[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:02] Good afternoon. This is the hearing of the Chatham Conservation Commission being held on March 4th,
[0:07] 2026 in accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Town of Chatham Wetlands
[0:12] Protection Bylaw and Regulations. My name is Karen Latin and I serve as the Chair. Please note,
[0:18] this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly a year after for scheduled
[0:22] and on-demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the
[0:29] meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair.
[0:35] Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025, signing of Chapter 2 of the Acts of
[0:41] 2025, extending certain COVID measures adopted during this day of emergency,
[0:46] suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, C-30A, Section 20,
[0:52] until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Chatham Conservation Commission is
[0:59] being conducted in person and via remote participation.
[1:04] Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings
[1:10] as provided in this order.
[1:13] A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do
[1:18] saw it, so by calling the phone number 1-508-945-4410, conference ID 287-797-786-79424.
[1:33] Or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link posted in the agenda.
[1:39] While this is a live broadcast and simulcast on Chatham TV, Xfinity Channel 1072, despite
[1:46] our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a
[1:52] record of the meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. To all
[1:56] participants, whether attending by phone or online, please remain muted unless
[2:01] you've been recognized by the chair. When recognized, please identify yourself
[2:05] for the record. If you are attending by phone, you can mute and unmute by
[2:09] using star six. If you are online and you are not a commissioner, please
[2:14] Please keep your camera turned off unless you've been recognized.
[2:17] Indicate that you wish to speak by using the raised hand feature so that we have a record
[2:21] of a quorum.
[2:22] I will now ask each commissioner to indicate their presence.
[2:26] Vice Chair Paul Johnson.
[2:27] Present.
[2:28] Janet Williams.
[2:29] Present.
[2:29] Elise Gordon.
[2:30] Present.
[2:30] Eric Hilbert.
[2:31] Present.
[2:32] Bob Delvecchio is not able to attend.
[2:35] And I am here.
[2:36] We have established that we have a quorum.
[2:39] Is there anyone who would like to make any announcements, comments, or future agenda
[2:43] items for anything other than the properties on the agenda today?
[2:47] You may comment on those properties, those when the property is being heard.
[2:53] I'm not seeing any raised hands or anybody in the room.
[2:58] Before we begin the agenda, Paul, are there any announcements of any requests for continuances
[3:03] today?
[3:04] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[3:04] Good afternoon, commissioners.
[3:05] I will tell you that 202 Lyme Hill Road has continued from October 8th to 25th to December
[3:14] 3rd has continued to the 11th.
[3:20] And that is it.
[3:24] Okay.
[3:25] At this point, Paul Whiteman, Chairman's Conservation Agent, will now lead us through the agenda.
[3:30] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[3:32] The following notices of intent were scheduled for February 25th due to the storm.
[3:37] They've been rescheduled to March 11, 2026 to allow time for re-advertising.
[3:42] I'm going to read these five right off rapidly, and then we'll get into discussion on coastal
[3:47] resiliency.
[3:48] 0 Eastwood Road, Chatham Conservation Foundation, Map 13, M-Parsal 21A-C242, SE number 103764,
[3:58] Project Invasive Species Management, Native Plant Restoration within 100 feet to Assault
[4:02] Marsh and Coastal Bank.
[4:04] This is a new application.
[4:05] Next, 72C, Ms. Lane, Buona, Fortuana, and I know I didn't pronounce that right, LLC,
[4:12] MAP1A, Parcel K, EP number SC10, 3767, proposed construction of a swimming pool and patio
[4:18] within a buffer zone to a coastal bank.
[4:20] This is a new application.
[4:22] Parcel 5, Crowes Pond Road, Scott Butcher, MAP10L, Parcel 5, DEP number SC10, 3766,
[4:30] construction of a dwelling and swimming pool within a buffer zone to a coastal
[4:33] bank.
[4:33] that's a new application. 357 Stony Hill Road, John Hernandez, Map 141, Parcel 2B, 25B,
[4:43] SC 10, 10, 3, 7, 6, 5, Proposed Swimming Pool, this is a new application. Lastly, 420 Harbor
[4:50] 2 Lane, Peter Harris, Map 161, Parcel 20-MD2, DEP number SC 10, 37, don't have the whole
[4:59] number raise and reconstruct the guest house and patio and stairs connect to
[5:03] existing septic system and this is also a new application great
[5:10] thank you so Paul
[5:12] we can have a motion I move that we continue zero eastward road 72 see Miss
[5:18] Lane parcel five crows pond road 357 Stony Hill Road and 42 old Harbor Lane
[5:26] to the meeting on March 11th, 2026.
[5:29] Second.
[5:30] All right, Elise.
[5:33] Aye.
[5:34] Janet.
[5:34] Aye.
[5:35] Paul.
[5:35] Aye.
[5:36] Eric.
[5:36] Aye.
[5:37] And I say aye.
[5:38] Okay, next.
[5:39] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[5:39] Next on the agenda is a discussion,
[5:42] the Coastal Resilience Regulation Modifications.
[5:46] Great, thank you.
[5:47] I'm going to let you guys just take over
[5:50] and do your thing.
[5:54] Well, I don't quite want to take over, but thank you very much for having us here today.
[6:01] I know this has been on your minds for some time, and we're very pleased to join you to
[6:05] talk about floodplain regulations.
[6:08] I'm Heather McElroy, I'm the Natural Resource Manager at the Cape Cod Commission.
[6:13] I've been working on this project with many different folks, and few of them are with
[6:19] us here today and definitely we'll call on them to help answer questions as we get into
[6:26] the discussion.
[6:26] But I'm going to start just to go through a few slides to give you an orientation to
[6:34] what we're about here.
[6:36] So yeah, the work that we're talking about here is model coastal resiliency regulation.
[6:44] This is the project team that's working on this provided and the work is made possible
[6:53] through funding provided by the SNAP network.
[7:00] So I'm hoping that, yeah, this is just a little picture of Chatham and some of the
[7:04] properties that are vulnerable to flooding.
[7:09] meeting.
[7:13] This discussion today really we hope to build on the overview presentation that
[7:21] was given now at the end of January. I hope those of you who weren't able to attend that
[7:26] meeting had an opportunity to review the video and have some familiarity with what we're
[7:33] going to talk about. I'm going to walk through the regulations and I've taken screenshots
[7:39] shots of the regulations. Hopefully you'll be able to read them about the point being
[7:44] really the hit on some of the high points and to highlight for you both the content and
[7:53] decision points. So for discussion and your consideration at a future date. This meeting
[8:00] is meant to orient you to the regulations, take your questions, hopefully provide answers,
[8:07] There's perhaps we'll go away with some additional information from you to modify this draft
[8:14] that we're presenting, but there's no action required of you here today.
[8:20] We anticipate you'll have your own conversations and when you're ready we can come back to
[8:26] answer some additional questions.
[8:33] There we go.
[8:34] Okay.
[8:34] So for those of you who looked at the video or were at the workshop, you know that
[8:39] we have these three different products, we're going to focus on the coastal resiliency regulations
[8:45] today, which are wetlands regulations, something that the Conservation Commission can adopt through
[8:53] your own processes. It doesn't have to go to town meeting, for example, as compared to bylaws,
[8:58] which are things that need town meeting approval. So just to hit some of the areas that we're
[9:07] going to talk about. There's preamble on purpose and there are important elements, also jurisdiction
[9:12] and what that means in this context. I'm going to touch on just a couple of the definitions
[9:17] that we want you to think about specifically, some presumptions. And then I'll touch on
[9:24] the general performance standards for the coastal resilience zone. And then we'll touch
[9:31] also on the standards for the different subzones within that coastal zone. The V zone,
[9:36] the coastal A zone and the A zone.
[9:42] So the preamble is really just setting out, you know,
[9:45] why wetlands are important. And not everyone understands that. And in this particular context,
[9:52] for these set of regulations, we want to not only establish the importance of regulations,
[9:57] but that they also serve to provide flood protection. And they protect against flood
[10:05] damage through slowing floodwaters, et cetera. So preamble is an important element of the
[10:14] regulations. Similarly, the purpose is laying out why the town is seeking to regulate development
[10:21] in this area. So we've, in this model set of regulations, we did a lot of research
[10:29] in the preparation of this work, looking at other examples. We had a legal team who assisted
[10:36] us in this work, so we would highly recommend, you know, basically adopting the preamble
[10:43] and purpose as drafted, but of course all of this is subject to your own discussions
[10:51] and modifications.
[10:55] So jurisdiction, this is something that merits a lot more conversation,
[11:03] but for today, and for the regulations that we're presenting here as a draft, we want
[11:13] you to, the jurisdiction is the existing floodplain. That area that everyone is familiar
[11:19] familiar with, what can be called the FEMA flood plain, the V-zone, A-zone, et cetera.
[11:29] For the purposes of these regulations and some potential future changes, we are basically
[11:37] equating the flood plain or land subject to coastal storm flowage with the coastal resilience
[11:44] zone.
[11:44] And there's a good reason for that, but that comes later.
[11:51] So the next section is definitions.
[11:55] There are a whole bunch of definitions.
[11:57] If these definitions are defined within your existing wetlands by-law or regulations,
[12:04] you don't need to repeat them here, but do definitely want to make comparisons, make
[12:08] sure that they're covering the relevant issues.
[12:12] use. This is the Coastal Resilience Zone. So as written right here, basically the Coastal
[12:23] Resilience Zone is equivalent to your floodplain. The reason that we add this is because in drafting
[12:30] these regulations initially, we wanted, and the intention is still, to have communities
[12:38] think about regulating a future floodplain. We are recommending to you that regulating
[12:43] that future floodplain is a next step. So for consideration these regulations that you might
[12:51] adopt, you're just looking at the existing floodplain. But having this definition in here
[12:59] and used throughout and referenced throughout will make it easier to incorporate that future
[13:07] floodplain at a future date if you choose to do so. If you don't, no harm. It's just
[13:12] That's a slightly different term.
[13:15] So that's an area to sort of focus in on and think about.
[13:18] Can you read this by the way?
[13:20] Is this?
[13:20] Okay.
[13:22] Glad to hear that.
[13:25] Yeah.
[13:30] Sorry, Mark, do you mean as a legal definition or what the actual existing floodplain is?
[13:39] That's a legal definition.
[13:40] I'm sorry.
[13:40] Yeah.
[13:40] It's the FEMA floodplain, what DEP refers to as land-subject coastal storm flowage,
[13:48] A zone, V zone. I just wanted to make sure existing meant the ways legally defined.
[13:52] Okay. Correct. Yep. So you'll see in the definitions
[13:58] reference to base flood elevation and sea level rise, base flood elevation.
[14:04] These are basically areas for future discussion. We don't want to get into this too much today
[14:09] because it's kind of a lot but just an area for you to focus on that the area
[14:16] that you are the height at which you're going to regulate to is a decision
[14:22] point.
[14:27] Some additional definitions and decision points are the definitions of
[14:33] substantial damage and substantial improvement. We've included in these
[14:38] definitions reference to the assessed value of a structure rather than the market value.
[14:45] Market value tends to be the typical approach. But for reasons that Shannon will elaborate
[14:52] on, if there's interest, we really think that assessed value is a better way to go
[14:57] and that's why it's presented in.
[15:00] All right,
[15:03] so presumptions.
[15:07] You're probably familiar with this idea when you're regulating
[15:11] other areas under the Wetlands Protection Act. But the idea here is, is that any project that
[15:18] involves a project that involves any filling, dredging, constructing one or more buildings
[15:23] or other structures within the coastal resilient zone or the CRZ is presumed to have a significant
[15:30] can affect on the flood control functions of the floodplain,
[15:35] and other things, erosion, sediment control,
[15:39] and water quality.
[15:42] So those presumptions are sort of setting out
[15:47] why the regulations are drafted the way they are.
[15:51] So then there's a section on the general performance
[15:54] standards.
[15:57] This really lays out the expectations
[16:00] conditions for certain activities in a general way, but the specific provisions are detailed
[16:07] in each of the sections on the subzones, so the V-zone, the coastal A-zone, the A-zone.
[16:14] So we'll get into that next.
[16:17] So just to fill in your eyes, everyone, with what these subzones are.
[16:21] This is a nice graphic produced somewhere at the state-level DP, maybe CZM.
[16:29] And here we have a cross-section of the shoreline.
[16:34] You'll see, you know, including into the ocean, there's the V-zone, where wave heights are
[16:42] greater than three feet.
[16:45] And that goes to a point where those wave heights decrease, and you then move into
[16:51] the A-zone, which is divided into these two subzones, the coastal A-zone, where
[16:56] where wave heights are less than three feet but more than a foot and a half, and then the
[17:01] A zone where the wave heights are less than a foot and a half, and that's really sort of
[17:07] still water flooding that's, you know, has moved landward into areas that don't typically
[17:12] see flooding.
[17:13] The X zone is not an area that we're considering, those are areas that flood in very extreme
[17:22] storm events, the 500-year storm event.
[17:30] So does that all make sense, that diagram?
[17:33] Okay.
[17:36] Oh, and I should just note they were shown there, but coastal A zone is also known as the
[17:44] moderate wave action area, the MOA, and the A zone is the minimal wave action area, the MIWA.
[17:52] And so those terms are also used.
[17:55] So here we are getting into sort of the meaty parts of the regulation.
[18:01] These are the performance standards that apply to the VZone.
[18:05] And what's drafted here is that there's no new construction or expansion of any buildings
[18:10] or other structures, including sheds, garages, pools, septic systems, or other structures
[18:18] in the VZone area.
[18:19] area. Similarly, that next area that's highlighted, no new construction, new construction or expansion
[18:27] of roads, parking lots, public shared use paths or other impervious surfaces in the
[18:34] VZone. And then there's an exception down here at the bottom, maintenance and repair
[18:39] of roads and parking lots, conversion of at-grade roads to elevated roadways and
[18:44] bridges could be allowed, shall be allowed. So we want to make sure that we're continuing
[18:49] continuing to maintain our existing infrastructure, elevate low-lying roads, but not encourage
[18:53] any new roadway or parking lot development in these areas.
[18:59] The section goes on without including all of the pages.
[19:03] I'm just a quick bulleted list here.
[19:06] Also no in the v-zone.
[19:08] New berms or seawalls, new septic, new impervious patio areas, no storage of hazardous materials.
[19:17] There are provisions within the v-zone to allow for changes to buildings where there's
[19:24] been substantial damage or substantial improvement is proposed, but those are limited.
[19:33] And then fill, there are some provisions for fill in limited circumstances in the v-zone.
[19:38] So
[19:41] then moving on to the A-zone, or the coastal A-zone, sorry, also known as the MOA,
[19:49] basically this set of standards becomes a little less restrictive as drafted. However,
[19:55] in the comment here the point is this is still a fairly high hazardous area and we would recommend
[20:04] that you could consider actually adopting the V-zone standards for the coastal A-zone.
[20:11] So that's a decision point as well.
[20:15] Or some subset.
[20:17] So, you know, what we're imagining, you're going to sort of workshop this at some future meeting
[20:23] and go through each of these different provisions and say,
[20:26] is this something that Chatham can live with or not.
[20:29] not.
[20:33] Another element that is sort of found throughout is provisions for historic structures.
[20:40] I mean, we really want historic structures to be flood-proofed. Historic structures are
[20:45] part of our community defining elements across Cape Cod. However, you know, absolute
[20:54] compliance with the provisions in these regulations or even the building code can
[21:00] can really dramatically impact how a historic structure relates to landscape and the neighborhood.
[21:07] So there are provisions for sort of thinking that through.
[21:11] Also if you have a zoning by-law, and I'm not going to get too much into zoning here,
[21:17] but we discussed at our workshop at the end of January that the town could think about
[21:25] adopting a zoning by-law with higher standards that would complement these
[21:31] regulations that the Conservation Commission is considering.
[21:36] The zoning
[21:37] by-law addresses different, it regulates different things than are
[21:43] regulated through the Wetlands Protection Act. The Interest in Wetlands
[21:48] Protection Act is protecting the function of wetlands. Zoning addresses
[21:51] is how buildings are sighted and their size and dimensions.
[21:57] So ideally, those two interests administered by the two different boards in the town are
[22:06] integrated and consistent.
[22:09] So that's just another area to think about and address.
[22:15] Some tweaking.
[22:16] You'll see the notes in the document that we shared with you about the points where
[22:22] you need to make some modifications.
[22:25] The notes show up over and over again just because the same concept is repeated.
[22:34] So then here we are in the MIWA zone or the A zone, that most landward area.
[22:40] Here really we're still regulating activity, but not as strictly as we are in those higher
[22:48] hazard areas. And some of the tests are highlighted here that the project will not redirect, channelize
[22:56] or exacerbate flood conditions, and that you're elevating consistent with the state-building
[23:01] code, which is the state-building code. It's going to be required anyway.
[23:10] And that brings us... There are a couple of other sections, but I thought I'd just
[23:13] Just leave it at that, sort of simplify it, pause there, see if there are any initial
[23:20] questions, and then I have one more slide, I think, that's sort of those key decision
[23:27] points that I want you to sort of think about moving forward.
[23:31] Okay.
[23:31] Does anybody have any questions at this point?
[23:36] No?
[23:38] Shannon has one thought she wants to share.
[23:41] Sure.
[23:42] So, Shannon Hulst, floodplain specialist, Barnsville County Cape Cod Cooperative Extension
[23:46] and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Sea Grant Program.
[23:49] I just also want to highlight that in your floodplain zoning bylaw, you already have prohibited
[23:54] new development in your V-zone and new dwellings in your A-zone.
[23:58] So another reason to keep this coordinated with your zoning bylaw is just to be aware
[24:01] of what each thing is doing.
[24:03] And then pieces of this will also be relevant to the building department as well.
[24:07] So just making sure it's all coordinated, but just wanted to highlight that.
[24:10] But this is a model that we're using for everyone, but Chatham has already prohibited that development
[24:14] already.
[24:15] Thank you.
[24:22] There are two comments.
[24:24] Anybody comments?
[24:25] Yeah.
[24:25] Go ahead, Janet.
[24:26] I have a couple of questions.
[24:27] Hi.
[24:28] Thank you for that.
[24:28] That's very helpful.
[24:30] We definitely want that visual slide.
[24:32] We've seen it before, and it really does capture it.
[24:35] It makes the case by itself.
[24:37] So it's very good.
[24:38] So, I want to talk about the creation of the coastal resilient zone within the context of
[24:45] regulations.
[24:46] And if it is the same as land subject to coastal storm flow, which is a practical matter, what
[24:53] happens to our regulations, our land subject regulations?
[24:57] Do we then have two sets of regulations that are regulating the same area?
[25:02] Do we repeal the land subject regulations?
[25:05] What happens?
[25:06] how do these two sets work together or not?
[25:10] So you presently have land-subject coastal storm
[25:13] flowage regulations.
[25:16] Yeah, I think you'd probably want to repeal them
[25:18] and make sure that if there's anything in them that
[25:20] isn't reflected in here that that is incorporated
[25:26] into that area, because the idea with the coastal
[25:28] resilience zone, since you brought it up,
[25:33] is that we know flooding is happening now and in fact the flooding that is
[25:40] happening now is greater than the FEMA floodplain and we anticipate that that is
[25:47] only going to increase based on what we know about trends in sea level rise and
[25:56] that that's not going to change for the foreseeable future. So the idea
[25:59] with these regulations is to be able to regulate into to address a future floodplain. The state
[26:06] has developed a model that projects that future floodplain and most folks feel comfortable that
[26:13] it's a fairly good projection. The model makes projections to 2050 and 2070 and you could decide
[26:22] at a future date which one of those projections you wanted to regulate to.
[26:27] But the idea is that by, through this bylaw, defining a coastal resilience zone that enables
[26:34] us to incorporate that future floodplain area that is not part of the FEMA floodplain.
[26:46] So we need a new term to define it, and that's what CRZ is, and that's why it is used throughout.
[26:53] But also, as you look at your existing LCSF standards, if there are pieces in there that
[26:59] you want to keep, you'll want to make sure to integrate them.
[27:02] Right.
[27:02] We can do a comparison and make sure that they're all integrated.
[27:07] But absent a bylaw change, and this may be a question for Town Council, do we have the
[27:12] authority to create a new resource area and regulate it?
[27:18] in this case you are just so that I would highly recommend that you run these by
[27:25] town council that's not figured yes but I think if we're defining in the
[27:34] regulations that CRZ is equivalent to LS CSF I think you're okay it would so
[27:41] So this is where the, I'm not a lawyer, but this is where our next step, which we've discussed
[27:51] with a couple members of this group, adopting the Coastal Resiliency By-Law does establish
[27:59] a new definition for CRZ and that new jurisdictional area.
[28:05] And bylaw, for everyone's benefit, a wetlands bylaw, needs to go to town meeting and have
[28:11] that town meeting approval.
[28:13] The community has agreed that this is an area we are going to regulate.
[28:18] Which for our members, the plan is to have that go before town in two town meetings
[28:27] from now.
[28:28] Not this May, but the following.
[28:32] Okay.
[28:33] So just taking this to the next logical step.
[28:35] let's say we integrate the existing regulations on the coastal flood plain, we're essentially
[28:40] changing the name, and then DEP issues its new performance standards for land subject.
[28:49] Are these, do you know, to the extent that anybody knows, are these aligned with what
[28:57] DEP is proposing for this area so that we wouldn't have to go through this again because
[29:02] now were required to adopt those performance standards.
[29:08] When we drafted these, the council that we worked with had direct conversations with
[29:19] DEP staff who were drafting these regulations.
[29:22] And so they are as aligned as they possibly can be, given that they were drafted before
[29:27] the public comment period, you know, DEP issued their draft regulations, there was a public
[29:34] comment period, and those DEP regulations have very likely changed as a result of the public
[29:41] comments.
[29:42] We know a couple of pieces that have changed that we were able to take out, but we've
[29:47] done the best we can for now, so in our thought, we've been told that those will
[29:52] be promulgated in 2026, however they've been working on them since 1993 and they
[29:57] still haven't come out, so our thought is...
[30:00] is keep this moving ahead and hopefully it doesn't mean you have to go through this process
[30:04] again a year from now, but it could mean, you know, you do it now, you have the regulations
[30:08] and then in ten years they actually come out. But it could potentially be a year, but we've
[30:12] incorporated as much as we can. Okay, so substantively it will work. There may be some fiddling
[30:19] around of what you call it so that DEP is satisfied and we've got the right regulations
[30:25] in the right place as a substantive matter. Okay. It's a little confusing, but, you know,
[30:30] such is life. Okay.
[30:32] Just one other comment on that, Janet. For what it's worth, one of these key staff, DEP
[30:38] staff people was at the MACC presentation I gave last year on this topic, and she was
[30:43] very positive on that. Good. Good to hear. Yeah, I didn't, yeah. Okay. One other question.
[30:52] So, I had, I know that in the draft proposed, the model bylaw, you included the special
[31:00] transition areas to protect salt marsh migration.
[31:05] Is that not part of this because it's tied to the models for sea level rise?
[31:12] Correct.
[31:13] Okay.
[31:14] And a new resource area.
[31:16] You have to get the authority, the okay from town meeting to regulate that area.
[31:20] I mean, it's not entirely tied that way, because I think in practice, the special transition
[31:27] areas could very well be within your existing floodplain right now.
[31:32] I was going to say, if you could keep them, if you could define it so that it only goes
[31:35] up to the edge of the current FEMA floodplain, you might be able to still do it.
[31:40] And it could even be within not just the floodplain, but, you know, some of those,
[31:44] those are for protecting other wetland resource areas.
[31:46] So it could also be up to the buffer of the to the wetlands for example, right?
[31:53] Oh, I know that reminds me so the coastal resilience zone as it's defined does not have a buffer zone of its own
[32:01] Is that correct? Okay. That's good because our land subject does not either. It was removed. Okay
[32:08] some communities have I think mashpee has
[32:12] approached this particular challenge of an
[32:16] an expanding floodplain by having a buffer to the land subject to.
[32:20] Well, we used to have one.
[32:22] Yeah.
[32:22] Yeah.
[32:24] The model, using the model, though, the Massachusetts Coast Flood Risk Model in the next step, it
[32:30] is a much more scientifically accurate way than...
[32:33] Right.
[32:33] Than just saying we're taking 100 feet from the FEMA and regulating that because
[32:37] that didn't work.
[32:38] Okay.
[32:38] I'll let other people ask questions.
[32:40] Thank you.
[32:41] Anybody else?
[32:42] The only question I had was, as far as homeowners insurance, that goes by FEMA, right?
[32:49] That's not going to affect, because these homes, they pay a lot of taxes in this town.
[32:53] So homeowners and flood insurance are different.
[32:56] So you're referring to flood insurance is what FEMA manages.
[32:59] If anything, this would improve flood insurance rates.
[33:02] It would bring them down.
[33:03] Part of this is tied into what's called the community rating system.
[33:06] Chatham participates.
[33:07] you all get a 15% discount on your flood insurance by the fact that the town participates.
[33:12] These regulations being more stringent in the floodplain will translate into points in that
[33:17] program and we don't know exactly what it will result in but it can result in additional
[33:22] savings on flood insurance so it will actually have positive effects on that insurance.
[33:27] In terms of homeowners insurance, because that's all through the private market we
[33:31] don't have a ton of information on it but anecdotally I'm hearing from all corners
[33:36] owners of the cape that homeowners companies are looking to have flood safety basically
[33:44] built into homes if they are going to renew or keep them.
[33:48] So even though they do not actually cover flood damage, because our risks are so high with
[33:52] flooding, they want to see flood protection.
[33:55] So this will likely help with that too, although it's at, that's at the property level
[34:00] whereas, you know, this is the community level, we could go into a whole other
[34:05] thing about potential for community insurance, which some folks are looking at that, but
[34:08] it's likely to have positive impacts on insurance.
[34:12] Okay, thanks.
[34:13] Anything else, anybody?
[34:16] Can I just add one thing on the assessed value that Heather mentioned, using the assessed
[34:22] value versus market value to determine substantial damage, substantial improvement.
[34:27] Those are terms that are in the building code.
[34:29] They come from the National Flood Insurance Program.
[34:31] That is something you would definitely want to work with the building department on.
[34:35] But using the assessed value versus the market value means that everybody has the same fair
[34:40] approach.
[34:41] Using the market value, folks are also allowed to get their own appraisal.
[34:45] So folks with the means to get their own appraisal will get their own appraisal.
[34:48] And basically, the more the home is worth, then there are ways to get around the
[34:53] floodplain regulations with that.
[34:55] The assessed value keeps it level.
[34:57] So just wanted to point that out.
[34:59] Thank you.
[35:00] Anybody?
[35:02] Just a small question that I went through.
[35:05] So in the definitions within zone A, actually in the velocity zone as well, they're defined
[35:12] with reference to the FEMA and a 26 percent chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year
[35:20] mortgage.
[35:21] Can you explain where that came from and what it means to us?
[35:24] Sure.
[35:24] So, the way that FEMA defines the floodplain is they are looking at, they're running all
[35:29] kinds of different storm scenarios and flood scenarios and they have pulled out the level
[35:33] of flooding that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year.
[35:38] That is kind of hard to wrap your mind around, what does that mean?
[35:41] And it sounds like a pretty low number, why are we regulating something that only has
[35:45] a 1% chance of happening?
[35:47] When you work into the statistics and the probabilities, that comes out to, it's
[35:52] the same thing as over the course of a 30-year mortgage, that same flood level has a 26 percent
[35:58] chance of occurring over the course of a 30-year mortgage.
[36:00] So that just helps you, it's the same level of flooding, just helps you understand the
[36:04] probability over time.
[36:06] Okay, interesting, okay.
[36:10] Thank you.
[36:11] Sure.
[36:12] Anybody?
[36:14] Okay.
[36:14] I think we can go on.
[36:16] All right. Well, just some things, takeaways. And I can share these slides with you afterwards
[36:24] so that you can have the slide deck to the extent it's helpful. But this slide I think
[36:30] is sort of the area to focus on. I think overall, the way we built this regulation
[36:38] is that you can sort of pick and choose the things that make sense to the town of Chatham.
[36:47] And starting with those set of standards pertaining to the V zone,
[36:53] that's sort of the most comprehensive list of restrictions.
[36:57] And then as you get into the more landward and less hazardous zones,
[37:03] the coastal A and the A zone, you can be less restrictive.
[37:07] But all of that is up for, you know, your discussion.
[37:13] Then how to define substantial, sorry, bit my tongue, substantial improvement.
[37:21] How to define substantial improvement or substantial damage.
[37:24] We just talked about that, assessed value versus market value, the inclusion of historic
[37:29] structures, how you want to handle that.
[37:31] And then, you know, we can talk more about the elevation of structures to what height
[37:40] do you want to require structures to be elevated.
[37:46] The building code has been recently updated and has, you know, new good requirements for
[37:54] elevating structures, which I think as they're implemented are really going to change
[38:00] the character of the look of our communities, but with the benefit of making them less vulnerable.
[38:07] This set of regulations contemplates those future flood plains. So if we're approving projects that
[38:14] are going to last, hopefully, for a long time, we want them to continue to be resilient into
[38:22] the future when we know that flood heights are going to be even higher than they are today,
[38:27] or could be today. So that's a decision point for you all. Do you want to be regulating
[38:36] under this, these regulations you're considering now to building code standards or do you want
[38:42] to look at higher standards that are based on the MCF or M?
[38:54] And I think that's all
[38:55] have. Yeah. Great. Thank you.
[39:02] Are there any other presentations or, okay, good.
[39:09] Obviously,
[39:11] we have work to do and this is why this was just the introduction. We need to evaluate
[39:19] everything. And part of the reason, well, Jantz started this before Select Board
[39:25] embraced wanting to protect our coast. And that is one of their goals for the
[39:32] year. So obviously that's where we come in. As you've heard, the first step is
[39:39] modifying the regulations. Then we'll do hopefully a bylaw change.
[39:46] change. And then the third step is the planning board will come in and modify their regulations.
[39:55] So we will be working with planning board on this. And our hope is that both groups will
[40:05] come forward with things that match, regulations that match, and so that there's no questions
[40:14] as to why it's okay for one person, one area, but not for the other. Anybody have anything
[40:21] else they want to add? Janik, go ahead.
[40:24] One last comment looking at it, Carol, reminds me that the Pleasant Bay Alliance, which
[40:30] is composed of the towns of Orleans, Brewster, Harwich, and Chatham, are behind this project
[40:36] and the steering committee of the alliance has been talking and is going to about not
[40:43] just having Chatham doing this ourselves, but having going forward with at least some
[40:48] of the other towns. And they are looking at it in Orleans and
[40:51] Harwich are actively considering this, which would be really helpful. We would have the
[40:55] support of other towns in the same position because we're all here at Pleasant Bay.
[41:01] So we will keep an eye on how that goes because that would be a really important
[41:06] development for us.
[41:07] Yes, we're lucky because of this SNEP grant that we got.
[41:13] We were able to pull in these other towns, and I think it gives it a lot more power if
[41:20] we can get more towns doing the same thing.
[41:24] And we're just the first step because we had started the process and we applied for
[41:29] the grant.
[41:30] So that's how we became the sort of people heading it up.
[41:34] 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
[41:41] So we are not alone even better
[41:46] Okay, Brian Brian
[41:55] 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
[42:02] Hope you hear hear that a lot
[42:03] I just have a question that is it's too stupid for me to ask on public record about sea level rise
[42:10] So maybe if somebody could help me out with that after the meeting, that'd be great.
[42:13] Thank you.
[42:17] Okay, well that was different.
[42:22] All right, then anybody?
[42:28] Then I guess we're all set.
[42:30] I very much want to thank you for coming and getting us started and giving us this overview
[42:35] since not everybody was able to be included in your January presentation.
[42:40] And we will put our heads together and I'm sure you will hear from us hopefully soon.
[42:47] Great. Very happy to be here and you let us know when you need us next.
[42:52] Thank you so much.
[42:55] Okay.
[42:58] Paul.
[43:00] Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[43:03] I'll read the continuance for 202 Lime Hill so you can vote on it.
[43:09] 202 Lime Hill Road, Lime Hill 22 Trust, map 12E, parcel 4-B6, DEP number SE 103746.
[43:18] The project is proposed, elevated catwalk, maintenance of an existing path and mitigation.
[43:23] It was continued from October 8th to 25th, and then again in December 3rd,
[43:27] 2025, the applicants requested a continuance to March 11th.
[43:33] There's a ZBA hearing, April 9th.
[43:39] I move that we continue 202 Lime Hill Road to the meeting on March 11th, 2026.
[43:45] Second?
[43:47] Second.
[43:48] Elise?
[43:49] Aye.
[43:49] Janet?
[43:50] Aye.
[43:50] Paul?
[43:50] Aye.
[43:51] Eric?
[43:51] Aye.
[43:52] And I say aye.
[43:53] Okay.
[43:54] The next one, Paul, please.
[43:55] Next on the agenda, Madam Chair, is a 67 Wilkie Way.
[43:59] A, Wilkie Way's 67 nominee trusted the owner, map 17D, parcel F13, DEP number SC103762.
[44:08] A project is construction of a swimming pool, patio and porch step extension within a buffer
[44:12] zone to a coastal bank.
[44:13] It was continued from January 28, 2026.
[44:17] There's no ZBA required in this one.
[44:20] Okay.
[44:20] Thank you.
[44:23] Not sure.
[44:24] For anybody, I did receive the modifications that were asked for, which was all of for
[44:33] the findings removing number three, which is for the variants, because no work is being
[44:40] done in the NDZ, it's only planting.
[44:44] So it doesn't require variants.
[44:49] So other than that, which I'll now accept that change, there was nothing else that was requested to be modified.
[44:58] And I am not...
[45:00] Seeing, anybody's on, so I think we can, does anybody have any other modifications first?
[45:08] Okay, then I think we can go to a motion please.
[45:12] I move that we close the hearing on 67 Wilkie Way and approve the order of conditions as
[45:17] modified.
[45:18] Second.
[45:19] Elise.
[45:20] Janet.
[45:21] Aye.
[45:21] Paul.
[45:22] Aye.
[45:22] Eric.
[45:22] Aye.
[45:23] And I say aye.
[45:24] So it's approved.
[45:25] Next one.
[45:27] Next on the agenda is a Proposed Order of Conditions 98, Oystipan, Furlong, Steven A.,
[45:33] and Haley G. Nadas, MAP 13E, parcel 29-11A, DP number SC 103682.
[45:41] The project is construction of a beach access catwalk.
[45:44] It was continued from May 8th, 2024, and then again in January 28th, 2026.
[45:49] The ZBA approved the project on 11-8-26.
[45:53] Oh, excuse me.
[45:54] that's not correct. The only modification that I received was changing the special condition.
[46:04] Number three from the catwalk will be elevated eight feet above the surface of the salt marsh
[46:11] to four feet above and did Bob Perry ask that yes okay so I didn't I just made it a
[46:24] modification I haven't accepted it because I wanted to make sure that
[46:27] everybody would agree that that was okay I just want to check the the late at
[46:33] the last plan, because I thought he had said eight feet.
[46:40] Is he on any chance?
[46:43] I thought that's what he had said, but he's saying four feet now.
[46:50] And of course, he's not on.
[46:52] He's not on, so 128, that was when the hearing was.
[46:56] Hang on, give me one second.
[47:16] Oh,
[47:24] I see.
[47:27] OK, he's right.
[47:28] the eight foot reference I'm looking at on the plan was to the length of that
[47:32] piece of the catwalk and if you the elevation is four feet okay okay so I
[47:40] just need to accept it yeah anybody have any other changes or my additions to
[47:48] this all right then we can we can go for a motion I move that we close the
[47:56] hearing on 98 Oyster Pond furlong and approve the order of conditions as
[48:00] modified. Second. Elise? I. Janet? I. Paul? I. Eric? I. And I say I. So, okay, next, please, Paul.
[48:11] Thank you, Madam Chair. Next on the agenda is a field change request. The address is
[48:16] 91 Gillis Road, Billion Catherine Cajil,
[48:21] Map 4B, Parcel 3-C, G4, DEP number SC103738.
[48:27] The project is to remove and relocate a dwelling
[48:29] off property, rebuild a new dwelling,
[48:32] Title V, an IA system, and associated site improvements.
[48:36] The field change request is to change
[48:38] a concrete retaining wall to a bolder retaining wall
[48:41] and add two additional retaining walls.
[48:44] No ZBA required.
[48:47] Bradford reviewed this, so if you need to ask questions.
[48:51] Right. Are there any representatives that are online because I'm not, obviously, nobody's here.
[48:57] Ah, there you go. Hi.
[48:59] Hi, Jason Hyer with Bracken Engineering on behalf of the applicants, Bill and Kate Shell at 91 Gillis Road.
[49:08] Yes, so as Paul said, the applicants are requesting a field change to add two boulder retaining
[49:16] walls to the southern side of the dwelling, one being under the proposed screen porch
[49:23] and the other just off the southwestern corner and then revising that previously approved
[49:34] concrete retaining wall to a boulder retaining wall construction okay anybody
[49:41] have any questions comments I will say that the mitigation they had offered
[49:47] initially more than covers these modifications Bradford do you have
[49:55] anything to add to anything I
[50:01] do not know okay perfect excellent anybody else
[50:05] any questions comments pretty straightforward all right then we could
[50:10] go to a motion please I move that we approve the field change request for
[50:15] 91 Gillis Road as written second at least I Janet I Paul I Eric I and I say I
[50:24] all right next please now we move on madam chair to submit a request for
[50:30] certificate of compliance, 118 Cotch-Pinicket Road, Jonah, excuse me, Joanna S. Mockler,
[50:37] map 16K, parcel 2, DEP number SE 10, 206, so this addition to an existing dwelling in
[50:44] Brick Terrace, this was 47 years old, 48 years old, so we did go out and look at the
[50:52] site, it is, you know, I'd recommend approving it, it's in compliance with some buildings
[50:57] that are just outside the Jurisdiction and Conservation Commission that were on the property,
[51:03] but we didn't have any jurisdiction over those, so I'd recommend approval for this.
[51:08] Okay.
[51:09] Does anybody have any questions about it?
[51:11] Did you dodge all the goose?
[51:13] Oops.
[51:14] No.
[51:15] No.
[51:15] It's too cold.
[51:17] And a little snow.
[51:22] Anybody have anything?
[51:23] All right.
[51:24] Then we can go to a motion, please.
[51:26] I move that we approve the Certificate of Compliance for a 118 Cachapinacut Road as
[51:32] written.
[51:33] Second.
[51:35] Elise.
[51:36] Hi.
[51:37] Janet.
[51:37] Hi.
[51:38] Hi.
[51:38] Eric.
[51:39] Hi.
[51:39] And I say hi.
[51:40] This is going way too fast.
[51:43] Okay, Paul.
[51:44] Next.
[51:45] Last on the agenda is another request for a Certificate of Compliance.
[51:49] This one's been withdrawn without prejudice.
[51:51] 21 Youngs Farm Road, Consuelo, and Ferguson, I apologize for my mispronunciations, MAP9D,
[52:00] parcel G2, DP number SC102836, project additions to a single family dwelling and construction
[52:06] of a deck. The applicant did request a certificate of compliance, but after we reviewed it,
[52:12] withdrew it and without prejudice and probably will come back at some future point. There
[52:17] were some issues with it.
[52:17] Okay, thank you. So we can go to a motion, please.
[52:21] I move that we approve the withdrawal of the certificate of compliance for 21 Young's Farm
[52:28] Road.
[52:29] Second.
[52:30] Elise.
[52:30] Aye.
[52:31] Janet.
[52:31] Aye.
[52:32] Paul.
[52:32] Aye.
[52:33] Eric.
[52:33] Aye.
[52:33] And I say aye.
[52:35] Okay. We just need one more motion.
[52:40] I move that we adjourn the hearing.
[52:42] Second.
[52:43] Elise.
[52:44] Aye.
[52:44] Janet.
[52:45] Aye.
[52:45] Paul.
[52:46] Hi.
[52:46] Eric.
[52:47] Hi.
[52:47] And I say hi.
[52:49] Thank you everyone.