit, a modified permit
application. Or you can lead them in that direction if you feel like you're going to vote that way. request a revised plan. >> I just to that point for variances um we have granted variances for docs in the
past um just a few months ago. So it is besides just the length um and that extra wide section um it does meet the the depth requirements. Um, >> if they're asking for it today as a new dock, I would probably I would say
you've got to move it back. But the fact it's sitting there existing >> and has been for has been for time, I have no problem again permitting it, >> I do want to make the point that if they come back again and make changes, then
they're going to have to go through the new regulations. >> Yes, >> I think that's fair. >> So, can I hear a motion to Wait a minute. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Uh, Jack, >> I make a motion. >> Oh, wait a minute. I have somebody up there. I forgot to ask >> on the Zoom. Does anybody on Zoom have
anything to say? Raise your hand. >> Okay. So, I guess I don't see that now. You can make the motion. >> A motion for >> two >> with the two variances. >> Okay. >> I'll second. >> All right. All in favor?
>> Anybody opposed? >> Okay. Thank you. Awesome. >> Very much. >> Next step is chapter 91. >> So if in the future somebody wants to modify this change a change a float,
there's a small float. Somebody wants a bigger float. >> Got to come back. >> Well, obviously, but any does that change anything else? >> It's up to the commission at the time. >> Please record the order of conditions. Please record the order of conditions.
>> Definitely. >> The dock has probably been there since before I was born and I'm I'm 66. >> Yes. I'll take care of everything else from here. >> Some of those existing would a lot of variances. >> I'm trying to go part-time in six months.
>> Oh, I see. >> Have to borrow your way. I can do that. Stop taking work. Happened a lot sooner than I thought. The next two items on our agenda >> are going to be um >> Thank you everyone.
>> Thank you. >> Am I right? >> Yes. >> Going to be continued. So I'm going to read them together because it's uh relatively the same wording. First one's SE832522 and the second one's 8 SE832523
Cape Cod Engineering for RJ Re Resorts Bluewater Resort boy owner LLC 1 Southshore Drive 291 301 and 327 Southshore Drive proposed beach management including raking and
nourishment on a coastal beach and land subject to coastal storm flooding. Okay. Do I hear what are they um asking to >> just the next meeting 319 >> 319. So um do I hear a motion to
continue? So move second. Anybody? >> Second. >> Second. Okay. So we have Christian first and all in favor. >> Anybody opposed? >> Okay. Thank you. That was quick. Last next order of business, the approval of
meeting minutes from 219. Um, anybody besides me read them? You did it. Do I hear a motion to accept? Anybody have any corrections? >> No. >> Okay. Motion to accept. Christian second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I
posted. No. >> All right. Right. The next thing is I'm just going to quickly because things haven't really changed, but it's been a long time since I mentioned anything about wastewater. Um, and we had a meeting Monday. I got nice color pictures and everything people can look
at, but uh, basically things are moving along. Obviously, the storm put everything back uh, a week or so. Not that they can't catch up. Um, there are seven contracts. Um, just go find my little list here.
contract one which is the recovery plant the wastewater uh the construction started and the end date is they hope by uh June January 2028 contract two which is a collection east
of Parkers River and Route 28 Long Pond to North Main Street they hope to finish by March of this this month. uh contract three, which is collection east of Parker's River. Um they haven't they
don't know when it's going to be done, but it's being worked upon. Uh contract four is completed. That's the one in North Main Street. Contract five, which is the one from Parkets River West to Higgins Crowl, has been worked on, uh is being worked on. Those of you who live
where I live know you're always being sent to other places. They hope to finish that by June of 27. Contract six I think has been sent out to bid and they're just waiting to accept the bid and I believe the bid was
Robert Bau won the bid and I believe Jack you can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the bid new bid came in less than the previous bid that was what was being held up with the um with the uh pump station controversy and
they found a new pump station place so that's going to start not till the fall of 26 and hopefully be done by the fall of 28 and um hopefully things will be online along those contracts sometime in 28 after the
plant is finished. Rest of the town is up in the air right now. That's a quick overview. >> I have a quick comment too about our proposed regulation updates. um considering just adding a late breaking edit to modify slightly our shellfish
survey protocol. Our protocol right now is 3x3 um spaced every 20 ft. And I think that's too far apart to accurately measure the shellfish um populations. So just alternating to a percent minimum of
a coverage area and allowing the shellfish professional to determine the spacing and quadrats so that we're getting a better idea of the populations. >> Good catch. >> Okay, >> that's all. >> Does anybody else have anything they
have? Yes. >> Yeah, I sent this to Britney today. There was a I don't know how many of you get the Cape Cod Times. No hand. show of hands. But today there was a great article on um three examples of areas on
the Cape and how they are addressing erosion. Um I think you know was Ptown Sandwich and I forgot the third already but it was a great article in the sense that it talked about like sort of what we talked about today is is the flow of of you know where the sediment is going.
There were some um some good images. But um I don't know if that's something Britney you can send to my colleagues. Maybe >> I I was paywalled so I couldn't read it. >> Oh, you have to pay to use Oh, I hate that. >> I would love to read it. >> I hate that.
>> So I should probably a month sign up. >> Sign up. A dollar a month. >> Yeah, >> I could try to print it out and bring it to the next meeting. Maybe >> I can probably capture it and I'll send >> Did you see it? >> Sounds great. >> I read it. >> Yeah. Wasn't that a good article though? >> Great. quoted an article about the park
and I I haven't been able to see it. It >> wasn't paywalt from that one. For some reason I was able to read that one. >> Yeah. See that couldn't find it. >> Only get like >> had one line in there anyway. It wasn't very important. >> I met my limit. >> Did you read about how they punctured the
>> in where was that? Nucket. >> Nucket. >> Oh my gosh. >> Where did they puncture >> the um what's the technical term for the GO2 >> textile bags >> that they fill with slurry? whatever punctured it. >> So it was like vandalism. >> Oh yes, I did read about that.
>> Terrible. >> They had this very expensive erosion control project and people vandalized it and so it's failed. >> Terrorist or something. >> They said it was vandalism. >> Yeah. Intentional destruction. >> No, it is. It's very because those are serious. >> Very expensive.
>> Serious erosion on that part of Nucket. >> I know there's a lot of erosion along the park. seashore. It's uh walked it the other day with the archaeologist and uh he got to show me lots of things that appeared. But uh used to be a um
>> in Chattam Earth Beach. There used to be a cable, a French cable house that before we Maronei that had a cable that went across the ocean that then became a hotel when they no longer and then it
burned down and then the last two storms. pieces of the of the basement have been appearing in the dune, >> but there hasn't been any ordinances lately up at Wealthfle, which was Wealthfle Camp, and they used to have
ordinances up there, which is why putting in a new staircase has all sorts of problems. A more permanent staircase because it's digging down there might >> find a find something not not safe. So >> next time you go down the stairs at
Meltwood I'm at Marone. Think about that. >> They have to evaluate them. I think I read that after the storm they they have to check them. >> Check what? >> The stairs. >> Oh yeah, they check them all the time. >> Yeah. >> Do we have any other business? >> We can go. >> Sorry.
>> Do I hear a motion to uh I think Bradford like to go home. Do I hear a motion to uh adjourn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi, we are done at 653. I'm sorry, Bradford just keep talking
about erosion.