Conservation Commission Meeting - August 18, 2026

Good evening everyone. I'm convening the Tuesday, August 18, 2026 meeting of the Dartmouth Conservation Commission. Uh we do have a quorum this evening. Uh right now we have a quorum of four. So any votes this evening will require unanimous vote in order uh to be approved.

We are conducting this meeting um by remote option and that's because Governor Healey back in uh March of 2025 extended the remote hybrid option for municipalities through June 30, 2027.

Our hearings are uh accessible by the public. There's a chat room. There's a raise your hand feature.

wave your hand if that doesn't work and you will be recognized.

Um, I would ask that if you're not speaking, please keep your microphone muted. Uh, that means a lot to the people who are presenting because sometimes extraneous noises can disrupt them.

Um, that being said, if you want to share your screen, please let me know and I will so alert DCTV.

Our first items on the agenda are administrative and the first is to uh accept the minutes of June 23, 2026 and July 7, 2026.

I have a motion to that effect. So second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Uh Jennifer and Eduardo, now's the time for any staff updates unless you want to defer.

Um we could defer to the end of the meeting. We just have a couple of quick ones.

Okay. So, we're moving on to our wetland sitec inspections on determinations and other business. And what we have is the um wetland site inspection for 79 Highland Avenue. Uh there were some perk tests done there and uh we could have staff's observation as well as a recommendation please.

Uh yes. Um I'm going to share my screen here just so the commission can take a look at the parcels that were also we took a look at.

Yes, DCTV will allow you to share screen please.

Let's see here.

Okay, can everyone see that?

Yes, I can. Yes.

Okay. So, this is 79 Highland Avenue.

Uh, this is one of the perk test locations. So Jennifer and I went out there do a site visit and the ab budding parcel uh which does not belong to 79 but is rather a part of 73 does um border lake Nokachoke here uh to the east. However, the lake it the lakes's buffer zone and associated flood zone uh does not encumber uh 79 Highland Avenue. Um nor do any nor are

there any other uh related uh buffer zones um that encumber 79 Highland uh or any other areas under conservation jurisdiction. Um, so we're recommending uh the commission to approve um the lack thereof uh that that wetland line.

What was the date of your site inspection?

Um, excuse me.

Believe, let me check my calendar here.

One second.

believe it was last Wednesday.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Jennifer.

Last Tuesday's Sorry. I was just pulling up my calendar too.

Yeah. Um, I think I did that one earlier in the week.

Yeah, that was on Monday the 10th.

Monday the 10th. Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Um commissioners who have questions, now's the time.

I don't see any. So, at this point, I would entertain a motion uh to approve the wetlands line as um determined on the site visit of August 10, 2026 for um 79 Highland Avenue.

So, move second.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

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

And now we're moving on to a wetland site inspection for 233 Smith Neck Road. Again, this was um as a result of a perk test. So again, staff's comments and recommendations, please.

Um I noticed this uh last minute, but there's and there was actually a typo on the agenda. Uh there is no 233 Smith Neck Road. It's actually 223 Smith Neck Road.

223.

223. Correct. Yep.

Uh so this is the parcel in question. Uh sits right alongside Smith and Ray Drive. Uh and so once again, there were no other there were no wetlands or any other areas or under conservation jurisdiction on the parcel. Um so we're recommending uh the commission um approve that with line and again as previously the date of the site inspection that one was last Friday I believe. So that would be August 14th

if I'm not mistaken.

All right.

So does any commissioner have any questions regarding staff's recommendation for 223 Smith Neck Road?

I don't see any. I entertain a motion to approve the wetlands line determined by the um at the site visit on August 14, 2026.

So move.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Uh that brings us to our public hearings and um as you know I I have to recuse myself from the first but since they've asked for a continuence um I I really have not voted on anything for the first one and I probably shouldn't even vote for the continuence.

Um, and we only have three. So, that's a dilemma.

Well, I I will restate the fact that I've recused myself from voting on the decision uh whether to grant the relief sought. Uh but I will vote in terms of the motion to continue. So this is a continued public hearing NOI file 15-2825 zero state road. It's map 53 lot 174 lot 2 and lot 24 respectively. The owner is Morgan Blum and the representative is Brandon Brandon Faniff uh Ecosystems

Solutions Inc. and David Potter Pair Corp. Uh the project is the construction of a commercial automobile dealership with associated parking, grading, landscaping and storm water infrastructure.

The uh areas involving our jurisdiction is 100 ft buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland BVW and the regulations are 310 CMR 10.02 10.55 as well as section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth's bylaws. Um, there has been a request made by applicant to continue this public hearing until our first meeting in September, which is September 1st 2026.

Is there any discussion regarding that?

I don't see any. If there's anyone in the audience that wanted to be heard this evening on this matter, uh, you certainly can be heard. Um, and if the motion for continuence is granted, you will be able to uh be heard at the September 1st hearing. Is there anyone in the audience?

Again, I don't see anyone.

So, commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to continue uh this public hearing until September 1, 2026 at 7 p.m.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. And that's a vote limited to this. So that motion carries unanimously. And this matter is continued until September 1, 2026 at 700 p.m.

Our second matter is a uh continued public hearing on file 15-2827 810 State Road. It's map 163 lot 31 32 and 35.

Uh the owner is Kevin Maduros and the representative is uh Kevin Silva SNR. um engineering I'm sorry SNK Engineering LLC. The project is the construction of a multifamily apartment complex with associated parking, grading, landscaping and storm water infrastructure.

Our jurisdiction is involves the 100 ft buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland BVW and the applicable regulations are 310 CMR 10.02 02 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Don bylaws. May I have motion to wave the reading, please?

No.

Second.

Second.

We have a second motion. Roll call vote.

James, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Is there someone here this evening that wants to speak on behalf of the proposal? Uh Kevin Maderas. Um Frisco.

Good evening, Kevin.

Hey, good night. Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and board. Um I was hoping for a vote tonight. Uh I received a letter from peer review Gus Repos that stated that uh my engineer had addressed all of his comments. Uh we received some last minute comments from DPW this afternoon.

Uh and after speaking to my engineer, he states that there there are minor revisions that need to be made. Um so I was hoping for a vote conditioned on those minor revisions uh being made to the PL to the NOI plan.

What are the revisions that the uh DPW was looking for?

I believe there's some it's actually the storm water management plan. I I correct myself. Uh there are calculations. I guess there's uh there's a misinterpretation on the calcul storm water.

Okay.

Um Jennifer, I'd certainly welcome hearing staff's comments on this application.

Yeah. Um so I think unfortunately um we're not at the point where I would be comfortable recommending the commission sign off on this project quite yet.

There's another round of revisions to be made. Um hopefully this will be the last one. Um as I explained to Mr. from Maderas through emails. Um the peerreview letter from Mr. Reposo um should have stated that there were outstanding comments from DPW that needed to be addressed. He did reissue a letter to that effect uh which I forwarded to Mr. Maderos last week uh on Friday. And then um DPW was not able to

issue their comments until the DPW director reviewed them and he was away on vacation. He's returned. He reviewed them. We issued them this afternoon.

Those comments in the opinion of the DPW are significant enough that we should wait to uh vote and close the hearing.

Um there's both comments on the plan set and comment in the drainage analysis or the storm water report. Um and in their opinion are significant enough that we should be waiting um until those revisions have been made. Um, and I I just don't see any reason why those shouldn't be able to be um, made in the next week or so so that they can be in for the September 1st meeting.

I just have a real quick question. I mean, I know that DPW can be very busy, but um, how long did they have the plans they reviewed?

I I upload the portal on August 7th. So, they All right. So, it's not that long. So, the vacation definitely could have come into play um with the ability to sign off. I Okay, thank you for that. I just wanted to make sure I I didn't know if they were re, you know, had this plan set and these calculations for over a month and they haven't they've had it for a few weeks.

But, Mr. Chairman, this this is this is the third revision. Now, with this last comment, it this would now be a fourth revision. So they're just continuously finding additional matters and continuing uh this this hearing. So um I just feel that it being the fourth revision, you know, it's something minute that I think can be conditioned upon a vote.

Well, we we rarely we rarely rarely rarely we've done it once in the 20 some odd years I've been on this commission.

Um given an order of conditions that had one of the conditions revisions to the plans we're voting on. So that's a if you know I understand your your comment is certainly something that I respect.

Um, has DPW's comments really gone to are they significant or insignificant?

But nevertheless, they have to be addressed in order for our staff to feel comfortable in recommending and then recommending with conditions. So, at this point, and I understand the frustration of having to amend this four times, and I can't understand why uh DPW would come up with new things in in the plan they've already reviewed, but if there were changes to the plan, then I understand why they come up with new

things. So, I I haven't been privy to that back and forth and I I don't want to, you know, I can't really cast any aspersions one way or the other when it comes to that. But I would suspect that if what they're looking for today is addressed, there should be no further comments from DPW other than they're satisfied. And if they have other comments, then I would respectfully request that the DPW

personnel attend the meeting and explain why they weren't put in the letter that was sent today.

Yeah. So, some of these are outstanding comments from prior reviews and and they indicate that on the plan and in the drainage report, it says as previously noted, as previously requested. So, these are things that still haven't been addressed.

Okay, that's fair enough. So, so, uh, but in defense of my engineer, they're minor notations, uh, in the columns. Um, it doesn't affect the plan. It's not changing the plan. It's just the notations in in the margins.

Respectfully, I disagree. Some of the for instance, one of the items is the catch basin inlet great capacities.

Those calculations haven't been provided. They've been requested more than once. they've been requested in each revision round. Um, and that demonstrates whether the grates, the inlets have the capacity to handle the storm water flows that are being directed to them. The engineer needs to see those because we have a responsibility to the town to make sure that the storm water system is going to function as designed.

I mean, I I have to say if there was a request made that went unressed, quite frankly, it's really not up to your engineer to determine the significance of it. They have to work that out with DPW. We can't do it unilaterally and just ignore a DPW request. And if it if it comes down to whether or not a particular component of storm water is going to be sufficient, that is that is not insignificant. Um

insignificant would be, you know, you didn't put down the number of trees you're going to plant here. They're shown on the plan, but it's not in the column. I mean, that I think would be something you could say, well, it's shown in the drawing. and it's just not in the column. But, uh, this this goes beyond that. This is something that I I I would respectfully think that your engineer should probably go see the

folks at DBW and show what they proposed to to do and make sure that they get DPW to agree. Um, and and frankly, it should be limited to the scope of the letter that we re received today.

uh DPW should not in unless there's other changes to the plan. If all you do is respond to what DPW said, then I would walk my proposal over to them and obviously it goes into the portal as well, but I would walk it over to them before I did that and say, "Can you take a look at this? Is this going to address is this going to be satisfactory to address your concerns? If not, go back

to the drawing board and do because if they still have problems, it's going to come back for us to say we can't recommend it and then we're in a conundrum here. Um because then we'd be voting against our own experts, town experts telling us we still think there's an issue that needs to be addressed. I think that would be not really prudent on our part to just disregard what DPW is asking for. And

frankly, I'm a little surprised that the others issues weren't addressed if the DPW um previous hadn't been addressed.

um that that that is something I would say should have been done by the engineer because even if you disagree with DPW the job is to convince them that they're wrong so they can remove it and say we're satisfied um not to if they don't they say we're not satisfied and we have to make the decision it's probably not going to be a decision you want to live with.

Okay.

I just want to be upfront with you because I mean they are our experts.

It's like if you came said you wanted to put a dock in and Mr. Melo wasn't able to give us a you know I could agree with this the chances of getting that through this commission would be slim. Um but anyway I digressed a little bit. Do you think they can do that by in time for our September 1st meeting because that's the next meeting of our commission. I'm I'm hoping so.

Okay. I would say, you know, I I'm sure that if your engineer contacted Who wrote the letter, by the who signed the letter?

Paul Dart.

Okay. If your engineer contacted Mr. do art. I'm sure they can get together very quickly and get to the point where DPW can say we are satisfied and then we'll have an amended plan which we can vote on September 1st that won't have a negative comment from DPW.

Okay.

So, we would need those submitted or or uploaded. Uh, we don't need hard copies until after the commission gives a decision because Gus's review is complete. Um, but for Paul's review, we would need them electronically uploaded by the 25th, so next Tuesday. Um, in order for to give him enough time to review it before our meeting the following Tuesday.

Okay, we'll do that.

Yeah. And I and I would just say they might want to walk over there and just meet with them before you just upload it. I mean, it's not a bad idea. I find that sometimes you can have a dialogue and things go a lot quicker. Um, obviously the proper protocol is to put it in the portal.

Okay.

But if you're trying to get a one and done, that might help you. Your engineer might might be able to have a dialogue with Paul and sort out what the cons not only what the concerns are, but sort out what the revision will be.

Okay, we'll do that.

Okay. Does any commissioner have any questions?

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

Um, seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to continue um file number 15-2827 until our next meeting on September 1, 2026 at 700 p.m. This will allow the applicant and the applicant's engineer to address the concerns that were articulated in DPW letter um submitted this afternoon. So second.

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

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Our third uh continued public hearing, NOI file 15-2830, Zero Gulf Road, map 35, lot 23 and one.

And the owner is Margaret uh McGetric, a revocable trust. The representative is Brandon Barry, Merurl Engineer and Land Surveyors. And this is a project uh for the alteration and extension of an existing gravel driveway, gravel access road, excuse me. Installation of utilities and construction of a single family home on the upland portion of the parcel with 483 square ft of wetland take related to a

wetland crossing for the driveway and 1,000 square ft of wetland replication.

uh our jurisdiction is due to the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland BVW and land subject to coastal storm flowage. The regulations involved are uh 310 CMR 10.02 10.04 10.55 as well as section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth's bylaw. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

Second back.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Is someone here this evening to speak on behalf of the applicant or the applicant?

Uh, so just Mike, I had a conversation with the engineer this afternoon um to go over u the revised calculations that they sent in. If you remember at the last meeting um we had some concerns about uh how the compensatory flood storage was shown on the plan at the different elevations.

Um that seems to have been addressed. Um as he and I were going through the plan set, there were some other comments um that I asked them to uh make sure to address as well. and um they've asked to continue to September 1st in order to submit those revisions all in one like encapsulate it all together. Um, so just adding a little bit more clarity for things like the limit of disturbance um

is not shown on the plan and it's a pretty big lot um with a lot of area that's currently not um shown to be disturbed and I just want to make sure it's it's clear to the contractor and the homeowner that there is a limit of disturbance because there's a lot of the property that falls in jurisdiction. Um, and then, uh, in the wetland replication sheet, there's not a lot of information

about the soils. There's about the plantings, but not about how to establish the soils. Um, and then in the stream diversion uh, sheet, there's um, a good profile of what the roadway layout and the utilities will look like and the box covert, but it doesn't really get into um, how the stream will be diverted. Um and so we we walked and or not walked, we talked through that uh this afternoon. Um and he's going to

incorporate that into the plan. Um so that it's a little more clear. Um and that way when the contractors out there actually doing the construction work, there won't be any surprises to us. And how that's a good idea. That's a very good idea.

Hopefully that's the idea.

Well, no. I mean, yeah, I think that may well prevent some oops moments, right?

So, I think that's a good idea. Um, does any commissioner have any questions about the recommendation?

If there's anyone in the audience that wants to be heard on this matter, you certainly have the right to be heard tonight, but we're going to vote on whether to continue this until our September 1st meeting. And if we do continue it until the September 1st meeting, you'll have an opportunity to speak at that meeting.

I don't see anybody clamoring to speak.

So, commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to continue public hearing file 15-2830 until our September 1st meeting. Uh, so at September 1, 2026 at 7 p.m.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Our final public hearing this evening is a new public hearing. It's on file 15-2832 UMass Dartmouth, 285 Old Westport Road, Map 49, Lot 19. Owner Jeffrey Martin.

The representative is Christopher Garcia, uh, GGD Consulting Engineers, Inc. The project is for the construction of three basketball courts, the expansion of an existing parking lot with associated grading and storm water.

It's on the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth campus. It's located within the 100 ft buffer zone of an isolated vegetated wetland, bordering vegetated wetland and their associated 100 ft buffer zone. Uh our jurisdiction is due to the 100 ft buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland BVW and the 100 ft buffer zone to an isolated wetland. Um the applicable regulations in this case 310 CMR 10.02 10.0 04 and 10.55

as well as section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That passes unanimously.

Is there someone here this evening that would like to speak on behalf of the applicant?

Yes. Hi. Um I don't know if I can get my video to work. Um my name is Nathan Ketchel. I am with GGG uh consulting engineers. Um representing the project for tonight. Uh Chris Garcia was not available. Um if it's possible, I'd like to share my screen.

DCTV, please let Mr. Ketchel share his screen.

Mr. Ketchel, you should have permissions to do both. You can turn your camera on as well if you would like.

Oh, cool. I prefer not to. Uh, but I could do that. Um, all right, that's better. Uh, so good evening again, uh, Nathan Kedral, uh, with GGD Consulting Engineers, uh, representing the University of Dartmouth, uh, on a a few projects, uh, that they have going on.

Um mainly what they're looking to do is uh create three recreational basketball courts. These are not meant to be uh used for any kind of collegic um uh sports programs but for students to um use during their downtime on campus. And hopefully you're able to see this is the locust plan of the campus. Uh it's approximately 705 acres in size I believe. And uh as I mentioned um we're

going to be uh or we're proposing to do this work um on the southern half of Ring Road on the campus and then also towards the east uh towards the Oak I believe it's Oak Glenn uh or Oak Dale uh dormatory buildings. Um so this is kind of the overview. We're working down in this area. um some of it near their existing sports facilities which are meant for uh competitive play. However, these are recreational. Um

what I will do that is not the page I expected.

What I will start with is um actually I'm going to go to um a few of these and actually as I mentioned there were also a parking expansion uh that's proposed to uh increase um parking on this end of the campus. Um, currently, uh, in these parking areas there are, um, excuse me as I find these numbers, there are approximately 326 existing parking spaces. Uh, and that will be, uh, increased to 377.

Um, which this is the area where the proposed parking spaces um are being added. Just to the south towards Ring Road uh is one of the proposed courts.

Um the previous cover associated with the parking lot is approximately 20,000.

Um and then an additional 10,500 associated with this court and uh walkways to Ring Road. This area is the one where um we are proposing to uh fill a portion of the isolated vegetated wetland. Um I believe that's approximately 470 square feet to be um filled to allow for grading um uh at the southern edge of this parking lot uh with a proposed replication of 740 square ft which would be in the westerly

direction. Um, more or less we're maintaining with the with the revised limit of the resource area a 25- ft buffer uh with some minor grading work um to occur um in there. Um as I stated this to the south is one of the u three basketball courts. Um they are also subject to uh the 100 foot buffer associated with um the K series isolated vegetated wetland and the um portion of

the M series as you um uh kind of come back up to the north.

Um to the south of all this, there is no um resource area associated with this, but there is another court that is proposed just to the north of their tennis courts. Um this court is larger. It's going to with the uh court and the associated new walkways approximately 14,000 um square feet uh and will include um a small u uh surface infiltration pond um to mitigate um or attenuate um runoff

that's um coming from the court and um uh coming towards it to the north.

We also have uh as part of the parking expansion um a handful of of new headin parking spaces um which will be treated and attenuated by um a bio retention uh ring garden um to the south and west of those new parking spaces as well. The university currently has um dumpsters that are located within the um 100 ft buffer zone. Um uh they are sitting I believe on grass or on the uh adjacent pavement.

And then we have our our last um our last court which this is currently developed as part of a parking lot for the dormitories that are located just to the north. Um so the dorm would be up in this area here and then there's um kind of a terracing of um parking spaces that come down. Uh the power lines are right over here with the uh um electrical substation here. So in this portion of

the campus the the university uh feels that there is adequate parking. So what they would like to do um is remove the existing curbing uh the buminous uh and other pertinances associated with the parking and pull them back uh so that the new limit of the parking is um almost mid-length um actually a little tiny bit more um of what the existing parking lot is. and from there uh create

one more um recreational basketball court for um students to utilize. Um this this court will be uh on three sides surrounded uh with a a perimeter drain which will tie into the existing uh storm water system that's um uh currently in this portion of the campus.

And there's a a large um detention pond um down here that these two outfalls are are flowing into. Um overall um with this project uh while we're cutting some impervious cover in in this area uh with the parking lot but overall we are looking at approximately uh 45,900 square ft of uh increased impervious cover which is um in terms of storm water being mitigated by um like I had

said before the bio retention cell um or cells uh at these parking spaces, an underground detention system in this parking lot um on this sheet as well as uh this surface infiltration pond over here. Um so with those controls in place, the each of the subcatchment areas um do have a reduction in overall uh runoff rates. Uh so this would represent a a betterment to the campus and the uh downstream um uh areas in town.

Thank you. Does that conclude your presentation?

It does.

Thank you very much.

Um, Jennifer, I'd be very curious to hear staff's comments on this proposal.

Sure. Um, so I think GGD has done a great job of incorporating some of our comments from the initial site visit or the majority of our comments is especially with regard to storm water improvements. They're really um off of some of these older parking areas, the storm water was lacking and so offering some filtration before it gets to the wetland resource areas is a huge improvement. So appreciate you guys

taking the time to make those additions.

um and work that into the design. Um my understanding is that there were some um so this has a peer review um because it is a larger site that requires storm water management um and DPW engineering is reviewing it as well. My understanding is that the um consultant had some outstanding items um that they had requested as far as the calculations that uh weren't submitted prior to him

heading out of town. Um he's he's going to be out of town unfortunately for a few weeks. I know we had talked about this um separately so that you were aware of the timeline, but um he's going to be out of town until um almost the middle of September now. So, um he's he will look at the revisions and the the additional um submitts that he needed while he's away. Um but it just is

probably going to take a little bit longer than it normally does.

Um any commissioner have any questions on this project?

I don't see any. Is there anyone here this evening that wants to speak on this project other other than Nathan?

Uh I don't see any. Um I don't know what our second meeting in September's date is. Jennifer, if you have that.

Yeah, I believe it's the 15th. Let me check real quick.

Yeah, it's the 15th.

Okay. Commissioners, um you heard the presentation. And you heard staff's comments.

It would seem appropriate um to continue this matter to enable our storm water consultant the DPW to put their comments in to the applicants engineer and then for those comments either to be incorporated into a revision or to be satisfied. Um, so I'll entertain a motion to continue this matter until September 15, 2026 at 700 p.m.

Second.

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

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, that now we're moving on to other items for discussion. And we do have some uh orders and notices of violation, but there might be some other issues, Jennifer, that you and Eduardo want to bring up. I know we deferred from when we usually bring those up, so the floor is yours.

Thank you. Um, so Eduardo and I have been busy the last uh few days dealing with an office reset, which is a great thing. Uh so uh if you have time to come by in the next couple of weeks, hopefully you'll notice uh some some big changes. We're trying to make the space a little more functional and clear out a lot of extra paper that we've been storing for a long time. Um so we we

just were working through that um with some furniture being installed especially before the new admin person comes on. Um and then leading into that we have interviews this week. Uh it'll be the interview panel will be um Eduardo, myself, and Melanie Perry from the town administrator's office or the select board's office. Um and we have a handful of candidates for the um part-time admin role. So um we finish

those interviews next Monday and hopefully we'll um have someone out of out of those applicants that we're um wanting to move forward with and we'll keep you guys updated. Um, and then just lastly, um, Mike, Liz, and I did go through um we we had a great response to our request for, um, application submitts for the commissioner vacancy. Um, we're still working through that process.

We've done all the interviews, but we're still wrapping up um, kind of through all the candidates that we had, which one uh, we want to move forward for as a recommendation to the commission. Um, so we'll plan to bring that forward on the September 1st agenda. Um, so that the commission can vote on making a recommendation to the select board for appointment. Um, but the great news is

we we had a great response and um, some really great candidates. So, um, this is a a good problem to have.

It was it was very very very surprising in a good way. And um I will say kudos go out to and I keep forgetting her name. I apologize but boy a really great job of getting the word out in this and the town hall did a great job uh in that respect and I think it shows. uh we had a lot of applicants to interview and it's only it's just too bad that we only

have one well I shouldn't say this because we're all here but you know it would have been nice if we had uh the ability to have alternates you know alternates would have given us a chance to select more of these highly qualified applicants it really was a good good panel was yeah So, so that'll be on the September 1st agenda. And then the only other item I have um is Eduardo and I

will be participating in the fourth and final round of water quality sampling with the health department um this Friday. Um so that'll wrap up our our sampling in the Sloum River for um this is year two um of some additional sampling that was done to um investigate and compare water quality from previous rounds of study that were done. I believe well over a decade ago.

Thank you. So now we can move on to our in orders uh enforcement orders and notices.

Sure. So I just wanted to provide um a couple of updates on uh two of our enforcement orders that had been uh deferred to town council. um town council prepared um some motions for temporary injunctions um and those were approved um by the court. So um both of these properties that are listed 700 Old Fall River Road which is the Leair property and 1342 North Hicksville Road which is the Reese property. Um

these are as the commission is well aware these are some enforcement orders that have been going on for quite some time. Um and um it's it's a great step in the right direction u for both of these. At this point, town council has asked me to now with these temporary injunctions in place um to work with them to try and get some uh we've had site visits at both since the injunctions were issued and now

we're hoping that both parties will move forward with um hiring a wetland scientist and coming up with a restoration plan. um that would be, you know, preferred over further um court action or further legal action. So, that's where we are right now. I just wanted to give you all updates on on both of those because I know those are ones that have been um we've been trying to chip away at for a long time.

Sounds positive. It sounds like progress has been made. So, that's the good news.

No.

Um, anything else, Eduardo, that you'd want to add?

You don't have to, but I just ask I'm going to give you that that opportunity.

No, I don't have anything else to add uh to that.

Okay. Uh, is any commissioner have anything they want to bring up at tonight's meeting?

I don't see any. So, at this juncture, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.

So move. Second. Second.

We have a seconded motion. We'll do a roll call vote. Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Donald, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you everyone. Thank you for your attendance and your attention. Have a good evening.