##VIDEO ID:CnqtvgEFHyc## all right uh welcome everybody this is the regularly stated meeting of the Yarmouth Conservation Commission for Thursday October 17 2024 this is to formally advise that as required by General Law chapter 38 sections 18- 25 in pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 an act relative to extending certain covid-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency signed into law on June 16th 2021 as extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 the armouth Conservation Commission 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 by the notice of notice of meeting available on the town of Yarmouth website again this is the Yarmouth Conservation Commission meeting for October 17th 2024 our first order of business is a notice of intent that's Alexander nanof two Buttercup Lane a proposed construction of a dock within land subject to Coastal storm Flowage a Coastal Bank salt marsh and land under a water body Wayne good evening is this working it's working yeah great thank you uh I've been before the board a couple of times with this um same address and uh this is the first water dependent structure that we're talking about everything else has been land born uh plus there's many other uh permits that we've sought for the site building permit we've got uh zba um variances for sidelane setbacks and steps that go down to an old dock that existed on this site so we have all of the appropriate land bound structures in place and we're trying to connect to a uh a dock that has existed for a long time but it's in bad shape um may I ask the Commissioners how many have visited the site three okay um did you happen to notice the pipe that was out at the end of where the dock is proposed to be okay fine um we spent eight uh six months excuse me six months with waterways because we realized we had to get their approval or detraction so six months starting in April we ended every month uh we we visited them and ended in September so we got a lot of information out of them uh and first of all I should mention some state things we do have a d file number that came through it's uh SE 83452 um and we also have a letter from the abutter that I'll talk about so the commission the waterways commission advisory commission is very sucin very clear about what they want and every month there was something sort of new so I'm not going month by month but essentially we talked about a dock that was presented too long it was at 116 ft because we try to reach minus three feet which is one of the other criteria for putting a dock in uh so they they push back and rightly so they said our limit is 80 ft so we went back to 80 ft that's the current proposal that you see there they asked about the abutters they said that the state requires a 25- ft separation which it does under usual circumstances but this was an existing dock so we we needed to provide a letter from the abutter he has commented twice his approval his second approval is right here he says looks good to me no issues so uh we have approval from the abutter as far as the proximity to the property line so where it is uh seems to be okay we got a strange request about the third meeting into waterways that they said well look you see if you can find three feet at the end of an 80ft dock so we did we went out and we took two10 of a foot Contours um the surveyor am I speaking clearly or is yeah we're just getting a terrible Kickback here feedback of some sort or another but I think didn't help okay let me let me see if that kickback is still going keep keep going we keep going okay so um okay it's just in here consequently when he did his 210 of a foot miraculously there was a little I won't call it a bass hole but a little minnow hole at the end of the dock so he found minus 3.1 ft at low mean water so we thought we had the right location so we pursued it further and other issues cropped up um and so forth so uh this is a draft of the minutes and I hope you have that draft Britney Yeah Yeah from waterways talking about everything that was discussed I don't want to uh spend a lot of time on it and in the end in the final uh venue we uh we issued mitigation we said obviously we're willing we provided I'm sorry shellfo report uh we did provide that and the quadrants and so forth of the shellfish that was there I he I heard it was below average that's the way I did it but I'm not here to to talk about shellfish I don't know that much about them so the shellfish were report was as standard and one of the requirements under the bylaw is that the shellfish get relocated so he is willing my client is willing to no that's better my client is willing to move the shellfish as well as he offered at the time uh what he thought was fair as far as receding the area and his offer was meant at the end they said the uh Mrs is uh Neely she Constable Neely she's on the board Healey is on the board and she said for that 800 square ft including the 5 foot perimeter uh it would be about $33,000 so my I'm here to tell you my client has ascented to that value so he's ascented to moving the shellfish he's ascented to receding and and um and pay a fee of $3,000 so um the construction of the deck that's the plan view by the way it shows a existing walkway on the left hand side that's been approved under zoning rules because it's in the setback so we have a zoning board variance as far as that uh stairway going down to the dock and you can see the dock going out into the water and you can see the sideline setbacks and all that so that's the plan View and that's the construction details so uh we went through construction and at one time also the board recommended that we have stop stay stops for the floating dock so it stops at a certain level there is some uh information here from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts DMF uh saying that no stops was provided but we did provide them I think maybe there's an elevation change that they want they probably getting a terrible ech should I speak further away yeah hon okay oh even further away than that further even further okay started back there all right how's that I raise my voice okay so at the um meeting uh we did provide stay stops and obviously if we provided them we're willing to work with DMF uh local level D to put these stay stops at the right elevation it looks like uh the value they're looking for is to keep it at high tide and lock it there so it never rests on the bottom so we're happy to provide that if that's different than what I've already provided I alluded to the fact of what I call 0. zero so that seems like it's half tied so it seems like they want it higher they want a 2 and 1/2t clearance so we'll have to lock it in the stay stops will be locked in at high tide and never move down so I just want to make that uh clear uh the study from DMF is is very clear uh they've gone through all the Wetland values and the fish fisheries and the shell Fisheries that are here in the area it's a um it's a winter flounder spawning area it is shellfish for three different types of shellfish uh and two different kinds of uh fish uh out of that area it's uh not much of a tide swing in that area uh uh and DMF alludes to that uh and they've gone through everything here that I've brought up and they just talk about activities that are in here they're they're they're admitting to the allowance of a doctor by right but they're also giving parameters and that's I'm trying to make that clear um Everybody deserves a dock we're meeting local bylaws we're trying to meet the state bylaws as well so I think that's what we've provided on these plans with the possible exception of the stay stops and one other Curious Thing on this letter it was dated March 6th 20124 and I've only presented these plans since say April May June July um probably just a mistake ofo iess but I I wanted to point that out so we've gone over the notes uh for waterways with the exception of the end results the six month we had a lot of things locked in as you do you spiral in that's why you have these meetings and we got to the last meeting and uh we had six shell fishermen this is their their work is is what it is and they were all obviously against it my feeling and I have to express it in a in a uh my client's manner was um it's subjective of course but they were all talking about the impact and the fact that every dock is a thorn in their sides so they they talked at length I think three of the six spoke at the meeting and then at the end of the meeting waterways uh took a vote which uh took quite a bit there was only two voters for it and then uh one of the other voters uh went for it and they're not recommending this dock so you should be clear we're clear on that um I was at that meeting also I presented this piece of paper I'm happy to pass it around unless we can bring it up on the board this is uh the whole area I'm passing around I think it is tell me what can you just tell me what it is I can bring it up okay what is it thank you what's the file Wayne which file potential do coverage so I um or the survey I did a study we took our's dock we took the existing docks that lie there I understand there's another dock coming in your direction as well at number 10 and the six dock that are there come up to a cumulative area of 2,000 square ft if they were all built including my client's dock the area of this embayment off of a river by the way this is a river uh that came up some time ago and the river uh by those two doc marks was we had a little um um what do you call onsite with um D and they said it was a river so this is a what an ement off of a river or it is a river but anyhow it's by itself uh it's secluded in here it's four acres from tip to tip as it's cross-hatched on that drawing so we got 4.65 acres and with 2 square feet of potential docks that are in here it's less than 1% I am not in the legal Fields but somebody who was would stay here and say that's insignificant as as far as coverage is concerned so one of the problems with a dock is it sticks out and it makes it look a lot worse than what it is so I'm here to say that this is within the rights of my client we work very hard uh going back and forth with the waterways commission uh and as I mentioned I thought we were spiraling in and we were and then at the last meeting uh we ran into a curve but we have Commonwealth of Massachusetts which sort of admits in DMF that a dock is allowed they'd like it shorter is what they've said now they've said shorter but at the same time if we go shorter we'll certainly run out of one of the criteria of the town which is will certainly go less than three feet we have found three feet of depth we have maximized to the maximum of what the town allows in length 80 ft we're in a good area if if we shorten it what's the criteria for shortening it so we we we we look to you Conservation Commission for some guidance uh we are looking for an approval uh three of you have visited the site and Britney has certainly visited the site you see the pipe that we put out there um I perhaps trespassed but I went on the neighbor's dock that exists out there and took some photographs and they just did not come out clear in this past them around if you want but on my printer it's nothing like the printer that I use to make the copies here but it doesn't seem significant at 80 ft it is at the same length as the dock that I was on uh the adjacent neighbor who gave us the letter saying that it did not bother him that we were within 25 ft of his property line uh has an extremely long 400t ownership of property with his Dock at the very tip of of this Bay uh that plan that I had showed all the docks that were existing and all the docks that are either proposed or semi allowed so I I turn to you I don't want to take up and optimize all the time you have a long agenda uh we're hoping that we can come to some uh agreement with all the input that we had we sound like a dock is very possible in this area it was pre-existing it was unlicensed at the time it goes in the same direction that it did before uh we when we met with zba one other thing we have to meet with a building inspector prior to that and the building inspector looked for other places to put the dock and he realized that that Coastal Bank is so sensitive that this was the best place it was already cut in so this was the best place to put the dock the direction is the direction that was existing and before so we're hoping that I get feedback from you that there's hope in this we have an owner that's willing to work with you an owner that's willing to put on the table uh mitigation for this in the terms of shellfish uh we'd like to work with the shell fisherman uh but it seems like at a general consensus every Doc is a thorn in their side so with that um I'll turn it over to you any questions I'd be glad to answer thank you okay thank you Wayne um I just want to point out that it's everybody's right to ask for a doc it's not everybody's right to have a doc just wanted to wanted to make that clarification so I'll turn it over to the board any questions yeah I'd like to ask a few um when you said the neighbor you which neighbor are we talking about uh the neighbor to the left Mr cahan owns of what about the neighbor to the right uh he's been notified as an abutter he has said nothing other than and so how close are you to the neighbor's property you said less than 25 feet but how close are you um let me take a look it's on the plan we there's so many numbers on the plan it's hard for me to find it sorry okay yeah 1.3 feet 15.3 feet I think it's 13.3 feet 13 where you unless that's okay I see it's 13.3 I see it's 13.3 here you got a little congested on the original no this is the only plan you submitted so we have the existing and then the this side so this is we've have but that's all the information we needed the closest distance is all that we need the 13 sorry um anybody else has questions while I'm looking something up that would be great yeah I have I have a question about the the water depth um are you saying you meet the required water depth I mean if I'm looking at your plan here I I think I see 3 ft but is that at mean low water yes yes we had to do that that's not that's not what the plan the plan shows that you have 1.5 feet at mean low water so that's not meeting are you talking about the crosssection cross-section you have mean low water at 1.46 and mean Pond and the existing Pond bottom at minus three which is about a foot and a half so that does does not meet the ex the depth requirements at mean low so again as far as my question is concerned so this does not meet the requirements it does not as it's drawn on the plan it does not meet the requirements me try to qualify that again we went with waterways the cross-section plan has never been changed because the construction details were never questioned so what happened is they made us go back to do two10 of a foot Contour uh we we did the Dock dock originally at 116 lineal feet to find three feet contour and when we did that we um went beyond the length Allowed by the town of Yarmouth so they said no no no we were 80 ft and then they suggested that we do two10 of a foot contour and my survey sort of raised his eyebrows and he did it and that's what is reflected on the plan that you see that has red individual spot elevations and what he did is he did find a contour at the end of the dock that's at you see all the red is spot elevations and then he did his Contours from that so at the end of the float so I understand what you're saying Wayne but even if it's it shows that the pond bottom at- 3.2 mean low is - 1.5 so that doesn't add up to meeting the depth requirements still we never changed this cross-section so if I change the cross-section in micro that's what we did on the topography we did micro Contours if I changed the Contours on the cross-section you would see that it would reflect that change these plans don't currently reflect that and until we have plans that show that there's there's no way for us to believe I mean we need to have evidence saying that because what you've provided is showing that you have 1.5 feet up depth yeah 1.5 is yeah I I don't I I see what you're saying but I don't see that reflected on a on the plans a record and that has been stamped so these are these are stamped and and again this one has not been modified this is the cross-section I should modified this when I modified this okay that's the plan view with all the Contours but I did not modify this this is my bad even with an additional 02 feet it still does not meet the depth requirement okay I see mean low water as minus 1.46 add three to that that's 1.54 1.54 or 1.46 short ofet so it's not just a little bit it's a good 54 it's a significant okay so there's one thing that needs to be corrected so um okay now that's from the top that's the top elevation that's not the the bottom elevation so that's a I'm a little I I I just have to catch up a little bit what you're saying is right but the micro the Micro Engineering of the bottom of the Contour is what we're talking about in other words this contour and adding 02 feet to your current depth would still not have it meeting our depth requirement um so updating the plans to have it reflect what you have on your site plan and not on your uh cross section plan would still not meet our regulations is what we're we're saying I'll have to look into that okay uh it seemed to satisfy waterways when I did this on plan view so well they did recommend against the project so maybe they didn't see that say that again they did ultimately recommend against the project even with the knowledge of the extra point2 feet but not for that reason not for that reason but the the fact is w't the doc at all yeah well they yeah and I got to tell you I I'm not inclined to to give a variance for the for the depth we we put that in for very specific reasons and that's one of the few things that I feel personally important to keep so that's just me I'm just one boat okay um there are a number of docks in there and I can tell you none of them satisfy this yeah equation either I can't tell you about what happened beforehand all I can tell you is I I have to look at it the way it comes before us for for new for new projects so I don't know when those docs were put in and frankly it doesn't matter when they were put in because they're in they as long as they're legal docks I I can't really say one way or the other um but I know we did go around and around and around and discuss this seriously about um the three-foot uh clearance and that was something that the commission at the time and I think the commission still to this day uh holds as probably one of the most important parts of the dock is that you have to have that clearance because we don't want to contribute to things like scour or any other types of of impact to the bottom siment so and that's the way you do that is by separating vertically okay we we have shown it on one plan on a plan view yeah but you only get 3.2 on one contour that's on the corner of the of the uh yeah so it's still not enough yeah it's on the corner but 3.2 and with a with mean water at What minus one or six or six that doesn't get it still doesn't get the three it doesn't still doesn't come close to the three feet you're still significantly away from that so I just I like I said I I I personally cannot support this but again it's just me you've got four other Commissioners that can yeah and I will add to that the reason a part of the reason for that depth requirement is that we don't know what kind of boat these people have and there's no way for um it to be monitored in a way that they will only be using it at high tide um so even if it were to be in there at 1.5 ft that is not enough water for for most bods and that's a part of the reason we have that depth requirement so only using having float stops even what's the point of having you need that depth in order to get any sort of boat in there um and I would also just let the commission know that we have had problems with enforcement on this property before with the house um they had an amendment to include the walkway down to the to connect to this dock so they will have they have a permitted they have permitted these stairs so they have water access currently permitted but they in with that Amendment requirement included the removal of s some construction debris continued maintenance of a silt fence that has been failed to be maintained and replacement of the D number on site and um while we were there on Monday none of these three things have been done so I would also recommend issuance of a fine for this property for non-compliance with their current open order of conditions same same applicant owner pay yeah now this is not the first time I've heard this but I had the owner do a cleanup the first time that this happened so uh going back into the past as mentioned everything had been done there was a violation that he picked up all the debris and he fixed the qu fiber rolls and so forth so um it shouldn't leave a dark spot on him that he's worked hard to I'm not leaving a dark spot I'm just letting the commission know of the history um and letting them know that they still have not complied with those requirements there is still visible construction debris there's even an area where they've been dumping concrete um um where they're not supposed to be doing that on the site at all so I'm just giving them information that we have and have observed on Monday that it's still not yeah sorry Tuesday holiday it was even closer than today so I mean I agree with um with Britney I mean I thought the place was not very well cleaned up as she said there was a concrete uh closer to the water um and on the sides there were a lot of debris so they may have cleaned it once but they AR keeping nule and that still allows wind bring taking some of that stuff into the uh into the water so um I agree with that I would not vote for this as it stands okay um um looking how to correct this because most people are eligible for a dock and now I'm running into an impossibility in other words the float could be turned into a fixed portion of a dock in which case you can get your clearance you don't have to have a float going up and down you can fix it at the end and you have to use a ladder in order to get down to a boat but now I've heard that the clearance of a boat at the wrong tide is also on a something to object to I mean what's the point in having a I mean what's the point in keeping the float three feet off the off the bottom but then having a boat that's 10 feet wide and 30 feet long sitting on the bottom six hours out of the day well you can you can certainly put a um a lift on a boat as well I mean on a fixed dock so we could fix the dock at a certain height to meet that height requirement and not have a float they'd have to use a ladder and to get down to a boat we could uh in other towns I've seen where they've um specified the boat size and importantly the distance of the prop wash and they they've required a certain distance from prop wash to the bottom I won't tell you what those are but they vary in range um well I will why not I've seen them as little as 12 in in one town and as M as as much as 18 in that's the most so I've seen that for prop wash so you could dictate the size of the in in some TOS I don't know that I will tell you right now barnable says three feet in high quality shellfish habitat it's three this is okay yeah it's a three foot everything has to remain three feet so unless they change something different you know that's part of the order of condition so you know regardless whether it be 12 Ines 18 Ines and and I don't particularly want to get into the idea of of limiting types of boats that are at at a pier because then it becomes just a further nightmare for enforcement um down the line u i I just I like I said I I don't see a way of around it I'm always in I'm you know me W I'm willing to I'm willing to listen to people but I at the same time I'm I'm not supportive of this particular filing for the boat size you agree we can fix the dock because we can fix it at a certain height correct we can do that so we you can do a yeah you can do a fixed a fixed platform at if that's going to be you know you pick the you pick the height then that that's that's fine but again you still have to deal with the boat itself then right but uh I don't know if the rest of the commission is somebody that is willing to entertain something less than three feet underneath the boat uh because it's the boat uh but I think at the same time I don't I don't want to say it but I I I don't know if I don't think you would ground out a little personal experience I'm sorry I've got to interject just a little personal experience I grew up in mashby my first home was in mashby on a bay called shring Bay otherwise known as and the marina that was on it was half tied Marina and uh I saw kids in um Sunfish what's the fish where you I the little boat that you drop a board sunfish sunfish so they going out and they're coasting out and half T Bay they dropped that uh u center board they went right over so I've seen a big Bay Sho string Bay uh half tied uh work in the same context now they got a big Marina there it's a different town we're talking apples and oranges I realize that but certainly there should be an answer for how to work this out and by the way we should qualify what kind of a shellfish bed this is by the report uh you said high quality I I heard different in the report no all I'm saying is that you we were that I said high quality in relation to the Barnes uh regulation Dock and Pier regulation that's all I was talking about I was not referring to what quality I I did not make any characterization of quality of this of this particular bottom oh okay sure all right my mistake sorry sorry but I'd like to hear from the rest of the Commissioners and I'd like the opportunity to um to uh take those notes and see if we can't work something out but anyhow I'd like to hear from everybody I've heard from two Commissioners I'm in agreement with um the rest of the board in that I I'm skeptical to approve a um a plan where it's less than the threefoot clearance um you had mentioned that this I think it was this plan uh the existing condition plan was not correct yes yes it isn't I can correct that that's one thing I'd like to be allowed to do yes approved anything okay thank you thank you um I'm not in favor of this plan in regards to the fact that waterways does not recommend it and I feel that waterways did a long time working with you and you said you worked with them for quite a while sure and even with all that they still did not recommend it so I'm going with their recommendation I mean there Bo that we go to first we hear what they have to say and that has something to do with our decisions here so as of now I'm not in favor of this project thank you the plan doesn't meet the requirements I would not be in favor of it okay um and a general question then is it possible to fix this plan I mean I've come up with a quick fix take the float out and make it a fixed uh Dock and show of course that Contour reflection of what the survey picked up uh that sort of would fix at least one portion but I'm hearing another issue here so if you were to make changes to the plan I would I would need to I would recommend the board get waterways opinion on a fixed Pier as well doing fixed Pier that's something slightly different I would also me again it still comes down to the fact that you're going to put a boat on the end of that yeah so the depth still so the question is how do you get around that now there's only one way that I can see of doing no boats you could I have no boats you could either have no boat or and we don't go into the fact of who how many boats a person can have or if they can have a boat no we don't yeah but I so we the choice is either you don't have any boat but then my question to you is why are you even bothering going through the process of getting a a dock you already have a Stairway the only other option you could do would be to put a a boat lift on the property but I they're all laughing at me because I'm the I'm the only one who thinks that's okay uh I don't think you're going to get a lot of a lot of support from the board uh because I think they look at it again as the the same thing as like floats and everything else so I just all I can say is the only the only way I see for me is if you shorten it you could shorten it a little bit to a compensate for any boat lift that you would put on the end of it um then the boat would still land on the bottom of the and then the we would have to make sure that we have the boat we'd have to put into the order of conditions that the boat at no time should ever be and again I hate doing this because I sit way for us to yes I sit I sit in barnable having to deal with this frequently where somebody will say well it's not it doesn't meet the right the right size but how am I supposed to go there's no way of me going out and enforcing it but there's no way going out to me actually measure underneath the boat so um it it has its own set of of foibles associated with it so three foot to me is a minimum three foot as a minimum for the so you would still expect to have a have yeah I we show three is because the it's the aim it's the minimum we need approval by waterways yeah we have to go back through through water I mean I think this this would be a significant change I think you would have to read vertise and everything for this um I mean if if that's the route you're going yeah no I well I'd like to continue this this hearing and make some changes that would reflect what we've talked about two changes is to be specific with a cross-section to make sure that we had the three-foot of depth went that I showed and then I'll probably turn the dock into a fixed dock high enough to take care of that situation but I'm at a loss to say that you can't put a boat in a body of water that had an existing unlicensed I say we in fact Pat was very specific we don't we don't say that you can't have a boat we don't tell you you can have any boat you can have whatever boat you want as long as you can fit it onto the onto the dock and you meet the regulations for clearance and whatever other special special conditions we would apply to that order of conditions okay and and lastly do do you uh in this town have a I call it a prop wash differential no you don't no I mean we usually just say clearance stet clearance so okay all right well listen I appreciate it I would appreciate you voting to continue this hearing and I make some changes and modifications and rethinking about putting some kind of mechanical Aid on the on the end of the dock for example dropping in into three feet of well three feet of water and proving that out so okay so just I would be very careful so you understand that this is this is by no means a guarantee that that's going to be approval we understand that no no we we understand I mean uh and from looking we we've done yman work uh waterways uh was with us for five of those meetings it was six shell fishermen that came in and and that's what swayed the vote so structurally this was sound to waterways for a recommendation well not when they voted on it posi than those other meetings everything was positive they said nothing they don't vote until the last meeting my point is that just because they gave you ideas like we're doing doesn't mean that they the only reason they voted no was because of the shell fisherman showing up they may have other concerns and even though you answered those concerns they may have kept those concerns sure thank you and uh so I just want to clarify that because that may be here as Ed said you may come with new plans and they still won't be may not be acceptable sure sure I have one other question Bly as it may be um I just had a plan approved in another town remains nameless that town asked us to dredge under the deck I see one no is that not allowed or is that in the p i mean we generally wouldn't allow dredging to meet the minimum float depth to have a dog that's the natural floor that we're seeking the natural untouch the existing yeah bottom okay okay I just had to clarify yeah I again I I wouldn't I would not support any dredging to to M or to maintain or create Reach the the minimum minimum depth requirement um how much time do you would you like make this correction well give me the next date I'm sorry if you don't mind well waterways only meets the first Mondays of the month um suggest a month so November 21st you would want me to go back to waterways by the way if you're changing where you're putting us a fixed and a and a boat LIF yeah that's yeah you would definitely have to go back to them November 21st Thursday obviously I'm here on Thursday sorry yeah Thursday November 21st is there any conflict with Thanksgiving Thanksgiving is the next week we just going to give up Thanksgiving say that again I'm joking I said just going to give up Thanksgiving I can't believe how fast the call is going by either this is crazy so okay so before you go is there anybody in the audience who has any comments questions on this one there anybody on Zoom who has any comments questions on this this hearing that's not what it usually looks like like to make a motion to continue to November 21st I'll move a second second all those in favor opposed there unanimously thank you for your time I appreciate it next order of business is a continued notice of intent for SE 883-2414 lift and installation of floats with stops within land under the ocean and land containing shellfish good evening have everybody how you doing tonight my name is Jay Norton I am uh working on behalf of WS engineering um I haven't been in front of you guys before so I just want to introduce myself I have close to 20 years of experience in in the coastal um engineering field I'm an environmental engineer by trade and um have worked with Royo Koski for all of that time as well so um I am here on his behalf tonight um about a project and from hearing what uh Mr chairman was just talking about I feel like I'm I'm stepping on the coming off of the wrong foot but um I'm going to try my best to against you okay so um this project in particular at 66 Grand View AV there's an existing licensed Pier that was I believe Li lensed um in 2021 um that has a you know it's a fairly High Pier there's a bat lift on the end um and it it it's become very problematic for the owners to use because of the southwesterly Winds there and the fetch that's involved um on Bass River where it's located um backing up a little bit um just going over the resource areas of this project it's uh you know there's no um natural heritage or endangered species program involvement that it's outside of that jurisdiction um it is within Coastal Beach uh land subject to Coastal storm Flowage um land under the ocean and also um land containing shellfish we did bring this in front of the waterways um committee with a first option to extend the pier to find the depth we need um but that that option was turn um Turned Down by them they didn't want us extending us and into the um into the Waterway any further so our second alternative was to keep the existing perer where it is and remove the bat lift and install a ramp and Float um so that the end of the pier would be the same as it is now However unfortunately the depth is not there we're off by about uh 1.2 ft I believe um so would would require d a very minimum minimal dredging of of one foot of depth uh which translates to about 10 cubic yards of material which is um basically a six-wheeler truck truck load of material um that would be mechanically dredged via VIA barge so um we do understand you know we did a shellfish survey we understand there is you know shellfish habitat there and the the owners are willing to you know re relocate that that um have habitat and or you know provide any propagation that we need to do or any type of inlo fee payment to um some shellfish fund if if that's an option as well um so you know the only the takeaways from this is is that it's just an unsafe condition um it's a water dependent structure and the the owners can't use it really as a water dependent structure and it's licensed and um you know given the the board's um kind of outlook on Boat Lifts and and the and the negativity surrounding them you know we thought this would be more of a viable approach but unfortunately we would have to do some dredging to make this work and get the depth that we need um so um you know with that I I will open up the board to questions okay questions for the ward yeah I you know obviously you reference the the last hearing so you know the problems are but I just want to ask a question about um this you described it unsafe condition could you elaborate on that a little bit what do you mean it's it's with the in the Summer with the southwesterly winds the navigating the boat into the actual Boat Lift uh mechanism has been proven to be very difficult for the homeowners and it it's just be you know they've kids are using it and it's just to maneuver their boat on on to it it's very very difficult With the Wind um so that that's that's why they want to go back to the drawing board and see if there's another option that would be more user friendly for them to do thank El having said what we had to say the last um applicant there it would be difficult to say it was okay to to say dredging is all right but we just said it was not all right for the last people so um I don't know how I can approve that yeah this is very bad timing yeah I think it's good timing please we're consistent I mean I I do have to emphasize it's a very very minimal amount we are so close to meeting the depth requirement I mean we're if you look at the site plan it's within a you know a foot but um but I you know I appreciate your where you're coming from what would the life expectancy be of the the dredging is the something that would need to be maintained on a regular basis or I'm sure over time there will be Shing that will come in and it will definitely be a maintenance um I don't know what the occurrence will be it would be every five years maybe every 10 I'm not I can't really specify that but um but definitely it will have to be maintained just to be clear the existing Pier is usable but not what they would like correct when it was just licensed in 21 right it was yeah I just want to say I would probably I would definitely not accept dredging so especially since it's already there we justed it a couple years ago I think I was here in 21 yeah I mean we we approved it in 2021 U and I remember having the argument over the boat lips and everything else but at the same time I mean I understand that it's difficult to do it may be difficult to do that U that's not really in our purview in terms of just because it's hard to hard to dock my book boat I mean it's hard to dock a boat anytime you're coming up on the Southwest wind and you're coming down coming come down wind on it so yeah I I understand that yeah it's it's just trouble no matter what you're either going to hit the you're either going to hit the the boat left or you're going to hit the dock yeah it's still going to crack your boat if you hit it hard enough so it's just the you know it just doesn't seem like the right location for a lift because of that um exposure and um unfortunately they're finding out the hard I'd have to go back and look at the notes I'm sure Britney has but I'm going to assume that we approved it with the lift as opposed to not approving it at all yeah I mean I'm trying way getting yeah um minutes see what the uh vote was because I'm I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was not a unanimous vote it's a yeah oh that's the amend it's my handwriting I'm also just going to make a comment on this plan um this plan is very confusing there's a lot of things that are mislabeled and the narrative doesn't match the plan exactly um there are float stops in the narrative and they're not shown on the plan and the section that says option one extension doesn't actually show an extension so it was very confusing to look through this with through this project and we will be looking for upfront details and clarification before we accept another site plan um just to make sure that everything makes sense because we we have had problems with with Roy's plan for the COC on this project as well showing things that that don't exist okay on the site so just be wary of the plan and and just make sure double triple check that it's actually accurate um before submitting it because it does make it really difficult for us to tell what's real and what should be fixed or edited um it just makes our job very difficult sure no I understand thank you for that feedback it was um six six in favor zero opposed and one person commissioner was absent for that boat we were waiting for a stamp plan of three three- foot stops on the boat lift on a 10 foot vegetated Bo answer a question Mr chair um would the commission entertain the idea of extending to F the depth or is that out of the op op to waterways already said that they were not going to accept an extension because it does stick I saw that plan as well and it does stick out significantly further than all the neighboring ducks and and like sort of encroaches on to where people drive their boats yeah but the length never got a digital copy of the original with the extension but it extended much further than this one so like out here to get the depth it L on this one again right now they're proposing to stay at 80 by removing the boat lift I don't think we can go beyond that without a waiver right right yeah okay and again that would not be likely right all right well I don't know what else to tell you on that one yeah no I understand I mean that's this is the proposal is is really not much else you know I can argue here um you know what you know what the plan is it's pretty straightforward and you know it's up to the board whether or not they want to um move forward with this or not so um I don't think we're going to go back and revise any plans or anything so we're probably just looking for a vote tonight tonight okay all right uh Britney anything else nope nobody in the audience anybody on Zoom I've see none would somebody like to make a motion to approve the project with special conditions so moved there a second second write that down thank okay all those in favor say I opposed say nay n n three four five five z z five so um I don't think it was too much of a surprise to you though now based on how the last meeting at so you know it's I respect the board's decision and um we'll have to you know talk to the client about next steps and what he wants to do so it's just one of those things that the the dredging is going to be something that we you know it's it's just not something the the commission is looking to to start putting variances on because yeah because then you said a precedence minimal yeah yeah your your definition of minimal and I can think of another engineer definition of animal are are two vastly different uh items so all right well thank you for your time tonight thank you nice to meet you thank you you too should I um this do we need to discuss the COC on this the COC should be all set updated plan yeah okay the Buffer's in place so everything you don't need to stay thank you all right have a good night good night thank you is this the same signature or please do still sign that denial or it's not going to change it's not going to change pagination right no okay either way I leave that blank so I can fill it in by hand um make sure I don't want to have to be com to sign extras if you don't mind just passing it back after you sign it because the C's on that folder as well so just hold on to it Paul we'll make the we'll take the vote and then we can sign it and send it back up this way all right so next order of business they're all good right all easy yeah all of them next order of business is certificate of compliances we have three easy certificates um first one is for SE 883-2414 Glenwood Street second one is for SE 83-1 1924 for 24 Powers Lane and third is s832 2634 66 Grand View Drive um do I have a motion to uh issue the certificates of compliance for SE 83214 one SE 83-1 924 and SE 832 263 so moved you is there a second second you all those in favor I opposed carries unanimously okay just making sure luged into the zoom because I don't we usually see them on the side but I was able to get in okay so Paul you can go ahead and sign that and then send it up this way and we'll send everything else down your way we still have that there coming okay give you my pen in a minute that was p and then it's on the bottom thank you just because just for the regulations I was getting just want to make sure but it seems like no one is g to show up for that p five signatures on each page how do you like that wow all right next order of business is a continued storm water permit application for sw2024 d002 uh Ahad zahan 228 Route 28 proposed Redevelopment into a mixed use building still waiting on permit or on the peer review correct yes should be just one more hopefully so November 7th is three weeks so all right so do I have a motion to continue to you know what I'm just going to table it to November 7th that way we don't have to worry about that all right next order of business is approval of meeting for September 19th and October 3rd 2024 I read them both and they were fine okay somebody like to make a or second that motion second all those in favor I opposed carries unanimously and that brings us to uh review of regulation updates and I'm going to just check is anybody in on Zoom for uh the regulation updates discussion I don't see anybody and there's nobody in the audience as well so with that said Britney would you like to lead this sure the bylaw update that passed at Springtown meeting was primarily um to update the language and add vernal pools as a resource area as well as incorporating the riverfront area into our bylaw um so the proposed changes to the regulations although they were recently Rewritten last year these are just to support the bylaw changes and some um clarifying factors the majority of the red lines are a whole new section on vernal pools um to support the bylaw addition and then some minor changes elsewhere where it ref where it would reference vernal pools and also the riverfront area and a change to the tree replacement requirement in land subject to Coastal storm Flowage which was too far attainable on undeveloped properties and the other red lines are very minor sorry could you go back about the trees yeah it's on the last page um what was the change I just taking notes talk very fast we had some strict tree requirement replacement uh replacement requirements for the flood zone and we made them more attainable um and more subject to discretion from the commission instead of an overarching regulation thank you for us to decide where trees in the flood zone are going to be valuable to keep where they should be replaced at what ratio depending on the flood zone intensity severity and close to other structures that's fine you can just write flood zone updates um yeah they're pretty minor changes and everyone should have had a chance to review them we've been kind of I've emailed them out a few times in the past few months maybe except for Bradford who just kind of jumped in um but hopefully they're not too confusing but there if there's any questions about them we can discuss them now did anybody have any questions comments and or concerns I did not okay um one other update in there on page 25 was just to eliminate the date noted on the no doc noing zone so that the they may be updated periodically and that just the most updated version will be always available online instead of just having the ones from 2016 be in the regulations so that we may update them as needed without updating Reg regulations um and generally if we approve them today they would go into effect 30 days from now so it would be make a motion to approve discussion unless there's any further discussion 17 entertain that motion is there a second I'll second all those in favor I I I carries unanimously see in 30 days will be in effect on octo November 17th yeah okay just in time uh okay any other business not reasonably anticipated comments questions concerns I just wanted to say that uh with um fin gone that of course adds more burden onto our friend uh Britney I think we need to be aware of that and help in any way we can you know we're all two of you were full-time workers but three of us four of us are not so thank you I told her I knew the alphabet and I could file so practiced yesterday hopefully we have some interviews um but we need may need to wait for some more applications um probably only one guided walk left unless Ed wants to do one this season um today no I didn't have time so when's the next guided walk probably the week of Halloween at the Historical Society Trails behind the post office yeah I mean I would like to do a bird walk but I'd also like to do one when it's not cold no I don't care about the cold it's just like I I would like to do one when birds birds yeah just it's been nice quiet very quiet it's been very quiet somewhat well somewhat quiet so okay fair enough I will do that in the spring for sure great maybe even do a winter water foul wow a winter water foul watch they're building they're definitely building there's some ponds that have the have the some of the some of their winter Ducks already so last thing is that we are participating in the coastal zone management Coast sweep um our Coast sweep will be held on November 2nd we'll meet at smuggers beach it's volunteer opportunity um to pick up trash from our beaches and waterways so it's just a town cleanup trash cleanup just at the beaches but you can take your trash bag wherever you'd like really Day November 2nd at 10 a.m. um it's a Saturday oh you have November up there you fooled me okay that's all okay anything else yeah there's something going on you Mass doing something at the um Cultural Center next Wednesday dealing with Coastal management or something like that don't know I just got today on it but from from who you no I think well that I didn't know I just saw you can you give me one minute I get rid of it what was it about see if I can find it if I find it I'll it to you and then you can send it out rather than keep everybody here while I look through my too many emails okay anything else something like to make a motion to adjourn so move is there a second second all those in favor allos We Stand adjourned at 6:12 p.m. that's good thanks what is Thea that's e e e for