Good afternoon. This is the hearing of the Chatham Conservation Commission being held on March 4th,
2026 in accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Town of Chatham Wetlands
Protection Bylaw and Regulations. My name is Karen Latin and I serve as the Chair. Please note,
this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly a year after for scheduled
and on-demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the
meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair.
Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025, signing of Chapter 2 of the Acts of
2025, extending certain COVID measures adopted during this day of emergency,
suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, C-30A, Section 20,
until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Chatham Conservation Commission is
being conducted in person and via remote participation.
Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings
as provided in this order.
A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do
saw it, so by calling the phone number 1-508-945-4410, conference ID 287-797-786-79424.
Or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link posted in the agenda.
While this is a live broadcast and simulcast on Chatham TV, Xfinity Channel 1072, despite
our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a
record of the meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. To all
participants, whether attending by phone or online, please remain muted unless
you've been recognized by the chair. When recognized, please identify yourself
for the record. If you are attending by phone, you can mute and unmute by
using star six. If you are online and you are not a commissioner, please
Please keep your camera turned off unless you've been recognized.
Indicate that you wish to speak by using the raised hand feature so that we have a record
of a quorum.
I will now ask each commissioner to indicate their presence.
Vice Chair Paul Johnson.
Present.
Janet Williams.
Present.
Elise Gordon.
Present.
Eric Hilbert.
Present.
Bob Delvecchio is not able to attend.
And I am here.
We have established that we have a quorum.
Is there anyone who would like to make any announcements, comments, or future agenda
items for anything other than the properties on the agenda today?
You may comment on those properties, those when the property is being heard.
I'm not seeing any raised hands or anybody in the room.
Before we begin the agenda, Paul, are there any announcements of any requests for continuances
today?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
I will tell you that 202 Lyme Hill Road has continued from October 8th to 25th to December
3rd has continued to the 11th.
And that is it.
Okay.
At this point, Paul Whiteman, Chairman's Conservation Agent, will now lead us through the agenda.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The following notices of intent were scheduled for February 25th due to the storm.
They've been rescheduled to March 11, 2026 to allow time for re-advertising.
I'm going to read these five right off rapidly, and then we'll get into discussion on coastal
resiliency.
0 Eastwood Road, Chatham Conservation Foundation, Map 13, M-Parsal 21A-C242, SE number 103764,
Project Invasive Species Management, Native Plant Restoration within 100 feet to Assault
Marsh and Coastal Bank.
This is a new application.
Next, 72C, Ms. Lane, Buona, Fortuana, and I know I didn't pronounce that right, LLC,
MAP1A, Parcel K, EP number SC10, 3767, proposed construction of a swimming pool and patio
within a buffer zone to a coastal bank.
This is a new application.
Parcel 5, Crowes Pond Road, Scott Butcher, MAP10L, Parcel 5, DEP number SC10, 3766,
construction of a dwelling and swimming pool within a buffer zone to a coastal
bank.
that's a new application. 357 Stony Hill Road, John Hernandez, Map 141, Parcel 2B, 25B,
SC 10, 10, 3, 7, 6, 5, Proposed Swimming Pool, this is a new application. Lastly, 420 Harbor
2 Lane, Peter Harris, Map 161, Parcel 20-MD2, DEP number SC 10, 37, don't have the whole
number raise and reconstruct the guest house and patio and stairs connect to
existing septic system and this is also a new application great
thank you so Paul
we can have a motion I move that we continue zero eastward road 72 see Miss
Lane parcel five crows pond road 357 Stony Hill Road and 42 old Harbor Lane
to the meeting on March 11th, 2026.
Second.
All right, Elise.
Aye.
Janet.
Aye.
Paul.
Aye.
Eric.
Aye.
And I say aye.
Okay, next.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Next on the agenda is a discussion,
the Coastal Resilience Regulation Modifications.
Great, thank you.
I'm going to let you guys just take over
and do your thing.
Well, I don't quite want to take over, but thank you very much for having us here today.
I know this has been on your minds for some time, and we're very pleased to join you to
talk about floodplain regulations.
I'm Heather McElroy, I'm the Natural Resource Manager at the Cape Cod Commission.
I've been working on this project with many different folks, and few of them are with
us here today and definitely we'll call on them to help answer questions as we get into
the discussion.
But I'm going to start just to go through a few slides to give you an orientation to
what we're about here.
So yeah, the work that we're talking about here is model coastal resiliency regulation.
This is the project team that's working on this provided and the work is made possible
through funding provided by the SNAP network.
So I'm hoping that, yeah, this is just a little picture of Chatham and some of the
properties that are vulnerable to flooding.
meeting.
This discussion today really we hope to build on the overview presentation that
was given now at the end of January. I hope those of you who weren't able to attend that
meeting had an opportunity to review the video and have some familiarity with what we're
going to talk about. I'm going to walk through the regulations and I've taken screenshots
shots of the regulations. Hopefully you'll be able to read them about the point being
really the hit on some of the high points and to highlight for you both the content and
decision points. So for discussion and your consideration at a future date. This meeting
is meant to orient you to the regulations, take your questions, hopefully provide answers,
There's perhaps we'll go away with some additional information from you to modify this draft
that we're presenting, but there's no action required of you here today.
We anticipate you'll have your own conversations and when you're ready we can come back to
answer some additional questions.
There we go.
Okay.
So for those of you who looked at the video or were at the workshop, you know that
we have these three different products, we're going to focus on the coastal resiliency regulations
today, which are wetlands regulations, something that the Conservation Commission can adopt through
your own processes. It doesn't have to go to town meeting, for example, as compared to bylaws,
which are things that need town meeting approval. So just to hit some of the areas that we're
going to talk about. There's preamble on purpose and there are important elements, also jurisdiction
and what that means in this context. I'm going to touch on just a couple of the definitions
that we want you to think about specifically, some presumptions. And then I'll touch on
the general performance standards for the coastal resilience zone. And then we'll touch
also on the standards for the different subzones within that coastal zone. The V zone,
the coastal A zone and the A zone.
So the preamble is really just setting out, you know,
why wetlands are important. And not everyone understands that. And in this particular context,
for these set of regulations, we want to not only establish the importance of regulations,
but that they also serve to provide flood protection. And they protect against flood
damage through slowing floodwaters, et cetera. So preamble is an important element of the
regulations. Similarly, the purpose is laying out why the town is seeking to regulate development
in this area. So we've, in this model set of regulations, we did a lot of research
in the preparation of this work, looking at other examples. We had a legal team who assisted
us in this work, so we would highly recommend, you know, basically adopting the preamble
and purpose as drafted, but of course all of this is subject to your own discussions
and modifications.
So jurisdiction, this is something that merits a lot more conversation,
but for today, and for the regulations that we're presenting here as a draft, we want
you to, the jurisdiction is the existing floodplain. That area that everyone is familiar
familiar with, what can be called the FEMA flood plain, the V-zone, A-zone, et cetera.
For the purposes of these regulations and some potential future changes, we are basically
equating the flood plain or land subject to coastal storm flowage with the coastal resilience
zone.
And there's a good reason for that, but that comes later.
So the next section is definitions.
There are a whole bunch of definitions.
If these definitions are defined within your existing wetlands by-law or regulations,
you don't need to repeat them here, but do definitely want to make comparisons, make
sure that they're covering the relevant issues.
use. This is the Coastal Resilience Zone. So as written right here, basically the Coastal
Resilience Zone is equivalent to your floodplain. The reason that we add this is because in drafting
these regulations initially, we wanted, and the intention is still, to have communities
think about regulating a future floodplain. We are recommending to you that regulating
that future floodplain is a next step. So for consideration these regulations that you might
adopt, you're just looking at the existing floodplain. But having this definition in here
and used throughout and referenced throughout will make it easier to incorporate that future
floodplain at a future date if you choose to do so. If you don't, no harm. It's just
That's a slightly different term.
So that's an area to sort of focus in on and think about.
Can you read this by the way?
Is this?
Okay.
Glad to hear that.
Yeah.
Sorry, Mark, do you mean as a legal definition or what the actual existing floodplain is?
That's a legal definition.
I'm sorry.
Yeah.
It's the FEMA floodplain, what DEP refers to as land-subject coastal storm flowage,
A zone, V zone. I just wanted to make sure existing meant the ways legally defined.
Okay. Correct. Yep. So you'll see in the definitions
reference to base flood elevation and sea level rise, base flood elevation.
These are basically areas for future discussion. We don't want to get into this too much today
because it's kind of a lot but just an area for you to focus on that the area
that you are the height at which you're going to regulate to is a decision
point.
Some additional definitions and decision points are the definitions of
substantial damage and substantial improvement. We've included in these
definitions reference to the assessed value of a structure rather than the market value.
Market value tends to be the typical approach. But for reasons that Shannon will elaborate
on, if there's interest, we really think that assessed value is a better way to go
and that's why it's presented in.
All right,
so presumptions.
You're probably familiar with this idea when you're regulating
other areas under the Wetlands Protection Act. But the idea here is, is that any project that
involves a project that involves any filling, dredging, constructing one or more buildings
or other structures within the coastal resilient zone or the CRZ is presumed to have a significant
can affect on the flood control functions of the floodplain,
and other things, erosion, sediment control,
and water quality.
So those presumptions are sort of setting out
why the regulations are drafted the way they are.
So then there's a section on the general performance
standards.
This really lays out the expectations
conditions for certain activities in a general way, but the specific provisions are detailed
in each of the sections on the subzones, so the V-zone, the coastal A-zone, the A-zone.
So we'll get into that next.
So just to fill in your eyes, everyone, with what these subzones are.
This is a nice graphic produced somewhere at the state-level DP, maybe CZM.
And here we have a cross-section of the shoreline.
You'll see, you know, including into the ocean, there's the V-zone, where wave heights are
greater than three feet.
And that goes to a point where those wave heights decrease, and you then move into
the A-zone, which is divided into these two subzones, the coastal A-zone, where
where wave heights are less than three feet but more than a foot and a half, and then the
A zone where the wave heights are less than a foot and a half, and that's really sort of
still water flooding that's, you know, has moved landward into areas that don't typically
see flooding.
The X zone is not an area that we're considering, those are areas that flood in very extreme
storm events, the 500-year storm event.
So does that all make sense, that diagram?
Okay.
Oh, and I should just note they were shown there, but coastal A zone is also known as the
moderate wave action area, the MOA, and the A zone is the minimal wave action area, the MIWA.
And so those terms are also used.
So here we are getting into sort of the meaty parts of the regulation.
These are the performance standards that apply to the VZone.
And what's drafted here is that there's no new construction or expansion of any buildings
or other structures, including sheds, garages, pools, septic systems, or other structures
in the VZone area.
area. Similarly, that next area that's highlighted, no new construction, new construction or expansion
of roads, parking lots, public shared use paths or other impervious surfaces in the
VZone. And then there's an exception down here at the bottom, maintenance and repair
of roads and parking lots, conversion of at-grade roads to elevated roadways and
bridges could be allowed, shall be allowed. So we want to make sure that we're continuing
continuing to maintain our existing infrastructure, elevate low-lying roads, but not encourage
any new roadway or parking lot development in these areas.
The section goes on without including all of the pages.
I'm just a quick bulleted list here.
Also no in the v-zone.
New berms or seawalls, new septic, new impervious patio areas, no storage of hazardous materials.
There are provisions within the v-zone to allow for changes to buildings where there's
been substantial damage or substantial improvement is proposed, but those are limited.
And then fill, there are some provisions for fill in limited circumstances in the v-zone.
So
then moving on to the A-zone, or the coastal A-zone, sorry, also known as the MOA,
basically this set of standards becomes a little less restrictive as drafted. However,
in the comment here the point is this is still a fairly high hazardous area and we would recommend
that you could consider actually adopting the V-zone standards for the coastal A-zone.
So that's a decision point as well.
Or some subset.
So, you know, what we're imagining, you're going to sort of workshop this at some future meeting
and go through each of these different provisions and say,
is this something that Chatham can live with or not.
not.
Another element that is sort of found throughout is provisions for historic structures.
I mean, we really want historic structures to be flood-proofed. Historic structures are
part of our community defining elements across Cape Cod. However, you know, absolute
compliance with the provisions in these regulations or even the building code can
can really dramatically impact how a historic structure relates to landscape and the neighborhood.
So there are provisions for sort of thinking that through.
Also if you have a zoning by-law, and I'm not going to get too much into zoning here,
but we discussed at our workshop at the end of January that the town could think about
adopting a zoning by-law with higher standards that would complement these
regulations that the Conservation Commission is considering.
The zoning
by-law addresses different, it regulates different things than are
regulated through the Wetlands Protection Act. The Interest in Wetlands
Protection Act is protecting the function of wetlands. Zoning addresses
is how buildings are sighted and their size and dimensions.
So ideally, those two interests administered by the two different boards in the town are
integrated and consistent.
So that's just another area to think about and address.
Some tweaking.
You'll see the notes in the document that we shared with you about the points where
you need to make some modifications.
The notes show up over and over again just because the same concept is repeated.
So then here we are in the MIWA zone or the A zone, that most landward area.
Here really we're still regulating activity, but not as strictly as we are in those higher
hazard areas. And some of the tests are highlighted here that the project will not redirect, channelize
or exacerbate flood conditions, and that you're elevating consistent with the state-building
code, which is the state-building code. It's going to be required anyway.
And that brings us... There are a couple of other sections, but I thought I'd just
Just leave it at that, sort of simplify it, pause there, see if there are any initial
questions, and then I have one more slide, I think, that's sort of those key decision
points that I want you to sort of think about moving forward.
Okay.
Does anybody have any questions at this point?
No?
Shannon has one thought she wants to share.
Sure.
So, Shannon Hulst, floodplain specialist, Barnsville County Cape Cod Cooperative Extension
and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Sea Grant Program.
I just also want to highlight that in your floodplain zoning bylaw, you already have prohibited
new development in your V-zone and new dwellings in your A-zone.
So another reason to keep this coordinated with your zoning bylaw is just to be aware
of what each thing is doing.
And then pieces of this will also be relevant to the building department as well.
So just making sure it's all coordinated, but just wanted to highlight that.
But this is a model that we're using for everyone, but Chatham has already prohibited that development
already.
Thank you.
There are two comments.
Anybody comments?
Yeah.
Go ahead, Janet.
I have a couple of questions.
Hi.
Thank you for that.
That's very helpful.
We definitely want that visual slide.
We've seen it before, and it really does capture it.
It makes the case by itself.
So it's very good.
So, I want to talk about the creation of the coastal resilient zone within the context of
regulations.
And if it is the same as land subject to coastal storm flow, which is a practical matter, what
happens to our regulations, our land subject regulations?
Do we then have two sets of regulations that are regulating the same area?
Do we repeal the land subject regulations?
What happens?
how do these two sets work together or not?
So you presently have land-subject coastal storm
flowage regulations.
Yeah, I think you'd probably want to repeal them
and make sure that if there's anything in them that
isn't reflected in here that that is incorporated
into that area, because the idea with the coastal
resilience zone, since you brought it up,
is that we know flooding is happening now and in fact the flooding that is
happening now is greater than the FEMA floodplain and we anticipate that that is
only going to increase based on what we know about trends in sea level rise and
that that's not going to change for the foreseeable future. So the idea
with these regulations is to be able to regulate into to address a future floodplain. The state
has developed a model that projects that future floodplain and most folks feel comfortable that
it's a fairly good projection. The model makes projections to 2050 and 2070 and you could decide
at a future date which one of those projections you wanted to regulate to.
But the idea is that by, through this bylaw, defining a coastal resilience zone that enables
us to incorporate that future floodplain area that is not part of the FEMA floodplain.
So we need a new term to define it, and that's what CRZ is, and that's why it is used throughout.
But also, as you look at your existing LCSF standards, if there are pieces in there that
you want to keep, you'll want to make sure to integrate them.
Right.
We can do a comparison and make sure that they're all integrated.
But absent a bylaw change, and this may be a question for Town Council, do we have the
authority to create a new resource area and regulate it?
in this case you are just so that I would highly recommend that you run these by
town council that's not figured yes but I think if we're defining in the
regulations that CRZ is equivalent to LS CSF I think you're okay it would so
So this is where the, I'm not a lawyer, but this is where our next step, which we've discussed
with a couple members of this group, adopting the Coastal Resiliency By-Law does establish
a new definition for CRZ and that new jurisdictional area.
And bylaw, for everyone's benefit, a wetlands bylaw, needs to go to town meeting and have
that town meeting approval.
The community has agreed that this is an area we are going to regulate.
Which for our members, the plan is to have that go before town in two town meetings
from now.
Not this May, but the following.
Okay.
So just taking this to the next logical step.
let's say we integrate the existing regulations on the coastal flood plain, we're essentially
changing the name, and then DEP issues its new performance standards for land subject.
Are these, do you know, to the extent that anybody knows, are these aligned with what
DEP is proposing for this area so that we wouldn't have to go through this again because
now were required to adopt those performance standards.
When we drafted these, the council that we worked with had direct conversations with
DEP staff who were drafting these regulations.
And so they are as aligned as they possibly can be, given that they were drafted before
the public comment period, you know, DEP issued their draft regulations, there was a public
comment period, and those DEP regulations have very likely changed as a result of the public
comments.
We know a couple of pieces that have changed that we were able to take out, but we've
done the best we can for now, so in our thought, we've been told that those will
be promulgated in 2026, however they've been working on them since 1993 and they
still haven't come out, so our thought is...
is keep this moving ahead and hopefully it doesn't mean you have to go through this process
again a year from now, but it could mean, you know, you do it now, you have the regulations
and then in ten years they actually come out. But it could potentially be a year, but we've
incorporated as much as we can. Okay, so substantively it will work. There may be some fiddling
around of what you call it so that DEP is satisfied and we've got the right regulations
in the right place as a substantive matter. Okay. It's a little confusing, but, you know,
such is life. Okay.
Just one other comment on that, Janet. For what it's worth, one of these key staff, DEP
staff people was at the MACC presentation I gave last year on this topic, and she was
very positive on that. Good. Good to hear. Yeah, I didn't, yeah. Okay. One other question.
So, I had, I know that in the draft proposed, the model bylaw, you included the special
transition areas to protect salt marsh migration.
Is that not part of this because it's tied to the models for sea level rise?
Correct.
Okay.
And a new resource area.
You have to get the authority, the okay from town meeting to regulate that area.
I mean, it's not entirely tied that way, because I think in practice, the special transition
areas could very well be within your existing floodplain right now.
I was going to say, if you could keep them, if you could define it so that it only goes
up to the edge of the current FEMA floodplain, you might be able to still do it.
And it could even be within not just the floodplain, but, you know, some of those,
those are for protecting other wetland resource areas.
So it could also be up to the buffer of the to the wetlands for example, right?
Oh, I know that reminds me so the coastal resilience zone as it's defined does not have a buffer zone of its own
Is that correct? Okay. That's good because our land subject does not either. It was removed. Okay
some communities have I think mashpee has
approached this particular challenge of an
an expanding floodplain by having a buffer to the land subject to.
Well, we used to have one.
Yeah.
The model, using the model, though, the Massachusetts Coast Flood Risk Model in the next step, it
is a much more scientifically accurate way than...
Right.
Than just saying we're taking 100 feet from the FEMA and regulating that because
that didn't work.
Okay.
I'll let other people ask questions.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
The only question I had was, as far as homeowners insurance, that goes by FEMA, right?
That's not going to affect, because these homes, they pay a lot of taxes in this town.
So homeowners and flood insurance are different.
So you're referring to flood insurance is what FEMA manages.
If anything, this would improve flood insurance rates.
It would bring them down.
Part of this is tied into what's called the community rating system.
Chatham participates.
you all get a 15% discount on your flood insurance by the fact that the town participates.
These regulations being more stringent in the floodplain will translate into points in that
program and we don't know exactly what it will result in but it can result in additional
savings on flood insurance so it will actually have positive effects on that insurance.
In terms of homeowners insurance, because that's all through the private market we
don't have a ton of information on it but anecdotally I'm hearing from all corners
owners of the cape that homeowners companies are looking to have flood safety basically
built into homes if they are going to renew or keep them.
So even though they do not actually cover flood damage, because our risks are so high with
flooding, they want to see flood protection.
So this will likely help with that too, although it's at, that's at the property level
whereas, you know, this is the community level, we could go into a whole other
thing about potential for community insurance, which some folks are looking at that, but
it's likely to have positive impacts on insurance.
Okay, thanks.
Anything else, anybody?
Can I just add one thing on the assessed value that Heather mentioned, using the assessed
value versus market value to determine substantial damage, substantial improvement.
Those are terms that are in the building code.
They come from the National Flood Insurance Program.
That is something you would definitely want to work with the building department on.
But using the assessed value versus the market value means that everybody has the same fair
approach.
Using the market value, folks are also allowed to get their own appraisal.
So folks with the means to get their own appraisal will get their own appraisal.
And basically, the more the home is worth, then there are ways to get around the
floodplain regulations with that.
The assessed value keeps it level.
So just wanted to point that out.
Thank you.
Anybody?
Just a small question that I went through.
So in the definitions within zone A, actually in the velocity zone as well, they're defined
with reference to the FEMA and a 26 percent chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year
mortgage.
Can you explain where that came from and what it means to us?
Sure.
So, the way that FEMA defines the floodplain is they are looking at, they're running all
kinds of different storm scenarios and flood scenarios and they have pulled out the level
of flooding that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year.
That is kind of hard to wrap your mind around, what does that mean?
And it sounds like a pretty low number, why are we regulating something that only has
a 1% chance of happening?
When you work into the statistics and the probabilities, that comes out to, it's
the same thing as over the course of a 30-year mortgage, that same flood level has a 26 percent
chance of occurring over the course of a 30-year mortgage.
So that just helps you, it's the same level of flooding, just helps you understand the
probability over time.
Okay, interesting, okay.
Thank you.
Sure.
Anybody?
Okay.
I think we can go on.
All right. Well, just some things, takeaways. And I can share these slides with you afterwards
so that you can have the slide deck to the extent it's helpful. But this slide I think
is sort of the area to focus on. I think overall, the way we built this regulation
is that you can sort of pick and choose the things that make sense to the town of Chatham.
And starting with those set of standards pertaining to the V zone,
that's sort of the most comprehensive list of restrictions.
And then as you get into the more landward and less hazardous zones,
the coastal A and the A zone, you can be less restrictive.
But all of that is up for, you know, your discussion.
Then how to define substantial, sorry, bit my tongue, substantial improvement.
How to define substantial improvement or substantial damage.
We just talked about that, assessed value versus market value, the inclusion of historic
structures, how you want to handle that.
And then, you know, we can talk more about the elevation of structures to what height
do you want to require structures to be elevated.
The building code has been recently updated and has, you know, new good requirements for
elevating structures, which I think as they're implemented are really going to change
the character of the look of our communities, but with the benefit of making them less vulnerable.
This set of regulations contemplates those future flood plains. So if we're approving projects that
are going to last, hopefully, for a long time, we want them to continue to be resilient into
the future when we know that flood heights are going to be even higher than they are today,
or could be today. So that's a decision point for you all. Do you want to be regulating
under this, these regulations you're considering now to building code standards or do you want
to look at higher standards that are based on the MCF or M?
And I think that's all
have. Yeah. Great. Thank you.
Are there any other presentations or, okay, good.
Obviously,
we have work to do and this is why this was just the introduction. We need to evaluate
everything. And part of the reason, well, Jantz started this before Select Board
embraced wanting to protect our coast. And that is one of their goals for the
year. So obviously that's where we come in. As you've heard, the first step is
modifying the regulations. Then we'll do hopefully a bylaw change.
change. And then the third step is the planning board will come in and modify their regulations.
So we will be working with planning board on this. And our hope is that both groups will
come forward with things that match, regulations that match, and so that there's no questions
as to why it's okay for one person, one area, but not for the other. Anybody have anything
else they want to add? Janik, go ahead.
One last comment looking at it, Carol, reminds me that the Pleasant Bay Alliance, which
is composed of the towns of Orleans, Brewster, Harwich, and Chatham, are behind this project
and the steering committee of the alliance has been talking and is going to about not
just having Chatham doing this ourselves, but having going forward with at least some
of the other towns. And they are looking at it in Orleans and
Harwich are actively considering this, which would be really helpful. We would have the
support of other towns in the same position because we're all here at Pleasant Bay.
So we will keep an eye on how that goes because that would be a really important
development for us.
Yes, we're lucky because of this SNEP grant that we got.
We were able to pull in these other towns, and I think it gives it a lot more power if
we can get more towns doing the same thing.
And we're just the first step because we had started the process and we applied for
the grant.
So that's how we became the sort of people heading it up.
And just to find out on that the word has it that the town of Dennis Conservation Commission is going to be doing the same thing
So we are not alone even better
Okay, Brian Brian
Phillips 374 Orleans Road. I'd like to thank you guys for all the great work you do. This stuff's really important and I
Hope you hear hear that a lot
I just have a question that is it's too stupid for me to ask on public record about sea level rise
So maybe if somebody could help me out with that after the meeting, that'd be great.
Thank you.
Okay, well that was different.
All right, then anybody?
Then I guess we're all set.
I very much want to thank you for coming and getting us started and giving us this overview
since not everybody was able to be included in your January presentation.
And we will put our heads together and I'm sure you will hear from us hopefully soon.
Great. Very happy to be here and you let us know when you need us next.
Thank you so much.
Okay.
Paul.
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll read the continuance for 202 Lime Hill so you can vote on it.
202 Lime Hill Road, Lime Hill 22 Trust, map 12E, parcel 4-B6, DEP number SE 103746.
The project is proposed, elevated catwalk, maintenance of an existing path and mitigation.
It was continued from October 8th to 25th, and then again in December 3rd,
2025, the applicants requested a continuance to March 11th.
There's a ZBA hearing, April 9th.
I move that we continue 202 Lime Hill Road to the meeting on March 11th, 2026.
Second?
Second.
Elise?
Aye.
Janet?
Aye.
Paul?
Aye.
Eric?
Aye.
And I say aye.
Okay.
The next one, Paul, please.
Next on the agenda, Madam Chair, is a 67 Wilkie Way.
A, Wilkie Way's 67 nominee trusted the owner, map 17D, parcel F13, DEP number SC103762.
A project is construction of a swimming pool, patio and porch step extension within a buffer
zone to a coastal bank.
It was continued from January 28, 2026.
There's no ZBA required in this one.
Okay.
Thank you.
Not sure.
For anybody, I did receive the modifications that were asked for, which was all of for
the findings removing number three, which is for the variants, because no work is being
done in the NDZ, it's only planting.
So it doesn't require variants.
So other than that, which I'll now accept that change, there was nothing else that was requested to be modified.
And I am not...
Seeing, anybody's on, so I think we can, does anybody have any other modifications first?
Okay, then I think we can go to a motion please.
I move that we close the hearing on 67 Wilkie Way and approve the order of conditions as
modified.
Second.
Elise.
Janet.
Aye.
Paul.
Aye.
Eric.
Aye.
And I say aye.
So it's approved.
Next one.
Next on the agenda is a Proposed Order of Conditions 98, Oystipan, Furlong, Steven A.,
and Haley G. Nadas, MAP 13E, parcel 29-11A, DP number SC 103682.
The project is construction of a beach access catwalk.
It was continued from May 8th, 2024, and then again in January 28th, 2026.
The ZBA approved the project on 11-8-26.
Oh, excuse me.
that's not correct. The only modification that I received was changing the special condition.
Number three from the catwalk will be elevated eight feet above the surface of the salt marsh
to four feet above and did Bob Perry ask that yes okay so I didn't I just made it a
modification I haven't accepted it because I wanted to make sure that
everybody would agree that that was okay I just want to check the the late at
the last plan, because I thought he had said eight feet.
Is he on any chance?
I thought that's what he had said, but he's saying four feet now.
And of course, he's not on.
He's not on, so 128, that was when the hearing was.
Hang on, give me one second.
Oh,
I see.
OK, he's right.
the eight foot reference I'm looking at on the plan was to the length of that
piece of the catwalk and if you the elevation is four feet okay okay so I
just need to accept it yeah anybody have any other changes or my additions to
this all right then we can we can go for a motion I move that we close the
hearing on 98 Oyster Pond furlong and approve the order of conditions as
modified. Second. Elise? I. Janet? I. Paul? I. Eric? I. And I say I. So, okay, next, please, Paul.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Next on the agenda is a field change request. The address is
91 Gillis Road, Billion Catherine Cajil,
Map 4B, Parcel 3-C, G4, DEP number SC103738.
The project is to remove and relocate a dwelling
off property, rebuild a new dwelling,
Title V, an IA system, and associated site improvements.
The field change request is to change
a concrete retaining wall to a bolder retaining wall
and add two additional retaining walls.
No ZBA required.
Bradford reviewed this, so if you need to ask questions.
Right. Are there any representatives that are online because I'm not, obviously, nobody's here.
Ah, there you go. Hi.
Hi, Jason Hyer with Bracken Engineering on behalf of the applicants, Bill and Kate Shell at 91 Gillis Road.
Yes, so as Paul said, the applicants are requesting a field change to add two boulder retaining
walls to the southern side of the dwelling, one being under the proposed screen porch
and the other just off the southwestern corner and then revising that previously approved
concrete retaining wall to a boulder retaining wall construction okay anybody
have any questions comments I will say that the mitigation they had offered
initially more than covers these modifications Bradford do you have
anything to add to anything I
do not know okay perfect excellent anybody else
any questions comments pretty straightforward all right then we could
go to a motion please I move that we approve the field change request for
91 Gillis Road as written second at least I Janet I Paul I Eric I and I say I
all right next please now we move on madam chair to submit a request for
certificate of compliance, 118 Cotch-Pinicket Road, Jonah, excuse me, Joanna S. Mockler,
map 16K, parcel 2, DEP number SE 10, 206, so this addition to an existing dwelling in
Brick Terrace, this was 47 years old, 48 years old, so we did go out and look at the
site, it is, you know, I'd recommend approving it, it's in compliance with some buildings
that are just outside the Jurisdiction and Conservation Commission that were on the property,
but we didn't have any jurisdiction over those, so I'd recommend approval for this.
Okay.
Does anybody have any questions about it?
Did you dodge all the goose?
Oops.
No.
It's too cold.
And a little snow.
Anybody have anything?
All right.
Then we can go to a motion, please.
I move that we approve the Certificate of Compliance for a 118 Cachapinacut Road as
written.
Second.
Elise.
Hi.
Janet.
Hi.
Eric.
Hi.
And I say hi.
This is going way too fast.
Okay, Paul.
Next.
Last on the agenda is another request for a Certificate of Compliance.
This one's been withdrawn without prejudice.
21 Youngs Farm Road, Consuelo, and Ferguson, I apologize for my mispronunciations, MAP9D,
parcel G2, DP number SC102836, project additions to a single family dwelling and construction
of a deck. The applicant did request a certificate of compliance, but after we reviewed it,
withdrew it and without prejudice and probably will come back at some future point. There
were some issues with it.
Okay, thank you. So we can go to a motion, please.
I move that we approve the withdrawal of the certificate of compliance for 21 Young's Farm
Road.
Second.
Elise.
Aye.
Janet.
Aye.
Paul.
Aye.
Eric.
Aye.
And I say aye.
Okay. We just need one more motion.
I move that we adjourn the hearing.
Second.
Elise.
Aye.
Janet.
Aye.
Paul.
Hi.
Eric.
Hi.
And I say hi.
Thank you everyone.