Conservation Commission Meeting - February 10, 2026

Okay, it looks by my watch to be 7 o'clock and if I'm reading everything correctly, we have five commissioners this evening and the quorum requirements for so we do have a quorum. So with that being said, um I am going to open tonight's meeting.

This is the Dartmouth Conservation Commission and this is our meeting of Tuesday, December 10, 2026.

We're conducting this evening's meeting remotely and that's in accordance with legislation signed on March 28, 2025 by Governor Healey, which further extended the hybrid remote option for meeting uh options to municipalities.

That legislation extended the option until June 30, 2027.

Our hearings are open to the public, accessible by the public, and we have a raise your hand feature, chat room, and quite frankly, if all else fails, wave your hand and you will be heard.

We will keep you uh muted and please if you haven't been muted by DCTV, mute yourself until it's your time to speak.

That will allow everyone's presentation to be uninterrupted by extraneian extraneous noises or comments. um have, as I mentioned at the outset, we have five commissioners here this evening and an affirmative vote will require four out of five in order to pass.

First items of business are administrative, excuse me, administrative. And the first is to receive and approve the December 23, 2025 and January 13, 2026 minutes.

May I have a motion to that effect, please?

Second.

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

Megan, yes.

Matt, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

The next item is to receive the minutes of January 27, 2026.

May I have a motion to that effect, please?

So moved.

Second.

The seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Matt, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

The final administrative item. Uh well, we don't have one. There's no field trip for report. So, we move on now to our field trip for reports for this evening's meeting. And the first, excuse me, is a request for a certificate of compliance DP file 15-2022 RCC26-1 from Sonia Panaro for the work completed at map 51, lot 26-41.

It's otherwise known as 17 Carol Terrace. Eduardo, what is staff's recommendation on this request?

Um, so we're recommending a partial COC for this one lot. Uh, we've had other lots other COC's issued for other lots in the in this subdivision. Uh, this one is just, uh, a similar case here.

Okay. Does any commissioner have any questions?

Um, I don't see any. So, I'll entertain a motion to issue a partial certificate of compliance on D file 15-2022 as it relates to lot 26-41 on map 51.

So, move second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nath, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

The next item is a request for certificate of compliance DP file 15-2773 RCC26-2 from Christian Farland Seapport Homes LLC for the work completed at map 79 lot 58-2. It's otherwise known as 408 Flag Swamp Road. Eduardo, what is staff's recommendation for this request?

Uh, yes. So 408 Flag Swamp Road, um having been going out to the site uh last week, uh I concur with Christian's um statement that it appears that most of the work or not all of the work uh was completed outside of the buffer zone. Um so given that uh I'm going we're recommending a complete COC for this for this lot.

Thank you. Does any commissioner have any questions?

Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to issue a complete certificate of compliance DP file 15-2773.

So moved.

Dan, we have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

Nat, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

The final field trip report is a request for an extension permit D file 15-529 26-1 from Davis and Trip Inc. to repair and maintain um waterfront dock and slips on land described as map 117 lot 7, otherwise known as number one Bridge Street. Eduardo, what is staff's recommendation on this request?

Uh so to give the commission a little background here, so this original NOI was originally issued in 1986 and has since then uh been issued several extensions over the years. Uh most recently 2023, I believe. Um and all the extensions essentially state uh basically the same thing that this one's stating that um they're wishing to uh proceed with maintenance of the docks and slips. Um so I know the commission

has previously placed limitations on previous extensions. Um, I'm not sure what you'd want to do with this one. Uh, but with at least this one, I would recommend uh an extension and then potentially revisit this um later down the line.

U I'm I'm of the mind to grant a one-year extension with um the requirement or the condition that no further extensions be granted. that'll require refiling. Um, which is really the purpose of us limiting the amount of extensions because things on site change when you go over a great deal of time as this one has. And so extending a permit actually operates as an injustice at that point because the extension was not

to be in perpetuity for maintenance. It was to be to complete the project originally subject to the order of conditions. So that's my view of it, but I'll entertain any other commissioners thoughts comments etc.

I think a year is appropriate. Mike, anyone else?

All right. I'll entertain a motion grant an extension permit on D file 15-52926-1 for a period of one year uh with the condition that no further extensions on this will be granted.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Megan, yes.

James, yes. Donald, yes.

Natt, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. We're now moving to our public hearings. And uh before we start, I just have a quick question. Eduardo, I noted that the um last public hearing um which is number six as well as number four don't have D file numbers. Has anything changed since the agenda was printed?

Uh yes. Um so the for number four uh D file number is 2815.

Yes. Okay.

And I believe I will need to I will need to double check uh for number six. Just uh I'm assuming it's going to be 2816, but I need to just quickly double check that.

Sure, absolutely.

And for those in the audience who are wondering why I asked the question, we cannot close a public hearing where no D file number has been filed. So, I just wanted to know. So, I can alert folks in advance.

I can um I can check that uh while the the meeting's going, Mike.

All right.

If that works.

Yeah. Well, it does. We got plenty of time. That's number six. So, we have plenty of time. Our first public hearing is uh public hearing D file 15-2813 NOI26-1.

That's on the notice of intent from Nicholas Place for approval to construct an attached garage addition with associated grading within the 100 ft buffer zone to an inland bank and within bordering land subject to flooding. The regulations that are applicable are 310 CMR 10.02 2 10.54 10.57 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. It's the land is described as map 186 lots 3_1

and 4. It's also known as 46 Lakeside Avenue. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So move second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote.

Nat.

Yes. Yes. Excuse me.

Yes, Megan.

Uh Megan yes.

Thank you, James.

Yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Is there someone here this evening that wishes to speak on behalf of the applicant?

I'm not seeing anybody.

Uh we have a a DCTV Steve uh Cavalo who just chatted. That's Yep. So for the record, Stevie Carvalo of Carlin Corpor.

Oh, okay. Good evening, Stevie.

Good evening. Um, my video was it's disabled. I'm not sure if you want the video or if just the audio is fine.

Um, audio is fine.

Although I don't mind seeing you. That's not the problem.

Well, I didn't know if you wanted me to share the plan um for everyone to see.

Well, if you want to share the plans, um, you certainly have that, right? Uh we did have the plans at least the commissioners did have the plans circulated uh by staff. So I have seen the plans but if you want to share the screen DCTV it would certainly be okay to allow Mr. Carvalo to share the screen.

All set you should be able to.

Great. Thank you. Um okay thank you for the record. Stevie Kavalo of Farland Corp. um on behalf of the applicant owner Nicholas Pice, uh what what he's looking to do is construct a garage addition on the uh easterly side of his existing structure. Um this property is located on the south side of Lakeside Avenue on the north side of Lake Noachoke. Small um residential lot with an existing single family dwelling. Uh

what he has is pretty much a paved driveway in this area here um that he parks his car. He's looking to expand the structure. Um he received a variance for the setbacks. He's looking to construct this garage. Resource areas here are um top of bank. It's majority of the property is outside of the flood zone. Uh what we have at the rear of the property here is a 25 foot buffer to the

edge of water uh to the top of bank. All of his proposed work um with regards to construction of the garage that's outside of that 25 ft buffer. He does have a small portion of proposed deck extension which does lie within the 25 ft buffer. However, it is entirely within an existing lawn area. Um for erosion controls, what we're proposing the stake straw wall here um kind of, you know, 5 ft off the stairs just to

allow access for contractors to be able to bring materials around and construct that portion that majority of the will occur from Lakeside Avenue.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Stevie. Uh Eduardo, at this point, before we entertain further discussion, I'd like to hear staff's comments on this request.

Uh yes. Uh so going off of what Stevie was saying, um this is a pretty minor project. most of if not all of the work is going on top of existing either um lawn area or um as you said concrete or gravel uh lot over there.

Uh so given that we're recommending um a standard order of conditions uh per the plan dated January 2nd, 2026 uh with one special condition uh special condition 41 modified to read the proposed garage should have flood vents or equivalent installed in the framing to accommodate for flood flow during extreme flood events to minimize any flood flow impacts to abing properties.

Thank you very much. Um, Stevie, if you wouldn't mind stop sharing the screen, that would be helpful. So that way I can see our uh Brady Bunch. Um, so does any commissioner have any questions or comments they'd like to have addressed?

I don't see any. At this point, I would ask anyone in the audience that wants to be heard on this uh matter to uh please raise your hand or make yourself known so we can hear your comments.

I don't see anybody.

So, at this juncture, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on this matter.

Some move. Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

We'll do a roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Natt, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Commissioners, um, at this point, we've heard the testimony uh from Stevie Carvalo on behalf of the applicant.

We've heard staff's recommendations.

We were given the plans to review prior to the meeting. I'll entertain a motion to issue a standard order of conditions on the plan dated January 2nd, 2026.

Uh, subject to the special condition number 41 as modified and spoken into the record by our conservation staff, Eduardo Forz.

So moved. Second.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes. Megan, yes.

Natt, yes.

Arnold, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

The second public hearing is D file 15-2812 NOI26-2.

It's an after-the-act notice of intent from Stephen Gonio, and I may be mispronouncing, so I apologize. Stephen for approval for the 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, as well as map 174, lot 80. It's otherwise known as 866 State Road. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

James, yes.

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

And is there someone here this evening that wants to speak on behalf of the applicant?

Yep. Good evening everyone. Uh Chris Vandenberg with Scitec Engineering and Environmental Consultants. Um speaking on behalf of the applicant, just going to call him Steve G because I'm not going to try to butcher the last name either. So um yep, I I I believe it was Eduardo who sent an email back on January 21st. Um initially there was a couple I guess two two points of uh comments. Um I guess the filing does not

address the difference between the previous wetland line of record and the wetland line presented on this new plan.

Um currently because of the snow cover we are engaging our wetlands consultant on this regarding that point specifically to um address that. I was not involved with the um the filing many years ago. I was completely unaware of the fact that there was uh the wetland line was even different. Um and then I believe we might have been last week we submitted a revised plan to the commission um just updating um the

narrative on the plan with specific member plants, the species, the types um uh and I can share that with you if we'd like.

You can, but if I remember correctly, unless I got it a day late, that came in on Friday.

I'm going to say yes to that. And so that would actually be um in accordance with our own uh rules and regulations just a little late for us to be able to close tonight's hearing with that plan.

Um yep, just so you know. I mean, so I know there's other reasons, but the that would be one of them, but but yes, go ahead. I have no problem DCTV if he wants to share his screen to be able to do so.

Should be all set, Chris.

Okay beautiful.

Um, so can you see what I'm seeing right now? Do I have to click any buttons?

I I don't see anything. So, okay. Just hit share screen. Let me do this.

Bingo. Here we All right. So, yeah, I don't know if you have it. I had it. Yeah. Can you see this?

There you go. Now I see it.

Okay. Nice. Okay. So um yeah basically if you haven't seen the plan um you know this is the area of um disturbance that the applicant inadvertently um you know cleared within and this is the subject area of restoration uh area equating to about 2100 square ft. Um what we did was we simply updated our notes our restor restoration notes to include the specific number of trees, specific

number of um shrubs to be planted that the quantity um they come in three uh shrubs come in three to five gallon containers. The trees come in two to two and a half foot caliber size. Um and they'll just be placed in um equal spacing throughout the restoration area.

And that's essentially uh u the meat and potatoes of the restoration area. And I know the other question was um I believe you know the issue of the wet and line being um different than what was shown from the previous filing from about maybe 10 years ago. And that's what we're still trying to work on for the commission's review.

Eduardo, u I realize we're not going to be able to close this evening's meeting and so there may be additional comments staff wants to make, but are there any interim comments that staff wants to uh give us this evening?

Um so just to remind the commission, uh this is a after the fact notice and a second wetland um violation at this site. Uh given that um the applicant has mainly uh answered our second issue with both the uh planting density and specifications uh regarding that. Uh I realized that there is uh a little bit of quite a bit of snow still left on the ground making it get making it difficult to uh analyze

the previous and the current wetland line and what those differences are. Um the commission two weeks ago did mention that this would be the last uh continuence.

Uh but obviously there's still some things that need to be addressed and I'm not sure if the uh applicant can address them um given the on the ground uh conditions.

um that does seem to be an impediment to compliance with what we had previously requested and quite frankly the submission of the plan on Friday in and of itself. That's why I mentioned it would have been um reasons for us not to close the public hearing. So that would have required a continuence. Anyway, I'm a little concerned uh because it is a second violation and it is an after

the-act notice, but I I in my opinion um this is beyond the control of the applicant that we have Mother Nature intervene. And quite frankly, I don't know that the snow's going to be gone in two weeks.

I would love it to be, but I'm not so sure that's going to happen. Um, so I I I there's um if I may, is there again this is completely out of my wheelhouse. Um, I have no idea why. I mean, this is essentially there's no rhyme or reason of my first thought is well, they're two individual people, two very different people who probably delineated these things. Um, of of which why, you know, I

I haven't seen the previous delineation.

I'm guessing what we're probably showing is probably less impactful from than what the previous delineation was shown.

But it couldn't just be chocked up to the fact of well there's you know we had it by a qualified wetland scientist. I know I believe we submitted a wetlands report I think from as of there. Um it's not just hey well that line's expired that becomes irrelevant. That's not like one of those kind of deals.

No I appreciate that.

Uh if I may chairman for one quick second. Absolutely.

Um so I believe our main concern was uh granted the you know wetland lines can change and it has been a couple years since both the first line was uh flagged and the second line was flagged.

Our main concern here is that given the the violation the paving of uh buffer zone uh in that area. Our main question is basically did that violation affect the wetland in any sort of way by reducing uh its extent so to speak. Okay. Okay.

Yeah, I need to say that's also not really for us to decide. It's more I guess for the wetlands consultant uh to figure that one out.

Well, Mr. Chairman, if I might from a staff perspective.

Mark Garrett is speaking now. Go ahead, Mark.

Yeah. Uh I probably have more history on this than anybody except maybe some of the commissioners who listen to that first violation. Uh the then site was the consultant and a wetland line was flagged by their consultant. Don't hold me to it, but I believe it was Chris Capone at the time. Uh and we agreed upon that line and that plan of record.

After that, uh Mr. Giosa uh requested Avisenis to go out and reflag the line in 2024, which is what they did. and that is the wetland line that's being represented on the plan under this filing.

Uh the two lines are different. I'm not saying which one's right. I'm not saying which one's wrong, but we have two fairly recently flagged lines probably within three years of each other. And there seems to be a dramatic difference.

In the uh Azinis case, they presented a singular data sheet at one location, a wetland location, which I concur with. I don't think that's wrong. However, when you do data sheets, you usually do a wetland data sheet and a non-wetland data sheet. There was no non-wetland data sheet there. We don't know if they looked ups slope, which is the area of question in these two lines, as to what

the conditions are. doing drivebys and looking at it. It looks like the wetlands could extend. I'm not saying they definitely do. Uh you're being asked to issue a permit on a plan with a different line than a previously approved plan of record that that raises some questions. So that would be the issue. I'm not suggesting the Azinus line is wrong, but we need some uh we need you need some data and

staff need some data to concur with the Azinus line. There's not enough data out there. Um so, and under snow cover, there is no evidence of herbaceous cover. So, you're just you're basically winging it on shrub and tree overstory.

And in that particular location, it's a very transitional cover. It'd be very difficult to set a line without having some underlying soil uh information, especially that in the non-wetland side of the line. Um that's my first comment.

My second comment since I made both of the comments that uh uh Chris, excuse me, that Chris was referring to is that I do know that they did uh increase the numbers uh of their plants. Uh I don't know how they calculated that number.

Standard practice in restoration is when you're selecting tree species, you plant them 10 to 15t on center. When you're planting shrubs, it's 8 to 12 feet on center.

I don't know what the calculation is for that irregularly shaped 2100 square feet, but my suggestion to the consultant would be to review their numbers and if their numbers comply with that kind of density, then we're fine. I don't know where those numbers came from. I don't know where the original numbers came from. So, uh, you sort of have to grit it out. So, I would also suggest that they look into those

numbers and make sure those are real numbers that comply with standard restoration practice.

Yep. Um, is it make a difference showing it on the plan view of like cool actually showing the plants and trees or just having it kind of in the table to like reflect the, you know, 10?

Frankly, a planting layout plan is much preferred.

Okay. Yeah.

Showing where the plants are. That's, you know, and that that helps you calculate the density because you you have the CAD file, you can set the grid out and uh you know, your numbers may go up, they may go down, I don't know.

Those are the densities for healthy restoration.

Is that something that you're capable of uh doing in time for the next public hearing?

Uh yes, absolutely. I guess you know the big part of you know um what Mr. were saying is, you know, just related to the um the difference in wetland, you know, obviously waiting for the snow to melt.

Uh we engaged, like I said, um the wetland consultant to get back out there and, you know, provide some more data for us. Um but obviously with the snow cover, that's a little tough. So, we can certainly do uh the latter of the two uh you know, regarding the the the species and you know, planting putting those on the plan. Um, but I don't know if that would be something

like kind of like you said if we gauge out, you know, um, so you're um, so essentially you want a revised plan at least a week prior to the meeting.

Um, I I believe if it came in on is it Wednesday or Thursday? I think Thursday it would have been Thursday preceding the meeting.

Yeah. So if you bring it's the Thursday before the meeting and but uh you know rather than go and do a revised plan and submit it now waiting for this clarification on the wetlands line I might suggest that you just take what Mr. Garrett said into account, make note of it and once the issue of the wetlands line has been resolved, then do a revised plan because you might end up doing yet another revised plan.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I figured like we said. So it seems like at the end of the day, say if the wet uh the wetland, you know, does increase in size, I guess looks like to the south here. um if that increases in size this would mean clearly the the buffer restoration uh increases in size from looking at the plan here. So um yeah once we get revised data like again I

have I have unfortunately not seen the old wetland line to see like what the difference is. Um so ultimately yeah once we you know that's these I would say kind of go hand inand uh getting if the wetlands need to shift a little bit you know this would impact you know those numbers on the plan. So yes absolutely.

Okay. I mean, I'm not normally like a huge fan of extended continuences, but given the snow cover and given what we just described, and you've got two problems to deal with, uh, yep, I'm inclined to go beyond the next public hearing and to do this for a month. So, Eduardo, what is our first public hearing in March?

I believe it's March 4th.

March 10th.

March 10th.

Yes. Yeah, that would be February 24th is the next hearing. March 10th is the following hearing.

Okay.

Yes.

March 10th.

I would be inclined to um continue this until March 10th. Um that'll give us an opportunity to get ground clearance for the analysis to be performed and then to decide whether or not your plan needs to be modified not only in terms of the plantings and how the calculation and how many but also you may have to increase it if the if the wetlands line changes.

Yep. Totally agree with that.

Okay. Um, does any commissioner have any questions other than me?

I don't see anybody. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to be heard on this particular um filing?

Again, I don't see anyone.

Commissioners, I know we stated the last time it would be the LA that that final or last continuence, but I think under the circumstances um with the mother nature issues we've been dealing with for the past few weeks, this is warranted. Um, and we should probably I I would entertain a motion to continue this public hearing until Tuesday, February 10, excuse me, March 10, 2026 at 700 p.m.

I moved. Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Matt, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Our third public hearing.

Oh, you're welcome. Our third public hearing is D file 15-2728 AOC 26-1. It's on the request to amend an order of conditions. It's from Lewis and Megan Verentes Caran Leech to relocate the approved driveway to a new on-site location within the 100 ft buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland. The applicable regulations on this are 310 CMR 10.02 10.55 and article 360-2 town of Dartmouth bylaws. The land is

described as map 27, lot 26. It's on 249 Slates Corner Road. I'll enter maintain a motion to wave the reading.

So move second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Matt, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Is Mr. Leech here this evening or someone.

Yes, I am. Uh Mr. Chair, uh can you hear me?

I can hear you just fine.

Okay. So, this uh project has a uh extended history and I have a couple plans I'd like to share. Uh TV, Mr. Leech is okay to share his screen.

I've made your co-host. You should be able to now.

Okay. Uh, so hopefully you can see this.

There would just be the green share button on the one in the center. There we go.

Yep.

You see this now?

I can see it now.

Okay. Uh, so two owners before the current owners. Uh there was a a violation uh cited by uh the Dartmouth Conservation Commission in which the owner had cleared basically right up to the wetlands line. Uh that was two owners ago. The previous owner who I represented uh came to you with an after the fact filing on with this plan that you see in front of you and that this plan is basically septic design. And

what was agreed upon then with the placement of the single family house and removal of the barn, the former residence and keep an existing garage was a buffer replication area along here with specific plantings and it was granted an order of conditions and approved. Uh since then that owner has sold to the current owner uh Lewis and Megan Vertent who are also here tonight I think. And I'd like to share basically

what you're seeing here is the approved plan with the driveway going to the garage that will remain and still remain going up to the house. Uh I'm sharing another screen. Do you see the new screen?

Yes, I do.

Okay. So, this is the proposed relocation. Here's the approved driveway that came up. Uh the house is slightly different. So, in order for a safe and adequate access into the garage, it was kind of tight with the current previous house. The driveway came up and went in and there wasn't much room to actually make the turn into the garage. Uh, in fact, it was probably unreasonable.

So, they slid the driveway over to here, uh, keeping this portion that's already existing of paved surface in front of the existing garage and putting a new driveway in that comes in more of a sweep into the garage, uh, into the current house. This actual house you see here is the foundation, the asbuilt foundation that sits on the ground as we speak today. Uh it's I think they're

waiting for this particular amendment.

Uh so what's happening is this driveway is coming up and around as a more gradual sweep into the driveway. This is a fairly raised uh foundation uh due to the septic system and the groundwater in this particular lot. We intend to do everything that was in the original order of conditions, the replication of the buffer zone area that was requested and approved by Mr.

Garrett at the time. Uh, and essentially what we're doing is making this slide down a little bit further just so we can do a much more safer and adequate driveway. However, it is closer to the wetlands line, which is the approved wetlands line that you see going wrapping around the lot. Pretty much everything except the septic system itself is within the 100 foot buffer as was in the original order of conditions as

stated. Uh I put on a note in the plan that we will adhere to all applicable orders that were on the original order of condition. It's just that we'd like to shift the driveway. Uh it's a little wider. There is a little bit more disturbance within the 100 foot area, but it's a much safer and cleaner design coming in and out of the existing foundation.

How much more is the disturbance, Sean?

Uh letter here. So about 1,400 square feet of new impervious area.

So there's basically you can see the the angled hatched area was the original house. This drive very narrow and up against the septic system was very tight uh coming in. This is all staying the same. This all what's happening is this will increase and of course this is all new. This is all uh overlap of what was approved. There was a little turnout that was approved here that's not part

of the same thing but it's a little wider. It's a twostar garage. Uh and it definitely is a little wider going around as far as impervious area. Uh there were a bunch of walkways and former barn former residence and tiny pads uh that have all been removed. So the impervious area is pretty much slightly above what was there before. Uh our grading plan does not pitch out on Sllay's corner road as DPW would not

prove that without some kind of drainage plan. So it all pitches down into the wetlands off to the side here. Uh, Eduardo, have you had an opportunity to uh review and if so, comment on this application please?

Uh, yes, I have. Um, so in terms of the driveway, uh, we have no concerns with the new proposed location of the driveway. Uh, it's also still in still in buffer zone, slightly closer. Uh, however, I don't know if Sean mentioned, but the overall layout of the house itself is a little bit different in this new proposed uh plan. However, I it was never mentioned in the uh amended order.

So, I don't know if Sean wants to Yeah, I can show. So, uh this particular Can you see this new screen a color?

I don't know if you can can see this screen.

I see the color. Yeah. You mean the salmon?

What you what you're looking at here is the red. This is the replication area, but the red line you see here was the originally proposed house. The black line, gray line, if you will, is the current foundation is slightly altered from the original design. It's actually slightly smaller than the original design. is actually further away from this replication area uh at this particular point. It's also a little bit

further from the wetlands from the back.

It is however a little closer to this side where we're doing this. Uh and there are several reasons. One is the existing well and the other there were some ledge issues at the time of the foundation but it's it's pretty much an identical how I don't say identical it's a similar house similar design. and they kept in mind the original approved footprint. Uh it's only slightly different that it shifted and it's much

smaller in some areas, a little larger in other. So we felt that it's not a significant change to the original approved uh house location.

Um yeah may that may be so but if it's different from what was shown on the approved plan then it too must be part of the amendment or when you go for a certificate of compliance it'll be denied or maybe denied. So I think to forestall any problems down the road, I think it's best that the applicants seek the amendment of the building footprint from what was previously approved so our

approval matches up when the time comes to say we want a certificate of compliance.

But that's me speaking. So I'll I'll leave it to others to come up with their ideas.

I can understand. I mean the square footage of the footprint is actually small in the approved and I understand it's a slightly different location but I think uh the significance is minimal here I in my opinion as to the difference between the two footprints and then location is similar. Obviously, the house that the original house, the red here, uh, had different jogs and whatnot, and the current house has,

you know, basically an L is a T-shaped house, and it has somewhat more jogs in the front, architectural features, but I mean, I don't think on a significance level as to the square footage or any further disturbance, it it doesn't didn't warrant art. I mean, we we could certainly, I guess, revertise for a next hearing if you want as part of an amendment here. Uh, let me ask a quick question, Sean, of um of Eduardo.

Eduardo, not to put you totally on the spot here, but hell, I'm doing it anyway. Um if if they were to come in assuming that this plan to relocate the driveway uh the amendment is approved this evening and they don't ask for an amendment regarding the building's footprint and they come in a year from now for certificate of compliance.

Um will you as staff recommend that that's a dimminimous change from the approved plan?

Um, I would say that, you know, we don't know whether we don't know when they would come in for a COC. You know, who knows? Maybe at at that point I'm not here. You know, Mark's not here. No one who has any prior knowledge of this um site for or this meeting in particular is there. The commission is wholly new people. If they were to get a COC for this lot and also notice the

discrepancies with the um the layout of the building, they might not uh agree to to issue a CFC based off the differences in the in the plan. So, I guess from what I'm hearing from you, and listen, I wasn't trying to put you on the spot in in the sense of making a prejudgment. I just want to get the idea because um I I was concerned and still am that if this isn't amended to conform

with approval, then we're going to have a problem down the road with the COC. or we could have a problem down the road with the COC. And usually if that's not obtained right away, and sometimes it's not, it's obtained when somebody goes to sell or mortgage their property and now they need the CLC right away. And if they have to file to get approved something that differs from the original approved plan, they're not

getting that COC for weeks. which could blow their deal. That's my concern because I know how pressure uh during a sale process uh you got a lot of other issues and this could be the dagger in the heart if somebody doesn't want to wait. So, um I just I pointed it out and I think you've just justified my concern. You said, "Well, although I might do it, somebody else might not."

which tells me this isn't clear-cut, Sean, that this is going to be considered dimminimous. And you know, there there you are. I mean, I'll leave it to you. I mean, I'm not telling you to go do it, but I'm concerned for your client that down the road there's going to be a problem that they could have addressed before they before the emergency occurred. That's all.

Uh, understood, Mr. Kio. Uh so I mean there I would leave open an option to readvertise and possibly uh add that to the advertisement for the next hearing uh if that would be sufficient to the commission or in Edward uh you know that we just add that particular language to the advertisement to uh you know I guess Uh, not sure what the length should be. Uh, I think I know what you're saying. You

want to do it. You want to amend the plan and the petition to include the house. So, that would require a readvertisement and rather do that than a refiling. And I understand why, Eduardo. I don't think that's from a procedural standpoint, it's a little unusual, but I don't think it's unfair.

How long will it take though if we get this information that's to be requested to readvertise in time for the next hearing? Would it be the next hearing on the 24th or will be the hearing following on the 10th?

Are you asking me or Sean?

Oh, I'm asking you. I don't know how long it'll take if Sean gives you this the revis up a description of the project essentially which is basically the same write up we have now with uh uh relocation I'm not going to make the language now relocation of proposed house y that's shown on this plan whatever the date is right and I think the plan itself that you prepared you're showing the current

location so that's where the bill yeah so that's there.

Mr. Chairman, if I could answer your question.

Yeah, you can. I hope uh if Sean I mean this plan is fine showing the change. I think the real issue here there too. The request for amendment should include the relocated house and the reason I say that is as as you have cited it could cause complications down the road. But this particular site has got an extensive hearing. It's had multiple owners. In fact, the last three owners were not

responsible for the restoration that has to take place. The vertents certainly were not responsible for it. But when you buy a piece of property, as we all know, you buy the benefits, you also buy the liabilities attached to them. This restoration is one of those liabilities.

So there's a kind of a complex history here. And I don't think that I'm not saying cutting corners, but not doing things by the book at this point could become problematic down the road. If Sean can get that diff that change language and get a new advertising fee of $75 into the commission by Thursday, close of business, we can get the legal ad out so that this could be heard on

the 24th. Uh if that's too pressing for Shawn given his workload, then it would have to go to the 10th.

No, you'll have it tomorrow morning.

Uh I can guarantee that. That's not a problem.

But the other the other thing, Sean, is we also need the payment.

$75.

Yeah, I'll assure it in by Thursday.

Okay, Mark, thank you for that clarification. Um you know, I think that's the better way to go. Sean, I think you're actually avoiding the problem, right?

And that's understood. Uh, you know, and so basically the plan you'll see here with a little labeling on it uh will uh be the new plan since that I'll upload tomorrow and uh we'll get the fee in uh tomorrow and everything should be good.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Um, does any commissioner Oh, by the way, could you uh stop sharing your screen just so I can see it?

Yeah, I'm sorry.

That's no problem.

I I you know, I like looking at the plan, too. But does any commissioner have any questions of either u staff or Sean?

Um, is there anyone in the audience this evening that's here this evening specifically for this matter and wants to be heard tonight?

Is Mr. Syla's hand up? I don't know.

David Syla, I can't see. So, I don't see whose hands up. Hold on. Um, I don't see up. It might be accidental.

Okay, David. Thank you.

Okay, so commissioners, you've heard all the discussion this evening. I think it appropriate to um entertain a motion to continue this public hearing until Tuesday, February 24, 2026 at 7 p.m.

So move.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Matt, yes.

Ronald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Sean, if you're gonna have any problems with that, please let Eduardo know.

Yeah, I I don't anticipate uh anything happening between today and tomorrow.

So, thank I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. Um our fourth public hearing, and they're on the agenda. It didn't have a D file number, but it actually does. D file 15-2815, NOI 26-4.

It's on the notice of intent from Craig Marshall for multiple owners for the construction of a 12T by 13 ft screen porch addition to an existing single family house. The installation of a 1,000galon subsurface propane tank on a 5-ft by 20ft concrete pad buried um and associated grading within the 200 ft riverfront area. Land subject to coastal storm flowage. the 100 ft buffer zone to a coastal bank and bordering

vegetated wetland and within the NHSP designated habitat. It's on land described as map 10, lot 9-1. It's otherwise known as 254E Pamska Road. Um I entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So move second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

Donald, yes.

Um, although it's not a direct conflict, I think it's appropriate that I recuse myself from this public hearing. So, Nat, if you want to take over for me on would appreciate it.

Yeah, sure. Thank you, Mike.

Um I believe everyone has voted then. So that motion passes unanimously with Mike's um recusal.

Is um is there anyone in the audience here to present on this particular hearing?

Um there is Mr. Chairman. The um for the record, my name is Mark Bucher with CAB Engineering Solutions. Um and I'm here this evening on behalf of our clients, David and Wendy Dodson, uh who are proposing this project at 254 EPMs Road.

um as uh Mike read, consisting of the addition of a 12 by13 screen porch which is actually going to enclose an area that is now um a flagstone patio. And then adjacent to that um they are proposing to bury a thousandgalon propane tank um anchored to a a 5x20 concrete pad um that that'll be below grade. Um, as stated, we're in a number of resource areas, including the flood zone, um, buffer zones to both

coastal bank and the, um, vegetated wetland of of the marsh. Um, it's in the 200 part of it, partially in the 200t riverfront area and then also within, uh, the area that's mapped out as priority habitat with natural heritage.

Um we have I I believe uploaded there were um it's it's a minimal disturbance on the project. It's an existing house. Uh again that area that they're proposing to add to the building with the screen porch is is the ground is already covered uh with a flag stone patio and the area that the propane tank is going to be installed is just an open lawn area. Uh so in our opinion the

disturbance is minimal. Um, and we are just requesting that the commission uh vote to approve the project as shown on the plan. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

I have a concern about the uh buried propane tank. What's the rationale for burying it?

um rationale I believe is is it's a more um protected method I think of storing a tank of that size as opposed to being above ground in a in a flood zone

before any additional comments from the commission I'd like to hear Eduardo's comments if you wouldn't mind also please forgive me you may have stated at the top but do we have a a filing number for this?

Uh yes, it's uh 15-2815.

Thank you. Yeah, sorry.

Okay.

Um so, uh as Mark uh was saying, uh most of the all the work is either in lawn area or an existing patio area. So, uh staff doesn't have any concerns. Uh not to say that uh Natural Heritage won't uh considering uh they have their own they might have their own thoughts on this project. Um given that um I would recommend a standard order of conditions with a condition stating that uh

any natural heritage uh comments uh be addressed if there are any.

Thank you. And and forgive me, but I'm trying to recall if past president we would wait for that review by natural heritage to be to be finalized before levying a vote.

I believe usually we do wait. Yes, I believe you're right.

Okay.

So given that Mr. Chairman, if I could, uh, standard practice has always been to wait because if Natural Heritage comes back with some recommendation that differs from our standard order, you're forcing them into an amended order of conditions. Again, uh, unfortunately, Natural Heritage has 30 days to comment and they wait all of their 30 days. That's unfortunate to the applicant and I'm sympathetic, but I

think in the long run it's easier to wait for their finding. And I would say in this case, I would anticipate they're not going to have a whole lot to say about this project. But I learned a long time ago, you don't try to read Natural Heritage's mind. Uh so I don't know that the issuance of an order right now is the most prudent way to go and certainly would protect will potentially protect

the applicant from having to further amend and go through a whole new filing for basically a two-eek wait on this. I don't think construction is going to take place between now and the end of March. So I think we have some time.

Um Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question? Um, if Yes, ma'am. If that's the position of the commission, um it does the public hearing stay open and um we continue to uh another meeting or is it the kind of thing that a vote could be taken contingent on receiving, you know, I guess a letter of no take would be what we're looking for from Natural Heritage and and that way it

could be processed as soon as that letter comes in. I understand Mark that um that they, you know, are are within their within their rights to to take the full amount of time, but with this project, I think seems to be so straightforward and of such little impact, I suppose there is a possibility that they could issue a letter in a shorter time than um than the 30 days.

They could, they should, they won't. I mean, it's just Mark, I I don't disagree with anything you say, but we're dealing with a regulatory permit, and it Look, if you want to take your chance that they're going to give you a no take, that's your call. I'm suggesting to the commission that it's more prudent to wait. But that's it's out of my hands.

I'm just giving some advice here on 40 years of experience in the business.

Uh Mr. uh Bush uh if I may ask, when did you submit the uh notification to Natural Heritage?

Uh it was submitted along with the notice of intent. I'm not exactly sure what the date was.

Okay. Uh let me see if I have that here.

See the I don't know if I have the date off the top of my my notes.

I think I have the receipt for the certified mail.

January 22nd.

And if I'm I believe natural heritage has 30 days to uh I I believe that's correct regulations.

That is that is correct.

Um given that the next meeting is Feb 24th 24th that would be a little over 30 days but we the commission also requires uh fiveday notice uh for any uh plans and documents regarding that.

So there's a potential that the commission may not get it before those five days. Um, so it's could could we could we continue to the 24th and then if we don't have a a you know favorable response or or the the response that I'm looking for obviously from Natural Heritage, we could request a further continuence at that point.

We generally try not to have multiple continuences and it would be my recommendation to continue to the to March 10th which would be the next meeting which allows you ample time to review anything that natural heritage would have and also ensure you have time to get in the necessary paperwork and documentation to Eduardo.

If I could add one more suggestion to Mark, uh you can certainly email Natural Heritage and try to jumpstart them. That has worked several times. You just say you have a public hearing that needs to be closed on such and such a date. Can we get a finding and that that could jumpst start him a few days?

Right. Well, that that's sort of what I was hoping maybe if we if we went for the um the next meeting. Uh and in the meantime, I can I can see if I can make any headway. Um but I guess that's up to the commission to to decide. I would prefer to continue to the next meeting.

That would mean everything would need to be into Eduardo by February 19th.

Correct. Yes, the noon the noon on the 12th. Sorry, not the 12th, the 19th.

If if it was merely a letter of no take, then there would be no modification to the plan or the the application.

Correct.

So, there'd be no no really new information we'd be submitting.

Correct. If if that was the case. Yes.

So Mark, I I can sense the urgency. So if that's if that's your um direction, I I do want to get some feedback from the rest of the commission before we proceed any further. But we can certainly take that into account um when we vote on this evening.

Thank you.

On that note, are there any questions from the rest of the commission or Don, do you have any additional comm questions?

No.

Okay. Are is there anyone in the audience who would like to appine on this request?

I'm the homeowner. May I make one brief comment?

Yes, you may.

Uh, it would be really appreciated if we could try to do that expedited um process that you just suggested, Nat. Um otherwise it will delay the project by about a month.

Okay.

Thank you.

Understood for the consideration.

All right. Well, I think given the commentary we just received, um I propose a motion to continue this hearing to our next public hearing, which would be Tuesday, February 24th.

So moved.

Can I get a second?

Second.

Motion's been seconded. Roll call vote.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Don, yes.

And I vote yes. The chairman, Mr. Kio, has recused himself. That motion passes unanimously.

We will see you on the 24th.

Very good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Back in the saddle again.

All right. Our fifth public hearing is public hearing on D file 15-2814 NOI 26-3.

It's on the notice of intent to a single family home with associated grading, tree removal, utilities, and driveway access 100 foot buffer to bordering vegetated wetlands, coastal bank, salt marsh, and within the riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage of the Sloum's River. The regulations applicable are 310 CMR 10.02, 10.04 04 1030 10.32 10.55 10.58 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 Horsene Neck Road. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So moved.

Second.

We have a second on the floor. Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

And is there someone here this evening to speak on behalf of the applicant?

Uh, good evening, Mr. Chairman. Jamie Besnet with Zenith Consulting Engineers for the record.

The floor is yours, Jamie. Would you like to share your screen?

Uh, that would be great. Uh DCTV uh please allow Mr. Besonette to share share his screen.

Yes, sir. You should be all set, Mr.

Beset.

Thank you.

All right. Can everyone see my screen?

Yes, I can. Yes.

All right. Beautiful. All right. Uh tonight we have 80 Horsene Neck Road in Dartmouth. Uh Cessor's map 23, lot 48-2.

Um, this piece of property is located on the easterly side of Horsene Neck Road, west of the Sloum River. Uh, it has approximately 5.2 acres with, uh, the following resource areas being Salt Marsh, BVW, Coastal Bank, uh, land subject to coastal storm flowage and riverfront. Uh, the resource areas were reviewed by the conservation commission and a determination of applicability was

issued, I believe, in February of uh, 2025.

uh locking in the location of those uh resource areas. Um our proposal is for a residential dwelling. Uh the residential dwelling is multi-level uh to work with the uh existing contours to the best of our ability. Uh the you'll notice on the plan that the slabs for the structure uh go from elevation 28 uh to 24 down to 20. So from one side of the house to the other on the lowest

floor of the of the structure you'll see a total of 8ft differential to try to work with the existing contours. Uh the driveway has been proposed to run southerntherly from the building and that is also to minimize uh cut into the hill that's uh needed to gain access out to Worseneck Road. Uh we have uh the existing uh the proposed septic system on site has been reviewed and approved

by the Dartmouth Board of Health and um we have proposed retaining walls on site to minimize uh earth disturbance and grading. Um we're proposing erosion controls around the entire site with the exception of the entrance of the driveway. uh the erosion controls will come out on both sides to here and here and we will have the construction entrance in accordance with uh the DPW uh requirements

um for stabilization on site. The client is proposing a mix of trees, shrubs, and forest grasses uh inside. That is proposed to be done everywhere except for uh the areas that are going to have these septic systems, paved or gravel driveway areas, um walkways, and uh anywhere that's really close to the overhang of the house. Besides that, their intention is to try to reestablish

the vegetation that's similar to what's there now to stabilize uh stabilize the soil.

Um part of our project, we're going to need to obtain natural heritage approval. Uh I took a note that you guys were questioning when that was uh going to be back from the previous applicant.

Um ours should be due on the 23rd. Uh ours has been out um for a while. they signed for receipt of it and uh the 23rd should be the latest that we hear back from them. Um technically I think it's the Friday before the 23rd that it's due, but um it's one of those two days.

And then uh the only other outstanding thing that we have besides conservation is uh DPW did get back to us with a few minor uh questions or comments uh pretty much mostly regarding the water line asking us to show you know gate valve shut off and uh specify the line size.

Um besides that uh I'll entertain any questions that the board has.

Thank you very much. Uh, Eduardo, before we entertain questions from commissioners in the audience, um, I would like to hear comments that staff may have on this proposal.

Uh, yes. Uh, staff has a a couple of comments regarding this uh, site. Uh, number one, as Jamie mentioned, uh, still waiting on National Heritage.

Um, uh, number two, there's been significant, uh, neighborhood oppos opposition to this project as a whole, and I believe there's quite a number of, uh, neighbors in the audience, uh, at the moment as well.

uh in regards to the optional project uh so the proposed stabilization of the coastal bank.

If I may just interrupt you for a moment. I know the neighbors certainly have the right to be heard this evening but just for the record. Do you happen to know the number of written communications that you've received from abutters and neighbors?

I believe it's been about eight.

Okay.

and one letter.

So, u I would entertain a motion at this juncture to admit all of the written communications as part of the record of this filing.

So move second.

Second.

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

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes. Donald, yes.

And my vote is yes. And I just want to explain to the people in the audience that means that the written communications are now part of the record and they don't have to be read into the record. Um, so they are there.

They're part of the record and you certainly I'm not preluding your opportunity to speak this evening or whenever there is a public hearing on this matter, but I just wanted to clarify why I did that so you would understand. Um, okay, Eduardo, I'm sorry to have interrupted you, but if you would proceed.

Oh, yeah, no problem. Uh, so speaking with Jamie on this project, um, so in regards to the stabilization of the coastal bank and the bank in general, uh, he's proposing tree and shrub plantings. Uh, so for staff's concerns, this doesn't fully address the overall stability of the bank and the proposed retaining walls surrounding house. Uh while I understand the role of a wetland scientist or arborist in evaluating

vegetation for stabilization, it doesn't speak to whether or not the retaining walls themselves uh will remain stable given the extent of the grading cuts uh across the parcel. Um so I would like to see if the commission approve uh agrees with this uh some sort of stability uh certification by a structural engineer uh when it comes to those retaining walls to see uh how well they last or how good they are I guess in

general. Um so given that um another quick comment I had here regarding this uh so given the scope of the proposed grading there's also potential for secondary impacts to wetland resource areas including al altered hydraology and increased erosion and sedimentation particularly during storm events. Uh granted those um uh what do you call it? Uh those retaining walls uh will help uh

with some of the sedimentation issues and the um hydraology. Uh but uh I would like to see um you know just in in general just a stability and uh hydraology uh report of some sort when it comes to that.

Okay. um commissioners who want to speak on this.

Obviously, uh not having Natural Heritage all by itself, we will remain consistent. We will not close the public hearing until we've heard from Natural Heritage. But that doesn't mean you can't ask questions tonight if you want to.

Mr. Chair, I have a question.

Yes, please go right ahead. that Jamie, can you just walk us through the thought process around where the the footprint of the home was placed on the parcel versus maybe other potential locations that are available to us on this on this plot?

Certainly.

Um the front setback off of the road is 60 ft. Um so we have it pretty much as close as we can to the roadway. You'll see our front setback is 63.4 feet. Um what we did was so I'm going to keep scrolling back and forth. Um as far as septic system is concerned to meet the setbacks um for title five requirements that that uh dictated that we work within this area here for the septic

system. Um so the leeching field is in this vicinity as would required be required. We have resource area that wraps around the entire site. So we have salt marsh, BVW, flood plane and top of coastal bank that runs here along with uh the stream. Um you've got the mean high water that comes in to these you know inlet channels and then back out.

And so when you take the 200 feet off of these little inlets because it's meanh high water, you end up with a two a 100 foot riverfront and a 200 foot riverfront in these areas here. So what you want to try to do and then again you still have BVW you have coastal bank down here and uh you have salt marsh back here that wraps around. So in trying to balance that you want to make

sure you're out of the 100 foot riverfront. You want to stay out of coastal bank if you can and um obviously salt pushing DBW which we are uh staying out of. So, we're doing some work here in the 100 to 200 foot and we're doing uh there's a little bit of work right in here uh that would be flood plane because the road itself is actually below the base flood elevation out in

the street in this area here. So, once we get out to the roadway um out into the layout, this is a little bit of flood plane here that we'll be working in subject to coastal storm flowage. Um, but that's essentially what drove the location on the building itself was zoning setbacks and resource setbacks.

Thank you.

Good question. Uh, any other commissioner?

I don't see any. Uh, I'll now open it up to those in the audience. Um, who if you wouldn't mind stop sharing your screen so I can see the audience.

Absolutely.

Appreciate that. Thank you. So, we'll open it up to the audience. And I see that uh by the way, you're not precluded if you speak tonight to speak at what's likely to be the continued public hearing, but I see that Kathy Clear has her hand up. And um I can we can unmute Kathy if she can speak.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yeah. Uh this is Gregory Clear. I'm using my wife's computer because mine's acting up.

Oh, no problem.

Uh, good evening to all of the commissioners. Uh, I am Gregory Clear. I live at 100 Horses Neck Road, just up the road. And I am contacting you or talking with you to urge you to deny this project in total.

As you people are all aware, the Sloum River is under the gun with the state with regard to nitrogen.

The entire south coast is supposed to be working together right now on a remediation plan to address the nitrogen problems. There was a movement a couple of years ago to require everybody to put in nitrogen reducing septic systems etc which was really not feasible. So this alternative plan was done to continue business as usual.

Granting construction within the buffer zones, within the river edge zones, uh is a uh an abdication of your responsibility of your husbandry of Dartmouth resources.

There is a lawsuit that's going against the town right now. that's wandering or not the town from uh Buzzard's Bay with this issue. We have to stop just building as we always have down into the f within 40 ft of the edge. This is not a hardship case. This is not an existing facility such as in items three and four on this evening's meeting. This is new building on very difficult land that is

in a very fragile area and should not be built on at all. The entire building and sanitation system are within the repairarian zone. All of it.

There is a 1500gallon uh septic tank. I don't quite know why health hasn't said anything about that.

That is in the buffer zone. Now it is not the field. I acknowledge that. But tanks leak. They have pipes leaving in and out of them. This is all in the buffer zone going right straight down to the Slowcom River, which is full of nitrogen. We can't keep doing this.

And finally, we've got massive retaining walls. Some are 9 ft high are planned all around the property, which will completely change the contour. I know Eduardo talked about this item and it's still being reviewed, but we are completely going in and butchering this lot to cram a house in a tiny little area up on top in a purely contractor's speculative environment. I urge the commission, as do many of our neighbors,

to deny this application completely.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Excuse me. Does anyone else wish to be heard in the audience? Um, and again, for this evening's meeting, there'll most likely be a continuance, so you get another chance if you want it.

Um, I don't see any. As I mentioned, there's already been admitted into the record um previously subid submitted, excuse me, written u commentary from neighbors and the butters opposing this project. That's already part of the record. Even though it hasn't been read this evening, it is now part of the record. So, commissioners, we know we have to wait for natural heritage.

Um, it looks like Natural Heritage will be able to make its determination in time for our next meeting if I heard correctly. Um, but barely. Um, so that would be the 23rd, I think, if I correctly. And our meeting's the 24th.

Um, but we could we could do that. I mean, we could continue it until the 24th.

Mr. Chairman, if forgive me for interrupting, but I I recall that there was also a desire from Eduardo for a structural review of the retaining walls themselves. there was and um that if the applicant's willing to do it and can do it within the time frame which is quite compacted to meet that meeting um would be appropriate but frankly uh we wouldn't have to continue the public hearing because they didn't

submit that. That means we would then have to vote without one of the recommendations or concerns of staff having been met. Of course, then the applicant takes the risk of how that vote turn out.

Mr. Chairman, could I uh make a point of record? Uh I I think Jamie needs to be corrected. And Jamie, remind me. I could be wrong, but you indicated that the resource areas were approved under a determination. I thought it was a uh an O-r uh not a determination of applicability. Uh, could you validate that or correct me on that?

I can. Um, let me just double check. I'm I'm fairly certain it was done under a determination of applicability.

Yes, a DOA.

It was done under a D in 25.

Uh, yep. Uh, okay. Okay. I I I sought I I seem to remember it as an Orad, but uh I just want to make it clear because one can be extended and ORAD can be a determination cannot be.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Um commissioners Oh, I see David SA has his hand raised.

If David can unmute.

Yes. As as as the applicant, I'm confident we can have a structural engineer um review the uh retaining walls and um you know prep prepare a report you know confirming stability within the um within you know 7 days from today.

Okay. Because it will need to be um sub in submitted by Thursday prior to the meeting. So, Thursday before the 24th.

Okay. If it comes in later than that, it would require another continuence.

Understood.

Thank you for that clarification, Mr.

SA. Um, so, commissioners, I think it's appropriate at this juncture to continue the public hearing. Um and I and so I would entertain a motion to continue this public hearing on uh D file 15-2814 until Tuesday, February 24, 2026 at 7 p.m.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Matt, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Have a great night.

Okay. Thank you. So, now we're moving to our final public hearing. And do we have a D file number for this, Edward?

Uh, yes. It's uh 15-2816.

Oh, just as you thought. Okay.

A public hearing on D file uh 15-2816, NOI 26-5.

It's on the notice of intent to renovate an existing single family dwelling with an addition and porch within bordering land subject to flooding and the 100 ft buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland. The applicable regulations are 310 CMR 10.02 10.55 10.5 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. The land is described as map 98 lot 2. It's otherwise known as 49 Rockadundi Road. I'll entertain a

motion to wave the re second on seconded motion. Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

That yes.

Ronald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. And is there someone here this evening that wishes to speak on behalf of the applicant or the applicant?

Mr. Chairman, if I could speak. Uh this was a this this was a filing that was made uh a little prematurely.

Uh the building department uh when they did an inspection for a building permit determined that the foundation underneath the existing house which was to remain in place under the current proposal was in fact uh deficient structurally uh it was failing and basically the building department told the applicants that they would not approve the project uh for a building permit.

building department came down to to the office and we had a discussion and I said, "Well, you know, the applicant can do what the applicant could do." Uh, clearly you've told me that the foundation needs to be replaced. So, that's a that's a whole different project than what has been proposed here. Simply a porch and an addition uh within buffer zones and flood plane. So I said their best option

would be to request a withdrawal without prejudice uh which and then to refile with whatever the new project was going to be. They have subsequently refiled that new project but have sent via email a request for withdrawal uh without uh prejudice. So relative to this particular hearing uh file number or not, they have made a written request.

Uh I thought that was forwarded to the commission for a withdrawal without prejudice, which in my mind is the prudent thing to do. I don't really think that we could go forward. They couldn't change the notice of intent. They're changing the project, changing the plans. Um so I think this is the more prudent way to go. Oh, I think it was good advice given. Uh, and I do recall Eduardo did

send or forward that request. I just didn't know if anybody was here this evening to request it. But, um, under the circumstances, it certainly seems as if it's a reasonable thing to do. In fact, I think it's the prudent thing to do.

Um, so I will entertain a motion to accept applicants request to withdraw without prejudice the notice of intent on D file 15-2816.

That is the subject of this evening's on this evening's agenda. Excuse me.

So move.

Second.

We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote. James.

Yes. Megan, yes.

Matt, yes.

Arnold, yes.

My vote is yes.

Um, Mr. Chairman, if I just may make a quick comment about uh 49 Rocka Dundy Road. Uh, Mass D uh has decided to uh issue the same file number for the new notice of intent going forward. So the new notice not notice of intent as well as this one is are both 15-2816 which makes a little confusing.

Well that's why I stuck the language in about on the agenda this evening. Okay.

So that's this application not necessarily any application that may be in the office on this number. So I I you know I think this should do it. I don't think it precludes them from their refiling. We're not having that withdrawn.

Mhm. No. Right. Yeah. Just this one.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I didn't know what they were going to give them for that file number, but I suspected it was a possibility. That's why I added the language about being on the agenda. Okay. We're now moving on to our items for discussion. And Mark, I think you got it for the wetlands regulation. And then Eduardo, you'll have uh Greece Hicksville Road.

Well, now I have that one, too.

You have that one, too. Then, Eduardo, you have 38 Lakeside Avenue.

Yes.

All right. I got one right. Okay, good.

Go ahead, Mark. Floor is yours.

Okay. Well, uh, I forwarded you last week, uh, a draft copy of the wetland, the revised wetland regulations, which, you know, has been a long laborious uh, operation.

Uh, and, uh, we're seeking uh, commission approval of these. Uh I'm not sure if you saw the particular comments uh that Brian had left somewhat unanswered. Um but uh we have covered all the bases on this I think and um Brian has made a couple of suggestions you know long-term suggestions.

uh it really is very difficult to dovetail the uh well how do I want to put this? There are still some gaps between the bylaw and the regulations, but we have language which sort of covers it. But as we had talked about, and I think Chairman Kio, you had raised it, the bylaw should probably be reviewed every 3 to five years. And so Brian has made some comments relative to what he thinks

we should do moving forward. We're not going to reopen the bylaw this year. Uh this this will work. Uh, one of the comments that, uh, Brian had, let me, let's see here.

Okay, the first one was on page 15 and um, it has to do with overlapping fees.

Uh, let's see, where am I? Come on.

Would it be helpful, Mark, while you're looking if I shared my screen? I have it open.

Yeah, that'd be great. Actually, DCTV, if you let uh Mr. Watson share his screen, that'd be great.

Uh, yeah. Everybody on the board should have permissions. You should all be co-host. So, just let me know if you're having any issues. It would just be that share button right at the bottom. If you're on a desktop, hang on.

My computer is telling me I have to update my security settings. And if I do that, it may close Zoom.

Hang on. In the meeting.

Yeah. Hang on. Let me try one more time.

All right. Did that work?

It did work. Good job.

All right. So, Mark, I believe this is the one you were just referencing, correct?

Yeah. Where where he has an orange. Uh it got it gets a little confusing here.

uh we had so many fees and uh Brian is right if you read both of those uh they sort of overlap and they're two different numbers. Um so I think what we need to do is to decide to merge those two uh into some language and it's pretty much it's pretty much the language in the second highlighted area and then are you comfortable with the uh the fee being 500 or do you want it at 350?

Let's do five.

Okay. So, we're going to do Let me see where that is.

Mark, I'm curious when when you get these requests, what like which bucket do they typically fall into?

Uh, which bucket do they like are we typically charging 350 or 500?

We charge both. I think probably 350 a little bit more frequently.

Um, but uh we we charge 500 a fair number of times.

I know the language is similar, but is there is there there really is no difference. We've we've looked at this six different ways and there really is no difference and it's really just what what number the commission wants at this point.

I was considering something in between but I think 500's fine my opinion.

Okay. So is everybody comfortable with that?

I am. Looks like it. Yes.

Okay.

So, uh let me see here. On page 16, which is Can you go up one page?

Yeah.

I think my page number No, no. Okay. Okay.

Brian asked if commission should consider that that Yeah. specific types of projects whether any other types of project have a standard initial consultant fee as part of the application.

However, the commission cannot leave this determinate leave this determination whether a particular project or a particular fee to staff on a case-byase basis. So the the question is 99.9% of the time we um you know the fee is for storm water review for our third party consultant.

Brian asked me, "Are there other times when we would bring somebody in?" And I said, "The only thing I could think of is if we wanted some sort of structural consultant on shoreline projects, but we've I don't think we've ever asked for that." Uh, you know, Brian is is pushing whether we really want to site anything at this point.

Uh, I don't know.

I don't know whether we could name those right now. Those would be something that we'd probably have to think about over time. Um, I mean, I'm comfortable with leaving it as it is because I can't really name any projects.

I mean, any project could require it.

But most of the time we you know we we thrust that responsibility on the applicant as part of their filing aka wildlife studies.

We are now requiring them to have structural analysis on docks. So we're kind of forcing it on them.

Yeah.

We're not taking any kind of you know like we want to review this. We do it on storm water because that's a that's a different animal.

Yeah. We just did that this evening with the retaining walls, right?

So, yeah, but we forced the responsibility on the applicant. We did not we did not say we're going to have a structural guy do an analysis of these.

And as I said this evening, you know, if they decide they're not they don't want to do that, well, we can then as a commission vote without that information, but I wouldn't want to bet on which way the vote.

Yep. Yep. Yep. I get it.

Uh so that was that was the page 16.

Then on page 19 he added something for clarification.

Uh is this about performance centers for aquaculture?

That's the next one I see on here.

There are no there are not currently special performance standards for aquaculture minor minor projects. The commission may want to consider creating some. Uh the filing requirements for aquaculture are you make a request a determination of applicability. You give us a sketch plan with the four corners of the grant uh you know with spatial coordinates and that's it. There are no we have no we've

never issued any kind of performance standards for what an aquaculture grant meets. I mean that's that's generally governed by DMF and the shelfish constable.

I I don't I don't see our role there. I I I think we're we're opening Pandora's box. we we yield to uh we yield to what you know this the specialty agencies deal with on those.

So I don't I don't see I don't see a reason for for that uh for any kind of uh performance standards for aquaculture. I mean the only the only issue with aquaculture is it's typically placed in land under the ocean or in uh well certainly in flood plane because it's always underwater. I mean I don't know I don't know that there is any specific conservation commission performance standards unless you want

one. I can't think of anything to recommend to you.

I think we make more work for ourselves and we I agree with you completely.

No, I I don't think we need to.

Okay. So, we'll we will ignore that.

Uh where are we at?

Okay. Page 19. Brian added some language for class clarification.

Page landscape maintenance.

Is that the next one you got? That's the next one I got.

Okay. Uh yeah, that was landscape maintenance. He put that in. He felt that he wanted to clarify.

You know, we have very vague language about landscaping as being exempt. He wanted to put that in as uh you know part of the uh the standard conditions uh universal conditions.

So that was that.

Uh give me a minute.

Then he goes on to say on the next page, we have no conditions to non-landscaping maintenance and as such would need to be imposed on a case-bycase basis. the commission may want to consider creating standard maintenance conditions for other categories of improvements uh like utility poles and things like that. I don't think we do enough of that work to have standard conditions. I think we

deal with them on a case-bycase basis.

Uh because the sighting while many times like for utilities or in street streetscapes and street layouts, you know, the conditions are different. It you know fonts corner road is different than Pamska road. It has standard conditions. I I we don't do it enough to make it worthwhile that you just plug in a block of conditions, but that's that's my opinion.

I think you're right, Mark. And also that means if we did this um we would end up losing the flexibility to address specific cases uh problems.

These were not requirements. These were suggestions made by Brian. Uh you know uh I think the one thing that was we had to clear up was that that filing fee issue that was that was a little ugly.

Uh but uh other than that, you know, those were the only things uh we we hashed out a lot of things and um I think we're in a good place. Uh if you read them, I think Brian did a great job of reorganizing them and reformatting them. I think they read a lot easier than the previous edition. Uh so if the commission is comfortable with these regulations moving forward, then we can

certainly uh have a public we could have e uh we could have a meeting with Brian uh and then have a public hearing or if you choose we can have a public hearing and if Brian wants to sit in on that he can. Um, you know, I I don't want to pro pr prolong this any more than we have to. Uh, I think we should go right to the public hearing. Okay.

That's what I want.

I I I I like the way this read and you were correct. This is a lot easier to plow through than previous iterations.

So, um I think rather than have yet another intervening meeting and even more changes possibly unless any commissioner feels that this is no long this needs more work. I think we have the public meeting and if Brian wants to sit in he can that's up to him.

Um we're not requiring it.

Just had one minor.

Go ahead, Donald.

Just had one minor edit in back back up to definitions. The definition of sure, um, it it reads sure means sure. And then, uh, I don't know that you can use a word to help define a word. And that should uh should probably be edited.

there just that sure and then the rest of it don't don't have sure means sure.

Um I don't know what you I don't know what what you're reading.

Go up to the definition of shore.

Yeah, I'm got it right here. This is what you see right down.

Okay, let's see. Wait a minute.

You guys need me to zoom in?

I mean, I voter take that out. So, he says means that strip of ground, you know. I think that's the Yeah, I think Yeah, we can take the shore out of there. That's That's fine.

I don't think that changes anything.

Yeah, I Yeah, that's fine.

No minor edit. Yeah, I also I also noted that Brian's comment at the very top was that there are that he there are kind of known grammatical errors within this that he's going to address once the substance is agreed to.

So, sounds like he's not quite done reviewing some of the finer details.

Yeah, but I mean I think we can pick we can pick whatever we pick up is Yeah. No, totally. Yeah, it's good. It's a good call out.

Let me just I'm I'm going there to

But um I'm in favor of moving straight to public hearing though. I think given where this is at

Well, I'm I I need a vote from you folks to move ahead on this. You know, it's I'll entertain a motion to uh present this iteration of the uh rules and regulations at the next public hearing.

So, you want you want to do a public hearing on the 24th for this?

Correct. Okay.

Sag.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Natt, yes.

My vote is yes.

Passes unanimously.

Okay. Okay, the second item here is uh kind of weird.

Um I think you're all familiar with uh the reef site on Hicksville Road, not the one we're dealing with on North Hicksville Road, which is the brother.

This is the uh this is the old Reese stand and gravel pit just over the 195 overpass on Hicksville Road.

Now, this has a uh Mike you you certainly will remember and Richard would remember that Reite has had a long history of enforcement issues with various departments in the town uh including conservation and as best as they could and as best as we could assess given the 20 plus years of litigation and back and forth They had met the standards that we had required in our enforcement order and we signed off

on th those enforcement orders probably about five years ago give or take.

Um apparently somebody had complained to DP and one of the disciplines, not necessarily wetlands, uh, and DP had been working with the department of public health and D conducted a site visit on on the at the site. We nobody was nobody local was invited and apparently they made some observations of violations which included some potential wetland violations and they contacted and I I think I

forwarded you the emails Chris Misho and questioned whether the conservation commission of the town of Dartmouth wanted to take the lead on the enforcement out at Reese and Chris forwarded that to me and said, "What do you think?" And I said, "We have no complaint. We have no have had no reason to re-enter that site. The only knowledge I have of potential impacts are solid waste issues that you

Chris had raised to me over the past 18 months." And my response to Chris was, "If you want to conduct a site visit under your jurisdiction and you want to invite me, I'll be more than happy to go out there and be another set of eyes."

That never happened.

DP then says to Chris after their site visit, "Does conservation want to take the lead on the enforcement?" And my response was, "Enforcement on what? We have no grounds to enforce at this point. You haven't shared any data. We haven't been on site. We don't know what the wetland implications are out there.

Maybe there are impacts, maybe they're not. The second part of their question was, do they want DP to take the lead?

And I my response, you know, in my head was I would recommend to the commission, let D. The locals have been fighting with the Reese's for 20 25 years. nothing really has been accomplished to the town's benefit. Uh I think it's time now to bring in the big guns and if D has offered to do that, I think they do it on a multi-jurisdictional basis. So that was my thought process which I shared

with you folks with the individual who contacted Chris from DP and Chris. But it's not my call, it's your call as to how you want to proceed. Uh this would be a incredibly time consumptive fight and at the end of the day I don't know that the town has the stomach or the resources for that fight. But that's you know that that's your call to make what you just said. I don't think it's

much of a call. First of all, I think you correctly pointed out we don't have a dog in this fight. Okay.

Not right now. No.

Well, not right now. We have no complaint. We have So, as far as we're concerned, we didn't know there was any issue. Discovered apparently some issues. I think it's only appropriate that they then take charge because they have all the data with which to take charge. Mhm.

We're We'd be We'd be crushed if we went to court on that. What's the basis?

Well, D said, but you don't know. You didn't ab No.

No, we didn't. I think we'd get crushed procedurally. It should be them. I just think that's the right thing to do.

Yes. But as we all know, they like to push things on the municipalities.

They don't want to do the work.

They don't want to get their hands dirty. We know that.

Nobody wants to do the work. And it means you got to involve legal. And that means from our standpoint, we got to pay outside counsel. From their standpoint, it's a paid staff member.

Yep. Oh, yeah. I agree.

They're getting paid whether they're in court or not in court.

So, I think it's all around better idea for having them to do it.

I'm just waiting a vote for a vote from you guys. I will entertain a motion to decline the invitation to take the lead in prosecuting uh or attempting to prosecute the enforcement of issues uh at Reese Hicksville Road site. Um and I don't think we have to take a vote on whether we want D to do it. We're declining to do it. That's all we can really do.

So move.

Second motion on the floor. Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

N.

Yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes.

Thank you, Matt. Uh, we'll do.

Now the floor is yours, Eduardo.

All right. So, just have one item for discussion on enforcement issues. 38 Lakeside Avenue. Uh just to remind the commission, um this was the site where they had built a unpermitted beach of sorts.

Um and the commission had they had requested a an extension uh for filing a plan with with us. And I believe this what's today's date?

February 10th. Yeah. So, it was supposed to be d in due due for the February 10th meeting. That didn't happen. Um, we did receive a filing I think believe yesterday at some point um regarding uh 38 Lakeside. Uh there's some initial questions we have about the submitt um which I'm sure we don't want to be here all night. So we can certainly get to that at a late at a later meeting uh date. Uh

but I believe Jason Lord is in the audience or he was at least.

I don't know if he wants to say anything about the topic.

Mr. Chair, I'm here.

I'm sorry. I'm here.

Yeah, I I will recognize you in a moment. I just want to ask a question.

So um what are you asking us to do tonight, Eduardo? Um, I we we have an issue.

There's been a filing. It may not be it may not be a filing that we get approved because it's deficient, but we I don't know that this if we're you're asking us to um determine whether it's going to be sufficient tonight. I think it's not appropriate.

That would be in a public hearing.

No, no, I I wasn't I wasn't asking that.

No, I was No, I was just kind of stating that there's we we're still in the preliminary file review stages.

All right. All right. I'm I'm sorry. I thought you were going in that direction and I wanted to put a stop. I'll get to you, Mark, but Mr. Lord was talking when I interrupt.

Well, I have a point of clarification though that I think is in Mr. Lord's favor. If I could just interject real quickly. Uh the continuence last meeting that was granted was to have a notice of intent filed by close of business on February 10th. We received that notice of intent yesterday. So in to the benefit of Mr. Lord, they did meet the filing deadline as extended by the commission last meeting.

Okay.

We just started reviewing the filing. We have not legally advertised the filing.

There is no real discussion going on yet. So we, you know, what our review findings are are very preliminary at this point. They will be translated when we actually get into the file, but I just wanted to say that Mr. Lord and his people did file in full conformity with the last continuence.

Okay. Well, thank you for that, Mark.

It's an important um clarification.

Now, Mr. Lord, I interrupted you and I'm sorry, so you have the floor now. Uh, no worries. I appreciate the time. Um, thank you, Mark, for clarifying that.

Um, I'm essentially new to all of this and stumbling and fumbling my way through um it all. So, I appreciate your grace with allowing me to get it everything in. Um, I guess um we I'm not sure of the whole protocol and what what I'm actually meant to do next. Um, is it just wait and see what the next uh filing is or or what you guys decide on what I can do?

Um, what do you suggest that I'm I do next? Essentially, I'm I'm trying to um comply with everything that um you guys would like from me. um you know, so I guess I'm just trying to figure out what's best, what works for you guys, what I can do to help to correct um everybody's concerns in this matter.

Well, and let me tell you what I think, Mr. Lord, and I may be completely off base here, but if you filed with us um for an after the-act notice of intent, then the balls in our court has commissioned staff first to review, make sure the filing is complete. And if it is complete, then there will be appropriate advertisement, etc. And there'll be a public hearing at which point you or your representative can

make your case for why the um order of conditions um should be issued. And if staff has reviewed everything and is satisfied, they will make a recommendation that we should grant the order of conditions based upon the plan you submit and perhaps even subject to some conditions that staff recommends.

And then there will be uh opening of discussion on that to commissioners and the public. Then the public meeting gets closed and the vote is taken. Once the vote is taken, if the vote is to grant the order of conditions with any conditions, you will have the opportunity then to perform whatever it is that was in the order of conditions. You'll have three years to complete it without any

extension. So right now you're in the very preliminary stage. Okay? And Eduardo was describing something when I interrupted him uh because I was concerned that we were going to start to discuss the sufficiency of your filing which I think I was wrong and I shouldn't and Eduardo corrected me. So I just wanted to be sure we didn't get into a matter which should only be discussed at a public hearing.

Understood. And and can I can I me just note that um that I acknowledge that the work was done and completed without prior authorization. Um but I just wanted to express that that was not done to circumvent any regulations. Um but rather to address an immediate and and serious safety concern with my property.

U my property is separated by the lake by a concrete wall that has a bit like a large drop off um right directly into the water which which created like a a basically no safe transition or means of egress and so I put sand there after a drowning that occurred. So I felt that was I what I was doing was basically to protect my family. Um, I have a fence up already. Um, and that fence didn't

didn't actually prevent the drowning and that's why I I put sand in. I know it's keep called the beach for those reasons, but it makes it sound like I'm putting out lawn chairs and and you know, sunbathing, but that's not the case. It was actually meant more to be a safety barrier because once you step off of that wall, you're directly in water at that point. So, I just wanted to make

note that it wasn't to circumvent any regulations. I'm actually very green on what regulations are. I'm learning about safety, I mean buffer zones and things that I have zero idea on. Um, but I just wanted to put that out there as to what the purpose of that area was.

I appreciate Go right ahead.

Mr. Chairman, if I could add, we're getting very close to discussions in a public hearing and this has not yet been advertised.

No, it hasn't been. I I agree with you.

Uh, and I just I think we have to we have to be very careful. I'm not dismissing what Mr.

Lord said, but this is not the time or the place for that. This was really a status report on them making the filing as required by the commission. That's all this discussion item was.

Understood.

Anything else, Eduardo, on this status?

Uh, no. That was basically just status on 38 Lakeside.

Okay.

Um, I have no further items for discussion to bring up. Does any commissioner?

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

So, move.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

We'll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Natt, yes. Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone for your patience and your um presence tonight.

Uh and Richard Melon regrets not being here. He wanted to express that to everyone. But he's in Florida with family and I hope he's a lot warmer than I am.

Sure. I'm sure he is in Florida if he's in Florida.

All right. Thank you.

Good night, everyone. Thank you guys.

All right. Good night.