Conservation Commission Meeting - December 9, 2025

It's 7 o'clock and we have a full complement of all commissioners.

So, I will call to order the meeting for uh December 9, 2025 of the Dartmouth Conservation Commission.

On March 28th, 2025, Governor Healey uh signed a further extension of the hybrid remote uh meeting option for municipalities.

Uh that extension goes through June 30, 2027. Our meeting this evening is under those provisions and we do allow uh public participation through the raise your hand feature or wave your hand. Um, I would only ask that if you're not speaking to please keep your microphone muted so that it uh there's no ambient noise that would interfere with somebody's presentation.

Tonight's meeting uh was duly uh noticed and posted Dartmouth according to the town of Dartmouth bylaws and state law.

Uh I will tell you we do have a full complement of seven commissioners which means that any affirmative vote will require four out of seven.

Uh that being said, we'll move to our administrative items and the first is the approval of the November 5, 2025 minutes. I have a motion to that effect.

So moved.

Second. Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

We'll have a roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Matt, my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. The second administrative item is the approval of the field trip report for November 25, 2025. I'll have a motion to that effect, please.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Matt, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Uh as of the advertisement date uh there were no uh minutes to uh be delivered. So we will not uh entertain a motion to receive the November 25, 2025 uh minutes. That means we'll move right on to our sole field trip report and that is a request for of a com certificate of compliance with DP file 15-22 38 RCC2524 to construct an addition to the existing

residential structure within land subject to coastal storm flowage and the 100 ft buffer zone to a coastal bank.

The regulations were 310 CMR 10.02 2 10.04 10.30 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws.

The order has expired and the work was never conducted at map 117 lot 11 otherwise known as number four Water Street. Uh and Mark you can explain that to the commissioners who may not know but we even though the work wasn't done in time expires they have to get the order of conditions off record title and the only way to do it is a certificate of compliance.

But yeah, an open and an open file, whether it's active or expired, puts a incumbrance on the title of a property. And until that permit, open or expired, is officially closed, that encumbrance remains. And if there's a uh a title search, it does not come out clean. So, uh what's happening here is if you'll recall the last meeting Um, November 25th, we issued a COC for work at this very same site. Uh, a pool,

patios, landscaping, and some reveation along a coastal bank. Uh while they were doing their due diligence on that and recording that particular item, they uncovered another order of conditions, this file number 2238, which was expired and opened and the work was never done. Uh so we have a just an open file that needs to be closed. Uh this is registered land, 14 Water Street. We will require wet

signatures. The sheet will be ready tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. and staff is recommending a complete COC to close out the expired order of conditions.

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

I see none. So, I'll entertain a motion to issue a complete certificate of compliance on DP file 15-2238 to close it out.

Donald, second with seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat.

Yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

We're now moving on to our field or public hearings, excuse me. That concluded the field trip reports and we have three public hearings. The first is a public hearing D file 15-28-2542.

NOI 2542. It's on the notice of intent from Rachel Meyer, Nicholas B. Jenkins for proposed home improvements and septic system upgrade within the 200 ft riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage. The regulations here are 310 CMR 10.02, 10.04, 10.58, and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaw. The land is described as map 19.

Lot 18 is otherwise known as 55 Gaffne Road. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So move.

Second.

Second.

Seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. And I believe I saw uh Mr.

Dignon here. He is representing the petitioner. Is that correct, David?

Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, good evening.

Um, for the record, I'm David Van representing the Jenkins family.

Um, may I screen share?

Please do.

H. It's not letting me.

DCTV, can you activate uh David Dignon to share screen?

He should he should be able to now.

I can. Yes.

Thank you.

So the uh the property is uh 55 Gaffne Road. It is a 19 19 acre parcel. Up in the right hand corner, you can see the entire parcel. Um the uh parcel has a uh conservation restriction on a majority of it with the exception of this small quadrant in the southerntherly portion of the property that my cursor circling.

That area right there is blown up um in a 20 scale drawing here on on the main screen that you see. The proposal is I'll call it uh somewhat complex multi-phase but the work within the WPA wetlands protection act jurisdiction is very limited uh when you look at the totality of what's proposed. So the applicants are proposing to take the house off of the existing foundation um which includes what I'm showing you

with my cursor as well as this crosshatch area. The cross-hatch area would be removed in its entire entirety and not rebuilt. The new house will be built over the existing foundation.

There's a bumpout addition shown uh to the south west of the house and then a uh deck beyond that in this box. And then there's a uh raised patio because there's a significant grade change from first floor to the ground. There's a proposed patio proposed behind the house. That's phase one. Phase two of the project. Uh we're showing everything because um we wanted to make sure that

if we had to go to ZBA, we're showing the entire picture. But it's the orange box that you see here, which would uh be an extension of the house, and it would um add bedrooms and an ADU, accessory dwelling unit, and reconfigure the driveway with a new garage in this location. All of that work that I've described is outside of jurisdiction of the Kong with the exception of this

piece of pad uh deck and the back half of the patio, the raised patio that we're showing. The uh project will also involve upgrading the septic system. The exist existing septic tank is kind of where I'm showing you this cursor uh where there's a retaining wall now proposed and there's a leeching pit to the northwest of that septic tank. We're proposing to putting a new septic tank,

a new leeching area in this location just south of the house. All of this work will occur within an existing lawn area. Um this is an existing stone wall that you see here. Everything from there up to the house is lawn. the resource areas. Uh there are numerous resource areas on the property. We have the Slokums River and that's shown in in uh the the blue line which I'm going to

blow this up just a little bit more so you can see it. [snorts] So we have the 100 foot inner riparian zone from the river and there's no work proposed within that zone. And then we have the 200t riverfront boundary which is this line right here. What's proposed within that is the work within uh for the deck, the raised patio and the septic system under the wetlands protection act. These are exempt

activities being performed within an existing lawn area.

Um so we also have um a BV edge of salt marsh along the southwest.

That buffer zone is this line as you see it here.

Um no work um is proposed with the exception of some minor grading relative to the septic system. The septic system will be outside of the buffer zone. Um but in order to put the septic in, we need to do a 5-ft overdig. Um and uh so there'll be some minor disturbance of the earth again within the existing lawn area um just to back excavate the overdig and then back fill around the

system. There's also a offsite wetland system to the northeast. Uh in this location that cascades a buffer zone as you see right here, the screen line. Uh there's no work uh that's actually offsite and there's no work within that buffer zone. And then finally, we have a flood zone line. The AE12 line is this uh pink purplish type line that runs kind of parallel to the stone wall. Um it's an AE12.

It's uh not really mapped properly. As you can see, some the elevation in this location is 15 and the septic is somewhere around 14. Um there might be just a teensy wy little bit of work right here where we're disturbing some earth that might be within the buffer within the uh the actual flood zone. Um and then finally, I should mention the estimated habitat.

If you follow this teal line up and it kind of jigs around the entire developed portion of the property. Everything to the northwest, northeast, southeast around this in interior area is mapped habitat but not inside of the box. Everything being proposed even up in this quadrant for phase two is outside of the estimated habitat area as mapped. Um, so we did successfully get a file number from D at

the last minute. Um, and there were no comments. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Uh, thank you, David. Mark, do you want the uh screen to remain on?

Uh, sure. That's fine. Um, you know, just for a visual, uh, not going to go over everything because I think David did a very good job of describing the project elements that we are dealing with this evening. That would be some of the decks, some of the patio and the um uh septic system and leeching facility.

Uh this is all on the upper edges of the resource areas. What's key to this is it's all lawn area. This is not a natural area that's being cleared. Uh it is a used yard area and the lawn actually extends. If you see that stone wall just to the southwest of the flood plane line, lawn continues down slope uh approaching the 100 ft uh riverfront area and may even go beyond that. So

this is this is a yard area. This is not necessarily a uh while it's within jurisdiction, it's not necessarily functional resource area. Um, and I don't think that the wetland interests or wetland values that we prescribe through the act or the um bylaw are affected here. And uh having said that, staff is recommending a standard order of conditions as per the uh subsurface stewards disposal plan uh

dated with a revision of December 2nd, 2025.

Thank you, Mark. Um David, if you wouldn't mind terminating the screen share, please.

[clears throat] Does any commissioner have any questions of either uh Mr. Dignant or uh Mark?

I don't see any. Is there anyone in the audience this evening that wants to be heard on this application?

Once again, I don't see anyone. So, at this point, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So, move.

So, move.

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

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Commissioners, I'll now entertain a motion on um DP file 15-282542 to issue a standard order of conditions in accordance with the plan dated December 2nd, 2025. That by the way is a revision date.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

Seconded. Um motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Liz, yes. Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much, Dave.

Thank you for your time. Good evening.

Good evening to you. Our second public hearing is on D file 15-25, excuse me, 282544, NOI2544.

It's on the notice of intent from Kevin Lima, Care of Christian Farland for construction of a single family home with paved driveway and associated grading within the 100 ft zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. The uh applicable regulations are 310 CMR 10.02 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaw.

The land is described as map 110 lot 157-1.

It's otherwise known as number five Raphael Road. May I have a motion to wave the reading, please?

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Thold, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Natt, yes.

My vote is yes. That passes unanimously.

So, uh, uh, I see Scott here from Farland Corp., are you going to be presenting this evening, Scott?

Yes, sir.

Okay, you have the floor.

All right. Uh good evening members. Uh my name is Scott Daget, senior project manager for Farland Corp and I'm representing uh Kevin Lima.

Um let me share my screen.

Okay. So I assume everybody can see that.

I can see it. Yes. Okay.

So, uh, the project involves the construction of a four-bedroom single family home on a 1.84 acre undeveloped parcel located on the easterly side of Raphael Road. The lot is currently partially wooded, but mostly an open field and appears to have been used for harvesting hay at one time. The lot is bordered by other undeveloped parcels within the subdivision and also bordered by a single family uh lot to the north.

Uh topography on the site gently slopes from elevation 71 on the westerly side down to about elevation 62 towards the southeast corner. Uh a soil evaluation conducted in September of 2025 identified sandy loom soils throughout the AB and C horizons and groundwater was approximately 26 in. Um the site contains approximately 522 square ft of bordering vegetated wetland located in two small uh separate areas. One being

in the uh on the plan in the upper right hand corner and also on the plan in the lower right hand corner.

Um, these wetlands were fully delineated as part of a filed notice of intent when the uh, Bakerville Vineyard subdivision was proposed.

Uh, the buffer zone areas on the site are as follows. We have from the 0 to 50 foot uh, boarding vegetated wetland buffer uh, just about 9,000 square ft and between the 50 and 100 foot we have about 17,000 square ft.

Uh, importantly, no work is proposed within the 50- foot buffer zone, and the project avoids any wetland alteration.

Within the 50 foot to 100 foot buffer zone, there's approximately 4700 square ft that will be altered due to grading, driveway installation, and some related site work. Uh, this has been minimized through careful sighting of the house.

Uh, so Mr. Lima had wanted to position the house in a way that would give himself some pretty good curb appeal. Uh the proposed home is about 55 5600 square ft.

It has a proposed open patio in the rear with a covered patio.

Uh the house is pretty much situated in an area that would minimize uh any of the impacts to the 100 foot buffer zone.

We tried to keep um the grading at a minimum. So we tried to balance the cut and fills so that we wouldn't create uh an overabundance of fill.

Uh runoff is going to be controlled through uh a proposed roof storm water recharge system. uh any other runoff that's on the site will eventually just flow either toward the wetland or towards the uh towards the roadway.

Um we have proposed erosion controls in place as you can see from the uh from the line segment that looks like a long uh long line with a dash though that is pretty much uh proposed at the limits of work.

Uh we've also proposed to create somewhat of a an earthen swale to be able to prevent any runoff from getting onto the to the abuing lot of map 34 lot one.

Uh as I had said uh there's no alteration to the bordering vegetated wetland. Um there is no work proposed within the 50oot buffer zone. Uh the buffer zone activity has been minimized and uh does not pose any kind of a threat to any of the wetland resources.

Uh storm water management, utility connections and drainage systems have design have been designed to meet all local and state performance standards.

Uh the project fully complies uh with the wetlands protection act and the Dartmouth wetlands bylaw.

Uh so if also any of the utility connections are also uh not within 100 foot buffer zone. Uh the foundation drains are going to be connected to the uh existing drain stub in the uh in the roadway as well as uh a sewer connection and obviously a water connection. Um so that's pretty much it for my presentation. Um, open to any questions.

Thank you very much. Uh, Mark, I would like to hear staff's comments on this application.

Yeah, before I make any uh comments, I do have a question for Scott. Scott, did you incorporate, and I know they're outside the jurisdiction, but did you incorporate the DPW comments into this into a revised plan?

Uh, not at this time. Uh, I did receive the comments and I will be making those changes and uh, hopefully if I need to submit a revised plan to the conservation commission then I can always certainly do so. Uh, but I do plan on addressing those comments soon.

Okay. Thank you. Um, in reviewing the project, uh, this is a single family development in an approved subdivision. The wetland lines have been previously approved.

This particular lot, uh, actually the wetlands flare away from most of the lot. Scott was very accurate in showing the, uh, wetlands in the lower what I would call the southeast corner and the wetlands in the northeast corner very far away from the, uh, building envelope. uh as proposed herein. The only work that I can see within jurisdiction is the regrading to the southeast corner. Scott, if you can just

point that out within the 100 foot buffer zone. Uh you can see that regrading right in there. And as long as that's vegetated and stabilized uh to kind of closely mimic what's out there, that should be fine. Uh, I do believe that the swale is a is a uh nice little improvement to keep uh the water from discharging directly over into the adjacent parcel. Uh that is in addition to the approved storm water system that

uh for the subdivision itself. Uh there are detention basins out there uh already uh functioning and uh so from from our perspective this is pretty pretty much a uh a simple uh simple you know single family development uh in largely uplands and uh staff is prepared to uh recommend issuing uh an order of conditions but I would ask the commission how they want to deal with the um the DBW comments.

Again, the comments are gerine to a final plan. They're not gerine to wetland issues, per se. But as you know, we get so many plan revisions. We like to try to consolidate and get as much information onto a singular set of record plans. We can handle this two ways. As Scott indicated, he can submit revised plans to us at which point we wouldn't close the public hearing.

However, we could close the public hearing if we modify uh condition 21, which is that this order of conditions is contingent upon all approvals dot dot dot dot dot emphasizing the comments of DPW.

If it's the latter that you want to uh proceed with, uh staff would recommend the standard order of conditions with that modified condition 21 as per the site plan dated uh 1118 2025.

If you want them to uh to submit the revised plans before we close, then this would have to be continued. But staff is comfortable in recommending issuing a standard order with the modified condition 21.

Um, personally, Mark, I I um I think given the fact that DPW comments are are really not germanine to our jurisdiction in this case, I I would be willing to um close the public hearing and vote on the plan dated November 18, 2025. obviously uh with the condition that modified condition 21 so that they would have to comply with DPW uh comments satisfy DPW.

Mhm.

Um but I I just don't see any reason for them to delay it and come back just so that the plan is one plan.

I offered the the continuence only as an option for consideration.

Understood.

Believe me, I understood. No, no problem. I wasn't uh I just figured in this case where it's not going to make a difference to what we're subject to, what our jurisdiction is, I don't see any reason to have the applicant have to come back here.

That's my personal feeling. Any commissioner can obviously say that they think that's absolute garbage and they should have to come back and I'll we'll entertain that. So, anyone else that wants to speak. Oh, by the way, uh Scott, if you would just please um stop screen sharing so I can see who's trying to Thank you. So, does any commissioner have any uh comments or questions? Oh,

sorry. Sorry. Uh you know, I I I don't want to preclude anybody from saying other than just that, but you heard what the options are. Um, what are your thoughts, Mike? I'm in concurrence what you had said and what Mark had said. I find no objection at all.

Okay. So, is anyone in the audience that wants to speak on this application?

I don't see any. So, at this juncture, I'll entertain a motion uh to close the public hearing. I'll move. Second.

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

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Matt, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to issue a standard order of conditions on the site plan dated 1118 2025 with a modification to condition 21.

So will require uh that they that the applicant uh prior to construction uh address and comply with DPW comments.

So move second.

Seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much, Scott.

Thank you and have a good night.

Good night. Our final public hearing this evening is on D file 15-2807 uh NOI2538.

It's on the notice of intent from Cedarside Family Nominee Trust Car Ray to armor the riverbank on or within an inland bank ordering land subject to flooding and riverfront area. The regulations are 310 CMR 10.02, 2, 10.57, 10.58, and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaw.

The land is described as map 14, lot 8.

It's otherwise known as 536 Pamska Road.

Um, I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

Move. Second.

Seconded motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes. Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Matt, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. We have um received an email request from the applicant to continue indefinitely that they have design changes that are based on comments not only from but from Mass, D, and NHSP. So, uh, they didn't withdraw without prejudice, but we're likely to see a completely different plan.

Yeah, if I could just summarize, uh, this is a site. They wanted to armor the riverbank.

Uh, not sure what the purpose was because it was certainly overkill.

This uh site is in designated habitat.

It's on the shore of the slope of river and typically in applications of river river bank stabilization uh the regulators tend to look for softer approaches. This is not a high energy area. It is not affected by wave action. Uh there was sort of like well it was just too much stabilization for the area being in designated habitat. It is a terrapin habitat. uh a terrapin habitat situation. Uh Natural

Heritage was not thrilled with the armoring. So based on staff's comments, DP's comments, and Natural Heritage, uh they're going back to the drawing board.

They have an open file. They have the ability to revise. Uh what's a little awkward here is that they're asking for an indefinite continuance. I don't know what the commission feels about that, but that to me seems a little bit dangerous. Uh we have uh meetings scheduled out to [clears throat] January 27th.

Later on this evening, we will be looking at the draft schedule extending into July, but we haven't got gotten there yet. So, the option is for the commission to not continue. I don't see why we would do that, but uh you certainly you have that option or continue to a date uh as far out as we have scheduled that being January 27th or you can condition indefinitely and you know whatever whenever they get

around to sending in revised plans you know it can be heard.

I'm not inclined to op to elect option number three but I do think option two makes sense. Mark and if they know that, you know, that's not going to work for them in January, send [clears throat] us another email and give us a date once we have a new schedule. But I think a continuence has to be to a date.

That's what I figured. That's why I gave you the the farthest out date. Now, we have hearings on December 23rd, January 13th, and January 27th. Those are already scheduled and in the books. So, I think that it's reasonable to go to the 27th. Give them as much time as we've got scheduled, but hold them to that.

I think so, too. But if they if they communicate with you in early January that they won't be ready by then, I don't have a problem uh if they want to elect one of our new meeting dates once we establish them.

So, I won't I won't penalize them for the fact we only have a handful of dates left uh that have already been approved.

Yep. Any other commissioner have any uh comments on that?

Is there anyone here this evening that came to speak on this matter?

Okay, I haven't seen either. So at this juncture um I will entertain a motion at the applicant's request that we continue this public hearing uh till our last meeting date in January 2026 which was was the 23rd right Mark January 27th 2026 I'm sorry uh January 27 2026 at 7 p.m. Move.

Second.

Second.

Have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. That concludes the public hearings. We're moving on now to items for discussion. Mark, you have the floor.

Yeah. Uh, unexpectedly, we got an invoice. I think I forwarded it to everybody uh from Gus Reposa uh for $3500 to uh he completed the storm water uh review for the Crapo Hill landfill expansion, which we heard a few uh weeks ago. So, I need a vote to approve the invoice uh so that he can be paid.

Uh, commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to approve uh, the invoice that had been submitted by Gus Reposa of $3,500 for review of storm water management for Crao Hill landfill and to authorize Mr. Garrett to pay that invoice.

So move second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Donald, yes. Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Matt, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Okay. Uh, moving ahead, we got some discussion items. Uh, you know, the draft wetland regulations discussion update is something that is on every agenda as we move along. Uh, all I can say is I sent my updates to town council for review. We have heard nothing back yet. I've kind of urged them to move quickly on this because this is getting a little bit uh proactive uh pro protracted, I should say. Um, and we

need to get this done. I thought that I I think I reported this last time. I may not have, so I'll repeat myself. I think that uh we had some uh confusion on the wetland A1 situation. I think that town council resolved that in some revised language.

I know you folks haven't seen that language yet, but I we I think we've all agreed that we just don't want to go back and forth with these regulations.

We need to get something that's really concrete that we can comment on. So, uh that's where we stand on that. Uh any you have any comments for me?

No, I don't.

Okay. Uh second uh discussion item is I forwarded you uh a copy of draft dates uh extending our public hearing dates from January uh actually that should say January 26. I don't know why it says January 25.

January 26th through July 26th. Uh and uh that includes January 13th to 27th, February 10 and 24th, March 10 and the 24th, April 14 and 28, May 12 and May 20 26th, June 9, June 23rd, July 7 and July 21st. Uh comes that it's that time of year again, folks.

I I don't have a problem with those dates. Any commissioner have any concerns or issues?

No.

I'll move with seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Ronald, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes. Megan, yes.

Natt, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Uh the third item, I sent you a copy of a letter from Eversource. Uh they're doing a lot of utility work in town. Uh this is very minor work. Has little to do with us except that in some areas there's buffer zone work. uh but it's worked you know on roadways and in uh existing impacted areas substations and the like. So, uh, I just did sent that to you for your information just in

case you see something going on or you uh you uh you know get calls from somebody relative to u to activity which they think is near wetlands being done by the utility company. So that's that's pretty much it. The work is confined to Fiser and Gidleytown roads uh and their crossroad substation uh underground utility work uh in existing paved and unpaved roads, private ways, trenches and installation

of new equipment on power poles uh that are already in place. So that's kind of a summary of what they're doing.

Okay. Um, our next item is an enforcement item. Um, 566 State Road, uh, Dartmouth Collision.

Some of you may remember we issued an enforcement order several years back for work in jurisdiction.

Uh, they complied with that enforcement order and they did the restoration work.

We issued a certificate of compliance.

Since then, they have purchased an adjacent lot and started building a parking area uh again within our jurisdiction without our authorization or without our permission. And I forwarded you a copy of uh a draft enforcement order, which I think needs to be sent out. this is a repeat offender uh and uh you know kind of just in my opinion just not paying attention to what he's doing and I think it's deliberate.

Does any commissioner have any questions they want to ask Mark about that?

Well, we can deliberately send him this enforcement order.

Well, I think we should. Absolutely.

Um, well, it's the only tool we got, you know, we we really don't have very much more that we can do. Uh, and uh, we've we kind of warned him the first time and he reaged. So, we issued an enforcement order and he responded. Uh, I think we have to do it again. Different different work, different area, but same same problem.

So, uh, to me, I think it's, you know, the only, like you said, it's the only tool in our, uh, in our quiver here. So, we have to use what we've got. So, I'll entertain a motion to issue an enforcement order for the property at 566 State Road, which is the second offense.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes. Donald, yes.

Richard, I have to recuse myself.

Okay. Richard Melon is recusing himself.

Uh James yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes with uh unanimously with one recusal.

Okay. Um that was that was the only thing I had scheduled but there are two other items that have come up. The first one is uh we've been back and forth and uh Mike and I have discussed this. There was a uh a typo a minor typo in the u in the reissued enforcement order on 1342 North Hicksville Road. But more importantly, he has expanded work well beyond the lots that we had identified.

Town council uh concerned about that recommended a reissue of the enforcement order uh to include the extra lot and fix the typo. We have I have done that and uh in talking with Mike, he thought it was necessary. It's it's the same problem. He's uh he's working in wetlands and uh getting a little much more out of hand than he was before.

He's also been issued a cease and desist from uh the zoning agent as he is in violation of the zoning laws. So, this is this is becoming a large problem. Uh this is again Derek Reese, brother of the Reese brother who's operating off of North off of Hicksville Road near 195 at Reese Asphalt. So uh we've got a we've got to nip this one in the bud as best

we can and it's kind of a moving target.

So uh looking for a vote to uh reissue.

Uh well, I would entertain a motion to reissue and amend the previously issued uh Oh, yeah. Yeah, correct. Yeah, I I accept that.

So, um for 1342 Hicksville Road.

So, moved.

Second.

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

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Okay. The last item, um, which I've held back saying because I didn't want to distract from this evening's uh proceedings uh, is a personal matter. As of two o'clock today, uh I submitted, uh my 30-day notice for resignation as the environmental affairs coordinator for the town of Dartmouth. Um I think many of you know some of the frustrations that I've had over the years and it is

just now this autumn with everything going on come to a head. So I issued my letters to uh town administrator. I met with him today and to the chairman of the select board, um, Heidi Silva Brooks. Uh, my effective last day will be January 9th. Um, and that's pretty much it. Uh, if any of you I don't want to make a public discussion about it, but I felt it was important to announce it to you as

immediately as it happened. And uh but I did not want to interrupt the uh the meetings tonight uh with distraction over that. Uh if anybody wants to speak to me, you know where I am. I'll be around uh we can discuss it. But uh I find it necessary that I have to move on. Uh and really retire. Uh it's it's it's more of a retirement, but it has to go as a resignation of the position. So,

um, just wanted to let you know, Mark, I I I guess I should say I'm stunned, and I sort of am, but I have to be honest with you. I know the frustrations have been building for a lot longer than the current administration.

Um and we'll talk offline.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I would I would appreciate and I I welcome anybody who wants to do that. Uh I know some of the new members may not be as familiar. Some of the older members are somewhat familiar, but uh I will uh have a conversation with anybody uh that wants to have a conversation about it.

Yeah.

I will also uh copy you tomorrow morning via email the the resignation letter.

Uh, so you know exactly what I sent to Cody and to uh to uh Heidi.

I'd appreciate that. Thank you, Mark.

Yep.

Well, that's not a very happy note to end this meeting on. Um, no.

Um but um you know I do understand uh and I'd almost it it seems like we should be talking but we really shouldn't be talking um in a public forum. So I would recommend that at this juncture if we have nothing else to speak about that a motion to adjourn be made.

So moved. D second.

Seconded motion. A roll call vote.

Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Matt, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. The meeting is adjourned.