[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.