The request for determination of applicability by Edward Stafford was the most significant topic of the meeting. Stafford proposed constructing a detached garage, a pool, and a hardscape at 269D South Cav. While most of the project lay outside the 100-foot buffer zone from the coastal bank, a small patio and fence area encroached slightly into this zone. Stafford plans to remove 18 trees, primarily outside the buffer, and replace them with nine cedar trees within the buffer and additional trees outside it. The commission noted the absence of a defined replacement ratio for floodplain areas, allowing for discretion in their decision-making. After thorough deliberation, the commission unanimously approved a negative determination for the project, enabling Stafford’s plans to proceed without further regulatory hurdles.

A key point during the meeting was the discussion of mitigation planting adjacent to the existing buffer on the coastal bank. Concerns were raised about the potential impact of Bittersweet plants, which can strangle new vegetation. Stafford proposed planting the new trees near an existing grove of cedars to mitigate this risk. The commission agreed on the necessity of maintaining a two-to-one tree replacement ratio within the buffer zone, which Stafford met.

The commission also reviewed a request for an extension of beach raking activities by the Great Island Ocean Club Homeowners Association. The association’s treasurer, George Dool, explained that this request sought to renew an extension granted approximately six years prior. The discussion centered around wildlife protection, specifically the need to leash dogs during nesting periods to prevent disturbances. The commission raised enforcement concerns. Dool acknowledged ongoing issues with non-association homeowners bringing dogs to the beach despite prohibitive signage. After addressing these concerns, the commission approved a three-year extension for beach raking, effective until January 1, 2028.

Another topic was the proposed removal of a culvert stream crossing on Weir Road, presented by Paul on behalf of Dorene and Harvey Wright. Although the commission could not vote on the item due to the absence of a necessary D number, they allowed testimony. The project aimed to remove the plastic culvert installed in 2021, which had caused back flooding for a neighbor, and restore the natural water flow. The removal process would involve taking out the culvert and some underlying rocks, allowing natural drainage to resume. The commission discussed the project’s implications under Riverfront area regulations and the necessity of adhering to specific environmental guidelines.

The conversation revealed that the site above the culvert was classified as Riverfront area, necessitating compliance with relevant regulations. The preferred solution was to remove the culvert, facilitating the return of natural processes. The project was slated for execution in April to minimize erosion risks associated with winter work. Concerns about sedimentation control were addressed, with a consensus that a simple silt fence would suffice. The discussion also touched on the need for bank stabilization through seeding with an approved mix after the culvert’s removal.

The meeting addressed enforcement issues on Pleasant Street, concerning unpermitted pilings and the relocation of a float on Bass River. Bob Perry, representing the Lloyd family, explained that a draft enforcement order had been issued due to the pilings being moved beyond permitted limits. The original permit specified a float distance of six to seven feet from the landing, but it was found to be about eleven feet away. The enforcement order required the removal and proper replacement of pilings, with work restricted to January 15 to May 31 to protect local shellfish habitats and winter flounder.

A broader discussion emerged around the Lloyds’ dock, involving its historical context and regulatory status. Aerial photographs from 1952 were presented to argue that the dock, constructed in 1946, predated regulatory requirements, potentially qualifying it as a permitted structure. The commission considered this historical evidence in the context of current regulations and ultimately decided to revise the enforcement order with special conditions. A motion to this effect was approved by the members present.