Conservation Commission March 7, 2023

start with Conservation Commission public hearing for Tuesday March 7 2023 um and we're doing this remotely as a result of a series of extensions uh granted to executive orders that were promulgate it and signed into law by the governor as a result of the covid-19 state of emergency order uh our ability to conduct these meetings remotely uh unless there's new legislation will expire March 31 2023 so this is the

uh second to last of our remote meetings pending new legislation uh there are features on this if you look at the very bottom of your screen you'll see that there is a raise your hand feature you'll notice as well if that doesn't doesn't work and you do this we'll recognize you and then we can unmute you can either unmute yourself or you'll be unmuted so you can speak on the subject at hand we're going

to move first excuse me to our administrative and the first administrative is the approve the minutes of February 7 2022 public hearing so moved second seconded motion all in favor I I opposed hearing no opposition that motion passes unanimously next administrative item is the approval of the field trip reports of February 21 2023 so moved have a motion a second motion all in favor I

opposed no opposition being heard that passes unanimously uh next we're going to receive the discussion notes of February 13 2023 so moved there a second on that Mo second there a seconded motion all in favor I I opposed hearing no opposition that passes unanimously and finally on administrative we have to receive the minutes of February 21 2023 meeting so moved a motion second seconded all in favor I I any

opposition hearing none that motion passes unanimously we're now moving on to our field trip reports the first field trip report is a request for a certificate of compliance on D file 15-1 1715 from Andrea hiking I maybe mispronouncing it I'm sorry for work completed on lot identified as map 27 lot 21-32 five a Potter way Mark what is the staff's recommendation on this request yeah this is is uh an old uh filing uh

in the Abner Potter way slates form subdivision uh did a site inspection last week we are recommending a complete COC very good does any Commissioners have any questions see none I'll entertain a motion on this request make a motion for a complete COC have a second motion we have a seconded motion all in favor I osed no opposition being heard that motion passes unanimously the second is a request for a certificate of

compliance D file 15- 2332 from George and Suzanne gin uh for Doc completed on the lot adjacent to 10 pocan noit Lane it's identified as map 97 lot 58 it's owned by nit proprietor trust Mark what's staff's recommendation on this request uh this is a uh you know do was completed in Conformity with the plan of record for recommending a complete COC Commissioners any questions I'll entertain a motion make a

motion for a complete COC have a second second we have a seconded motion all in favor I opposed hearing no opposition that motion passes unanimously third is a request for a certificate of compliance on D file 15- 2339 from David and Kristen tabers for the dock and accessory structures completed on the lot identified as map 95 lot 18 it's otherwise known as 10A matest Lane Mark again what is staff's

recommendation on this request he guys this is a previously approved law uh doc uh built in Conformity with the plan of record therefore staff recommends a complete uh complete COC thank you any questions of the staff by Commissioners see seeing none Iain a motion on this request make a motion for a complete COC Mo a second on that motion second we have a seconded motion all in favor I I

opposed no opposition being heard that motion passes unanimously um we have on the fourth item is also a a cert request for certificate of compliance it's on D file 15- 2420 it's also from David and Chris and tabers for Seawall repairs and utility work completed on the lot identified as map 95 lot 18 otherwise known as 10A matest name uh Mark again staff's recommendation on this request yes this

conforms to the plan of record recommending a complete COC any questions seeing none I entertain a motion I make a motion for a complete COC a second on the motion please we have a second motion all in favor I I opposed no opposition being heard that motion passes unanimously our final field trip report is a request for a certificate of compliance on D file 15715 from Jose Fernandes for work

completed on land described as map 60 lot one otherwise known as three Nicole Megan way Mark again staff's recommendations for this request yes this is a uh individual looking for relief from a subdivision order of conditions for single lot staff is recommending a partial certificate of compliance for the three Nicole Megan way Lots okay any questions by Commissioners seeing none I'll entertain a

motion make a motion for a partial cooc on D file number 15-7 75 second we have a second we probably should make that specific to um map 6 lot one uh I'll amend that I'll amend that to uh lot what what did say that again one map 60 lot lot one map 60 right okay and I'll entertain a motion um something's going on here with the screen but I'll entertain a motion

somebody is starting a screen shot a screen share which I don't believe is related to the case at hand okay so we have a can we please have a motion on this request for certificate of compliance um is this oh you already made the motion you amended I'm sorry I got distracted by the screen share look like a video game yeah all in favor of the motion as amended opposed hearing no opposition that

motion passes unanimously we're moving on now to the public hearings and our first public hearing is a continued public hearing on D file- 2659 it's on the notice of intent from Potter Street solar LLC for a single family dwelling in a ground monitored solar panel array on the rear portion of the lot within bordering land subject to flooding and the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated Wetland it's on land

described as map 138 lot 144 it's on Potter Street a motion wave reading so moved a second on that motion second we have a second on the motion all in favor I oppos no opposition being heard that motion passes unanimously and on behalf of the applicant we have Christian Farland good evening Mr chairman for the record prin Christian Farland principal engineer and president of Fallen Corp here tonight representing

part Street uh solar LLC who has filed um three separate nois the first one as you mentioned is lot um map 138 lot 144 in which the parcel is approximately 4.02 Acres if I may uh Mr chairman share my screen yes you may

absolutely hey I don't know if you can see the um the site plans here yes it came up I see it um for those not familiar with the with the property um you see the um the Google Maps here yes all right the APLE we're talking about first is 59 poter Street which these several structures on the property um abandoned currently abandoned right now um this is the the partial here we're

talking about the the four acres um I don't know if you want me to talk about the three separate three projects separately um well you can show us Christian you can show us on on the Google Earth and on this those three Parcels so we can get a sense of where they are but I think when we call each one we we probably should have a separate presentation but just to orient us

correctly it might be a good idea yep so this is the the property we we just saw here these three structures uh 59 poter Street uh um you have a floodway regulatory floodway which is this this line here um that's a regulatory floodway you have a BBW um Wetland line here 25 foot no touch 100 foot buffer um majority of the site as we've seen in the area has has been previously

Disturbed cleared there's a long history of this of this property which um I don't know if Mark informed you guys but there's been several um owners in here some of which have dumped some construction debris um so according to the Board of Health regulations once where you're proposing uh residential in any of these areas where there's been construction debris dumped the Board of Health

regulations require us to to do a phase one um study so that phase one study was one of the B of heal's first comments when we filed this project um we we hired Common Sense environmental out here to do a phase one study they did do that you know it took a couple months um during this time right now everybody's extremely busy so kind of put the project um on hold but we did want to

get that information um in order to decide if we're going to move forward with this project or not if we do go ahead with residential um we will have to do a phase two study which will require some additional testing um the cost of that you know is approximately $115,000 um so before we go ahead and get that testing done I wanted to meet with the commission because this this site is is not a straightforward site

there been some filling that's been done here um so as not only as the engineer but as the uh developer I wanted to get some feedback from the commission to see what exactly you would be looking for um going forward with this project as far as any kind of cleanup um to stuff that's been you know previously dumped there as in regards to the project um get to the next plan um

so you'll see for this lot which is this is the lot line here the solar for each lot we we're keeping the solar under 250 um kilowatts so that is allowed by right for each individual residential lot um so each each lot is going to have less than 250 megawatt so this isn't a large solar array there's three separate Fels three separate entities that's why we did three separate filings um we re

we we put the plan set together to help um everybody see the overall project but in reality it's three separate projects um the first step which I feel is the most important is get pering through conservation um The Next Step would be to to file a building permit and um if we decided to do Residential we would have to do a phase two um as you can see the residential dwelling is actually

outside the 100 foot buffer here um and it's it's still the whole site's in the flood zone so we have to design this in accordance with the building um flood zone requirements so there are no basements here um there's flood vents as required um and in regards to um one of the other comments when we filed this was it's in a flood zone so we had to compensate for compens um compository

storage that was we did do that we pre presented that plan we filed that plan re revisions to the commission and to the D we haven't received any additional comments from D not sure if they had a chance to review it yet or not um but we did comply with their request um in regards to the overall disturbance to the site the the solar is very minimal disturbance um these solar canopies

water heat flows through them um in regards to the the structure itself you're looking at and I can give you a quick this is basically what you see going into the ground here these are hand screwed in um by a mini escavator screwed down into the ground to the required depth they only two two um pretty much three inches two two inches in U diameter two to three inches in diameter um so very minimal disturbance

you have one of those screws every 11 panels pretty much um so as far as the work in the buffer zone we're looking at very minimal disturbance um um and as far as the the single family dwelling goes we do we will be recharging the rooftop um which is a requirement inop with now and we for this house we will be utilizing the existing um sore and water services that

are already existing out out on the site um very small dwelling um we feel this project is is going to be in full compliance um at single family even though it's single family we we did provide a a storm water report for the entire project um to demonstrate that the post development is going to be less than the than the pre-development we did receive um a peer review from Gus proposal um which

this memorandum here which was dated February 24th um we did review his comments we feel that out of six comments we feel we'll be able to address these comments um with no issues we did take a look at a previous project that was approved by the conservation um which was this Lucy little um project which again was a a smaller um project um we feel the details that they provided was certainly a

lot less than than than what we proposed um however the the really only thing that they did for for storm water um I'll show you

um what they did is they added this little sorry the computer's lagging they added this little one foot wide by 6 inch deep gravel drip edge from where the water hits the panel flows down and hits the ground so that helps um slow down the the rate the water would basically sheet flow wherever Direction it's going um so that's what they did there I wanted to have a meeting with Gus just to make

sure he's fine with something similar which I have no problem doing um they only did this within work within the 100 foot buffer um however I don't have any problems doing this wherever wherever these trip edges are going to be um again before we go back and forth I I always like meeting with the p review consultant um and that's something we'll try to reach out with Mark and see if we

can set up that meeting with him whether it's at um Mark's office or my office doesn't matter to me whatever is easier um that's really it for this site um again we did go back and forth with with Mark um but a lot of this stuff I mean we were waiting literally two months for common sense to get us there um their report we did um some of the other comments we talked

about were from the zoning again when that we're not ex to talk about zoning issues I think jurisdictionally wise we're here to talk about the work within the Wetland protection act and and the Wetland buffers um whether or not this could be allowed by zoning or not I think really it's it's up to the applicant to say hey these we feel it is and I don't I'm not asking conservation

members to decide if this is allowed by zoning or not um we feel it is is because it's under the 250 megawatts um the Board of Health we we know we'll have to deal with them if we're going to go ahead and keep going with this residential um like I said if we're going to do it then we have to do a phase two that's going to be up to the applicant to decide

that if not then we're going to just keep the solar as is and we we won't we wouldn't if we just did solo we wouldn't have to do a phase phase two um as far as the D goes we know we we feel like we already did address those comments um and DPW we did receive a second review letter from DPW um which are basically these notes here they mocked up they do a great job

they mock up the plans and with their comments on it I can go through these as you can see they're very minor drafting detail SKS nothing that would affect any work that we're presenting tonight um and these revisions will be done before a building permit is pulled or any kind of utility um permits are pulled again they're really talking about details of of their requirements um so again I feel their

comments are very minor um and I believe that's it right now for this I would like to hear what again what the commission has to say for this site um we feel what what we're presenting especially with the solar is a good use for this site um and that's it thank you um I just have a quick question on on the U well this is a d file 15- 2659 what's

the closest any of the U new construction or site work will be to the wetlands so this is the this is the Wetland 100 foot buffer we actually kept majority of this outside the buffer um the these panels here these last four rows here this is work within the 100 foot buffer as far as the structures go okay uh Mark I'd be curious to hear staff's comments on this proposal before I make my comments I'm

going to preface my comments my comments deal with all three file numbers and they're going to be lengthly so I'm not going to repeat them three times but for each hearing I when asked for comments I will reference back to my comments here in one of the reasons I'm doing that is uh while I acknowledge there are three file numbers and there are three Parcels there is nothing that tells me

that these these are not three separate projects but a singular solar project with some residential amenity that is used for an assumption of an as of right use I we're looking at a plan right now and if Christian Scrolls down a little bit you will see a singular overhead wire system leading from the central lot

144-20 D1 which branches off to the left and one below that which branches off to the right to lot 144 with all due respect to Christian I think this is a bit of an end around uh this is an incredibly complicated site I'll deal with the Phil issues later but first and foremost the first thing you do is not get a wet one permit first thing you do is you find out if the

project is permittable or allowable under zoning that's step one in any land development project The Building Commissioner has requested the total kilowatt generated from the three sites Christian says that each individual site will generate less than 250 the building inspector has asked for the total of the three which will end up at the bottom in the overhead wire at Potter Street that's what's going to be

coming off this site that has never been answered Christian has responded to comments that each lot is less than 250 kilowatts that's not what the building department the zoning agent asked for why that's Germaine to us is why should the Conservation Commission be haggling over a project which may be prohibited it's not the proper sequencing and I think it's a very simple answer that could have been

provided weeks ago to the building department so we wouldn't be having that discussion now Christian also says that the residential can be tossed to avoid a costly environmental site assessment in his responses which I have shared with the commission he first states that and I'm quoting him this is a residential project in which we have only filed in noi thus far we once we receive approval we will file for a

building permit accordingly the solar is by right is a by right use as each independent array is less than 250 kilowatts I don't necessarily agree with that I think it's a singular project so in in a further response he contradicts himself by saying I am moving this application forward but there are still concerns about the total kilowatt hours for the solar R singular which has not been provided the

applicant in a recent email claims that these will be three separate arrays under 250 kilow however he goes on to say that should this project get a building permit these zoning concerns will need to be addressed with the applicant so we're kind of kicking the can down the aisle then he goes on to say um let me see where I am here He suggests that he will abandon and he said it this evening he will

abandon the residential if the site assessment issues create a costly phase two so I the first question is first it's a residential project then we're abandoning the residential project for the solar the three applications are being petitioned by an entity called cter Street solar LLC that does not sound like a residential developer to me that sounds like a solar developer to me

okay so I have questions in what the use is and what the real intention is seems to be running under the cover of residential however at the end of the day if anything's to be Expendable it's the residential and not the solar and this is another large so solar field split on to three lots but no no one has the building a zoning agent indicated that he agrees that these are three

separate projects his question is I want the total kilowatt hours for the entire project so he saw the belief that this may be a singular project in terms of the fill this is classified as classic Urban fil to simplify the definition classic gonfi contains all kinds of stuff physical and chemical we don't know what's in the fil these sites were as reported to me as before my time some of you probably know

this was a construction site that stockpiled and dumping took place there is anecdotal reporting by some of Butters that midnight dumping took place what I can tell you is from a historical aerial photo riew the fil the filming started in 1961 and extended into the 2000s a file review that I did of all of our files indicates that none of this filling ever received any kind of permit from the Conservation Commission

Ling took place in buffer zone took place in flood plane and based on a d comment which was made when they prior to their issuing a file number they produced a map that showed that there may be historic filling in historic Wetlands this information was all translated over to the applicant and I will say for the record the applicant does not own the parcel and the applicant is correct that this is a complicated parcel

it's got a lot of issues and those issues are costly I do not think that a notice of intent process is where you start deciphering the economics of a project project has come before us staff has responded other departmental staff has responded to information that we need that could be expensive that is a responsib ability of the applicant to decide understand where the applicant doesn't want to

spend that kind of money but that's a relationship between buyer and seller and my understanding is there is still a purchase and sale that No Deal has been consummated the applicant can further that or or correct me on that but that's my understanding today the applicant references a drainage memo that was not a memo stating that the our drainage peer consultant has signed off he raised

several points the response is we will comply with those okay you will when we need a plan we need a plan of record to make a decision on we can't be making decisions on oh yeah we'll do that when we get final approval from somebody or somebody else okay this is a in my opinion at this juncture while the the applicant may be very sincere in what he wants to accomplish this is a fishing Expedition

he doesn't really know what he can accomplish and he's looking for somebody to tell him but he's not telling us what the project is he's giving us a brief definition of description he's giving us some plans they are not terribly detailed respond to the comments that have been issued and you know conservation has been working diligently with the other departments when other departments make comments on

plans those comments if the applicant wants to refute them they can refute them with the department or include them on the plan because at the end of the day I go back to saying we need a plan of record and we don't have we don't have a plan suitable for that at this juncture there are some jurisdictional questions one of the one of the comments that d uh excuse me DPW would made was that the

resource areas were not accurately labeled on the plan and they were absolutely right there is no citation excuse me of the a AE zones out there there's a there's a designation of flood R which is one of the zones it is the velocity Zone but there is flood plan out there relative to the environmental assessment it has allegedly been done hasn't received it I haven't received it earlier this week I received

an email saying that it was too cumbersome to email does anybody have Dropbox we all have Dropbox sent has yet to be sent it could have been delivered delivered hard copy we have not gotten a copy I don't know why but that information is gerine because the placement of Phil in jurisdictional Wetlands I understand they're not in jurisdictional the jurisdictional wetlands that have been

flagged right now are not accurate to the perimeter of the fill but there is a question that there may have been jurisdictional Wetlands on site that were filled maybe they didn't need a permit maybe they did need a permit we don't know that's the applicant's responsibility or the own's responsibility to provide that information to us and to D because it's their question also but the issue here

is we don't know what's in this Urban fill this Urban fill may be communicating with the underlying groundwater may be discharging to adjacent Wetlands to an adjacent perennial stream of which there's a vest investment being made to study the Buttonwood Brook Watershed for cleanup out there and we're asking for a environmental sight assessment to determine what the level of risk is personally from my

standpoint an environmental assessment I don't care what is required phase one phase two this is a problematic site with potentially illegal fill which could be Solid Waste could be hazardous waste could be a combination of either okay next to groundwater surface water and Wetland resources on a perennial stream May in fact include Riverfront area for all I know okay and it is a site in a

neighborhood that is not all that far from an active waste cleanup site is this corner there are neighbors who have commented they're concerned about this stuff so at the end of the day I don't believe that the requests that have been made by conservation staff and the Board of Health or the Department of Public Health I should say and the zoning agent inappropriate and good be complied with tell you at this

juncture if I am asked my recommendation I am not prepared to recommend any kind of support for closing a hearing or issuing a permit at this on this project at this time and the reason for that is very simple I think this filing was premature and I've said that for weeks for months I think that we the technical information is incomplete we do not have enough to judge this project

accordingly and therefore I think the commission at this juncture and I'm not recommending these but just to tell you where I think we are is the commission would issue another continuance and require the information to be submitted times sensitive that has been requested to require that there is a meeting that the applicant sets up with all the town departments and oh by the way as a

sidebar this could have been set up through the technical Review Committee months ago before we filed any paperwork to get feedback moving forward because a lot of the feedback that has been given is economically significant to the applicant I understand that and the applicant may need to translate that to the property owners and I should say two of the properties as of assessor record are owned by one

entity and one is owned by another entity however I think that both entities while in different names are relatively closely related so we have tried to get the applicant to come forward to have a more open transparent review of this project there has been some reluctance and because of that the only options that we have tonight are a to continue until a further date to get all of the

information as requested and required B which suggest to the applicant to withdraw without prejudice until they get all the information together to make a more suitable fing C deny outright because of the incomplete nature of the information or D motion to approve but not in favor but not vote in favor of the motion those are the four options that I see right now and all are not very

good that's how I see it because if the commission is asking me for a recommendation on this file number the next file number followed by fire Street solar LLC or the third by comments are the same and my feelings are the same and that's the best I can put it at this point uh we had expended a lot of time on our end and we have not seen a lot of

advancement of the work and that's the that's the applicant's option I mean I can't force them to do this if they're asking us to make decisions been do this for 40 years I know what appropriate filing is and I know what the premature filing is and this is premature well those are my comments thank you Mark does any commissioner have any question is there anyone the audience that wants to be heard on this

application okay um I've got a question mark no one else does um I I know in the very beginning of your discussion you were talking about the issue of whether this is appropriate from a zoning standpoint um I believe that is a legitimate concern but I'm not sure it's conservation's concern I think some I think that um if there's a zoning issue it would be Inc I mean it's incumbent upon the building department zoning

enforcement officer to address that and then zoning board of appeals if that's what you need um or in limited instances the planning board is allowed to Grant certain permits perhaps not for this but any anything we do as a Conservation Commission does not in my understanding and I could be wrong so correct me is any if we were to Grant not necessarily this but any applicant's uh request

under a notice of intent we're not saying the zoning is appropriate for what they want to do we're not saying that it's appropriate from a planning standpoint or anything else I understand that completely I don't see that it's in the commission's best interest to review a prohibited project this project is prohibitor or not I I think you're right no I understand that but I mean a certain

certain sensical approach to to this and the thing that I fear is you get into these situations and dominoes start falling and I don't I just don't feel comfortable I I really don't well I think the other comments you made the other comments were were important and ring and ring a good chord with me in terms of problems but from I just want to be clear because I I think this is important not only for these

three but going forward um I agree with you from a um efficiency standpoint cost-wise TimeWise yes you know you should already look to make sure it's as of wrer you have teed up whatever relief you're going to need to do it but if the applicant wants to spend their money um to come before us first and then assuming we were to approve something then they were required to make changes

to accommodate other boards they got to come back again they just wasted all the time they spent but that's not up to us to decide how they prudently spend their money um I think you're absolutely right if I were doing it I would agree with you totally i' want to know before I start spending the money to go to to go to conservation that it's something that even legally can be done so I'm not

disagreeing with you I'm just I don't know I got it I hear you I hear what you're saying um but having said that uh certainly uh I'll give the applicant and Christian an opportunity to address some of your concerns um and again I'll come back to the audience and then we'll see where we go if the applicant requests an extension or excuse me a continuance um I for one I'm willing am willing to

grant that um but um I can't speak for the rest of the commission if a if a u continuance is granted anyone in the audience that wants to be heard will have a chance at the continued public hearing as well but we may not go there I'm just pointing that out so you might Mr chairman Mr just is a point of record I'm not sure did Mr cussin have his hand up earlier

Oh I thought you had I thought it was up so all right so if you want to address any of the comments that Mark made uh certainly I'm willing to hear them or if you have a request to be made before the commission other than a vote at tonight's meeting I'm willing to hear that as well sure um second here I hold what

up thank you Mr chairman um and I do appreciate Mark you've been working together for a while I certainly respect um your advice um you know sometimes we can agree to disagree um as a developer first thing I did is check the zoning and as I stated I checked with a land use attorney I feel this use is allowed by right now that's how I feel um and if it takes me to appeal a

decision I I most likely will in regards to the use of the Sola we have three separate connections um so it's I consider it three separate um Parcels also as far as you know being sneaky if I was being sneaky I certainly been in business for long enough I've been doing a lot of work in this area anybody listening in audience board members chairman know I have a great reputation in the area I'm not trying to

hide anything if I was I would have filed one application for one lot less than zoning I would have filed one at a time um but no I didn't I'm putting everything on the table to be straightforward because I feel this is allowed by right whether it's a loophole in the zoning that has nothing to do with conservation um but this is allowed by Wright and that's how I feel and I

did present it as three because I'm an honest guy I'm not trying to hide anything here I know the issues with the site if I'm no dummy um that's why we did a phase one to see what that came out with we paid the money um and we're going to do a phase two if we're doing residential we're going to be do a phase two if the phase two comes back hot do

you think I'm going to try to build residential here no um I built close to you know 50 to 100 houses within the Commonwealth and I'm certainly never built one that has environmental issues so if there are environmental issues I wouldn't wouldn't be building single family houses here um I feel the permanent process as I've done thousands of permiting especially for single family that this is the way to go and

again this is I'm also the applicant so this is what I decided to do that I feel is the most efficient way I PID the fees to the town I deserve to be heard um so this is what I decided to do the the the plans presented tonight take a look at my plan and you tell me what has more detail this is only one sheet of 10 what has more detail this one or this plan

that was approved it doesn't take a rocket science looks like my daughter could have done this plan um so this was approved by the board adquate application I would say this is one compared to my plans that were done um that were presented um I'm not going to get in an argument with that but I don't want to have someone say we we filed inadequately because we certainly didn't we did a a storm water report

that was 90 pages long um I'm curious to see what the star report was for that last application if there was even one submitted or a peer review reviewed that case um but either way I'm going to address as I said all the comments made from DPW and from the peer review consultant which I again feel a minor um I wanted to hear the commission any other comments that they wanted to get

addressed so I can address all of them not just not just the DPW comments not just the peer review consultant I like to hear from the audience I like to hear from your abs and the commission members themselves that's why they're on this board I like to hear what they have to say um and that's why I wanted to hear open this case tonight I am going to ask for a continu because I want to address

all the comments which again peer review was just submitted to us on February 24th so that didn't give us enough time to address those comments and in before the the deadline so we do need time um all of you know this very busy right now with a lot of a lot of development going on and it takes probably two weeks just to address those comments so I would have never had enough time and that's

and this is my project myself um and I'm telling you I don't have enough time to do it so I would certainly respect um the commission to give us a continuance on this case and on the next two um which the comments are same comments um that we can address the comments from the town were in regards to all three so there isn't three individuals we'll be addressing them all for the all three

comments um which again I feel we can certainly do hopefully by the end of next week um in regards to the past history of the site um I have no control that obviously wasn't done by me um that's something that I did want to talk about and see what the commission had in mind as far as any cleanup um and far not showing resource areas the entire sites in in the flood zone we

had a note on the stating that so I don't know what else you want to note on the plan besides a note that we noted it's a AE base F elevation of 70.5 so the entire site's in the flood zone uh we flagged the wetlands we ref flagged the wetlands um so I don't know what else to show on that we we showed the regulatory floodway um so besides the past history of the

site which I think makes it challenging uh I think what what we what we presented certainly complies with the's um storm water regulations um Wetland Wetland regulations and so forth um I'll be glad um to hear if the commission had any other comments thank you Christian I thank you um and appreciate your comments um I I will speak for myself this is not um the chair but just for me as a commissioner

uh when I look at U applications and and I I actually read everything that I get and uh Mr Garrett sends all of the Commissioners uh everything pertinent to each of the items in a public hearing Etc so I actually look them over and read them and think about them but what I strive to do is be consistent in the application of uh performance standards with within the regulations Etc so that

everyone gets a fair shot okay and from my perspective I know we're only one component in any development so the Conservation Commission is not deciding the fate of anyone's development it's only one component and you know as I mentioned earlier I don't want to belabor the point uh any approvals from conservation are certainly not an approval from the entire town of Dartmouth for every aspect of the

development um so I I try to limit my focus to U the issues that are Germaine the Conservation Commission and our jurisdiction both state and by local bylaw um and if in my view if performance standards are met from CMR if we have compliance with the bylaw of the town of Dartmouth relative to the wetlands and the Conservation Commission then I will give the applicant the yes vote okay and looking at the proposal I

mean I'll I'll I'm not an engineer but when I hear that there's some concerns about whether or not there's enough information you know I defer to staff on that but I'm also looking at it and I see what you're saying I see one page and I'll take your word for it there are 10 pages of material here but I also think that we need to address some of peerreview and DPW concerns as it

relates to conservation um you know if if it turns out that your analysis of Z is incorrect I mean that's on you guys it's not our issue I'm not going to hold up my vote based on that I'll tell you that's not my concern from a conservation standpoint um but I'm that's me speaking that being said any other commissioner that wants to be putting their two cents in on this I'm certainly uh willing to let that

happen um I have a I have a concern or a question um you know when I when I listen when I read through all of the material I I do the same as as you do as I'm sure we all do uh read through all the materials that Mark is so diligent in sending and try to read through everything and comprehend everything what struck me was that I didn't really understand what

application was really for was it for a single family dwelling was it for a solar array it it was confusing it it seemed to me that you're just not ready uh you have to pick one I think um and I I I think what you're doing is you're looking for a comments but we're not really the engineer so we look at things uh as commissioners we look at things according to um regulations because we're a regulatory

Authority so we're not really here to provide guidance and I only speak for myself uh because I'm not qualified to do that but I view things and applications according to bylaw uh and uh Wetlands uh regulations and it's a little confusing to me what even this first application is for you know whether it's single family dwelling or whether it's a solar array it's just confusing to me and it

concerns me that there are uh so many questions about the site or all three sites in general as to whether or not there is dumping that's that's happened and and other issues it seems like just not ready but I understand what you're saying you're you're saying that uh you're looking for some feedback and information and I I would have to say that I would like to give you some but I

just I don't have the information that's been requested um I think there's as Mark said and as you've said too I it's a complicated site and um I think there's more information that needs to be that really needs to to come in before we can we can look at this I and I I think that's as fa as I can be um it seems very confusing and I I don't

like to render an opinion or vote one way or another without understanding oh Sunday Sunday morning is you go Mr chair I I don't I don't mean to be unhelpful or I hope to be Fair um but it's it it seems I've been on this commission for gosh I over 15 years and I this site seems to be just not it doesn't have enough information for me thank you um Kristen you would ask to

respond you certainly may I may um Miss uh SAR duck um we did we did provide all the information this is what we are proposing we're proposing a single family and solar um on this application there three applications so they two of them have a single family with solar and the other one just has a solar on it so so the first one that you're talking about the first this first application is just

solar no it's single the first one single family with the solar there's three separate Parcels here um uh but didn't you just say earlier and maybe I misunderstood you or misunderstood the materials that came through is that you may you know depending upon what you hear from us you may do one and not the other the residential and so it just sort of depends after after conservation

approval if we did want to continue with doing single family residents we would have to get a phase two you know what a phase two environmental test is I do in a nutshell it's basically you get a drill rig out there and you sample the soil out there sample groundwater to see if there's any contamination um that cost about $155,000 so right now whether this site is contaminated or not you know that what what we're

presenting in regards to the W protection act is what you see here in the disturbance so that wouldn't change either way um or if it did change if we didn't do Residential you know if you just said you were we this application was for both residential and solar I'm sorry that this is where I I feel very confused you said you know we would go you know this and then we would go to

that and we would do F so I'm not again I'm still not sure what just put it this way the plans in front of you are for single family and solar that's not going to change when we make these revisions next revisions these plans won't change I think I stopped sharing the screen but yeah that's okay Mr chairman can I make make a comment here absolutely bot on but we're talking about whether the

fil we need a phase two or a phase one depending on the use if this commission were to issue an order of conditions approving any one or all of these projects singularly or separately whatever they are and I I I I don't necessarily agree with's interpretation on three versus one every order of conditions that is issued Mass D has a general condition number seven which reads any fill I'm quoting any fill used

in con ction with this project shall be clean fill any fill shall contain no trash refuse rubbish or debris including but not limited to Lumber bricks plaster wire lamp paper cardboard pipe tires ashes refrigerators Motor Vehicles or parts of any of the foro that is a condition that exists in every order of conditions this commission and every commission issues in the Comm of Massachusetts without knowing the

composition of that fil which is in buffer zone which is in flood plane which is adjacent to Wetlands maybe in Wetlands adjacent to a perennial stream okay without knowing what's in there you can't issue you can't issue an order of conditions with that statement you can't delete that condition you can't add to it that is a d condition we can argue all day long about what we look later conditions you don't comply with

that condition condition number seven of the general conditions of every order of condition that is issued by every town in the Commonwealth you know I I can spend a lot of time spining here and you know I'm not saying anybody's being sneaky you know but I was a consultant once too I know what the consultant world does and they look for ways of moving around getting around with the course of least

resistance I'm not blaming Christian for that any consultant does that okay I happen to have some concerns and questions as to the consistency of this fill I can't really be concerned about how much it's going to cost the applicant or the land owner nor should the commission you know you purchase a piece of land you buy the benefit and you buy the liabilities okay this is a problematic

site we've all agreed everyone okay we don't know what's in the ground we need to know what's in the ground and the reason that the phase two wasn't done is because well we may not do Residential but we're told that this was a residential petition you know day one there is ambiguity here and there's ambiguity here that places the Commission in a very very risky position to approve a

project now you know based on you have to issue this you have to issue that as guidelines for submissions they probably have passed all of that but there's additional information because it is a complex site it is a problematic site and I'm not saying the filling was Christian's problem he probably was nowhere near when it happened but if you're going to purchase that parcel as a developer

okay what was the benefit and the value of that land and I'm sorry I I don't think that just you know wishing the the esa away is is relevant you can't issue without knowing I'll take an example we had a single family land owner on high road they bought fill put next to private water supply wells cost them a lot of money to get that Fill cost them even more to get rid

of it because it was full of garbage it had low levels of contamination you can't do it you can't allow it okay just because the stuff is there and we're doing a a a land reuse or a changing use or whatever you just can't ignore the stuff is there when it's that proximal to jurisdictional Wetland resources or regulated buffer zones I'm sorry the condition is very clear on that and until we know what's

in that Urban fill we can't comfortably make that decision on of phase one maybe sometimes you have to put drills on sites whether you like it or not I mean it's just the way it is yeah I see it I'm trying to unmute you uh DCTV there you go I'm good thank you add I mean that that standed order of conditions has always been applied to as Mark stated every project any Conservation Commission approves and that's

for Stuff material that's brought into the brought into site into the site um so certainly anything we bring into the site will be clean P again I think the best thing for us to do is brought to the site and it was brought into jurisdiction may not be your fault but it's somebody's fault if it's contaminated if it doesn't comply with that condition you just can't walk over

and say well I don't see it so it's not there you know we're not I want I don't want to again this is stuff we're going above and beyond scope of conservation I mean you're not going to go dig up every single site in town of doth for every single project to see what no but we dig up every site that we have questions on when there's a potential for contamination to water resources or wet

ones that is our responsib that is an adverse effect all I can say is that I will not certainly bring any contended material into the site well was there in the past I have no idea um and again I I just want to let the commission know I'm going to address the comments and um that's the next step for me how much time well I I don't want to shut anyone else off does anyone else

want to speak on this application again anyone in the audience that wants to be heard all right Christian what what data you asking us to continue this until the next hearing is I plan on having the comments back by the 17th so however much time you need after that the next hearing is the 21st well it's cutting it tight is the Friday which is after the deadline for revised submittals for a Tuesday

hearing so yeah it actually is I wasn't looking at I'm looking at a calendar now so what's the following uh meeting date we have after the 21st it's April 11th that's the date requirement for revised information of March 30th yep that Ro okay April 11th all right uh Commissioners we've gotten a request from the applicant to continue until April 11th 2023 at 7M U may have a motion to that effect

please seconded motion those in favor I I opposed hearing no opposition that motion passes unanimously um now I we we do have two more public hearings that are related as we heard um so I'm going to open each one and I think rather than go through the same commentary I think we've heard what the issues are um I think we just entertain at that point unless somebody in the audience wants to be heard or a

commissioner wants to be heard we just entertain a motion to continue until um the same date April 11th 2023 at 7 PM is that acceptable Christian yes okay so I'm going to read the next one it's a continued public hearing D file 15- 2660 it's on the notice of intent from Potter Street solar LLC for a single family dwelling and a ground mounted solar panel array on the rear portion of the lot within bordering land

subject to flooding and the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated Wetlands it's on land which is map 138 lot

144-10 opposition that motion passes unanimously is there anyone in the audience or any commissioner that wants to be heard on this application see none um I'll entertain a motion at the applicant's request to continue the public hearing until April 11 2023 at 7 p.m. so mov second the motion seconded all in favor I opposed no opposition being heard that motion passes unanimously the third uh continued

public hearing is on D file 15- 2658 it is also a notice of intent from Potter Street solar LLC proposing a ground mounted solar panel array on the rear portion of the lot within bordering land subject to flooding and the 100t buffer zone to bordering vegetated Wetlands it's on land described as map 138 lot 144 D2 it's on Potter Street I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading a second you have a second on

the motion all in favor iOS heing no opposition that motion passes unanimously uh again is there anyone uh in the audience who wishes to be heard on this application or any commissioner who has any desire to speak on this application seeing none I'll entertain a motion at the applicant's request to continue the public hearing until April 11 20123 at 7 pm I'll move second second motion all in favor

oppos no opposition being heard or seen that motion passes unanimously thank you for your time thank you we're going on to the fourth item and that's a public hearing on uh D file 15- 2615 from Michael and Jeran Fernandes who wish to construct a fixed Pier gangway and Coastal storm float a gang way rather in Deck with a motorized boatlift within the Coastal Bank Rocky intertitle Shore land containing

shellfish land subject the coastal storm Flowage and land under the ocean it's on land described as map 105 lot 87 otherwise known as 47 East Avenue obtain a motion to wave the reading second we a second and motion all in favor I opposed no opposition being heard that motion passes unanimously and on behalf of the applicant looks like we have alen Haru yes good evening Mr chairman and

members of the commission if I can share my screen

please for this hearing uh for the record my name is Alan heru professional engineer I'm representing Michael and gerilyn Fernandes who own a house at 47 East Avenue on the shore of Buzzards Bay we propose a 261 ft long pier 24t gangway 10x2 float or deck with a motorized lift a boat lift and moing piles the record waterways license plan five sheets is dated February 3rd 2022 revised February 9th

2023 the proposed Pier has been reviewed by professional environmental Consultants as well as the Massachusetts governmental agents to certify that this project complies with all regulatory requirements the following presentation will summarize the findings of these reviews on September 11th 2021 David pette Wetland consultant performed an eelgrass survey there is a 40 foot wide eelgrass bed

across the Nearshore area at a depth of two to 5 and a half ft below below mean low water the pier is proposed on the southern ly side of an existing Stone grind which extends to a depth of 2 feet mean low water so I've highlighted on the plan this is the plan view of the waterways license a 40 foot wide Eel Grass bed that crosses the property there's a stone grin on the Northerly

side of the property this is the property lines highlighted in yellow the pier is 40 feet off the property 25 ft is the minimum and this is the 260t long pier in summer 2022 We performed additional survey work to show the location of the eelgrass bed north of this Stone groin in Mr Pet's eelgrass survey report to the Dartmouth Conservation Commission he recommends to minimize impacts to the eelgrass bed the

distance between the sets of pilings should be maximized to reduce the number of pilings that might be near the yass construction of the pier ramp and Float would have no long term impact on the land under the ocean there's a 10- foot high Coastal Bank and a 50 foot wide Rocky Beach inter tidal Zone with a 12:1 slope to mean low water the land under the ocean slopes at 16 to1 and has a firm mixed

sand gravel and Cobble bottom the landward end of the pier is at the edge of a lawn area the landward 195 ft of Pier is supported by three Timber prestel four pilings each with 4 in X 10in bracing and ballasted with 23,000 lb blocks of granite to resist wind and wave forces the spans between the trestles are 1 70 feet over the Coastal Bank this first span here two 50 feet across the inter tidal Zone the

blue line is mean high water the dotted blue line is mean low water and three 50 feet over the eass bed the proposed deck elevation of the pier slopes down from elevation 17 to 11 mean low water or 7 feet above mean Highway across the intertial Zone the bottom of the stringers will be 6 feet above mean high water to provide lateral access as required the length of the pier is designed to provide 25 fet minimum

setback from the Eel Grass bed or float or deck and associated Bing piles as well as a 20ft setback from a large Boulder on the nor Northerly side of the pier for the boat lift the terminal 60 ft of the pier will be constructed using standard 12T pile bits so we have the eelgrass bed we need to maintain 25 fet minimum from any float or deck and I've got a couple of

moing piles here and the boat lift is on the Northern side of the pier and there's a big boulder right here so I want to maintain 20 ft from the boat lift this is a boat lift that will handle a boat for 30,000 lbs the boat will straddle will be U held in a harness and the ends of the boat will stick out Beyond The Boat Lift itself so Captain would get into the boat lower

the boat motor around to the float or deck that's been lowered pick up passengers and if there's a guest they would more their birth their boat here and tie off to these two moing piles and the two piles on the southernly side of the float deck the terminal as I said the terminal 60 ft of the pier will be constructed using standard 12-ft pile bits the water depth at the location of the proposed

float or deck and Boat Lift are 78 ft mean low water we propos to batter the piles to form a more stable base for the pier the three 4 in by 10in stringers and three by 10in split caps and cross Bing racing and 2 by8 decking will provide weight and strength to the pier the gangway or float and boat lift will be properly secured during the Boating off seon the division marine fisheries

has reviewed the notice of intent with respect potential impacts to marine fisheries resources and habitat we have responded positively to comments from John Logan PhD Fisheries habitat specialist dated March 21st 2022 by one one spanning the eelgrass bed two proposing a deck elevation 9 ft above mean sea level those are both requirements of the division of marine fisheries and locating the proposed

float or deck and Associated moing piles 35 feet minimum away from the Yi grass bed on July 26 2022 Brad Holmes and Cameron lson of environmental Consulting and restoration LLC conducted a shellfish survey during low tide within and near the footprint of the proposed Coastal structures the shellfish survey habitat with tables maps and photographs is dated July 28th 2022 a total of 18 examination plots

were sampled along three transects each sample plot was approximately 3 foot square and dug to a depth of approximately 1 foot no shellfish were found at the site as requested by Mark Garrett environmental Affairs coordinator we prepared at wave climate analysis dated August 22nd 2022 the fetch link from 47 East Avenue across Buzzard's Bay ranges from 10 and a half to 15 miles significant wave

heights could possibly be 5.7 to 6.7 ft during a sustained 50 knot southeasterly Gale an additional letter report dated February 16 20123 was submitted to the commission regarding Shoreline change and wave climate referencing a study performed in 2022 by Trey ruthen of sustainable Coastal solutions for a doc project at 7 turn lane 13 mile south of this site as requested by the Harbor Master Steve

Melo and this is just a detail of the Timber Trestle that I mentioned that supports the landward 200 feet of Pier as requested by Steve Melo Harbor Master we prepared a moing exhibit dated July 14 2022 which shows the latitude and longitude coordinates of the end of the pier and four Moorings 150 to 195 ft away from the proposed Pier the nearest existing Pier is approximately 300 feet

to the south of the proposed Pier there's uh an aerial view taken by a drone of the shoreline in the Nearshore or in the foreground here this is the stone groin on uh Michael and jyn's Pro property Pier would go right about here this is Gail Davidson's Pier which is over 200 feet long uh this is Carol Brown's Pier which is over 200 feet long and this is Karen uh deon's Pier which is over 200 feet

long Craig D Sams PE structural engineer of Waterfront structural Consulting has reviewed the proposed waterways license plan and provided a letter report dated March 5th 2023 and this is again the picture of the pier immediately to the South to conclude the proposed Pier will not impact navigation we provide the required lateral access in the intertial zone for fishing following a navigating

and stroll the pier will be supported by Timber trestles with long spans in the Nearshore area and piles supported at its Terminus it will not alter the bottom topography and thus will not increase storm damage or erosion of the of the Coastal Bank Rocky Coastal Beach or in intertitle Shore the coastal structures will neither cause significant alteration in water circulation nor interrupt the Longshore

currents or onshore offshore transport of sediment the height and length of the pier meets the requirements of the Mass Department of fisheries and wild Mass division of marine fisheries to avoid direct impacts to the eelgrass bed and provide for safe navigation the 7 to 8ot depth of water during low tide under the float or deck and boat lift at the end of the pier will help reduce turbidity

levels caused by boats traveling to and from the pier the gangway float or deck and boat will be properly secured during the boting offseason thus we respectfully request that the commission issue an order of conditions to approve the proposed Coastal project and license waterways license plan dated February 9th 2023 and if you'd like I'll stop sharing my screen and answer any questions that

that you have thank you alen yes if you could stop sharing the screen that'd be great actually I was going to ask if the screen could stay up oh well then I stand correctly for reference purposes that's your decision Mr chairman no if you if you have that for reference purposes that's certainly fine uh so Mark we've heard the presentation of the applicant we'd now be interested in hearing staff's

comments yes I will reiterate my comment that I make on all of these large peers in exposed Waters uh I don't think they're wise I don't particularly think they're as of right uh although Property Owners would probably disagree with me on that uh they do pose certain impacts to Coastal resources somewhat limited I would admit those impacts come with I think a track record of a certain

amount of risk in damage and debris and the like and these are concerns that I have there are also concerns of the Harbor Master who is much more involved in cleaning up of these private structures when they end up in public Waters or public on public land roadways uh this is an exceptionally long dock it I'm not sure it's the longest KN in Dartmouth but darn close uh start at 261 feet it's starting to

approach the length of a football field um I'm not sure why it has to be that long I've heard that it's trying to avoid a boulder and it's trying to span over an eel grassp bed both natural restrictions to usage and development of a Shor line and I don't know that building longer to avoid is necessarily an appropriate argument relative to the the environmental uh impacts of the shoreline I should say also for the

record Dartmouth has had a track record of deny in very few if any docks you know in previous meetings I've reported the number of docks that are in Dartmouth far exceed most coastal towns in the Commonwealth and approximately 40% of those docks are long docks built on exposed unprotected shorelines don't know that that's particularly wise uh comments uh letters sent in describe the the dock being built on a

stable armored Shoreline uh that Shoreline is stable because it is armored the dock is not part of that armoring or protection that dock becomes a Timber structure extending beyond the armoring what armoring indicates to me is a very high energy Dynamic environment and in this particular case we have a coin that was constructed as an energy dissipator and Beach stabilizer Andor Beach stabilizer

which further indicates that this particular area is incredibly Dynamic uh Allan cites uh the ruthin study from 2022 at turn lane and as I've said previously that was a very understated study I don't agree with all its conclusions one conclusion I do agree with that it makes though is that it indicates that winds from the southeast over an annual cycle 3% of the time are in excess of 25 miles an hour

that translates to 11 days out of 365 and indicates a potential for a damaging episode or maybe some damaging episode and I think that have seen in the recent past few damaging episodes at Doc ends so uh I don't think that that's that's a statement out of school uh I will acknowledge the pier avoids eass in an appropriate matter in in accordance with the regulatory guidance set forth by D who bases on the

researchers I think uh Allan Logan yeah John Logan John Logan citation that Allan made I uh I have read and I agree that they they certainly have avoided the shading issues and the physical displacement of eelgrass one question I do have that I'd like Allan to clarify is he says there's one Boat Lift as I look at this particular plan I see two notations I see a proposed boat lift to the north of

the dock and I see a motorized boat lift to the south of the dock and Allen seemed to indicate some communication with boats leaving from one going to the other to load people uh boat lifts tend to be very very susceptible to damage uh in most cases docs have one this one has two uh so I I question that one of the things that Allen did address uh was not

only the height over the Eel Grass but there was a comment in the DMF letter that suggests that floats have a oblique daating effect on Eel Grass but uh I think that Allen has uh established that they are far enough away these these floats these Boat Lift floats are far enough away from the eelgrass that they would not have the oblique um issue uh we did receive a letter from um a structural engineer a fairly generic

letter we received it yesterday morning and I forwarded it to you it technically does not meet the review deadline um I don't know how the commission wants to handle that I've read the letter and basically the comment that I would that I glean from the letter is the stability of the peer if constructed properly will be adequate for this location um I think that that statement says that the peer would be stable but

there's the caveat of if constructed properly Alan also references that this dock would be uh in the off season would be secured uh that may be and many docks are but we do know some docks that are not and we're picking up pieces of docks uh screwn about uh the moing exhibit that Allan produced has lat lawn as as needed by the uh the barber master um and um so that meets that requirement for

for us the harber minister did write a letter on February 21st but he never forwarded it to me until yesterday at my request uh and again this these are his comments uh he identified and I'm I'm reading his letter uh three identified Mings sites lie within close proximity to what appears to be the seaward extent of the the length of the pier in my opinion the proposed sub mittle end complex or structure would impede

navigation and access to and around these Mings the proposed length is also far in excess of what would be needed to reach suitable end water depths and is not in proportion to the existing structures in the area his second comment was uh that he felt comp to note that the owner of a immediately south of the site wrote asking his office to assist with the removal of debris of his Dock and and boat lift at

some point in April of 2007 a sword a storm destroyed the end of his Pier especially the piles and gers that compos the boat lift again in his opinion regardless of Windrose and rosecolor glasses um those are his words that substantial structures such as boatless and en Flats do not survive the exposure presented in the area the proof is in the noted average winter storm of the the aforementioned pier and another

noted failure at nearby mure Point um so the har master has still has concerns about this um I I I read those comments to the Commissioners for their digestion uh I I believe I forwarded this letter to you as soon as I got it I think that as I said earlier oass in a boulder I don't know that I'm comfortable with building a pier that long to avoid them uh sounds

nice but you know from an environmental point of view it's added impact it's added risk um and I too think that the pier is too long and if there are Boulders in the way or there's Eel Grass in the way maybe should be relocated so that it could be shorter the doc reaches out to a depth of uh if I know that I believe the datm is mean low water to beyond

minus8 mean low water the the boat lift floats are inside of the minus 8 uh I don't know what kind of boats we're talking about here here I don't know what the drafts of these boats are uh many times docks are built extensively and they end up putting U you know a 15 foot Whaler at the end of them um I don't know if that's the case here but certainly it could be a concern given

the length of this dock this dock will be the longest dock in the reach in that Shoreline reach west side of lower ponaganset Bay with an extreme exposure of 14 mile of fetch to the Elizabeth islands and Woods Hole to the southeast again as in previous hearings the southeast wind is the first wind that hits uh as a nor Easter passes so Southeast winds are fairly common in our Coastal profiles they may not continue

through the entire duration of the but they do they generally are the Leading Edge as storms propagate this year we had several storms that propagated from the south and uh destroyed at least one dock as I recall not too long ago uh so you know these these these conditions are coming on sea level R and all these things all these considerations one has to think about uh I don't know that we have

Provisions yet to regulate against all of it but they still are considerations that we have to think about uh um I don't know where the commission stands if they're in favor of approving this I do have a set of conditions that I I could recommend to you uh if that's your desire I will hold back on those until I'm requested to do so by the commission that's basically everything I oh and the

other thing was uh because this area is mapped as shelfish uh I think there would need to be a contribution made to the shellfish fund even though their shellfish assessment did not show a lot of shellfish in the area it is mapped for I believe at least four species um thank you Mark do any of the Commissioners have any questions on the application that's been presented uh I do go

ahead you know I I read through this uh very carefully um I'm I'm concerned about several things here I'm concerned about the length of this and the the just the magnitude of this uh project it doesn't seem to fit the Dynamics of the environment in the area it it seems uh far more um this area in particular as as has been presented by Mark and is H highly to Southeast winds we've

seen uh many docks uh several docks damaged uh due to storms and they do end up on the shore I'm concerned about the fact that there's a lot of Eel Grass there and what impact that any kind of damage to the dock might have uh to that uh it is a resource area and there's 's not a lot of Eel Grass around anymore so we certainly want to protect that I don't really understand why the dock

needs to be as long as it is and why it has to have why it needs to be so large um it seems that aesthetically uh from an aesthetic standpoint it doesn't match uh other docks in the area I realize Alan that you say that there are other docks in the area that are large but this is Extreme large I understand why it's so I understand why you're doing it that way

but I don't think that's a great reason um I I think that it's not intelligent it's not smart to be putting a dock of this size or a dock at all in this in this area um I think it's a very high energy environment it's very Dynamic um I I think you've got two Boat Lifts I mean it just seems it just seems like a that's not true well what's not true Alan let let me

just clarify then if I can Mr chairman because uh both Mark and Patty have I I think not fully understanding this is the boat lift here and the boat lift is not a solid deck or float or anything it's just a cradle I understand so yeah so the boat goes in there and it gets lifted out of the water so that is the boat lift what happens is this is a little Landing once

I get past the eel grab the float there's one float or I or it's a float or a deck they can have it and there's four pilings that's orted each has a motor on it that with a cable that can lift the float up out of the water when it's not being used or you know if there's rough weather but on a quiescent summer day they lower the float or deck

down to the water surface captain gets in the boat goes around the pier and picks up passengers so there's one float that's all I wanted to make clear Patty I'm not you know just to make sure you understand there's a boat lift which is not a solid you know it's pilings supporting a cradle when the boat's off at Martha's Vineyard or Nantucket it's going to be just open the water you can

see right down to the water it's not a solid structure and the the reason for the length of the pier the other peers are 230 feet long this pier is 30 feet longer than the other peers in the photograph that I showed you it takes a 150 feet to get to a foot of depth of water at low tide so I have to cross a Coastal Bank which I've spanned cross

the intertial Zone then I have an eass bed that I must cross and span to get to any kind of depth for the kind of boat that we're talking about would be four and a half to five fet and at that point I put in a standard construction we had Donnie Lynch Drive piles the piles went down 10 and a half feet in this area so there I can use conventional construction and the reason for the

length of the pier is that the captain needs to be able to get in the boat which the butt end of the stern of the boat is going to be sticking out of the boat lift if he needs to get in the boat that's the only reason and then this little Landing leads to a float and sure you know the kids could jump off in the summertime and swim but everything is is

and then when there's guests they come in here and birth in this little spot here and tie their boat to the moing piles and the two piles now in that last storm Dave tabers you just approved his certificate of compliance earlier in this meeting he's got video cameras that were there the wave it's not the wind it's the waves the waves were crashing over his Pier his Pier had sustained no

Dam damage the only damage was one of his cables broke because the float what he did in the winter time he lifts the the the float up level with the deck and fastens it to the deck and then the gang way is level with the deck which is seven feet above mean high water and on the same level as the as the pier the float was banging around a bit because

of the wave action but he sustained no substantial damage whatsoever in that storm so the you know constant talk about they're being damaged and these docks being washed away I don't believe that's the case and you know this this doc you know these spans are these this the the first three spans appear is held up by by long aluminum girds basically trusses and form a platform and there the reason

we're doing that is so that we don't have to have a set of pilings every 12 feet across the Coastal Bank across the intertial shore across the eelgrass beds and we're just trying to get out to where there's navigable depth of water meet the setback from mogass the pier only 30 feet longer than the other peers that that I showed you in this Photograph Gail Davidson's pier and these other two women that own two other

peers here are all over 200 ft long this proposed Pier maybe for different reasons because there's so many more regulations to today than there were when those beers were built but that's just what I want to make absolutely clear one bolt lift one float I I appreciate your comments Alan but I think this area has is known for a 14 mile Fetch with a lot of wind and wave action you're right it's the waves

that do the damage and we've seen that we've seen damage to Gail Davidson's dock uh we've seen damage to other docks that also have this orientation and for such a very large dock with uh with a with a with a lift I have great concerns about um a boat lift in in this area they are more susceptible to damage and to say that uh the other dock that you were speaking of

didn't Su didn't sustain sub substantial damage doesn't mean that it didn't sustain damage and this these particular regions that we have here in Dartmouth they're not they're not great places to build docks and they end up in on they end up I think uh disturbing quite a bit of resource area when they fail and I know that you you you're probably tired of me saying this but I I'm sorry I can't help

myself um I really do think that uh it it's a problem and that's what I have to say about it thank you Patty any other Commissioner of any questions yes Mr chairman I have one Allan you may have already mentioned this so apologize if you're if I'm making you repeat yourself but uh in other docs you've presented to us the decking is able to be taken off either for a season or if there's a storm or

some sort of event that may you know advise that that and I'm just curious if that's if that's the setup here as well yes here on this on this stretch here in this stretch here these are going to be aluminum trusses aluminum platforms that will be shipped to New Bedford and uh manufactured once these trestles are in place and final measurements are taken but this stretch here in particular goes

from 17 to 8 to 11 11 way above the water and um so these stretches here would probably not have removable decking they would be an aluminum platform but the end yes the wooden structure at the end here would have removable decking okay thank you and and my second question is about its proximity to Moorings because I feel like I understood from your presentation that it wasn't a concern

but it seemed like the Harbor Master has a different View and so I just I wanted to clarify I guess so you've got 50 feet minimum yeah this one this uh let's see what did I have for the uh the uh okay so this is actually Mike and geryn Fernandez here this one here is 150 feet from the end of the pier this one is 190 this one was 185 and I think this one was around

175 so um so actually Mike and jyn's Float is the closest at 150 ft all the rest of these are up around 180 to 190 feet away and do you know the approximate depth at those locations I'm just kid may be supporting yeah this uh is minus or this is 8 feet depth that mean low water and then this is 9 10 11 12 feet 12 feet so Scott Sylvia's second

Waring here is probably around six feet depth low water that's at low water so high water at four feet okay thank you is there I I had a question about that to n um so I is there some clarification here as to why there's a disagreement between the Harbor Master uh of I'm not sure why he has that opinion because I'm showing what I believe is sort of a typical

um uh you know Rus 50 foot radius I mean of course you know yeah down down the depth and that affects the length of the chain and you get length of the boat but um there's certainly you know I don't know what why he has that opinion that that it's going to affect navigation or or affect people being able to get to their more I I'm not sure why he has that opinion

um can we can we get some clarification on that Mark well his comments of course came in the day of the hearing um and he had the plan for well his comments were written on the 21st of February he did transmit them to me until the day before so yes that was an issue for him but he had this was not a last minute thing he just never transmitted them to me

I I still have the question regardless i' still like some clarification I can ask that's all I can tell you I you know I think I think that that's probably not a bad idea but um you know we do have some questions from Harbor Master which I think should be addressed um given the fact and I Ellen I certainly understand and appreciate the fact that you weren't able to even see these until today which

is the day of the hearing I haven't seen them well you haven't even seen them yet okay but uh but more to the point I think that when we get something like that we we certainly owe it to the applicant and their professional to give them a chance to review it and to um respond and I I think in this case you you should have that opportunity Alan and and uh perhaps uh

in your response uh there may even be a solution that the Harbor Master can agree with and says you know I think you're right but I'd like to see those addressed because those are um critical comments which do impact um certainly in the past have impacted how I would vote and I suspect would possibly impact how other Commissioners would vote so um you know I certainly would appreciate if the

applicant would agree to u a continuance and we can have you can then have the chance to review and comment on what uh the Harbor Master has said but I also think for this evening we should hear if there's any other issues out there that need to be addressed as well so with that being said any other comments from the commissioners before I open it up to the public in

general I don't see any so now I'll say if there's anyone in the audience that wants to be heard on this application um now is your chance we have uh Richard Burke raising his hand so if he could be on unmuted please DCTV yeah I see you where I just can't Richard you need to unmute there you go can you hear thank you can you hear Mr chair okay um I represent uh first my name is

uh Richard Burke um with Border guard Burke and Franco and new pedford I represent three land owners along the Waterfront um neighbors to this project uh the mo family which is to the north at 55 East Avenue um Tom M house and Linda May christop at 39 East Avenue at 35 East Avenue um all three are uh properties along the beach um they were originally back in 1977 there was a plan created called um Shore uh

Estates um which did two things um it uh it created a beach easement for the six lots that are um Waterfront Lots which include my three clients the Fernandes and two other properties on either side of the Fernandes and then uh six other homes on the um land side of the street um also have rights to this beach easement um it's essentially a beach easement as as is customary it's an

easement for all uses which a private beach is normally used for including walking sunbathing fishing swimming and to land small boats um there was also back in 1977 when this community was um Crea ated by plan um a restrictive covenant whereby all of the owners at least the six uh beachfront lots that um were were subject to this easement all agreed that no one would build a dock unless they all agreed um that

restrictive covenant which states back to 1977 has expired um so it's not in effect however the beach easement um is still in effect um clients's concerns uh they understand that the Fernandes want a dock um I think they would prefer that they not have a dock but they understand that they want to have a dock their concerns are with the the length of the dock and with the the two Associated Landings or

floats if you will the boat lift and the landing um we we think that the uh from the christop fix's point of view um and my other client point of view the scale of this dock at 261 ft it it seems out of scale with other docks in the vicinity we would like it to be not quite as long as it has been proposed and we also are concerned about the two large Landings

one is 16 feet by 16 feet and the other 10 feet by 20 feet uh one on the North side and one on the South Side as Alan explained this adds to the size of the dock and the visual impact of the dock um it appear as I understand it uh both of these Landings will be fixed by four peers each by four peers so they're they're another solid mass that can be

raised even when they're not in use to the level of the do which which adds to the to the visual impact um my clients are also concerned with the grass and the shellfish has has been discussed and they're concerned about maintaining um continuous beach access along the beach Ean from the Mo's point of view there the mo are to the north of the proposed do um they feel that their property will be

immediately devalued their views um of the Elizabethan Islands will be obstructed um the views for uh the elos family and the the Davidson Davidson um their views of the harbor going in the other direction would be would be obstructed um we feel that it's just too long that it's a risk and a danger in any major storm um it will no doubt any dock is going to have an impact uh with Shoreline

swimming coming uh things that they enjoy doing now um and so that it will it will alter the the beaches men it will alter the the shoreline feel and the and the neighborhood the neighborhood Beach um having said that um I should say as was mentioned Gail Davidson is is also one of my group gaale a doc as was mentioned the doc was there when she bought her house over 20

years ago um she's simply I think more so supporting her neighbors and and their concerns um she sh she shares the same environment concerns um we with those concerns in mind we simply uh request that if a dock is to be built that it' be somewhat shorter that perhaps the the two side um ramps or or floats could be could be modified or done away with alog together um a conventional dock with the gangway

at the end going straight out with a a float that would not be quite so obstructive to view would no doubt reach a reasonable depth and provide the use of a dock uh for the Fernandes so our request is not that there not be a dock there are neighbors my clients understand that uh they want to dock even though we don't want it you know they're willing to acced to to some of these requests but

we we just simply ask that it be scaled down um from uh the size that that is proposed right now thank you thank you uh attorney Burke any other member of the audience that wishes to be heard okay I'm not seeing anybody at this moment moment so alen uh would you be willing to entertain a continuance while you get an opportunity to see what the oh I see somebody Derek is waving his hand Derek you're

next go right ahead you're muted though or something I can't hear you Derek I don't know I don't see any we can't we can't hear him he's got he's got two connections one is muted one isn't and we can't hear the picture one which is the unmuted which is is indicated as unmuted maybe all right I I'll tell you what we'll come back to you Derek uh I see attorney Williams here ra waving his

hand you're next I I think you disallowed me to unmute can you hear me now yeah I didn't disallow anything I didn't touch anything um Can DCTV probably did I can hear it is now time an okay time to comment you know Jay I'll come back to you so I'll let this gentleman uh say what he wants to say and then I'll go to Jay Williams and then um I see somebody

Mike has waved his hand so I'll go in that order and then I'll go to Lisa Rose so that's the order I'll I'll I'll hear everybody I think there's a a faral that or is that the same person Ferell that wishes to be heard or maybe that was I don't know things are blinking on off all over the place here so I but that uh when I'm finished with that rotation if there's more I'm

not going to miss anybody so okay D an address for the record please and then you may speak I'm sorry do you want me to speak now Derek Moore yes name and address for the record you can speak now so this is a Derek Moore from 55 East Avenue and you know I I just think you know we we've lived on that property for a long time and I feel like that strip of

Coastline has a specific very beautiful rustic feel you know I characterize it by the junior Sailing Club sailing up and down that Coastline I characterize it by people haing up and down that Coastline and if you can you please bring up that picture that you had of the future docks that we had before you know be able to a share he was sharing the screen Alan hero can you please bring up that picture of those

docs you know the the one of the picture of the coastline so here yeah there's three docks there so let's have Mike Fernandez click build a dock and then Scott skilia will build a dock and then we will build a dock and then you will lose that rustic feel of that Coastline and that's why the community came together to decide to stop building the docks and when do you

stop and not only is is not putting on another dock like you see there but we're creating something that is so much larger larger in magnitude and size and for what reason to park a boat there Gail has that dock Tom to ceas now would occasionally bring the dock there for an hour or two because you cannot leave a boat on that dock because it is too rough it's too rough from the the tidal

way the wake of the boats coming in and out and the storms so how do you get around that you create a gigantic lift I mean tell us about the mechanics the engines the metal that is going to be at the end of that dock to lift a boat that needs more than six feet of water depth and picture that boat up there when these stores come through and where does all that Hardware arrive and we're

not talking a rustic dock with wood we're talking manufactured aluminum Hardware cranks electrical every storm that we have stuff comes up not on our beach on our yard it is a very you know high energy piece of Coastline and the simple fact is nobody do you see any lifts on those docks do you see any boats on those docks because it's just too there's too much energy on this coastline line and

they're just not meant to be there and I I just don't understand why you know a coastline has a field and you have to preserve it and if you just lose it and lose it and lose it what do you have left and this is a beautiful strip of Coastline for kayakers for children sailing for boats coming in and out and I just don't understand why a place like Dartmouth

wouldn't put its foot down to preserve a beautiful thing that it has and allow this escalation of more Docks but more concerning is with more hardware and lifts and docks I mean it do you know how ugly this thing's going to be with a what a 30 I mean a 30 foot boat out of the water it's like why do this what's the potential benefit for it put your boat on a

moing it's it's like why ruin so much for so many other people for that one small added benefit and I just I just for the life of me I don't understand that this community For What from 1977 until this thing accidentally expired like this thing flipped through the CLA the whole Community if we had known that that part of this was going to expire we would have re renewed it to preserve the

feel of the community and all the people that live there and we're just throwing this away because this thing accidentally expired without us knowing it and I'm pretty sure when Mike bought the house that was in there and he should have known when he bought this piece of property that he was buying a piece of property where you were not able to build a dock and if he wanted a

dock so bad he should have built a piece of property elsewhere because the community was protecting a special limited thing and now we're letting it go and I I just don't understand it thank you uh I believe the next in line would be Jay Williams Jay you can unmute yourself we'll be all set to hear you got me y can hear you now can you hear me yes we can thank you okay um all

right Mike members of the board uh Jay Williams I'm kind of a uh kind of a newcomer my wife Valerie and I we live at 48 East Avenue directly across the street from Mike Fernandes and gern Fernandes um Mike and gern got got kind of Mirror Mirror families we both have four and five children we both have you know five and seven grandkids um myself anyone that's going to be visually

affected by this dock we're probably the one most visually affected we look straight out into the water and we're going to see it and and quite frankly I think that's a good thing I think a dark is is a beautiful thing especially um we're kind of we're kind of blessed to be able to see dos people around the country that that you know that's that's uh it's not a it's not a

one but um but also the uh the beach that we've I've heard people say that is um attorney Burke say that it's on a common area Beach that beach not is not accessible it's just rocks and uh it'd be very difficult to go across that the beach that is accessible is the one that has the dock already and I kind of find it I kind of find a little you know

funny that if I'm not mistaken I think think I'm not sure but I think Mr Moore I'm not sure if he's the owner of that property I think is I think it's someone else that's the owner but um I've been here a couple of years I think I've seen him like twice I think he come probably for a week in the summer and it's kind of it's kind of upsetting to think that

someone that comes here for a week or two in the summer you know would want to try to limit another neighbor who's here 52 weeks in a summer with his family um you know because for that one week he he can't he he can see the harbor he's on the other side of that do he's got a beautiful view um and I mean actually actually he's got Lun trees on his

property which I don't have a view of War but um but anyway um I think uh uh I I I don't I don't think that that is is a bigger problem I understand the length of the dock why why you have to have a dock that long um but it isn't out of context with the other docks in the area the the other docks about if if you're going 230 feet to 250 feet of or

260 feet it's not a big big variant you know so it is in harmony with the other docks in the neighborhood and uh and I don't think it's going to dagate from uh you know from or minimize or or hurt the values of anyone's property but more importantly I I'm a travor of it and uh I think it's um I think it'd be good for the neighborhood thank you Mr Williams now I

believe Mike you were the next in line there's a m over there there you can you hear me I can hear you now okay so uh thank you for everybody tonight of course myself and my my wife geryn are are the uh topic of a conversation and thank you for the board and everybody that's taking the time and all all our neighbors including the ones that aren't in favor for the

moment um I just like to say that um just to start um Derek directly would just let you know that we purchased this property 10 years ago and 10 years ago that restriction wasn't in place and it was my intention Our intention to build a duck um to get close to the water and enjoy the water I have six children four grandchildren and all our neighbors know that we spend all

our time out on the water as a matter of fact the beach that we all share we put a ring out in front of the house for the last three years and Jay and I bring our grandkids and our kids and we and we and we take them tubin um off of the Ring actually most of the neighbors are out there on the ring um when hopefully we get to put our

dock in and and enjoy the water um the way we all do and those water sports will now be taken in front of the beach that we all share and put directly in front of our house um as far as visual to the islands the only person I don't know how you can look out at I look at gills do every day and all the pictures that we take and send to all our friends

Gils do is in our pictures we can choose not to have it we think it's a very beautiful part of the coastline and the only person um in this whole neighborhood that would have it it's ridiculous to think that you couldn't see the Elizabeth Islands because of a 200 foot dock or 300 foot dock is the guy Derek that I've lived here for 10 years that he's come down here three years three times in 10 years

and like Jay said I'm here 52 weeks a year 365 days a year or 52 weeks a year on on this property so I mean I don't want to be labor this but um uh and and and Gail Gail's doc um is right on the beach that we all enjoy and it's right there we touch it and my dock is going to be in front of my house and uh not in anybody's way so

hopefully we can um figure this all out and Yeah Derek I mean technology today they don't build docks today they building them every day and they don't build them like they used to and uh yeah that's it that's all I have to say I hope there's other neighbors here that aren't opposed to us having um a dog in front of our house so hopefully they can speak up and thank you for uh giving giving

me giving me and hopefully nobody can take away the the enjoyment that my grandchildren are waiting to share and that's why we bought our beautiful home in this beautiful Waterfront thank you you're welcome okay anyone else that wants to be heard uh frell I don't you're next hi um thank thank you for having me um so for the record I live at 30 Shore Acres Road with my husband um the reason

we actually moved to this neighborhood is Mike Fernandez and his wife just because we met them right after we looked at our house and they were so welcoming that we immediately felt like this was a really great Community um I would say with the exception of you know our our neighborhood everyone uses the beach um that was when I first heard that there was going to be a dock put in I was

our neighborhood in a negative way so I don't think that there should be um you know any sort of limitations placed on it because of that thank you frell uh Lisa Rose you have to unmute yourself though Lisa yeah you're muted there you go okay hi so I lived here for several years if you wouldn't mind just give us your address please 34 short Acres Road thank you uh I don't think that Michael's doc

affects the beach in any way I also think that um for those of us that are here 12 months a year 52 weeks as Mike said nothing affects anything um I believe that the dock the reason that the dock is so long is he's trying to do his mitigation Over The Rock over the seag grass and to get out in the water to draw for his boat I have no objection to this

doc thank you uh Lisa appreciate your comments anyone else that wishes to be heard uh Scott Sylvia unmute yourself and you can be heard name and address for the record Scott thank you how's that that's perfect uh Scott syvia I live at 51 East AV I have the property directly to the north of Mike Fernandes um I Heard Jay over there say that you know he thought he would be

most affected by the view of the dock but I will look at it every single day and I think these docks are just a highlight of the coastline I love looking at them um to me the coastline wouldn't be nearly as As Nice without these beautiful wooden docks that we have um if those of you who aren't exactly familiar with the topography that we have here I mean to say that the docs

are going to interv interfere with your view of the Elizabeth islands is a little absurd I the basement of my house sits 30 feet above sea level all of these houses are set back there's a 10- foot Bluff there's a lawn that comes up to every one of these houses that gets another 20 feet of elevation I mean the basement of my house is the same elevation as the new bed dump I don't

even sit in a Flo none of us even sit in a flood zone um you look right out over the docks at everything the docks are part of the water they're not really part of the the rest of the landscape that we have um you know you've heard people refer to the 1977 uh scheme that was put in place with no docks and this and that that was completely done illegally and we had to

all go to to probate court to fix our Lots because that 19 77 scheme the people that did that through attorney Ray Lance didn't have title to the property when they did it so they put they put restrictions on without having title to the property they're putting restrictions on I know that's not really here nor there but since other people have brought it up those restrictions that said no doc were never in effect

they were never in place and those of us that live on the water here have had to go to probe Court to actually get good title to our our Beast front properties the one that Mike is trying to put on I know that Jay can speak to that you know Prescott Bull and McLoud The Firm could speak to that we've all had to go and do those things so listen the dock is a great

idea um as far as conservation goes I'm not sure you know what your perview is as to what you can and can't restrict on this but I I just don't see the harm to the environment I don't I haven't heard anybody make an argument that there's really any harm to the environment as far as uh our Master Steve Melo these Moorings out here none of them are registered with the Army Corps

of Engineers so they can be moved 10 feet 20 feet 30 feet anytime anybody wants to move them they just they just get a new GPS location and reregister it with the town so there's really no there's really no reason that I can see to not allow the dock and obviously I'm in favor of it so that's all I have to say well thank you Scott uh someone else that wants to be heard who hasn't spoken

already all right I see I don't know your name but I because it's got a female name you you're muted You' got to unmute I'm Alan B can you hear me yes I can your name and address for the record please I'm at 52 East Avenue um next to Jay and across from Mike and uh I I always experienced Mike as a careful person so I couldn't imagine that he would put up this dock with

um the Hoist for the boat in a way if he thought it was dangerous he wouldn't want to ruin his dock or his boat and he's a careful prudent man so I I think that that's a species argument and right now there's no reason why he can't put it up legally so that's my feeling you're you're in favor of the doc is that correct yes okay and just I don't know if we got

your name for the record because you were muted while Alan Allan bman okay thank you Alan you're welcome is there anyone else that wishes to be heard I see I can come to you Mike I want to see if I've got somebody who hasn't already spoken and it doesn't look like we do so I'll come back to you Mike go right ahead unmute yourself yeah one last thing and I and I

did forget that I did speak with I did speak with Scott and I did speak with Jay and I'm speaking for myself that all three of us would move our Moorings anywhere that uh the Harbor Master would choose to have us if he wherever he felt if it needed to be whereever it needed to be moved we would all all three of us would move our Mars that's all I wanted to say thank you

appreciate that thank you thank you so Alan I'm gonna come back to you uh so uh before I open it up for the public I was asking whether you would entertain a continuance until the March 21 2023 meeting that'll give you an opportunity to U review what Harbor Master Steve melow has put together in writing and also respond to that and uh I think you now have a flavor for you

know what the concerns are if any and uh or you can say no you'd want to vote that's your call no I I would be happy to continue until March 21st so that I can um I'll get a copy of Steve melo's comments and I will respond to them directly okay I appreciate that um uh Mr chairman Allan I will email you a copy tomorrow morning okay thank you Mark

already jotted it down as a note yeah I see someone in the audience that wants to be heard go right ahead uh that's Lisa Rose you have to unmute yourself though you're still muted I can't hear you

you're muted I I can't hear anything can you guys hear with a tremendous Echo sound if you if you could unmute my other account well Lisa Rose had raised her hand I'm trying to hear her but it's not I can't for some reason she can't be unmuted I guess are there two two accounts yeah I'm sorry I the account that has my voice doesn't have a camera and that's why I'm bouncing back and forth I

apologize okay um I can't hear you Lisa I'm sorry you're not unmuted um DCTV I'm not sure if you can unmute Lisa please Lisa Rose I suggested she unmute she just has to click the prompt all you gotta okay if you click your prompt then you should be able to unmute yourself so if you look down at the move your cursor down to the bottom of the screen and on the extreme

left there should be a microphone yours probably has a slash through it that means you're muted so you have to click it to unmute come on Lisa come on Lisa is she even hearing it could I uh you've got a couple of accounts here Lisa you got one with your picture you got one without a picture both muted well while Lisa is figuring that out May I make one comment yeah I'll

give you a brief opportunity to respond please don't go over what was already said just anything new I'm happy to hear it um I I just want to make a comment about me not living there you know my father bought that house and it was uh his dream to have a house on the water and he bought that house and uh when Mike wanted to build a dock he sent a letter to my mom asking to

build the dock and she said no we don't want a dock there you know my dad died in that house it's true he died in the front yard looking over the water at the Elizabethan islands and he had a dream of that house and he basically left it there for his grandkids so they could come back and experience that Harbor like he did and yes I don't live there now but I don't think that's a point

we've kept that house because we hope to be there and I have three children too and I hope them hope that they grow up you know Cy hunk can ofits this is a important part of our life and it just I just don't know why we had to destroy the coastline with these gigantic docks you know and so the argument that I don't live there I just don't see the

relevance on that with Mr Moore um as far as I am concerned full or part-time residence uh that issue is irrelevant to me what's relevant is whether or not we have compliance with the performance standards under the code of mass regulations whether or not we have compliance with town of Dartmouth bylaws relative to conservation um if we do I don't care if you're a part-time resident or a full-time

resident that's not one of the issues that we're supposed to delve into as a Conservation Commission so um yes and anyone's free to say what they want within ring uh at this meeting within reason I should say um so don't be alarmed by the fact that part-time residency was brought up that's not really going to be an issue and for my vote okay I have I try to apply the same standards to every application that

comes before the commission and never have I applied a standard of whether you were full or a part-time resident so rest assured that's not part of what I look at um is Lisa unmute yeah yeah I unmuted myself sorry name and address again for the record uh Lisa Rose 34 Shore Acres Road okay um I just wanted to say I appreciate you saying that you don't differentiate full-time or part-time but I will say that most of

the people that are here part-time have something to say about what goes on here full-time um I have access to the beach I have access to a moing if I want it and I in no way will Mike's doc affect my ability to have a moing in the water okay thank you thank you and I and I think I speak for all the Commissioners on that we tried very hard to be fair in the

application of the regulations and bylaws to each application that comes before us um so anyway uh anyone else that wants to be heard on something new and you're seeing none um alen has uh said that they would be willing to continue this public hearing until March 21st 2023 at 7 p.m. um and I will say that anyone who was here this evening who wants to be heard again at that meeting you're more than welcome to we

are not closing the public hearing if the motion's allowed so Commissioners what's your pleasure on that um request andain any want to make a motion to continue the hearing until March 21 2023 at 7M so moved have a motion we have a second on the motion second second on the motion all in favor oppos no opposition being heard that motion passes unanimously there will be no additional mailing for those of you

who are here tonight's meeting we just agreed to continue this until March 21 2023 at 7 p.m. um if you want to be heard again or you want to watch what happens please feel free to participate the public hearing was not closed okay that being said we're going to move on to our final public hearing for this evening it's a public hearing on D file 15- 2671 Robert Sherman and Mary swis or a

septic system repair within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated Wetland and Coastal Bank and in land subject to Coastal Flowage it's on land described as map 90 Lots 15 and 16 it's otherwise known as for Meadow Shores Road Iain a motion to wave the reading move second second motion all in favor I I oppos no opposition being heard that motion passes unanimously and alen you're here

again yes good evening uh this will be quick I hope uh if you don't mind I'll share my screen no I don't mind go ahead that's a beautiful picture I don't know what i' make of it though yeah I got to change that to something a little better um for this public hearing I'm representing Robert Sherman and Mary Schwarz we propos to repair the septic system at four metal Shores Road the record plan is entitled subsurface

sewage Disposal system dated February 15 2023 and on the screen I have a a highlighted copy of the plan view portion of the plan the entire property is in land subject to Coastal storm Flowage and either 100 in the 100 foot buffer zone to a Coastal Bank Coastal Bank is uh along this east side of the house this is the house right here it's on a parcel of land that's a waterfront parcel of

land and the where there's a retaining wall along the shore that's the Coastal Bank bank and my client owns a vacant piece of land on the other side of metal Shores Road where we're putting the leeching field so as I said the uh existing house is located on a waterfront lot within the velocity Zone where we propose a new 1500g septic tank and 1,000g pump chamber both properly weighted down with a 6in slab top the

sewage effluent will be pumped to a raised soil absorption system system on the vacant lot across Meadow Shores Road uh there's a bordering vegetated Wetland on the south side of the property and that was uh delineated by Adam SE Blom as part of a wetland sight inspection and um this soil absorption system is a conventional leeching bed and we've located it as far away from the wetlands and as far away from the

ocean as possible uh by using a retaining wall around the Northerly and Westerly side the minimum 5 foot distance off the property line and um uh around the rest of the soil absorption system is a very flat Earth and slope so this will just be a big grass area it will be raised about three feet because there's a very shallow water table on the property so we've put the uh soil

absorption system it's as I said it's far away from the Coastal Bank and the boarding vegetated Wetland as feasible on the vacant lot across Meadow Shores Road and that lot is actually in an a Zone not in a velocity Zone the leeching bed is proposed 45 ft setback from the bordering vegetated Wetland and we propose an erosion control barrier between the work area and the BBW 23 feet minimum away from the Wetland the

uh red line here is the erosion control barrier we've responded positively to plan review comments from the Board of Health and the DPW and have added notes on the plan in accordance with those comments and the uh as I said the the final plan dated February 15th incorporates those those comments we have a file number se15 d267 and I'd be happy to answer the commission's questions thank you thank

you Alan U Mark I'd be interested in hearing the comments of the staff on this one Mark you're muted sorry about that um in the uh spirit of time I really don't have that much to add to what Allan said I think he's described the project accurately uh the the one thing he didn't mention but it really doesn't matter uh if one looks at the flood plane Maps this is inside the limit of

wave action but so are all the other structures in and around the area so I think that that designation while on the the FEMA Maps is not necessarily your main to this particular project uh having said that I would recommend a standard order of conditions uh 20 through 40 the leading condition 41 uh which are the restoration uh which are all the restoration requirements and making condition

42 the new 41 so uh that is my recommendation to the board thank you what's the uh what's the date of the plan of record sorry excuse me uh February 15th right Alan yes that's the revision right yeah do any Commissioners have any questions is there anyone left in the audience oh is there anyone in the audience who wishes to be not seeing any I'll entertain a motion to close the public

hearing so move second seconded all in favor no opposition being heard that motion passes unanimously Commissioners what's your pleasure on this request make a motion for a standard order of conditions according to the plan submitted on February 15 2023 with conditions uh as stated by Mr Garrett second the seconded motion all in favor I I oppos no opposition being heard that motion passes

unanimously okay thank you very much thank you Alan thank you to the items for discussion and our first our bills so if we have some we can pay them nine well that's easy um do you want to really discuss the bylaws no it's it's really just an dat to let you know that uh Brian Cruz has them I met with him on another issue which we will discuss shortly and uh he is working on it he

anticipates getting his comments To Us by the 24th of this month and we're well within the uh time frame for town meeting very good uh second discussion item uh Mike you referenced it earlier and while it's not a done deal uh I have been informed by my state representative that the house took up the extension of the emergency order and in fact voted to Extended two years to March 31st 2025 that needs to go to the

senate senate needs to vote and obviously any differences would have to go to conference if actually the house acted on this relatively quickly because they usually wait till the last minute and you don't have to do it retroactively but what my my rep tells me is that the house and the Senate are not that far apart so I would guess that there will be a continued extension uh maybe not for the full two

years but maybe 18 months or something like that but we can anticipate that come March 31st of 2023 there will be some sort of extension and it will be your choice as a commission to continue in Virtual in person or some sort of hybrid but that that's that's where we are today as of the vote and I did put a uh email into to my state senator asking her what the status was in the sent

Senate and if she could get me a response and I'm looking at my phone as we

speak and she has not yet responded I uh I contact I sent an email to her this afternoon so um that would be Senator Moran uh so that's the status of that well it's an interesting thing that they're doing I think they're hopefully we can discuss that once we know how they voted we can discuss that was just an update for you guys just I'm keeping my fingers on that on that pulse

appreciate that I do appreciate that so we have some enforcement issues or concerns yeah uh 68 middle sex um we uh you know we had discussed this before uh there are some water lines that I think were put in the wrong place we have contacted Mr P uh this again is the project that looked for an extension that the commission was very very tight on only extended the restoration through June 30th of this

year it was about an eight-month extension um so he's up against it he's got his Consultants on it working on it and uh hopefully we'll have some sort of uh resolution to that in short order um so that's where that stands uh additionally to that 73 Tucker Road we issued an enforcement order they are woefully behind in responding however I met on the ground with Stephen schme Wetland consultant who had prepared a

preliminary plan I commented and made some amendments to that plan and that plan will be in drafting I indicated to Stephen I didn't get a chance to email him today I will email him first thing tomorrow uh indicating that we need documentation filed To Us by March 30th to make the April 11th hearing this has gone on way too long so uh I put a date certain he understood and was going

to good the last issue is um an issue of a longstanding enforcement order which uh I had a meeting with um on councel Brian Cruz and uh he would request that on the 21st of March we schedule an executive session so he can go over some concerns he has relative to the status and quality of this enforcement order and and his uh suggestions as to what might be the options for us to proceed on this

uh and then leave it to the commission to determine whether it is still worth uh the effort this is an enforcement order that originally went out in 2011 um and U so if we could schedule an executive session for the 21st I'm thinking 6:30 uh that would probably we be a good idea all right well I I think you want a motion to that effect Mark uh yeah I I think unless you just

want to agree to it collectively I don't have a problem I just I'll entertain a motion to have an executive session with attorney Brian Cruz for our next scheduled meeting which is uh Tuesday March 21 2023 at 6:30 thises does that work for everybody first yes it works for me this is when you want to have the inperson meeting because we can have pizza or something but um I'll have my

virtual Pizza while I'm listening to Brian um so okay so uh we have a motion on the floor have a second on the motion second on the motion all in favor all right Clos no opposition so yes Mark attorney crw I will inform him and uh I will set up the agenda accordingly yeah and I think what I will do is maybe just to make sure for my own sake I'm putting it in my calendar now

but I tend not to look at it till it's too late so a reminder that we 6:30 would be very helpful for me same you know that I'm very quiet about these things I don't nag you people no you don't but I'm just asking you this time because I my head 7 o'clock 7 CL and then I I've done this for other things believe me I will make sure that you are well alerted fire

two thank you I've got it in my I've got it in my phone but a reminder is always good I've left my wife at restaurants waiting for me because I thought it was at 8 o'clock and it was at 7 so that doesn't always go well it's a very it's a very quick dinner though I'll tell you that not a lot of chitchat that's it for me okay a motion to adjourn second all in

favor good night everyone