A notable part of the meeting centered on a project proposal that included a net reduction of 20 square feet on a property and aimed to address erosion in a borrow pit adjacent to the house. The applicant proposed removing invasive vines and planting native species such as Red Cedar, Beach Plum, Little Blue Stem, and Beach Grass to stabilize the soil. However, commissioners raised concerns about the lack of a detailed mitigation plan specifying the quantity and location of the proposed plantings. A commissioner pointed out that Beach Plum, which can reach heights of six feet, may not be suitable for foundation plantings, and emphasized the need for specificity in the planting plan.

The Commission decided to continue the discussion to October 2, 2024, to allow the applicant time to provide the requested planting plan. The need for a plan was underscored as it would inform the eventual order of conditions for the project. The commissioners agreed that no meeting was necessary before the October date, as sufficient information had been provided to date, but stressed the importance of having a plans to assess the proposal adequately.

Another discussion revolved around the demarcation of a mitigation area related to a property project. Paul, a member, noted the difficulty in locating the designated mitigation area on the project’s plans and suggested that a small split rail fence could be required once the exact location was established. Ed Acton, after overcoming initial technical difficulties, communicated that cobblestone markers on the property line might be obscured by vegetation and offered to clean those markers to ensure they were more visible.

The conversation continued about the adequacy of the current markers, with a consensus that more substantial demarcation was necessary. Suggestions included placing stones or fencing every eight feet to protect sensitive areas from mowing and foot traffic. Bob, another member, commended the mitigation efforts, particularly the planting of native cedar trees on the property. Despite a few trees dying, the overall mitigation appeared to be thriving. Paul proposed continuing the discussion for a couple of weeks to allow for the installation of the requested demarcation markers, with the next hearing scheduled for August 28th.

In another agenda item, the Commission addressed a notice of intent application for a property on Countryside Drive, submitted by Robert P. and Natalie Coleman. The project involved construction additions and renovations, including a second-floor expansion of an existing single-family dwelling, within the 100-foot buffer of a Coastal Bank and Pleasant Bay Area. Stephanie Sein from Brer and Wilcox represented the owners, stating that revised plans had been submitted since the last hearing. The project primarily consisted of vertical expansion, with no change to the existing footprint, and included renovation work like window replacement and the removal of certain exterior doors. The Commission’s discussions focused on the implications of the renovations within the sensitive resource areas, balancing the need for development against conservation regulations.

Further, a request for a certificate of compliance related to a project at 24 and Soupwn Road was discussed. The project involved the removal and reconstruction of a single-family home, the construction of a detached garage, rock revetment repair, and associated site improvements. Concerns were raised about the mitigation area, where some plants had not survived, possibly due to saltwater intrusion affecting the irrigation system. The owner noted that approximately ten plants were dead, but several mitigation plants remained successful. A proposal was put forth to allow for ongoing maintenance of the mitigation area, with treatments for invasive species three to four times a year. The temporary irrigation system was noted to still be in place, and the commission debated whether it should remain operational until the plants were established, potentially extending for a couple of years. The possibility of issuing a partial certificate of compliance was discussed, with the requirement that the owners demarcate the mitigation area with either stone or low split rail fencing and maintain and monitor the area.

Lastly, the meeting included routine matters such as the approval of minutes from the previous meeting and a discussion about allowing associate members to vote in meetings, which would require amendments to the town charter and possibly legislative action. The session concluded with a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and unanimously approved.