Conservation Commission Meeting - April 14, 2026

We're now at 7 o'clock and we have a quorum. So I will call to order the uh Dartmouth Conservation Commission meeting for Tuesday, April 14th, 2026.

Um, we're conducting this meeting this evening uh remotely because on it's now a long time ago on March 28, 2025, Governor Healey signed a further extension uh for the remote hybrid um meeting options for municipalities and extended that option through June 30, 2027. Our hearing will be accessible uh for live interaction by the public and they can use the raise your hand feature, the chat

feature or um if all else fails make some kind of motion and you will be recognized. I would ask that if you're not speaking to please keep your uh microphone muted so that anyone who is speaking isn't inter interrupted.

Um, this meeting was duly noticed accordance with Massachusetts law and the town of Dartmouth bylaws. There was posting at town hall as well as on the website. And we also had any of our public hearings advertised in the newspaper except for any continued public hearing which would have been noticed at the previous meeting.

That being said, we have one administrative item before we get into the field trip reports and that is to receive the minutes from February 24, 2026 and March 10, 2026. May I have a motion to that effect, please?

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes. My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, we do have three field trip reports.

The first and the third will require wet signatures, which means they'll be available at the Conservation Commission office tomorrow and go drop by and sign them, assuming uh that we have a positive or a uh yeah, a positive uh vote. The first is a request for a certificate of compliance D file 15-2717 RCC 26-4 from Robert and Robin Pyers for permitted work that was never completed

on land described as map 169 lots 196.

It's known as 68 Middle Sex Avenue. Um Eduardo, what is staff's recommendation on this request?

Um yeah, so 68 Middle Sex Avenue has been a filing we've had for a number of years now, but um the owner of the property doesn't want to go through with uh the filing anymore. Nothing was built over there. Uh the same it's the same.

It's a it's the parcel that abuts 6 Birkshshire Street, which is the next C coc. So they were both um some of you may remember or may not I'm not sure uh those two filings from a couple years back. Uh but essentially no work was done. So we're recommending a complete COC just to close out the those files.

Is there any questions by any commissioner?

I don't see any. Uh, I'll entertain a motion to issue a complete certificate of compliance on D file 15-2717 to close it out.

So move.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

And the second matter, as Eduardo said, is the companion to the first. It's a request for a certificate of compliance, DP file 15-2718, RCC26-5, from Robert and Robin Pyers, uh, for permitted work that was never completed on land described as map 169, lot 195.

It's otherwise known as Six Birkshshire Street. And I take it we have the same issue. Correct, Eduardo? Uh, correct.

Yeah.

So, I'll entertain a motion to issue a complete certificate of compliance with D file 15-2718.

So, move.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Our third field trip trip report is a request for certificate of compliance D file 15-2649 RCC26-6 from Thomas Falton uh at the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation for permitted work that involved replacing an existing dual covert with a single 8t x 7 ft concrete box covert and wing walls. It's on land described as map 10, lots six. It's

known as zero Bernie's Joy Road. Um, Eduardo, what is staff's recommendation on this request?

Uh, so staff uh went out and inspected the bridge and the culvert that goes underneath it. The water seems to be flowing pretty well uh through it. They don't see any any seem sort of blockages or anything like that in that regard. Um so um looks like the work was done in accordance to the plan. Uh so we have no issues. So we're recommending a complete COC.

Does any commissioner have any questions?

Not seeing any. I'll entertain a motion uh for the issuance of a complete certificate of compliance on D file 15-2649.

Hello.

Second.

We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

That concludes the field trip reports.

We're moving on to public hearings.

The first public hearing is a continued public hearing, D file 15-2812, NOI 26-2.

It's an after the-act notice of intent from Steven Gordencio for approval for a restoration project associated with a previously unauthorized disturbance within the 100 ft buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. The regulations involved are 310 CMR 10.02 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. The land is on parcels described as map 165, lots 16 and 17 and map 174, lot 80. It's

located at 566 State Road. I entertain a motion to wave the reading.

I move.

Second.

We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

And I think Chris, you're here on behalf of the applicant.

That is correct.

All right, Chris, you do have the floor.

And uh DCTV, if Chris V from Scitec wants to share screen, please allow him to do so.

Thank you. So for the record, uh Chris Vandenberg with Scitec Engineering Environmental Consultants. Um so I believe we provided you with letter from Azinis relating to the um I believe your question u related to the um upland wetland portion I guess on the um it would be let me see it would be technically the north northern wetland here um if you saw the revised plan I can share that with you please Yep.

All right. Can you see this?

Not yet, but it's I'm sure it's going to fill in. There we are. I can see it now.

There we go. So, there was upon um our wellness consult consultants going back out there. Um plan to say it wasn't really discovered, but I guess there was an issue when they were first going out there to the part of the site that, you know, when they were flagging the northern wetland was here. There there is a pocket which is now identified as the um Z series Z and Y series actually

um that we have now flagged on I guess the southern portion of the project here. So that now encompasses I highlighted in orange here the 100 foot buffer and how that changes it. Um so we kind of did a hybrid we're proposing now as a hybrid of it. Um right now the entire 100 foot buffer would be within this um gravel area. So, we increased the restoration area. I believe

previously it was uh 2100 ft². We we're proposing now 2850 ft². Um and for the remaining gravel to be just lommed and seated. Um this is to essentially um the applicant is hoping to do some kind of a buildout of the remaining upland portion um as much as possibly do. So, we didn't want to have to propose more wetland plant species in here of which he might be proposing to take it out. So um so we

are proposing to increase the restoration area by a little bit and uh just lmen seed the rem the area that's um a portion of the gravel area to be just lman and seated.

That's the major change to the plan. Um I believe Avisenus there did provide um we provided you guys with Azinus' wetland report of the um the data sheets for um right in the area of wetland flag A1 B4. Um, I haven't seen the previous 2014 plan, but I understand they are sticking by the fact of um of their wetland delineation here.

And I I guess I could look really closely, but what is the date of the plan we're looking at, Chris?

Um, last revised uh was dated December 18, 2025. Last revised 47 of this year.

Okay.

Eduardo, um interested in hearing staff's comments regarding this application.

Um yeah, so as the commission may know, um we originally this filing was first brought brought in with that first wetland line you see off on the right there. Um, but we've previously learned about a active filing or active still an active wetland line technically uh that showed uh bordering vegetated wetland off on the left there. And so the first plan, as you may know, uh didn't show that

bordering vegetated wetland. So we wanted to know if that still existed. Um, and it seems like it does and staff did go out and so that staff did go out and it does seem like that there is a pocket wetland over on the left hand side there. Um, so that answered our question in regards to whether or not the impact to the buffer zone had impacted the wetland off to the

the left hand side. But based off uh the previous filing, it seems as though the overall wetland edges seem to be basically in the same spot from the last wetland, the Azenus um wetland report back in forget the year, but um the very first one for this site. Um so given that uh we are going to be recommending the commission issue a standard order of conditions uh with the following standard restoration

conditions as per the plan dated April 7th 2026 um including special condition 41 where the project areas are designated for resource replacement, replication, restoration, weather approved, project impact violation or as a result of enforcement order, all work shall conform with the following protocols. A these areas shall be secured with properly staked and entrenched hay bales or waddles and silt

fence and regraded to natural contours prior to planting. All unstable bare ground shall be seated with the standard wetland or erosion control seed mix as per the conditions at planted at the recommended recommended density. B. Aside from the restoration work authorized under this order, no additional activities of any type shall occur within the 25 foot of the delineation wetland line of

record established under this order unless authorized in the future by the cons commission or an agent. C. All plantings and restoration work will be completed by June 30th, 2026. and upon completion, a conservation agent shall be notified so that an inspection of said work can be made prior to the close of the growing season. D. When using seed mixes of any type or source, the conservation

commission shall require all sewing of seed to be at the specified density and aerial coverage.

E. The conservation commission shall require the minimum woody plant specifications to include all individual tree specimens as proposed with trunk DBH of no less than one.

If applicable in all shrub sizes of no less than 3 to 5 gallon pots/ balls as proposed. If applicable as opposed to any size specific specifications presented on the plan of record. Also all woody replacement planting shall be protected from browsing during the initial growing seasons. And then F, monitoring shall be done and reported to the conservation staff following each growing season until 75% of wetland

vegetation cover has been achieved or throughout the complete term of this order. And then G, all plantings that failed to survive through the first growing season for any reason shall be replaced by the applicant or their successors or assigns.

Thank you, Eduardo. Does any commissioner have any questions?

I don't see any. Chris, if you wouldn't mind, please um stop sharing the screen so I could see if anybody in the audience wants to be heard.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to be heard on this matter?

I I don't see anybody.

Uh commissioners, at this point, it'd be appropriate to close the public hearing.

So, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Uh, commissioners, uh, we've heard that staff is satisfied with the revised wetland delineation and that they recommend a standard order of conditions with special condition number 41 A through G as read into the record by Eduardo.

I'll entertain a motion to that effect.

So moved.

Second.

We have a second motion. Roll call vote.

Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

All right. Thank you very much.

Second public hearing. Thank you, Chris.

Is a continued public hearing as well. D file 15-2814 NOI26-3 on the notice of intent to construct a single family home with associated grading tree removal utilities and driveway access within the 100 ft buffer to a bordering vegetated wetland coastal bank salt marsh and within the riverfront area and land subject to co coastal storm flowage of the slums river. The regulations are 310 CMR 10.02,

10.04 10.30 10.32 10.35 10.58.

And the and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. The land is described as map 23, lot 48-2. It's otherwise known as 80 Horse Neck Road. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

Move.

Second. We have a seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

And we have somebody here this evening from Zenith to speak on behalf of the applicant.

Or do we?

Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the applicant?

Well, Ed Henardo, did anybody contact you regarding this application to indicate they would be late or they wouldn't be coming?

Uh, no. The only letter I received that I sent to all of you about the extension uh regarding this um filing. Um, I believe the applicant wished to um extend the the meeting to the July 7th conservation commission meeting, but other than that, I have not heard. Uh, how many continuences have we had on this matter?

I believe two, maybe three.

This would be the request for yet a third. Correct.

Um, which under our rules and regulations which have been adopted I believe.

I haven't heard whether the board select board adopted them or not.

Uh the the new rules regarding the um I'm not completely sure either about that actually.

Okay. Uh maybe for the next meeting we'll we'll know but I know under the rules and regulations at least as uh voted upon by this commission and submitted to the select board for approval.

Um continuences were not going to be granted as liberally as they had in the past. What was the rationale for the request for another yet another continuence?

Um based off the letter, I believe there was a period of discovery um with the applicant and the land owner. However, that period of uh discovery expired and the land owner no longer wants to extend that period of discovery and so now that issue is going to uh court and so they're requesting an extension.

um to see if that gets resolved.

Yeah, I think to be consistent with what we are trying to do with our continuence policies here, um I'd rather not keep a matter open indefinitely while parties sort out what they should have gotten sorted out before they filed. Um so I I cannot I cannot vote favorably for continuance. So, but let's take that up first. So, what was the date they wanted this continued for?

Uh, July 7th.

Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to be heard on this matter?

I don't see anyone. So, the first motion, maybe the only motion, is to grant the request for a third continuence until July 7, 2026 at 700 p.m. I have a motion to that effect, please.

So, moved.

We have a second on that motion.

I have a quick question before we second before I second that. a second, but I want to what is what like if they're sending this three months out and they're already requested had two extensions, how how many months has this been in the hopper and why don't I mean seeing as we are becoming more or excuse me less liberal with our you know approval of these why don't we just make them resubmit? That's I I would

second that.

So I think that would be James. I think you hit the nail on the head as they like to say and that would be my preference. But I think in order to do that we first have to vote on the continuence. If it's granted that's the end of it. If it's not granted then entertain a motion um for this matter to be withdrawn without prejudice.

I got without prejudice.

Gotcha. I was putting the carriage before the horse real quick.

Yeah. I just want to take I just want to take up the request that was made by email first.

I didn't ignore it, but I just don't think it's appropriate in this case.

M Mr. J, Mr. Chair, just a point of information. Do you know how far in the litigation process this is? I think that will be of great assistance on whether or not we're going to approve it or not.

Yeah, I don't know, Richard, but um this was filed last year, wasn't it, Eduardo?

uh 80 horsene neck. I believe it was earlier this year.

Okay.

Maybe January, February.

So, the thing that's the thing that's likely causing the litigation couldn't have been filed except perhaps in the last month or two.

And we have a way to go then.

They've got a long ways to go.

That's why I think they they thought going all the way out to July, but unless there's a meeting of the minds and a settlement, as you and I know, that can be two years from now, if not longer, not longer. So, that's why I'm not real keen on this approach to not being ready at the time of filing and then just extending it forever until you finally are ready. Just refile when you're ready.

That's my view. So, I think James was right on the point. Um, anyway, so we have a motion uh to continue um as requested by the applicant on the floor. We just need a second.

Second. I'll second that.

We have a second on the motion. Roll call vote. Liz, no.

James, no.

Megan, no.

Richard, no.

My vote is no. That motion fails unanimously.

I'll now entertain a motion to deny the application without prejudice allowing the applicant to refile when they have all of their matters in hand.

So moved.

Second.

We have a second motion on the floor.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, we're moving now to the third public hearing. It's at the bottom of the first page and it continues to the second page of the agenda. It's on D file 15-2821 NOI26-11.

It's on the after the fact notice of intent from Ronan Drawy for let go to the second page now. um proposing to install uh a new updated central vacuum stalls, payment kiosks, sight paving and buffer zone restoration work within the 200 ft riverfront area and the 100 ft buffer zone to an inland bank. The regulations are 310 CMR 10.02 102, 10.54, 10.58, and section 360-2, the town of Dartmouth bylaws. The land

is described as map 167, lot 101. It's otherwise known as 271 State Road. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes. Richard.

Yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Is there someone here this evening on behalf of the applicant?

Uh yes, Mr. Chairman. Good evening and good evening members of the conservation commission. Uh my name is Azu Toniro.

I'm a registered professional engineer and registered professional land surveyor in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a business address at 481 Bedford Street in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. Uh I apologize. Um this is my first meeting with the commission uh for nearly 30 years when uh Michael O'Reilly used to be your agent. So I haven't come and I believe this commission is differently constituted um

in terms of membership. Uh I apologize though that my video is not working. I don't I think my wife might not have paid the bill. So, well, yeah, we don't have to have a screen share. I'll tell you why.

We do get all materials sent to us prior to the meeting by email. And that's why you'll see me looking at paper every once in a while. Sometimes I'll be reading what was sent to me. Quite frankly, it's often clearer for me to do that than to try to squint and look at it on the screen. But, um, you're certainly welcome to continue without it. We all have received copies of what was

I will try to share and then if it doesn't work then that's fine too. Uh but uh uh like I said my video is not working so I'm not able to be seen um for no let's see if you can share that if you want to try that go right ahead by the way DCTV uh please let this gentleman uh share his screen if he wants to.

Yes you should be all set sir.

Okay, right now you're saying disabled share. It says uh host disabled attendee screen sharing.

So, I've just made you co-host. Let me revoke permissions and then give it back. We'll see if that gives you the option.

Okay.

All right. Try one more time, please, if you don't mind.

Okay.

I'm not seeing anything.

So basically you have here okay let's see I plan okay can you see this here I see a list of files you have but I don't see any I don't see any any plan okay let's see let me just stop sharing from now

Okay, I'll do stop sharing and uh try again.

DCTV again here. Um, so when you screen share, I believe it'll give you the option to select different windows now that you've opened that PDF document.

Yeah, you should be able to select that one specifically when you go to screen share.

Okay, let me uh Okay.

Okay. Some Okay.

Windows.

This one.

How about now?

Is it showing?

Yes, it does show now.

Okay. Thank you. All right. So, uh, Mr.

Chairman and members of the commission, uh, thank you for indulging me. Uh, this is an after the fact application.

So, Ronan Drury, uh, operates of a car wash called Prestige Car Wash.

uh he basically purchased this property from um the Deep Brothers who operated a nice and clean car wash.

So he u assumed uh that uh he's able to do upgrades because his site was previously uh developed. Well, um he received a a stop work order and then he contacted my office. uh we do a lot of work with them. And so this after the five notice of intent was been filed in response to the uh stop work order uh issued by the commission as is. Uh right over here if

you can see my cursor is the wetlands resources flagged by u right at the bottom of the river edge of the river and bottom of the existing wall.

Mr. Kim Thompson who's a botist who's been doing this type of work for eons fly the wetlands and as well as the riverfront associated with the um uh with the property.

The these little green area is the restoration that is proposed um by Ken Thompson. And the work that he wants to do uh is create this right here, a pay station, so people who want to use a tunnel can pay right here and then proceed to get their car washed. Uh the history of Ronin is that he does maintain very good quality sites, keeps them very clean. Unfortunately, he assumed that um he could just go ahead

and do the work uh that he he started doing primarily to put in the P station and put the uh vacuum here. So the vacuum is outside the inner repairing boundary as well as outside the 100 foot um uh buffer zone associated with the BVW.

So this is basically the area that he's proposing to put the um uh vacuums and then when people finish vacuuming they're coming through here. uh if they want to get a car washed, they come here to the pay station and then they go and get their car washed. Um and that's really the extent of the work as well as the uh uh planting new vegetation.

Uh there's restoration plan prepared by Chem Thompson. Uh which I believe is this one right here. I zoom out a lot a little bit.

Okay, Mr. Thompson. Uh, can you see the restoration plan?

Are you able to see this restoration plan?

Yes, we can see I can see it at least.

Okay. So, basically basically your what Mr. Thompson's this is the it shows up a dark color here because he doesn't have the coloring scheme that I have that is accentuated in green in my plan.

However, uh he has this restoration and he detailed uh the construction sequence. uh I'm not going to be label it but it basically has a 10 uh protocols that needs to be followed and he provides a detail uh for the uh planting and so um if there's no issue in terms of me sharing I can stop sharing and then wrap up my presentation Mr. share unless somebody wants the um sharing to continue.

So, uh I'll stop sharing now.

Okay. So what we are hoping is that our uh being a a first time offense and not not a pumping his nose at anybody. I can tell you that he immediately once he received the stop work order. Uh to the best of my knowledge uh there has not been any more activity going on uh until the commission reviews and approves the project. So, uh, with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll do

what my wife told me to stop talking when I don't need to. And I, uh, I'd like to hear myself talk. So, and she's sitting next to me, so I'll pretend that I listen to what she has to say and stop talking and then, uh, entertain any comments or questions the commission may have.

Um, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I think your mic is muted in case you were trying to say something.

Oh, yeah. I'd like to hear your comments regarding this application.

Uh, yeah. So, this uh application came in to us after a complaint from I think it was the DPW uh that they were doing some work over here. And then we realized they were doing work within the 200 foot buffer zone, 200 foot riverfront area and 100 foot buffer zone of the inland bank here. So, we issued as the commission knows a cease and desist. However, when was that, Eduardo?

The cease and desist.

Yes.

I don't know if I have the exact date, uh, but I believe right around February midFebruary.

Um, 2026, correct?

Yes, correct. Um and so it appeared that there they still continued work uh after that cease and desist. So we were we went back out there and told them you know essentially there was a cease assist on the property within conservation jurisdiction. Uh and since then I don't believe there's been any more work done on the site. Um, in terms of the actual plan presented by uh Mr. uh Zoo there, uh staff had a

couple of concerns. Uh in terms of the actual plan, it does not show the 100 foot buffer zone from the inland bank.

It does show the 200 foot riverfront area. Um and this is a fundamental jurisdiction element that must be clearly delineated in any filing before the commission. Um so that's something that needs to be resubmitted and corrected um so that we can address this. Uh second uh the applicant does propose 13 American holly plants right around 3 to 5t in size. Um, however, when we did go back out there

the second time around, we noticed the degree of uh clearing was far extended past the area that's shown on the plan and goes further into the north uh side of the property there. Um so the proposed plantings don't accur adequately address the buffer zone impacts at the inland bank and the northern portion of the site. Um so based off this um we're recommending recommending the commission to continue

the hearing um just so we can we can get that documentation with the inland bank shown on the plan and um as well as additional plantings to um make up for that extent uh that was cleared alongside the inland bank.

Uh maybe the plan should show the area very clearly of the disturbance of the buffer and that should be delineated and then the planting plan should be and I would recommend that the planting plan at least be presented to the conservation commission's office uh well in advance of the meeting so that if there's any issues it can be addressed um by yet a further amendment before we

have to deal with it at a public hearing because I I I do realize that um you know this was in response to a violation but um you know I think the planting plan is inadequate myself um and I'd like to see that improved not only in terms of, you know, the delineation of the disturbed area, but also what's going to be planted to try to restore what that which had been

disturbed. And uh although we may be off to a start, which is positive, we really need to get it done correctly given the significance of that area and uh the multiple uh jurisdictional zones that we have there. And I guess nearly the entire lot is within a buffer zone of one sort or the other. So, um I think it's important that that get done and I think it's very important as well

that our existing cease and desist order be honored while we're waiting.

Um so there's no um you know temporary approval. It's it's still there's a cease and desist order.

So activities that were um stopped by that order must remain stopped until this commission has voted um if it votes in the positive manner on the request and then after the restoration work is done.

Understood Mr. Sherman and I will uh communicate um communicate that clearly.

Uh but I do how much time will you need in order to revise the plans as Eduardo has indicated?

Well, I think in terms of the uh disturbed area that he has referred to, I would like to uh meet with him there so I can make sure that uh I capture that in my survey. Um, so I will be traveling next week. So probably I'm not sure. Well, let me put it this way. When is the next hearing? When is the next hearing date?

Our next hearing date is Tuesday, April 28th. But any revised submissions, any new submissions have to be in the Conservation Commission's office by the Thursday before at 300 PM.

I don't think we'll be ready. Yeah, I don't think we'll be ready before the 28th.

Um Okay. And I don't want to wish I don't want to waste your time. Um Yeah. No, I appreciate that. We don't want with as you can tell from the previous matter you know we don't really enjoy continuence.

Oh well believe me I I I was looking looking at that as a message to myself too. So when is the next meeting Eduardo in or the first meeting in uh May? That's amazing I'm saying this.

Uh so next one's 28th. The one after that would be May 12th.

Okay, that should be a plenty of time.

May 12th.

Yes. Yes. May 12th will be a lot more uh will be uh achievable.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience this evening that wants to be heard on this matter knowing we are going to um at least discuss a motion to continue?

I don't see anybody. Uh commissioners, um there are some matters that have to be uh amended on the applicant's plan of submitt, um planting plan. And it's been suggested that May 12, 2026 meeting at 700 p.m. would uh be enough time for that to come in in a timely fashion and thus not require another continuence in order to present those materials. So, may I have a motion to continue this until May 12, 2026?

Moved at 7 p.m.

Second.

Somebody say something here.

So moved.

Oh, okay.

Second.

Seconded motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much and uh you know look forward to seeing your revised plan.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you the commissioners. I uh I like how you run your meeting. It's a it's it's it's great. I really do. Thank you and have a pleasant evening.

You're welcome.

All right. Our next public hearing is on D file 15-2822 ANR26-1.

It's for an abbreviated notice of resource area determination um anrad from Rick Lincoln care of Brandon Faniff to verify portions of the on-site wet wetland boundaries under Massachusetts general laws chapter 131 section 40 and or the town of Dartmouth wetland protection bylaws under chapter 360. It's on land described as map 18 lots 28 and 29. otherwise known as 498 Old Westport Road. I'll entertain a

motion to wave the reading.

Moved a second on that, please.

Second.

Seconded motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, Mr. Faniff, I see you're in the wings waiting. Uh, I am. floor is yours.

Good evening.

Okay. Um, my name is Brandon Fannif. I am a professional wetland scientist with a company called Ecosystem Solutions located at 100 Jefferson Boulevard in Warwick, Rhode Island. And I am here to uh open the hearing for this at 0 and 498 Old Westport Road.

Um, I don't have any video, which is fine.

Um, might I be able to share uh the plan or would you like to do that, Eduardo?

Um, why don't you share the plan plan, Brandon, if you can? And DCTV, please let Mr. Fannif uh have access to share his plan.

Yes, Mr. Faniff, you should have permissions if you give it a try.

Okay, very good. Um, should be this one right here.

Tell me when you're good.

Uh, well, we got it, but it's enormous.

I'm I've got a little portion of it just Oh, really?

Yeah.

How about that?

Uh, move it up to the north. Move it up so we can see.

Yeah, I got the caption. The Sherbrook Farms abbreviated notice of resource area delineation. So, let me uh let me try that again.

Is that any better?

It's the same thing.

Uh DCTV here just to say I see it full screen on mine. I don't know if any other commissioners see it full screen or if it's um Yeah, we can we can see it.

Maybe just my screen then.

Okay.

Okay. So, um the the pro it's two actually two properties on Old Westport Road um just west of UMass Dartmouth going towards uh Westport and it's on the north side of the road.

Um this property has a long history of uh being a sand and gravel pit which is which is now uh no longer active. Um so obviously there's plans to do something with it but uh before that happens u we thought it would be wise to uh determine and and get confirmation on on both the wetland uh types and boundaries under both the wetlands protection act and the Dartmouth bylaw.

Um, and to that effect, um, I can scroll through here and show you the the plan.

And, you know, it's black and white, so it's not exactly things don't pop out.

So, what I'd like to do, and I want to see if this works, is I have another sketch in color.

Does everybody see that?

Yep, I do. that that this this this this is the same thing with the same points just on uh the 2023 aerial photo. Okay.

So, uh there's a little I have some history with this site and it it amazes me that this is the first time that I've been before the conservation commission with this because I performed the delineation of this property even more extensive than what you see right here uh for the first time in in 2012.

And there would be long periods where nothing happened and then there would be uh another engineer involved and then there would be another owner involved.

And it is it has been stop and start uh for uh you know from 2012 until now and finally uh I was given the green light to submit the ANRAD. But we are only focusing really on on the uh the the lot 29. So there's two lots. There's lot 28 which is a very very large property that continues to the north here. And then there's lot uh uh 29 which is known as

498 Old Westport Road. And we're asking for verification for all of the wetlands on uh lot 29.

um this this lot right here which is 498. And the thing is is that most of the wetland boundaries that affect lot 29 which is where ultimately the work is going to occur when the notice of intent um comes in uh occurs around the periphery. So, we added lot 28, but uh we're only interested in the wetlands that might potentially impact the buffer zones and setbacks and and whatnot

associated with lot 29. You know, lot 28 is is very very large, but we don't need to go, you know, 1,000 ft back, you know, so we're really focusing in this area by the street. Um there are some some ponds here which uh appear to me based on my you know professional expertise of doing this for almost 30 years now that these ponds were were probably excavated out way way back when

before there were any rules against it in association with the the sand and gravel pit but but now exist as ponds and those are shown as in blue and uh are labeled as BF not for Brandon FanF but for bankful condition. So, so that that's the bank of the ponds.

Uh, and then we have an A, B, C, D, and E series wetlands.

Um, and you'll notice that some of them are very small or or oddly shaped. And again, this has to do with the fact that this used to be a sanding gravel pit, which are my least favorite places to try to identify wetlands because what ultimately happened is that the they would dig in the summertime when the water table was low. So, they could dig deeper. uh and then they abandon an

area and eventually over a matter of years or even decades those those holes that they dug end up turning into wetlands no matter how small they may be. Um and you notice that the A series wetland is very long and linear. Um there's a very small less than 500 square foot C series wetland as well as an Esseries wetland down here on the right side which is really just nothing more than a depression that had some

fragmitees in it that I couldn't ignore.

Um, I remember talking about the site back then with Michael O'Reilly, um, and try to get his opinion on things because, uh, you know, there were areas within the lot 29 that that would kind of pond, um, but were still being driven through.

Uh, the the site is not as active as it used to be in 2012, obviously. So, there's been a lot of regrowth and we have refreshed the flags over the years. The most recent being last fall. Um, and I haven't been back out and I don't know if Mr. Fores has been out there to look at it yet, but um, if the flags were kind of raggedy because we had a tough

winter, I apologize. Just let me know and we'll refresh the flags again. Um but but this is what we have before you the C-series wetland and the E-series wetland are less than 500 square f feet.

And I was paying very close attention to uh what were you saying Mr. chairman earlier about whether or not the new regulations uh were active yet because I I'm still going under the presumption that the old regulations are are active and and tell me if I'm crazy but um wetlands that there's a threshold if the wetland's less than 500 square ft then it's non-jurisdictional and let me know if that no longer applies.

No, I think we actually were talking about increasing the size, but go right ahead. You're you may as well go on that basis.

Okay. Okay. Um, so we have some pond, we have some some isolated vegetated wetlands, uh, bordering vegetated wetland in the in the form of the the B series wetland. Um, and potential isolated land subject to flooding as well. So, um, that that's the view from 10,000 ft. and uh I give it back to you for questions and comments.

Thank you. Um Eduardo, I'm turning it over to you because we look very interested in hearing staff's comments.

Uh yes. So to give you, I suppose, a little bit more background on the site, I believe this site is going to be the future site for a 41B, I believe. Um, I'm pretty sure this is the site I'm thinking of at least. Um, you're not wrong.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, it is it is the site that I Yeah. The for Yeah. I've seen I've seen plans come come by for for this particular site. Uh in terms of the wetland flags, we had no issue finding um the wetland flags that were placed by uh Brandon and had no issues with the line. Uh I mean most of it is basically just the inland bank to that uh

um pond area over there. So that that doesn't really change much over unless the pond grows or the the bank increases or increases or decreases or something along along those lines. Um so we're recommending approval of the wetlands as depicted on the plan dated uh November 6th uh 2024.

Excellent. Uh one last thing, Mr.

Chairman. Um there's also bordering land subject to flooding which is obviously not delineated but uh you should know about it and they're associated with the those two ponds. It's zone A no flood uh base flood elevation uh depicted.

Thank you. I want to be Eduardo. I just want to make sure you said the the the plan was 116 2024.

2024. Yes, that was the plan that was given to us.

Okay. I just wanted to be sure. Uh, any commissioner have any questions?

I don't see any. Brandon, if you wouldn't mind, please could you um stop sharing your screen so I can see everybody on the Brady Bunch there. Here we go. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to be heard on this matter?

I don't see anyone. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So, second motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, commissioners, I entertain a motion to approve the delineation as shown on the plan dated 116 2024.

So moved.

Second. We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Brandon, thank you so much. Have a good night.

Good night.

Um, we're now moving on to our fifth public hearing and it's a continued public hearing DP file 15-2808 NOI25-41.

It's on the notice of intent from 600 Patska land trust here of David M.

Vignan to construct a residential pier and perform improvements to the existing cart path within land subject to coastal storm flowage.

Land under the ocean land containing shellfish. The 100 ft buffer zone to a salt marsh and within the 200 ft riverfront area. The regulations are 310 CMR 10.02 10.04 10.25 25, 10.32, 10.34, and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. The land is described as map 19, lot 20_2, otherwise known as 600 PMSA Road.

Undertain a motion to wave the reading.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

We'll call a vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes. Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Is I think David, there you are. So, David, you have the floor and DCTV. If David wishes to share screen, please give him permission to share.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, members of the commission. I'm Dave Ven representing the Bellows family for this property. Um, if I may screen share, you have my permission.

I have two devices, so he might not have picked the right one.

Yeah. I never know which one you want us to allow screen share.

The one that has no initials after my name.

Okay. So, DCTV, it's the one that just says Dave Devna, not Dave Devna on PE.

Copy that. I've given co-host to both.

Uh Dave, so give it a shot and just let me know if you have any trouble.

Uh yeah, just give me one moment. I seem to have lost my attachment.

It won't take me long. But while I'm finding it, um I'll begin by just saying that uh the commission, we've presented to the commission uh several times and um we started off with a pier uh that was located um sort of in the channel, if you will. And uh the Harvard Master, let me see. Is that popping up now? Let me see.

No, not yet. Okay.

Well, why does it not want to do? Okay.

It may be coming up now.

Terrific.

Yes.

Okay. Um, so when we first presented the project, we had a pileup supported residential pier coming off of the the point in this location where my cursor is. Um, it was the shortest pier and we had it ending in fairly deep water and the the hopper master uh took issue with it sticking too far into the channel. Um at that time um there was a recommendation to evaluate moving it over towards where the house is located

on the eastern side of the property. But one of the keys was uh there was a line drawn uh by the harbor master. What's off, not shown on this is the page continues and there's another point over here and when you draw a line from point to point, land mass to land mass, uh basically you create this cove and he wanted the key was he wanted it inside of that line. So we did move uh the

design over to this location where the path ends, but it ended up being a much longer pier coming out all the way out to this point where my cursor is ending.

We actually submitted that revised plan and uh then um uh conservation staff went out and looked at the site and looked at that location and thought it was too much of an impact to the resource areas because of the uh the distance that it needs to travel out into the waterway. It literally was two and a half times the size. So we then uh went back and re-evaluated and we came

up with the compromise which is instead of coming out into the the center of where the bottleneck channel uh ends over here, we're inside the line and we have uh a third location that we submitted a couple of months ago uh showing this and we tweaked it even more so so that the boat itself which will be resting on the seaweed side uh will be inside this this uh thick line that you

see here. this dash line. So, this is the balance where we feel we'll have enough water for the vessel to dock at the pier. Uh the pier will have lighting um reflectors and whatnot to uh help any boers that may be coming in uh towards the nightfall. Um and and we feel this is the compromise between the three. Um so I I'll keep it short. We do have a D file number. Um, this has been reviewed

by Division Marine Fisheries, Natural Heritage, and uh, pretty much everybody.

Um, and we're hoping to uh, get an approval this evening for what you see on paper.

Thank you very much, David. Eduardo, I'd like to hear staff's comments regarding this application.

Uh, yes. So, as Dave was saying, uh, and as the commission has probably seen over the last couple of months, uh, we gotten several iterations of, uh, this plan, uh, showing the dock in a couple of different locations. Um uh essentially um the third location that Dave showed here is showing here on the plan uh both supports um essentially our concerns and any doc m um the doc master I believe that's name

master yes thank you um the har any harbor master concerns about the dock location. So this kind of both um satisfies our concerns in terms of the resource areas as well as any harbor master concerns regarding the both the length of the dock and how far the dock is going into the uh tidal area of the Slokum's River there.

Um so given that uh we're recommending a standard order of conditions as per the revised plan dated March 2nd, 2026 uh to be issued with the following modifications.

Special condition 41. The outboard end of the float shall not extend beyond the uh negative 6.1 MSL bometric contour and shall be identified with reflective indication or lighting uh solar powered for navigational safety and ident identification.

Special condition 42. Support piles will directly display shellfish habitat and piles may cause further indirect impacts that negatively affect bordering shellfish habitat. The applicant shall make payments of $1,000 to the town's shellfish procurement fund through the harvin master shellfish/selffish warden to offset procurement offset 400 square feet of both direct and indirect impacts to the identified shellfish

habitat.

Uh, special condition 43. There shall be no discharge of leeches from any piles used for dock or float supportage.

Special condition 44, there shall be no prop judging of any of the river bottom relative to all vessels using the structure at any time. And special condition 45, any activities requiring a barge shall be restricted to two hours before and after high tide to prevent barge grounding and shellfish habitat.

Shelf uh special condition 46.

Appropriate containment measures. Uh example, floating boom with weighted silk curtain to the bottom shall be deployed during construction activity to prevent siltation in the marine environments. Special condition 47.

Uh a time of year restriction of November 1st to March 31st shall be employed to avoid impacts to state listed species and their habitats.

Special condition 48. NHGSB condition.

this work for 5 years from the date of issuance of the final order. Work may complete be completed at any time during this 5-year period in compliance with the conditions herein. Thereafter, the applicant must refile with NHSP pursuant to the Massachusetts Environment um endangered species act. Upon filing for renewal, extension or amendment of the orders of conditions, the applicant

shall contact NHSP for written response regarding impacts to the resource area habitat of state listed wildlife.

And special condition 49 to reiterate MADP general condition 10 of the final order conditions. It is required that a sign shall be displayed at the site not less than two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection or MADP file number 015-2808.

Thank you, Eduardo. Uh David, if you wouldn't mind, please stop sharing the screen so I can see our folks in the audience. Thank you. Does any commissioner have any questions?

Is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak on this proposal?

I don't see anyone. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion on uh D file 15-2808 um to issue a standard order of conditions as per the revised plan dated uh March 2nd, 2026 with the modifications of special conditions 41 through 49 as read into the record by Eduardo.

I'll move.

Second. We have a seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

We now move to the sixth. Do we have a a D file number on number six?

Uh, yes. It's uh 015-2823.

Thank you.

We have a U final public hearing on D file 15-2823, excuse me, NOI 2612 from 57 NAN Avenue LLC, Carob David for for repairing the existing slope stone rip wrap seaw wall in the same footprint within land subject to coastal storm flowage and within the 100 ft buffer zone to Coastal Bank. The regulations 310 CMR 10.02 10.30 section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. It's on land described as map 88

lot 55. It's otherwise known as 57 Avenue. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

Move.

Second.

Seconded motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes. Megan, yes.

Richard, if my vote is yes, that motion passes unanimously.

And David, you've got the floor again, so it is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, screen share.

Yes. Yes, you may.

So, for the record, I'm Dave Deven from Schneider Leone. I represent the property owners. This project is located at 57 Nshon Avenue. It is a seaw wall repair. The uh property is 38,000 square ft in size. It contains a single family dwelling which was constructed circa 1880. According to the assessor's records, uh the site's completely developed with dwelling and manicured lawn areas throughout. It's bordered

along Budget's Bay uh with a stone rip wrap seaw wall along its entire length which matches matches up with a seaw wall on the properties to the north and to the south which are 61 and 53 Nonf.

Um so this project is uh to basically reassemble and rebuild the wall within the same footprint. Um the left side of the page shows uh wash outs that have occurred from the wall. You have we have stones and boulders falling out from the wall in several locations. The wall to the south has been rebuilt in the past.

Same with the one to the north. Uh the proposal is to continue um the uh baseline of or the the slope bottom slope of the wall to the south and put a uh consistent curvature to match up with the wall to the north as you see on the right side of the page. The top of the wall will have a capstone that matches the wall to the uh south. It will begin

at that point construction and work its way all the way to the north at which point it actually will in elevation transition down to the wall in the north which is slightly lower than the abuing property to the south. We're well above the mean high water line uh and most of of the work. Uh this will help restore and open up uh some uh beach in front of of the wall that is now occupied by some

of the slumping wall. All of the work will occur from the top uh lawn area.

Access will come along the southerntherly property boundary from uh Shaun a uh towards the south probably so we can avoid the septic system uh which is uh quite large and located parallel to the road. So, they'll access along this boundary and then work their way uh beginning at the uh south end, working their way to the north end, and then backing out of the site. Upon completion

of the work, uh they intend to lay down sod as I believe they have a wedding event planned for mid to late June.

Uh we have a D file number. There were no comments. It has been reviewed by division beneficiaries. Uh, I didn't see any adverse comments on their memo as well. So, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, David. Uh, Eduardo, please.

Comments from staff.

Uh, yes. So, as Dave was mentioning, um, so the seaw wall, so the main the main purpose of this filing is to kind of match up the seaw wall with the both the northern parcel and the southern parcel. Um, currently there are several rocks uh that are have been dislodged from the seaw wall there. And so I believe the applicant just wants to essentially maintain uh the seaw wall they have

right now and kind of have it lined up with what both the southern uh parcel of this and the northern parcel um kind of looks like. Um, so we did get, as Dave mentioned, we did get a comment letter from DMF. Um, just basic uh conditions in in that regard. Um so we're recommending um the issuance of a standard order of conditions per the plan dated March 13, 2026 u with the following additions um/modifications

including the comments from uh DMF. Uh so special condition 41 to read all work shall be conducted from the landside should should there be an unexpected need to work from the wateride via barge. The following shall be required.

A a floating boom with weighted silk curtain shall be deployed to isolate any barge activity from the surrounding marine environment. B there shall be no grounding to the barge at any time.

and special condition 42 to read the reconstructed seaw wall shall be limited to the same footprint as the existing permitted structure or placed land word thereof. No expansion of this of the footprint into tidal waters of the Commonwealth shall be permitted as any such expansion will result in the permanent loss of mass shellfish habitat. Special condition 43. All construction activi activity including

the staging of materials and equipment and equipment transit to and from the construction site shall be a shall avoid intertitle habitat to the great ex greatest extent practical to the maximum extent possible. All work shall be conducted from the upland portion of the project site to minimize impacts and prevent compaction of sedimentation within mapped shellfish habitat.

Special condition 44, any work required within the intertitle zone shall be limited to periods of low tide and shall be conducted in the dry. And special condition 45, all landbased construction equipment shall be prohibited from being refueled on site. If on-site refueling is deemed necessary, the applicant shall provide adequate spill containment and cleanup materials at all times during

construction to minimize the risk of fuel impacts to adjacent sensitive resource areas.

Thank you.

Um, commissioners, any questions either of applicants engineer Mr. Dignant or Eduardo?

Is there anyone in the audience this evening that wants to speak on this application?

I don't see anybody. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Commissioners, based upon the presentation and materials that have been submitted and staff's recommendation, uh I will entertain a motion to issue um a standard order of conditions on D file 15-2823 with the special conditions and modifications read into the record by Eduardo.

moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you, David. Uh, this moves us on to items for discussion. I don't see any bills or discussion items or enforcement issues. Um, I have nothing more to add to the meeting. Eduardos or anything that you want to bring before the meeting?

Um, no, I don't have anything.

Does any other commissioner have anything they want to bring before the meeting?

Yes, if I could, Mr. Chairman.

Um, as we had done with Michael Riley, most of the commissioners here don't remember him at all, but Mark is going to be retiring or he has retired. And I was wondering if we could consider maybe getting together with him and his wife if you agree and maybe our wives. Uh, but we'll keep it small and sweet sometime in June.

Dinner, wish him well. And I think it would be a lot of fun then. So I thought I would broach that idea across all of you and see what you have to say and think and if you're in agreement then maybe we could narrow this down sometime for mid June the beginning of June.

Love it. Yes.

I think it's appropriate. I really do.

So yeah, I'll make myself available.

Absolutely. Um, May is hell for me. I don't know what it is for you guys, but why don't we bring this up at the maybe mid May, uh, end of May and we could pick a time, a place which is convenient for all and, uh, let's see what we could put together to wish Mark a bon voage.

Absolutely. I think that's a great idea.

Okay, agreed. I will remind you all I've written it down in my very brief calendar but if we could do it as I said uh naturally Eduardo please you're part of this also of course let's see what we can do okay so I'll make notation and let's see if you can all look at your schedules in advance and find that we can all get a date that we can all agree upon

and we're not limited to a Tuesday night so Please.

I was hoping it would I was hoping it would be Tuesday night.

Yeah. No.

Yeah. Yeah. Just so you know. I mean, so it's not like we're forced to do it on a on a Tuesday night. If there's a better time and date, I mean, let's pick that. Should be fun for everybody.

I agree. I agree. And uh that's it. I'm done.

All right, Richard. Thank you. That was important.

Thank you.

Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second.

Have a seconded motion. Roll call vote.

Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes. My vote is yes. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you for coming. It was a good meeting. A lot was done.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Have a good night, Mike. Thank you, Eduardo.

Thank you. Have a good night.