[0:00] Welcome to the Wednesday, March 18, 2026

[0:03] meeting of the Gloucester Conservation

[0:05] Commission. The time is 5:30. I will

[0:08] start with a roll call. Commissioners

[0:10] present. Cook

[0:11] >> here.

[0:12] >> Argent

[0:13] >> here.

[0:14] >> Member Elites

[0:15] >> here.

[0:15] >> Member Terry and member Jackson

[0:18] >> here.

[0:20] >> Present.

[0:22] >> Okay, we'll start off the meeting with

[0:24] an administrative briefing. Chuck, do

[0:26] you have anything to catch us up on?

[0:29] Uh not a whole lot. Uh we do have uh

[0:32] progress being made on the uh culvert

[0:35] down at Lennic Avenue, Atlantic Street,

[0:38] uh right there at the uh pillars. Um

[0:42] they are running just slightly behind

[0:45] schedule because of all the weather. Um

[0:47] but they are moving right along and they

[0:50] should have flow established if not by

[0:52] the end of this week, uh the beginning

[0:54] of next week. Um they've basically kind

[0:57] of finished up all of the structure and

[0:59] they're just kind of redoing the uh the

[1:01] uh substrate around the structure and

[1:04] then they will get the uh bottom

[1:06] substrate of the culvert installed uh

[1:09] probably starting sometime tomorrow.

[1:12] >> Okay, sounds good.

[1:14] If you have nothing else, we'll move on

[1:16] to public comment. This is the

[1:18] opportunity for anyone in the audience

[1:19] who wishes to comment on an item of

[1:22] conservation value that is not on the

[1:25] current agenda. um the opportunity to do

[1:28] so. Is there anyone who wishes to speak?

[1:36] » Don't have any hands up on the Zoom and

[1:39] I'm here in person.

[1:41] >> Okay, I'll close the public comment

[1:42] period. We'll move on to minutes review

[1:44] and approval. Um we're working on the

[1:47] minutes for March 4th, 2026.

[1:53] Commissioner Cook moves to approve the

[1:56] minutes for March 4th, 2026.

[2:00] >> Commissioner Sergeant seconds.

[2:02] >> Call. Member Cook.

[2:03] >> Yes.

[2:04] >> Sergeant.

[2:05] >> Yes.

[2:05] >> Member Lightes.

[2:06] >> Yes.

[2:07] >> Member Jackson.

[2:08] >> Yes. Okay. Moving on to continued

[2:11] business. First up is NOI 028 2976

[2:16] 171 and 281 rear Magnolia Avenue. how

[2:20] Mag LLC being the owner and this is was

[2:23] previously continued to April 15th,

[2:26] 2026.

[2:28] Next up is NOI028

[2:31] um unassigned

[2:34] NO um D number for 18 rear bungalow road

[2:39] uh Marshia Sassoon owning and this also

[2:42] was previously continued to April 1st

[2:45] 2026.

[2:47] Then we have NOI two together. NOI

[2:50] 028-30006

[2:52] at 105 Wingers Road, 125 Wingers LLC and

[2:57] NOI 02830007

[3:00] 107 Wingershik Road also by 125 Wingers

[3:05] LLC. There has been a request to

[3:07] continue each of these items to a the

[3:10] meeting of April 15, 2026.

[3:13] Commissioner Cook makes a motion to move

[3:16] NOI 02830006

[3:19] and NOI 02830007

[3:23] to the meeting of April 15, 2026.

[3:29] » Mr. Sergeant seconds member Cook.

[3:32] >> Yes.

[3:33] >> Sergeant,

[3:34] >> yes. Memberes,

[3:35] >> yes.

[3:35] >> And Jackson,

[3:37] >> yes.

[3:39] NOI 0283036

[3:41] at 36 and 7 Welch Lane and Rear Woodman

[3:44] Street by RDL Welch Lane LLC. There's

[3:48] also been a request to continue to the

[3:50] meeting of April 15, 2026.

[3:53] >> Commissioner Cook makes a motion to move

[3:56] NOI 0283036

[3:59] to the commission meeting of April 15,

[4:02] 2026.

[4:05] >> Commissioner Le call member Cook. Yes.

[4:09] >> Sergeant

[4:10] >> stay.

[4:12] Yes. Member Jackson.

[4:14] >> Yes.

[4:15] Okay. NOI 0283077

[4:19] at 37y Road by Daniel Fonzi. There has

[4:23] been a request to withdraw this

[4:24] application without prejudice.

[4:27] >> Aiden does have his hand up if we want

[4:29] to hear from him.

[4:31] >> Okay.

[4:33] >> He should be joining now.

[4:37] name and address for the record, please.

[4:39] >> Sorry, I lost you there for a second.

[4:41] Um, rejoin as panelists. Uh, Aiden

[4:43] Church, Casside Legal Solutions, address

[4:45] 123 Main Street, Glouester. Um, so as

[4:49] you mentioned, um, Mr. Chair, we did

[4:53] just submit this afternoon a written

[4:55] request for um, a request to withdraw

[4:58] this NOI. I'm going to also address the

[5:02] request for certificate of compliance

[5:03] that's um later on down the agenda for

[5:06] 35 mass road. So, uh, based on the

[5:10] discussion that we had, uh, two weeks

[5:12] ago here with the commission, based on,

[5:15] um, you know, the additional impact area

[5:18] on 35 Massesoy Road, we're going to

[5:21] respectfully request, uh, that the

[5:23] commission issue a friendly enforcement

[5:25] order uh, pertaining to 35 Massoy Road.

[5:28] Uh, we hope to work collaborative

[5:30] collaboratively with the commission to

[5:32] address um, that additional impact area

[5:35] through a restoration plan. Um, so

[5:39] obviously it's at the at the

[5:41] commission's discretion as to as to when

[5:44] to issue that enforcement order, but we

[5:46] would request that it is placed on once

[5:49] it is issued that it is placed on on the

[5:51] May 6th agenda so that we have

[5:54] sufficient time to develop that

[5:56] restoration plan and um and submit it in

[5:59] advance of that hearing. So, uh, just to

[6:02] recap, the the request in its entirety

[6:04] is to withdraw the NOI for 37 Masses Soy

[6:10] Road again without prejudice. Um, so

[6:12] that we can hopefully come back in the

[6:13] future. Um, and then to also withdraw

[6:16] the request for certificate of

[6:17] compliance on 35 Massesoid um, also

[6:21] without prejudice and then that the

[6:24] commission issue a friendly enforcement

[6:25] order pertaining to uh, 35 Massoy Road.

[6:29] I'm happy to answer any questions uh

[6:31] about any of the process or anything

[6:32] like that.

[6:34] >> Okay.

[6:35] >> Madam Chair, I just want to state for the uh RCOC um

[6:43] there's not really a withdrawal process

[6:44] for that. So, I think the commission

[6:46] should probably vote that uh they're not

[6:48] going to issue the COC at this time and

[6:50] I'll write a written letter and that'll

[6:52] kind of close it out um on the current

[6:54] agendas and then they can resubmit for

[6:56] that once they've kind of cleaned things

[6:58] up with the enforcement order. But I

[7:00] think it should be voted on rather than

[7:03] >> Okay. So, let's let's do this in this

[7:05] order. Why don't we withdraw the 37

[7:08] Massoyat and then take up the COC

[7:12] request and

[7:15] decide we can vote on that not to issue

[7:18] a COC?

[7:19] >> Yes.

[7:20] And and then we vote again to ask

[7:24] you to issue an enforcement order.

[7:25] >> Yes.

[7:26] >> Okay. Sounds good. All right. So, I will

[7:28] entertain a motion to withdraw.

[7:31] Where are we? NOI 0283077

[7:34] at 37 Massasoya Road without prejudice.

[7:37] >> Commissioner Cook makes a motion to

[7:39] withdraw without prejudice. NOI 0283077

[7:46] seconds. Roll call. Member Cook.

[7:48] >> Yes.

[7:50] >> Member Elitees.

[7:51] >> Yes.

[7:51] >> Member Jackson.

[7:53] >> Yes. Okay. Next up, we will I got to

[7:57] find it.

[7:59] Okay. We will

[8:03] discuss whether or not to withdraw or we

[8:06] will withdraw

[8:10] without prejudice the request for a

[8:13] certificate of compliance 0282721 at 35

[8:16] Massy Road unless anybody in the

[8:18] commission objects to that. Does

[8:20] anybody?

[8:21] >> Again, just to be clear, it's it's not a

[8:23] withdrawal. It just be a uh a vote to

[8:25] not issue the COC.

[8:27] >> Not issue. I'm sorry. You're right. Vote

[8:29] to not issue. Okay. Is there anybody who

[8:32] has an discussion with that

[8:38] » on the commission? Okay. Then Chuck, do

[8:40] you want to take a poll for agreement?

[8:43] >> Uh, sure. Um,

[8:45] >> Cook.

[8:47] >> Yes.

[8:48] >> Sergeant,

[8:48] >> yes.

[8:48] >> Member Elites.

[8:50] >> Yes.

[8:50] >> Member Jackson.

[8:51] >> Yes. And finally,

[8:55] yes. Um, not issue. Okay. Finally, we

[8:59] will take up the issuance of a friendly

[9:02] enforcement order in order to get them

[9:04] into compliance.

[9:06] Um,

[9:08] would someone like to make a motion to

[9:10] so issue?

[9:12] >> Commissioner Cook makes a motion

[9:14] uh to request uh the agent do a friendly

[9:18] enforcement order

[9:21] uh for 35 Massoy Road. Commissioners and

[9:25] seconds. Welcome. Member Cook. Yes.

[9:28] >> Sergeant.

[9:28] >> Yes.

[9:30] >> And member Jackson.

[9:31] >> Yes.

[9:34] >> Okay.

[9:35] >> Thank you. Um we'll we'll collaborate

[9:37] with Chuck on just uh when that is is

[9:40] issued and stuff like that, but we would

[9:41] just request some time to um come back

[9:43] with with a plan. So, uh just the the

[9:46] May 6th agenda would work for us. Um so,

[9:49] just just reiterating re reiterating

[9:51] that and um and thank you again.

[9:54] >> Thank you. and we trust your contact

[9:56] with Chuck and we'll take it from there.

[9:59] >> Perfect.

[9:59] >> Thank you.

[10:00] >> Okay.

[10:03] Next up, we have NOI 0283110

[10:06] at 232 Atlantic Street, Wingers Beach by

[10:09] the city of Gloucester, DPW, Fedune and

[10:12] uh trail restoration in coastal dune,

[10:15] coastal beach, barrier beach, land

[10:17] subject to coastal storm flowage and

[10:19] priority and estimated habitats of rare

[10:21] species represented by Kansas Richie

[10:24] Mun, operations manager of beaches and

[10:27] parks.

[10:28] >> Thank you.

[10:32] So, oh yeah. Um, so

[10:35] >> thank you for uh your our last session

[10:39] and your your suggestions. Uh, we you

[10:43] guys have received but I don't think uh

[10:46] NHSP or D maybe have commented on the

[10:49] revision. You guys want to stay focused

[10:51] on the previous plan or continue on with

[10:54] the revision? I think it pro probably

[10:57] makes sense to

[11:00] um

[11:02] maybe approve the initial work um along

[11:06] with the additional condition additional

[11:09] work to be conditioned upon receipt of

[11:11] approval by NHSB.

[11:13] >> Okay. So

[11:13] >> get you started.

[11:15] >> Yeah. Do you want me to review that or

[11:16] you guys have that information?

[11:18] >> Um we pretty much have the information.

[11:20] Um is there anybody on the commission

[11:22] who would like to hear that again? Um,

[11:25] >> I can bring up the new new plan and

[11:27] maybe you could just touch on what

[11:29] additional components are on the new

[11:31] plan.

[11:31] >> Okay.

[11:35] » And then Bill, if you have any other

[11:36] questions, just say so.

[11:38] >> Okay.

[11:40] >> Great. So yeah, from last time, uh it's

[11:44] basically an addition of about 620 more

[11:48] linear feet, which brings us up walkway

[11:50] 2 hooks around to the left and also uh

[11:53] walkway 2 hooking around to the right to

[11:55] where our original zone one began. Uh

[11:57] that increases uh about 45 to 50 more

[12:01] 4in seat around posts as well as

[12:03] signage. Everything else pretty much

[12:05] stays the same. something um I kind of

[12:07] wanted to touch base on again which um

[12:11] Mr. Cook uh I know you suggested about

[12:13] the snow fencing uh and the dangers of

[12:17] uh you know the possible hazard for for

[12:20] injury. Um I just to revisit that. I

[12:24] love the idea of shrubs as well. Um

[12:27] which was part of the addition as well

[12:29] from last time. Uh bringing that on the

[12:31] parking lot side, landward side of the

[12:33] dunes. It's obviously we can't be

[12:35] planting that on the frontal dunes. So,

[12:38] if we were to use snow fencing on the on

[12:40] the frontal dunes and as designed it it

[12:45] traps sand and and brings that that

[12:47] level up to where it might be a hazard

[12:49] where someone's stepping over it, maybe

[12:51] we could install another tier to raise

[12:54] it up several feet so that that snow

[12:57] fence in. So, we'd put another piece of

[12:58] snow fence in to that new level and it

[13:01] would be again four feet tall matching

[13:02] the height of the dunes and we could

[13:04] trap the sand that way. So, I mean,

[13:05] someone would have to be jumping and

[13:08] climbing over the fence at that point in

[13:10] order to get injured with it being roped

[13:12] off with the symbolic fencing and

[13:14] signage and fencing on the parking lot

[13:17] side. Would would that kind of appease

[13:19] or or or

[13:21] uh or you know reduce the fears of

[13:24] someone getting hurt or because it

[13:26] sounds like also NHSP they they uh and

[13:29] fish and wildlife they um approved

[13:32] everything. It sounds like is that

[13:33] correct? They they did approve all the materials we used and

[13:37] >> yeah, they didn't have any comments

[13:38] pertaining to the the drift fence. Uh

[13:41] >> yeah. Um how do you guys how do you guys

[13:44] feel about that?

[13:45] >> Um this is Commissioner Cook. As as far

[13:48] as the snow fence goes, I don't have a

[13:50] problem with the snow fence. Um it's

[13:54] once it's been established for a while,

[13:57] uh we get a major event and that's when

[14:00] the problems occur. Uh the fences tend

[14:03] to get torn up. Um and

[14:08] I think maybe if we just put something

[14:10] in there that says, you know, um the

[14:12] snow fence will be maintained on a

[14:15] regular basis

[14:17] >> so that if we do have an event and they

[14:20] start getting torn up, uh you can come

[14:22] in and fix it.

[14:23] >> That's that's reasonable.

[14:26] >> Okay. Um, Kansas, is there anything else

[14:28] you would like to say for your initial

[14:29] comments before we open this up to

[14:31] public comment?

[14:32] >> Oh, sure. Um,

[14:35] no. I I think I think uh

[14:39] I think we can open it up. Yeah.

[14:41] >> Okay.

[14:42] >> One thing I might want to add just

[14:44] before um the reviewer uh for this is

[14:48] Devon Harrington. You probably know her

[14:50] as the former assistant agent. Um, I'm

[14:53] sure she's going to have no issues uh

[14:55] with the additional uh symbolic fencing.

[14:58] Um, I know she had drawn up plans very

[15:01] similar that actually extended that

[15:03] fencing much further down Ringer Cheeks.

[15:05] I I imagine when she's back in the

[15:07] office tomorrow, it'll probably be a

[15:08] quick uh quick letter

[15:12] that

[15:15] >> Okay, let's open this up for public

[15:17] comment. Is there anyone in the audience

[15:19] who wishes to comment on the project at

[15:21] NOI028-3110

[15:24] at 232 Atlantic Street, Wingers Beach?

[15:29] » Have no hands up on the Zoom and none

[15:31] here in person.

[15:33] >> Okay, let's go through commissioner

[15:34] comments.

[15:35] >> Member Cook,

[15:36] >> I have no additional comments.

[15:39] >> Sergeant,

[15:39] >> no comments. Thank you.

[15:42] >> No, we're good.

[15:44] >> Member Jackson,

[15:46] >> I'm good. Um, and Kansas, you're good if

[15:49] we approve the initial work with the

[15:51] additional work conditioned on receipt

[15:53] of NHSP approval.

[15:56] >> Yes, 100%. I I do have a question. Um,

[15:59] >> sure.

[16:01] >> Um, moving forward for revision. So, my

[16:04] understanding is we have five years to

[16:06] complete any of this related work under

[16:08] these under the MESSA.

[16:10] >> It's it's uh well the their letter is

[16:13] good for five years. Typically the

[16:15] notice of intent is good for three

[16:16] years, but you can uh get extensions on

[16:19] that.

[16:20] >> And as far as future revisions, I I

[16:22] didn't want to like shake things up last

[16:24] minute, but um

[16:27] revisions moving forward. We could start

[16:29] this initial work and revisions can

[16:31] still happen under this three-year

[16:32] period.

[16:34] Uh simple design revision like like

[16:37] where to run the fence, for instance. It

[16:39] is it's not it's advantageous to have a

[16:42] hooking a hooking uh trail coming into

[16:45] the beach versus being straight shot for

[16:47] the wind, right? And creating the rope

[16:49] where it hooks around might might be

[16:51] beneficial to the way that

[16:53] >> modification.

[16:54] >> Yeah, I think I think as long as there's

[16:56] not going to be any change in the impact

[16:58] to the resource area, these these are

[17:00] some some of these can be Yeah.

[17:02] >> Is this stuff we could work like as we

[17:05] >> Yes. If if you're in any doubt about

[17:07] making any changes, just get in touch

[17:09] with the agent and he will give you

[17:11] guidance as to whether anything needs to

[17:12] be filed or not.

[17:14] >> Awesome. Thank you, guys.

[17:15] >> Okay.

[17:16] >> All right. In that case, I will

[17:18] entertain a motion to approve the

[17:20] initial work on 232 Atlantic Street,

[17:24] Wingik Beach with the additional work um

[17:28] on receipt of NHSP approval.

[17:31] Commissioner Cook makes a motion to

[17:33] approve NOI 0283110

[17:38] at 322 Atlantic Street with the

[17:42] >> seconds.

[17:43] Member Cook.

[17:44] >> Yes.

[17:47] >> ID.

[17:47] >> Yes.

[17:48] >> Member Jackson.

[17:49] >> Yes.

[17:51] Okay.

[17:52] You are all set, sir.

[17:54] >> Thank you guys very much. I appreciate

[17:56] it and I appreciate your time.

[17:58] >> You're very welcome. Okay. Next up, we

[18:01] have NOI 0283111

[18:03] at 14 and 16 Lynx Road um by the

[18:07] historic Cape Ban LLC. Commissioner

[18:09] Jackson is recusing from this and Mr.

[18:13] Cook will take over.

[18:17] >> Okay. Um

[18:22] » Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh for

[18:26] the record, John Jud engineer with

[18:28] Gateway Consultants uh representing uh

[18:31] the applicant uh for this project at uh

[18:35] Lynx Road as described at the last

[18:38] hearing. I've shared my screen. Uh there

[18:41] were some comments received by the uh by

[18:44] the board. I'd like to go over those

[18:46] quickly. I think we've accommodated most

[18:48] of those comments or if not all of them.

[18:50] Uh at the last hearing we uh was asked

[18:54] why we couldn't move the structure out

[18:55] of the buffer zone and uh my explanation

[18:58] was this was the high point here and for

[19:00] views and obvious reasons uh the

[19:01] applicant uh went ahead and moved

[19:04] everything outside the the buffer zone

[19:06] with the exception of the Keystone

[19:08] driveway which is needed to access these

[19:10] uh uh these these uh garages here. So

[19:14] for the most part everything has been

[19:16] moved out. Uh certainly all the

[19:17] impervious area has been moved out as

[19:19] shown on the plan and uh that was the

[19:23] first comment. Uh the duplex has also

[19:26] been uh reduced and redesigned as shown

[19:29] on the current plan. Uh the Peace Drive

[19:33] has been labeled has been minimized and

[19:35] has been pulled back as well. uh as

[19:37] pointed out uh the detention basin uh

[19:41] was requested at the bottom of the uh

[19:43] the driveway at the the intersection of

[19:45] Lynx Road. There was a uh some concerns

[19:47] about that. In this area here, we've

[19:49] added a uh mitigation area as well as

[19:52] detention here, 40 foot long uh

[19:55] infiltration vegetated infiltration

[19:57] swale uh to mitigate any potential

[20:01] runoff coming off this pvious driveway,

[20:03] the Peace Driveway. Uh so that's been

[20:06] added there. Um no blasting is proposed

[20:09] in the buffer zone. So we've we've

[20:11] accepted that and we have no problem

[20:13] with uh putting that as part of the

[20:15] order conditions should that be issued.

[20:17] Uh snow removal areas have been proposed

[20:19] outside the buffer zone here and here.

[20:22] Uh that was requested by Mr. Shade. Uh

[20:25] and again mitigation area at the bottom

[20:27] 200% of any work within the buffer zone.

[20:30] Uh although it's all uh pvious stone, we

[20:33] did uh provide uh the 200% there. Uh we

[20:37] have added a infiltration swell detail

[20:40] to go along the b the side of the

[20:42] driveway uh as well as the uh toward the

[20:45] bottom right here. And in addition to

[20:48] these two areas here for overland um uh

[20:52] infiltration for roof runoff and so

[20:54] forth coming off that building that is

[20:57] proposed and again all outside the

[20:58] buffer zone and uh I think that was it.

[21:01] If there's any other questions uh I'd be

[21:04] happy to answer those at this time.

[21:06] Thank you.

[21:07] >> Okay. Like to open it up for public

[21:09] comment.

[21:13] Let's see. We have

[21:15] couple hands up on Zoom and we have a

[21:18] couple hands here in person. Uh let's

[21:21] start with folks here in person.

[21:22] >> Hi. Uh Sharon Tomlinson, Three Links

[21:25] Road, Unit B. Um I have concerns of a

[21:29] water issue. We have a serious flooding

[21:31] issue on the street um that is affecting

[21:34] our property, flowing down our driveway,

[21:37] flowing into common backyard, and is

[21:40] doing a lot of damage. We have lost some

[21:43] trees due to the water issue um that we

[21:46] have been trying to address for several

[21:48] years. Um but it is difficult because it

[21:51] is a condo situation. It is a private

[21:53] road and it's affecting several houses.

[21:56] The water is coming from across the

[21:58] street and up the hill. So that is my

[22:01] biggest concern is is this project going

[22:04] to add more water displacement um

[22:08] affecting the road.

[22:11] Um I did send videos to um Miss Neand.

[22:17] Um my latest issue was this past storm.

[22:21] This um we had flooding that almost came

[22:24] into our front door and this is an

[22:27] ongoing issue where the water is just

[22:30] continuously flowing. Whether it's a

[22:32] nice dry day outside, we can still have

[22:35] uh ducks in our driveway, which I'm

[22:38] happy to send those pictures to

[22:45] show. Hey, I'm Sue Klein. I'm from Eight

[22:47] Links Road. Um while the water right

[22:50] now, my water issues are not a problem,

[22:52] I am concerned about the lacking of

[22:55] interest really in mitigating the

[22:57] impact. I mean, yes, they have moved the

[22:59] building out of the buffer zone, but

[23:01] these driveways still destroy a lot of

[23:04] vegetation. These trees coming down, I

[23:07] think they said seven mature trees to

[23:10] replace that with only two saplings is

[23:14] usually um not enough. They usually do

[23:17] like if it's a 14-inch tree, they would

[23:20] expect 14 1-in saplings in replacement

[23:23] to even come close to being equal. But

[23:27] of course, the root systems of these

[23:28] mature trees and none of the mitigation

[23:31] plantings are anywhere near the building

[23:32] site. So all the water's going to come

[23:34] down and probably destroy the plantings

[23:37] at the bottom because it'll be too much

[23:39] water for the system to even handle even

[23:42] with with the swells and other things

[23:44] that they've put in. There's so much

[23:46] water that comes down. The road is

[23:48] mostly just water um for a few days

[23:51] after any sort of a rain event or a

[23:54] melting event. Um, and I know that my

[23:57] previous owners have put had done a lot

[23:59] to mitigate the water situation. So, I

[24:02] think I'm okay with how things are now,

[24:04] but I'm nervous with what will happen

[24:06] with this right behind my house.

[24:11] » A couple hands up on the Zoom. The first

[24:13] is uh Jim Town.

[24:18] » Yes. Good evening. Thank you. Um, couple

[24:21] questions. Uh, I'll just follow up on

[24:22] the water and drainage. Um obviously um

[24:25] there's a lot of water in this area and

[24:27] if you go back over um other

[24:29] conservation um projects uh brought in

[24:32] front of here you'll see many issues um

[24:35] a couple of them and have been raised by

[24:37] other residents who spoke here. So

[24:38] there's a lot of water issues. Um you

[24:41] know specifically on that you'll see at

[24:43] the area where there's the driveway

[24:44] right now there's a actually a pipe that

[24:46] comes out uh that drains water out into

[24:48] the street in that area um off the

[24:50] property. It appears to be right where

[24:51] the driveway would be. So, I guess my

[24:53] question would be um what's going to

[24:55] happen with that pipe? How it'll go into

[24:56] drainage that drains onto the street and

[24:58] then it goes over into the area where

[25:00] Bass Rocks um golf club uh has done a

[25:05] bunch of mitigation with a sort of a

[25:07] retaining area there. So, so what

[25:09] happens with that pipe and that drainage

[25:11] into the area um because it does does

[25:13] flow right out of a sort of a PVC pipe.

[25:16] Um the second thing is um before I guess

[25:20] there was some commentary in the last

[25:22] meeting that was presented about one

[25:24] versus two driveways. I can see that

[25:26] there's been some moda modification uh

[25:28] with the movement of of the structures.

[25:32] Um there's still sort of two driveways

[25:34] up. Um maybe it doesn't go all the way

[25:36] around. I can see on the newest map it

[25:38] goes direct but is there any

[25:39] considerations about just having one

[25:41] single driveway um you know around uh

[25:44] you know these particular matters uh

[25:47] with with with the water and into the um

[25:50] into the conservation area. So that's

[25:52] the second question. Third uh I had um

[25:54] raised this before but I I don't think

[25:56] it was addressed from my previous

[25:58] comments. Um, I understand that there's

[26:00] uh could be some type of parking area

[26:02] down at the bottom of the hill uh down

[26:05] uh into the area where the conservation

[26:07] is or directly abuing it. And so I don't

[26:09] see that on these maps and I wanted to find out uh from from the applicant

[26:14] process if they're planning to put a

[26:16] parking lot area in there um either

[26:18] initially or in the future um because

[26:20] that also uh you know raises question

[26:23] about the water in the conservation

[26:24] area.

[26:26] So that's my third question. Um and then going back to the um the the

[26:32] trees um I I understand that from the

[26:34] last meeting there was a request and I

[26:36] see some pictures posted online um but

[26:39] you know some trees are going to be

[26:40] removed. I can't remember the exact

[26:41] total seven or 10 I can't remember but I understood that they were going to be

[26:46] sort of mapped out to show where those

[26:47] trees were going to be removed. There

[26:49] was some some commentary by the

[26:50] conservation um about removing the trees

[26:53] especially on the hillside and other

[26:54] areas. Um, and so I'm just interested to

[26:57] see which trees are going to be removed

[26:58] where. So, thank you.

[27:02] >> We have another hand up. Tracy Kio.

[27:09] » Hi. Thanks very much. My husband Joseph

[27:11] is here. We're 20 links Road.

[27:13] >> We're just I just wanted to echo the

[27:16] comments of the previous speaker. Have

[27:18] similar concerns. We get a lot of

[27:21] puddling uh up at the top of our drive.

[27:24] And when I looked at the map that was

[27:26] there,

[27:28] um, initially, not the one that you just

[27:30] showed, uh, I was concerned about the

[27:32] amount of slab that was going to be put

[27:34] down. Um, you reduce that a little bit,

[27:37] but I'm going to emphasize and echo that

[27:40] the driveway uh, a lotments here are

[27:43] just too excessive for that area. Uh,

[27:45] everyone will experience much more water

[27:48] uh, coming down there, even as in the

[27:51] revised plan. And I'm concerned also

[27:53] about

[27:55] the uh I guess lot number 17,

[28:00] the way that drive makes that curve. Um

[28:03] I don't know if that is required for

[28:06] some reason or other, but I think that

[28:08] needs to be redesigned too. Uh it's it's

[28:11] actually going to create more problems

[28:14] down at the base of that um street at

[28:17] Lynx Road. and and this may not be

[28:20] directly related to your conservation uh

[28:23] duties, but that drive is blind now for

[28:27] anybody coming down Lynx Road in the

[28:29] opposite direction. So that needs to be

[28:32] addressed no matter what, either in this

[28:34] circumstance or later on. But right now,

[28:38] as the plan exists, and there's no

[28:41] other, as I understand it, mechanism for

[28:44] dealing with the runoffs that occur in

[28:46] that area. Now, there's no plan to deal

[28:49] with these um runoffs should they get uh

[28:53] worse by putting in this thing. When I

[28:55] look at this structure, I think it's

[28:57] going to get a lot worse and I think

[28:58] people are going to be very very

[29:00] concerned about that.

[29:04] » Thank you very much.

[29:08] » We have one more hand up. David Winer.

[29:13] Hi, this is David Winer at three Lynx

[29:16] Road unit A. I just wanted to to

[29:18] emphasize virtually all the comments

[29:20] that have been made. I mean, we at the

[29:22] low end of Lynx Road um are the lowest

[29:27] um elevation in Links Road. And as you

[29:30] know, that's the that's where the water

[29:32] ends up. And so, um, I would like to be

[29:35] assured that any construction that goes

[29:38] on in Lynx Road, um, doesn't add to the

[29:40] existing problems we have, which are

[29:43] very, very difficult to deal with. Thank

[29:45] you.

[29:51] » We have no other hands up at this time.

[29:54] >> Okay. Um, moving to Commissioner

[29:57] comments.

[29:59] member Cook

[30:01] like to thank you for all the changes

[30:03] that you've made, John. Um, and really

[30:06] that's all I have. I I It's going to be

[30:08] a tough area no matter what. Um,

[30:12] but

[30:14] I think you've addressed all of the

[30:15] major concerns that we had last year. I

[30:18] mean, or at last meeting.

[30:21] That's all I have.

[30:24] Thank you for making the changes to the

[30:26] plan regarding drainage improvements and

[30:28] mitigation plantings. I encourage the

[30:31] property owners to continue to work with

[30:32] neighbors, see if there's something that

[30:34] they can collectively do to ease a

[30:37] difficult neighborhood drainage problem.

[30:38] It's been going on for years and years. Um there must be a two-year

[30:43] monitoring for the mortality of all

[30:44] mitigation plantings and all water must

[30:47] be adequately treated or being

[30:49] discharged.

[30:51] Uh, member Elites,

[30:53] >> a couple questions. The the mitigation

[30:56] at the bottom of the road, is that just

[30:58] for the area of the driveway at the

[31:00] bottom of the road or does that include

[31:02] some of the area of that upper buffer zone

[31:08] » and at the end you'll answer right now.

[31:11] >> Oh, okay.

[31:12] uh one of my questions and um you know I might echo a little one of the

[31:17] concerns of the public comment that if

[31:20] that's not the case then I do wonder

[31:23] about the mitigation for the area the

[31:26] driveways that goes over the buffer zone

[31:28] in that upper um and I could see maybe

[31:32] if looks like a big number down there

[31:34] maybe it's inclusive of that and maybe

[31:36] there's a reason why they can't get

[31:38] plantings closer to the resource there

[31:40] because a ledge or

[31:42] um I could understand if that might be

[31:43] the case, but if there's no mitigation

[31:46] at all for those areas, I think, you

[31:48] know, that may need to be discussed. Um

[31:52] and in the past meeting, there was um a

[31:56] comment that the

[31:58] infiltration bail was also going to be

[32:01] the line of disturbance. And if that's

[32:03] still the case, I'd like to note that in

[32:05] the order of condition.

[32:17] » Okay. Um,

[32:20] >> you want to go ahead and uh address the

[32:23] >> I I didn't know if uh uh Mr. Shade had

[32:26] any comments.

[32:27] >> I I don't have anything additional at

[32:28] this time.

[32:29] >> Okay. Thank you. Uh maybe I'll just go

[32:31] in reverse order while it's all fresh.

[32:33] Um uh memory li uh had a question on

[32:37] mitigation. So we have the mitigation uh

[32:39] chart uh shown the total that includes

[32:42] all of the mitigation and it was

[32:45] emphasized at the last hearing where all

[32:46] the water is heading down toward Lynx

[32:48] Road. Maybe additional mitigation in

[32:50] that area would be uh beneficial uh

[32:54] coupled with the uh storm water uh

[32:57] infiltration swale that's proposed

[32:58] there. Um again, everything is

[33:01] everything that's proposed here is

[33:03] pvious in terms of the driveway surface.

[33:05] So we're not only not increasing the

[33:08] rate of runoff here, uh but we're going

[33:10] to the the plan is to improve the

[33:12] situation of any runoff coming down this road. We are proposing as far as

[33:17] buffer zone mitigation over 14 trees. Uh

[33:20] so I'm not sure where the butterhead

[33:22] that uh two or three saplings. I'm not

[33:24] sure where that came from. Um with with

[33:27] respect to the drainage uh the applicant

[33:30] is fully aware of this. Uh this 6 and 12

[33:34] acres here at halfacre zoning. Um city

[33:37] sewer uh you know any aggressive

[33:39] developer could come in here and really

[33:42] uh try to do something more aggressive

[33:44] in terms of at least attempt it to do

[33:46] more of a an aggressive subdivision. And

[33:49] that's not it at all what anyone wants

[33:52] uh particularly people in the

[33:53] neighborhood uh nor the uh the

[33:55] applicant. So I think there's been you

[33:58] know in addition to the efforts that the

[34:00] uh it's been made to move everything out

[34:02] of the buffer zone as far as the

[34:04] structure at the top uh in the Keystone

[34:07] driveway and no blasting. Um I you know

[34:11] I I think I would commend uh the the

[34:13] applicant for for what's been proposed

[34:16] and the changes associated with that. In

[34:18] terms of the uh limit of work uh it's

[34:22] we're absolutely

[34:24] okay with that erosion control as shown

[34:27] being the limit of work. I think that

[34:28] was one of the questions. Uh and uh

[34:32] again the drainage is the primary

[34:35] concern of the abos as it should be. Uh

[34:38] historically as long as I can remember

[34:39] there's always been drainage uh issues

[34:42] uh you know playing the golf course and

[34:43] so forth and that's where it all ends

[34:45] up. It's not going to end up over at

[34:46] number three uh over there at Harriet

[34:48] Road. It's not going to end up over

[34:49] there because that's a higher elevation.

[34:51] Uh everything that does come off this site uh will continue to uh come

[34:56] off the site. uh it's not going to rain

[34:58] any more or less now that this uh should

[35:00] this be approved. Uh it's our

[35:02] responsibility to mitigate it to the

[35:05] extent possible. Uh it was requested

[35:07] that the driveway have a an infiltration

[35:09] swale. You can see the driveway section

[35:12] uh that's been added to the plan. So

[35:14] we're going to have a swale all the way

[35:15] down this driveway to help infiltrate

[35:17] any runoff that might be coming off of

[35:19] the driveway. And as far as moving it

[35:21] away from the Kio property uh and closer

[35:24] to the town property, I'm not sure Mr.

[35:26] town would like that. But uh this is uh

[35:29] the uh the elevations here uh would

[35:31] support the driveway location as it's

[35:33] shown. That's pretty much where there's

[35:35] an existing u gravel parking area. Now

[35:38] there is no plan to have a a larger

[35:41] parking area. That was one of the

[35:42] concerns of the neighbors and that's not

[35:45] at all uh what's proposed. Should any

[35:47] change uh be uh asked or requested of

[35:50] this plan, it would have to come back

[35:52] before this commission. So, uh that is

[35:55] uh there is no plan to do any parking

[35:57] area at the bottom and we're trying to

[35:59] enhance that lower area with additional

[36:02] mitigation plantings over 2300 square ft

[36:05] where right now there's a lot of um just

[36:08] tall grasses and gravel uh right now. Um

[36:11] so in an old tennis court so that would

[36:14] uh the plan is to be u mitigated with

[36:16] native plantings and I I believe I

[36:20] addressed most of these concerns if not

[36:22] all. Mr. Chairman, I can answer any

[36:23] other questions you might have.

[36:27] >> Um, commissioners, anybody have anything

[36:29] else they'd like to add?

[36:32] >> Okay, John. Uh, we have three uh we have

[36:35] three members, so we need all three

[36:37] members to vote for this. Do you want us

[36:39] to vote tonight?

[36:40] >> Yes, please.

[36:43] >> Member Cook, we do have uh Butters that

[36:46] uh I guess want to make more comments. I

[36:48] don't know if you want to allow that or

[36:49] not.

[36:51] Yeah, go ahead.

[36:53] >> Sorry. Thank you. I I just have one

[36:55] follow-up question. Is there a plan to

[36:58] um replace or fix the road as it gets

[37:03] damaged with larger vehicles

[37:06] um and construction going up and down

[37:08] that road?

[37:13] Is that something I can answer now, Mr.

[37:15] Chairman?

[37:16] >> Sure. Go ahead, John. Yeah, I can I can

[37:18] assure you that this applicant will

[37:20] replace any and all damage to this

[37:23] private road. Uh, you know, it's it's

[37:26] just not the makeup of this applicant.

[37:28] Very uh well known in the community and

[37:31] a very solid builder uh with a excellent

[37:34] reputation for quality. So, uh, I can

[37:37] assure you, uh, on my own reputation

[37:39] that that any damage that should that

[37:42] isn't already there that's going to

[37:43] happen, should it happen, uh, will will

[37:46] be repaired.

[37:47] >> May we make that as a a condition?

[37:50] >> Sure. Yeah, it's obviously it's in the

[37:52] buffer zone, so that's absolutely within

[37:54] your purview to do that.

[37:57] >> Appreciate that. Thank you.

[37:57] >> We do have another hand up on the Zoom

[37:59] if you want to allow that.

[38:01] >> Go ahead.

[38:03] Uh Jim,

[38:05] >> hi. A couple things. Um just actually in

[38:08] comment to that. I would just point out

[38:10] uh for the commission and uh Mr. Judge,

[38:13] you might be aware actually the

[38:14] applicant paved in front of there before

[38:16] at their own cost. I understand it a few

[38:18] years ago to make sure they were

[38:19] maintaining in front of that. So from my

[38:22] perspective, I I would agree uh in terms

[38:24] of I I would imagine that if there was

[38:27] any issue like that that the applicant

[38:29] um would take care of it. That's that's

[38:30] been the history that I've seen as well.

[38:32] Um I think you satisfied the other

[38:34] questions that I had. So thank you for

[38:36] that. The only question is is that is do

[38:39] we have any understanding of where the

[38:40] trees would be removed and replaced on

[38:43] this map or is that something that would

[38:44] come out at a further time? Otherwise I

[38:46] have no other questions or comments uh

[38:48] or objections. So thank you.

[38:52] » Want to answer John?

[38:54] >> Sure. Yeah. The tree uh Mr. Sergeant had

[38:56] asked uh where that tree was. Uh the

[38:59] large tree up up top and that is it's

[39:01] outside the buffer zone, but it's close

[39:03] to the area of work. Uh if you'd like, I

[39:06] can show my screen, but it's uh it's the

[39:08] totality of the trees that we um you

[39:12] know, as you know, the last meeting uh

[39:14] we had some snow on the ground, but uh

[39:16] we were hammered after that with

[39:18] snowstorms. So we use the aerial uh the

[39:22] aerial information uh to couple what we

[39:25] already located. We have several trees

[39:27] that are shown survey located but there

[39:29] was some aerial uh additional trees that

[39:31] we were able to uh you know augment our

[39:35] uh our trees. So a lot of these are

[39:37] outside the buffer zone. Uh but uh I'm

[39:41] not sure if that answers a question but

[39:43] throughout the site throughout the 6 and

[39:45] 12 acre site.

[39:47] So, can I just clarification? Are the

[39:50] saplings being planted

[39:53] near where these trees are being taken

[39:54] down or they're all being planted at the

[39:56] bottom of that mitigation area? Because

[39:59] it wasn't two saplings for for the seven

[40:02] trees. You were saying two saplings for

[40:04] one tree, but one tree needs probably at

[40:07] least 14 to 30 saplings to equal the

[40:10] water uptake. Because having drainage

[40:13] just means the water flows. A tree will

[40:15] actually take the water up and out,

[40:17] which is what we need in that system for

[40:20] the water not to keep doing the damage

[40:22] that it's doing to all of the yards and

[40:25] all the current plantings. I mean,

[40:28] drain, you can put in drainage, but that

[40:30] means the water is still going. The

[40:32] trees and the vegetation take the water

[40:34] out of the system.

[40:36] No, I I don't dispute uh that uh evapo

[40:40] transpiration, infiltration and uh

[40:43] everything associated with the water

[40:46] budget uh from the pre and post

[40:48] conditions here. Uh the trees are an

[40:51] important factor. Uh and the applicant

[40:54] is fully on board with uh trying to

[40:56] replace uh and making the the least

[40:59] amount of damage. I think the the

[41:01] efforts been made in terms of the pvious

[41:03] surfaces. There's no pvious imperous

[41:06] surface proposed particularly in the

[41:08] buffer zone other than the roof runoff

[41:10] and that's going to be handled through

[41:13] uh open infiltration swells as shown on

[41:15] the plan. Uh in addition uh this any

[41:18] plan associated with a building permit

[41:20] has to be also approved by the uh city

[41:23] engineer. So, anything outside the

[41:25] buffer zone, ma'am, uh I strongly

[41:28] recommend that you get in touch with the

[41:30] city engineer uh and and coincide with

[41:32] them as far as any concerns you might

[41:34] have.

[41:35] >> Thank you.

[41:38] >> Anybody else? Chuck,

[41:40] >> we have no other hands up at this time.

[41:42] >> Okay, seeing none hearing none, I'll

[41:44] close the public comment period.

[41:48] >> Sergeant moves to close the public

[41:50] comment period.

[41:52] >> 80 seconds. Roll call. Member Cook.

[41:55] >> Yes.

[41:56] >> Member Elites.

[41:58] >> Yes.

[42:01] » Moves to um approve 14 uh Ny 028311

[42:09] 14 and 16 links road with the approved

[42:11] discussed conditions including road

[42:14] repair if needed.

[42:18] >> 80 seconds.

[42:19] >> Call member Cook.

[42:21] >> Yes.

[42:22] >> Present.

[42:22] >> Yes. member ladies.

[42:24] >> Yes.

[42:26] >> Okay. Thank you, John.

[42:28] >> Thank you very much.

[42:32] » For the record, Commissioner Jackson

[42:35] returns to the meeting.

[42:36] >> Okay. For the record, Commissioner Cook

[42:38] has to recuse from this.

[42:41] >> Okay.

[42:43] All right. Next up is extension 0282523

[42:47] at 16 Burberry Lane by Davis Associates,

[42:50] Inc. And there has been a request to

[42:53] withdraw this application without

[42:55] prejudice.

[42:57] Mr. Sergeant

[42:59] >> Mr. Sergeant um moves to um approve the

[43:03] request to withdraw without prejudice.

[43:05] >> Commissioner second

[43:08] call member Sergeant.

[43:09] >> Yes. Member Elitees

[43:11] >> and member Jackson.

[43:12] >> Yes. Okay. Moving on.

[43:15] >> For the record, Commissioner Cook

[43:16] returned. Moving on, we have NOI 0283114

[43:21] at 22 and 22 rear Eastern Point Road by

[43:25] Thomas Schmidt. And there has been a

[43:27] request to continue this to the meeting

[43:29] of April 1st, 2026.

[43:33] >> Commissioner Cook moves

[43:36] uh requests move NOI 0283114

[43:41] to the conservation meeting of April

[43:43] 1st, 2026.

[43:46] Sergeant seconds.

[43:47] >> Call member Cooker.

[43:48] >> Yes.

[43:49] >> Sergeant, yes. Memberes,

[43:51] >> yes.

[43:52] >> Jackson,

[43:53] >> yes. And next up, we have NOI 0283115

[43:58] at 75 Essex Avenue um owned by Dominic

[44:01] Realy Trust for a new building addition

[44:03] to existing building and replacement of

[44:05] structure in existing footprint in

[44:07] riverfront area, land subject to coastal

[44:10] storm flowage and buffer zone to coastal

[44:12] resource area. presented by John Jud,

[44:15] Gateway Consultants, Inc.

[44:18] >> Uh thank you, Madame Chair. Once again,

[44:20] John Jud, engineer with Gateway

[44:22] Consultants, representing uh the

[44:23] applicant at 75 Essex A. Uh there was uh

[44:27] some comments and some notes I took from

[44:29] the last meeting. We followed up with

[44:32] some modifications to the uh operations

[44:35] and maintenance uh plan that was

[44:38] requested by uh Commissioner Sergeant as

[44:41] far as any potential accident or spills

[44:43] within the building. We've modified

[44:45] that. We've also modified the uh uh

[44:49] standard number five on that application

[44:52] uh to uh improve to sort of explain in a

[44:56] narrative uh the uh improvements and so

[44:59] forth associated with the um to the

[45:02] extent possible portion of uh the

[45:04] riverfront uh storm water u

[45:07] calculations. Uh we did add a storm

[45:10] scepter uh for the metal roof runoff

[45:13] that was requested. That's an inline

[45:15] storm water um storm septer that was

[45:18] added to the plan as well. Uh and I

[45:21] think that was the uh really the

[45:23] essential uh

[45:26] comments. Uh unless I missed something

[45:30] um I can answer any questions you might

[45:32] have.

[45:33] >> Okay, we'll open this up first for

[45:36] public comment. Is there anyone Is there

[45:38] anyone in the audience who wishes to

[45:40] comment on the project at 75 Essex

[45:42] Avenue?

[45:45] Uh we have no hands up in person and

[45:47] none on the Zoom.

[45:49] >> Okay. In that case, I will close the

[45:51] public comment period. We'll move on to

[45:53] commissioner comments.

[45:55] >> Cook.

[45:56] >> Um I have no additional comments.

[45:59] >> Sergeant,

[45:59] >> no comments. Ladies,

[46:02] >> no comments.

[46:03] >> Jackson,

[46:05] >> um just a couple of comments. Um just

[46:07] making sure of things. Um,

[46:11] you've have the narrative on meeting

[46:13] each storm water standard. Um, Chuck had

[46:16] requested a flood path analysis, I

[46:19] believe. Um, you've done the O andM,

[46:22] you've done the storm septer and metal

[46:24] roofs. We had talked about having some

[46:26] kind of a coating and there was going to

[46:30] be a twoft separation between the

[46:32] chamber bottom and groundwater or there

[46:34] would be a mound analysis. Those are the

[46:36] things I had down. Um Chuck, did you

[46:39] have anything to say to that or in

[46:41] addition?

[46:43] >> Uh

[46:45] nothing in addition.

[46:46] >> Okay, John.

[46:48] >> Uh sure. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. As

[46:50] far as the the mounding, uh so when you

[46:53] have a redevelopment, uh you you meet

[46:56] the standards to the extent possible. Uh

[46:58] so in other words, you're not going to

[46:59] be able to to to meet the 100red-year

[47:02] event and everything associated with it.

[47:04] say if this was a pristine riverfront

[47:06] area or uh a a brand new development,

[47:10] this is a redevelopment. So the intent

[47:12] here uh of the storm water uh section

[47:16] five standard five is to improve to the

[47:19] extent practicable and those are the uh

[47:21] the actual words. Uh we we looked at the

[47:24] option of treating the roof. Uh but

[47:27] that's not something that first of all

[47:29] it's cost prohibitive to do that and you

[47:31] and eventually that'll wear off over

[47:33] time. So what we decided to do is

[47:35] connect all the the roof runoffs uh

[47:38] leaders into the storm scepter uh which

[47:41] is a proprietary

[47:43] uh part of the on andm that needs to be

[47:46] maintained and inspected. So that's

[47:48] actually a good thing because eventually

[47:50] uh coatings and so forth wear off. So

[47:53] that was in lie of the potential coating

[47:57] of that roof. Uh that was a question I

[47:59] believe of the applicant whether we can

[48:01] code it or that. And I did talk to the

[48:03] GC and he it's very expensive to do

[48:05] that. It it's it doesn't last forever.

[48:08] Uh

[48:10] and um as far as flood vents, they're

[48:14] all included uh on the design drawings

[48:16] and that'll be part of the building

[48:17] permit process. I think that was one of

[48:19] the concerns.

[48:21] >> Okay. And Chuck, you have no additional

[48:24] concerns. I know you had some eyes to be

[48:26] dotted and tees to be crossed. No, I

[48:29] think I think the only thing uh really

[48:31] would just be revisit that that page on

[48:34] the checklist to make sure the box

[48:35] correct box is checked for uh standard

[48:37] five.

[48:38] >> Okay.

[48:41] Then I think we can go ahead with

[48:43] this. Um would somebody like to close

[48:46] the public hearing?

[48:48] >> Commissioner Cook moves to close the

[48:50] public hearing for NOI 0283115.

[48:54] » Sergeant seconds. All member Cook. Yes.

[48:59] >> Sergeant.

[48:59] >> Yes. Member Eliadis.

[49:01] >> Yes.

[49:01] >> Member Jackson.

[49:02] >> Yes.

[49:04] >> Commissioner Cook moves to approve NOI

[49:06] 0283115.

[49:10] » Sergeant seconds.

[49:12] >> Call. Member Cook.

[49:13] >> Yes.

[49:14] >> Member Sergeant.

[49:14] >> Yes.

[49:15] >> Member Lees.

[49:16] >> Yes.

[49:16] >> And member Jackson.

[49:17] >> Yes. All right.

[49:19] >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

[49:21] >> You're very welcome.

[49:23] Next up, we have NOI028-3112

[49:26] at 95 Eastern Point Boulevard, Jennifer

[49:28] and Robert Colulbert to raise and

[49:30] rebuild of existing home, repairs to

[49:33] existing septic system, new pool,

[49:35] terrace and associated land hardscaping

[49:38] in land subject to coastal storm flowage

[49:41] and buffer zone to coastal resource

[49:43] area. Represented by Bill Manuel,

[49:45] Wetlands and Land Management, Inc.

[49:48] >> Good evening, Bill Manuel here. Jason

[49:51] Camps is the ex building expert for the

[49:53] project is just off camera here and John

[49:55] is is joining us by Zoom this evening.

[49:57] He's the engineer of record. Um we had

[50:00] our first hearing and Chuck would you

[50:02] mind putting the plan up the latest plan

[50:05] we did reconvene with the butter Mr.

[50:07] Gordon who was at the last meeting. I

[50:09] believe we have uh mutually arrived at

[50:14] uh solutions for preserving as much

[50:17] vegetation as we can between the two

[50:19] properties in that little what they call

[50:21] the micro forest

[50:23] and we actually added some additional

[50:25] vegetation.

[50:26] Uh this retaining wall which is along

[50:29] the property line is now moved in and we

[50:31] put this as close to the uh septic

[50:34] system reserve area as possible.

[50:36] Remember we saw two jutting uh retaining

[50:40] walls here. Uh that was an uh an element

[50:43] of discussion between the two parties.

[50:46] That's been removed. Uh there'll be just

[50:49] it'll be uh sort of blended into this

[50:51] retaining wall and graded off the rest

[50:53] of the way. And notice that we've added

[50:55] more mitigation here. You'll look at

[50:58] this white triangle here and wonder why

[51:01] there's nothing in there. there's

[51:03] already existing vegetation in there and

[51:05] that was uh sort of the mutual

[51:08] discussion that we had between the the

[51:10] two parties that we preserve as much

[51:12] vegetation existing vegetation that's in

[51:15] what we called the micro forest here. Um

[51:18] and so uh additional vegetation and

[51:22] mitigation where we can we did move

[51:25] there was an area here um there was a

[51:28] request to try to move things closer to

[51:30] the water. So we did shift this down uh

[51:33] closer to the water here which will uh

[51:35] sort of blend in uh with the uh the

[51:39] mitigation that that we had shown here u

[51:42] well it sort of complements this

[51:44] vegetation and building off these

[51:46] existing trees here. Uh so what the end

[51:49] result is is that I believe we have a

[51:52] better plan. Uh we actually have 200

[51:54] square feet more mitigation than we had

[51:56] at the last presentation.

[51:59] And I believe Mr. Gordon, the neighbor

[52:02] over here, he uh submitted an email

[52:04] letter to the commission saying that uh

[52:07] we mutually reached uh what we feel is

[52:11] the best possible plan. I I also called

[52:14] out this last tree here that I had

[52:16] missed. Uh there are eight trees that

[52:19] will be affected and we'll put back 16

[52:21] trees. So, uh, we think we've done a

[52:23] really good job here and like to close

[52:25] the hearing and ask for approval.

[52:28] >> Okay. Um, I will open this up for public

[52:31] comment. Is there anybody in the

[52:33] audience who wishes to comment on the

[52:35] project at 95 Eastern Point Boulevard?

[52:38] >> Uh, we have no hands up here in person

[52:41] and there are none on the Zoom.

[52:44] >> Okay, I'll close the public comment

[52:45] period. We'll move on to commissioner

[52:47] comments.

[52:49] >> Cook. Uh, Bill, I'd like to thank you

[52:51] for the changes, especially moving uh

[52:53] some of the mitigation closer to the

[52:55] resource area. Thank you very much.

[52:57] That's it. I'm

[52:58] >> Sergeant. Thank you for the changes to

[53:00] the plan as well as working with the

[53:03] neighbors. And there must be a two-year

[53:05] monitoring for the mortality mitigation

[53:07] plantings in a perpetual condition in

[53:10] COC that prohibits further alteration

[53:12] within the mitigation areas except as

[53:14] may be required. Maintain those areas in

[53:17] a mitigated condition. All water must be

[53:20] adequately treated before being

[53:21] discharged. Like to also incorporate the

[53:24] EP's suggested conditions

[53:28] and member

[53:30] >> addition Jackson.

[53:32] >> I have no additional comments. I

[53:34] appreciate the changes as well.

[53:37] Okay, then you're okay, Mr. Emanuel,

[53:40] with incorporating the D comments.

[53:42] >> Yes.

[53:43] >> Okay, let's move forward.

[53:46] >> Okay. Commissioner Cook moves to close

[53:48] the public hearing for NOI 0283112.

[53:57] » Sergeant Sexis member Cook.

[54:00] >> Yes.

[54:01] >> Sergeant.

[54:02] >> Yes.

[54:03] >> And member Jackson.

[54:05] >> Yes.

[54:07] >> Commissioner Cook moves to approve NOI

[54:09] 0283112

[54:12] with the aforementioned conditions.

[54:15] >> Sergeant seconds. Albert Cook.

[54:17] >> Yes.

[54:20] >> Member Jackson.

[54:22] >> Yes.

[54:23] >> You're all set.

[54:25] >> Thank you very much.

[54:26] >> Very much.

[54:28] >> Okay. Moving on to new business. We have

[54:30] NOI028 unassigned D number at 28 St.

[54:35] Louis Avenue. um owned by Mark Anderson

[54:38] Andreasen for a sewer connection in

[54:41] buffer zone to BVW represented by John

[54:44] Jud Gateway Consultants Inc.

[54:47] >> You madam chair. Uh for the record, John

[54:50] Jud, engineer with Gateway Consultants

[54:52] representing uh the Andre's uh property.

[54:56] Uh this is for a uh um sewer connection

[55:00] and uh that's associated with a uh u

[55:04] building addition that is proposed. And

[55:06] let me see if I can pull this up or um

[55:09] see bear with me for one second.

[55:15] And

[55:18] okay, let me get that.

[55:35] Okay. Uh so this property uh was before

[55:40] well recently we did a property across

[55:42] the street for a sewer extension to come

[55:44] down St. Lewis uh and Beimo uh right

[55:47] down here uh to serve this property here

[55:50] which is the Tadler property. This

[55:52] property here is the subject property at

[55:55] 28 and uh there is a proposal to do an

[55:59] addition on this this dwelling here. The

[56:01] resource areas are exists in Niles Pond.

[56:04] The wetland associated with Niles Pond

[56:06] here. The buffer zone is here. Uh there

[56:09] is also uh a wetland system that sort of

[56:12] uh is associated with uh um Beimo A and

[56:16] St. Louis A and then Culver system that

[56:18] makes its way down across here and

[56:20] across the Tadler property out toward

[56:21] the harbor. And what this is the uh the

[56:24] buffer zone area that we're we're

[56:26] discussing right now. So the proposal is

[56:29] this basically this one and a quarter

[56:31] inch diameter uh pressurized um sewer

[56:35] line that would make the connection into

[56:37] that previously approved sewer extension

[56:39] on St. Louis A. And that's uh the rest

[56:41] of this project is outside the buffer

[56:43] zone. It's between the these two buffer

[56:45] zones here. So we're looking at this uh

[56:48] this project right here. There is

[56:50] erosion control proposed uh already and it's actually installed associated

[56:55] with that wetland system across the

[56:57] street and we're looking to uh get this

[57:00] uh approved for this utility work here

[57:02] for this pressurized sewer. The water

[57:04] line already exists, the gas line

[57:05] already exists into the house uh but

[57:07] it's just the proposed sewer line

[57:09] associated with the building addition.

[57:11] Uh thank you.

[57:13] >> Okay, we'll open this up for public

[57:15] comment. Is there anybody in the

[57:17] audience who wishes to comment on the

[57:19] project at 28 St. Louis Avenue?

[57:23] >> Uh, we have no hands up here in person

[57:25] and there are no hands up on the Zoom.

[57:28] >> Okay, we'll move on to commissioner

[57:29] comments.

[57:31] >> No comments.

[57:34] >> Um, all water must be adequately treated

[57:36] or being discharged. And I'm wondering

[57:39] um the well in delineation I think is 11

[57:44] years old. I'm wondering if it's still

[57:47] accurate and if it might impact if it's

[57:50] different if it might be impacting

[57:52] future work that's planned. I'll leave

[57:54] that to Chuck because he was out there.

[57:57] Um but I I I'd like that answer. Yeah, I

[58:01] could uh that was actually all freshly

[58:03] delineated uh as far as the Tadler

[58:06] project across the street. So, um we may

[58:09] have reference an older delineation, but

[58:11] that's uh freshly flagged.

[58:14] >> Okay. Thank you.

[58:15] >> Yeah,

[58:17] >> it looked to me on the satellite like

[58:19] where that passes through the buffer

[58:20] zone there, that's just lawn, right?

[58:22] Like it's not going to go through any of

[58:23] that vegetation.

[58:24] >> That's correct. Yeah. No trees removed.

[58:26] It's right through the lawn area.

[58:29] I'm I'm good.

[58:30] >> And member Jackson,

[58:32] >> no. My questions have been asked, so

[58:34] that's works for me. And I will also

[58:36] close the public comment period, which I

[58:38] forgot to do. So, um, Chuck, did you

[58:42] have any additional comments?

[58:44] >> I don't. I assume this is just going to

[58:46] be a uh

[58:49] trench and and lay the pipe and back

[58:50] fill kind of operation

[58:54] being exposed. Yep.

[58:55] >> Right.

[58:56] >> Okay. I think we can move forward then.

[58:58] >> Oh, we can't. We don't have a number.

[59:00] >> Oh, we can't. You're absolutely right.

[59:02] >> You're right. You're right, Bill. I'm

[59:03] sorry. Yeah, I've been after DP all day

[59:05] to try to get that, but

[59:07] >> yeah. Well, okay. So, continue to April

[59:10] 1st, Mr. Jud.

[59:11] >> Yes, please.

[59:13] >> Commissioner Cook moves uh NOI028 no

[59:17] assigned D number for 28 St. Louis

[59:20] Avenue to the conservation meeting of

[59:22] April 1st, 2026.

[59:26] Richard seconds. C member Cook.

[59:29] >> Yes.

[59:31] Memberes.

[59:32] >> Yes.

[59:33] >> Jackson.

[59:34] >> Yes.

[59:35] >> Thank you very much.

[59:36] >> Okay. Sorry about that.

[59:37] >> Yeah. Nope. No problem. It's on us.

[59:40] >> Okay. Next up, we have NOI 0283117

[59:44] at 44 Vine Street. Paul A. Gree to raise

[59:49] and rebuild in land subject to coastal

[59:51] storm flowage riverfront area coastal

[59:53] bank and buffer zone to coastal resource

[59:55] areas represented by John Jud Gateway

[59:58] Consultants Inc.

[1:00:00] >> Thank you Madame Chair. Um I'm going to

[1:00:02] pull up this uh if I can and show you uh

[1:00:06] what's proposed on this particular

[1:00:08] project at 14 uh I'm sorry 44 Mine

[1:00:12] Street. Uh this is a u pre-existing

[1:00:16] house that exists now uh and is proposed

[1:00:19] to be reconstructed on the same

[1:00:20] footprint here at 44 Vine Street. It's

[1:00:23] on the Mill River u and uh it's

[1:00:27] associated obviously with the

[1:00:28] repairarian zone here. So we have the

[1:00:30] 100 foot repairarian zone here uh which

[1:00:32] extends across the street. The Mil River

[1:00:35] is here. Uh let's see if I can go down a

[1:00:37] little bit here just to give a little

[1:00:40] bit. Well, we say the Anisquan, but it's

[1:00:42] associated with it is the Anisquan, but

[1:00:44] the Mill River inlet. Um, and the uh

[1:00:49] buffers, the 100 foot repairarian zone

[1:00:51] is here. Uh, the existing footprint is

[1:00:53] the hatch line here. Uh, and it includes

[1:00:56] decks as well that there's an existing

[1:00:58] deck here. Uh, so this has all been uh

[1:01:01] gone through uh the zoning board of

[1:01:04] appeals and uh we're looking to uh get

[1:01:08] this approved. that will meet the the

[1:01:10] current flood standards as far as the um

[1:01:14] offset above um the flood zone of 13. Um

[1:01:18] and let me see, we have mitigation

[1:01:20] calculations as well uh that show the uh

[1:01:24] riverfront area as far as the uh area of

[1:01:28] mitigation and the uh proposed uh

[1:01:31] impacts as well. uh that's shown on the

[1:01:34] uh flood zone and um mitigation

[1:01:37] calculations here in the riverfront uh

[1:01:40] section right here. So again, it's

[1:01:42] largely replacing the existing

[1:01:45] dilapidated uh footprint of the

[1:01:47] building. Uh the neighbors for a long

[1:01:49] time have complained that this is one of

[1:01:52] the last ones to be improved. Uh so uh

[1:01:55] this is where we are uh in terms of uh

[1:01:58] matching that as close as possible to

[1:02:00] the existing uh imperous area and

[1:02:02] mitigating 200% uh and also including um

[1:02:07] improving the area as far as uh the

[1:02:09] drainage which none exists now. So

[1:02:11] there's quite a bit of uh drainage here

[1:02:14] for infiltration off the roof but is

[1:02:16] also the mitigation plantings on both

[1:02:18] sides uh getting as close to the river

[1:02:20] as possible. We are proposing a

[1:02:22] flotation barrier here below uh the um

[1:02:26] the deck that's proposed here which

[1:02:28] should be uh suspended above above the

[1:02:31] uh the mean high water as it does now. I

[1:02:34] can answer any questions you might have

[1:02:36] at this time. Thank you.

[1:02:40] >> Okay, I'll open this up for public

[1:02:42] comment. Is there anybody in the

[1:02:43] audience who wishes to comment on the

[1:02:45] project at 44 Vine Street?

[1:02:49] Uh we have lost our inerson audience and

[1:02:53] uh there are no hands up on the Zoom.

[1:02:56] >> Okay, I'll close the public comment

[1:02:58] period. We'll move on to commissioner

[1:02:59] comments.

[1:03:01] >> Member Cook.

[1:03:02] >> Uh no additional comments.

[1:03:04] >> Sergeant.

[1:03:05] >> Um I don't believe the extended deck

[1:03:07] over the intertital zone is permittable.

[1:03:10] In order to be approved in the

[1:03:11] riverfront area, the applicant must

[1:03:12] prove that there's no other location for

[1:03:15] the deck and that will not have a

[1:03:16] significant adverse impact on the

[1:03:19] resource area. This proposed deck would

[1:03:21] create shading impacts to the rocky

[1:03:24] title zone. For example, shading to

[1:03:26] prevent rockweed from photosynthesizing

[1:03:28] and rockweed is considered essential

[1:03:30] fish habitat. And I'm wondering if all

[1:03:33] work is supposed to be done from the

[1:03:35] shore side. And based on the

[1:03:37] photographs, it appears that there's a

[1:03:38] tree by the shoreline to the north and a

[1:03:41] couple of trees to the south along the

[1:03:43] property line. These trees are not shown

[1:03:45] on the plan. Please explain. And I'm

[1:03:48] wondering how much of the building is

[1:03:50] proposed to be on pipe leaks. And why

[1:03:53] not move the building back to the 20ft

[1:03:55] front yard setback? This would better

[1:03:57] meet the criterion of a net improvement

[1:04:00] to the riverfront area. And there must

[1:04:03] be a 2-year monitoring for the mortality

[1:04:05] of all mitigation plantings and a

[1:04:07] perpetual condition in the COC prohibits

[1:04:10] further alterations within the

[1:04:11] mitigation area except as may be

[1:04:14] required to maintain those areas in the

[1:04:16] mitigated condition. And I uh note that

[1:04:19] D made some technical comments you know

[1:04:22] on this project as well need to be

[1:04:24] answered. Thank you

[1:04:26] member Alides.

[1:04:28] >> Yeah, I second that. There's some D

[1:04:30] comments there. One of them had to do

[1:04:32] with uh delineation on the plan that I'm

[1:04:35] not sure made it on there. So, that has

[1:04:37] to be addressed. Um I had some questions

[1:04:39] about on the plan itself things that

[1:04:43] were if they're being removed or they're

[1:04:46] remaining and being improved. There's

[1:04:47] that lower deck when looking at the plan

[1:04:50] down to the left, which I guess is the

[1:04:52] north. Looks like it's remaining. It

[1:04:55] doesn't really specify it's going to be

[1:04:56] rebuilt or if it's just going to stay as

[1:04:58] it is. Um, then there's a boat ramp on

[1:05:01] the other side that I assume is

[1:05:04] remaining, but also assume it's not

[1:05:06] being improved on because that that's

[1:05:07] not specified. Um, I had some questions

[1:05:11] about the overhang deck myself. I think

[1:05:14] uh, Mr. Sergeant had more concerns than

[1:05:18] I did. I was looking at it in terms of

[1:05:19] extending towards the resource, but it's

[1:05:21] kind of an interesting question because

[1:05:23] you sort of have that existing deck and

[1:05:24] then you have sort of a transact

[1:05:26] overlap. So, I'm not really sure the

[1:05:28] answer to that. Chuck has any additional

[1:05:30] input on that one. Um, that's that's

[1:05:33] what I had.

[1:05:35] >> Member Jackson.

[1:05:37] >> Um, in addition to the above comments, I

[1:05:39] wondered if you could get the plantings

[1:05:41] on the right any closer to the resource

[1:05:43] area. And you mentioned timber or stone

[1:05:47] steps. Are they going to be pvious

[1:05:49] impervious? And if they're impervious,

[1:05:51] were they counted in the impervious

[1:05:53] area?

[1:05:58] Chuck, did you have any comments?

[1:06:01] >> Uh, I believe the one comment that D had

[1:06:05] was about the coastal bank delineation.

[1:06:07] Um,

[1:06:09] it is kind of a tricky site to to figure

[1:06:11] out where that is. Uh, but I would be

[1:06:14] interested in um Mr. Jud's uh comments

[1:06:17] on that. Uh, the one question some

[1:06:19] questions I had were related to uh, let

[1:06:21] me pull up a photo here. Uh

[1:06:36] so in the this is the back of the house

[1:06:38] obviously uh right up against the river.

[1:06:40] Um,

[1:06:42] it looks like on the plan there's a a

[1:06:44] slab at elevation 13, which is going to

[1:06:46] be a bit higher up, but I was curious.

[1:06:49] Um, you know, the current footings, uh,

[1:06:52] you know, around this doesn't look like

[1:06:55] a very stable wall. So, I was kind of

[1:06:56] curious what type of work was going to

[1:06:58] be needed, uh, you know, down underneath

[1:07:01] the house and along this this area here,

[1:07:04] which is right against the the river. um

[1:07:06] you know what type of uh ports were

[1:07:08] going to be put in there or if a slab

[1:07:10] was going to be uh going all the way

[1:07:12] down to grade or you know kind of what was going to be happening uh within

[1:07:17] the portion under the house because

[1:07:18] that's going to be uh within the flood

[1:07:20] zone um and obviously uh pretty exposed

[1:07:23] to the river itself.

[1:07:29] » Okay. Uh several comments there.

[1:07:31] Obviously, we we did see the D comments

[1:07:33] that uh when we checked the portal and

[1:07:36] we can add that um that transact to show

[1:07:39] the coastal bank uh it's going from the

[1:07:42] top Mr. Sergeant's uh concerns about not

[1:07:45] extending the deck. Uh I will huddle up

[1:07:48] with the applicant and the architect on

[1:07:50] that and uh we will respond to that as

[1:07:53] well. Um as far as all trees, I believe

[1:07:57] all trees are shown. Uh we will double

[1:07:59] check that there's a large tree as you

[1:08:01] face the house with your back to the

[1:08:02] road. There's a large tree on the right

[1:08:04] that the applicant uh wants to keep. Uh

[1:08:07] the neighbors would like to see it go

[1:08:08] down, but he wants to keep it. Um uh

[1:08:11] there really aren't any other trees that

[1:08:13] I I can remember, but I will double

[1:08:15] check that. Uh and we will show those.

[1:08:17] But I believe all trees that are on the

[1:08:19] site are shown on the plan. As far as

[1:08:22] moving the house closer to the street,

[1:08:23] we went before the um ZBA as I mentioned

[1:08:28] and we did have conversations with the

[1:08:31] building inspector as far as what he

[1:08:32] considers the front yard setback uh

[1:08:35] because of the right of way. His

[1:08:37] position is as well as the attorney is

[1:08:39] that we had to be conservative and and

[1:08:41] hold the street right ofway easement

[1:08:44] line as the uh actual front yard and

[1:08:46] then we'd have to come back for the

[1:08:48] front yard set back from there. So, we

[1:08:50] were limited uh as far as moving it

[1:08:52] closer to the street, but again, we're

[1:08:54] going to, you know, nothing's going to

[1:08:56] happen tonight. We can see that, but

[1:08:57] we're going to um address that. Uh I'll

[1:09:00] huddle up again with the attorney uh and

[1:09:02] the client on that, the applicant. Uh as

[1:09:05] far as the lower deck and what that

[1:09:07] condition is uh and whether it's going

[1:09:09] to be reconstructed or remain in place,

[1:09:12] um I was told it was to be uh to remain.

[1:09:15] And again, we'll have some more answers

[1:09:17] on that at the next hearing as well as

[1:09:20] the boat ramp and whether that will

[1:09:22] remain or be reconstructed in the same

[1:09:24] spot. If it was to be reconstructed, we

[1:09:26] would have to obviously show that on the

[1:09:28] plan. Uh and again, I think uh member

[1:09:32] Eliot, sorry, I'm going to butcher the

[1:09:34] name. I'm sorry about that. I haven't

[1:09:35] met you yet. But uh uh as far as the uh

[1:09:38] overhead deck uh and the um question

[1:09:43] whether that can be approved or not, uh

[1:09:45] we will look into that further and I

[1:09:47] will mention that to the applicant. Um

[1:09:50] as far as member Jackson's uh comments,

[1:09:52] can we move the plantings closer to the

[1:09:55] uh to the uh to the riverfront? We will

[1:09:57] definitely look at that and I I am

[1:09:59] certain that these steps uh are proposed

[1:10:01] the stone steps would be pvious and

[1:10:03] we'll make sure that's noted on the

[1:10:05] plan. Uh and again Chuck had mentioned

[1:10:08] the coastal bank transact from the D

[1:10:10] comments. We're going to add that to the

[1:10:12] plan as well. Uh I don't know

[1:10:14] specifically the foundation plans and

[1:10:16] where the peers are going to be

[1:10:17] situated. So, we will have that

[1:10:19] specifically uh submitted as an

[1:10:21] attachment, a foundation plan and or uh

[1:10:25] a notation on our plan uh to show where

[1:10:28] piles are and what what's going to be

[1:10:30] proposed below that building uh as far

[1:10:32] as slabs and so forth. So, uh we

[1:10:36] understand that there's many concerns

[1:10:37] here. Uh we would like to ask for a

[1:10:40] continuence to address those. Uh if

[1:10:42] there's any other comments, I'd like to

[1:10:44] get them now so we can have everything

[1:10:45] addressed beforehand. Um,

[1:10:49] >> okay. Thank you. Are there any other

[1:10:51] comments from commissioners or from the

[1:10:52] agent?

[1:10:54] >> I think the only other thing would be uh

[1:10:57] this this will probably require going

[1:10:58] back to uh

[1:11:01] possibly uh amend your chapter 91

[1:11:03] license. I believe there's a current one

[1:11:05] there for the uh

[1:11:09] the lower deck and and possibly some

[1:11:10] other uh

[1:11:13] pieces there. But I believe if if the

[1:11:15] there's changes and the addition of that

[1:11:17] additional deck, even though it doesn't

[1:11:18] touch the resource, it'll be over the

[1:11:20] resource and therefore

[1:11:23] amending that chapter 91.

[1:11:25] >> Yeah. Yeah. Obviously, we would should

[1:11:27] this be approved, any any changes would

[1:11:29] have to uh be done after uh and you

[1:11:32] know, order conditions be issued if it

[1:11:34] if it's uh to be granted. So, we would

[1:11:37] thank you for that.

[1:11:40] >> Okay. And he addressed everybody's

[1:11:42] concerns. Nobody's concerns got left

[1:11:44] out. Um, they were either resolved or

[1:11:46] promised to be discussed.

[1:11:49] Okay. Mr. Jud, do you want to continue

[1:11:51] to April 1st?

[1:11:53] >> Yes, please.

[1:11:54] >> Okay.

[1:11:55] >> Commissioner Cook uh makes a motion to

[1:11:58] move NOI 0283117

[1:12:02] to the conservation meeting of April

[1:12:04] 1st, 2026.

[1:12:06] >> Commissioner Sergeant seconds.

[1:12:08] >> Member Cook.

[1:12:10] >> Yes.

[1:12:10] >> Sergeant,

[1:12:11] >> yes. memberes.

[1:12:12] >> Yes.

[1:12:12] >> Member Jackson.

[1:12:14] >> Yes.

[1:12:15] >> Okay.

[1:12:16] >> Thank you.

[1:12:17] >> You have your homework. Thank you, Mr.

[1:12:19] Jud. Next up, we have NOI 028 unassigned

[1:12:23] D number at 163 Magnolia Avenue, owned

[1:12:27] by Steven Keegan, upgrade to existing

[1:12:30] septic system and buffer zone to

[1:12:32] bordering vegetated wetland. Represented

[1:12:34] by John Jud, Gateway Consultants, Inc.

[1:12:38] >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh once

[1:12:40] again uh for the record, John Jud

[1:12:42] representing the applicant. I believe we

[1:12:44] do have a file number and uh

[1:12:47] >> that was uh I think issued during the

[1:12:50] interim of uh when the uh um agenda was

[1:12:55] posted. Let me see if I can pull up this

[1:12:56] plan and and show you. This is a septic

[1:12:58] system replacement in the buffer zone

[1:13:00] for a plan that was approved by the

[1:13:02] board of health already. Um

[1:13:04] >> 311.

[1:13:05] >> Not a lot of options.

[1:13:06] >> It's 3116.

[1:13:08] >> Okay. Thank you. Uh,

[1:13:10] >> okay. Good.

[1:13:13] >> All right. So, I'm going to pull this up

[1:13:14] and and uh if I can and and just uh

[1:13:20] see if I can

[1:13:23] add it there a second ago.

[1:13:25] >> Oh, yeah. There it is.

[1:13:27] >> Do you see it? Subject system

[1:13:35] too much water.

[1:13:38] That's That's ideal conditions, Dave,

[1:13:40] right there.

[1:13:42] >> It's a sand filter.

[1:13:44] >> It's It is a sand filter. Yes. Um, sorry

[1:13:47] about this. I had it all queued up and

[1:13:55] Okay.

[1:14:03] All right. Sorry about that.

[1:14:17] Okay, sorry about that. Uh, so once

[1:14:20] again, uh, septic system replacement at

[1:14:22] 163 Magnolia Avenue. Uh, this is a, uh, a property. Anyone that drives

[1:14:28] through Magnolia has seen this. It's, very close to the road. uh beige

[1:14:32] house here and uh the wetlands

[1:14:36] uh system exist uh along the entire side

[1:14:39] of the property along the back corner

[1:14:41] here and extend back into Magnolia

[1:14:44] Woods. Uh and we have the buffer zone

[1:14:47] associated with that here. So the entire

[1:14:49] site has either wetlands or buffer zone.

[1:14:52] Uh the existing system is consists of a

[1:14:56] tank right here and a failed set uh

[1:14:58] leeching pit here. Uh there is driveway

[1:15:01] access here. There's an existing shed

[1:15:03] here. We did have very good soil with a

[1:15:06] high water table. Uh so we would try to

[1:15:09] get this further away always uh to get

[1:15:11] it away from the uh resource area.

[1:15:14] However, we were limited by several

[1:15:16] things including the area here, the

[1:15:17] existing shed uh which is more much more

[1:15:20] than a shed. It's in good shape. It's uh

[1:15:22] it's a garage and it has uh lean area

[1:15:25] here for for storage. Uh very important

[1:15:28] to the homeowner. So what we're what

[1:15:30] we've done is we did the soil testing

[1:15:32] here and we uh improved the proposed

[1:15:35] system to be advanced treatment uh with

[1:15:38] uh pressure distribution and uh that

[1:15:41] would be sufficiently above the

[1:15:43] groundwater to meet all the state

[1:15:44] requirements. Uh obviously much better

[1:15:47] water quality going into the wetland

[1:15:48] area. Um and uh again has been approved

[1:15:52] by the board of health can answer any

[1:15:54] questions you might have. We have

[1:15:55] erosion control around the entire

[1:15:57] section right here.

[1:15:59] uh that borders uh that separates it the

[1:16:02] resource area and the proposed work.

[1:16:05] >> Thank you.

[1:16:05] >> Okay. Thank you. I will open this up for

[1:16:08] public comment. Is there anyone in the

[1:16:10] audience who wishes to comment on the

[1:16:11] project at 163 Magnolia Avenue?

[1:16:16] >> Uh we still have nobody here in person

[1:16:18] and uh no hands up on the Zoom.

[1:16:21] >> Okay, I'll close the public comment

[1:16:23] period. We'll move on to commissioner

[1:16:25] comments.

[1:16:26] >> Member Cook. um the existing system um

[1:16:30] is just being crushed or filled in place

[1:16:32] or how

[1:16:35] >> you want to wait until the end. John,

[1:16:38] >> you can that's a real quick answer. Uh

[1:16:40] typically uh yeah, so that would be

[1:16:41] pumped all components would be pumped

[1:16:44] and um backfilled. The tank would be

[1:16:46] removed and everything else would be

[1:16:48] back filled with clean granular soil.

[1:16:51] >> Okay.

[1:16:52] >> Thank you,

[1:16:53] >> Sergeant. Uh this improves existing

[1:16:56] conditions. Thank you. Ladies,

[1:16:59] >> um I had just a technical question more

[1:17:01] for you, Chuck. With that

[1:17:04] being less than 50 feet, that a variance

[1:17:07] we approve or is that come from the

[1:17:10] board of health or

[1:17:11] >> that's a board of health variance? Yeah,

[1:17:13] commissioner.

[1:17:15] >> All right. Yeah, I would agree. I think

[1:17:16] it probably improves the existing

[1:17:18] conditions.

[1:17:20] >> Jackson,

[1:17:21] >> I'm sure it does improve the existing

[1:17:23] conditions. Are you removing any

[1:17:24] vegetation out in that area or is it a

[1:17:27] grass area?

[1:17:29] >> It's it's it's grass or several large pine trees that we show in the

[1:17:34] plan and those are not proposed to be

[1:17:36] taken down.

[1:17:37] >> Okay, good. Yeah, the pictures showed a

[1:17:41] lot of trees out there. Just making sure

[1:17:42] you could fit into the bare space. Okay,

[1:17:44] >> it worked out. It actually worked out

[1:17:46] pretty well.

[1:17:47] >> Okay, Chuck, did you have any additional

[1:17:49] comments?

[1:17:50] >> I I do not. I mean, it's kind of a tight

[1:17:52] lot and kind of the only place to really

[1:17:54] put that.

[1:17:55] >> Yeah, it is tight. Okay, we can move on.

[1:17:59] >> Okay, Commissioner Cook moves to close

[1:18:01] the public hearing for NOI 0283116.

[1:18:06] » Commissioner Sergeant seconds. We'll

[1:18:08] call member Cook.

[1:18:09] >> Yes.

[1:18:10] >> Sergeant,

[1:18:10] >> yes. Memberes,

[1:18:12] >> yes. Member Jackson,

[1:18:13] >> yes.

[1:18:15] >> Okay. Commissioner Cook moves to approve

[1:18:17] NOI 0283116.

[1:18:21] » Sergeant seconds.

[1:18:23] >> All member Cook.

[1:18:24] >> Yes.

[1:18:25] >> Sergeant.

[1:18:26] >> Yes. Ladies.

[1:18:27] >> Yes. Member Jackson.

[1:18:28] >> Yes.

[1:18:30] Okay. You're set.

[1:18:32] >> I appreciate it. Have a good night.

[1:18:34] >> You too. Okay. Certificates of

[1:18:36] compliance. First up is RCOC 0281933

[1:18:40] at 3 Welch Lane. Ratification of

[1:18:43] unissued 2016 COC represented by Joel

[1:18:47] Favaza Seaside Legal Solutions PC.

[1:18:50] Chuck, any catch up on that?

[1:18:54] >> Uh, I believe the uh the rest of the

[1:18:56] discussion for 367 has been continued to

[1:19:00] April 15th. So I imagine we will

[1:19:04] resume discussion of the COC at that

[1:19:06] time.

[1:19:08] >> Okay. So not until April 15th.

[1:19:11] All right. 26. Okay,

[1:19:15] let's move on to our COC. We've already

[1:19:18] taken care of 35 Masses,

[1:19:21] so we will move on to RCOC 0282842

[1:19:25] at 50 Essex Avenue. Chuck,

[1:19:30] >> so we have a couple folks here for that

[1:19:32] project.

[1:19:34] Okay.

[1:19:39] » Is here

[1:19:42] would they like to speak? Name and

[1:19:44] address for the record, please.

[1:19:47] >> Uh Eric Kelly, principal with Apex

[1:19:49] Companies uh in Wuburn, Massachusetts

[1:19:52] for the city's design engineer record.

[1:19:55] >> Okay.

[1:19:56] >> And I'm joined tonight by my colleague

[1:19:57] Dylan O'Donnell.

[1:20:00] >> Okay.

[1:20:01] and you're here for

[1:20:04] you're requesting a certificate of

[1:20:06] compliance for 50 Essex Avenue and you

[1:20:08] feel you have fulfilled all of the

[1:20:09] conditions.

[1:20:11] >> Yes, Dylan, you want to step through the

[1:20:14] >> Yeah,

[1:20:15] >> please.

[1:20:15] >> Sure. Thank you, commissioners. So, like

[1:20:17] you said, we're here tonight for 50

[1:20:19] Essex Avenue. Um we're formally

[1:20:21] requesting the certificate of compliance

[1:20:22] for the order of conditions, uh which

[1:20:24] was issued for the project back in 2022.

[1:20:27] So, we've submitted the the request for

[1:20:30] certificate of compliance and we believe

[1:20:32] the project has been constructed in

[1:20:34] substantial compliance with the plans

[1:20:35] and the conditions in the order. Um,

[1:20:38] with that being said, there is one

[1:20:40] condition in the order that's not yet

[1:20:41] fully complete, and that's due to the

[1:20:43] recent inclement weather. That's special

[1:20:46] condition number 50, which requires that

[1:20:48] stencils are placed on catch basin

[1:20:50] inlets to indicate that the inlet is for

[1:20:53] the disposal of storm water only and

[1:20:56] that it discharges to waterways or

[1:20:57] wetlands. So, we have a plan in place

[1:21:00] with the DPW to get that stenciling done

[1:21:03] on those catch basins once the weather

[1:21:05] cooperates. Um, but other than that, concludes our request and um we'll

[1:21:10] turn it back to you for any questions.

[1:21:12] >> Okay. Thank you very much, Chuck. your

[1:21:15] comments on this project.

[1:21:16] >> Um, yeah, everything else looks really

[1:21:18] good out there. Uh, I've been out there

[1:21:19] several times uh throughout the process.

[1:21:22] Uh, checking on the uh mitigation

[1:21:24] plantings and all that. Um, and

[1:21:27] everything's always looked uh, you know,

[1:21:30] good order out there and and the

[1:21:31] plantings are uh doing doing well. They

[1:21:34] did have some uh stuff that was

[1:21:35] replanted after the first season, but

[1:21:37] uh,

[1:21:39] everything I've seen out there looks

[1:21:41] pretty good.

[1:21:42] >> Okay. And you had suggested some

[1:21:44] continuing conditions.

[1:21:45] >> Uh so yeah, there are some continuing

[1:21:47] conditions from the the order of

[1:21:49] conditions. Uh mostly dealing with uh um

[1:21:52] no uh storage uh storm water cleanout,

[1:21:57] that sort of thing. Um so it looks like

[1:21:59] uh special conditions 29, 51, 52, and 57

[1:22:04] through 61.

[1:22:06] >> Okay. Do any other

[1:22:09] >> Did you have any additional comments,

[1:22:11] Chuck? No.

[1:22:12] >> Okay. Do any other commissioners have

[1:22:14] comments on anything that's been discuss

[1:22:16] discussed?

[1:22:19] » We should if we're going to approve it,

[1:22:21] we should approve it with those um

[1:22:24] constituent conditions.

[1:22:25] >> Yes, absolutely. Um Chuck, can we

[1:22:29] approve this on the condition that the

[1:22:31] stenciling get put into place?

[1:22:34] >> I'm comfortable with that. We have, you

[1:22:36] know, a continuing uh NOI out there for

[1:22:39] additional work. Um, so it's, you know,

[1:22:42] it's on my radar, but it's, you know, if

[1:22:44] the commission is comfortable with that,

[1:22:46] I I am.

[1:22:47] >> Is there anyone who is not comfortable

[1:22:49] with it? Speak now. Okay. All right.

[1:22:53] Then I will entertain a motion to issue

[1:22:55] the uh certificate of compliance for 50

[1:22:58] Essex Avenue with the continuing

[1:23:00] conditions and that condition of the

[1:23:02] stenciling taking place.

[1:23:06] >> Commissioner,

[1:23:06] >> thank you very much.

[1:23:08] Commissioner Cook moves to issue the

[1:23:11] certificate of compliance for 0282842

[1:23:16] at 50 Essex Avenue with the motions.

[1:23:20] Sergeant seconds call. Member Cook.

[1:23:23] >> Yes.

[1:23:24] >> Sergeant. Yes. Member.

[1:23:26] >> Yes.

[1:23:26] >> Member Jackson.

[1:23:27] >> Yes.

[1:23:30] All right. You're all set.

[1:23:33] >> Great. Thanks. Oh, we'll let DPW know

[1:23:35] and we'll coordinate with Chuck once we

[1:23:37] get the stencils installed.

[1:23:39] >> That'd be wonderful. It's all we needed

[1:23:40] to hear. Thank you so much.

[1:23:42] >> Okay, take care.

[1:23:43] >> You too. Okay, next up, violations e

[1:23:47] enforcement order 2401 at 137 Wingershik

[1:23:51] Road. Any new information on that one,

[1:23:54] Chuck?

[1:23:55] >> Uh, I hadn't heard anything. I reached

[1:23:57] out uh to Mr. Nin uh yesterday. Um, I

[1:24:03] know, uh, Mike D. Rosa has been on

[1:24:06] vacation and has just returned. Um, and

[1:24:10] Mike was included on an email today, uh,

[1:24:14] saying that they will get out there uh,

[1:24:16] the end of this week and kind of get the

[1:24:19] plan together for the removal of the

[1:24:21] ramp and then start working on uh, you

[1:24:24] know, what needs to be done for

[1:24:26] restoration plan and they have that to

[1:24:28] us before the next meeting.

[1:24:31] The ramp needs to be removed before

[1:24:32] April 1st.

[1:24:34] >> Yes.

[1:24:35] >> And at the last meeting they said that

[1:24:38] they would get done probably

[1:24:41] by Wednesday.

[1:24:43] >> Yes.

[1:24:43] >> Right. And that didn't happen. So the

[1:24:46] next meeting we have is April 1st.

[1:24:48] >> Yep.

[1:24:49] >> And if the ramp isn't removed, it can't

[1:24:51] be removed after that

[1:24:55] >> unless Yes. Unless there's uh um

[1:24:58] approval of national heritage and that it doesn't come immediately either,

[1:25:04] does it?

[1:25:06] >> Um should we be potentially thinking

[1:25:09] about um

[1:25:12] financial penalties if it isn't done by

[1:25:14] April 1st?

[1:25:16] Uh up to the commission, but seems uh

[1:25:20] >> I think that's eminently reasonable.

[1:25:25] Um,

[1:25:26] can I make a motion that we consider

[1:25:29] that? Yes, you may.

[1:25:32] >> I make a motion that if the ramp is not

[1:25:34] um removed by April 1st that the

[1:25:37] commission um um levy civil penalties,

[1:25:41] you know, against the applicant for um

[1:25:44] for violation.

[1:25:46] >> I'll second that.

[1:25:49] >> Roll call. Member Cook.

[1:25:50] >> Yes.

[1:25:52] realities.

[1:25:53] >> Yes.

[1:25:57] >> Okay. I will uh obey that. Uh

[1:26:01] Mr. N.

[1:26:06] » Okay. Thank you. Is there any other

[1:26:08] business which has to come before the

[1:26:10] meeting?

[1:26:13] Um

[1:26:16] the other update I have is

[1:26:18] the member sergeant has about

[1:26:21] a ton Kirk Road I believe.

[1:26:24] >> Yes. Made a violation with the uh uh

[1:26:28] floats being stored on the salt. Um I do

[1:26:32] have a site visit out there scheduled

[1:26:34] with Harbor Master and Shellfish on uh

[1:26:38] Friday. um they they have applied for

[1:26:41] the uh 10A permit and so we will get

[1:26:44] there on Friday and I can update you uh

[1:26:47] on what's happening on that after after

[1:26:49] that visit.

[1:26:53] » Okay.

[1:26:55] Is there anything else?

[1:26:58] I'm sorry I'm distracted. I have to get

[1:27:01] a an injured lizard to a wildlife

[1:27:04] center.

[1:27:07] But um and I'm just going back with my

[1:27:10] daughter to see who's going to take this

[1:27:12] lizard. Um

[1:27:14] >> is he insured through Gecko?

[1:27:17] >> Is he what?

[1:27:18] >> Insured through Gecko.

[1:27:21] >> Truly truly. God, I sadly to say I don't

[1:27:25] think he has any insurance whatsoever.

[1:27:28] I didn't think my dog was outside with

[1:27:31] my husband and I didn't think the dog

[1:27:33] could catch anything. Um, these things

[1:27:35] are fast. And apparently he caught this

[1:27:37] one and my husband rescued it. But he

[1:27:42] can't move his back legs. He can move

[1:27:43] his front. He scurries around. So I have

[1:27:45] to catch him. He's under a chair right

[1:27:47] now with a dish of water beside him. So

[1:27:51] I will see if I can catch him. I called

[1:27:53] the wildlife center and they said if he

[1:27:54] had been attacked by a dog, he needed to

[1:27:56] be brought in. This is 35 minutes away.

[1:28:02] » Oh god.

[1:28:03] Yeah. So, we will see. I'll try to keep

[1:28:06] you all posted.

[1:28:07] >> Well, thank you.

[1:28:09] >> All right.

[1:28:11] So, if there's nothing else.

[1:28:13] >> Nope. And I think it was a successful

[1:28:15] meeting.

[1:28:16] >> Yeah. We got a lot of things passed. We

[1:28:18] got a lot of movement forward.

[1:28:21] >> Good.

[1:28:23] >> And one thing stalling and stalling is

[1:28:26] stalling again at the end of Wingers.

[1:28:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. He is. No question about

[1:28:31] that. So, I think the more concerned we

[1:28:35] can get him to be, the better off we

[1:28:37] are.

[1:28:38] >> Is the Is that the enforcement order?

[1:28:40] >> Yeah.

[1:28:41] >> Yep.

[1:28:44] >> Okay.

[1:28:46] >> Yeah. And the other one, Chuck, that you

[1:28:48] can probably start mentioning to them

[1:28:49] talking about the enforcement orders is

[1:28:51] over at Whistle Stop. Uh, now that all

[1:28:54] the snow's gone and, you know, within

[1:28:56] the next couple weeks, um, I think they

[1:28:59] should be moving into phase two.

[1:29:02] Yep. I will reach out to them and kind

[1:29:04] of see if they have a game plan for the

[1:29:05] spring.

[1:29:10] » Okay. Commissioner Cook makes a motion

[1:29:12] to adjourn.

[1:29:14] >> Sergeant seconds. We'll call member

[1:29:16] Cook.

[1:29:17] >> Yes.

[1:29:18] >> Sergeant.

[1:29:18] >> Yes. Memberes.

[1:29:20] >> Yes.

[1:29:20] >> And member Jackson.

[1:29:22] >> Yes. We are all set. Thank you very

[1:29:25] much, folks. Okay.

[1:29:26] >> Go take care of a lizard.

[1:29:27] >> I'm going to go do that right now. bye.

Gloucester Conservation Commission Meeting - March 18, 2026

Transcript