Falmouth conservation staff proposes fee schedule changes; commission accepts recommendations and issues multiple permits

Falmouth Conservation Commission members on Aug. 28 voted to accept staff recommendations to update the commission’s bylaw fee schedule and then approved a batch of permits and amended orders of conditions.

Staff member Jen said the commission’s fee schedule had not been updated since 2019 and recommended reorganizing categories to match the state fee schedule; she highlighted that advertising costs had risen and recommended raising the advertising fee to reflect the current average (about $20.26 per ad). Jen also proposed moving some activities between categories (for example, reclassifying beach nourishment into a different category) and increasing the single‑family home review fee from $200 to $500 to reflect expanded review scope. "We haven't changed our fees since 02/2019," Jen said. "If you looked at the schedule, you looked at the state fee schedule, it kinda makes sense."

Commissioners asked how the fees are applied and where revenue goes. Jen clarified that bylaw fees are collected into the town general fund while state wetland fees are held in a dedicated wetlands account and can be used only for administration of the Wetlands Protection Act. In response to questions about dock fees, staff explained the proposed structure: a linear‑foot rate with a minimum; the staff recommended a $5.50 per linear foot rate with a $550 minimum to align with the state model while preserving a floor consistent with the town’s current flat fee.

Courtney moved to accept the staff recommendations; the motion carried on roll call and the commission recorded acceptance of staff’s recommended fee changes. Jen noted the commission’s vote will go to the Board of Selectmen, which sets the fees and has authority to change or waive them.

After the fee discussion, the commission considered and approved multiple Orders of Conditions and amended orders for properties across Falmouth (including permits for elevated additions, rebuilds, seasonal docks and other projects). For the Yakov Ostrovsky matter the commission allowed an existing stone wall to remain while directing removal of a gravel fire‑pit area; for other projects staff required erosion control, mitigation plantings and clarified language about whether small repairs (for example fiber rolls) could be considered under the revetment term. The transcript shows motions and roll‑call votes for these permit decisions were recorded as unanimous.

Next steps: staff will forward the fee recommendation to the Board of Selectmen for consideration and will continue to process the issued permits and monitor required mitigation and as‑built submissions for the approved projects.