[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.

[32:24] 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.

Conservation Commission

Transcript