One notable issues involved the proposed order of conditions for 97 Tippy Run, designated for emergency repairs of an existing coastal engineering structure. The owner, identified as the TR97 Nominee Trust, had submitted a notice of intent for this project. Commission members engaged in a review of the special conditions surrounding the project, particularly focusing on Special Condition Number Nine. This condition involved the placement of steel road plates over the Morris Island Road tidal gate, which would be sold to the town post-completion for a nominal fee of one dollar despite having an actual value of approximately $20,000. This sale was contingent upon the execution of a purchase and sale agreement between the applicant and the town, along with a liability release.

Concerns were raised about the potential challenges in obtaining approvals from the select board and town council, particularly surrounding the liability release. If terms could not be agreed upon by September 30, 2024, the applicant proposed donating $15,000 to the town of Chatham’s special purpose fund as an alternative form of mitigation. This proposal sparked debate among commission members. One expressed confidence in reaching an agreement with the town, emphasizing that the intent was to facilitate the transfer of the plates. However, members acknowledged the necessity of including a safeguard in case the agreement fell through, reiterating the importance of protecting the town’s interests.

The director of natural resources for Chatham highlighted the town’s procedural requirements for approvals, including the need for a review by town council, which had not occurred prior to the meeting. The discussion shifted towards the timeline for negotiations, with a proposal to allow an additional 30-day period for finalizing any agreement if the initial deadline was not met. Tensions were apparent as members debated the need for clarity in the documentation to prevent misunderstandings or liabilities. Further clarifications were sought on the language used in the conditions, particularly regarding the use of armor stone, which was confirmed to be part of the erosion control measures. The commission also discussed the duration of monitoring reports tied to the project, aligning it with other conditions set for a three-year timeframe.

A request was made for one commission member to recuse herself from commenting on projects she previously worked on to avoid conflicts of interest. The conversation wrapped up with inquiries about the future of the road and the need for the armor plates, highlighting that these plates might remain in place for several more years due to ongoing assessments and potential future projects. Following discussions and amendments, the commission moved to close the hearing and approved the order of conditions for 97 Tippy Run as amended.

Another issue tackled was the proposed landscaping and mitigation plan involving the removal of ten trees within the conservation jurisdiction. The applicant plans to replace these trees with eleven new ones, raising questions about the adequacy of the replacement ratio. A commissioner sought clarification on whether the replacement ratio was appropriate given the trees’ location in the area of conservation and the outer edge of the 100-foot buffer from the coastal bank. The replacement trees are intended to be diverse in height, with lower species that are shade-tolerant.

A neighboring resident, Carolyn Whittle, expressed concerns about the tree removal and proposed mitigation plan, urging the commission to consider an alternative planting plan. She suggested that some trees remain within the already forested area or be relocated to the western side of the lot, rather than grouping them along the state highway adjacent to her property line. The commission clarified that their jurisdiction did not extend to archaeological matters and could not halt the process based solely on the potential existence of a burial ground. They acknowledged concerns regarding views and safety, particularly the visibility issues at the bottom of the driveway and the potential impact of early morning sunlight on snow and ice conditions.

Whittle emphasized the proximity of some proposed trees to her property line, expressing discomfort with the idea of trees planted as close as five feet from her boundary. The applicant’s representative defended the placement of trees, noting that the proposed Cedars would not increase coverage compared to existing mature trees and that the trees could potentially be stunted in growth due to environmental conditions. A conservation commissioner noted that the commission had done all it could from a conservation perspective, expressing readiness to forward the proposal to the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) for further consideration of neighborhood alignment and other concerns. The commissioners acknowledged that the applicant had been responsive to their requests and that the mitigation plan met the necessary criteria.

The commission also discussed a proposed order of conditions for a property on Nickerson Lane concerning shoreline stabilization and restoration plantings. Jen Crawford from Crawford Land Management represented the applicant. The discussion revealed a need to update a condition regarding property boundaries, specifically noting the project extends onto 39 Nickerson. Both Paul Whitman, the conservation agent, and Katherine Ricks concurred that using a zip level for annual surveys of the coastal beach area would satisfy monitoring requirements while reducing costs. The motion to close the hearing and approve the order of conditions was passed unanimously.