have to wait till that's >> recording in progress. >> Okay. Good evening. Welcome to the Conservation Commission meeting on Thursday, November 20th. This is a hybrid meeting in person and online. Uh first um
business is notice of intent for BSE Group for Patricia Ellis. Do we have a uh number for that? >> Yes. Uh a D number was just issued. >> I see it. Okay. SE832504 proposed new construction of a single
family dwelling, garage, and accessory dwelling unit within the riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flooding. Would you like to introduce yourself? >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Members, for the record, my name is Kieran Healey. I am a land surveyor with the BSC group
and we're proposing this project at 26 in number Bass River Terrace. With me tonight is the owner of the property, Patricia Ellis. Um, as mentioned, a portion of the property is within the riverfront and a portion of the property is within the flood zone. Um, we are
completely outside of the 100 foot wetland buffer and there are no coastal banks that affect the property. Um the majority of our work is entirely outside of the riverfront. Um there is a small sliver of grading that occurs within the
riverfront and as a result we are proposing mitigation plantings along that edge. Um right now it is a wooded site and we are proposing to take down trees to construct the um the new dwelling and the ADU. I was able to meet Britney out there and we were able to go
through the project and look at the areas where we have a a limited work and where the trees need to come down to construct the the new buildings. Um, other than that is a pretty much a straightforward dwelling unit and an ADU accessory with a new title 5 septic
system that complies with the regulations. Um, other than that, I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have. >> Anybody have any questions? I do. But let me let me start. You know, I was going to ask this. Uh, do we have to really cut down all the trees?
>> That's actually the very reason that I met Britney out there was to go through we staked out the building early so we could show where the trees are in relation to the building. And the the trees are all within 10 to 15 ft or within the tree the foundation footprint
itself. And the branches and the canopies would literally be over the building. So, we we actually with Britney and I were out there, we were able to reduce it by a couple of trees on the driveway going in there, but this is pretty much the the bare minimum to make this site um buildable. >> Okay.
>> Now, all of the trees are outside, sorry, the majority of the trees are outside of the riverfront. It's trees within the flood zone, that resource that we're primarily removing. >> Anybody have questions? >> Yeah.
Uh just would hope that you could replace those dog woods with oaks rather than non-native. >> We we don't have a problem with changing the dog woods to oaks. >> Absolutely. >> Anybody else?
>> Just um Britney, the town of Yarmouth doesn't have a a no net loss um ordinance equal >> for trees? >> No, not yet. >> Is it in the works or
>> Not that I know of. Um, our current regulations for land subject to coastal storm flowage is to retain trees wherever feasible. Um, and so for this project, I Karen was concerned about the number of trees they have to remove.
Unless they just have stairs and the driveway at at grade with no fill, the trees all have to be come down in order to get the grade up to 12 where they're proposing the driveway. So
>> yeah, I'm where I I'm from that the norm is is well I shouldn't say the norm, but no net loss, you know, means you replace the trees that you remove and and that's
getting really predominant in many jurisdictions. So um I'm very surprised at this. So yeah, thank you. Um, anybody else? >> I have kind of like a logistical question.
Um, it it more has to do with the combination of the two parcels um, and how that might play out in the future. Like, are they
somehow deed together? Um, and the reason I bring that up is um because I can see that the ADU doesn't meet the setbacks for uh the building setbacks, which is not this jurisdiction. Um, but
also the the restoration plantings for 30 would be on majority would be on 26. So, if that was ever sold in the the future, there would be uh a loss of those mitigation plantings.
>> Currently, there were five separate lots out there and currently they're all on one deed. So, there's been a lot of back and forth with the building department about the combination of the lots just by zoning. And um there isn't enough upland to subdivide and resubdivide
these lots off even though they originally created in 1922 when there was no zoning. Um but basically by z for zoning purposes they have already been combined. They are registered lots. So the interior lot lines aren't going to get removed without a filing with land
court. So at this stage the building department generally does not require it as long as all the parcels show up on one deed. >> Okay. Thank you. What's the driveway going to be comprised of? Composed? >> It's going to be black top and for two
reasons. One is that because of the um flood zone requirements, we literally have to drive up onto the garage, the slab for the garage. But then secondly, we did provide a trench drain at the bottom. So we would capture anything that comes down that blacktop.
And we have um we have a drainage system set in the front of the house to pick up any water that's running off of that driveway. >> Britney, >> so you said most of the trees are in the flood zone. Do you know if any of them
were in the riverfront area? >> I believe there's about five in the riverfront area. >> Okay. We're only replacing three >> and one the thing is it's it's a wooded lot so we're only removing the bare minimum to make this happen. So where
would we put trees that wouldn't interfere with the building that we're putting in because it's already a wooded lot. Mhm. >> I mean, we could put in some, you know, maybe some arivites or something else like that on the southernly side just to enhance it a little bit, but um it
doesn't make sense to plant oak trees because we're going to have a problem with the building if we do. So, >> since they're changing the dogwood to oak, do you have any problems with the other >> and there are no So, you said this lot
is not buildable, >> correct? And as soon as we put a corner of this ADU over that property line, it eliminates any opportunity to sell off that off as an individual lot. >> Okay, >> Dave. >> Yeah, one more thing. I noticed while we
were out there that uh there's a small stretch that looks like it must have been a dip. What that may have been part of a small stream coming off the >> in front of the property. >> Yeah. >> It's actually a drainage swale. >> Uhhuh. and our driveway. We're proposing
to put in a um an 18-in um culvert, shall we say, to allow that drainage swale to do what it's always been doing. And basically, it's just the way the >> because the ground is so flat and so low. That was put in to construct the roadway when they did that um when they
construct the roadway and improve the roadway about uh 15 years ago. >> Okay. Thanks. Anybody else from the commission? No. >> So, I do have one more question. So, the trench drain would just be redirecting the water into the swale that exists on the side or there's an infiltration
chamber. >> Um, if you look at the label, sorry, that right there's the trench drain. Sorry, >> disappear. >> There's the trench drain on >> and then it goes to this infiltration system >> and that's the pipe that just allows the little >> to continue flowing. >> Jack was talking about to allow the
water to continue. >> Ellie has another question >> just on the the tree removal. What how many are removed due to the the ADU? addition >> about three or four >> and there 26 other
>> the main house the driveway and the septic system you know cannot we cannot put in a septic system without removing the trees that are associated with it >> anybody in the audience have any questions or comments
nobody's online so I don't have to ask that. Okay. Um, so do we need a revised plan just to show the oak trees? >> Um, I would recommend that the commission is issue with special conditions pending a revised plan. Okay.
Just since he said he would swap them out. >> Will someone like to make that motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Yeah. With that. All in favor? >> I. >> Anybody opposed? >> I No. >> Or I. >> Okay. passed unanimously. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. Our next business is SE83-1463, Patricia Ellis. Uh this is uh also 30 passes for COC. Um I understand there's no issues with
that. The work was never completed. So, >> okay. Work was never completed. So, there's no issues. So, can I hear a um motion to uh accept the COC? >> I do. >> Second, anybody? >> I'll second. >> Second. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next order of business is a notice of intent for SE832494 Capecon Engineering for RJ Resorts, Blue Water, excuse me, Blue Water resort owner
291 and 301 Southshore Drive proposed seasonal deck on coastal beach velocity flood zone and NHSP habitat. It's been continued a couple of times, but again, we're going to have to continue this
again. Um, we're waiting for NHSP comment, and so we're going to continue to 124. Um, Natural Heritage asked for additional information about compliance and uh for their raking permit and we're
not sure they can comply to that because I don't we're not sure they have um they involved uh bird monitoring until this past summer. So, that's something they have to straighten out before we can they can bring it to us. Did I say
that right? >> Yeah. >> Perfectly. All right. Um, so I just need a uh motion to um to continue to 124. >> So moved. >> Okay. Pat second. Okay. All in favor?
>> I I >> Okay, great. No one's opposed. >> Wow. Moving right along. >> Yeah. Jeez. 30 Bass River, right? >> Yes, please. There should be two signature pages.
>> Okay, there are. I'm so excited about getting home. I forgot this part. Okay, there are two to sign and where we're at. While you guys are signing,
I will read Hilton Road. Uh SE832503 Grady Consulting LLC for Joseph Dipio 6 Chilton Road proposed raise and
replace of a single family dwelling in a land subject to coastal storm flooding and the 35- ft buffer to a coastal bank and beach. if you could introduce yourself and uh tell us what you want to tell us.
>> The green cards. Thank you. >> Good evening. Scoffar with Grady Consulting represent the applicant Joe Cypio. Uh what we have here is the proposed raise and rebuild of a existing single family dwelling. Um the entire property is within land subject to
coastal storm flowage. the existing and proposed house is within the buffer zone to a coastal beach and a coastal bank. Um the existing house um is the the proposed house will be um cited no
closer to the wetland area than the existing house. Um there's already a septic system on site which has passed a title 5 inspection. The proposal is to keep that same system for this new building. Um, we've done our best to retain as
many trees on site as feasible. There is an 18-in diameter tree near the driveway that he intends to to keep. Um, there's a 14-in pine tree toward the rear of the property. Um, it's it's leaning pretty close to the house, so we're proposing to remove that.
Uh, in part of the work, we've proposed a pretty significant mitigation planting, which includes several trees. um three smaller trees to replace that um that larger pine tree in kind. The mitigation
plantings are proposed between the um the work the site and the um the resource area. I'll leave it at that and listen to any questions. >> Um start with the commission. Does anybody
have any questions? Um yeah, I just have a question on your um your square footage comparison to calculate the required mitigation. >> Yep. Um, so the question I have is
the side the concrete walkway to the driveway. Is that calculated? >> The concrete walkway to the driveway along the the right side of the existing building.
>> Um, it goes from the front. Um, I'm looking at proposed site conditions. the gray. >> You mind if I just come up to you? >> I think you talk I think you're talking about this area. >> You talking about this area?
>> Yeah, it's under proposed sight conditions. So I sure this was calculated this 35 >> right here. She talking about this area here,
>> right? >> Yeah. >> Oh, that that concrete area on the proposed >> Yeah. Just cuz you just cuz in your in your table you have the gray called out as driveway and I I don't have a digitizer or anything. Okay. I probably could have scaled it. I'm sorry. But
just want to make sure >> that that calculation for the driveway um includes the walkway. That's all. >> Yep. It It does. It does. It was incorporated within the driveway area on that table.
>> Okay. And then the last thing is what is the appendage that's blanked out on the same layout? Um >> the new rent station. I think is that the new rent station or the old rent station? >> It's unshaded. Um >> yeah.
>> Yeah. I think it just missed >> station. >> Yeah. >> So what? Is that is that a imper imperous surface of that? It's not colored in or anything. >> Okay. For the Yeah, for the rinse station, we did not include that in the
impervious coverage. Um it's it's not really considered an impervious surface because there'll be there'll be crushed stone below it. >> It's crushed stone. It's not like a concrete slab or anything. >> Okay. But it should be included in the
dexen steps or it should be included in some heartscape calculation. This right here, right? It just should be colored in. >> We didn't intend for it to be. No, we didn't consider that to be um an improve surface. >> I mean, it's a structure. It's got to be accounted for. >> Okay.
>> And then while we're on the ren station, this is the old reinstation, right? >> Yes, it is. >> And you're intending to remove it? >> Yes. >> Okay. It should be removed from this. This is the proposed on the mitigation sheet. >> Okay.
>> So, my question would be why are you moving the old uh rinse station into an area that's uh within the 35 foot to 50 foot where the old one is between the 50 and the 100 foot. >> Yeah, that's that's a great question.
So, that existing rinse station um it looks to be partially over that septic system. It's never a good never a good plan to have any type of water going over the septic. So So our our goal here was to to you know maintain an existing
rinse station but move it to a location that's that's >> Would you move the new rinse station over a little bit to keep it out of the 35 ft and just have it in the 35 to 50? >> I think that's a reasonable request. Yep. >> Looking down. Anybody else? Pat, is that
a hand? >> Part of your shed here, your enlarged shed goes over the septic system also, it appears. >> Yep. >> Is that okay? >> Yeah. So, that the the shed doesn't have a doesn't have a concrete foundation or
anything. It's just just on on grade. You know, the sheds are the sheds are movable. So, we've never really had an issue with putting it over a system like that. >> There isn't. Unfortunately, the health department won't allow it at all any structures. Um, and since we are in the flood zone, the shed would have to be
anchored to something. >> Um, so it would need a sono tube. Um, so it has to be relocated >> or removed. >> In that case, in that case, what I would what I would ask is that we maintain that same footprint. Um, but instead of having a square, we'll just elongate it along the side of the house between the
house and that septic system. Um, it'll still be outside that 50ft buffer, so we won't get be getting any closer to the resource area. >> Would there be space to put the sauna tubes without damaging the leeching field? >> There will be. Yes, it looks like it.
>> Okay. Sorry, I have to find my notes. >> Since we're on Go ahead. >> the subject of sauna tubes, I guess. Um, I see you have a raised patio with pvious pavers. I just I wasn't quite sure what raised patio meant. Is that
>> Oh, yeah. So, raised just just elevated to to I believe that first floor >> elevation >> with Phil. >> And then there there's a detail for that for that patio on that on sheet one. >> So, it's it's intended it's intended to
infiltrate storm water. So, it's not a it's not a true hardcape like a like concrete where where water is just going to rush off of it. You know, it does it does have the ability to to permeate through. >> Jack, you have a question? >> Yeah. I was curious what that proposed
spiral staircase uh what's the landing there or what's is that just there's nothing below that's in going inside your 35 ft. >> Yeah, I believe that's to get up to the second floor. Um
>> that be relocated outside the 35 ft buffer. >> Okay. >> What's the purpose of is that the only way up to the second floor? There's an There must be an interior way up to the second floor. >> Oh, I'm sure there is. Yeah. >> I'm just wondering why you would even need it to be honest with you.
>> Okay. >> I mean, it's in the 35 ft and I think it would make things a lot better not to have it. >> Yep. Um I don't I don't really have an answer on the design question of that, but we can certainly move it outside the 35 ft buffer along with that rinse
station. It looks like there's there's room to slide both both of those features over. Yeah. Anybody else? >> Uh, yeah, less so about the house, but um is this revetment permitted? I
couldn't find a license or associated with that. >> What are you asking? What's permitted? >> A revetment? >> Oh, okay. >> I I'm either >> I am not sure about that. I mean, it's not it's not uncommon
for areas like that to to have that on permit that likely predated any type of regulation. Talking about the reet revetment between the resource area and the and the lawn. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I just didn't see any mention of uh
a license history search in the narrative. So I don't know if it doesn't exist or if it just you didn't look for it. You know what I'm saying? >> Yeah. So I'm I'm not I'm not sure if
there is a license for it. We can we can certainly certainly look into it. Um you know we're not really proposing any work on that revetment. So that was kind of outside the scope of this project is included on the plan. So, I'm just
skeptical to approve a plan that has an unpermanented structure in it um without doing some sort of due diligence. >> Sure, we can we can look into the license for that. I would imagine that it would have predated any type >> if it does um some sort of label that
indicates that the structure predates >> uh the act. Yeah. >> Be appreciated. >> Sure. Um anything else? have any um dry wells for the new um
rinse station and storm water from the roof. >> Uh we we do not our our goal was our goal was to um to not significantly increase the impervious area on this site, you know. And then in certain
areas like the driveway, we went with gravel rather than paved. with the patty went with those permeable pavers rather than something impervious. Um and then we we believe between that and the mitigation plantings um that there won't be an increase in
runoff. >> So with the pvious pavers, where do you think the water is going to go? Just between the pavers. >> It's going to go into the ground. >> Just between the it's not going to run off the pavers into some place else. In other words, there's not going to be hardcape between the pavers. It's going
to be dirt of some kind. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, so there's um they use this this poly sand between between the blocks that allows the water to infiltrate through. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And that that can't that can't be sealed up. >> Okay. I'm sorry. It's What is it you're
putting in? >> It's a poly a poly sand that allows the water to >> require maintenance. >> Yes, it does. >> So, that'll be a part of conditions >> certainly. >> Yeah. Just a quick one. Um you have a um on the existing site you have a notation
of the mean high water. >> Is is there a measurement or are you just um is there is there measurement for that the mean high water? >> Yeah those those come those come from
Noah um for not showing looking for >> an actual value. >> Yeah. I just wanted to relate the contours with what the mean high water level was. >> Yeah, we we can add we can add that elevation for the mean high mean low onto the plan.
>> And if you're adding that, if you could just add the note um saying that it references NAVD88. That's the projection we require for that. >> Yep. Okay. >> Please. >> Just a minor thing. Um we're not allowed
to have outdoor showers. only allowed to have wind station. So, if you would label that properly, >> I thought that had been corrected, but um >> um I don't know. I've looked at so many things lately. I >> It does say rinsing station. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Sorry. >> Yeah, I think that was one of Britney's comments, our initial submitt. So, we have revised that. >> Um anybody else? No. Britney, we miss anything? Yeah, I have
a couple of um additional comments. I just want everyone to understand that the 35- ft buffer zone is a no disturb zone. And so it is intended that no additional heartscape or structure be allowed in the 35 ft buffer without a an
explicit variance gifted from the commission. um and that if it a variance is requested, the commission can outline the mitigation ratio as they see fit. Um the applicant used the same mitigation ratio for the
50ft buffer as the new coverage in the 35 ft buffer. And I think if you're going to consider granting the variance, uh you should increase the ratio for the 35 ft buffer. I would also recommend the con
commission strongly consider the fill that's proposed under the previous pavers 58 cubic yards of fills being proposed in the no disturb zone. Um you're it's always under your discretion whether or not to gift a variance. Um but I think an elevated deck would serve
the same purpose without bringing in fill if you're going to approve that footprint for an additional hardcape in the 35 ft buffer. I meant it's in my notes and I meant to me ask mention that that uh a raised patio that's
uh a patio that's wood a woodscape versus uh vervious papers would be especially within the 35 would be preferred think you're more likely to get approval from me anyway can't speak for other people
trying to say something >> oh yeah I just had one more um So since everything predates the act, no buffer exists on the coastal bank. Um it's just the top of the coastal bank is lawn and so with new revetments and new
development. I understand this is redevelopment that predates the act, but we would usually request a 10-ft buffer would be a standard given that there is no buffer. Um, so perhaps the mitigation ratio would meet meet that if he increased the ratio for the proposed
structure and hardscape in the 35. Um, perhaps it wouldn't, but a 10-ft buffer where none currently exists would be a good thing to request if the commission decides to do so. That's all. Thank you. >> I'd like to see a 4:1 ratio at the 30
zero to 35 feet. Would that you think that would >> I don't know. I haven't done the math. Okay. Yeah, I think a 10 foot buffer would be needed. Certainly something we've required from other other people. >> Yeah. >> Yes, >> definitely.
>> Maybe we could see a decrease in the size of the patio within the 35 >> or ask them about a wooden patio here. >> A wooden and decrease size. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, I guess I'm a little confused. If
the raised patio is only this detail here, why is there a need for fill? >> I guess not not sand, but they're filling it with stone and gravel to to
raise the grade. Oh, >> the whole grade is coming up for the patio to sit flush with the first floor. And >> so on the on the sheet one in the bottom left, the porest pa patio detail that shows what will be below the the pavers.
Um, I mean, it's it's it's our opinion that that this porous PA patio would serve the same purpose as a deck because we're allowing this significant area of of crushed stone to to capture the the runoff, you know, where a deck, I guess, you know, the thought is that that the
water's going to go between the slots. In this in this situation here, the water's going to go between the blocks and then permeate down into the into the crush stone. So, um, >> I can I can speak with the applicant, see if he'd prefer to go with the deck, but just wanted to at least provide that
justification for why we came up with the previous papers over the deck. >> I I do understand that. Um, >> I don't think the commission I know it's stone and not typical fill, but you're still changing the grade. it's in the flood zone and you're still bringing up
the base grade I guess >> um with non-native material. >> Um so in the event of a flood it may divert the flood water around the patio instead of flowing underneath. >> Yeah. Also that existing
>> I have a question. >> There's a retaining wall so there's stairs >> there are. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Oh okay. That's I'm did not understand that. So So raised is raised up to the elevation that first floor.
>> How tall is the retaining? >> Let's see. >> Oh, it's 8 feet. That seems high. >> It's 8 ft. >> Oh, sorry. I'm looking at the wrong measurement. >> Wall is 13. >> No, it's about it's about 5t. The grades there at 94 and the and the first floor is proposed at 143.
>> Okay. >> So, yeah, about five feet. >> 5T. >> That would be why there's 58 cubic >> yards. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, we need a section through that. I have no idea what that retaining wall is holding up. And I imagine it's all that fill where it could be, you know,
alleviated if we just >> Retaining walls are also not allowed in the flood zone under our regulations. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> It might be better if it was a raised deck rather than a retaining wall. And >> Yeah. >> Sure.
>> Yeah. My point is it's pretty substantial fill if it needs a four and a half to five foot high retaining wall. >> So yeah, >> just just one one more thing to point out. So that that existing building as as you know a lot of these older buildings are not designed with any type
of flood venting or anything. So when water comes in, it just kind of stops at that foundation. And this this new building with the new building codes, we do have all these smart vents. So the water the flood waters are just going to go right through. So if you think about the footprint of that existing building being let's say 1 1500 square f feet,
you know, now with this new building, it's the water's allowed to go straight through. So if the concern was about, you know, flood water with um that raised patio, it's it's really offset by these by these flood vents. Um but it but again, if if the position the commission is that you'd prefer to have
a deck over the patio, then then um we'll we'll likely take that advice. >> Okay. I think it's that we'd prefer a raised deck over a retaining wall rather than the peries patio. I think that's the sticking point.
>> Okay. Could you >> Yeah. Over here. >> Go ahead. >> Could you go back to some of the pictures of the property you're talking about where the retaining wall would be, where the deck would be? Do you have um uh pictures?
Well, you really wouldn't. It wouldn't pertain though to that building because it's going to be a new building. >> Yeah. This is the >> Yeah. >> Um the same footprint. So these stakes this is where the 5 foot retaining wall is proposed right here which is 17 ft away from the top of the bank. >> Okay.
>> No no disturb area >> in a no disturb zone. >> Wait, what? >> So in a no disturb zone under our regulations noting that it's already developed. >> Okay. All right. Do you have any? >> I had one last final question. You said
repairs as needed to the staircase. >> Correct. >> Um >> are do you think repairs will cut it or do you think you'll need to replace this? It looks quite dangerous. The only comment would be if you propose to replace it, just put a throw detail on the plan so that if you need to
replace it, it'll be to a detail that the commission has approved because it it's very seems likely. >> Okay. Yeah, we can certainly do that. Um, I had trouble with the um, reading of the mitigation table. Maybe
it's me, but uh, there way to just redo it to be a little clearer. Um, I think you might have a few things in the wrong spot under the 50 to 100. >> Yeah, we can certainly change it if you don't mind just pointing out to me which
which areas are confusing. Um, I think it was the I tried to do the math on the 50 to 100 and didn't seem to come out right, but it could be me. So, I'm not going to argue with it. I think just um the 270 where it says difference.
Shouldn't that be under mitigation >> proposed? >> Proposed. >> Uh, nope. So, so this is actually an an Excel sheet, so it's it sums it up for us. But the 270 is the the mitigation required. You know, on the 50 to 100, you have a 2:1 mitigation requirement.
So, if we're increasing the area by 135, we're required to provide 270 in mitigation. I >> see it. Okay. >> And then obviously where our mitigation, we're not going to propose it in the 50 to 100. We want to propose as close to the resource area as possible, which is
why we put it on the 035. All right. Anybody else? >> The variance would be for for the variance. >> So the variance they're proposing is um for a new structure in hardcape within the 35 no disturb with for new structure
within the 50oot no build zone. Um, and one that we have in there is no new structures are allowed in the 100 foot buffer until the 50 foot is fully restored. But that is not possible on this site. Otherwise, it would become unbuildable. >> But have we seen best effort in
minimizing the impact within the 35 foot? I mean, could we ask for some kind of effort in in >> Yeah, that's the point of that last one. Um, for no additional new work in the 35. >> Yeah. until
you know a significant buffer is replaced because the end goal is to have the 50 fully vegetated um on most properties. Obviously there are many properties in Yarmouth where that's impossible. Um, so I think the 10 to 12
foot buffer as a standalone would be a good place to start regardless of the mitigation ratios required because of the intrusion into the 35 >> before we even consider any any >> additional. Yeah, exactly. Right. So
it's sort of a step process. Um, so yeah, can we ask for that? >> Yeah. first. >> I mean, yeah. >> Okay. >> Best effort. >> Um,
>> well, I think we've asked for >> revisions that may change how much new material is being added. >> Yeah, I'm as an incremental >> talking about two-step process. Yeah.
Next step would be the >> mitigate the buffer zone and then the >> step after that would be the building once we approve the buffer. Is that what you're saying? >> Yes. >> Um that you can do that but it may be more reasonable to help the applicant
streamline the process if you know if you have a vision of what you're looking for. So provide the 12oot buffer and decrease the hardcape in the 35. >> Yes. >> At the same time. >> That's Roman numeral number one. Yes. >> Increase the impact within the 35 foot
>> buffer. So, so part of this from this discussion what I've taken is that we will increase this buffer to at least a 4:1 from the from the impacts from the 0 to 35 um which would likely result in you know about a 12T buffer between the resource area and
the site. um that patio will ch we will remove the patio and the retaining walls and we'll come up with an elevated deck, you know, with adequate spacing for for storm water to to penetrate through. Um the spiral staircase and the um not
shower, the rinse station will be moved outside of the 35 ft buffer. Um so, you know, with those significant concessions, I I think that this this could be an approvable plan. Um, you know, obviously the the alternative is is he could just renovate the house and
leave the lawn as is. The lawn goes right up to the to the resource area. So, I think this is a um a significant improvement of the site compared to what what an alternative would be here. I agree with everything you said,
although it is very much the preference and our standard to have dry wells, gutters and dry wells. Um, if you can find space for them. >> Okay. Yeah. That the challenge with the with the site of this size, you know,
drywalls are supposed to be 50 feet from a septic system. Um, >> maybe just one in the front. So, what oh, you know, one thing one thing I I neglected to point out here was was um this these mitigation plantings along the along the resource
area, we are proposing a 6-in depression to to capture some of that some of that storm water runoff. Um similar to a rain garden, if you will. Uh and then with with this with this buffer increase from it looks like we're just ballparking maybe we'll say seven or eight feet off
right now. We're going to increase that to about 12. um that'll provide a greater a greater volume with that depression to to capture this this runoff. So um I I think that I think that is a reasonable um a reasonable alternative to a dry well.
>> Yes, I would agree. >> Do we need to see a section of that in the reubmitt? >> It's just a little unclear how long it is. It just says provide depression. >> Okay. >> So how just show how >> Yeah, sure. We can we'll we'll dimension
we'll dimension it there and we and we can add we can add a detail for the >> Oh, I see it. It's just very faint. >> Yep. >> Anything else, Britney? >> Um before we go to the audience,
>> we need to summarize. So yeah, what I have is add NAVD88 mean high mean low water. Replace the patio with a deck. Relocate the rinse station and spiral staircase outside the 35 ft buffer. Include a 12t
buffer and consider reducing the size of the patio and do some research into the revetment licensing. provide a detail for the new proposed staircase if needed and the
depression rain and garden level. >> That was the first thing I said. >> Yeah, >> it was a long list. Um, >> okay. >> Change the shed. >> Oh, and relocate the shed. Reconfigure.
>> Okay. Uh, is there anybody in the audience who wants to say anything or ask any questions? Yes. Would you just go up to the microphone up there, introduce yourself, and >> David,
I live at 15 Bradford Road. And I went through this before uh uh years ago on this uh uh changing the uh house plan and stuff like that. I thought you had to stay with the footing footage what you have right there now. You couldn't
change that without uh going through a whole big ordeal. >> You changing the foundation footage? >> Yes. >> Are you changing the foundation footage? >> We are. Yes. I went through that with the building department.
>> Can you describe the the changes? >> Yeah. You mean the footprint? >> The footprint? >> Yes. You could change the footprint of the house. >> There's just the two. So, there's two small Yeah. Go ahead. >> Yeah. So, essentially that that back corner, they're going to he's intending to square off. Um, if you look at the
mitigation table under the building top line, um, it results in an increase of 40 and 167. So, so about 200 square ft increase of uh building footprint, >> but it's located no closer than the
existing dwelling to the coastal bank. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Thank you. >> And how high is this uh building going up? So, I believe the the maximum building height is set by the zoning board and um
we aren't going any higher than that. Um I'm not sure if we have the exact height on here, but the the max building height will be 35 ft. So, it'll certainly be less than 35 ft. We were told by neighbors that he had
talked to him that he wasn't changing the height of the uh wasn't putting the second floor. stay with the same footprint and stay with just the first floor. >> Oh, >> Britney, is that within our >> I don't know what their second floor plans are. We only look at the footprint
>> here in conservation. >> Understand >> that would be a building question to building. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. Not for not for us. >> Yeah. >> Right. Like I guess they have to uh as far as you talked about a deck. I couldn't put
a deck on my house because the square footage of the lot was so was the house are bigger than what they required for the square footage of the lot. So I don't know if this goes into play or not. >> Those are also not our regulations.
>> Is that the building requirement? Okay. because we have >> So, so once once if we get approved from this board um the applicant will have to go to the building department and get permits have to meet all those all those regulations that you're mentioning.
>> So, to that comment um from the audience, you can also propose an atgrade per patio if the deck is being limited elsewhere by building. We're just not looking for that wall to be there. So if you can do the at grade
patio or the deck that's elevated to meet the first floor. >> Okay, that's good to know. Thank you. >> Okay, anybody else in the audience? >> He's online so I don't have to look there.
>> Um, so the next >> we're going to have to have a uh continuence. Um, it's either December 4th or the 18th or get into January, which is ever, >> what date are we on now? >> We're we're up we're in November 20th.
So, two weeks is December 4th or four weeks. >> Yeah. >> Is 18th, but we do need the plans one week ahead. >> So, if you go for the fourth, it's one week turnaround. >> Sure, we'll we'll go for the fourth, please. >> Okay. >> Because remember, you have Thanksgiving in there. So, what day would we have it due?
>> It would be the 27th. >> It would just be the day before. >> It would be due. >> Yeah. Yeah. Fewer days then. >> Oh, is that the P? That's the pine tree there, right? >> Yeah. >> In the back. Yep. >> This is the It's dam It's also damaged.
>> It's got a big scar in the middle. >> The dying tree. >> I know. >> That's not great. Um, okay. December. >> Okay. You ready? >> I'm ready. >> Okay. Someone want to make a um
uh motion to continue to December 4th. Was it? >> Yes. >> December 4th. >> So moved. >> Okay. Second. Second. Frank. Uh Frank Jack. >> Um all in favor? >> I Okay.
>> Okay. Thank you for your time and your comments. >> Thank you. >> I saw you took copious notes. So, right. Give me a second to do all this. Okay. Um,
certificate of compliance, uh, SE832148, Great Island Ocean Club, Powers Lane. Um, any issues with this? >> No, it was continued um, for Beachgrass planting and they have completed that. Um, we just need a continuing condition
number 14 for their storm water management plan. >> Okay. Um so can I hear a motion to accept this to give the significance of compliance? >> So moved >> in second. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor?
>> Opposed. Next two have to be continued if I'm right. The two heritage. >> Yes. But we do have to vote on the mitigation plan of >> he submitted a mitigation plan for your review for for the two heritage drive.
items >> that plan. >> I don't think we got that plan. >> Um, they were it's since it's just a COC, >> it was just online. Sorry. I will make sure to get you copies next time. Um,
>> okay. So, let me read it in. >> Yes. And he's here to present. >> 831899 Deborah Salvi. I hope I pronounced that right. 54 Heritage Drive and 73923 Deborah Salvi 54 Heritage Drive.
Um, you want to say something I assume, right? Britney, come. >> You can go ahead. >> Okay. >> Yes. Uh, good evening, uh, commission, uh, chairman and members. Peter Hansen from Peter Hansen Landscape Design. Uh, I'm here with Deborah Saluchi, uh,
regarding 54 Heritage Drive. Real quick history. Um when the house was built in 2012 by Jim Bird, we did the landscape work there and part of the um allowed the house to be built where it was. We had to do a mitigation planting which
was completed back in 2012 um as proposed and basically we've didn't hear anything. I used to I'd go by and check out the landscape in the front of the house. Never really looked I did a couple times looked out back but not
recently. So, uh, two months ago or this summer, uh, got a call from, uh, Deborah Zevuchi regarding one some of the, uh, original mitigation plantings had had died and also a patios, a section of a
patio was added and uh, Britney was somebody had contacted her, I believe it was Britney, regarding a mitigation plan for the increased patio space. So, one of the uh one of the plans shows replanting the original mitigation area
and the second one is the uh for the patio. >> Uh I think it's pretty straightforward. Um I've worked with Brit Britney's been great uh to kind of guide me through what the commission was looking for and we want to get this uh get this put away. Uh excuse me. It's going to be
either a spring or fall planting because it's too late now. But uh I'll just open it up for uh for questions from any of the commissioners. >> Yeah, sorry we didn't get you hard copy plans. Um so the original the 1899 was
for um removal of invasive species and a couple of damaged cedar trees where they had this mitigation area put in. um a lot of the plants have died and so they're proposing to replant the original mitigation area to fill the
original component. And then there was a patio expansion like he said over here outside the 50ft buffer but still um not on the original permit so required additional mitigation. So, he's allotted an additional um several feet of lawn
removal with new mitigation plantings directly adjacent to the original mitigation plantings um in order to make up for that additional heartscape. >> I forgot we visited this. >> We did visit. >> Yeah, I forgot that. >> Yeah. Um and there's a little path out
here, which is why there's a gap here right next to the top of the coastal bank because there's a little walking an area you can walk through. Um, and I think the mitigation plan is good, approvable. Lots of natives going in at some large sizes. Um, but I would
recommend that the commission approve these plans um, with spring planting because they do have to be in place for two years prior to the COC issuance and so they would have to continue it to fall 2020.
Sorry. 27. >> Yeah. Fall 2027. >> If they do it in 2026 in the spring, two years would be, wouldn't that be >> two seasons? Yeah, >> two seasons. Okay, >> you got me. All right. Can you go back to the picture for a minute? That one?
>> Yeah. >> Uh, is that sprinklers on on the picture? >> Yes, >> we talked about it last time. >> You did with them? >> We did. >> Okay. I apologize. >> She was You were here, right? Yes, she was here. >> Okay. So, >> is the applicant
Heritage Drive Realy or or Miss Saluchi? >> Miss Saluchi. >> I mean, I'm looking. >> Yes. >> Are we looking at SE 831 1899? >> Yes. >> 1999 1923. Both. >> Yes. Both. >> Yeah. So, the original orders were just
put under the the trust >> under the Okay. >> Yeah. But they're owned. It's the same owner. It's the same. >> Got it. >> Same property. >> Got it. Um, and just an a reminder that the mitigation area is intended to be naturalized. So, you can hand weed invasives and weeds. Um, but no, it
really shouldn't be sheet mulched. You can leave the mulch that's there now, but don't apply any new mulch. >> I didn't this year either. >> Yeah. Okay. So, we just need a um a motion to >> um I would recommend a motion to approve
the mitigation plans with planting in the spring um and no additional disturbance in the area and continuence. You can separate them if you want. >> 916 2027. If I could make a comment, um just
because we talked about having the mitigation area naturalized, um the uh shamrock uh ink berries is a dwarf varietal. Um, I just wanted to note that
to the commission and just make sure you're comfortable accepting a a native varietal um that's I believe a shorter >> Yeah, they're pretty teeny. If you can get the straight species, but they're not always available.
>> Um, the um compactor is a is a native variety. is the the the straight species gets too too wild, but the compactors we use a lot in conjunction or in in l of the shamrock. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, I agree with Bradford that
maybe if you can't get the straight species, you can just plant something else on from your list. >> Sure, that's fine. Thank you. >> Do I hear a motion? Hello. Everybody, >> Jack, second.
>> I'll second. >> Okay. Do you all know what we're voting on, right? >> Yes. >> You read the motion again, please. >> Yeah. >> I can't I can't say the motion. It has to be one of you. >> Somebody tell me what the motion is.
>> Accept the made the motion. Um but it it's to accept the planting plan and uh >> continue >> revised mitigation plan. Thank you. >> Um and continue to >> fall of 27
>> 916 >> 916. Okay. >> Okay. You got that Paul? >> Is that on uh SC831923? >> Well, the first one is 1988. We will have to do the same thing. We can just
redo the same vote for 1923. >> Does that motion relate to 1899 or 1923? >> Yes. So, there are two mitigation plans, but we do need to make that same motion >> for both. >> For both. >> Okay. We can't put them into one motion.
>> I I think you can. >> Okay. >> Same plans 83899 and SE831923. But they each have their own respective mitigation plan, >> right? >> Yeah. >> And and they each will have to be done
by 9:15. >> Well, they'll have to be planted in the spring in order to get that. Yeah. >> Continue to 9:1527. Okay. We So move it again, Jack. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And second.
>> I'll second. Yeah. >> All in favor? >> Motion. >> Opposed. Thank you very much for your time and thank you Britney for your help on that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Our next one is
SE 832375 do Orlando. The Orlando 17 Wild Rose Terrace permitted addition after the fact plan for additional hardscape in the buffer zone to a BVW. They're asking for a continuence. Is that correct?
>> Yes. To January 15th, 2026. >> Okay. >> 11626. Sounds like a long way away, but it really isn't. >> Oh, did we miss any signatures? >> Oh. Um,
did we pass Chilton? No. P Lane, I have to sign. I'm just not very good at these signature things. I used to make fun of uh head. Now I know where we
and what is this one? Heritage we don't sign. Am I right or do we? >> All right. So now we're caught up. Uh, I need a uh motion to uh continue 78832375.
>> So move secondbody. >> Okay. Thank you. All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay. All right. Um we move on to the minutes. Can I have you introduce Christian?
>> Um sure. Um on Tuesday the select board voted to appoint um another commissioner to fill our last vacant seat. Christian Bova is here to observe until he um gets sworn in next week or in a couple of weeks. And so we'll have a full board
for the first time in a few years. >> Unless we scared him away. >> Unless we scare him away, which I hope we didn't. >> We tried so hard. >> Okay. Um, approval of minutes for 101625.
Is there anybody who can't vote on that? >> Um, it's not noted. >> So long ago. >> Um, >> let me check. >> You guys can just vote and then if we can't do it, I'll eliminate you have something to say. >> No, just >> make the motion.
>> Make a motion. >> Okay. >> Not my usual. >> All right. Second then I'll second it. All in favor? I >> I >> Okay. Um, now we're going to talk about the proposed policy updates. So, >> Ellie abstained.
>> You're gonna take over that, right? >> Yes. Did everyone get a chance to review the proposed updates I sent? >> This can just be an informal discussion if we want to make edits. Um, I got some new information today. Uh David asked me
to reach out to see if any other towns had requirements for the landscape planting plans. Um so what I was proposing is just because of our past experience with um planting plans. We
there seems to be some difficulty putting together a good planting plan to have um a professional who works in the landscape, horiculture, wetlands, industry prepare or sign off on those plans um so that we can avoid
planting plans that aren't suitable for our sensitive wetland buffer sites. Um, MASHME does require um that a wetland specialist or horiculturist make the plan. They also require that they sign a contract with the owner signs a contract
with this specialist to take care and plant the plants. Um, and Chadam has just a um landscape plan requirements similar to our plan requirements. >> Did you review that about signing a
contract? What did you say? >> Yeah, they they require the applicant to sign a contract with a horiculturist or wetland specialist to provide the monitoring reports at the time before the COC before the order of conditions is issued.
So we we always require monitoring reports and then most of the time we don't get them. So that would be an interesting strategy. I'm not sure if we want to do that quite yet, but it is it would definitely uh guarantee success.
>> I guess my comment would be that I'd like to see leave open the opportunity for people to do things themselves. >> And if we could uh have it prepared by
or reviewed and initialed by Yeah. Prepared or signed off or reviewed by. That's what I was. >> So, >> I agree. >> Written. If it's okay with you or whoever the board commission could go to a garden
place and have them do the plan and then sign off on it. >> Yeah. >> You know, professionals. >> What do you mean? Like going Excuse me. >> Respot. >> Yeah. I mean that type of place. I mean, if they want to do it
themselves, I'm sorry, what? >> They just have to be qualified, right? So, >> but I mean, if you went to Greenspot or you went to Country Garden or wherever you went, >> you would ask them to sign off mostly to identify the species of plants that they're putting in to determine, for
example, that they're native species, not where they are in the in the on the property, >> right? that the species themselves are would would grow in that area that they're planting in. So if it's a shady area, they would have species >> I don't know how they would do that just
by signing off on it. say that >> have to go see the property and >> yeah not not to knock the green spot or any other >> nursery but I I don't know if a nursery has the capacity to review plans and and
>> yeah I mean I would keep the >> some do some don't but >> landscape or wetlands or horiculture professional or and a registered landscape architect or a certified ecological restoration practitioner >> certified is the key word. Yeah, >> you know, the only thing about it, of
course, you're adding cost to the process, >> you know, and so, you know, I would want to try to minimize that for the for the public, but I maybe it's not possible to do that. I think if you walked into a garden center, you wouldn't get the
desired outcome, you know? I mean, it depends who you would talk to. Um, so maybe it just has to be with a professional. Uh, >> I would I would say that >> certified at least certified for >> more than half of the engineering
surveyor companies that file with us have somebody like that on staff. >> Yeah, >> some of them don't, but a lot of them do. Um, so in some cases it may raise costs, but in other cases it would just be same old and notice of intent. Well,
even even when they do have sort of >> capabilities, doesn't mean the owner >> needs to use their person. They can go out to some people that just provide that. >> Yeah. >> And other kind of people that do that. >> Absolutely.
So you guys can just discuss and we don't have to make a decision about it. But um >> maybe come up with a little different language from what we said or >> is there general support or do we not want to do that? >> We have a size limitation. I mean >> yeah I was going to
>> small >> Yes. Did I not put that in there? >> Yeah, you did. >> Okay. Less than 250 square feet. You don't have to. >> Yeah. >> Say that again. If it's less than 250 square feet, you don't have to do this. >> Okay. Yeah, that makes sense.
>> Anything larger. >> Is there any kind of no matter what size 250 ft or whatever that there's some degree of sensitivity of a particular landscape that really would rather really have need somebody to look at
that rather than just let them >> That's true. Um except for small areas within the outer buffer. >> Yeah, >> good idea. >> So you want to work on this before you vote on it? >> Yeah, we can do some revisions and
>> give it back. Um the next one is just general um that would benefit from having in a policy somewhere that all wetlands restoration plans must be stamped on a surveyed site plan and designed and implemented by a wetland specialist or certified ecological
restoration practitioner. um just to avoid having um a regular engineering company with no experience doing this type of work just submit a plan uh without having c certain qualifications.
>> How should this be changed? the the part about designed similar to the above >> I don't think it should have any size limit if you're doing a wetlands restoration in wetland >> or even having just a sign off by somebody
>> I disagree with so wetland specific restoration we're not buffer zones like salt this is salt marsh or wetland restoration I think that should be the highest level of scrutiny and it should be on a surveyed site plan >> one question I asked when we talked
about this was how often does this happen without one and it's a rare occurrence but so most people >> do have a wetland specialist >> but it would just be protecting us with the ability to reject a notice of intent
from somebody who is not on this list of qualifications >> and this is within our purview >> absolutely >> and is anybody going to get ticked off in Maybe >> town
>> in town. No, I think it's fully reasonable and I think you would deny a project anyway if they came up >> with without Yeah, >> I think it would just this is kind of housekeeping just to put it in writing. >> Um >> yeah, let's save a trip for one of the
people coming to us when we say, "Well, you need a >> Well, you haven't provided enough information." >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And the other thing it probably does is clean up things for the the conservation agent because if you get all kinds of >> unsatisfactory plans in front of you,
you've got to go back and forth in terms of that particular problem. So, you know, it probably be an efficiency to make sure and it doesn't seem to be unreasonable and uh given the subject matter, you know, the wetland protection. >> It's sort of a pay now save later.
>> Yeah. >> Right. You mean so that they don't get mad at Britney >> and Joe? Yes. But mostly me. >> I told Britney and Joe to send them have them get mad at me. >> Yeah. I like people being mad at me. I
>> You're the vice chair, so I'll send it to you afterwards. >> Um >> do you want to vote on that one? >> Can we vote? We need to vote or >> uh Yeah, it's policy. >> Would someone like to make a motion to accept the language of number two? Yeah, I I I move that we accept the language
regarding west wetland restoration. >> Paul, you're second. >> Second. Yeah. >> All in favor? I. >> Anybody opposed? Okay. >> Number three. >> All right. Um, so number three is for asbuilt plan
requirements and it also just kind of coincides with our regular plan requirements. So, I'm just proposing I don't know why I put this whole long list here. Um, to add asbuilt plans to our plan and drawing requirements because we've been getting some asbuilt plans that are
completely empty and just show the structure and it doesn't give us enough information to tell whether they're in compliance with the original plan which has so much detail, resource areas, contour lines, mitigation plans. Um, so they're very easy to misconrue information. And so I think if we just
apply our their current plan and drawing requirements to asbuilt plans as well and maybe add a few things, it would be much better for the commission and staff to determine compliance. >> Yeah, I suspect that as built plans are generally people think of them as for
septic. >> Yeah. >> And that those that are inspected all the way along and ours are not quite the same. >> We can call them project completion plans if you want. Well, that's a good point. Maybe and people won't get us conflation
compliance plan. >> That's nice. >> Oh, thanks. Um, and the only things >> Ellie added a good point that we don't have a current scale requirement.
Um and she recommended that we require all plans to use an engineering scale and only accept certain list of plans uh sorry scales 1 to 20, 1 to 10 or 1 to 30. So nothing larger because it would be too small for us to see anything on
the plan like the farm. >> That's sort of industry standard. Hm. The only outlier I would add to the asbuilt plan that's not currently on our regular plan requirements
um would be if you applied for a view corridor showed on the asbuilt plan showing the markers that you put in and the total square footage of the mitigation plan. Everything else would be just straight copy and paste from our regular drawing
and plan requirements. Could you put something in this type of thing that says that any plans that don't meet these requirements will be returned prior to until the corrections are made? >> Yeah. So, this is the process Joe and I
go through when we accept a notice of intent. We review the plan and if they don't meet the plan requirements, we send them away. >> They go back. Okay, great. >> Um, sometimes we miss stuff because we have to review every notice of intent the day they come in. they usually always come in on the same day. So,
we're doing speed review um when it really has to be very specific, but I think these would help bring better plans to the commission. >> I'm all for that. Yeah, >> I I would somehow keep the I'd recommend
keeping the the asbuilt uh def word in >> as as built. Okay. >> Yeah. Because that's again that's industry >> industry standard. Okay. >> Asbuilt drawings. Yeah. I would agree. Yeah. >> Engineers. >> Okay. I'm happy to rewrite this too
because I added a couple things on a whim and present it back as a final draft. >> Do you want us to vote or do you want us to wait your final draft? >> You should probably wait. >> Okay. >> A second vote in >> Thank you. But
>> we do trust you. >> Okay. So, we wait. So I think anybody have any other business? Not reasonably anticipated. >> Just want to mention that um of course from if everybody attended town meeting that the um tremendous work that Britney
did um on the land acquisition, it went through overwhelmingly and with very little questioning actually um which was a surprise to me. And um so we have to thank Britney and thanks the town for
>> you too for bringing it to your your uh group too. >> Yeah. So >> anything else? Okay. Um do I hear a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved.
>> I'll second. >> Second. All in favor? I