Conservation Commission Meeting - January 13, 2026

Call to order the Dartmouth Conservation Commission uh meetings for Tuesday, January 13, 2025.

And we're here this evening conducting this meeting remotely as a result of Governor Healey signing on March 25 20 excuse me 2025 uh a further extension of the hybrid remote meeting options for uh municipalities which extends that option until uh June 30 2027.

This meeting is accessible uh to the public. There are raise your hand features. Wave your hand if all else fails and you will be recognized. Um, we are going to uh keep the microphones muted of those that have not that are not commissioners or are not presenting.

But that doesn't mean you don't have a chance to speak. You do when you're recognized. And then your microphone will be unmuted and you can then make your uh position known. Uh this meeting is being uh conducted after having been duly noticed by state and local laws regarding uh postings etc. It's also been available on our website. U with that being said and we do have uh six out of the seven commissioners

affirmative votes will take four positives.

So we're going to our administrative.

The first is to approve the field trip report for December 23, 2025. May I have a motion to that effect, please?

So moved.

Second.

Have a seconded motion on the board.

Roll call vote. We're going to go. Liz, yes.

Nat, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

Next, we're going to have the receipt of the December 9, 2025 minutes. I have a motion to that effect, please.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Natt, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. We're moving now to our field trip reports. We have a request for a certificate Certificate of compliance with D file 15-2733, that's RCC 2510 from Channing Dawson and Whitney Ray Dawson, to construct the shed and to replant enhance the 100 ft buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. The regulation involved was 310 CMR 10.02 2 10.55 as well as section 360-2B

of the town of Dartmouth bylaw. The land is described as map 15, lot 10. It's otherwise known as number two, Beach Rose Lane.

Um, Eduardo, what is staff's recommendation on this request?

Uh so just to give a quick little uh the back uh backstory here. Uh we first received this COC uh a little way back in May. However, uh when we went out at that point, uh some of the plantings weren't doing well and some appeared to have been browsed by deer. Uh therefore we asked for this COC to be pushed back until some replantings had been done and the conditions were a bit better. Um so

we went out uh earlier this week took a look at the the plantings and they looked a lot better than what they previously were. Um so given that we're going to be re we're recommending a complete COC.

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

I see none.

Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to issue a complete certificate of compliance on DP file 15-2733.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Nat, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard.

Yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Uh we're moving on to our public hearings and we have two. The first is a continued uh public hearing D file 15-2805 NOI 25-39 on the notice of intent from the Dartmouth Natural Resources Trust, Inc. DNRT care of David M. Dignon for the site improvements that include to install on-site gravel road access with signage, parking areas, and storm water controls, improve sight lines along Flag Swamp

Road, and to remove a steel catwalk, two pump houses, and a wooden pier. These activities will occur within or on an inland bank land underwater bordering land subject to flooding riverfront area and the 100 ft buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. The applicable regulations are 310 CMR 10.02 10.54 through 10.58 and section 360-2 of the town of Zartment bylaw.

The land is described as map 79, lot 34-1. It's otherwise known as 293 Flag Swamp Road. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So move.

Second.

Second.

Motion on the floor. Roll call vote.

Liz, yes.

Matt, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. I see Mr. Dignon's here actually twice. Um, David, which one are you on? The David Dignon PE or the David Dignon?

Uh, I'm I think I'm speaking from the David Diggman. I'm using two devices uh in order to screen share as my computer has no audio.

Okay. Which device are you going to use for screen sharing?

Uh, you know, I'm not sure. I see one on the screen from my screen. Um I I I don't know. You want to take the one the one that's highlighted now is David Dignant PE. And the reason I asked is under u some new protocols I'm going to have to instruct DCTV to allow you to screen share but to give them the name.

So I have to be precise on that name.

So, I'm assuming because David Dignet or Dave Dignen PE is um highlighted, that's the one you're speaking from. Um I think you're correct. So, if I'm if you were allow if you would allow me to screen share on the other one.

Okay. DCTV, if you would please allow Dave Dignon uh to screen share. And he's using the Dave Dignen without the PE for his computer.

Should be all set.

Thank you.

Uh Dave, the floor is yours and you can screen share if you so choose.

Okay. Um I'm going to my screen share and apparently it's some reason it's not there. Give me a moment.

While I'm doing this, uh, for the record, I'm Dave Dvikn from Schneider Devant and Leone. I'm representing the Dartmouth Natural Resources Trust.

The last public hearing that the commission heard on this project was actually presented um by Nick Wildman. I actually uh expected him to be here this evening.

I see him here. He's at least his name is. Yes.

Okay.

I didn't know if he wanted to to start or um well um with without the screen share I don't know if he would want to but he could if he wants to. He says go ahead. So he's given us a thumbs up.

Sorry I wasn't aware that I could unmute at this time. Can everyone hear me?

Yes. All right. Thank you. Uh thank you very much Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I apologize uh to begin that we've continued this hearing as long as we have. Uh I felt that the commission had a a good understanding of the project as relates to the relevant regulations uh at our first hearing.

Unfortunately, we've had some continued work to develop and refine the storm water management controls of the pro of the proposed project uh to suit the requirements of the Dartmouth engineering department in that time.

Therefore, um, and based on scheduling constraints both from our consultants and from the engineering department, we have not been able to come to a final resolution and get that final approval.

Uh, materials and calculations that were requested by engineering were submitted today, this morning. Um, unfortunately, that was not in time for engineering department to submit their review. Uh it's my understanding that through the back and forth uh there we've come to an agreement on meeting the applicable standards and the draft plans that Mr.

Divin's firm has prepared show a slight modification of the storm water controls that were uh submitted in your packet.

uh those have not been transmitted to the commission, but as you will see when we do submit those, the aerial extent and thus the temporary and proposed permanent impacts to resource areas under the commission's jurisdiction will be relatively unchanged uh by the work.

It's simply rearranging the shapes, if you will, of some of the proposed treatments. So, um given that we have not had uh a formal response from the engineering department on the latest calculations and uh figures to meet their requirements. Unless Mr. Dividan has anything else he'd like to add, I would respectfully request continuence of this hearing.

Um if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Sure. Absolutely.

I' I'd like to um just go through the plan set um because the plan set was submitted last week. um by the the deadline required and I and I did personally speak with uh Mr. Paul Dart at the engineering department and he verbally uh actually I think he did in an email as well stated that he was all set with the plans. He just needed the storm water report to be updated to

match the the storm water uh detention basin that we have. Uh um and the the glitch we ran into is our uh on our storm water team, we have Carrie Williams. She's our storm water um engineer. She actually was out of the country um middle of last week and she was supposed to fly in Monday and she had flight issues and therefore was unable to submit the updated report until this morning and we were not aware

that Mr. Dart was not in the office.

He's out today. So, um we sort of missed the deadline with the drainage report being finally reviewed by him at the last minute by uh simply one day. He was very uh gracious to work with and he again looked at the plan and he said all I need to do is it'll take me very little time to review the final numbers that I'll be looking for to match the plan. So, um, and my apologies on behalf

of the team and, um, um, but I I would still like to go through what, um, I consider the final plan because I I I know that the report as submitted, um, did address the the final issue. And so, I don't think there will be any any changes or any new information submitted between now and the next meeting. Um, we simply [clears throat] would be looking for Mr. do art's final blessing on the

final draft uh the final report for the storm water. So with that being said, I'll be real brief. I won't prolong [clears throat] the presentation uh given by Nick at the last meeting.

There are three areas. This is an aerial view of the entire property. There are three areas in set A here where the the major focus is because of a proposed parking lot. B and C, those items, there were no issues uh relative to um the staff of the commission or or the engineering department.

When [clears throat] we go to um the next sheet, this is really the focus of um of the engineering department. Um I will say there is there was a a disagreement between myself and the engineering department in that um we felt we feel still feel strongly that this is a redevelopment uh project and a new development a hybrid if you will because the proposal is to utilize this existing gravel road

which runs north uh east uh west to east around the bogs as the entry road into a parking lot out back we've got four spaces and then two out front and the um the new development would be the expansion of that gravel road widening it and creating the parking spots. Um uh the engineering department's view is that it's new construction and they wanted us to adhere to new construction standards and we we had a somewhat

difficult time because of the existing constraints on the site. We have a an old bog on the west side of the road which is uh considered a boarding vegetated wetland. We have obviously uh a pond on the east side and then a wetland associated with that. So um we're utilizing the road, widening the road and then it really only had two spots to put the the new parking for um

for the general public in the future. We had on this north side a leeching trench for storm water that had to be widened in order to meet um the new construction standards and we were able to do that.

Um the the more difficult aspect of the project is is this drainage uh basin that we have here which I'll blow up just a little bit more. Um it initially was a kidney shape um just in front of the two spaces. Um and the the problem we we ran into right up until the end is trying to meet this uh requirement for the D storm water management standards as well as the Dharm standards for they

have a requirement you size the pond for 100year storm and then you have a 12-in freeboard or factor of safety. Well, when we first sized the pond, it was only 12 in deep to begin with. So, we had basically um the 100red-year uh storm event would fill the pond at 6 in and then we had a 6 in spill over and we really couldn't raise the burm anymore because we we would uh risk water

spilling the opposite way across the road to the wetlands on the west side.

So in the end we we made a compromise and we made the the drainage depression um basin twice the size and in doing so we created basically a shallower pond with the extra 12 in of freeboard. Um [clears throat] so the overall pond is deeper but the pond itself will treat the runoff in a shallower um format. Um, so that was the end and in the end I just had to make

changes to the volume computations to make the the numbers work and as I said the the final storm water report matches that. So um that's the rundown of of where we were and how we got to the end.

Uh there were other smaller um details that they wanted on the plan that were added to the plan and everything we've added to the plan was approved um um by by Mr. Dwart. Um, so with that being said, uh, I'd be happy to answer any questions and as Nick said, we certainly, um, would request a continuous of two weeks so we can get the final blessing of the storm water report from Mr. [clears throat]

Yeah, that would be January 27th.

Um, Eduardo, um, I know that this is there is a request for continuence, but, uh, do you wish to have any comments made known tonight?

Um, just kind of going off of what Mr.

Dign was saying. Um, so again, we've been waiting for the storm water cals uh, for this project. Uh, I, as he was saying, they were delivered this morning. However, uh, Mr. Dart uh was not in um given that we're still waiting for engineering sign off and have been for a few weeks now. Um it I believe it's up to the commission whether or not they would um like to make a decision on

whether or not they'd like to continue or withdraw until we get uh more information.

Well, I can uh I I'll open it up to any commissioner first. Eduardo and then I'll open it up to anyone in the audience. Um, so first any commissioner wishes to be heard.

Is there anyone in the audience this evening that wants to speak? Um, knowing we may well vote to continue and they may have that opportunity at the continuation.

I didn't see any commissioner who wanted to speak and I also didn't see anyone from the audience um speaking for myself.

Mr. Chair, yes.

Uh just a quick comment, Mark Garrett.

Uh I think that everything is accurate.

We did receive the uh updates and they were submitted to Paul, but he's out of the office. Uh my recommendation, you have three options. denial, request for withdrawal, or continue. My recommendation to Eduardo was to continue.

Yeah, I I would I would concur with that recommendation given the fact that there's been uh timely presentations made, work has been done on this. Um admittedly it would have been nice to have uh engineering comments this evening but given the circumstances uh two weeks I don't think is going to be of much of an impact on on anyone. So I would I would agree with that. Um so I will entertain a motion at this juncture

um to continue this public hearing on um D file 15-2805 for two weeks until our meeting on January 27, 2026 at 7 p.m.

So moved second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes. Nat, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

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

The second public hearing is continued public hearing DP file 15-2808 NOI2541 on the notice of intent from 600 PMsa land trust care of David Dignman to construct a residential pier and perform improvements to the existing cart path within land subject to coastal storm flowage land under the ocean land containing shellfish the 100 ft buffer zone to a salt marsh and within 200 ft riverfront area. The regulations

involved are 310 CMR 10.02, 10.04 10.25 10.32 10.34, and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaw. The land is described as map 19, lot 20_2, otherwise known as 600 PMs Road. I entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So moved.

Second. Second.

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

Nat, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, David, you're still up, I guess.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Um, may I screen share?

I uh ask DCTV to allow David Dignon to share his screen.

All set.

Okay. For the record, I'm Dave Dvn from Schneider Leone and I represent um the 600 PMska Trust.

Um so this this property is uh 600 PMSA Road. It's a peer project and I want to start out by I'm I'm going to work backwards um because this is technically our first public hearing and the la the we didn't present the first time due to comments made by the harbor master. um the comments came in um I think in a in a reasonable time from the meeting in advance of the meeting but what he was

requesting we needed uh significant more time to do additional surveys at the property. Um so this is a um the first uh photo I'm showing you. It's an old historical photo. The site is 26 acres and if you follow my cursor, it it has shoreline from this location all the way around to this point. I know it's very difficult to see, but in this location where I'm moving my my cursor, there was

an old pier and and I don't know if you can see that footprint, but this site had uh up to two peers. I wanted to show the location of the first one. Um the the next photo is a little uh um another photo that's a little better and now you can see it a little more pronounced uh where that pier location was. So when our client came to us and

and wanted to um uh do a peer project, his his initial desire uh was to if I get this right here.

I'm having difficulties with my screen.

Okay. His initial loca uh desire was to propose a pier um that came off of the point and we had it in this direct in this location over here. Um there's a path that leads from the house. Um there's a long windy driveway from PMSA to get to this cottage. There's a cabin here. Uh a lot of the property is under a conservation restriction.

The conservation restriction does allow um that actually states uh it allows up to two peers to be uh reconstructed because there was a pier in this location down down the path to the southeast. And then as you follow this existing cart path all the way to the point, there are two piles left of the pier in this location.

This is actually the design that we're proposing now. Uh the original design came off of the path and went uh perpendicular to the shoreline and and and into the the channel. Um the harbor master uh rejected that location. He thought it would be um a navigational issue. He suggested that we move it um into a location over here along the east. Um, so we had to go back to the

site and survey all of the uh the depths and the marsh in this area over here.

Um, and then we designed a pier coming off of the path from the house coming uh out into this location to get to some some adequate water depths.

Um, let me see if I can get this.

It seems I grabbed the wrong PDF.

Um so we then designed a pier in this location right here. Um, after uh the staff for conservation, uh, Mr. Garrett and and Eduardo looked at it, they felt that this design was too long and impacted uh, too much of the resource area. Um, so then we went back to a a hybrid uh sort of an in between design where we had one in this location.

Um, and this one brought it out to this imaginary line that I have across here that the harbor master gave us to work within. And we felt this was the compromise. Rather than having the float out in the waterway over here, we have it straddling that line, getting to the depths that we feel we need to be at.

and it being a shorter version of the pier. We are crossing the marsh at one of the narrowest points at this point where we come across. We're beginning in the existing path. Um and the initial notice of intent submitt included upgrades to the path to get to the point so that we could build the pier in this location right here. Um, so, um, I think I'll try to find the other, um, um, PDF as I entertain

questions or hear from, uh, the staff on on their take on where we're at. We just feel like we're at a point where we've kind of pingponged from one side of the property to the other. Um, our problem is we have this shallow area here inside of this line that cuts across.

Everything inside is is relatively shallow and too shallow to actually put uh a float or even a boat. Um, because when you look at the depths, you have to factor in uh like this contour minus three mean low water is minus 1.8. So that means you have about 14 in of water in this location. In order to get to adequate water depths, you kind of have to get out to this line or come out

further uh from the point perpendicular to get to the depths that are needed.

Thank you, David. Eduardo, I'd be interested to hear staff's comments on this proposal.

Um yeah, so as Mr. Uh Devignin was saying there's been a couple of different iterations of this dog, different placements. Uh and currently the one that he showed uh which we're going to call option two, um answered most of our concerns, especially when it came to the um impact to the resource zone and the length of the dock in general. Um so given that um we're recommending uh standard ordered conditions uh with

modifications to include uh NHSP comments and our own uh so special condition 21 uh to say this order this order is contingent on the applicant obtaining all other necessary and required permits or licenses. No activity shall occur prior to obtaining all such approvals.

This is to include the harbor master's approval.

Um as the harbor master is still um yet to approve majorly approve uh the project in in general um special condition 41. to the outboard end of the float shall not extend beyond the minus 6.5 NAVD uh bimetric contour and shall be be defined with reflecting indication or lighting solar powered uh for navigational safety and identification special condition number 42 to say support piles will directly display

shellfish habitat and piles may cause further indirect impacts that negatively heavily affect bordering shellfish habitat. The applicant shall make payments of $1,000 to the town shellfish procurement fund. The through the harbor master shellfish warden to offset 400 square ft of both direct and indirect impacts to the identified shellfish habitat.

Special condition 43 to read. There shall be no discharge of leeches from any piles used for dock or float support/ anchorage. And special condition 44, there shall be no prop dredging of the river bottom relative to the size of vessels using the structure.

Special condition 45 to read, any activities requiring a barge shall be restricted to two hours before and after high tide to prevent barge grounding in shellfish habitat.

And special condition 46 to read appropriate containment measures ag floating boom with a weighted silk curtain shall be deployed during construction activity to prevent siltation in the marine environments.

Special condition 47 to read a time of a time of year restriction of November 1st to March 31st shall be employed to avoid impacts to state listed species and their habitats. Special condition 48 to read NHSP has conditioned this work for five years from the date of issuance of the final order. Work may be completed at any time during this 5-year period in compliance with the conditions herein.

Thereafter, the applicant must refile with NHSP pursuant to MSA.

Uh upon filing for renewal, extension or amendment of the order of conditions, the applicant shall contact NHSP for a written response regarding impacts to resource area habitat of state listed wildlife. And then state special condition 49 to read to reiterate MAD DP general condition 10 of this final order of conditions. It is required that a sign shall be displayed at the site not

less than two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection or Mass D uh file number 152808.

Thank you, Eduardo. Does any commissioner have any questions of uh staff or Mr. Dvikn?

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

Again, I I don't see anyone. I have a question, Eduardo, on u when you were mentioning condition number 21, you included Harbor Master, who hasn't yet approved it. I'm just curious, have we changed our position regarding our voting without Harbormaster approval?

because I thought in days gone by we wouldn't do that. So if we've changed our position, I just want to know before we take uh you would be correct. Um uh the harbor master is uh from what I understand is worried about the safety of the navigable uh waters of where the current dock is uh placed or rather located. Um the previous options that Mr. Dvikton had shown to us uh showed

the dock um gearing pretty far out into the Slokum River uh which um the Harvard master had issues in terms of safety.

And so we included the special condition 41 uh to have those solar powered or those lightings on the uh the little dock itself. So to prevent any um hopefully prevent any issues with uh seeing the dock at night or anything of that sort.

Okay. I guess my my concern is we're we're making a change from previous protocols of this commission and I just want to make sure that going forward if we're making this change we are consistent because this will be the first time based on staff's recommendation that we voted on uh proposals such as this without Harborm approval or disapproval because sometimes he's disapproved and we've had

to to go along with him. Right. So, we have we don't have any um any information from Harbor Master other than he didn't he would not approve the original design.

However, there's been from my hearing this evening and from looking at the materials that were submitted to previous or two subsequent, excuse me, designs and he hasn't commented on those. So we'd be making a decision without his approval or disapproval.

May I have be heard, Mr. Chair?

Sure. Absolutely.

I I don't think we should travel down that road at all. I think we should have the complete review and approval of the harbor master and not set any precedent with bypassing it uh today.

Thank you. Does anyone else want to speak to that issue? uh at least um in in the audience, David, you certainly are welcome to re respeak on that, but um I think it is an important point.

We've never done that before.

Um and obviously you know that because you've been involved in some of those.

Um yes. Um I'd like to screen share again a different PDF just so that the commission fully understands where we started and how where we're at now. And um if I may Oh uh again DCTV please allow Dave Devna to uh share his screen.

Should be able to uh there was someone with a hand up by the way. Matthew Bellows just Okay. I didn't see that. I'll go back to Mr. Bellows after David's finished.

Okay. So I I just I want to fully I didn't grab the right PDF, but now I do have it. So I want I want to show the commission um you know the bigger picture of where we started.

So this this plan shows the point of the property and you can see that we surveyed all the way across the river uh to the other side. Um, and you can see the the channel at its deepest point.

So, we have -15, -16, and it comes back up to -15 on the other side. Um, we initially didn't think that we were sticking this too far out because this being the mean high water. The This is the plan that the harbor master uh had an issue with. And then what he supplied to me was he drew a line sort of right from where my cursor is across um uh parallel to the uh to another

point on the other side and said basically keep it keep it within um that line and he suggested that we move to the east. So that that caused us to to go out and do the survey. This line represents or is consistent with his line. And and this is the pier. Uh and you can see how long it is. Uh coming off the path just south of the cabin and

and putting it kind of where he steered us. Um and you can see how long it is.

And we stay within the line that he like. Now when he looked at this, he said, "Well, your float is right at the line, but the you know, the boat can go outside of it." and and then we pulled it in even more so and and just submitted up to the portal a draft plan for discussion purposes and and that's when we received comments um from from your staff that this is too much of an

impact across um the the substrate and and the resource areas. So, and that that's what brought us to the the third design and this was uploaded to the portal um at last week at some point where uh we had our long design over here and then the other original out over here and we're in quite a bit from the original. Um we are straddling this line but we we're following the contours

which pull away from the from the channel itself. Um, so I just wanted to give the commission a picture of, you know, where we're at. I know this was submitted to the uploaded to the portal.

I don't know if if if the harbor master had comments specifically related to this plan or not. I would defer to Eduardo on that.

Uh, David, I appreciate the fact that you gave us this um overview of the the three proposals and how they came to be.

It is helpful to me. Um, you know, and I uh I certainly appreciate what Eduardo said, and it does seem to me that the um plan that staff is recommending uh would normally be a a very uh good solution to this problem. My my issue though is really one of procedure where we I think we need to hear from the harbor master that he selected one of these three to approve or disapprove all of them for

that matter. I don't want to prejudge what he says. But um you know I think we need to have that in order for us to make a decision consistent with previous decisions we've made regarding projects of this type. I I think if we start making a decision and put in a condition subject to harbor master approval then we have to do that from now on and it's going to be not I don't think it's going

to be a very good thing. Mark I saw you but there was also a gentleman Matthew Bellows who had his hand raised first.

I'll go to Mr. Bellows if you want to speak.

Thank you Mr. Commissioner and everybody. Um, why don't I why don't I defer to Mark since I'm curious about his perspective on this and then I'd love to weigh in after.

Okay. I'll come back to you then. Mark, now you.

Okay. Uh just to be fair uh to everyone, the applicants, the commissioners, Eduardo, this was one of those protracted uh projects that I was heavily involved with and doing a lot of negotiating with the harbor master. The har, excuse me, the harbor master has reviewed this maybe three times and has never given us really a clear indication of his position short of indicating and I do agree with this

premise that the uh boat specification that was shown is in his opinion in my opinion probably too large for this waterway. But that's not something that we can judge here at the conservation commission. That's out of our jurisdiction. What we can judge is the impacts to the resource areas based on the doc requested.

Uh Mr. Dignon is correct. You saw on all of those plans that he had shared that broken line which was kind of a line that the harbor master set forth for not to extend beyond.

And uh in the option two which is the plan that we have recommended uh that you approve with modified conditions. Uh they largely meet that line except for the float. And uh one of the big issues was the original proposal that original dock on the point extended out to a depth of -9 Milo water.

Uh mean low water itself is at minus 1.8.

According to the boat specification the maximum keel draft is uh 3.5 ft. So if you take 3.5 ft plus 1.8 8 ft you get around 5.3 ft. So there was no need to extend the dock anywhere near the minus 9. Uh that was purely convenient and that was very close to the channel which was really the harbor master's initial issue uh that the dock the even the first dock which was not the longest

version was extending well towards the channel. So in our condition, we're indicating that the seawward end of the floats or the float should not be set any farther than 6.5 mean low water. That allows for the 5.5 depth required by the keel. Plus, we added some footage for an astronomical high tide so that the boat does not ground. The keel does not ground uh except in an extreme condition and

nobody can predict what that extreme condition is going to be. But in your 12 month cycle of astronomically high and low tides, the boat would still be afloat. Uh it minimizes impacts to the resources.

Uh, I think I forwarded you an email from the latest email from the harbor master in which he was not definitively approving any of these options. Uh, but he certainly was not uh supporting the earlier options, the longer version or the version over the point. My personal opinion is that's about as far as he's going to go with reviewing this. I don't think he's going to give us any

more than that. And I think that the modified conditions proposed really address the kind of concerns he would have. Uh we've we've permitted docks in the river. There's a dock that was permitted recently right and built right across the river from this. So I mean this is again I think my position in the past as your economic affairs coordinator was that I did not particularly support private docks on

every property. But you know that is what has happened in over the years here in Dartmouth. So uh with that in mind we we as staff concluded that this option two the first plan that was shared is probably the best option and the closest we're going to get to any any kind of approvable uh position from all parties. And we conditioned that for this this order of conditions to be valid the harbor master

has to sign off on this. Uh we have we have indicated u you know reflective or solar powered electric signalization to show the end of the pier or the end of the float in low visibility conditions.

The [clears throat] end of the float pretty much align with the extent of the point. So, uh, they would be in trouble even if the float wasn't there and they were that close navigating the river.

So, I think I understand what you're saying about procedure. Uh, I don't know that the harbor master has approved every dock we have ever issued an order on in my tenure here. Uh I know we've we've he he has disagreed with some things and we have developed conditions to try to meet his need to the greatest extent possible and I think that's why staff has made the recommendation it has. I understand that uh Mark and I

appreciate the care that staff has taken to try and craft something that you think might be something that the harbor master could approve. But therein lies the rub.

In the past, the harbor master has in my view always decided he you know here's this project is approvable not approvable or these are the things I'm concerned about and we've incorporated all of that into our decisions and frankly I think that's appropriate. All right, that's what we're supposed to do. Um at this point I understand you to say the harbor master will not make any more um comment on

I don't think he will make anymore but I think we need to find out and if he's because if he's if his comments are as I read them then it seems to me it's saying not what we need to know whether we should approve it or not and I don't want to go inside somebody's head and try to figure out what their intent was. Um, I think it to me it's a

slippery slope because the next time somebody comes with a plan like this and the harbor master isn't definitive and hasn't necessarily made a comment on amendments, are we going to do the same thing or just approve it and condition it on harbor master approval? And if he's not going to address this anymore, will he give them the approval? I mean, what's you know, he may decide he's not

going to do anything with it at that point. I've already spoken, and that's fine, too. I would want to at least have that in in our file to say, "This is my last comment on it. You can approve it or disapprove it. These are my comments." Now, we know, but I'm a little concerned that we're jumping the gun.

That's me. Uh, Matthew, I'll now see you. You got your hand back up again.

Hi there. Well, I'm the um I'm the owner of 600 PMska and first off just want to say thank you to all of you for the care and time and energy you've spent in um in putting these proposals and figuring out the best one for the site. My my wife Ruth and I are are basically just uh well, we want to obviously we want to put one of the two docks back on the

property that used to be there, but we also want to make sure we protect the land and the river, the salt marsh and the all the marine species, including all the oysters that are out there. So, um I just wanted to say thanks for all the care you put into reviewing this and making these proposals. Um, [clears throat] I feel a little bit I also really appreciate Dave Dignon for his

his tireless efforts to figure out the right way to do this and uh Dave, you've been great to work with. So, thanks for that. I um I am I mean it seems very reasonable to me that we go back to the harbor master having had this conversation and say to him just relay this conversation to him and say uh that but but I guess I guess what I would

love is if we could go back to him and say contingent on your approval We believe the conservation commission will approve the the design number two, but you know, like I just want to move the ball down the road a little bit.

That's all I'm saying. And it's hard to I I don't think that's a bad comment. I mean, I think in my view, um, and Eduardo, you can certainly chime in on this, but in my view, I think what I would do is, um, solicit the harbor master's further comment. I know he doesn't want it, but include with that staff's recommendation, including the amended uh, conditions 21, you know,

etc. You got quite a few of them. So, if we let him see what we're planning to do that might that or at least what staff is recommending, let me say it properly.

Um, and I think Harbor Masters are well well aware of the fact that a quite high percentage of staff recommendations become the affirmative vote of the commission. So, I think he'll understand that. I just want to be sure there's nothing that we've missed that he's concerned about. And if he's not willing to say, well, this is a this is the plan I'd approved. But he wants to say, well,

those your conditions, your your whatever seem reasonable, I'm okay with that. I just need something here because we've never done it without before. And not that you can't have a first time, but I don't like to have a first time without rationale decisions being made u as to why it's a first time. And so far, I I appreciate uh very much Mr. Bellow's comments because I think first of all I think you've got a very

good engineer who takes care and pride in what he does and the plans, the revisions and the rethinking through the problem and trying to come up to a solution and working with our staff.

I appreciate that very much because it shows to me that the property owner is concerned about what they're doing and want to do it right. So, uh, again, I applaud you, Mr. Bellows, for that perspective.

But I do feel uncomfortable voting this evening without having at least given Harbor Master the opportunity to further comment if he so chooses.

And I'd be willing at that point, you know, uh, and if you want me to get on the phone with him, uh, with you, Eduardo, I'm willing to do that. I don't want to badger. I certainly don't want to badger him, but I think we just want to be consistent with how we approach these. And I think it's important that, and we work with the harbor master. I don't want to work against him.

Mr. Chair, I have a question for Mr.

Devigan.

Go right ahead, N. [clears throat] Um Dave, just real quick, what is what is the approximate length from the marsh to the end of the float

from the edge of the marsh, but it's on an awkward angle um not parallel to. So it is um so the the closest point is about 42 ft but then on the opposite side it's more like 60 um because it's not parallel it's more parallel to the contours and the shoreline runs north south away from us. So the average of about 55 ft.

Okay. And you may not know the answer to this, but do you know the approximate width of the river in that location?

Because I know it is quite narrow.

Uh, I'm just curious like of if the if the dock is 55 ft from the shore roughly, is that 10% of the navig Well, I guess it's not all navigable given how shallow it is on the edges, but just trying to get a visual in my head of how how much roughly this dock is going to eat into that narrow strip there in the river.

I would have to we do have the number. I would have to go into my CAD and and look at that number.

I'm not sure if the original plan add it and see if I have that right now.

Dave, it's Matt Matthew Bellow. Can you just pull up the the drawing you have that shows the full width of the of the channel?

This this might help not this.

So, one of them we did I asked because I do know the harbor master expressed some concerns about you know obviously that's a very that's one of the more narrow spots within the river and two given the kind of contour of the river if you're if you're coming in or out really you're going to be kind of swinging along that side of the coast um rather than the other generally but Okay, this is helpful. [snorts]

So, this is um if you look [clears throat] at this, you you can tell that um there's a dimension from from high water to the end of the pier, 56 ft. So, you know, if you extrapolated that, you can see how far across. Now, this was the first version. Our new version, if you look at my cursor, there's two existing piles. This is where the pier uh the storage bin there. This is where

the last dock was. and they positioned it adjacent to these boulders. We kicked it just a little to the right of the boulders and we have it out somewhere in this vicinity of where my cursor is. Um, so you can see that we're pulling away from the channel as with the second option. Um, and I might add the the third option which is the longer version.

Um, I think I satisfied what he was looking for with the the draft revision which pulled it in another he said he wanted the boat out of the the line and I was able to I think we shaved off another 14 out of 14t maybe of the pier which um I didn't have that as part of this PDF but is uploaded to the system. Um, I didn't get any feedback on that one uh through through

the uh staff on what he thought of that, but realizing that you I really didn't I was against going there anyway because I said it's going to triple that the pure length is three and a half times. You know, it didn't make much sense. Um, and there's no way on the east side of the property because of the cove to make it any shorter without having no water. So, um I think that the version we have

designed is really close to what he's looking for.

um you know he may ask for a shortening of it even more so but um I I think it we do I should you know I want to point out also that on the plan the most recent plan we have um specified to be consistent with the recommendations of staff we have here that the two float piles are to be fitted with reflectors facing southeast east and southwest. In other words, the channel and then all

four corners of the float shall have solar lights at the four corners. So, we put as much lighting as we can on those items. So, if the float's not in place, the piles have reflectors. If the float is in place, we're trying to light it up, you know, in a Christmas tree fashion for those driving uh after dark.

Okay. Mr. Chairman, could I could I add [clears throat] a comment in response to Nat's question?

Absolutely.

Nat, you're right. The river is rather narrow in that area. Uh David, could you go back to that original the the option two plan? No, the No, the option two plan, the first one.

Okay. I think something that has to be appreciated is that in this area of the river you have a lot of protories and cove structures. Okay, for lack of a better term. One of the things about this. Yeah, that was the one. David, right? Give me just show me.

This is the This is the first one.

I want option two.

Okay. Two. Sorry.

Got right there.

Right. Okay. So, the broken line, the approximate line of Cove West shoreline east to the Marsh Point, that line is really kind of the extent of landward uh extent into the river. And you can see that this float as he's showing is really in the shadow of the point. In my I think in my original comment I made that in this location if they're going to hit the dock they're

going to hit that point of land. They're not going to they're not going to miss that. I mean they are they are in the lee of the land in certain in certain aspects. So they are not extending into the river beyond the maximum extent of land. They are actually within the shadow of the land.

I don't know if that helps. It it does, Mark. And I I actually without without giving too much of my opinion on this too away, I I I do think that certainly that first proposal was jutting too far out of the river. The third the second one or the third one that kind of goes back from where the house is is has other I have other issues with. But I think this is a reasonable compromise

provided the harbor master was comfortable with it. Um, I guess I I have one other question and apologies. I didn't ask this before, but the land to the the the cove to the west, I I couldn't I wasn't clear on where the property border was, but I presume that isn't an option either because the water level isn't high enough or the owner does not have rights to build a dock on the west of this point.

Is that fair?

Um, the west I want to make sure I'm looking at the west property line is over here off the page, but you can see most of it. The stone wall.

Yeah, I know there's a cove kind of on the other side of Yeah, I don't but I wasn't keep going around the corner and it's past my property line.

Okay, it Okay, this property line literally is almost at the point. Um, it's okay. a little [clears throat] little beyond. I also would like to point out that this is this straight line from point to point. It doesn't quite come out. You know, if I wanted to be uh I think this is a conservative line. You could take this west end and put it over here where my cursor is. And if you

start, you know, coming across with the contours, the float is actually inside of it. Um to Mark's point that you know this the line of the float is in line with the the tide the high tide on on the west side here.

Okay. Thank you.

If I may just for a second. Uh so uh Nat you were wondering whether um why won't they put the float over to the west? I believe is that was that the question? the whole the whole dock. I wasn't sure if if they had property rights then I believe there's a cove to the western side of that and I yeah go ahead I could be mis I could be misremembering

but I believe there's also a dock on the not on the side that Dave Divin is showing but on the other side of the river there's another dock over on the west u and so I think part of our concern as well was if they were to put it any more west. Uh the Yeah, it would it would be kind of competing with that other dock and not leaving much space uh in the river for any

navigation.

Yeah, makes sense.

Um David, if you wouldn't mind just um stop sharing the screen because I can't see anybody.

Sorry.

Um, thank you. So, uh, commissioners, we've had some discussion on this. Um, at this juncture, I would entertain a motion to continue until January 27, our next meeting, 2026 at 7 p.m., so that we can get further comment from um, Harbor Master on the alternative plans that we have been discussing this evening.

So moved.

Second.

A seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Liz, yes. Natt, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, that concludes the public hearings.

We're moving on to our items for discussion. Um, first one was departmental transitional status and then we have one enforcement order and I have a matter that I'd like to discuss that was not on the agenda but under items for discussion. So there are three items. First up, departmental transitional status.

Uh, Mr. Chairman, um I submitted to the uh commission last week what my status is moving forward as a uh consultant to the staff and the commission during this transition period until they hire my successor uh whomever that will be. Uh there is also talk of hiring an administrative assistant to support both Eduardo and my successor uh going forward which I like to think is a minor victory on my part. Uh, I think I

summed up what the situation is, but I wanted to give the commission a chance to ask me any specific questions regarding what my role is as a consultant, advisor, non-decision maker to staff and the uh, commission itself.

Well, I don't have any particular question. I think it's a to me it was pretty clear. I think you did a great job in summarizing that in writing. But uh in my view, you're you're just that you're a consultant, somebody that Eduardo can lean on or any of the commissioners can lean on. Um but unlike days gone by, you're not going to be making recommendations to the commission. Um it's more for the

technical questions and say yeah I I would agree with that statement except that as in the case with the past hearing uh actually the past two hearings I was very involved early on and these long longer protracted cases I think I will be involved with the newer filings that come in I will you know certainly review and advise but I will not take really an active role in but I don't want leave Eduardo trying to

reinvent the wheel uh since a lot of discussion has taken place, a lot of comment has gone back and forth whether it's storm water on the DNRT property or you know how this dock proposal is fairing out. Uh and there are also some other longstanding initiatives. I've jump start started the wetland regs review with town council again which is something I'd like to finish before I physically am out of town hall. So, uh,

just again, I wanted to give the commissioners an opportunity to ask me any question they wanted.

Very well. Um, any commissioners want to avail themselves of that opportunity.

Good.

See, so I appreciate that though, Mark, and I appreciate the fact that you were willing to step into a consultant advisory role. Uh, that's a tremendous help to me. It's a tremendous help to this commission and I'm sure Eduardo would agree a tremendous help to him.

So um I wouldn't let let you hang.

I knew that but I want to let you know I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um so, so thank you. And uh we do have a I guess we have a request to extend the deadline on a enforcement order response for 38 Lakeside Avenue. Is that correct, Eduardo? Yes. Well, I'm going to handle this one, too, because I've been involved with this one. Um, yeah, this is the guy that built a beach in Lake Noachoke without a uh within Lake Nokach, not next to it, uh, without

a permit. We issued a letter and an enforcement order. And this all began around August 20th of 2025 when the first letter was sent. and an enforcement order was sent uh 94 uh25.

Uh we had a uh a deadline that has been uh been passed and we still have no filing uh as of the 13th of January. We received and I think I forwarded to the commission an email from Mr. Lord, who is the applicant uh violator, and he's asking for an extension. Now, we've been out three months on this, and we haven't heard anything. He was delayed in getting his consultant. He was delayed

in getting work done. Uh it's been one of these ongoing things. I was not at any point going to say, "Yeah, go ahead.

You got an extension without coming to you." uh the commission. So, uh he indicates he's now waiting to get s a signature from Fall River given that Lake Nokachoke is the property of Fall the city of Fall River and not the not the property owner nor the town of Dartmouth. He has yet to do that. Again, we've been out three months. I don't know how long it takes one to get a

signature, but it seems a little long to me. But he's asking for an extension.

Um, I think he's looking for a specific date. Uh, so I bring that to your attention.

I appreciate that.

Uh, you know, it's kind of hard to give a specific date when the rationale for the extension is hard to fathom. Um, as you said, how hard is it to get a signature? But if he's looking for an extension, I I wouldn't be inclined to go more than two meetings. So, our first meeting in February, any other commissioner want to be heard on that?

I agree.

Yeah, seems reasonable to me. Mike, Eduardo, I'm not sure what that date is in February, but if we looked it up, that's the date we can give him for an extension. Did you say the first first meeting in February?

I believe it's February 10th.

Okay, let me check that. But uh yeah, that would be the first meeting in uh February is February 10th.

Okay, sounds good.

Um, and that's to file the notice of intent because that's what he needs a signature on.

Okay.

Correct.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Um, go ahead. it. I believe uh he was from my discuss from my discussion with him briefly over the phone uh he was also required to um go to a um what was it the Fall River um water board meeting um whenever that was according to him uh which doesn't happen too often. Uh so that was also part of the reason why he requested uh an extension.

Well, I think if he gets something in writing from us, he can then use that to request a meeting with the waterboard at least as to this issue because I'm really loathed to continue what we're giving an extension based on another uh entity who may not meet very frequently and I have no idea when they're going to meet. So, it's really basically saying you can ignore us and I don't want it to be ignored. [snorts]

And I would, if I could follow up on that, he was aware that he needed a signature from the city of Fall River back in September.

We had specific discussions. This is I don't know why he delayed, but he has delayed. He delayed in retaining a consultant. He's been late on everything. you talk to him and he'll say he'll do give you the moon and the stars, but when it comes down to product, it isn't it isn't there. So, I think that uh he in his email he suggests that he anticipated the possibility of a meeting at the end of

January. All he needs is a signature.

Okay, he can do everything else. He can get the plans prepared, the NOI prepared, everything else. All he needs is somebody to sign it and then submit it to us. So go beyond February 10th. That's more than enough time.

Yep. I agree.

Okay. So, um, now the thing that I want to bring up, um, I met this afternoon with Do you want to vote on that officially, Mike?

Oh, okay. Do an official vote. Uh, commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to grant an extension on the enforcement order um for 38 Lakeside Avenue in Dartmouth. And the extension will be until uh February 10, 2026 at 5:00 p.m.

So vote.

Second.

All in favor? Roll call vote. I'm sorry.

Yes. Natt, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion motion passes unanimously.

Okay. Commissioners, uh, this afternoon I met with Brandon Anette, uh, for vice president of the U. Buzzards Bay Coalition. And as you may recall, uh earlier this year in July, uh we discussed as a conservation commission and voted to issue a letter supporting um the Buzzards Bay Coalition's application for a state grant. And this is for the property that they wanted to um acquire for open space. It's right by

Deval's store. and they wanted us to hold the conservation restriction and we discussed the fact that we would do so because it's a small piece of property.

It's very visible. It's not going to be difficult um to steward it as it might be some larger pieces that are out in the woods somewhere. Well, they didn't get their loan or their grant, excuse me. So they're now applying for um community preservation monies and they would like us to issue a similar letter but this time to the community preservation committee and obviously it has to be tweaked a

little bit because the letter that we sent out on um July I believe it was 10th of this year was specific for the grant. So, it's the same project with the same ask from us, namely to hold a conservation restriction. The difference being who's going to be the um I guess you'd say the grant maker in this case, CPC funds. And I did inform uh Brandon and he was well aware of it

in of the position the state has taken regarding CPC funds for open space and how we would have to structure this as um the town of Dartmouth using its CPC funds to purchase the conservation restriction because we have to have an interest in the open space or technically they're saying we're in violation of the statute. So anyway, I have um Brandon did send me a copy of in word format of a draft letter. Um

Eduardo, I just sent it to you as we were speaking.

Okay.

Okay.

Um if you can't see it, let me know.

I'll I'll send it to you again tomorrow, but I I would ask the commissioners to consider whether to um issue that second letter this time to community preservation funds or committee. So, same project, identical project to what we approved before, just a different source of funding.

So, I entertain a motion to and I'll be happy to sign this Eduardo with you.

Okay? because I know your position is different than Markx was when he signed the letter. Okay.

So, when it's done, I'll come in. I'll sign it, too. And he he uh turnaround is kind of important here because he has to file the application on January 26th.

So, um I'll I'll be in touch with you tomorrow if we vote in favor. Okay.

Okay. So, I won't be in uh tomorrow, but I will be in uh this upcoming Thursday.

How about Friday?

Friday as well. Okay, I'll meet you on Friday then. I've got a full range of commitments for Thursday, but I will be happy to do that. So, commissioners, I'll I'll certainly entertain a motion um to approve the issuance of a letter on behalf of the Dartmouth Conservation Commission to the Community Preservation um committee on the application of uh Buzzards Bay Coalition for funds for the uh I'm going

to call it the Deval. I don't know the name we had before, but the Deval um field project. Let me see if I can find the name because I want to find the letter.

That was that was the name I Okay, it's always been the Deval Field Project.

Okay, so we have a motion on the floor with a second.

Second.

Second.

A motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Matt, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes. Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That passes unanimously.

So, Eduardo, um, when you, if you can't read that, you know, let me know. I can print it out and bring it in. We just have to slap it on our letterhead and tweak it a little bit and then I'll sign it and you can sign it as your position and I'll sign it as chair and then we'll get it over to Brandon so he can include it with his application.

Sounds good.

Okay, commissioners. I'm all finished. I mean, I have nothing more to add. So, unless anyone else does, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Second.

Seconded motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Nat, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. [snorts] Passes unanimously. Good night, everyone, and thank you.