Conservation Commission April 11, 2023

okay so uh Brian uh Mark did circulate um to the Commissioners um your your email and thoughts and comments on the bylaw proposed bylaw Amendment um amendments I guess I should say but uh in my view I think your comments are very well placed um we certainly do expect that we're going to um at least study and even propose a far more detailed Amendment to the bylaws and I and certainly one of the

concerns in my mind on that is making sure we have your input because what what I was thinking the bylaw amendment should actually be in the longer run is to have the bylaw very precise very concise and to keep all of the administrative things in the rules and regulations Prett much me the WPA and the DBS in the same way yeah exactly so I mean in order to do that I agree with you um we' be

rushing it to try to do that now but I will say there are two things that would I think still make uh it important to meet the town meeting and they are the following number one we need a definition for a freshwater Wetland and number two in the current bylaw uh we have provision that talks about the method of application and that's now incorrect since the town's gone digital

with the portals Etc so we and that's in the bylaw where I think again if it had been in the rules and rs that'd be simply fixed um so I think we need to fix those two things at least for this town meeting but let the town meeting members know we're doing a deeper dive into how to make the bylaw more concise and precise and we'll be back this is

just to fix in my view those two problems are the emergencies so the definition of freshwater wetlands is there any reason why that can't simply be done as part of your regulations currently I I don't see any to be honest um so Nathaniel And the reason I say that is um the the less you can provide to town meeting while saying by the way we're going to come back and redo this all

again anyway I think the simpler it is so if it's if it's simply a matter of hey we want to make sure no one's confused about the application process in the interim just fix that and then at your leisure you can update the reg definitions as you see fit um I just because part of the part of the issue is is that it's there's no there's no clear line on oh we need a definition we don't

need definition we could be updating lots of definitions why just pick that one so we don't have I hear what you're saying and I agree with you by the way I do agree that other than the enabling definitions um in the bylaw I think all the definitions should be in the rules and Rags yeah so um I'm totally in agreement with you and that's a very good observation on your part I think um

if I could if I could just come in here we use the term freshwater wetland in the bylaw and it's never been defined and I think that as a resource area and really we have two major resource areas freshwater wetlands and coastal wetlands we have a coastal Wetland definition we don't have a freshwater Wetland definition now I think you know a couple of things are going on here uh we need

to organize this bylaw and make it a bit more streamlined and I think we have and I support most of Brian's comments I really I just have a question on one uh but I think now we're going back to a total rewrite which should have been in should have been in July when you know we had our initial discussion on this of last year so I think you know it's it's like then

what are we really changing at this point well I see what you're saying I guess the answer is are we do we need to address those issues that brought this to the point of we need to be before town meeting this spring okay so if if we're addressing those they're not that many all of those changes that have been made to date aren't something that needs to be addressed this spring but there are two

that are in my and from what I reading of it and I could be wrong but the things that I mentioned were the ones I saw needing to go before town meeting and Brian's point tonight which I think is a legitimate point and I hear yours too Mark um our the problem is we had we have bylaws that somebody wrote like they were bylaws rules and regulations all in one and the Amendments really haven't been

consistent so we have to pick and choose are we going to look at this and just continue what has been done in the past which is bandaid put some epoxy and uh you know duct tape and are we going to just fix it and I I would prefer you know speaking for myself let's address the issues that have to be addressed in spring meeting and I think we need to really fix it so

we're leaving it excuse me much better for future commissions um and I think for the practitioners who come before us um but I'm you know that's my thought so I do agree with a lot of Brian's comments in that regard I think he was thinking similarly to myself not to say we're both right or wrong I just I happen to agree with them but yeah practically speaking a lot of what's in

the by line now is something are things that need to be able to be updated on a more frequent basis than b anually um you you shouldn't have to go to town meeting in order to update the application process that's just immensely cumbersome um so and to my point about if you can update this the definition of freshwater Wetland through the rags rather than in the bylaw part of my concern with that

as well is if you do it through the bylaw by the time the Attorney General approves it you're looking at um I don't know probably August September if that goes before that goes into effect um whereas if you do it as a regulatory definition you could have have it done in a few weeks if you wanted to um if it's that important to get that done quickly obviously the application process if you want to tweak

that to say electronic that's going to have to be a boty right there's no getting around that um so that's part of my thought process is if you're going to be updating bylaws it we it just needs to rewrite top to bottom and it it shouldn't be done peace mail um and if that fresh water whatwind is something that you want to make sure is in place now do it as a regul because my recommendation is

you're going to do it as a regulation anyway after the B overhaul um so it's your prerogative you can have a two-part warrant article if you want for the spring it's not that complicated right um you would just need to explain more to town meeting why this definition is getting updated now even though you're going to be overhauling a bunch of them for the fall town meeting that's

all I got a question for you Brian and I know it's I'm speaking out of turn but for my curious osity um would it make more sense to uh request that the byw the provisions that are currently in it relative to the application process and just say for the application process contain it's contained in the rules and regulations and just move it over there yes so you could do that the the the

the it would be a more complicated rewrite because you would be partially changing how the regulation process works um as opposed to doing it the simpler bylaw update if you want to just update it for now is just to say you can submit electronically um quite honestly I mean if push came to show I could defend a regulation that says electronic submission shall be sufficient written

application for the purposes of the cono so you could by regulation now simply say if you submit electronic application you have submitted a written application under the bylaw um that you will accept that as a written application it's just submitted electronically rather than in paper format um you could probably do that rather than going through the process of doing some amendments now when you're

doing an overhaul for the fall um and I don't think anyone would object to that that's I think that's reasonable um it's still a written application you're just scanning it in and submitting it rather than printing out and submitting it that's all Mark I want to hear some comments from you I know we've started um in any other commissioner please join in this is your opportunity to ask questions and make

observations I think we're still trying to work out the application process okay the electronic portal was thrust on us and those who thrust it on us didn't look at the state requirements and the bylaw requirements and how they interweave okay I'm trying to manage an administrative side in the office and make it legal and proper under the two jurisdictions we live under and we live under two our

office lives under two jurisdictions um I I really haven't thought about it this way what I thought we would do and I'm not you know if the commission wants to overhaul the regulations in the bylaw at some point that's fine but that's a Draconian step from having not amended anything for over 10 years I'm trying to get a really Antiquated document into some sort of temporal consistency with

practice um and that's why I wrote what I wrote but I'm not an attorney I'm I I don't have the legal nuancing here and like I said I Brian and I have had a lot of these discussions I mean this discussion I think is Advanced tonight a little farther than what Brian and I spoke of you know a week and a half ago or so um you know and I'm not against exploring

that uh but for me I've had Consultants saywell you don't Define freshwater wetlands okay we don't Define them so but we use the term in the bylaw and I think it needs to be defined in the bylaw I feel very strongly about that as to the other things except for my one comment which is on page seven uh or page eight excuse me I'm fine with all the comments that Brian is

introduced he explained them to me and I understand them and should the commission want to do do that deep dive you know I don't think we need to do it next year I think you know what I've heard from everybody is we need to be very thoughtful about this trying to get into a fall or Spring Town Meeting cycle is a little difficult and maybe we should not use those as the drivers

maybe we should use our thought process and say okay we'll live with this for four years or five years and then move a or three years because I know Mike you had said three years and then move ahead with that deep dive I really and I'm speaking from my you know my hometown experience of presenting at Town meetings I don't think we want to say oh well we're going to take a deep

dive and really revise these you know in the near future I think that'll just knock town meeting socks off and they'll be shaking their heads going what are we doing here that's my concern and that that may well be a very legitimate concern um any any other Commissioners that feel a question is warranted or comment observation because I can I mean personally I I I think um it's possible that if you go to

town meeting and say Here's a couple of changes but we're going to make a slew more later on and say well make them now or wait what do we you because I I mean I'd feel that way I think unless somebody explained to me what was the urgency of these two or three um and if I got the urgency I probably would then understand it um I say probably you know it depends on

where in the meeting it is and how tired I am Etc you know but um why's always come at the end of meetings so G by that point you know I think that Brian's comments create a great framework from which we can jump off from and I think we do that at a later time whenever that later time is no I I agree I thought Brian I thought you did a really good job of

analyzing thinking about and then giving reasoned U advice for us so I appreciate that a lot it really help not problem I I will say I don't think this is going to be too confusing for town meeting because what you're doing is markedly simplifying the bylaw and saying here is a a skeleton framework of the requirements and the concom will fill the the bulk of it in with regulation uh within the scope of its

expertise um and that's that's not atypical at all atypical at all in terms of an a permitting regime created by the bylaw and then the guts of it created by regulation it's it's fairly typical um and explaining that it's become cumbersome to try to keep updating this bylaw and Band-Aid it over time um I do think the two things like I said that you're worried about with mediacy you

can address through your regulations currently I don't think that's something we need to go to town meeting for um I mean the the current bylaw specifically states that you have a right to what the exact terminology that is used uh it's I just closed that out didn't I uh pretty much you can adopt regulations to effectuate the purposes of the bylaw well adopting a regulation to determine

what the word freshwater we means is effectuating the purpose of the bylaw it's a term in the bylaw that has no definition you can create one by regulation um I think effectuating the purpose of the bylaw also includes making clear that a written application includes an electronic one when the town has moved to electronic application processes um that's effectuating the purpose of the bylaw so no one gets

stuck um so we those two things can get done right away by you guys by regulation um and then as I've noted in my notes I think if you're pursuing all these updates to the bylaw you should just pursue it as a um this bylaw does not work for us anymore in the format that it's currently in and we need to really think it through top to bottom about what works in terms of setting up the

framework for the permitting processes and uh clarifying what it is that we are required to do and what it is that we are allowed to do by regulation to fill in that framework um because otherwise you're going to constantly be coming back to town meeting to tweak things um and uh it's not going to be the um the fluid process that you want it to be um so again that's my recommendation but it

is your prerogative what you would like to do um my goal here is not to tell you what to do it's to give you options and explain why thought process but it is your decision to make I think you do a very very good job of clearing clearly stating your your observations and your opinions and I agree with you um that's probably why I think it so highly of those opinions um please say

more but I you know I I listen I I'm I'm vote on all of this and we are you know um in a point where um time does matter in terms of getting uh this before the town meeting members um so again I'd like to hear from other Commissioners I don't want to monopolize

this anybody nobody well I I think Brian did a superb job of clarifying what should be in the bylaws and so I'm grateful for that effort obviously a lot of work went into that thank you thank you Jim I agree um so with that being said I think we should uh my my personal feeling is we should adopt the uh observations and and the um recommendations of Town Council I think

they're valid and um then we'll have something we can then present to town meeting and and go going forward um I think as things new things developed we should strongly consider having those new things develop within the framework of rules and regulations versus bylaw and eventually as Mark said may take us a few years but eventually we'll get to the point where we'll have a much even a

more streamlined version of the bylaw which I think goes through what i really Envision bylaws as being which is Bare Bones the the originating uh you know source of the ability to make the rules and regulations and that's where you do all your because I think town meeting as as Brian points out town meeting is so infrequent and so difficult uh in terms of getting on the uh warrant etc etc etc that change is

not going to happen rapidly if you have to address an issue in a in a manner which is calling for some expediency um amending the bylaw certainly is not that and so you're going to have time when you wished you just had it in the regulations and you could amend it at a meeting of the Commissioners but anyway that's me Brian could I make one comment I don't want to get this lost in the shuffle I'm

on page eight of your um this is the marked up draft pardon this is the marked up draft the redline draft Yeah the redline draft and I'm on comment bc46 I want to understand what you're saying because it's as I read your comments it says that our vote is telling them they're not in jurisdiction on a determination if we if we choose to go negative and you're questioning issuing conditions to a

determination and my concern with your argument is they're already in our jurisdiction they're filing to find out if we're going to seek further jurisdiction as a commission and therefore if we issue a negative determination of some type with a condition that they follow we're not we're saying that we won't take further jurisdiction if you do it this way so your jurisdiction isw so so your jurisdiction is whether

or not the bylaw applies and if the bylaw applies they have to file for a permit and if by doesn't apply they they don't so the purpose of a request for determination is to determine whether or not the bylaw applies you don't have two separate standards set up for there's nothing in the bylaw that has separate standards wherein you can say we issue negative determination so these standards apply versus we issue a

positive determination so these standards apply there's nothing there so if you're issuing a negative determination but still imposing conditions what you're actually doing is saying we have jurisdiction over the site and the work you want to do because you're imposing conditions no I'm saying that you're already in Juris iction because you've had to file and if you do your project in a certain way we're not

going to seek further jurisdiction they were already in jurisdiction by filing paperwork you can't seek further jurisdiction though they filed paperwork correct me if I'm wrong they file paperwork to determine whether or not they need to get a permit correct right and if they follow certain conditions they won't need to get it further but that that's the I mean that makes no sense jurisdictionally

the state allows us to do it well I me ask no but the state has detailed regulations that say whether or not you need an order of conditions versus some other approval what I'm saying is you don't have that in the bylaw there's nothing in the bylaw that says you can get a lesser approval there's just you get a permit or you don't so it so under you we can rewrite the bylaw accordingly but under the

bylaw as I read it you either need a permit or the or you don't need a permit but there's no in between so what like I'm trying to figure out like contextually right now someone seeks a request for determination and um you say neg what does a negative determination mean what are you saying when you issue a negative determination all right I'll give you an hypothetical example we issue a

negative3 for work in a buffer zone that we feel will not further impact the wet ones as long as you put up erosion control devices what's the difference between that and issuing a permit with those conditions it's a it's a simpler it's a simpler process well so but what I'm saying is then it's not jurisdictional all it is is it's a simpler application process what you're saying is the work

is small enough and of the Minimus impact that you don't have to go through as more detailed a process but there's still jurisdiction does that you see what I'm saying like you're not you're not saying that that the bylaw doesn't apply you're saying the bylaw applies to the site what you're saying is we don't think the work you're doing is a great enough import that you have to go through a a more

comprehensive review yes that's right so what I'm saying is is the bylaw doesn't really account for that you're what you're doing is creating two different permits essentially a bigger permit and a lesser permit you're that's we can do that but that's not what the bylaw currently discusses um there there's what what you're basically seeing is there's no actual process anywhere that you're you're

currently operating under wherein uh you determine someone can actually say hey does does jurisdiction actually exist do I need to get anything from you guys or no like that's there's nothing there then um so I'm happy to draft a bylaw that comports with what you guys want to do my only point is the bylaw talks about issuance of a permit if it's if if if jurisdiction applies then it's about

issuing a permit with conditions you I think I think there you guys are both you to something here because on the one hand when you read the bylaw it seems as if the application for determination of applicability is merely whether or not what is proposed is within our jurisdiction when the wetlands or the buffer to the wetlands um or any of the other velocity zones Etc and if the answer is it is in

that then under the bylaw then they have to go to the next step and go and get an order of conditions so all it is is a filter to determine whether they are within jurisdictional test that's all it is and we've been using it a little differently we've been using it for that purpose in part but then in part to determine whether or not the proposed activity is of a magnitude that actually

requires the um you know notice of intent for an order of conditions and I and I agree with you in in this respect uh Brian um probably nothing in our bylaw allows us to do that our bylaw has it as a simple switch you're in the jurisdiction you're out of the jurisdiction that's I I mean I I read when I read that um in in preparation not for tonight's meeting but for some comments

I had given months ago now that struck me I said I don't think that's how we view this and I never said anything about it but you brought it home tonight this little discussion between you and Mark brings it home we've I've I've always um as a commissioner view this as an opportunity sorry about that view this as an opportunity to not just determine whether they're within our jurisdictional area because I think most

of the professionals that come before us are quite competent and they know where the wetlands are and they understand how to measure to the boundary for the buffer zone so they would know that um but or pretty much they would know that but the issue is whether we are going to consider what the proposal is significant enough to get an order of conditions to do it and so I do think we

need to I think we need to amend that to comport with what we've been doing in practice if I if I could just say when If somebody walks into the office and says I want to do XY XY and Z on such and such a site can you tell me if I need to file a permit and we look at they have enough evidence that shows me that they do or

that they don't I just tell them no you're outside of our jurisdiction you don't have to file and they don't have to file any paperwork so the difference between that and the commission saying in determination is that your opinion isn't binding and someone and an abutter could sue over that whereas if if the commission issues a negative determination and the abutter then has the right to challenge that opinion but

there there's an official decision on there about whether there's jurisdiction as opposed to uh the enforcement agent's opinion which ultimately um you know it's it's good in the sense that it's it's a good indicator but it's not legally something that you can rely

upon Mark maybe we should have our bylaw track the statute the the regulation that the Commonwealth has because I think we we been using the Commonwealth standard versus our yeah I that's what I think we have been doing yeah which I mean that makes sense it's you're already doing it one way but um I'm obligated to point out that the B doesn't actually say that no I I I agree

with you I it struck me when I read it a while back and um or so for whatever reason it didn't strike me hard enough to say let's amend this too um but I should have it should have that's that's a good observation so I think that's something else we have to think about Brian are you you suggesting that Mark doesn't have the authority to determine that an application was not

required I'm saying he can give it his opinion but it's ultimately under the bylaw the conservation commission's determination that is binding so that every application needs to go to the or every consideration needs to go to the commission whether or not the candidate is looking at modifying the wetlands or the buffers so the way the bylaw is written now it's it's section 36-4 c it says any person

Desiring to know whether or not proposed activity or an area is subject to this bylaw May May in writing request a determination of the commission so if you want to know if there's jurisdiction whether based on activity or area you can ask the commission and they'll is and you'll issue a decision um and the and the commission doesn't have the authority to delegate anything to Mark um I mean if if the bylaw said you

could I'll give you the equivalent is is if someone goes to the building inspector and says hey do I need zoning relief here they can say yes or no but ultimately that the zba can disagree um so my my point only is that Mark doesn't have the authority to bind you because you because because ultimately Mark can say something but then they can make a request to you and you could disagree

concurrently um if Mark issues an opinion to someone that they don't have to do anything that doesn't mean a neighbor can't challenge that that's just that's reality um there's no because there's no decision that's ever been issued Mark isn't issuing a decision under the bylaw that's then right something that's appealable and defendable he's offering his opinion yeah it's an informed opinion and he's

commission now I see your point too Jim um but I'll say this it's it's similar well not exactly the same but you know if I building in an area that I know to be quarter of a mile away from any jurisdictional Wetlands I don't even ask Mark yes building all right so I think the majority of the folks that are coming to ask Mark's opinion they're not asking him to rubber stamp what they hope they're saying

we're not really sure we're we're close enough we're not sure what do you think um is this are we there or aren't we there um and I understand what Brian saying well maybe although that makes some sense from a a practical standpoint we would need to I think do something maybe formally that allow that we would allow that to happen as a matter of our bylaw or as a matter of

our regulation that you know Mark's able to at the first instance make that determination and than either one of two things either he can you know he can say not sure myself you want to bring it before the the board or the Commission in this case or say this is what I think but I think you should also file if you want to get the commi the commission's vote or they just take his advice which

a lot of times is what happens and say well he's in agreement we're not really within jurisdictional areas go ahead and get our permit and then they're taking a bit of a risk because if if indeed somebody challenges it and it brings it for either D they may find out that the you know there's something that was wrong with that opinion but hey look uh I we're running a little bit late on this

guys so I want to get to the P the other part of the public meeting soon um could I could I just make a comment there's a practical matter here okay we have two jurisdictions and I understand what Brian explained about the state having more regulatory control versus the bylaw but we have to think about the folks walking in the door okay they're not they're not going to do this analysis they're looking for guidance

from staff whether it's Adam or myself uh and yeah we give we give you know technically sound opinions and when we're in doubt we say you know you got to get this affirmed by the commission going back to this this comment 46 I'm not going to argue with Brian that it by bylaw doesn't say it I think for this go around the simple thing would be to amend the bylaw language in

section 4 C was that what it was Brian well I mean uh 4C for yeah it's 4C 360 d4c right so to amend that language such that we can keep this conditional language in and again when we when we think about it more deeply uh we're not going to solve this problem in in 10 minutes uh I think we we we have to make it practical for the folks walking in from

the street well I gota I can't I can't revise just that one section it requires revisions to multiple sections of the bylaw to create a secondary permitting process like that that's that isn't in of itself a major revision because you're creating a simpler application process for a a for for what is being determined to be lesser impacted work like that's not changing a sentence

that's whole new section um so I I'm not going to do that with two weeks to go before town meeting like I I just that's not practical um I'm sorry I'm sorry I don't see it as a second a secondary procedure at all it's seeking Mark's opinion as to whether or not an application is required and if Mark's opinion is it is not and somebody challenges it well then it comes to the commission but if nobody

challenges it and Mark isn't to enforce it then I don't see that as a sep separate process well and that doesn't require anything in bylaw that can just happen as it's happening now I think Mark's point is that he wanted a revision to allow for conditions on a negative determination and and my point is that that's much more complicated than revising a single sentence okay that makes

sense so so my sense is let's leave it like it is let's not change it well I I think that um we've got some other new issues that have to be addressed and we're not going to address them before town meeting right um but but that's I you know that's a really good observation on on Brian's part we just need to make sure that when we do things we are doing them in accordance

with our um original Authority either you know in our bylaw or in our regulation and we'll have to make sure we we we tighten that up so that we are operating appropriately and that being said it's now 7:14 and this was originally scheduled for a half an hour we've gone on for 45 minutes and I really think we need to uh call the this discussion um concluded so we can move on to the

meeting my only question is are you making a determination to give Brian some instruction here or not well I think he's already given us what he's looking what he thinks we should be doing my point is there's more that hasn't even been brought to his attention until tonight we're not going to get that he's already said there's just not enough time so that has to be kicked over for another day um my

recommendation would be that we incorporate the uh suggestions that Town Council has given us which I think are are all valid points and and then have that presented um or if there's a degree of uncertainty that that is an approp Roi way to go then I think we we have to with withhold applying this for this upcoming town meeting because we're not ready so if there is question about the

the scope and nature of positive and negative determinations and what you want out of those and and your intent is also to do a substantial overhaul of the bylaw those things have to go hand in hand because that's going to be a substantial chunk of revision that needs to be fully incorporated into the broader overhaul um I would not suggest if you if you went forward with the overhaul as I've

drafted it up and you know I still need a little bit information that anyway but if you went forward with that at this town meeting and then in the fall you wanted to update and change what negative determinations are under the bylaw that would be a minor overhaul of what was previously a major overhaul so I just I think to that's that's going to be where town meeting is wondering

what's happening um so if if you guys want want to put into practice in the bylaw what you've been doing in reality in terms of negative determinations then I would suggest just waiting until the fall and as part of regulations right now clarifying what a freshwater Wetland is and clarifying about electronic submissions um I just I don't want you guys to be doing the same thing twice in

consecutive Town meetings and yeah so I'll leave it that if if you want to update what negative determination means we should just do everything in the fall it's going to be way too complicated otherwise thank you Brian that was that was a clear suggestion um I mean I I think we do want to go deeper into some of these issues but I think we have to address as quickly as

we can the more pressing ones and if the way to do it is through regulation rather than bylaw Amendment we should do it that way I'm just I just feel like for me personally that's how I would vote um and you know this was again this was uh I realized we've had a lot of time spent on this but you know we spent this much time I don't mind spending a little

more to get it right um and like I said we're here to learn from Town Council where we can make things better and I think he's given us some good advice but um I I I certainly think we need to and if we're going to address these other issues we should detail to to Town Council exactly what we want opinion on or what we need help in drafting and and

give the road map here okay um that being said again we're looking at now we're now we're like 18 minutes past on this one and this is way out of proportion for what it should have been in terms of an item for discussion uh six you know 50 48 minutes um on item for discussion so um it really isn't fair to everyone who's in the waiting room or actually on the

screens now um that we're this far beyond our our start time for all of these other items which are before us and we have a mighty filled agenda tonight so Brian I appreciate your comments um and I would just recommend that we adopt them um and amend our our rules and regulations to get B of the problems we now have in terms of inconsistency and then get the bylaw right when the time comes and not ask

for a total Amendment at this time only to come back again that would be my vote um and and I don't need an official vote if I have a sense of the commission that's fine because ultimately you guys would decide whether to sponsor it and if you don't vote to sponsor anything you haven't voted to sponsor anything so um I just want to know where I need to focus right now should I try to get

something uh final for this town meeting or you want to wait until the fall to really flesh out everything you've been talking about and what I'll present to you um you could even have it for your next um meeting potentially is just those regulatory updates for those two issues I can do that fairly quickly um Hey listen I'm speaking for myself now not for the whole commission um if I heard you correctly I thought

you said we can do what we needed to do for the the filing and what we needed to do for the definition in our in our rules and regulations I think that's where we should do it so we take care of that we we bandaged over the problem and then we'll take our time to get a a really well thought out with your comments with your working with us or well thought out

bylaw um before town meeting in the fall instead of trying to do a little bit now and then have to wait years years to go back again that's my that's how I view it I I share that view Mike I do as well also all right thank you guys I will get those R up Toc you as quickly as I can I'll also inform the Town Administrator that the bylaw will be held off until

the fall and I will get off the screen so you can move on with your evenings thank you very much good night um for those of you who are here for the meeting I'm sorry uh that we went overtime on the uh item for discussion but we are now moving on to our uh administrative but before we do I just want to make sure those who weren't hearing when I introduced this um if you

want to speak on a particular item there's a raise your hand feature and if not wave your hand at us we'll recognize you unmute you and allow you to speak um until that happens please keep your um microphones muted because often times we'll get background noise like we had with me when the phone rang and it just it's inconvenient to say the least and it's certainly disruptive to the presenters our our first item of

business is the approval of the minutes of March 7 2022 can I have a motion to that effect no mov have a second on that motion second have a seconded motion roll call vote Richard yes I'm a yes Jim yes n hi yes Kelly yes I think I got everybody passes unanimously next is the approval of the field trip reports of March 21223 a motion to that effect second second we have a seconded

motion roll call vote Richard yes I'm a yes Jim yes n yes Kelly yep that passes unanimously our third is to receive the minutes of March 21 2023 executive session have a motion for that effect so moved second second a seconded motion roll call vote Richard yes I'm a yes Jim yes mat yes and Kelly yep that motion passes unanimously next is to receive the minutes of March 21

2023 uh have a motion to that effect I moov second seconded motion roll call vote Richard yes Kelly yes you're paying attention good I'm a yes Jim yes and that yes that motion passes unanimously we're now going to move on to our field trip reports the first is a continued request for determination of applicability from from Jean albanes who proposes a notch wooden bulkhead to water to lower water level in pond on

land described as map 4 lot 5-2 and it's off of horse Neck Road in Dartmouth motion to wave the reading second second roll call vote Richard yes I'm a yes Jim yes Kelly y n yes that passes unanimously okay Mark what's staff's recommendation on this request a little background this project originally was proposed to put a v- notch in a deteriorating wooden Bulkhead from a pond Marsh area discharging into Allen's

Pond uh my comment originally back to them was what's a notch I mean is this sized what's what's what are the flows and none of that work had been done part of that discussion it was it was discussed that the structure is really failing and maybe it'd be prudent for them to remove the entire structure which is up against a stone uh stone filled crossing of the stream it's water flows through it but it's Stone you're

you're high and dry uh having said that I re-reviewed it and my recommendation to the commission is to issue a -2 we have a recommendation from uh Mark any Commissioners have any questions see none I'll entertain a motion to issue a negative -2 determination no moov second second give a seconded motion roll call vote Richard yes KY yeah Jim yes Matt yes now yes that motion passes unanimously the

second is a also a request for determination of applicability it's from Roger and Pamela Shepley who are proposing to remove an existing tennis court and grade the area to match surrounding natural slope it's in a buffer zone to a bordering vegetated mland is described on land as land on a map 105 lot 70 is otherwise known as 16 South Lane entertain a motion to wave the reading second second roll call vote

Richard yes KY yes Jim yes mat yes I'm a yes that motion passes unanimously Mark what's staff's recommendation on this determination be recommends a negative3 any questions from the Commissioners seeing none I'll attain a motion to issue a negative3 determination on this request I'll moov second seconded motion roll call vote Richard yes I'm a yes Kelly y Jim yes n yes that motion passes unanimously

we're moving on to the third which is also a request determination of applicability from Raymond dotton who is proposing to construct a deck in the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated Wetland it's on land described as map 126 lat 31 otherwise known as 14 Dorothy Street entertain a motion to wave the reading moov second motion is seconded roll call vote Cali yep Jim yes Matt yes Richard yes and I'm a yes that

motion passes unanimously Mark what's staff's recommendation on the dotton request again a negative3 okay we have a staff recommendation of negative3 any questions seeing no questions I'll entertain a motion to issue a Nega -3 determination on the doov a second in motion roll call vote Kelly yep Richard yes Jim yes Matt yes I'm a yes that motion passes unanimously the fourth is also a request for

determination of applicability it's from Mark rasmon uh proposing to cut an area of a agricultural field in the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated Wetland it's on land described as map 28 lot 7 otherwise known as 55 slates Corner Road I'm a motion to wave the reading no move second seconded motion roll call vote Richard yes Kelly yes Jim yes Nat yes and I'm a yes as well that motion passes

unanimously uh Mark what's staff's recommendation on this application uh again a negative three there any questions from any of the Commissioners no questions uh I'll entertain a motion to issue a negative three determination who Moved second a seconded motion uh roll call vote Matt yes Jim yes key yep Richard yes I'm a yes that motion passes unanimously the fifth item is there also a request for

determination of applicability it's from Jonathan who is proposing an inground pool with concrete apron and removal of two trees in the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated Wetland on land described as map 32 lat 17 otherwise Zone as 12 blacksmith Drive entertain a motion to wave the reading I'm moved seconded motion roll call vote Kelly y Richard yes Jim yes Matt yes I'm a yes that motion passes unanimously

Mark what is staff's recommendation on this request negative3 we have a staff is recommending a negative3 is there any questions seeing no questions I'll entertain a motion to issue a negative3 determination moved second seconded motion roll call vote n yes Jim yes KY yeah Richard yes I'm yes that motion passes unanimously we're now going um on number six it's a request for determination of applicability from

Michael and Linda Goa who are proposing to fill in an existing inground pool using concrete followed by gravel and top soil into plant the area with native plants in the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated Wetland it's on uh land described as map 133 lot 32-1 is otherwise known as two Sweeny Lane and entertain a motion to leave the reading I'm second the second motion roll call

vote Richard yes Kelly yeah Jim yes Matt yes I'm a yes that passes unanimously we had an email request EST from the applicants to continue this matter until April 25 2023 um any Commissioners have any questions on that otherwise I'll entertain a motion to continue this matter until April 25 2023 second a seconded motion roll call vote Richard yesy yes Jen yes Matt yes I'm a yes that motion passes unanimously

the seventh item is a request for partial certificate of compliance D file 15503 that's pretty old from Susan Craig for work completed on land described as map 27 lot 2-48 it's otherwise known as 44 slaves Farm Road uh Mark what is staff's recommendation on this request for partial certificate of compliance uh this is an old filing it's a subdivision filing the Old slades Farm subdivision uh which encumbers the

entirety of all the Lots in the subdivision uh Susan is requesting that her singular lot be issued a certificate of compliance which this commission has done several times under these same file numbers for other properties as the work for the subdivision was completed in accordance with the order of conditions but it was never closed out is recommending a partial certificate of compliance for the lot uh the lot is

stipulated under file number 15503 thank you um any Commissioners have any questions see none I obtain a motion for the issuance of a partial certificate of compliance don't moved second we have a seconded motion roll call vote Richard yes and NT yes Jim yes Kelly yeah and I'm a yes as well that passes unanimously um our eth is I think similar but it's a different D file number it's a request for a partial

certificate of compliance theep file 15- 518 it's also an old one from Susan Craig for work descri completed on land described as map 27 lot 21- 48 otherwise known as 44 slades Farm Road and Mark similar circumstances yes uh different file number because this was the phase two of the subdivision which really had nothing to do with slades Farm Road but was the Abner Potter way uh portion of

the subdivision however it encompassed the entire uh both phase one and phase two again staff is issu uh recommending a partial COC commissioner any questions see none I'll entertain a motion for the issuance of a partial certificate of compliance all moved second seconded motion all in favor roll call vote Richard yes KY yeah Matt yes yes and I'm a yes as well that motion passes unanimously I almost

didn't do a roll call vote that would have been that not very naughty of me on the ninth here is a request for a certificate of compliance on D file 50 18- 2637 it's from South Coast Inc for work completed on land described as map 107 lot 11-2 it's otherwise known as West Smith Neck Road Mark what's the U recommendation on this request complete certificate of compliance 15- 2637 as no work has occurred on

site okay that's a any questions from Mark I'll entertain a motion then for a complete certificate of compliance on this matter second you have a seconded motion roll call vote Richard yes Kelly yes Jim yes that yes I'm a yes that motion passes unanimously the 10th item is a request for a certificate of compliance on D file 15-1 1444 it's from Bruce and Roberta Chase for work completed on land

described as map 60 L 1-13 it's otherwise known as for Melnick Lane Mark what's staff's recommendation for this request complete certificate of compliance any questions by the Commissioners see none I'll entertain a motion for the issuance of a complete certificate of compliance Some Mo second you a seconded motion roll call vote Matt yes yes Kelly yep Richard yes and I'm a yes that motion passes unanimously the 11th

um field trip report is an extension permit request on D filed 15-29 from per lofberg for Selective clearing and drainage utility work on land described as map 108 Lots 1 2 3 it's otherwise known as 36 Elm Street um Mark what's the recomend recation on this request uh this is to uh Grant a three-year extension for the last phase of vegetation removal on site they kind of cut it back last year because of drought

conditions okay so recommendation is to granted for three years yeah have a motion to that effect no moved motion is excuse me been seconded roll call vote Richard yes Jim yes Matt yes Kelly yep and I'm a yes that motion passes unanimously we have two items which um which are part of the field trip reports and uh they're not on the agenda well first was a request for a certificate of compliance on D file 15-

2130 and that's from UMass Dartmouth care of Christopher Garcia for work proposed but never started on land described as map 49 lot 19 otherwise known as 285 Old Westport Road um Mark staff's recommendation on this uh we're recommending complete certificate of compliance the reason being you will be hearing a public you will have be having a public hearing later on tonight for the very same project I'll get into the

details of it then uh no work had been done under file number 2130 so we're we're requ uh we're recommending a complete certificate any questions from the Commissioners seeing none on attain a motion for the issuance of a complete certificate of compliance on file 15 2130 come out second seconded motion roll call vote Richard yes Kelly yep Jim yes Matt yes and I'm a yes as well that's unanimous

vote the final which is the 13th is an extension permit request on D file 15- 2521 from the white Family Trust car of Nina white williver to repair a seaw wall on land described as map 105 Lots 20 it's otherwise known as 43 Beach Avenue uh Mark what's staff's recommendation on this request for an extension uh this uh order of conditions is about to run out in May of this year uh the petitioner has requested an

extension because the seaw wall had been significantly damaged due to the storms over the past several months and not being sure of whether they'd be able to get the work done in a timely manner they wanted to extend to allow for the repairs it's all in conformance with the plan of record also you should be aware that they may be asking for an amendment to the order of conditions because they

may want to modify the wall at a later date to put put in a stone staircase integrated into the seaw wall uh so staff is recommending a three-year extension to uh file number 2521 any questions from any commissioner I'll entertain a motion to Grant a three-year extension on uh the permit for 15- 2521 moved second the seconded motion roll call vote Jim I caught you muted didn't I you're still

muted yes okay Matt yes KY yes Richard yes and I'm a yes that motion passes unanimously and long last and finally we're moving on to the public hearings and our first public hearing is a continued public hearing on D file 15- 2659 it's a 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 a bordering vegetated Wetland it's on land described as map 138 lot 15 144 it's otherwise known as Potter Street I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading I'll moved you have a motion second seconded roll call vote Richard yes y yes yeah Jim yes and I'm a yes that motion passes unanimously the applicant has requested uh continuance by email

has not given us a date um so let me uh give you a little background on where we are with this uh since our last discussion uh during the previous continued public hearing uh on this file number we asked for revisions they did in fact make some revisions not all requested additional information we have not gotten that information uh they have not gotten a sign off from our drainage consultant

because he has similar con concerns to what is being proposed as I do in relation to drainage and groundwork and sediment and soil quality on the site having said that uh I issued and you did receive comments from a responses to the applicants comments on our drainage Consultants comments you could follow that train and and in fact we are at a we are at a stalemate right at the moment however tomorrow uh

DPW drainage consultant myself and the applicant via Zoom to discuss issues um and uh and hopefully move this forward uh a few other issues have Arisen since uh as this project has gone on or this proposal has gone on we will address those tomorrow and hopefully we'll have some sort of resolution uh moving forward uh there was no time frame for the continuance uh you could make it for two

weeks um you could make it for a month I mean that's your call at this time if I were to make a recommendation tonight I would recommend denial and the comment I just made for file number 2659 those comments are consistent with the next two 2660 and 2658 uh I say those as a matter of record because I really don't want to repeat myself again thank you Mark um and I appreciate

the uh comments being Global for one two and three um I'm inclined to say uh I would Grant a request for continuance but I'm not going to put it on for the next meeting it'll be a month from now what's that would be May 9th I put it on for the May 9th meeting and I would note to the um applicant um that this has been continued quite a bit so this will be

the final uh continuance and that on the that the meeting on May 9th um they should be we should have answered all of your questions because we will either allow them to withdraw with Prejudice or to vote I just wanted it to be real clear to them we're not going to keep kicking this can down the road that part doesn't have to go into motion by the way so have a motion to

continue uh this matter until our is it May 9 2023 at 7M meeting second have a second motion Richard M second Excuse me yes that's okay Jim yes Matt yes yeah and I'm a yes as well that passes unanimously um the second is a continued public hearing the file 15-26 60 it's on the notice 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 100ft buffer zone to bordering vegetated Wetlands it's on land known as map 138 lot 144 D1 otherwise known as Potter Street entertain a motion to wave the reading I moved second a seconded motion roll call vote at yes Jim yes Kelly yep wck up Richard Richard yes I'm right here yes yes that motion passes

unanimously uh similarly the requesting a continuance and I would suggest um a motion to continue until the May 9 2023 public hearing at 7M again Mark with the same comments that they should be prepared to go forward with all of the issues addressed um or withdraw without prejudice I moved second seconded motion roll call vote Jim yes Richard yes Kelly y Matt yes and I'm a yes that motion

passes unanimously um the third is a continued public hearing um again same same issue here um it's um from Potter Street solar LLC proposing a ground mounted uh solar panel array on the rear portion of a lot within bordering land subject to flooding and the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated Wetlands it's on land described as map 138 lot 144 D2 it's on Potter Street and this is in reference to D file 15-

2658 I'm attain a motion to wave the reading moved second have a second motion roll call vote Kelly yes Richard yes Jim yes mat yes yes that motion passes unanimously uh since it's the same as we've done for the other two I would um hope we'd have the same motion to continue this until May 9 2023 at 7.m again with the same admonition about being ready to go forward or withdraw second Mr chairman as a point

of record I think that you should site the file number just for the record I thought I did put it back in but it's the files number is 15- 2660 I didn't do it at the beginning but I looped it in at the end oh no I thought you were doing 2658 now oh yes 2658 that's right you've done the first two yeah 2658 I'm sorry 2658 I may have said 2660 and I

apologize you're right so it's this is 2658 so entertain a motion to continue 2658 until May 9 2023 at 7M again with the admonition of be prepared to go forward or withdraw moved second seconded motion roll call vote Jim yes mat yes Richard yes Kelly yeah and I'm a yes that motion passes unanimously mark thank you for pointing that out I would have had two motions on the same file number um fourth is a public

hearing file D d5- 2676 from greater newbedford Regional refug Management District proposing to repair the southern storm water basin in the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated Wetland it's on land described as map one map 84 excuse me Lot 25 it's otherwise known as 300 Samuel Barnett Boulevard entertain a motion away the reading moved second on that second motion roll call vote Kelly yes yes Jim yes

Richard yes I'm yes that motion passes unanimously excuse me on behalf of the applicant is there someone here please unmute yourself M yeah just unmute yourself and we'll be all set at the bottom of your screen there should be a little microphone button just click it there we go I wasn't being allowed to unmute but now I am oh okay okay good um yes I'm my name is Sam chapen I'm with brown and cwell Consulting

Engineers for the refu district and if you would like me to present the project I'm ready to do so please do okay the project is and if you would like me to share my screen I can yep that would be helpful yep I will show you this so um the the project is the repair of a burm uh surrounding one of the two storm water management basins on the properties uh

uh proper of the crepo Hill landfill up in North Darkman um what you see in your screen here is the most upto-date topographic plan of the entire landfill we do uh produce such a plan like this on a year basis and this is the uh n 2023 plan and the the Basin in in question I have circled here in red um what happened is in mid January of this year the discharge pipe to this Basin

clogged there was a buildup of water and uh there was a breach in the side of the burm um that uh allowed the the Basin to partially drain uh and this breach caused an erosion and we uh the The District staff uh called the conservation office that day and I believe Mark came out that day and took a look um and a temporary repair was uh implemented uh right away

I have some photographs of that um and uh your staff advised that this would require filing of a notice of intent um so we did so in order to uh repair this burm this is um a closeup of the South Basin uh you can see the Wetland delineation here um some years ago we did a wetland replication uh which is now here um and the location of the breach in the burm

um is right about here if you can see my uh my cursor it's right there we do have uh also proposed in order to help um maintain this Basin and and uh in the event that we have another breach like this we are proposing an access way that will be built within the buffer zone uh between the outer part of the burm and the wetlands uh and my cursor is following

along this this would be a 10 to 12 foot wide um uh access way so that a small piece of equipment could get in there clean out the discharge structure when that becomes necessary and if there's another breach of the burm to allow us to get in there we do have um a detail here of uh erosion control uh barriers and the proposed access way will have uh it'll be very simple uh we're going to

have a layer of geogrid or a similar Geo synthetic uh underneath to uh enforce the reinforce the the uh structure of the ground and then up to 12 Ines of a of a gravel subbase which will be similar to a to a mass d uh gravel and this access way will only be used in case of uh well when maintenance is required for uh for the burn um I do have some photographs

which we can take a look at uh this is the site Locust map here it's we're tucked up in the north uh Eastern corner of the town of Dartmouth near quicko Hill accesses through the uh New Bedford Industrial Park um okay we have all the figures here this is just the uh uh estimated habitat of rare Wildlife the natural heritage map showing that that we are not within

a a mapped area for any of that nor are we within a flood plane uh this is the most recent flood hazard map that shows that we are not in a flood plane and here we go with some photographs um this first one is uh the breach itself let's see if I can bring this down I have to move our photographs there we go whop no didn't mean to do that back here so this is

this top photo is from the outside of the BM looking towards the Basin and you can see uh the erosion that took place and then the temporary repair uh was implemented with sandbags and a tarpan u over the uh over the area where the BM I should add that the after this was discovered one of the first things that the District staff did was to clean out the clog in the discharge pipe uh so

that that lowered the water level in the uh in the Basin and this breach uh did not uh discharge any more water but uh here is a photograph of the uh the discharge pipe itself in the southern corner of the Basin uh just so you can see what it looks like and the breach is right up here in the top of your screen so here we have oh it keeps wanting to do that to

me I'm sorry if you'll bear with me why don't me just go full screen and I hope that's sufficient for people to see the top the the top photograph uh is from taken from the top of the burm looking into the breach after it was discovered some uh erosion control was placed uh there in case there was any further discharge and you can see by the uh cobbles in this picture when the water

um reached the burm it did flow southerly along the base of the burm and reached the uh existing discharge channel so fortunately none of the discharge here uh entered the wetlands itself because we did have uh there was sort of a natural channel to go down to the uh to the discharge Channel um the photograph below it was a cold day you can see that had iced over uh but that's

the uh the breach in the burm uh the view from across the Basin and there's a view looking North uh the landfill is in the background you can see up here a bit of the crosssection of the burm and you can see where it eroded and below here we have another view uh showing the temporary repair and where the erosion took place and those are the photographs that I

have and we do uh propose at if the commission's sees fit to issue a permit to repair this we did submit specification for the material and the construction and uh the district would would seek to uh implement the repair uh this spring as soon as possible and that is the uh extent of the project and we'd be happy to uh answer any questions that the commission might have thank you for your

presentation uh Mark I would be interested in hearing staff's observations and comments on this proposal um in deference to time I think Sam did a an excellent job of summarizing what transpired I would highlight a few things uh the immedi the immediacy with which the district contacted our office we were on site immediately and we worked out with uh The District staff how we thought a a a

prudent solution would be uh they react Ed to the episode uh with great quality and swiftness and Sam is correct while there was a large blowout it did not discharge directly into the adjacent Wetland it sort of flowed and dissipated down along the uh the toe of the uh the detention Basin slope the outboard slope uh so there was really minimal damage to the resource areas were in reasonably close proximity

to the uh to the breach um the two things before you are the correction of the the breach in a more permanent matter which I do think we uh submitted the specifications which uh were very much same material in kind um to restore the burm uh the the other thing was uh they had asked right now the toe the outboard toe of the BM is clear uh it gets grown up with you know scraggly shrubby stuff

that you know is partially encumbering on transiting along the toe and I mean a structure like this needs to be maintained so they discussed with me and I think it's a very prudent idea for them to put that uh gravel roadway in uh around the toe of the what would be the uh western and southern edge of the uh of the Basin and um I think that they you know should uh

we talked about a more vigorous maintenance plan of the discharge itself uh although I think what happened in January was very much of an episode it wasn't necessarily longstanding neglect um and so so I am prepared to recommend that the commission or issue a standard order of conditions as per the plans dated March 23d of 2023 uh I do have a couple of additions uh I'd like to see both ends of the access road which

terminate to some fairly accessible roadways I'd like to see those gated and um I would also uh modify their uh erosion and sedimentation control detail to our standard which is entrenched Waddles or hay bales and silt fence to be maintained throughout and the last uh and this was a suggestion of mine and the district did it and I think it would be something that they should put into a a an active plan of maintenance

is to have emergency pumps available should we get another episodic event or series of events as we did in the early winter so that the pumps could be you know set up and running to offset you know overfilling of the Basin uh they did have some pumps available and they did install them after my suggestion uh they work because they brought the level of the water down uh in conjunction with the uh discharge

uh the discharge pipe uh to save the burn but if this breach happened here it could certainly happen someplace else so a little preventative maintenance with having pumps available to be put online immediately I think would be a good practice those are my recommendations thank you Mark does any commissioner have any question of the applicant or staff I don't see any is there anyone in the

audience that wants to be heard on this application I don't see any uh that being the case I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing second seconded roll call vote uh Richard yes Jim yes Matt yes Kelly yep and I'm a yes that 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 March 23rd 2023

and incorporate by reference the additional conditions mentioned by Mark carrett we have a motion on the floor do we have a second second we have a motion seconded um roll call vote Kelly yeah Richard yes Jim yes Matt yes and I'm a yes that motion passes unanimously thank you for a clear presentation Sam thank you very much uh members of the commission and we will have the district

will have uh no problem implementing the suggestions of your staff thank you our fifth public hearing is on D file 15- 2676 it's an after Thea notice of intent from Ronald Aliva to restore unauthorized an unpermitted vegetation removal which was in the 100 foot buffer zone to a bordering vegetated Wetland it's on land described as map 125 lot 7 it's otherwise known as 673 Tucker Road

in Dartmouth I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading so moved seconded motion roll call Matt yes Jim yes Richard yes Kelly yep and I'm a yes as well motion passes unanimously and is there someone here this evening to uh present for the applicant okay uh Renee you have the floor just please be unmuted there you go you're all set thank you Mr chairman my name is rainy gagman with the Zenith Consulting

Engineers um speaking on behalf of Ron Aliva our client um and it's pretty much like you just said um they went in and they did some clearing uh mistakenly and uh so essentially they're looking to like just rehab the house uh and they they cleared out that area to to provide a new you know the new buyer uh some additional yard backyard area um we've gone back and forth with Mr

Garrett um as far as the restoration of the area I can share my screen if you'd like to see the plan I think it'd be helpful yeah

sure okay everybody can see that yes I can can you see my cursor so I can sort of guide I can so the original tree line was just behind the house here this is 673 Tucker Road the original Tree Line sort of went in this direction here you can each of these little circles is a tree that was cut so we actually went out and located every tree stump that was cut um in the buffer

zone uh the Wetland line is located in this area here and so what we're what we're proposing to do is uh restore the area in this in this area here we're going to replace um the trees that were cut in this area which was I believe it was 27 trees in the restoration area we're going to replant 27 trees and then every 10 foot on Center we're going to also plant um some shrub

species um in addition we're proposing to provide a permanent barrier um along this area here um which will be either a split rail fence um or Boulders there are some Boulders that are sort of surface stones that are kind of scattered throughout the the rear of the property um so we're either going to put in a split rail fence or use those Boulders as sort of a permanent barrier

um and then also um per Mr G's direction we're going to add some signage that says that no disturbance shall occur um Beyond this point which is that permanent barrier and we're proposing to put those signs in every 50 feet along along this this restoration line um that's I mean that's pretty much it I'd be happy to answer any questions um well I think we're gonna ask for staff's comments but before they do I

just want to be clear those signs you're putting up you say you're putting it on the edge of the restoration area is that the edge of the uh buffer zone it's not the edge of the buffer zone so we were hoping to retain some of this cleared area uh as yard area for a potential buyer for the for the home once it's uh completed its restoration um so the planting

area um is this is this sort of uh yeah I I tell you why I asked the question because uh whether or not we agree that what's been cut in part of that area can remain it's still a buffer zone so if the signs are on the restoration area the owner next owner May mistakenly think that they can do whatever they want in that part of the buffer zone including a pool a tennis court or

whatever and it's just not the case so that's not going to do it for me um I'll be very candid with you because that's telling them that we've now converted a buffer zone to Upland which we haven't done on just so you know in my view I understand that yeah okay um Mark I'd like to hear your comments on this please yeah um well I have several I'm sure you first and for first and

foremost um with all due respect to renie um we've had issues with this applicant before so I don't think it was an inadvertent cutting uh based on practice and observation um in terms of your concerns Mr chairman uh we do allow the very things that you propose in buffer zones all over town so in reviewing the original restoration which was far less than this I understand that you know as a resident

it's going to need uh a certain amount of yard area there are a couple of buildings on the parcel uh what was there was a pretty ratty opportunistic nuisance Thicket so to put signage at the edge of the 100 foot buffer zone I don't think is very prudent considering the fact that the 100 foot buffer zone bcts the house on a diagonal I mean has been activity on this property uh throughout uh you know throughout

time yes what occurred last fall was somewhat D more dramatic than in previous uh we have been working with Stephen schmeil who was hired by uh Zenith to as a wetland consultant and he and I both worked out I think what is a reasonable plan plan I think that and I know we have a comment from an abutter who is doesn't think this is enough uh restoration uh I tend to disagree with

that given the fact that we're not restoring a wetland we're restoring a buffer zone and we have a lot of buffer zones that have been turned into lawn areas pools tennis courts and the like uh throughout town so I think this is pretty consistent with practice over time um I think that the permanent structure and if it's a fence it will have to be maintained by the owner if it's if it's a if it's

Boulders uh they don't have to be maintained they don't go anywhere uh and the boulders that reny is talking about are somewhat substantial uh and the signage uh I am modifying the language I believe that the language was that they're proposing is no disturbance of any kind dot dot dot I have added no dumping or disturbance of any kind because the one concern I have is this is a prime area for dumping uh lawn

clippings and leaves over the fence or over the barrier and disturbance of any kind while we all may know what that means uh there are those who will parse that raas and say well I'm not disturbing it I'm only dumping in it uh so I think that that should be a little bit more clear um staff has spent a lot of time working on this with the consultant answering questions I think it's a

reasonable approach for where this site is um they have improved the site dramatically and um I know that the concern was about increasing Real Estate Value well it was a deteriorating structure not very long ago and now it's a reasonable single family development and I think that this plan that is before you which represents a little bit more than 50% of what was cut out but what was cut out was the trees were the

trees were good trees but the under story was uh a little ratty uh I think is certainly a reasonable compromise to move forward so uh we're proposing uh to or we're recommending to issue a uh standard order of conditions with our replication uh standard replication conditions per the plan dated March 29th 2023 uh we are stipulating a completion date of June 2 3rd 2023 that is an aggressive schedule uh the owner Mr

ala uh kind of dragged his feet in in uh responding to our enforcement order uh that was time he lost not time that we're we're going to lose this planting will be completed or will be in further violation by the end of the spring and uh I would add the fence line maintenance if it's a wooden fence uh throughout by the owner successors or ass signs and signage will read no dumping or disturbance of any kind

beyond the fense line those are my recommendations thank you Mark U I just wanted to be clear I um my comments I certainly wasn't as expecting him to put signage on their house but um you know I know that people have utilized the buffer zone area for various insundry things such as tennis courts and pools but they've come before us and gotten an order of conditions and I just want to be very clear that's

still a buffer zone and the rules and regulations still apply we didn't magically convert it to Uplands we can we can add a condition uh if you want at any further work within the buffer zone needs to file for a permit I I think I would just to be clear so that somebody we can do that down the road somebody down the road doesn't mistakenly think that the sign meant anything for here you can do what

you want okay we'll do that all right now I'll say Commissioners any commissioner who wants to ask questions of either Mark or the applicant uh through uh through Renee please do so I know we have had people in the audience um I'm sure some are here for this so I will say now anyone in the audience that wants to speak on this um you're welcome to do so use the raise

your hand feature or or wave your hand so that we can see um and recognize you unmute you and let you uh tell us what you want on this application um so who in the audience wants to be heard on this application we have Ken Ken is waving his hand so Ken unmute yourself and you can tell us what you think um I'm the actually butter is right next door the only problem I have

is in the buffer zone that they that's wide open now I all the trees are starting to just fall on on to my they're on my property and they just coming down like dominoes I mean what can I do now these are trees that are on your they're your trees and they're falling down yes Mark Did You observe any of that or times that I've been on site I did not

see them I'm not saying it didn't happen but I did not observe them and Rene do you have any explanation for this gentleman's trees now um just for clarification I'm not sure where his property is relative to ours I'm on the left who on the left to the north of the carel yes 679 so um I'm I'm actually not sure what why what I mean I I as you can

see here we they did overcut off of the property and I I was under I was under the understanding that we had permission by the abutters to the north and to the east that uh they were uh okay with us replanting the area that we Disturbed um on their property I believe we do have that in writing as well but um uh I I I honestly haven't seen that I haven't seen uh trees over there falling

either so I'm not I'm not sure what what would what would have caused that um well if you want to come out you can take a look you can see plenty of them now there's like three or four of them back there but they they I ask you if I could ask you a question Ken are in lawn area or are these trees in the woods they're in the woods where they opened it

up that within that 100 foot Zone and they're falling from say the right to left onto they're in I don't even know if they're on my property or they're their prop the next store property but they've domino effect there's about three of them I can

see but those weren't cut by anybody those are coming down now after the cutting correct that's that's interesting um I would have no I I wouldn't know any reason why that would happen myself other than perhaps they were already um diseased and now that they've cut down some trees and shrubs it's getting more of the full brunt of the wind correct does that make any sense Renee um or

Mark I me trying to think of what how cutting the trees it's it's possible I mean I don't know what trees they are their exposure are I mean if they're 30 feet into the woods and they're falling down now my question is and I'm not I'm not suggesting this is fact but my question is did they fall just because they fell it was their time to fall or did they fall because as Ken indicates they are

more exposed I don't know I don't know the trees they clearly there were not when I was on the site the three times I've been on the site I did not see toppled trees on Ken's property that's not to say they're not there but I didn't see them they were not obvious to me uh and I did not so I could not make any kind of conclusion that one event caused another I didn't see the other

events so I I can't answer that question yeah and I can't either uh I I went out there one time and I didn't I didn't see those either and again I'm not I'm not refuting that that's happened um but I I I wouldn't know why that would happen okay yeah it seems like can the cause and the effect are kind of not co-joined here um what they've done is they've taken

down trees and shrubs creating a lawn area but none of that would normally have a negative impact on surrounding healthy trees normally to my knowledge um unless right and just to be clear the the stumps are still intact in the ground so they haven't been torn up and Disturbed the the ground surrounding either um now who would be responsible for those treeses that are coming down now

because now they got to go in there now how do I go about that well if they're on your property you can go in there if they're not on your property you can't there somebody else yeah I mean they've pulled down like five different trees now well you know they're they're go their plan is they recognized that they actually cut down a lot more than five trees and they're plan is to um re

replace some of the trees they've cut down and no I'm saying the tree that the trees that are falling have like domino effect all the way across my property like probably like 40 feet now there's probably like five different trees that took down on its way down so I just want to make sure that I can take care of those and you know I don't think it should be well it's cause

and effect that's what I would say well yeah but I'm not seeing the connection between that normally like I said a moment ago if you cut down trees and you don't disturb the soils or put any kind of chemicals into the soils I don't know why a healthy tree would be adversely affected by what they've done it wouldn't be in my view um so I don't know if the trees that have come down have already been

diseased um and now that the wind is blowing they're falling down because they're dead already I don't know I seen so I don't want to I'm not certainly not going to tell you that's what happened but I'm I'm hard pressed to find a logical scientific reason why the activity although certainly not done appropriately right with permission but it you know it's not to say that they couldn't have gotten permission if they

had come in before they started but I don't see where that activity would have caused um freeze that they didn't touch to could I could I Ask Ken another question you said something I want to make sure I understood you were talking about trees toppling correct what caused the first tree to topple did they cut a tree that fell on your trees no it's right on their it's right on the

border it's like I understand that but my question is what caused the trees that are toppling on your property what well now it's now it's wide open in backyard so I mean those trees on that side there's like probably I can see a couple more but I haven't gone back there but there's probably from the wind so you're saying that it's wind damage correct okay that's why I just I

just wanted I just wanted to know what was the cause of the problem aside from the clearing I I get that your contention is that that's increased the wind correct yeah I got it that's it M thank you thank you K is any anyone else in the audience that wants to uh be heard on this application and everyone else basically has their screens blank so if you do you're gonna we have a raand Samsung sm5 right

below they're muted don't know who they are yeah I see yeah so if you unmute yourself we'll be happy to have you speak Samsung SM

A5 um they're still muted does anyone else want to be heard I don't want to cut off somebody who wants to hear to be to speak um I don't seen any activity

there um any other comments seeing none I'll entertain a motion to close the public portion of the hearing mov second we have a seconded motion roll call vote P yes Richard yes Kelly yep Jim yes and I'm a yes that motion passes unanimously Commissioners you've heard the presentation you understand there Ken has had a problem with his trees but there is another of butter who had sent us a letter in opposition um

essentially uh feeling that the uh that the applicant should be required to restore everything they did um that they shouldn't and I'm paraphrasing here but Mark sent that letter to everybody all the Commissioners uh that uh the applicant shouldn't be able to profit off of having done something without permission so that's what's all before us Mr chairman could I make a request that you name the person for the record

just so I don't have their name yeah we could read the whole letter that's didn't they sign they signed the letter didn't they on the bottom yes I think they did I just don't have it in front of me Mark oh I have it handy who was Tracy and Antonio Souza yes that was those were the names so thank you thank you um so you know their their comments um were in opposition to

um Ken was I I would take that not necessarily in opposition but just saying what the heck's going on with my trees and I think that's and he thinks that's related to what they did and he could be right I just don't I'm trying to struggling to figure that one out but um anyway that's what's before us so what's your pleasure as the commission on this request make a motion um for a

standard order of conditions uh including our rep replication conditions um for the plan submitted March 29th 2023 with a completion date for the plantings um of June 23rd 2023 and all additional conditions as mentioned by Mark Garrett okay just one other little comment i' I'd like them to um to have some note in here that um the wet the buffer zone Still Remains a buffer zone so further future activity will require

um at least consultation with the Conservation Commission Mr chairman I have that noted here so that I will include that as a condition okay thank you so we have a motion on the floor do we have a second on the motion second you have a seconded motion a roll call vote Jim yes Richard yes Matt yes Kelly yep and I'm a yes as well that motion passes unanimously Mr chairman before we move

on if Ken is still listening Ken give my office a call let me come out and I'll take a look and see what kind of options you have relative to this did you hear that Ken did you hear yeah you're muted you're muted y yes I'll give you call my call my office and we will come out I'll take a look at it okay Mark that sounds good okay thank you thank

you um we're moving on now to the sixth excuse me as I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting I have an airport detail and I must must leave the meeting now duty calls Mr Malon you're excused thank you very much good night everyone thank you hi Rich we still have a quorum all right there are four Commissioners and we ask a quorum so we still have enough to finish the public

hearing the sixth item of business is public hearing on D file 15- 2678 it's an abbreviated notice of resource area delineation from Jose Fernandes land described as map 71 Lot 56 otherwise known as 780 Collins Corner Road in Dartmouth entertain a motion to wave the reading mov second seconded motion roll call vote Matt yes Jim yes Kelly yep and I'm a yes that passes unanimously and uh for the applicant we

have who's here this evening on behalf of the app could somebody please let out him please yeah before you start I just want to let you know we have four Commissioners which means that you need a unanimous vote of the four Commissioners present in order for a you know a positive outcome so I I tell you that because I will give you the opportunity if you so choose to um request a continuance until

we have a a more full board we do have a quorum but it will require unanimous vote well it's a for the record my my name is Alex Gades I'm representing I'm professional engineer my office is in full River forto to North Main Street and I'm representing Mr Fernandez for your consideration is uh wet line delineation approval that the filing and I received communication from your Conservation Commission agent that he

has no problem with wet line has shown on the plan so that's all what we're requesting this moment it's and R so I don't see uh why why there should be any issues line itself so if you wish that's fine I just wanted to make sure you're aware of the fact that I I understand but it's at this moment it's pretty straightforward so if you wish I can share the screen to show the absolutely

if you'd like to do that that'd be great sharing I don't know if it's working or not does okay can you see I don't know sounded I can see it now okay well all right that's perfect so uh for your consideration again is a lot uh 56 on map 71 it's the house it's a 780 col in con Road it's located approximately 7al hundred ft north of the AL for River

Road intersection the as you can see is a plan with delineated W line delineation was done by Mr Walsh and located by my company uh using GPS equipment you also see in a background is aerial photographic map and uh I took Liberty to show Contours based on the web survey so again wet line in the and as you can see at the far northeast corner there is a shingle Island uh River but it's far away from

anything so we have not delineated either of the reparan zones nor mean annual high water line so again your staff reviewed the line and I received a phone call that line is fine as presented and that's pretty much it and if you have any questions I gladly I the answer thank you very much Alex Mark I'd like to hear staff's comments on this delineation yeah Alex is correct uh Adam

went out and uh deems the Wetland line accurate in the field um so we would be recommending uh in a couple of minutes an oad in support of the delineation however there are a couple of conditions that I'm going to put on that ored or I'm I'm recommending to put on that ored first of all Mr goreski indicates that they did not show any Riverfront area as they're not proposing any activity as of

yet no necess no need because the uh enrad was for the vegetated Wetland line but uh I would stipulate a condition for any future work um they will need to add the extent of the riverfront area shown on any plan moving forward uh I Riverfront area everybody says top of bank but top of bank is a very vague definition it's actually the top of Bank full which is the annual one-year flood elevation

pretty much plus or minus so that sometimes can get a little bit broad uh we have a low flat area in the Eastern portion of the site down gradient of the Wetland line so it is decidedly possible that the edge of river exceeds the actual physical top of bank that we see visually that's not necessarily the regulatory top of Bank in this case so I think it is important

that that be shown on a PL any plan moving forward the second concern we have is if you look on the plan right Midway along the northern property line which is the top line is a large cleared area and it's been cleared for quite a while and I specifically had Adam measure off from the Wetland line and it is you know based on tape through woods and stuff like that it is

approximately 100 fet away and that is a large burn area and he's had burn permits from District 3 uh for several years that feature has been in place based on aerial photo review for several years it largely and POS and most likely entirely Falls outside of the buffer zone but that area cannot expand anymore to the east um and I think that uh we should uh uh we should uh you know put that in

as a condition uh so two conditions to the oad uh affirming the line would be showing the riverfront area in on any future plan and uh not no expansion of the burn area without conservation approval that's my recommendation thank you Mark does any commissioner have any questions of either Alex or Mark see none there's anyone in the audience that wants to be heard on this request or delineation that's like

Gloria up yute Gloria so she can speak you can unmute yourself that there you go you can you're unmuted okay can you hear me yes we can I can all right so um I did have a couple of comments and a question um first of all I just wanted to notify um the commission that our a butter notification did not indicate a zoom meeting this evening so there was some confusion and frustration

on the part of um a few abutters as we arrived at Town Hall and went to room 103 to find it in darkness um it wasn't until I looked at the agenda for your meeting tonight that I saw the zoom so I just want to you know bring that to your attention if that's something that you can clarify for future notifications that go on out um appreciate that and just just for

just so you know I don't I don't think you heard it in the very beginning because we did it at 6:30 but um on March 29th uh Governor Healey extended the ability to do hybrid remote meetings until March 31 2025 um and as a commission we voted to continue doing our meetings remotely so I I I think you may have unfortunately gotten a letter that was drafted and written uh before Governor Healey um

Extended it and we had no choice but to but I think there should have I agree with you that's unfortunate for the people that got it to get in their cars drive over to town hall only to find out the meeting's not there um so um note to us in the future if that happens where there's a meeting scheduled for inperson and it gets changed to remote or vice versa we should definitely send out a

new notification to the abuts just if I could respond to Gloria Gloria uh it is in the legal ad that was posted in the newspaper however I would say that the language which slightly predated me was a little awkward I've already changed that language to be a little bit more specific in that we really don't need to mention room 103 because we're not using it so no I understand for meeting your

agenda that um it you know the Govern had changed that and you had voted however as a resident we get the butter notification we don't go looking for the newspaper after getting a notification right and the notification also said 7 PM so I just want you to be aware of that um so my my phone is going to die and if that happens I will grab uh another abutters phone because I'm in the room with four

abutters and um so one question I had is um clarification as to the Wetland Flags I know notied that they're on our property and what is the you know if someone could clarify when someone does a wetland go out and does a wetland survey are they to notify in a butter when they're on their property and why would Flags be placed on ours uh may I answer this question certainly that this we are not that's

vet Bist when he was when he was placing the flags it was very hard to establish where exactly property line was so he placed this Flags but if you see I put this line once the property line was surveyed and we overlay accurate property lines where we making no claims to the flags on your property just some some things that happen inadvertently we are not approving your weton line we

don't know what happens and it just we located we located we located Flags before we did the survey of the property lines so we really didn't know so he overshoot it a little bit so that's what this is the thing that happened because he kind of aligned himself with a stone wall if you see there's a stone wall up front so he thought maybe more or less you know things like that happen

unfortunately but uh from the next plans if there are any those flags believe me will be removed you will not see them they and the were once what it is even the fee that I filed did not incorporate uh uh the land everything is measured for from one property line to another that's that's those things happen unfortunately please accept my apology but that's what of this we we had no intention to flag your weing

line Gloria I could modify the recommendation to not include those flag numbers that are on your property therefore they would not be of record in the oad that would be fine um this is not the first time that this happened wetlands have been um surveyed out in this property before by this land owner and he does have a fence that divides the property he he it's quite an extensive fence so it's pretty visible

as to the property line via the fence but in any event I I just wanted to make that note um and my other question is you know obviously someone has gone through a great extent to have the survey done and pay some a good fee here is there a proposed Pro project that is being planned and if he could have the courtesy of sharing that with the abuts that question as anine as a

professional at this moment I'm filing only wet line approval whether something will be there or not probably yes but that it would be that would be up to the applicant I cannot answer for him and that you should communicate with him I really have authority to speak on this matter misund understand probably yes maybe not I don't know at this moment that's the best answer I can be I mean I I'll speak to the point that

um a careful developer um will always first want to know what the par parameters of the lot are not only in terms of the lot lines but also resource areas Etc to find out what's built buildable and then probably go back and figure out what they want to do um with the the buildable portion so I would I would have guessed that they're going to do something there they're just not

doing a delineation for the sake of uh an academic or theoretic but um when if they if they're staying outside of our jurisdiction they don't have to come back here they may have other issues with different departments if they're coming in within the buffer zone um they'll be back before us requesting and order of conditions but um they perhaps don't even know right now what they're until

this gets approved what it is that they're going to do no is the flags that we see on the plan is that the Wetland line and so the buffer is 100 feet to the west of that correct thank you is there anyone else in the audience that wants to be heard all right I don't see anybody else um I'll entertain a motion to close the public portion of the hearing I'm

moved we have a second on that motion second have a seconded motion okay roll call vote Kelly yep Matt yes Jim yes I'm a yes that's a unanimous vote the public portion of the hearing is closed uh Commissioners what's your pleasure on this request for delineation uh make a motion for an oad with the additional conditions as mentioned by Mark Garrett we have a motion on the floor do

we have a second could I just could I just add deleting the flag numbers that are on M bankr property as a condition um removing them from her property as well okay yes that's a good thank you Mark that was offered by the applicant so yes that should be y all amend my motion to that effect okay do we have a second on that amended motion second give a second on the

motion uh roll call vote Matt yes ke yep Jim yes and I'm yes that motion passes unanimously thank you everyone um and we're going Mark is there a a d file number for yes we did get a file number today it is 15- 2681 2681 thank you so we have a public hearing on De file 15- 2681 from Christina Bowen for drainage improvements to address an existing drainage overflow issue within the

buffer zone to a bordering vegetated Wetland it's on land described as map 49 hot 19 otherwise known as 285 Old Westport road I'll entertain a motion to leave the reading moved second a seconded motion roll call vote Kelly y Matt yes yes and I'm a yes that's unanimous uh on behalf of the applicant who do we have this evening um I am uh my name is Nathan ketchel I with ggd uh Consulting

Engineers also with me is Chris Garcia uh as well as Christina Bowen and Jeffrey Martin from um Dartmouth and uh basil uh who is uh the owner's project manager on the project and uh if you're okay with it I would like to share my screen I am okay with it all right uh so first I'll start with an overall locus of the campus um this is ums Dartmouth at 285 Old Westport Road

um uh campus uh contains approximately 705 acres of land uh generally Bound by Old Westport road to the uh North uh Lucy little um to the west and southwest and Chase Road to the east uh this particular project is occurring in the area of the um East Campus dormitories which is east of um the existing Ring Road uh that circles the academic buildings um uh yeah so it's over in the area of the

those dorms uh there is a storm water outfall uh in in the area where my cursor is right now uh that does make its way both to the South and to the east towards Chase Road um there have been issues on Chase Road of um flooding after um larger storm events uh and we're hoping to improve that uh let Zoom so this is the existing conditions plan um the area that we're now looking at

this is North is to the uh right hand side of the sheet um this is in the area of an existing parking lot that's in the um uh in the area of the Oak Glenn in pineale dormatory buildings uh there is 150 foot wide eversource easement that runs this area for high voltage um electrical wiring um there are a series of um gravel and dirt roadways that Traverse this area um underneath this

one that my cursor is on is the campus sewer M uh that makes its way to Chase Road um I'll go over to this one this is the the one in the area where this head wall is so there is a series of catch basins and roof drains uh that uh serve and or served the former buildings that were in the East Campus dorms um that runoff is collected by um uh pipe that runs in the

uh existing roadway and connects into this head wall uh that then discharges into a bordering vegetated Wetlands that consists of um um uh red maple sweet pepper bush Brier Wetland Fern and skunk cabbage um and that that runoff it traverses across this resource area in the woods and the easan area and makes its way to the east um into the uh two Chase Road uh also we have an existing detention

Basin uh to the south of the parking lot uh which discharges to another um uh bordering vegetated Wetland uh that we are coming before you requesting permission to um do vegetation management within uh that Basin was um uh permitted by uh the Conservation Commission believe it was under file se1 15-1 1614 back when they constructed the dorms that are over in this area moving on to the proposal um or well this one um

actually sorry I'll go to I'll go to the sheet so what's being proposed uh to eliminate this source of runoff that goes to Chase Road is to create a uh well first to um to S up approximately 3,500 square feet of the resource area to create a a stone Swale or stone line Swale that would run to the South um excuse me um that would then go to a head wall and

be piped underground to this existing detention Basin the one that we just discussing the veget vegetation management um of so this Swale is approximately 500 linear feet long running atox an approximate average slope of um 2 and a half% uh it does have a capacity to um uh convey approximately 37 cubic feet of of runoff um so we would um propose the sale is proposed to be approximately one and a

half feet deep uh there would be a series of um check dams along the way to control velocities um and yeah as I stated as you approach the uh uh where the parking lot is um it would transition to an underground pipe that would then go into this um this Pond area um currently we are we are still working with the DPW on storm water calculations to present to the uh

commission and its peer reviewer um so that is an outstanding thing as well there is a portion uh this drawing uh illustrates it uh when they constructed this uh parking lot back in approximately 20012 2002 um U there was some storm water that bypass T um uh the drainage system and going into that Basin so as I previously said there is this gravel driveway uh that runs across to Chase Road um and there is a

portion of the runoff from this parking lot that um through a a driveway connection uh is not making it to the catch basins that are in the parking lot and is going onto that that gravel roadway and discharging into the um area um so under this project we are proposing to add curving um and regrading um the portion of this driveway and creating a a bituminous to um modified Rock fill Swale to direct

that storm water to where it's meant to be going uh in that storm water basin um uh once this Basin is uh cleared of um or maintained and the vegetation cleared from it we would be um proposing that a a meadow type uh wet mix um uh seed be placed in there uh so that it can deal with um the occasional call it flooding but um use of the uh the pond

uh and be able to survive those moments of inundation um and that's it in a nutshell and I I guess I should also state that um the commission did um previously approve um this type of scope however um uh there was a lapse in in time um before it was uh the construction of it was exercised so that was an earlier hearing tonight to to close out that um um order of conditions very good thank you

uh Mark I'd like to hear staff comments on this application yeah uh first and foremost uh Nathan is correct we handled a COC earlier this evening was I think the last one we handled to close out uh file number uh 15- 2130 which was largely this proposal uh that was never constructed it expired uh even with the covid tolling period it expired in September of 2022 so we had a uh expired but opened

order so we could not issue another order on the same uh on the same project under a different order until that was closed having said that this is in my stay here in Dartmouth this has been a problem that we have dealt with in my entirety uh basically it was drainage that was leaving the parking lots of the East dorms and the parking lots uh adjacent to that Road intersection the water discharging from

that did not discharge correctly towards the drainage basin and in fact ended up rolling to the east downhill through various streams rivlets and roadways and ended up discharging and I I forget what the facility is but on Chase Road there was a UMass building it's set off got a parking lot I think it's a Counseling Center or something I'm I'm not quite sure what the building what what its

function is but water literally cascaded down the hill across their lawn across that parking lot and out into Chase Road uh causing you know flooding during rainy Seasons but moreover in the winter I had seen at least three events where it was literally a a flow that froze so you had sheet ice across a fairly large expense of Chase Road so it became a very dangerous thing uh when we issue the

order of conditions for the demo of the um dorms uh the East Side dorms uh we did have a condition that we had already been talking about this this problem for several years and we needed it rectified uh it took some time but the proposal that's in front of you right now is in fact what we required of them several years back um in the demo a little a little late but certainly welcome nonetheless

to resolve the problem again Nathan is right that this was approved under 2130 that basically this footprint of the project yes there are some Wetland impacts involved uh but I think those Wetland impacts have to be categorized in a couple of things first of all it's the way the water is supposed to flow and the natural Contours Do not allow for that and B much of that we highly managed very disturbed Wetland within

the eversource uh we have issued orders of conditions for vegetation management through those areas and in fact there is a gravel road way and I think Nathan mentioned it where uh water from the Wetland to the west of the easen flows over the gravel and into a wetland area within a fresh uh a wet Meadow area in the easement itself and then discharges further east towards Chase Road some of that water

doesn't cross the gravel roadway it literally flows down the gravel roadway in essence doing what the improved drainage swell would do in a much more designed fashion and directing that water in its appropriate location to the detention Basin as opposed to free flowing down roadways and eventually getting to Chase Road um having said all that uh I think that I would be ready to approve this project this evening

however we do not have uh a complete drainage analysis yet to go forward to our peer consultant um and so we don't have his response I know Nathan said they're working with DPW uh but uh our peer reviewer still has to see that and we have yet to receive any information on that as of yet so once they get a drainage report and their Watershed plans and the like got we do have an account number already

set up they did in fact you know pay the the fee for that we're just waiting for the product to be reviewed so uh at this point I don't think we have the ability to close the hearing since we don't have all the information so I would recommend closing this public hearing and I would ask either Nathan or Chris uh from uh uh ggd thank you to uh suggest the date when they

think that they would have the information to us allowing for our peer review consultant at least a week and a half to two weeks to

review okay so that sound like that would be the first week of May is that then we have a meeting scheduled for May 9th okay yeah I mean if that's going if if that typically takes him a week and a half to review then you know I I don't think obviously we'd get his comments back in two weeks so um we still don't have the report so I'm asking you adding

the two weeks on when you think we're going to get the report for him to review that's that's why I'm asking you you want to shoot for May 9th yeah let's do that then I recommend the continuance and till May 9th okay um do any Commissioners have any questions at this time knowing we're not going to close the public hearing tonight is there anyone in the audience that wants to be heard on this uh again

knowing you'll get a chance on the continuance okay Commissioners I'll entertain a motion to uh continue the public hearing until May 9 2023 at 7 p.m.

i'me have a mo we have a second on the motion please have a seconded motion roll call vote Nate yes Jim yes Kelly Y and I'm yes that motion passes unanimously this public hearing is continued until May 9 2023 at 7 p.m. if anyone is here for that uh you won't get a second mailing but please make note of it on your calendars and we now move on to our items for discussion that we haven't

already discussed are there any bills I have nothing under discussion at this point uh neither do I so entertain a motion to I have one quick thing so I I hate to do this guys but the time has come for me um to step away from the commission um and I don't want to put any of you guys in a bind so I was thinking about making that effective as of the May 9th

meeting so the May 9th meeting would be my last meeting um but I just wanted to let you guys know that that was coming and I will definitely miss spending Tuesday nights with all of you well we're gonna miss spending them with you well you've got a you know you're at the point where commitments to other things are also there as well and there's only so many hours in the day

I appreciate all you've given to the commission thank you I've definitely enjoyed the time um and yeah it's I felt recently that I have been less much less present and that started to get me thinking of of whether yeah I could give it my all and I think right now just stretched a little thin um so yeah I'll miss you guys well Kelly um again congratulations on a decision I know was

hard for you to make but again do the best you can and everything else and that's we want from you thanks Mike thank you for everything uh just a uh I hate to be uh administrative about this Y no no tell me what you need get a get a uh letter into uh the select board and the Town Administrator notifying them yeah so do you want me to send it

do you want me to send um it directly to them you want me to send it through you you tell me what makes sense why don't you send it directly to them and copy me sure we'll do that's it that's all I got now I can make a motion to a journ well you know and no let me just know let me add something now as as many of you may or may not

know um Kyle Ross was interested in rejoining this might be a good time to oh good yeah this might be a good time to reach out to him um I'm happy to do that I'll happy to give Kyle a call and ask him to um you know formally put it in writing and submit it so we can recommend it if we want if we vote that recommend it to the select

board so I'm more than happy to reach out to them for those of you who who predated it Kyle I was gonna say these guys probably weren't on Kyle was a and um phenomenal you know he between his job and um at home um constraints um he he had to sadly step away and he let me know a few months back that you know he would be very interested in rejoining us now those

commitments aren't what they were what is it now four years ago since he stepped away something like that um so your timing is pretty good if there had to be a time you got pretty good timing here but yeah so anyway I'll reach out to him and I just want to let you know um you know you will be missed and and believe it or not um we may even ask you

some questions every once in a while anytime anytime happy to help well now we got our motion to adjourn so moved and the second on that motion second we have a seconded motion we have to take a roll call vote unbelievable uh Jim yes Matt yes go yep and I'm a yes as well everyone have a good night night

everybody