won't be able to work on my boat AR you cleaning up the roads this is this is for a beer that's later in the day after I can have a beer up the roads too can I what if you take it out from bring I'm going to good afternoon ladies and gentlemen welcome to the uh regular state of meeting for the Yarmouth Conservation Commission today's date is Thursday April 18th 2024 this is to formally advise that is required by General Law chapter 30 30A sections 18- 25 and pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 an act relative extending certain covid-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency signed into law on June 16 2021 as extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 the armouth Conservation Commission will will hold a public meeting at the date and time noted above public is welcome to attend either in person or via the alternative Public Access provided on the notice of meeting available on the town of Yarmouth website our first order of business is uh request for determination uh this is Mark Simmons 8 Mayflower Terrace proposed invasive species management within land sub Coastal storm Flowage and the buffer zone to ass salt marsh and Lauren good afternoon for the record Lauren Taylor with Crawford Land Management on behalf of the applicant Mark Simons um so this is a pretty straightforward restoration project um the resource areas on the property are salt marsh which is on the Southeast side of the property abing dena's Pond um there's also flood zone AE that extends about halfway up the building um essentially the applicant is just looking to remove and treat a small area of vegetation it's mostly Oriental Bittersweet multi Flora Rose and some grape vine um so he'd be removing that vegetation and then slightly reconfiguring the area just to make it a more consistent width along the edge of the pond and it would be revegetated with Native species like Virginia Rose chokeberry and sweet Fern um the restoration area would also be seated with Native grasses and planted with some supplemental grasses and forbs um I think that's just about it it's pretty straightforward and it's a pretty small project but I'd be happy to help answer any questions okay questions from the board no um I do and if I if I may ahead um it's pretty close to the edge of the salt marsh and it does get flooded because it's the tide has been incredibly High um is there any thought of of putting on uh plants that are more salt tolerant um um so the species that were selected are ones that we typically use for you know projects like this that are close to salt marsh or Coastal Bank and in our experience um they do pretty well in these conditions right um yeah they're just part of our typical plant pallet so that's we we picked them with that in mind okay all right because it it will get inundated quite a bit right that's all I have okay anybody else you're going to use her sides right so they'd be selectively treated with a cut and wipe application so it' just be direct stem you know not no spraying or anything like that um and it would be a glyphosate based product so something suited for some being close to Aquatic environments you know how much or how many plants or how much space that kind of application is going to be around at this point do you mean like the square footage of the area being treated um or just even number of plants or number of existing plants I'm not sure just looking at the plan that square footage of the area is about 700 Square F feet maybe good job okay Britney anything no questions all right anybody in the audience anybody on Zoom if not would somebody like to make a motion to approve the project with the negative three so move and two and three oh sorry negative two and three sorry in resource same thing okay so moved right thank you um Paul hi Pat hi Jack hi Ellie hi Rick hi David hi chair votes I carries unanimously thank you thank you uh next order of business is another request for determination of of applicability uh this is Christian Nolan 71 Smith Point Road proposed Vista pruning within a coastal Dune land subject to Coastal storm Flowage and the buffer zone to a vegetated wetland hi Christian Nolan um the applicant um this is trimming that we have done for the past 15 years it used to be approved by the conservation administrator uh the first one I can remember approving this was Brad Hall and there were several others and then I found out that I now have have to come before you for a full hearing so we are just continuing the exact same pruning that we have been doing since 2009 it was the first time that I can remember doing this it's merely taking back the suckers on small oak trees that just burst forth uh as you can see um they just grow like weeds out there and um if you can scroll down a little bit I think this picture shows you can see where we've been cutting to uh it's about yeah a little above there and that's all new growth in three or four years and so we go back every few years just take it down so we can see Lewis Bay and the uh the ocean so we do not remove any trees at all I want those trees there to stabilize that whole Bank um so I come before you just to ask to continue the trimming that we've been doing for the past 15 years what is the height that you're trimming trimming things to it's hard to describe we're trying to trim them so that when you're sitting in the house you can see over the trees um the trees go the topography goes up and down so some trees that are at a you know you know go down a long way we're just trimming the stuff that would basically be 12 ft above SE level so how high off the ground are you going um well it depends if there if the trees are up on a null we' be cutting to like 6 feet high if the if the tree is down low we'd be cutting it 10 feet high so it's just to take it out of the sight lines it's not to actually reduce the of the tree at all okay all right questions from the board um first of all thank you for coming in I appreciate that um I'm concerned it seemed like there were a number of trees that that had the actual tops cut off and I I'm not sure that fits the definition of Vista pruning um but it's a concern that we had and I you know I think I understand completely what you're trying to achieve but and and perhaps has gone in a direction that may not be um within the the U limitations of our our thinking but we can let the rest of the board speak when you're saying trees are you what what size trees are you talking like diameter are you i' I'd say they had four or five inch caliper so trees yeah I I would not support any type of of topping yeah so if there's topping going on you shouldn't be you shouldn't be topping trees that are you know four or five Ines in diameter or bigger so when we started this they weren't four or five in you know they were small but um the trees continue to grow at the base um and we just keep the tops it's almost like Bonsai or something they're going to continue to become bigger and bigger trees but we're just looking to maintain the sight lines that we've had so but but this is accurate right this is what you're this whole area that you're you're ref that is the area we'll work in um but it's not every tree in that zone um we want to keep look at the house there's sort of two main axes um so there's if you're the north south axis we try to clear if I may go up to the drawing there's actually a little laser pointer on that okay so just so you can stand near the microphone the red it should be the red button is there the red button so this axis here we would trim the trees in this area here so that you can see this way on this axis here there are a couple of things that we just like to keep so you can see out to the you know out to hyas port and then there's some tucked underneath the house that was the one where I showed the photograph and they look back this way into Lewis Bay um there's a photograph of these trees where you can see where we've taken them back so can you go back one picture yeah and this is current right these are current photos I'm pushing the wrong button we'd be taking them you know down to this level you can see where these suckers here have come up you know certain suckers will grow have grown three or four feet um and so we just want to maintain you know we don't touch any of the coners we're just taking the suckers off the top of these uh scrub Oaks I don't know I mean if these are these are our current photos I I it just seems like there's an awful lot of cutting going on for something that I I see that as a a view that already exists that's that's just my opinion but anyhow I I think I think you could certainly avoid cutting anything that that has a any trees that sort of thing I would definitely avoid cutting um I mean to me I'm looking at that photo and saying looks to me like you can have a pretty wide open view all the way through well dep can you go I don't know which photo it is it's going to be this is one and there's more in your application back maybe so these are runs from your application there we go so when these Leaf out that's one of the problems here all of this when that's green you can't see through that I me that's sort of the The Catch 22 of showing you winter photographs but this you won't be able to see the water here yeah I'm just saying I don't think you need to be able to see the the entire stretch of water from 100 or 270° all the way around your house that's all that's that's all I'm saying and just me the rest of the board we have sight zones done that's what Corridor site corridors done instead of the whole area I would have thought we would have done that by now but apparently we haven't um I mean we're I'm just asking for the same relief or whatever the phrase is that we've done for the past 15 years um is just to you know open up the the vistas that you can see you know everything else around the house there there is no Landscaping per se the entire house sits up on pilings and it's all natural material around the entire house um and those natural materials right any other questions from the board Jack uh this an area that I've noticed is being is changing over time of yes it is trimming trimming for views uh and I I think that uh the idea of corridors that you could see through you might try to as you do your work figure out what those corridors might be so that you and I think Rick's point that you know this is really not here the idea of 100 you know 190 degrees or whatever of the whole Bay from any one spot is not really in the idea of uh keeping the vegetation natural and uh for you know wildlife and things so just think that you might be able to pay attention to how you're doing it now and in the future and maybe even come back and say Here's the way you've done it so that you've next time you come to us you could say here's the way we've improved how we're doing it and not just a blank slate yeah um I don't know if the commission remembers this entire area over here was the area that my former neighbor Christy my house bulldozed and clearcut to the ground and then dumped a thousand cubic yards on not the look I'm looking for um you know we've trying to keep everything that's out here alive and well yeah I I think I like to say I was out to see the house and I just want to commend you and what a beautiful uh job you've done on doing that the Landscaping I mean it's natural you've you've kept those trees none of them were cut down yep no Lawns yeah I mean I understand that that part and U well so you know that's what we're trying to do it's there's not enough water out there to maintain Lawns and we just like the you know floating if you will in the natural environment yeah and that house is one of the few houses I've I've had the pleasure of seeing that is like that thank you it's amazing thanks we like it and I think um when I spoke to you on the phone about this I was trying to get that across that we wanted to see the corridors that you wanted to maintain that view and I think that what I'm hearing from the commission is that they would be very open to this Vista pruning if we could see those corridors on this plan um could I put something on them now or I mean you know look I'm will because we've done this for so long I'm willing to say okay this is your last time you can you can go ahead I I would like you to consider the idea of carers as you're doing that this year okay but I would also ask that you when you come back the next time that you have really thought about like because I I don't want to just to slap something onto a plan and just so we have caror so I I realize we've been doing this for a long time uh I would appreciate it if you would at least consider corridors constructing some sort of corridors uh now but we'll sort of let that go under the the whole blanket of Vista pruning that we've allowed in the past but then I would ask then the next time you come through with the um with an RDA that you set definite corridors have them marked out in the field ahead of time so we can actually look at it absolutely absolutely I have a question though yeah okay a couple question actually I think you had mentioned that um these are mostly Oaks they're the trees that we would trim are entirely the scrubby sort of Oaks that find there and is this is this natural growth with a planted and cultivated all natural uh we did no no improvements uh on the if you will water side of the house yeah we put absolutely no materials out there the only side that we did any uh plantings on were on the South if you can bring up the the plot plant um so the only side of this house that's ever had planting has been on this end so um only in this shaded area has there ever been any Improvement nothing has ever been planted out out beyond the zone of improvement so that is all what was there when we started construction 20 years ago and what was there 50 years ago yeah I I I I'm sorry sorry to say I didn't get out there I wish I did it sounds like you're doing a great job the the question I have also though is in the regulations it talks about uh canopy area will not be prun more than 30% would you judge that you're staying within that guideline I would think so so we're not removing any you know we're removing the just new shoots that have come up so the the the canopy if you will would still be the same you know the lower branches all remain yeah so if you were if you were a squirrel on the ground I don't think you could tell that there was any different if you looked up it would look the same yeah the canopy actually referring more toward the to the tree not the understo these trees are not tall there's a there is a reference also to an understory that should be um trimmed no more than 20% so I don't know how you determine that sometimes it must be a little bit challenging but maybe with um the help of an arur or something and the final thing I'll say is that um I don't remember you know Vista prunings don't come off that come up that often I think they're kind of frowned upon in many ways Maybe even just recently I haven't been on the board for 15 years you know um I don't know what they did in those days but uh some of these trees if they're if they're Oaks and they're they they want to get tall you know that's their natural um life cycle I get I guess so in cutting them on the top and Topping them I think as Rea said is um limiting the growth of a of a natural thing that grows on the edge of your property and I know if I was there I'd want to look at the water too but I don't know how we uh um kind of justify this in certain ways because it's not really um allowed in many other areas what's kind of strange here in a traditional Vista cutting you'd have a house that was sitting on the ground and you would cut to the ground an alley so that you could see to the see beyond it right some cases I we no actually you wouldn't but well you you'd cut a a slot so that you could see whatever it was that was at at the end of the the Vista and normally they would be the the underst story would be in an undulating pattern between four and five feet off the off the grade and there would be less than 30 or 20% of the of the canopy of a tree being being trimmed back but wouldn't you cut like a yes there is a SWAT that you're cutting through and we're not making a slot at all we're we're because we're not going through the landscape we're we're already above it we're just tickling the tops of them so that we can see over them but the actual we don't you know the they's still going to be six to eight to 10 feet of tree so yeah I mean that's why I asked in the first place that how far off the ground it was so D David has question Mr chairman yep David uh yeah Qui question I think Britney's going to have to answer how this kind of cutting how will affect the tree will it kill the trees or what will it do well we don't allow topping so the Vista pruning employed here would have to be strategically removing branches like entire branches so that there are still differences in height some differences in height um so we're not going to be topping all of these trees to the same height there would be some small differences but still allowing the top of the tree canopy to be thinned so you could see through to the water yeah um so we who would follow up on that I mean how would we make sure that that's the way it's done with an RDA there's no certificate of compliance we wouldn't unless we have to go out there for some reason you have to have a little bit of Faith so this tripping has gone on the first time we did it was 2009 and all of those trees are they are still still robust okay uh David you're all set yep thank you okay Britney any anything else no that's all anybody else in the audience anybody on Zoom any further discussion from the board if not would somebody like to make a motion for a negative -2 andg -3 so moved here a second second uh let's see uh Paul hey you say nay nay yay yes uh negative negative nay okay uh Pat yay Jack okay La I would say nay brick yes David yes chair votes I carries five to two y so you're all said all right thank you very much and thank you for your service to the town all right uh next order of business a request for extension uh the first one is for SE 8322753984 I was healing in the background all right uh Paul I'm sorry Paul are you approve yes yes for the extension I uh Pat I dck I Ellie I Rick I David I and chair votes I it's unanimous another request EX for extension for SE uh again the same thing first time issue um any no problems with that right no they had a request for certificate of compliance that um didn't go didn't work out in the fall so they need some more time to do some repairs okay so we're all good with that then is there would somebody like to make a motion to extend for three years so move second thank you um Paul hi Pat hi Jack hi Ellie hi Rick I David hi and chair votes votes I carries unanimously thank you oops i' remiss seag Beach oh okay take a look out all right uh next order of business is a continued notice of intent for SE 832421 town of yarm DPW for 125 Seagull Beach proposed beach beach raking and management in land subject to Coastal storm Flowage barrier beach coastal Beach and barrier beach coastal for and we're waiting for nhp comment which we have not yet received uh and therefore we will need to continue this for another uh two week period uh do I have a motion to uh continue to what did I say uh May 2nd vote there a second second uh Paul hi Pat hi Jack hi Ellie hi hi Rick hi David hi chair votes I carries unanimously uh our next order of business is another continued notice of intent for SE 8324262412 good evening everyone my name is Robert dear here with bracket engineering on behalf of Mariana ' Conor of 20 seaside village road as stated um we have here a project um to do what is essentially an addition on the house however the parcel uh Falls within an AE flood zone and as such um flood regulations prohibit um a what's considered substantial Improvement on the house without elevating the existing structure uh to the proper elevation um so we have a parcel here that is uh south of Route 28 um it's just east of the Parker River um north of like the Parker River and thatchers Beach area uh again it is in a a ae1 floods plane and the parcel is about 12,000 Square ft um that is the only only resource area that is present on the parcel or or near it uh we're over 500 ft from mean high water uh it's generally flat so there's no Coastal Banks um and no other Associated Wetlands um so um you know where the the structure would contain um a onecar garage um and then behind that and above it um is uh living space uh there's no increase in bedrooms so they're maintaining the existing septic um that that area is going to be sewered uh in the next few years so until then um they're going to tie into and maintain the existing septic uh there's really minimal grading involved in this um just some slight sloping up for a portion of the um proposed uh driveway extension here so uh with that um and would love to answer any questions that the commission may have the board just for consideration and this doesn't apply in the flood zone but we we typically expect the um project to be fully staked before we review it and again this because it's a flood zone question sure but just for in the future other than that I don't have any questions okay anybody else Britney um it appeared that several large trees were removed for this project and they were not mentioned in the narrative um did you have any intention of replacing any of those trees that were removed uh actually we've been out there more recently than I have I did not know that all of those side trees had been removed um it's certainly something that we can consider if you want to coordinate that um to replace some trees in the back um I know that the if you can go back to the plan uh quickly so these these three seeders also have were removed um obviously they needed to for the driveway you know we can provide some um you know Evergreens in the front to replace uh The Cedars and in the back here where the other trees were uh just for the proximity of the house I mean it's we're only have about 15 and 1/2 ft to the property line um I'm not sure that they want to replace that you know any of the larger trees there just for you know the safety of the of the structure um but we certainly can um provide a couple of trees in the front here to replace these um that would be great um and I had one other question um how are you planning to address roof front off for this new building um we would be more than willing to provide some subsurface um infiltration for it I mean uh it's a 720 is square foot building so um it would only be a couple of infil infiltrators um that could go underground yeah I think just even if it's just drip trenches um we just want to see see some some way of handling the storm water off of that building I would agree yeah certainly amenable to that is the driveway going to be gravel uh we're proposing um a paved driveway to match the existing paved driveway anybody else anything else Britney that was all okay anybody in the audience on this one going oh yeah sure if you would just uh state your name for the record sure um my name is Paul Burke I live next door at 14 seaside village road um I I just want to say you know I'm not opposed to this project um I just want to find out information about it because we've not been shared any plans um kind of disappointed that we haven't seen anything we've had to kind of go and look stuff up um I would be on the side that the addition is being um added to and actually I I had a question about that um again not not trying to be difficult but you called it essentially an addition can you explain what you mean by that isn't this an accessory building um so it is not um it is an accessory building but not an accessory dwelling there's no kitchen area uh there is a bathroom um but the reason they would ideally like to just extend the side of the building the existing house um but because of the nature of the flood zone anytime you structurally change or substantially improve over 50% of the value of an existing non-compliant structure you have to elevate that um so financially that is just prohibitive in this situation you'd have to elevate the entire house uh I think it's 11 about 2 to 3 feet um and so that so by not connecting the two structures um it allows you to you know not have to elevate the existing house so so there's no special permit required for this at all no even though it's not connected to the existing house as far as uh we know right now there is no special perit required okay um and then on the septic so you I I tried to get a septic plan cuz I went to this I understand it's been approved already is that right yes uh it has been the contractor has reviewed it with the health department and they've you know given the okay on it there is no septic plan outside of us um and I'll just point to the screen here um there will be a new sewer tied into the existing septic tank um right here just to service the the bathroom and the proposed side okay so it's going from a four-bedroom septic to a three-bedroom is that right uh so they're actually they're doing some remodeling um on the in existing house just eliminating so they're going to eliminate one bedroom in the existing house and add and swap uh the bedroom here so it's four bedrooms total right now it'll still be a four-bedroom uh you know lot oh cuz I think your application said it was just there were no bedrooms in the new space correct uh there are there is one bedroom in the new space y okay cuz I I thought I saw two different applications than one you said living area for the new um space but it didn't include a bedroom um in the narrative I think is that right for this application I honestly I'm I'm just taking a quick look this is for the narrative for the this yep um I'm not sure that we acknowledge the bedroom in the new structure but typically that is more um either Health Department or board of health related um conservation um does not always entertain like you know how many bedrooms are in a structure unless we're getting into uh correct me from here like nitrogen loading for a lot or or a proposed septic because we're tying into the existing septic uh you know we haven't noted on the plan which was included the application uh one bedroom here um and then four bedrooms reducing three and the setbacks are only 3 feet between the buildings is that typical I would say it's not typical um but it has been reviewed by the town and it is um it's been okay so far so I wasn't I'm not sure of typical building setbacks between like if you were to add an accessory build so I'm I'm sorry you know we have to keep we have to keep our comments to a conservation related material for this for this meeting uh you have valid questions but you just need to be addressing those to Board of Health and Zoning Board all right yeah if you have any other comments from as it relates to conservation of wetlands yep um impervious surfaces I think I talked to Britney before about this the driveway um there's quite a bit of asphalt in the front Our concern is simply runoff and drainage into our land with the new large building plus the additional driveway there's quite a bit of asphalt and there's a slope down into our land so Our concern was that there would be um runoff into our land I will be doing I mean there's very minimal grading the only uh slope here is really just um with the new driveway just because we had to slope up um up to the garage area there'll be you know it does slope generally down um back towards the existing driveway here so um the rest of the lot is fairly flat um you can see I think it's a 9.0 here 9 uh that's hard to see far it's a 95 here and a 93 here so it was a little bit of a hump um but I mean we're talking about you know about 2 in grade change over yeah something like 40 ft so you're proposing is to make that asphalt as well all in the front uh just not gravel as someone else had asked just this here yep the rest of this is going to remain you know lawn um and like we discussed provide some additional uh trees to replace what was taken down so I think you talked about this the the runoff from the building can you just comment on what this um retention or water runoff plan would be to prevent that water from going into our land because it is right next to our proper sure so we don't have it shown in this plan but we can certainly provide a revised plan that's conditioned with this if you want um but we typically um any of you know the new house would be or the new structure would be provided with gutters um the gutters just go to the downspouts and instead of discharging at grade they they go subsurface um and we either have a uh like a pipe in a perforated pipe in a stone trench or dryw in some situations but some something so it just infiltrates the stormm water below grade so there's no surface runoff okay yeah that's all I had you know in terms of that so appreciate the information thank you thank you anybody else anybody else on Zoom have any comments or questions on this one and yeah I just have one uh after the discussion it seems that um I'm not sure if this is something that um is that much within our purview but it seems that maybe it would be highly advisable to think about a pervious driveway rather than more um ashfa in that area um just uh I don't know how how um how what Britney if you could just comment on that we always prefer prvious driveways in the flood plane and in the buffer zone but they if they are proposing they're filing a notice of intent so they may propose an asphalt driveway but it's up to the commission whether or not they'd like to allow that yeah okay yeah and given that it's land subject to Coastal storm Flowage um there's not really much we can we can't force the issue uh yes we would prefer to see uh perious but if they want asphal we could suggest that that might be a nice way to go right given we can suggest area given the neighborhood given a lot of other things yeah yep we can I can certainly uh address that with the owners and see would be greatly appreciated yeah okay anybody else not would somebody like to make a motion to approve the project with special conditions and upon receipt of a revised plan showing uh what either dry Wells or drip French and what else were we looking for some replace trees trees trees there you go thank you uh how many trees um do you think well there were six removed and two of them were rather large so I would say six substantial caliper too the three in the front were pretty small Cedars um but the three in the back were were pretty large Oaks one of them I think might have been a pine it was hard to I mean you're only have you can only I there's only so much room that you can plant trees now that's that's the other issue too so yeah that's true they don't need to go in the same space they want three three in I'm sorry what' you say three three inch I don't know I just don't know that you can put much more in there and expect them ask the board well can I ask a question about that so going to go back and revise this plan okay and in doing so um there must be some folks you either from you or somebody you consult with about the um advisability of putting X number of trees in the area that's um that's there given the fact that these big trees were taken out um it seems to me that somebody who has experienced in either Landscaping gardening horiculture of all kinds would have a pretty good idea what would make sense in that area to keep it attractive but also to protect the resource in in the revision of the plan could that be considered with somebody yeah I think that even without that that we can find certainly find space for three Three Trees you or more uh we'll do um you know I don't know that we can fit six on there especially if we're planting um you know larger caliper trees that are expected they get to be pretty large um but on the uh uh Britney could you just scroll up kind of on the plan so we could see the south side of the lot um you know there's certainly um I think some space you know this is there's a deck here but in the back here um I think there's certainly some space that we could find room for some additional trees all right that' be great thank you thank you did we get a did we get did we get a I so moved got a motion is there a second hey um Paul hi Pat hi Jack hi Ellie hi Rick hi David hi hi and chair votes I carries unanimously and so we'll wait for the revised plan thank you very much thank you would you like the green card we'll get through yet don't worry uh next order of business another a new notice of intent for s832 428 uh Nate won Yarmouth epw for 125 seagull Road proposed Bank stabilization on land subject Coastal storm Flowage and the buffer zone to assault Marsh I have your PowerPoint do you want this first we go yes thank you um good evening uh Brittney Mr chairman members of the commission um yeah my name is Nate weton I'm a senior project manager at Yarmouth Department of Public Works and with me is uh Nick christophori from comprehensive environmental uh and Nick has been helping us uh address some considerable erosion that has been experienced at the East Culvert along seil seagull road so in um 2021 and 2022 two culverts were replaced on seagull Road uh there's a West C that that's near the radio tower uh the West culbert is not part of this Roi um the East Calbert which really is the the new noi project site is where um erosion is occurring can I move this forward this way oh you should be all right so this is the East cul and I wanted to kind of walk through these photographs because it if you look carefully there's a number of features that that help show uh the erosion that's occurring what exactly uh is being eroded where it's occurring and perhaps give some Clues as to how it's happening um these photographs are taken with with your with our back to Lewis Pond um uh and um so in the in the top photo uh we have the the concrete head wall there's the the chain the black chain link fence and then the the guard rail along the uh seagull Road um there's a feature here uh which is outdated it's a bad feature it needs to come out it will come out as part of this noi um it's not helping but what you see is happening is it's happening both on the east side of the Culvert we've got erosion at the toe of the embankment on the west side we have erosion that's occurring underneath this paved apron that needs to be removed we also have erosion at the toe of the earth embankment um and one of the things that that you we'll start to see and you'll see it in in some of the additional photographs is that the the Vegeta slope is actually doing a a seems to be doing a better job at controlling erosion than the stuff in the center okay so so how and why is the erosion occurring um Jeff kobby DPW director indicated that he there's we've been experiencing erosion uh since before the covers were installed um it's occurring as a result of two simultaneous weather events uh a really high tide and a North Wind which pushes the water up against the the north side of seagull Road the the roadway embankment and it really is incurring all along the the seal Road embankment this Photograph at the top right I tried to go out and take a look at the the the East Culvert um during a very high tide um I didn't get there the I I stopped as soon as I realized that the uh the roadway was underwater through through uh the entire stretch uh pretty pretty soon after that a policeman approached and said get out of here this is not where you're supposed to be tonight um the um obviously didn't recognize it and so the issues that this high tide north wind is causing when you see undermining of this pavement apron which was a poor design feature you've got undermining um there's some undermining on the toe of the embankment um this is again on the east side of the Culvert uh and then this is a very recent picture and you can see how badly this is how the erosion is progressed uh we're basically losing this feature Al together together there's not much of it left um and honestly this just needs to be removed it's a poor feature so to say it's getting worse is kind of an understatement um so this was a picture that that Nick took in October of 2013 on UPS I'm sorry on the left hand side and this was a picture that was taken uh April 88th so that would be not quite two weeks ago and as of that time there was only 3 feet between the erosion scarp and the road so clearly uh the high tides that we've been experiencing since December uh and now have have had their effect a six-month time that's pretty significant so uh Nick is going to show a few more of the pictures and then start talking about what we propos to do to mitigate the erosion all right thanks Nate so uh Nick christophor with Comprehensive environmental so we were brought in right around in October so just a little over 6 months or so ago now to kind of hope hopefully wrap up this project um we we weren't involved in the original Culvert replacement which was done 2 or 3 years ago I I believe so so I can't speak to sort of the historic nature of the project but I'll but I'll try and kind of talk about what's been going on over the last six months or so um so just before I go on I just I I find it interesting in this in these photos that in six months we've lost three feet of asphalt and almost no vegetation so it just it's it's goes to kind of show that they nature can nature can kind of know what it's doing sometimes better than know what they're doing so uh just to to to run through some of these these closeup areas of erosion um what n kind of already touched on is it's a little bit unusual because it's it's really the erosion is driven by these exceptionally high tide events I mean I mean I've been out there during low tide and you know high tides and all is well in the world until you get these big storm events where you're having some of this erosion and and whatnot hopefully let's see if I hit the right button yes good guess so you know you have some erosion going on under here and similar under here um these photos were taken back in November so you do see some erosion but at least half of this this asphalt ramp is still there um again you can see the the dense vegetation which is held up extremely well to these these high tide events uh these photos are a little bit more difficult to see we tried to get some kind of close-up photos just so you can kind of see what's what's there but you know same thing you have some erosions some undercutting of the bank back to this tree which which really has has held up pretty well uh that tree I believe is located at the Western end of the site Nate and that's kind of going to be the Western Terminus of what we propose to do uh for this project is to kind of anchor everything into the this really what's what has been a very stable will feature at at this location so uh so real quickly so I'm going to try and what I typically try and do is is do like a real quick overview of what we propos and then I open it for questions because I find it better than just to talk at people for 10 15 minutes so what we're trying to do here is do a really nature-based solution at this project we really want to try and mimic what is going on there right now that that is successfully going on there and that being that use that vegetation and those those type of native plantings and grasses to hold everything together rather than Paving and doing other sort of you know gray structural structural features we will be removing that pav Swale so that will be good um we are I I I really would like to leave what is there right now what's left of what's there right now because I don't want to expose what is what what's holding that rotate so right now that pave Swale what's left of it is is preventing or helping to prevent at least the high tie in those water vents from getting into that roaded so that pave swell right now is almost acting sacrificial because if that thing goes away you're going to start losing the road so which is why I would like to leave that in place as long as I can until we start getting this thing in place so uh so that being said what we're proposing to do is a nature-based solution we're proposing these sort of biod gradable uh Biol logs core logs that get filled with this vegetation material they they will eventually break down over the over several years couple years and they will be held together with stakes and then connected with sort of a an erosion control fabric as well everything is designed to hold everything in place and allow this vegetation to get stabilized over a several year period couple year period but eventually this will break down and and the intent is that after a couple years this will look like the bank and everything will kind of blend into what is going on next to it and you know hopefully you won't have this this sort of eroded piece on either side of this Culvert uh the plantings that were picked are I'm not a planting guy I'm an engineer they they're facultative plants that are designed to be on in these types of areas we have some I think some Highland Highland plants and U some other some other plants High Marsh and transitional Uplands planting is is what we've called them the project is the entire project will fit within this room c will be in the middle be very very very small project it's going to be about all 3 or 4 ft High questions questions for n and I right so what are you doing with the you're going you want to leave the the existing paved uh um slle whatever you to call um in place right now what are you going to do to prevent right because right now the water is still just like it has been for the since it was installed the water runs off the road the road right down the loose and down into the marsh so you need to do something to prevent that from happening yeah I I meant to say um chairman that when when you look at the yes absolutely and what we want to do is to is create a Cape Cod berm where the water can can kind of drip over the the edge of the berm and filter its way through the Upland plantings uh removing pollutants before it gets to leis Pond instead of uh just coming through the Swale and directly into right Lewis Pond absolutely but as Nick mentioned um the thing we we don't want to do we've talked about it and that asphalt sale was is so degraded right now Mother Nature has taken 2third of it away already all by itself um it would take our guys probably 15 minutes to remove that thing but what we're concerned about is if we don't have a a contract in place with a contractor on board ready to go if we do that that basically the subgrade of the roadway is going to be the next thing that gets undermined I understand that I'm just asking you what are you doing so your your method to keep the road or the the road runoff from going through that Swale you're going to be P building a new burm across the top of that Swale right we'll we'll burm the side of the road yes that's all I need to know that would be the first thing okay that'll be step one of the project the BM yes okay okay and where where is the water going to go then along the road do you have other outlets nearby it's flat that road is almost dead flat uh I'm not I again I wasn't I wasn't here for the original project I don't remember I don't remember uh why why that was put in in the first place but um this area is very flat yes I know water will diffuse over over the the idea behind the burm is that it's going to diffuse water into the vegetated areas and then allow the water to slowly percolate down through from from there yes it's not running right over the the sale and down into the marsh there right there will no longer be that that point discharge it'll be it'll be further along the same the right it will probably be just just further towards the right where where it will filter through through the the existing vegetation and what will become new vegetation so if I may um when you're talking about the um the pave Swale you're talking about if you can use your pointer you're talking about the that piece of ashalt is coming down this which used to run you to run down here and used to run I'm not sure how far down but probably at least to in this in thisa so you're going to leave that as it exists for now for now until we get a construction until we get also you're talking about the burm and the burm is just that side of the road BM will see this this here that will extend across here all right and my other question is now you you mentioned that this was all done a few years back when was it put in place three1 2021 starting Co 2021 and now um you said something about nature doing a better job than engineer so I'm just trying to but anyway um so now you have a different plan how well tested is this plan if it's only been if it hasn't been used maybe it has been used in the in the in the past but it wasn't used in this particular instance and I wonder why but but how well tested is it and um how success successful okay has proven to be yeah so so there I think two different questions I can answer U so what what we're proposing here is not a revolutionary design it's this is this is a fairly standard nature-based solution type implementation that that works well for these types of of things uh I've used a similar design a little bit more robust uh on the Connecticut River con it was about it was like it was vertical slopes and we actually extended out but it was 1 to one and it was about 20 ft high and it came great and that's a river that is always ripping um secondly as part of the existing project I'm not sure what was propos I don't know if this is a result of that as a part of construction the area adjacent to it was kind of destabilized as a result of putting in the new cul and just never addressed or if the new cul flows so much better than the original one that you're actually getting more turbulence in that area I see that's the I'm not really sure about well the Tide though too right Mr chairman hold on David I Rick is Rick has been asking me so I'll go to Rick and then and then to David so Nick we're very familiar with the solution to the problem we and Paul you might remember um Blue Rock Heights we use the same solution for that up there and it was it's a fairly robust title area as well it's the angle is pretty high you propose to bring this solution all the way to the concrete Wing wall or we will return the Remain the the broken Stone I couldn't tell I'm um my intent is I think there's two different pieces so um so the the bottom piece I want to at least a but up to the wing wall and actually even kind of tuck it behind the wing wall a little bit and then on the top you know kind of similar thing I I don't want to leave the ends exposed and and same thing on the end the other ends I want to make sure that they are embedded into the embankment as well so so we will be doing some minimal minimal excavation in that area cuz we want to also embed these things into the ground about 6 to8 in thank you you're welcome David what do you in them with yeah I just want to make sure I'm Mor orientating myself um is this the the culbert closest to the parking lot yes yes okay so um if I remember I walk there I used to walk there to say um every day and um I remember when I first got on the board the road collapsed about there and as I watched the work being done I asked the workers what they were doing and how they knew this was going to work and I um I think was back still at Kelly's days um and Kelly was our um our our chair our person um and I was nervous that that all this was going to happen and I'm a little disappointed I know this has nothing to do with you you to but I'm disappointed in here we are two years three years later having to redo it and I've been asking about the other cille which seems to be get backed up with silt and I'm wondering whether you've looked at that too any any thoughts Nate um no we haven't we haven't experienced uh significant problems with the other culbert um so though there we had let's see so I do remember one time when uh DPW went out to to uh clear some debris that that clogged up there but we're not aware of issues with the West culbert yeah it doesn't seem to have much of a flow and uh just my my comments from walking by there almost every day as I said and I know Britney's tired of me asking her about it um but okay thank you that's all I have thank you okay I'm sorry Pat did you have a no I was just wondering oh what you stake them down with as it just the hold the rolls in place uh we there's a combination so um we'll we'll actually excavate out about six to eight inches into the ground so these things actually stay in place and then we actually stake them into the ground with just with biodegradable Oak stakes and then we'll wrap the fabric I think we're going underneath kind of like underneath and over going to over one and then underneath another one it's a little bit a little bit different but the intent is that this ax is like one kind of cohesive unit M and then everything's wrapped into the existing ground on in really in three dimensions so you know below it and on all sides thank you okay anybody else Britney questions anybody in the audience anybody else on Zoom unless there's further discussion would somebody like to make a motion to approve the project with special conditions so moved Jack got me I'll second all right um Paul hi Pat hi Jack hi Ellie hi David I reick I chair votes I carries unanimously and just so you know I'm yeah just send that back coming up here for the extension request or sorry for the COC request so I'm just going to hold it and then you can sign both okay when it goes through okay A bit late but um definitely just due to the high energy nature of this spot we should be doing monitoring for these um every yes let's add that if you don't mind adding that to the motion monitoring how how often yearly every year is okay just to make sure we're doing maintenance and if it's any if we need to do anything differently that it's staying stabilized and to be honest with you you'll have two Commissioners that go by there almost every day well eventually David will be going by again again today every day so between the two of us we'll let you know about that and about the monitoring the the previous work was done a few years ago not too long ago was there something in in that um whole project about monitoring also I don't know I have to I don't believe so this was done uh This was done in the very long period between Kelly's departure and uh brittney's ultimate U I just wonder yeah I just wondered because it seems like there's been a couple of projects around town that have failed and um you know obviously a good amount of money has been expended on some of those in some of those areas and now here we are redoing them so um I I think I I agree the monitoring is very very important okay very good we didn't have monitoring required in the first go around but we will this time we did not I tell you I apologize I dropped the ball on that one that's my fault I will take the blame for it all right on behalf of DPW and CI we'd like to thank the board for their time tonight thank you you thank you very much all right next order of business and new notice Fort for SE uh it wasn't the project was not staked the only reason we're allowing it to present is because it's a land sub Coastal storm Flowage only it right the project is the um good evening Lyn Hamlin for the applicant um the Project's for the raise and rebuild of a single family dwelling in a um Lane subject to Coastal storm Flowage it is um in an a zone so it's just Still Water Rising the property is approximately a mile from Nantucket Sound and about a half a mile from Lewis Bay it's it's um situated in a dense residential neighborhood I'm sure everybody went out there it's little Lots um kind of in a grid um formation I didn't stake it I'm sorry because the house is going pretty much back where the existing house is including where the existing deck is and there's a Pergola there so I it's going right back pretty much where it is there's a modest increase in the footprint of the foundation of 344 Square F feet and the deck of 24 Square F feet it is a one story structure now it will be a twostory structure um when it's built the interesting thing about this house is three cor corners of it are actually um located above flood plane um the flood plane of the elev the flood zone the base flood elevation of the flood zone but if any part of the house is in the flood zone it's considered to be entirely within the flood zone so that's what tripped it um the roof runoff will be directed to Stone trenches there is a gravel drive there's no additional bedrooms proposed in the house so it will Connect into the existing septic system which was upgraded um historically to be 5 ft above adjusted groundwater the trees are located mostly on the perimeter of the house so those will all remain if you're out there it's mostly just lawn um there's a specimen tree in the backyard that's mostly dead if it were my house I would just remove it because it's not very attractive there is a tree um within the footprint of the deck that they're going to keep and they'll position their SAA tubes around it to maintain it um this project does need zba relief and that has been applied for and I don't think there's much more to add unless you have a question okay thanks Lynn uh questions from the board no Britney no questions thank you anybody in the audience anybody on Zoom if there's further discussion on the board I would like to make a motion to approve the project with special conditions so moved so moved David I'll get you as a second that's all right okay great all right uh Paul hi fat hi Jack hi Ellie hi Rick I David I chair votes I carries unanimously do you're out thank you next order of business is another uh notice of intent for SE 832421 uh William Hearn 104 River Street proposed construction of Pier with seasonal ramp and Float within the riverfront area land under the ocean Coastal Bank land containing shellfish and land subject to Coastal storm Flowage uh just for the record uh let it be known we are still waiting on uh DMF comment this goes with this one right yes uh Karen good evening Mr chairman uh members for the record my name is Kieran Healey I'm a lance with the BC group with me tonight is Mr H who owns the property he also owns one3 um River Street across the road which we received the uh approval to build and reconstruct the house at 103 um a few years ago and that's still underway um we're proposing to put in a um simple peer ramp and Float um we have been to waterways and it was approved unanimously by waterways um we are looking for some relief to construct this um we're looking for three forms of relief um the first one is that we are 176 ft to Windmill Beach as opposed to 200 um what's unusual about this one is that there was an existing duck um in between which button the red one yeah we go this existing dock is between us and Wilman Beach which is up in this area uh we're holding 75 ft to this adjacent dock right here and the dock to the South we are approximately the 75t circuit is here another 5 to 6 ft beyond that so we're approximately 81 ft away from the uh in system to the South the channel is over here um we are 85 ft away from the channel and we are 11 ft away from this subtly propy line extension to the river um the float itself is a 6X 28 with a 17t ramp and 24 ft um fixed Pier we did stake it out uh you should have seen two Bean Poes um in on theground on the sorry on the lands side and we put a water bottle in um in the ocean just so you could see the extent there it is right there so this one right here and this this is the line of the uh of the p right there so other than that we' be glad to answer any questions that you may have questions to the board I got a lot of them yeah Mr chairman I I recall very ell got you okay sorry I was not at this waterways meeting unfortunately um that area of the river is a very big CH choke point and I'm very disappointed in that they did not address the navigation on this because anybody who still sails the river needs that part of the river to do their turn on the prevailing Southwest wind that is a j point that everybody swings in there and with all the traffic going in that is the only way you can only place you can do it and I'm surprised that they did not bring that up maybe nobody's sailing anymore in there um and this time of year when you go to look at it none of the boats that are mored on the other side are in the water and it's misleading on how big that area really is again I'm I'm astounded that they approve this so I'm just going to leave it at that the recreational aspect of this is the only way we can approach it because they didn't address the navigational side um the navigation was discussed if you could bring back the plan and um one of the things they we talked lint about was the location of this right uh float down the bottom the stock and then the one up at the top and they noticed that this was behind those two existing ones and we did discuss that at lent that this one was going to be inside if you will of the two existing ones that were there and that was one of the reasons that they they voted in favor of I believe well I'm I'm still surprised maybe they don't sell anymore that's all I have to say okay Rick sorry oh no it's fine um the only point point I'd like to make is that I remember very very clearly um was it a year ago a year and a half ago uh Dr Jonathan wood applied for a dock on his property and we denied it because he was outside of our regulations force uh distance to a public beach as this one is I believe our regulation is 200 ft 250 250 excuse me 250 that's right and this is asking for 176 so I would deny it based on that well if I could uh Mr Bishop um the only reason that we came to this B to talk about this is because of the existing so I keep scrolling you please that's grandfather correct it's grandfather but kids are not going to go swim go around that one and get down to ours true that's the only reason that we applied if there was no dark there we would not have come forward with this application because that existing one that's grandfather was there he felt that no child was going to swim around that and our boat is not going to go North to that to drift into ours so that was the reason that we came forward with this application it is completely different to Dr Woods because I represented Dr Woods and they are no in no way the same because of that it's a pretty big issue that the difference because there's an existing structure in between us in that public beach and there there was no reason in the world that a vessel from this dock would go around that vess go around that without going out to the channel and then heading north so there's a substantial difference between that particular case thank you I I tend to support um what Ellie said about it's a little misrepresenting this time of year because when all the The Moorings are in place that's a very narrow portion of the river but just my opinion okay anybody else yeah I guess I need a clarification because what I'm seeing here maybe I'm just misunderstanding something in the regulations um on page 27 Pier should be located a minimum of 75 ft from any adjacent Pier so that this shows 75 ft doesn't it mhm it does yes and we meet the 75 we meet the adjacent peers it's the adjacent Beach to the the north of that beach okay public oh the public beach okay oh okay I see it number nine 250 ft yeah okay I get it I'm sorry but as I mentioned we have that other structure in between and my other question so there there was never a a peer out here on this in this property no no no this is all completely new what we're proposing is completely new completely new so never in history has there been something now not as long as I've been around and obviously as long as uh Miss L has been around that's a long which was a long long time long time but has been a river there a lot longer than both of us and there have been structures in the river a lot longer than both of us but I can't say to that okay thanks I still have I have two more questions I like to follow up with the uh buoy that's there that's the extent of the dock not the extent of the float go ahead okay and if this gentleman puts a boat on there if I measured this correctly do drawing a line from the end of the float on both both floats on either side if he has a boat that's over 6 ft wide it's going to be farther out than any of those other docks and I know the dock to the north uh has a restriction on it that they can't ever have a float on that it's it's in that part of the river that's very congested that's why the dock to the north never had a float very tight we would be happy to put in a fixed Pia system we thought the float would be better but we'd be we'd be more than happy to put in something that's fixed and if we were able put in something that was fixed we actually could bring it back um yeah reduce the length we could reduce the lint because the reason we about that extra 5T is that we have minus three at the back of the float if we were able to go fixed we could bring it back in 5T and increase that distance to make it 90 ft so we'd be more than happy if the board would consider that would make so they wouldn't need the three I was going to say does that meet the three if you bring just make make sure I'm I'm following what you're saying the the back of the float where it's currently uh located is at 3 ft right yes 3 fet of depth and if you were to make this a fixed here you would bring it out you would continue continue it out with another at least one more section right it is and then we probably would have the back of we would have the forward portion of the fixed Pier at the back of the what I've got drawn under the three feet we'd still need the three feet they'd still meet the three feet I think to be honest with you I'd prefer that I think if I just for myself I I would prefer to see the fixed uh fixed Pier getting rid of the float alog together how is that an improvement can you help me understand that five feet how is that an improvement still very I mean there's a any any busy busy weekend there you will find use that area to J go in the same spot well yeah I mean but if you bring out the if you bring the fixed Pier to the three foot right now the way they have it proposed is you have the back of the of the float at 3 feet and you got the float is 6 feet and then you got another boat that's 6 feet beyond that so that's going 12 feet beyond the the last pile here mhm right if you bring the if you bring out a fixed Pier to the where the pile is now now okay you get is only going to take six feet so you're still saving yourself like 5 to six feet is that enough Ellie to turn boat if that's a small enough boat I mean a lot of them aren't just six feet that's the problem but is that would that six feet give you enough space to turn around well it's not no I don't I believe not I mean some of those sailboats are pretty large sailboats that take that jve in there well how far deep do they go well you're going you're talking about anything from 12T up to we shouldn't be we shouldn't be worrying about navigation well it's recreational it's a recreational part of we have if I could we could also move the float back the 6 ft and have the Inside Edge shallower than 3 feet if the commission would prefer that where that we have the deep water on the ocean side at 3T the way the regulations are there's there's no reason for there's no need for 3T on the inside the float but the regulations call for that so we you know again we need three feet on the outside not on the inside regardless it should be 3 feet whether it be a boat or a float I think it should be meeting the 3 feet that's my opinion like to ask another question about U Ellie brings up some points about navigation okay in there and uh certainly that seems to be the purview we talk about purview a lot of waterways but is it within our purview to to be concerned I mean we would be concerned but can we make any judgments uh to approve or not approve based on difficulties with utilizing the area Recreation is an interest under the bylaw right I say that again correct Recreation you know is an interest under the under the bylaw only it's not under the it's not under the uh the state law would they want to do anything interferes with recreation in that area that's correct well it's yeah you have to you should consider whether or not there is uh some sort of um some sort of impact to the recreation or that's that's one of the interests it would be the same as shellfish interest or uh Wildlife interest or anything else this is somehow uh fly in the face of the responsibilities of n the um waterways I mean are we conflicting on that and is that a problem well the waterways is an Advisory Board the the waterways is an Advisory board but we listen to the waterways when they say nay and this board is always they say they're against something we've always taken that position it's a big deal to come to this board with a negative from them they they talk this at the lent there were six members there there were a lot of people discussing this at the lent and they gave us a unanimous vote in favor so they didn't feel it at this particular time I understand ell that they may not sail but the members of that waterways committee all voted in favor and didn't see this as impediment to waterways to water traffic okay thank you is there anything about shellfish or in in stud or anything yeah we did submit a shellfish report there was limited shellfish um I believe we did 30 different transacts and we found uh nine or 10 shellfish um a small amount but we did totally different transacts out there where we we tested and the shelfish study was submitted with this right there yeah okay so there were a couple of soft shell clams coogs and a couple of coogs one oyster yeah was there any the regulation for the 250 Fe that's my opinion all it's all I can say Pat is that you know the existing float that's in between us I understand that is going to protect anybody that's on the beach from our M vessel protection of somebody that's on the beach I also don't this Channel people jump off all those peers along there all the time and swim so I'm not too sure you're really you know doing much about 250 ft or whatever I can understand your point but I think that that's sort of a a bit uh misleading in the discussion I think that um with the other appear there and um make the link lesser not having a float bring it back in I would uh like to see a a new plan but you would prefer to see the fixed fixed Pier I'm not saying which but if I I would I think but um are youing still an obstruction it's still an obstruction one way or the other if you extended the fixed Pier then they would not put the float on they would it would just be put a boat up to a pier that's you'd have a ladder it would float up it would float up and down with the the same there's a lot of them out there just like that the boat would float up and down adjacent to the see what turn and just to be clear that so a fixed Pier would be able you'd be able to move that Pier back in in essence think you'd probably get what like five feet maybe so farig or five feet back from where it it currently sits yeah we be we'd be able to get the the WID of the we be get I think bigger than that oh so as far as water I'll go back to waterways for a second um when they're making their deliberations are they talking mostly about um navigation in the river or do they consider also the swimming part of it from the beach out the way we're concerned seems to be some concern I would well Ellie would speak better to it than I would but I would say there was more navigation than the beach okay thanks that's an I'm not sure the beach would come up with that yeah okay I got it all right thank you so does the board want to see see a change in plan do they want to see and how if if so how do you want to do that do you want to see something that goes um that becomes a fixed a fixed pier and no float or do you do you just want vote on this I mean that's I think a plan with on just to put in my two cents right now a plan that uh includes the fix beer because it's it's receded a bit would be would be um interesting to look at and consider um so I I kind of would like to see that that would be okay and we'd be quite happy to come back to the board with that and you could we up the options of about if you if you wanted to that's B I think I mean I I personally I would prefer to see that that solution too but would that have to go through waterways again I think Waterway should tell us what they think yeah I would think you would have to go back to waterways because that's a I wasn't at I wasn't at that meeting so I can't speak for anything it doesn't could I ask I'm wondering if we should get the Waterway board in here to discuss this and their reasonings and why they approved it no you said there were no minutes there never any asked for the minutes and they could not produce the minutes so I think either way we should be waiting say a large part of the discussion because we only had this meeting this Monday night oh that's true um a large part of the discussion was the the line between the two existing floats and that this was going to be inside of that line and you can see on my Dimensions there the the one to the north is 79 ft from the channel and we're the fixed portion is 79 and we're 85 so that was that was a big part discussion that was a big part of the reason that they voted in favor is that we were further Inland from the two existing floats Mr chairman yeah fav I'm sorry um I'm just looking at Google Map Google Earth and uh how did the uh doc that's closest closer to the beach get approved is that a grandfather clock dock yes grandfather okay the beach regulation came in after the do was constructed right okay it's 100y old and and Karen your point is that you don't think people would swim from the windmill Beach down to uh where you're proposing your dock there correct they'd have to swim around the other Dock and I just looking at that there's can't imagine that happening it's possible but it wouldn't make sense see him swim down the middle of the Channel with the tide I've sto yeah again folks we got to keep it back to the conservation side of it though I mean it's like you know well I was asking about the recreation so that's all well that's one piece of one piece of the recreation the other is safety navigation well not navigation use of use of not us yeah navigation is not conservation so that's that's not something we have in our purview okay I'm just trying to get an idea so would would you so we still have to wait for DMF comment um and there is a third variance that they're looking for which is 11 ft from the property line instead of the 25 that's required in our regulations wait 11 wait if they I that was yeah I mentioned that in the the three did I ask did no I just figured they forgot cuz we got side very focused I wasn't trying to slide something by I did did mention it at the beginning so if you get rid of that that float what do you what does it become then uh we would be able to increase the 11 ft I'm not quite sure exactly would it be but it would be smaller than be small right supposed to be 25 so here's the other thing to think about is like that the 25 is a that's a that's a waterways issue that's an a chapter 91 issue yeah I don't know that waterways gives a variance on that chapter 91 yeah that's what I'm concerned about as well so that's why the fixed Pier would also help um I also have uh two letters from A Butters to read into the record both of whom are present I believe um both are in opposition of the project one is the direct abutter to the South um can you just tell read into the record who the who the UPS are this is David McCarthy 110 River Street um he's writing an opposition of the structure um because it would create an environmental disturbance as well as potential hazardous tobot conditions due to the um the channel being so close and the other letter of opposition is from Robert hike of 96 Riv River Street although not a direct a butter he is one of the um residents who has right access rights to this 8ft way to the southern property line and he is also in opposition to this project um for safety environmental reasons okay I we're we're not done yet we'll get to we'll get the public comment soon but uh we're still trying to resolve some issues here um so you know given that I because I for some reason I I was missing that completely um I mean if you if you do away with the float then and and concentrate more on a fixed a fixed perer then you could also move it a little bit if you need to to to hit the 25 you increase the the setbacks to the two floats on either side and then the only variant you're looking at would be uh the 250t rule for the public beach is that right I believe no there's still the one the were the width of the the float to tie the the blat off on it's not sufficient width on the the fix dock to properly tie off a boat you'll need some pilings that will sprad on the outside yes yeah you would especially with the current there on the end of the fixed fix you'll need to have you know 10 ft either side of that whatever it measures out there approximately wellit I I'm not catching what you're saying who the pilings are on the um inside of the float right you'll probably have to maintain them to properly tie off a boat restricted to that but as long as the um the pier where it attaches to the land is 25 I ft away that will help them with chapter 91 so they could still have those pilings where they are shown if that doesn't give them the three feet in there but the P but you're only talking about piles you're not talking about float and then a boat and piles you're just talking talking about boat piles if I could Mr chairman I just spoke to Mr H about the size of the boat and what he's interested in is a 22 footer boat 20 to 22 what I've got drawn is 28 so we can El immediately eliminate a large portion of the issue by reducing what we have out there so I think if we if we leave and we go off with the comments that we've held tonight and make these adjustments and bring it back your fixed peer and go to waterways if we need to um it's going to be fer Inland so I can't imagine Waterway is going to have an issue with it but um if you want us to do that we' gladly do that just so it's clear there'll be one vote that will not look look beyond that 250 foot limit just I just feel like I need to be consistent with Jonathan wood well I'd appreciate I mean so if I mean if if you already got four people saying no they're not going to vote then I don't I don't want to make you go back and so I mean I I guess if there are I mean I'm not going to take a straw a straw vote or anything but if there are four Commissioners that will support this because of the 250 foot variance then I don't want to make them go back and spend more money creating something that is not going to get approved that's true so if you have a if you've got a dead if you're dead set against it and you're not going to change your mind under any circumstance then I don't I don't know what to tell you I mean it you could it makes it a little bit more it it definitely does and as I say if that other structure was not between us in the beach I wouldn't have come forward with this application but it changes everything because of that I won't say it's grandfather because it was there before the bylaw it's a legally existing dock that's between us and the beach and I just can't see what our particular structure is going to interfere with anybody swimming on the beach 175 ft away because of the one in the middle yeah I mean I I tend to agree with you I I think you I think you can change things to make this even more a more palatable situation but if you've got four Commissioners who are going to say no they're not going to budge on the 250 then I'm not I I don't want to I don't want to make you spend I don't want to waste time and money I oops I do have one other brief concern um there is some significant erosion happening behind this bulkhead and I think in order to maintain the bulkheads um condition it should be addressed we we do plan to we have conversations about it and we actually one of the bigger storms recently came topped that wall yeah so we do plan on coming back and and coming up with some sort of repair plan but we're in the middle of the house we're hoping to do this and um that would be that believe it's under Forefront just hasn't we just haven't got to it yet I would just worry about attaching a dock to the structure when there's nothing behind it if we were to get approval we would wait on the structure until we get the until we get the bulkhead rebuilt or fixed and stabilized okay improved sure have do we want to hear from the audience yeah yeah we will but I I I can I get any kind of a feeling from the from the commission yeah I I would be um you don't have to vote for it no I understand that one way or the other I guess I would be um if it went to this point where you came back with a different plan I would be very interested in looking at that and I might tend to um think that all things being equal it would be I would vote for an approval okay I just want to add to that I think that the the comment about the dock between this proposed pier and the beach is a good point there's one there um it might be an exception to various rules that exist on the river it's been there a 100 years though I mean it's could never be reconstructed I mean I would I would obviously I would be supportive of changing things around a little bit and I think you could it could become perable like I said I I think that would be you could if you could reduce it down to that one thing then I would I wouldn't have an issue with with the voting for it but can you ask the rest of the board I'm still asking no nobody's nobody's coming forward Paul said yes I would say yes I would agree with you jack is saying yes David I'm I'm saying I'd like to see a different plan I might I might change I am bothered by the 175 ft but I do understand what Paul said having that other dock there I don't think people going to swim by okay so the way I'm reading it is like you may risk I fully understand it's at our own risk okay all right so with that now would somebody like to make in the audience would anybody like to make a make a comment please come to the podium if you just come up to the podium state your name for the record please and again just trying to keep your keep your uh your comments to Wetlands and and conservation related not navigation good evening I'm Scott Martin I live on six Willow Lane I happen to own two peer rights down on the water that we're talking about that would not allow 75 ft between the project there but before I get into this may I just make a a couple Corrections britley you mentioned Bob hike Bob hi is a director butter he is not one of the persons involved in the RightWay he's mixed you two up and secondly the dock that everybody's making a big issue out the dock is a fixed dock people swim under it all the time I've managed that house for 25 years okay as Ellie mentioned people float down from the end of the road and go right under that dock all the time so that is not and and and that doesn't it's a safety issue but not an environmental issue what happens if something I mean bill has told me he's not interested in putting a boat there many times and then has changed his mind this limiting to 22 24t what happens if a 28 foot is there who's going to enforce it but let me just go back to a couple points that I want to make with with everybody here the first point is why would you ever consider something that would jeopardize the safety of people on Windmill Beach why what the the conservation committee makes no sense to me okay second of all all right the my predecessors have purchased the rights to put up peers in that area to appear in that area we have paid for that before in Prior years it was the anuts that bought it from the Townsen and and and the anoes that bought it from the pacquins bill and kerin are completely aware of all these facts I have had at length discussions with them okay I'm sorry to say this this is a way to get around a restriction and not let us go through with our rights when they when Bill purchased the land he was fully aware of the circumstance that we had the right we had purchased the rights of it he has completely ignored it it is not very neighborly okay he's come into a place he hasn't been a taxpayer in the past okay and he's just become a taxpayer I've been here since 1985 Bob hike has been here since 1951 and the McCarthy family has been here since the80s the80s okay and I've been here since 85 it doesn't make sense okay to give a variance to people that already have the right that would exclude us the right to build our Pier there there's been no mention of it bill has seen me many times hasn't confronted me wanted me to buy it on the project you know this is very unhanded in my my I don't know how to say it any other way if you grant it it makes us lose a right that we've been entitled to since 1981 myself and the mosa family that didn't have couldn't stay here long enough okay so all the people surrounding this project are dead set against it I don't even know why you would ask for second drawings when it's a safety conservation measure it's not 250 ft it's 175 ft that's a substantial reduction of over 30% gasoline from that Pier can go down into the into the do into windmill Beach second of all everybody floats underneath Bob hikes dock again I managed that house for 25 years this is outrageous that's even being considered I'm sorry to say that so um and nothing has been talked about the B the condition of Bob hik stock is is horrendous okay we're not here to talk about other docks well it's it's horrendous not sure whether it's going to be replaced or not so with that I thank you for listening thank you thank you uh good evening I'm David McCarthy I own the house next door the windmill uh house and I just wanted to say uh Ellie you don't know how right you are how crowded that get it's it's a a pinch point in the summer boats have hit my boat trying to dock I've hit other boats trying to get my boat out of there when that current is Flowing it's crazy and it's dangerous and I just think you know great neighbor but you add that liability I just think the the town is opening itself up to a a lot of liability just because of of what you said I I live there I've lived there 10 years and I've seen it and I'm telling you it's cra crazy and it gets worse every year and as far as you know some kind of a barrier to that beach Scott Martin's completely correct people just swim right through it under it right you know in front of our house all the time that that thing means nothing that existing Pier means nothing it's you know just talking reality here this is what's going on in the river and I just see it as a uh um a big addition to the Li ability the town would be creating thank you thank you anybody else if I could just respond a little bit to the first gentleman that spoke uh wish specifically talking about this 8ft wide wave right here mhm um when the original uh breakup of this property happened at a foot wide W was granted the rights to build a dock at the end of the eight foot wide way um as we have discussed tonight chapter 91 requires 25 ft from both property lands so it's physically impossible to construct the doctor he has rights to the water he has rights to go down there 100% but as we just discussed tonight chapter 91 are never going to allow a structure to be a built there so we're not taking away any rights to build a structure in that area chapter 91 is removing any rights to build a structure in that area thank you all right it was genten yeah Karen we've been over this we have 16 ft right away one 8 ft on one side of the lot 8 ft from the other side of the lot okay so but this is yeah it's not all right these are legality issues okay this is not something we have any right to to say one way or the other okay uh is there any other any other discussion from the uh audience anybody on Zoom all right so Mr chairman we'd like to look to the continuance for this well yeah so and I'm just going to give you a I want to make sure that you that you you and your client both fully understand like I don't know just because you're going back and doing this I can't guarantee it's not a guarantee that you're going to get a favorable outcome so it's I just want you to be aware of that we we're fully aware and that you're on very very shaky ground we fully understand that what we presented tonight is not going to go forward so we'd like to go back and go back to the drawn board and see if we can come back with something that may get approved and I think uh regardless then uh because it sounds like it's going to be a significant change no matter what I think it would be prudent to go back to waterways and have their comment uh comment on on whatever new proposal that you you put forth you have to so if we could look for continu maybe for ell when do they meet was that when does water do they meet once a month once a month and it's the second Monday second Monday of the month okay so we look for continuance for three months just to push it out there so we're not under pressure to get in front of them and work with be a wise idea okay so three months would be July we only have one you could see you can go go out there on a weekend and see howed it really is have the summer traffic that's a good idea yeah yeah can I ask um does water is it I just we need we need to figure out a time for so we're looking so waterways is the second Monday you said right yeah we only have one meeting in July so we only have one meeting in July yes that's true who made that decision July 4th were're closed so unfortunately that's the 18th the DAT July 18th 18th and Finn will be here I will not be here Finn will be here he'll be cutting his teeth on on a real good one that's is that when you're getting married yes that is when I'm getting married your what what congratulations all right so Paul yeah I just have a question probably for Ellie right I will be on the 18th is it customary for waterways to issue a written report on some of these types of things um if if not it would be helpful if they did it or if they met with us because I cuz the gentleman in the back talking about how dangerous it is Ellie com commenting um they know firsthand and so I you know um although you know I I'm let me put it this way I'm trying to maintain an open mind on this I like all the information and uh that information the long discussion from waterways would be uh um helpful to have some knowledge of what the points that were made in that discussion were I completely agree yes I agree with you as I mention the number one point was the being further back and the one to the North and the one to the South that was the number one point that was that was probably 50% of the discussion but they they didn't they weren't concerned with what the the gentleman who spoke about how dangerous it is in in the summertime no no they wern't because we were further back than the other ones they were concerned about it but they once they saw we further back that kind of alleviated their fears I see okay thanks so unless there's any further discussion would somebody like to make a motion to continue this to July 18th with new receipt of new plans and um previous final with uh DMF waterways I'll make it is there a second second second um Paul hi Pat hi Jack hi Ellie hi Rick hi David I shair votes I will see you on the 18th thank you for your consideration thank you thank you July July 18 than job to the end all right we have uh certificates of compliance we have three three certificates of compliance the first one is SE 83-282 thater Shore Road for SC 83-1 1987 John and Susan bassic 122 thore Road and SE 8322847172 D1 1987 and SE 8322847172 hi jar votes I carried unanimously uh meeting minutes for April 4th 2024 anybody review yep okay you're good with that is there a second second all those in favor hi hi oh sorry can't do that folks you see it I was just testing you that's all uh Paul we were testing you hi Jack hi Ellie hi Rick hi David hi and the chair votes announcements we have a cleanup day April 20th 2024 Saturday it's a Saturday this Saturday this Saturday it's been announced it's been announced all right we got annual town meeting April 30th on 2024 we have article 32 is the general bolw chapter 143 for Wetlands uh article 31 is the CPA open space project for uh project a for invasive species B management article 17 for Capital expense various for departments for number 23 aerial imagery product and number 18 for invasive species management so well announced mouth mouthful and we just need someone who is going to be attending town meeting to volunteer to move article 32 General BW chapter 143 Wetlands do we have a volunteer please somebody from this board somebody be available I'll do it all would like to do it woo thank you Paul okay they don't ask me any questions I'm doing 36 I'll answer the questions you just have to move it you're doing 36 all right and Ellie did you want to fight fight him for that for that opportunity or can second I'll Stand I'll stand next to him he'll stand he'll stand stand next to him okay thank you I'll hold him up as he's if you lose your nerve Paul Ellie will be there for uh for support support very good I'll arrive at article 30 I will try and get there but I I have a meeting that I have to attend on that on that night so and unfortunately I'm not sure I can hobble there oh come onig um down there David I mean you can can we get a wheelchair I show you my foot um I have an appointment on Tuesday but I've been told I might have to keep off my foot till May 23rd wow can we get a wheelchair with an elevator so so we can keep your foot elevated then um I have a scooter I'm going to try to go cuz I really like to go to town meetings believe it or not but um we'll see anyway I thank you for the card by the way everybody was very nice of really no cash better no cash next time don't give me a metal one of these $20 in that in that envelope what happened to it I gave it to Rick it didn't get down to here never it didn't get to me either it must be W didn't get to me any other business not reasonably anticipated are you saying we'll say goodbye and I thought you were saying I have something no I was saying goodbye Jack can you give me a rundown on the Massachusetts Wetlands that's due in the end of the month ours is already in the comments or oh our comments have been in coastal storm flow DRS sorry yes so the you're talking about the D resilience updates um I submitted my comments for the original due date because I had no additional comments on the storm water changes that they were providing more comment um so the gist of our our comments were to ask why they did not include the BBW the new handbook for BBW delineation is not referenced anywhere even though it had been referenced in the new delineation guide book um it's it's not in the the new RS in addition to why they're not using the projected data um for the coastal res for the flood zones when they when chapter 91 is using it but Z Wetlands is not two um it was quite some time ago so I don't remember the other comments I appreciate you taking the extra time thank you for the new folder welcome and I do have one more request but I'll wait until the end of the meeting by the way whoie is having a thing about um uh Zoom next Wednesday night about resiliency I'm gonna I'm gonna participate so am I great I'll look for you about the coastal one is that the one you're talking about sea level yeah sea level rise two of them to sign you don't even have to leave home Wednesday night that's right what that all right anything else have to sign the one right move them on there there's here oh I see right underneath and the same with this yeah anybody else right then I declare this meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m. thank you bye everybody