Conservation Commission Meeting - July 21, 2026

Okay, it's uh after seven now. So, we do have six commissioners, which as I just mentioned, unfortunately, is our full continent.

So, I will convene the July 21, 2026 Dartmouth Conservation Commission meeting.

We're conducting this meeting remotely because Governor Healey on March 28, 2025 signed an extension allowing for hybrid remote meeting options to municipalities.

Um that extends through June 30, 2027.

Our meetings are also accessible by those in the public.

We have a raise your hand feature.

Wave your hand if that doesn't work.

Um I would ask those who are not speaking to please keep their microphones muted.

That way it won't be any background interference with the presentations.

We have this meeting hosted in accordance with state and local bylaws and regulations.

Um if anyone has um items they wish to share, let me know and then I will then let DCTV know so that it can be shared.

Our first items of business are administrative and the first is to um approve the minutes of May 12, 2026 and May 26, 2026. May I have a motion to that effect please?

So moved.

Second.

It was seconded motion. Roll call vote.

Richard, yes.

Liz, S.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, Jennifer, you're going to update us, please.

Thank you. Yeah, I have just a um few quick updates uh just to kind of keep you informed about other stuff going on um kind of periphery to the conservation commission. Um we've started our department both Eduardo and I have started u working with the board of health um on this year's round of water quality sampling. Um so we had our our first round um earlier in the month and then this Thursday if the weather

cooperates um potentially Friday if not uh we'll be going out for the second round and then we'll do two more before the end of summer. Um and that will give us some year 2 data for the Slokums River and um start to build um some historical background information for us with how water quality is in the Slokums River and ill grass impacts as well. Um and then the town had the first u meeting

for the water quality advisory committee. I'll let um Liz speak to that um a little bit later in the agenda under the discussion um items maybe. And then um we posted, as I've let you know at the last meeting, we posted the administrative assistant role um and we've got a handful of applications in.

So, we're hoping to schedule interviews um for the first week of August. Uh and I'll let you know as we make any progress on that. Um and then the last update is we have started working with the planning department on the hazard mitigation plan update and the first time the town did it it was part of the MVP or municipal vulnerability preparedness plan.

Um they used to do it as a combined plan. Now they've separated those two plans. Um and so we're working on the hazard mitigation plan update which should be completed in about a year from now, a little over a year from now. Um but good for this group to be aware of because probably this I would say early this fall we'll be looking to do um a community uh input session and it would

be great to have someone from the commission to give input on priorities uh related to that.

That sounds terrific. I look forward to that.

Um, we're now moving on to our what used to be called our field trip reports, but it's the, uh, wetland site inspections, determinations, and other business. And the first, um, has to do with 288 Chase Road. So, um, that was a wetland site inspection. Jennifer, if you want to let us know when you went out or when Eduardo went out and what the staff is, uh recommended.

Yeah. So, we we've been going out uh together for most of the site visits just so I can get a better sense of kind of where Eduardo is with um wetland delineations and um assessing sites and all of that. Um so, we went out on July 15th. Um and this one was relatively straightforward. Um there was a small wetland resource area at the rear of the property. Um the 100 foot buffer zone appears to be outside

of the area where they're looking to do the perk tests. Uh so unless they need to park additional locations, they really wouldn't need to file with us for these perks. Um we've noted in the field the flags. So we hung a total of sorry four flags. Um and so just a small portion of the wetland is on this parcel and it continues off parcel.

um to the abiding property. Um hard to tell without going onto the abiding property whether it's an isolated wetland or BVW. Um so we just noted it as a wetland resource area without making that final determination because this is not mapped on Mass Mapper.

Very good. I don't think we need a vote on that, but I appreciate that. Um the second is a um certificate of compliance request file 15-2759 that's one meadow shores map 88 lot 20 it's owned by Roland and Suzanne Baloy um they rebuilt existing stone seaw walls and revertments which we had previously approved and uh when was staff on site and what is their recommendation on this request for a coc See?

Sure. Um we can go through this one and then could we go back to the um wetland site inspection just because we did hang flags? Um Oh, okay. Sure.

I think it would be good to vote on that. Um so for one meadow Yeah. Why don't we finish this one? Go back. That's not a problem.

Sure.

Um for one meadow shores when we did when we went out to look at the site, it is fully stabilized. All the site work is completed. Um this involves some um revetments and um seaw wall rebuilding. Um but no asbuilt was submitted. The engineer did submit a statement of substantial compliance. Um but we didn't have an asbuilt. Um it wasn't required as part of the order orders of conditions, but it was

required as part of the approval from natural heritage and endangered species program. Um, Eduardo did reach out to the engineers's office asking for a copy of the asbuilt that was submitted to Natural Heritage. We haven't received it yet. I'd like to see it since it's something that I um wasn't here for. Um, when it was constructed um so I it's hard for me to sign off that I feel like it was built in

compliance too if I can't compare an asbuilt to what was approved. Um, and since they have to do it anyways, I would prefer to wait another meeting and see that as bill.

I think that's prudent. It's awfully difficult to either um recommend approval or denial if you haven't seen the asbuilt. Uh, I would entertain a motion to continue this request for a certificate of compliance on file 1520-2759 one Meadow Shores until our next public hearing which will be August 4 uh 2026 at 7 p.m.

So move second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

We'll have a roll call vote, please.

Richard.

Yes. Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

We're now going to go back to the uh wetland site inspection for 288 Chase Road. Um, which inspection was conducted on July 15, 2026. And apparently there were also some flags that were hung. So Jennifer, if you want to amplify that please.

Sure. So we h we did hang flags concom 1 through concom 4 um for that resource area that is on property um just the 100 foot buffer zone. Sorry if there was confusion. The 100 foot buffer zone um puts the perk tests outside of jurisdiction. But I think it would still be good to approve those four flags in case they have to do additional perks or anything like that. So it can serve as a

line of record.

I think that's an appropriate request.

Um, I'll entertain a motion on um the determination portion of the 288 Chase Road uh site inspection of 7 uh 15206 for an approval of the Concom flags 1 through 4 as uh hung in the field.

Move. Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

I'm going to read the first public hearing, but then I must recuse myself.

So, um, Liz, if you want to take over after I read it.

This is a continued public hearing. NOI file 15-2825 zero state road map 53 lot 174 and I oh I guess slashl 2a 24 respectively so we have I guess two maps two lots the owner is Morgan Blum represented by Brandon Fannif and David Potter the proposed project is the construction of a commercial automobile dealership with associated parking grading landscaping and storm water infrastructure. The resource area here

is a 100 ft buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland BVW and the regulations are 310 CMR 10.02 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaw. Uh, at this point I would entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So moved.

Second.

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

James, yes.

Donald, yes.

Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

And I must recuse myself, so I am not voting. With that, Liz, I'm turning it over to you.

Thank you very much. Uh at this time I will hand it over to the applicant and anybody presenting on their behalf.

Anyone who's here tonight, this one is actually going to be continued. Um they requested a continuence till our to our next meeting. We're still waiting on revised plans from the applicants engineer. Um got it. I do see that notation there now.

Okay. Um well, I assume the commission doesn't have any questions on the matter. Uh, does anybody from the public want to be heard on this matter with any regards to questions for the continuence?

I'm not seeing anyone. Um, so at this time, I will um ask for a motion to continue the public hearing to the next meeting date of August 4th, 2026.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

Roll call vote. Richard. Yes, Donald.

Yes, Megan.

Yes, James.

Yes, and my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Good job.

Um, our second public hearing is also a continued public hearing.

It's NOI file 15-2826 411 Fence Corner Road. That's map 63, lot 12.

The owner is Fornance Corner Road LLC, Ray Young. Its representative is Tom Schultz and Phil Henry. The proposed project is the construction of a 5,785 square foot more or less convenience store, parking lot, gas station, landscaping and storm water infrastructure on a previously developed site. The resource area is the 100 foot buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland BVW and the regulations are involved are 310

CMR 10.02, 2 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

I see Tom is here and um you've got the floor Tom on behalf of the applicant.

Fantastic. Good evening y'all. For the record, Tom Schutz from Goddard Consulting. Um I'm also here with Phil Henry. He's the project civil engineer.

So any storm water related questions when we get to that point can be directed to him. He'll discuss the proposed conditions for the storm water while I'll discuss the impacts and the proposed conditions overall for the site. I have a brief presentation just to give everybody a background and then some existing conditions if that's possible.

If you want to share your screen that's fine with me DCTV.

Perfect.

Please let Mr. Schutz share his screen.

All right. Awesome.

So the proposed site is 411 Font Corner Road. It's a rather large site as shown here in the red outline. It's approximately 18 acres altogether, but this application is focusing on an approximate uh project site of 4.5 acres, which is shown down here in this orange color. There's several resource areas on the site that are exterior to the project site. There's bordering vegetated wetlands in the middle.

There's also some additional in the rear, but we're going to be focusing on a bordering vegetative wetland that's adjacent to my cursor with an internal intermittent stream, which is going to be casting a buffer zone on our project site.

As you can see from the aerial, the project site has been historically disturbed. It was originally served as an area to park cars. Um, a lot of like garbage and debris were were left in kind of left to rot there. There's been some historic clearing in the rear as well. Um, and there's also several buildings which we'll see on this colored up existing conditions plan that are still existing on the property

today. So, to start with the wetland resource areas, we have a bordering vegetated wetland which is shown in this blue shaded color here that has an exist that also has a 100 foot buffer zone which is the entirety of this tan color.

on site. There's several existing buildings up in the front adjacent to Fance Corner Road. Um there's also a large uh cellular tower that is right next to the buffer zone that is going to be outside of the project site when we get to it. Again, there's a lot of historic clearing in there. There's several invasive species that have taken up due to the clearing and it's a historically disturbed site.

So moving into the proposed application, we're going to recap the existing conditions. We have the bordering vegetated wetland which is outlined in this dark blue color that has the 25 ft buffer zone which is this uh light blue color here. And then the 100 ft buffer zone is in this green color. The applicant is proposing an approximately 5,300 square ft building that's going to be used as a restaurant and gas station

centralized in the site here. There's also going to be several gas pumps which are going to be located adjacent to Fawn's Corner Road. The building is also going to have a parking area and add additional parking that's going to be on the rear of the property as well.

Uh a couple of storm water management basins are proposed that will man uh mitigate the proposed in imperous surfaces that are going to be associated with the design of the site and the parking. Those are located uh to the east of the building and circling my cursor here. And then the only impact to the buffer zone is a uh a pvious storm water basin which is this grading here.

There's going to be no impact to the 25 foot buffer zone. As you can see, our limit of work shown as this orange color just kind of trims the edge of the 25 foot buffer, but there's no proposed work within that area. There's a storm water outlet that is allowing water to drain out of our infiltration basin here, but again, no work within that 25 ft zone. The total amount of square

footage of pvious work within the buffer zone is approximately 15,000 square ft.

And that's basically this area here.

The total buffer zone on the property within this bordering vegetated wetland is 25,000 square ft. So we're going to be impacting approximately 60% of that total buffer zone associated with this bordering vegetated wetland. Uh Phil, do you want to give a quick uh discussion on the storm water design? Sure.

Uh, good evening everyone. This is Phil Henry with Civil Design Group. Hopefully everybody can hear me.

Yes.

I'll um I'll share my screen.

Um, DCTV, please let Mr. Henry share his screen.

All right. Does everybody see this?

Not yet.

Not yet. We see the border, but we don't see anything in it. Now I do. Okay, perfect. So, uh, Tom did a good job explaining the the improvements. He he stole a little bit of my thunder, but I I'll add a little bit of color here on on the storm water. So, the um the the convenience store is located in gray here in in the center of your screen. On

the left side is is is the right of way.

Uh the fuel pumps are are located here.

I I just circled the grading uh or or the drainage, I should say, was was a little bit tricky. Um this went through a number of reviews uh with with staff and and and a reviewer. But long story short, there are catch basins in the parking lot that pick up the surface water and then that gets piped through uh um a proprietary separator located back here. It then gets detained through a detention a subservice detention

system and then it goes through a series of two uh above ground infiltration systems. The first one located directly behind the convenience store here, basin B and then the the outflow or the discharge of that then flows into this larger basin uh basin C before uh it spills over into into the wetland. I'll say that this site uh significantly mitigates peak flow almost down to zero

and also mitigates volume. So uh there's really um there's really no adverse impact from a storm water perspective or no more certainly no more water that's traversing to the east beyond beyond the limit of work. So that's the 10,000 foot scope and I'm happy to answer any specific questions.

I appreciate that.

Jennifer, I'd like to hear staff's comments.

Sure.

Um, so we've we're through with the DPW and peer review process. Um, both the town engineer and the peerreview consultant have u signed off and kind of given the project its its blessing after um some revisions.

Um and other than a special condition regarding debris removal because there is a lot of u debris from its historic use. I would recommend um approval um with the standard special conditions for commercial site.

And uh Mr. Chair uh we also added that note on the plan itself. We don't we don't we don't take exception to the special uh condition but just as bel and suspenders we actually added the same to the plan to say that debris shall be removed.

Appreciate that. Thank you.

Does any commissioner have any question?

If you may please um stop sharing the screen. That's okay. You didn't know until I told you. Um, does any commissioner have any questions?

I don't see any.

Is there any um member of the audience that wants to be heard on this project proposal?

Once more, I don't see anybody.

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

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Donald, yes.

Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. Public hearing is closed.

Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to issue our standard order of conditions with our standard commercial development conditions and also with a special condition uh requiring the debris to be removed from the buffer zone and resource area if it's there.

So moved.

Second. Second.

Have a seconded motion. Roll call vote.

Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

Megan, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much. Good presentation.

All right. Our third public hearing is public hearing NOI file 15-28-27 810 State Road map 163 lot 31 32 and 35.

The owners Kevin Maderos.

Kevin's represented by Kevin Silva. The proposed project is the construction of a multif family apartment complex with associated parking, grading, landscaping and storm water infrastructure.

The resource area is the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland BVW and the regulations are 310 CMR 10.02 10.55 as well as section 360-2 the town of Dartmouth bylaw. I entertain a motion to wave the reading.

Second. We have a seconded motion on the floor. We're going to have roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. And we have someone here this evening on behalf of the applicant.

This one they actually requested to continue.

Oh, okay.

Until the next public hearing or do they have a specific date in mind? to the fourth.

Yeah.

Okay. And is there a reason for this request?

Um they are still working on um their response to the peer review.

Okay.

Um I know this is a complicated project with more than just the conservation commission involved.

I think that's a reasonable request. Um, but does any commissioner have any questions?

Is there anyone in the audience that came this evening for this project that wants to speak on it before we vote on the continuence request?

Uh, no commissioner expressed an interest in speaking at this moment, nor has anyone in the audience. Therefore, I will entertain a motion to continue public hearing on file 15-2827 at the applicant's request until August 4, 2000 or 2026 at 7 p.m.

So move second.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes. Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Our final and it's a new public hearing is a public hearing NOI file 15-2829.

It's 21 Rockland Farm 118, lot 133. The owner is Caen LLC Patrick Carney Senior. The representative is Jeffrey Kotr. And the proposed project is the construction of a 266 foot pileup supported dock and float system located in Clark's Cove. Um the resource area is land subject to coastal storm flowage, land under the ocean, coastal beach, land containing shellfish, rocky intertitled shore, a

100 ft buffer zone to a coastal bank, and within both estimated and priority habitats. Regulations involved are 310 CMR 10.02, 10.25 10.27 10.30 30 10.31 10.34 10.37, as well as section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. I'll entertain a mo a motion to wave the reading.

So move second.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Is there someone here this evening that wants to speak on behalf of the applicant Kaen LLC?

I see Jeff's yes name there.

Good evening everyone. Uh, for the record, my name is Jeff Cooer with Scitec Engineering, civil engineer for the project, and I'm here with uh Ned Carney of Caen LLC, uh, applicant for the project to discuss, uh, the notice of intent application to construct a pile supported dock at Rockland Farm Assessor's Map 118, uh, lot 133. Um, I'm actually trying to enable my video. Um, I have to give permission. DCTV, please

let um Jeff share his screen.

Yes, I've given you permissions, Jeff, so you should be able to now.

Thank you very much. Um could I also share my screen? Um see if I have that.

Yep, I have that.

All right. Can everybody see Google Earth?

Yes.

Excellent. Thank you very much.

So, before I discuss the the proposed dock, I'd just like to first describe the site and the on-site wetland resource areas. Um the Rockland Farm site is located at the mouth of Clark's Cove and that is right here.

Um which opens into Buzzard's Bay. The site faces east. Fetch is limited by the Elizabeth Islands which form the southern enclosure of Buzzard's Bay.

There is an open fetch across Buzzards Bay to the southeast of about 15 miles.

Buzzards Bay opens to the ocean uh to the west southwest. So the site has no direct ocean fetch but wave energy reaches this leeward site by defraction.

Waves from southwest winds, southerntherly swell and hurricanes entering Buzzards Bay can create uh flood elevations and vzone uh wave heights. At the project site, FEMA estimates it is in a V zone or excuse me, VE zone, elevation 20 and a VD datim.

The shoreline in the vicinity of the project is generally irregular but east facing and consists of an erod eroding bouldery surface backed by seaw walls or eroding bluffs. Uh the bouldery intertidal form generally extends seawward as a retreat pavement in is at isolated locations. Patches of salt marsh have colonized the bouldery intertital zone. There is a limited amount of sand in the nearshore

intertital zone. And so now I'm going to just kind of jump onto the site plan or a more of a zoomed in plan if I may.

Okay, everybody see that?

Yes. Y Okay, so this is the the project uh property. The project is located within a small inbaitment bounded on the uh on the south by a 300 foot long curved stone jetty uh that has been reconstructed and raised in in the recent past. The wave shadow from this jetty to the north forms a protected area for swimming and boat moing. The embamment extends to about 400 ft north of the jetty. The

back shore has a stone revetment facing the coastal bank. The beach is mostly sand with a large boulder platform in the midsection that appears to have been arranged and a sand sandy nearshore deposit. The northern limit of the embainment is formed by a bouldery deposit that protrudes seawward and traps beach sand. And so that's kind of here.

So, as you mentioned, jurisdictional wetland resource areas that apply to this project are land under ocean, coastal beach, rocky intertital zone, excuse me, rocky intertital shore, land containing shellfish, and land subject to coastal storm flowage. A salt marsh colony, a small uh salt marsh colony has formed about 30 ft north of the pro proposed pier location in the intertitle zone.

However, construction impacts to this salt marsh are not anticipated, and we can kind of get into that uh more later.

Oh that's the layout.

Excuse me. I'm just going to open up the site plan now.

Bear with me. I'm sorry.

Take your time.

I appreciate it.

See There we go.

Sometimes it cooperates.

There we go. Can everybody see that?

I can see it.

All right. Excellent. Thank you. Okay.

Okay. So, the proposed project will consist of a pileup supported dock with a seasonal gang way and float that will facilitate recreational use including swimming and the operation of small watercraft and will consist of the following components.

Wooden steps that land on the sand beach approximately 6 ft to the east of existing access steps that provide pedestrian access from the top of the stone wall down to the beach.

The elevation of the beach where the steps land is approximately 4.8 elevation or uh elevation 4.8 NAVD pile supported dock wooden dock from the steps to the seasonal gang way that will consist of a 4ft wide deck with handrail system. The dock will be supported by a total of 38 wooden piles to be driven into the substrate.

two piles per bent spaced 12 feet on center. The dock will be approximately 216 feet in length. The top of deck elevation will be approximately elevation 8 NAVD88.

Uh se uh seasonal gang way that will connect the dock with the seasonal float and it will be a 3T wide by 30 foot long pre-fabricated aluminum gang way. In the offseason, it will be removed and stored either off-site or on-site outside of the resource areas, including the FEMA flood plane that portions of the site are mapped within.

And then finally, the seasonal float that will be secured by four wooden float anchor piles. The float will be 10 ft wide by 20 ft long. Similarly to the gang way, the flow will be removed in the offse and stored either offsite or onsite outside of the uh FEMA flood plane that portions of the site are mapped within. Uh float stop timbers will be installed at top of each pair of

float anchor piles to prevent the float from being swept away in the event of flooding.

The total length of the dock system from the landward edge of the wooden steps to the seawward end of the seasonal float will be 266 ft. And this was the minimum length required to locate the float seawward of the existing rock field that that is in the intertital zone and beyond allowing for a reasonable depth of water sufficient for the safe operation of small watercraft or use of

the float for swimming throughout the entire tide cycle.

The depth of water at the float during low water is estimated to range from about 6 to 7 ft. And if I may, my sur my survey put these kind of rock formations on the plan, but um where it kind of was underneath the water during the survey, he did put the actual limit of the rock field. So this is the landward edge of the rock field and this is the seawward

edge of the rock field. So there's rocks throughout this piled up. And so we're just bringing the dock right to the edge of the rock field and then coming down with the gang way and the float. And I can kind of show you. You can see that this kind of mimics the the line that that was surveyed here kind of it does uh it is there is consistency there. Um, okay.

So, a shellfish study was completed as required by the town of Dartmouth Wetlands bylaw regulations to assess land containing shellfish as per the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act 310 CMR 10.34. The study and report were prepared by Christopher P. Block, PhD, coastal and marine ecologist.

In the assessment, Dr. Block uh concludes the following quote. Shellfish resources at this site are limited. Low densities of oysters can uh occur on the boulders along the proposed trajectory of the project.

Impacts to these organisms can be mitigated by limiting the removal of habitat for the settlement uh of larae i.e. boulders.

uh bay scolop, blue muscle, ocean cohog, cohog, razor clam, sea clam, sea scolop, and soft shell clam were absent.

The proposed elevated dock should not extru uh obstruct currents and will therefore have no substantial negative impact on availability of phytolanton or other food sources for filter feeding by oysters.

uh impacts to sandy substrate should have no negative impact on populations of borrowing shellfish as they appear to be absent from the site. End quote.

Um so just go over some of the comments that we've received. Um we have received preliminary comments by Mass D recommending that we specifically address compliance with applicable wetlands protection act performance standards for the aforementioned uh resource areas and we haven't had a chance to uh you know prepare that summary. Um however, we do believe that we comply with all the performance

standards um set forth in the wetlands protection act and we're happy to submit a narrative that that documents that compliance with those performance standards.

Additionally, DMF uh the divi division of marine fisheries provided a letter offering comments for consideration. Uh the first uh comment um was in regards to requiring the float to be a minimum distance of 25 ft from eelgrass. Uh during the baometric survey completed by our survey team, uh eelgrass was not observed and uh we did not perform a dive survey. However, the the aerial does show the float is

likely to be located above sand. Um, based on what I was kind of showing you before, um, the sand is pretty easy to spot, but again, we did not perform a dive survey. We just didn't see it um during the bathometric survey.

Um, okay. So, and then the the the second comment noted that the shellfish uh survey did not assess shellfish resources within the subtitle portion of the proposed pier. Uh, Dr. to block weighted into the water as far as he could go uh to perform the the longest transsect that he could. Again, we did not perform a dive study. However, I have spoken to Dr. Block since the comments were made regarding his opinion

on this issue, and he's of the opinion that the shellfish density would remain consistent throughout the entire length of of the dock given that the entire length of the pile supported dock is situated in the rock field. And so he he he thought it would remain consistent.

He didn't have any reason to think otherwise. The other DMF comments uh are related to construction impacts and discuss barge grounding um and fuel spills. Of course, uh if we are able to get an order of conditions, um the selected contractor would uh certainly use best management practices during construction to not allow the barge to ground uh during construction. And if the commission uh preferred all

refueling could certainly be done offsite and a condition could be, you know, uh added to that effect to the order that would require that.

We've gone through um all of the you know I know I'm kind of going on a long time so I apologize for that but um we did go through all the uh the applicable or all the uh Dartmouth wetlands bylaw regulation performance standards um to kind of demonstrate compliance with those. Um and I'm I'm prepared to go through those now if you'd like. Um, I don't know if anybody had a chance to

read the the compliance report that was in the notice of intent. I can go through them uh one by one or if you have any specific questions, I can certainly take them.

I read the materials that were submitted to us. We usually get materials in advance of our public hearings um the week before, Thursday before um whether that was everything that was submitted. I I don't want to u state for sure, but it usually is.

I wouldn't take Joe a few more minutes.

I could go through each each performance standard um that that you have in your bylaw for for docs if you'd like.

I think you may as well. It's your presentation, so I think you want to put as much in as you think is necessary.

Okay. Well, I I appreciate that. Um, so again, we've gone through and documented how the dock meets uh applicable Darmouth wetlands bylaw regulation performance standards. Um, and the the dock has been designed to meet all of these standards uh under part three, section 7, and I'll go through them. uh one by one. Um this was a docks or peers must not prohibit or impede public right of passage in the

intertitle zone or through navigable waters. Docks or peers shall not require the elimination of existing public or commercial moorings, nor shall they project or into or impede navigation to and from moing areas.

And um our you know so my our explanation the the proposed dock has been designed so that it does not impede passage in the intertital zone or through navigable waters. Uh the deck elevation has been set to elevation 8.

There will be sufficient room or clearance for pedestrian traffic to walk beneath the dock within the intertital zone. Additionally, the dock will not impede navigable water since the majority of the dock is located in a boulder field that is not navigable for watercraft. There are also no moorings in the vicinity of the project. And then B, in no case shall a dock or pier be constructed within 25 ft of a property

sideline. The proposed dock will not be constructed within 25 ft of a property sideline.

Docks or peers shall or this is C. Docks or peers shall be constructed to minimize the blocking of sunlight to shellfish beds and grasses. Height and width of deck space between deck planks and direction of deck planks shall be provided on the plan. The proposed deck planks shall be installed with a minimum spacing of 3/4 in to minimize blocking of sunlight through the decking.

The height, width of deck, deck pl uh plank spacing, direction of deck planks, and other relevant details are specified on the uh site plans. D. Unless otherwise authorized by the commission, all fasteners used must be screws, bolts, or similar fasteners of equal or greater holding capacity and must be hot dipped galvanized stainless steel or an equivalent non-corrosive material. The accomp uh the the site plans the

submitted site plans specify that all hardware to be used in the project shall be hot dip galvanized as required.

Piling shall be driven using best available methods uh following the general standard of 2/3 of the piling driven 1/3 exposed above the bottom surface and the tops of piles shall be capped to prevent rot. Uh the submitted plans specify that the tops of the pile shall be capped to pre prevent rot.

Additionally, pile depths are specified uh that comply comply with the general standard of 2/3 of the piling driven 1/3 exposed above the bottom surface as required.

And then uh unless otherwise authorized by the commission, uh bent section timber shall be a minimum of 2x8.

Cross braces shall be a minimum of 2 by six and the commission may require larger sizes um when necessary due to the length of the dock its exposure or other conditions which may require more substantial construction.

Uh the proposed dock has been designed with the following specifications which comply with the standard uh bent section timbers. We're proposing two 4x12 cross beams where a 2x8 is required and we're proposing 3x10 cross bracing timbers each side of the pile where 2x6 are required.

And then e the landward approach to a a dock must not harm vegetation on the marsh or coastal bank. A marsh must be crossed by a raised walkway and coastal banks must be preserved by the use of suitable stairs. The dock the proposed dock system lands directly on the sand beach seawward of the coastal bank by approximately 6 ft. So there will be no impact to the coastal bank.

Additionally, there is no salt marsh in the vicinity of the proposed dock.

F moorings for floating docks must be anchored using cross chains with a maximum scope of 51 to 111 to ensure stability with minimal scouring of the bottom. Uh this one does not apply. The dock system proposes anchor piles to secure the seasonal float to minimize bottom scouring and so no moorings are proposed.

Offseason storage for this is G of temporary seasonal docks in floats must be in the upland areas and must be transported there too without causing damage to any resource area.

Uh the proposed storage plan for the seasonal float is to contract annually with the local professional marine service to have the float and gangway removed at the end of each boating season and be stored outside of any and all wetland resource areas. The float will be removed from the seawward side during high water conditions without any bottom impacts.

H. Boats at the dock must not be allowed to leak oil or other pollutants into the water. The applicant understands this performance standard and has every intention of ensuring compliance with it. Uh same goes for I motorbo motorboats may not be run in gear while tied to the dock since prop wash disturb shelfish beds stirs up sediment and causes bank erosion. Again the applicant

understands uh the performance standard and has every intention of ensuring compliance with it. And finally uh J any vegetation disturbed or destroyed shall be replaced as soon as possible following construction. It must be shown to have become successfully established or reestablished before the certificate of compliance will be issued. Any portion of rocky inter title shore, coastal bank, salt marsh, or other

resource area that is disturbed by construction activities must be restored to its original condition immediately upon completion of construction.

disturbance um of of vegetation is not anticipated during construction since there is no vegetation in the vicinity of the pro proposed dock system. Um if there is any disturbance to other resource areas such as Rocky into tidal shore, coastal bank, uh salt marsh, I I don't it we're not anticipating any, but certainly any any damage the the applicant would certainly uh remedy after after construction, but

it's not something that we anticipate.

Um that basically concludes my um initial presentation. Um thank you very much for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Um Jennifer, I noted we don't have a report from Harbor Master and quite frankly this is his busy time of year.

Yeah. And I believe we had previously uh agreed with harbor master that we would limit um intrusion onto that time until and I think there was schedule that was put forth of when he would be available.

Um do we have some idea when harbor master will be able to comment on this application?

Yes. So to get outside of the boating season, we'd be looking at late September, early October and that is part of our um rules regulations which were adopted because we had uh applications which had to be continued numerous times in order for us to be able to get our master's recommendation which we who's in determining whether to approve or not or condition such a request. So, I think we're going

if for that reason alone, I I this will probably have to be continued. But Jennifer, I don't know if you want to speak to what you've reviewed so far and perhaps give the applicant and professionals of the applicant some idea of any other concerns you may have.

Yeah, that would be great. Um, and specifically with regard to the harbor master's comments, um, knowing that there are going to be some anchors for that float, um, those have to be anything attached to, um, you know, the the seafloor needs to go needs to have his approval. So, I think it's really important not only that he review the proposed project, but also we understand that he's going to be, you know, that he

would approve a permit for those anchors um as well because if if he's not going to approve it, then um you know, we'll have to you're going to be in a kind of difficult position, I think. So, um outside of that, I do have questions about the property line. Um if you could Jeff um zoom in on the plan that you have up there.

Um you know these are funky property lines in order for each of those lots to have some um coastal access. Um and on the northern side the property line is shown pretty clearly as it's projected out um into the ocean or out and into the water. Um but on the southern side that property line kind of disappears um in the middle of that rocky inter intertitle zone.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's a good question. That's that's not quite clear.

Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. This one here.

Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. No, I I understand your your question. These So, these lots are are all controlled by Caen. They're just not called Caen. These one, two, three, four are all under common ownership. Well, not technically, but these are controlled by the applicant.

Um, well, so they have different trustees, right?

Yeah.

So, so it would look like the docks within 25 ft of that southern property line, which is this line here.

Yes.

Yeah. I mean, it it is it's it is within but I mean these these lots are owned by the same folks. So, I I Can I just stop you for a moment, Jeff?

you you may want to consult with your client before you continue to make that representation.

If I may speak uh representative of the client, if that's okay, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Because the reason I say that, Mr.

Carney, is um by making that statement, it eliminates the protection of checkerboarding from a zoning standpoint because that's what they look at. If you have adjoining properties that have been cut up and they're under the same control, doesn't have to be the same owner of record. Uh you no longer have that protection. So I'm trying to prevent um from being on the public record something which may be

disadvantageous for another reason.

Sure. I appreciate that. And I'm just cur out of my own curiosity is th those lot lines terminated at some point when they go into the water.

Well, depending on whether this is protected under the I shouldn't say protected, whether these would come under the old colonial ordinances which are in parts of Clark's Cove, certainly New Bedford Harbor. Um, it goes to the uh thread of the stream of navigation.

So, I wouldn't be able to tell you just based on what I've seen how far they go, but they do go under the water.

Okay. Thank you for that. Um, yeah. No, I I appreciate the uh comment you made prior to that. And um to um comment on on on Jeff on Jeff's um it is all um shrewed up to the same family ownership. They are under different LLC's as you can see. Um but I don't want to say anything to uh uh hurt our application here. But um yeah, there would be um

no issue from the neighbors and the and the neighbors to the north were notified um through public notice. or or a notified neighbor neighborly notice.

Yeah, I would suggest I mean for what it's worth, I obviously can't be providing uh legal advice, but I think you might want to go a little slower on that issue, talk it over with somebody and perhaps come back with a different way of phrasing it because I'm sure that the lot lines and the lots were created with a purpose. Um, and I just don't want to see for sake of getting the dock approved that purpose

be eliminated.

Sure. Yeah. And I would just want to notice I mentioned that I I believe this um was all provided to the harbor master well before the boating season um and made available for comment. Then if I that may I I can't tell you when it was given to the harbor master. I don't know. But I do know that we've had we've had issues over a period of a fairly long time where essentially the harbor master is

out of pocket during the boating season.

So we were unable to get reports and as a result we had put in limits as to when applicants could reasonably expect the harbor master to respond. We can't tell somebody you can't apply but we try to give people advanced notice that these are the these are the limits. Okay. uh in terms of what he's able to do. Um I do know we don't have a report now and we are in

the middle of his voting season. So the chances of us getting a report before it ends isn't too good. I mean that's just the reality.

Yeah. And I so I think u my understanding in talking with Jeff at uh with the harbor master is that um the preliminary plan um was submitted to his office um and he referred it back to Mark because he doesn't typically comment on a preliminary plan. He waits until um an NOI has been submitted and there's a finalized plan. Um the timing of that final submitt was recent and so

it's within the voting season. Um so I think it was initially submitted to him back in November. I don't know why there was a delay from November to you know June July but you it's now within voting season. So um that being said so that's that's one item is we're waiting for harbor master comment and you also this project will need his approval on those anchors. Um and then the property line I

think is another item that we need to see resolved. The northern property line is extended the full length of the pier.

The southern property line is not. Um, and then I do think at a future hearing, um, it would be helpful for us to have a better understanding of like a lot of discussion tonight focused on the the structure layout, which is fantastic, but I think it would be helpful to understand what the construction is going to look like given the rocky intertitle zone if this is approved. um so that we know where equipment will be

staged, what the limit of work will be which is not shown um and potential impacts because there is dune grass growing on this um shoreline um and so and you know obviously with the rocky intertital zone there's the potential for impacts to those areas and the creatures that depend on those areas um so I think it's important for us to understand that as well um the letter from natural heritage um basically

specified that there is no take specific to those mapped uh priority areas for natural heritage um which is a a good news in terms of the project. um division of marine fisheries was a little more involved though. Um and I think one of the recommendations um for consideration for the commission that was skipped over um is that the new pier has the potential to negatively impact nearby shellfish resources, eel grass

and fisheries in a variety of ways.

While some of these impacts can be avoided or reduced with best management practices, others are unavoidable and will result in permanent impacts to shellfish habitat and associated fisheries access. Um, and the environmental analyst Amanda Davis goes into more detail um as to how those impacts will occur. Um, but this is it's a significant structure in a sensitive area and so I think there's, you know, a

lot to consider for the commission. Um, she also recommends that an eelgrass survey be performed. I know you touched on that, Jeff, but her recommendation is that a survey should be performed in compliance with um, DMF's eelgrass survey guidelines. She also spoke to the um, single transct that was done for the shellfish populations um, in the area. Uh, so one single transct of 120 ft was done.

And I understand your explanation that the 120 foot length was limited by um the depth of the water. Um but she also recommends doing more basically more than one transct. So exploring the areas to either side of those that single transct um to get a better sense of the resources. And I will tell you from our site visit um uh certainly I'm not a coastal ecologist um but from our single

site visit today we did note a number of um oysters just in that rocky intertital area. Um and so I think it's it's worth having a more involved um report done for this area. Clearly, it's an area that that is um sensitive and and that shellfish do use.

Um and as far as the I think an actual survey should be performed. Um so those would be my um comments as far as the project.

So I mean I I understand I understand that. Um, I mean I would just say that I mean I did reach out to Dr. Block. I mean he's pretty confident that he's going to find exactly what he found in the you know original 120 foot transect.

I I'm wondering I mean I don't if if the commission has any I mean has any experience. I mean I I'm going to see if Dr. block has any uh scuba gear um to go down because I it's not going to be easy to do without without getting in the in the water and going beneath. Um but you know, we have to if if you if the commission and and and Jennifer want the

eelgrass, maybe we can combine it and do both at the same time. Um, which I, you know, I did briefly speak with him about that and he said he'd figure it out.

Well, I think I mean we can't tell you what to do, but the recommendations have been made. Um obviously when the recommendations aren't fulfilled, it's certainly possible to still get a positive vote, but it becomes less probable.

Okay. So if some request is made for certain studies um unless they're impossible to perform or economically impossible to perform because I suppose you could do anything if you had enough you were willing to spend to do it. Um and that was explained you know we'd certainly then give some consideration but um I have to agree with what I heard from Jennifer.

um there's more study that needs to be done and just having a addendum to a report to say I think if I went and did the full study it'd be the same as what I did that doesn't that doesn't satisfy me you know that's not a scientific conclusion that's just the theory um or more importantly it's a conjecture so um that's the way I feel about it but you know we can't tell you what to do.

We can't make you do it. We're We're trying to give you a heads up as to what Jennifer's thoughts are at first review.

And clearly you've heard from Division of Marine Fisheries what their concerns are. Um, I I would I would take those concerns seriously in revising or supplementing, maybe not revising, supplementing what's being presented for approval. That's just my two cents for what it's worth.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Does any other commissioner have any questions?

I mean, clearly, um, this will have to be continued, so you can reserve that.

there's anybody in the audience this evening that wants to be heard solely uh on this particular matter. And um like I said a moment ago, we're more than likely to have to continue this.

I don't see any commissioner, nor do I see anyone in the audience.

Now, I don't know how long this will take, but we do need the harbor master.

Um, and given that Jennifer mentioned he's out of he's going to be out of pocket till September. What did you say, Jen? I didn't remember it.

That's okay. Um, so the the time isn't like a specific date. It's kind of late September, early October.

Well, my recommendation would be let's put this on or continuous to the first meeting in September with the understanding it may require yet another continuence if there's no report. But on the off chance Steve's able to get us one earlier, I'm willing to entertain this at that point. So, so long as the other concerns have been met.

Jeff, do you think you want me to say that in English to the applicant and the engineer? Sorry, chair. That sounds that sounds good.

I'll confer with my uh my client about the other issues that you know you've voiced uh here this evening. That will give us time if we decide to do those things. That'll give us time to do it.

Um because we do have to do those. I I we want to respond to the D uh comments and Jennifer made some comments tonight.

I want to um certainly respond to those and so um I'll confer with my client and and we'll we'll try to get everything in and uh hopefully time frame sounds great to us, Mr.

Chairman. We'll be prepared with the uh responses to all of the authorities that weighed in. Thank you.

I appreciate that. I mean, there's certainly no guarantee we'll have Harbor Master that soon, but I figured this way if it by some lucky coincidence it's there. We'll have what we need to vote.

If it's not, we'll continue it again till we get it. But, and I understand that I'm being overly optimistic, Jennifer. So, I get it. We get it. I appreciate, you know, but I just figured if we put it in for October, it can't be heard in September, even if we end up getting what we need.

That's fine. Totally fine. Thank you.

You're welcome.

So, our first meeting when is our first meeting in September, Jennifer?

Sure. Uh, it's actually September 1st and then the next one is the 15th.

Well, let's try it for the first. I don't think we'll have anything, but we might. So, um, Commissioners, I obtain a motion. Put my readers on so I can see this again.

Um motion to continue public hearing 15-2829 until September 1, 2026 at 7 p.m.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Donald, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

Liz, yes. My vote is yes. That passes unanimously.

Recommendation, check in and see before September 1st if we've got anything because you might sure might have to. And if not, we'll continue it again if we have to.

Um, just so you know, our new regulations, we usually are very liberal on a first request for continuence.

Second request has to have a a real good reason. And not having Harbor Masters report would be a real good reason. So, we would we would be willing, I think, to entertain that without a doubt because it's important that we get it right for you, for the town.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

All right. Thanks everyone.

Thank you. Good night.

Have a great night.

That that concludes the public hearings.

Um we now have to have a representative on the soil board.

That's because Liz, you moved over, didn't you? Or was it Nat who was on the soil?

Nat.

Nat. Okay. Yeah.

So, soil board is it re it's required to have a conservation commissioner on it.

Um, are there any volunteers? I don't I I I can't. I've already volunteered for the A and I think I'd probably be ending up in probate court with a divorce action if I decided to take something else on.

Mike, I'm already a member of the soil board.

Oh, good.

Why don't you count then? You should count.

I'm already a member and have been. Are you looking for another conservation board member on the soil board or is mine No, all they need is one. Well, I'm already on it.

Are you an atlarge member or the commission representative?

I'm the commission representative and I have been for about two nine 10 years.

Okay.

So, they should be fine.

They only need one.

Okay.

Okay. Now, the floor is yours, Jennifer, on the enforcement orders and notices of violation.

And then before we conclude, we're coming back to Liz to talk to us about her first meeting.

Um so, uh just I wanted to provide an update. Um Eduardo and I, uh were requested to go out to um 786 and 788 Horsene Neck Road, which is the Fernandez property and part of um uh property that the Audabon owns. Um there was an issue as I'm sure all of you remember quite well. Um I couldn't believe the report when I read through it uh how much horse manure had

accumulated there over the years. Um so I I'm coming in at the tail end of um this for the restoration portion and getting to see the site after the manure was removed. Um so everything was trucked off site. all the piles. There were two initially that were noted, huge piles. Um pile seems like an understatement for how much was there. Um and then a third was also um located on the property. Um and so

um all of those have been removed. Um the restoration plan specified some plantings and seed mixes to be applied.

That's all been done. Um there are some areas that aren't quite I would say fully stabilized yet, but we did uh while we were on site talk about um where erosion controls and silk like silt fence and straw waddles and some of the um netting that was applied to the steeper slopes where those could be removed because they are stable enough.

Um I I hate to see sites where like the erosion controls are just left there for years and then that plastic just deteriorates on site and causes other issues. So um they're going to start to remove some of that in the fall when some of the the growth has died back for the year, the annual growth to make it a little easier to remove all that. Um, and then I think overall I would say,

you know, having not seen the sites initially that they look pretty good as far as what's been restored. Um, area one, um, has quite a bit of invasive plant growth, but that's what was there before and you can see it all surrounding that area where there was no issue um, with dumping. Um, so I I don't know that um based on the invasive seedbank that's there um that we're going to get um

that it's realistic to expect that we would have 75% growth of native vegetation without some invasive species control which was not not part of the restoration plan for this site. Um, the Ottabon staff did express though once they have full control of this area um and the horse owner um is no longer on site that they'll be looking to do invasive species management um at the site. Obviously, that'll be another

notice of intent um and probably a couple of years down the road. Um but so it's it's in their um short-term forecast, but it's not something that they're doing right now. Um, so that's kind of where things are. We'll get another report uh the next growing season because this is just the first growing season. Um, and then we should be able to close out the order and the enforcement, the order of conditions and

the enforcement order.

Well, that sounds promising. And it's been a while.

It's nice to see some of these wrap up, right?

It's been a while. Um, Liz, I'm going to give you the floor. So you can tell about your meeting with water quality.

Yeah, happy to. Um, so it's a large group. It's um I think originally it was expressed to us that it was 16 members.

It's actually 27.

Um, and one of he Yeah. Um, one of the areas that I would commend them on is sourcing a group of individuals with a lot of different backgrounds and resources that can be applied to subcommittees. Um, they're going to need a lot of them.

Um, I think that one of the largest things that we uncovered from the meeting was the breadth of what people's perceptions of water water quality means. Um, you know, from a priority standpoint from one neighbor to the next. It was anything from Title 5 concerns as it relates to recently released regulations in the past two years with regards to the south coast and Cape Cod as I'm sure you're all

familiar with, you know, kind of what we've been up against with some of the nitrogen release into the resource areas and how the state plans to try to tackle that.

So there's concerns there, especially in the South Dartmouth area and and just any really area that abuts any kind of water and resource area where people don't have the opportunity to connect sewer right now. What does that look like for them with regards to title five and what the requirements might be going forward?

There's also a lot of concerns um from committee members with regards to drinking quality water, which is definitely certainly a concern of mine as it is um a large subset of the citizens in Dartmouth. Um I think the intent of the group is excellent and I think that there's a lot of information that they want to try to clarify for the public. Um although I don't think that's necessarily the top priority of the

group. I know that it's something I specifically um was hopeful to eventually see come out of the group is some tangible education on what exactly water quality means for the town of Dartmouth. You know what kind of priorities there are to correct in the town. Um, and it was also really good to see that um, Tim Barber was there from the um, DPW as well as Chris Mashad from the board of

health. There was a representative there from um, the CPC and she also had a wealth of information surrounding various other um, sort of scientific research backgrounds that she specifically had. Um there was a gentleman there uh Kevin I I can't recall his last name but he was from the planning board. So there there was a lot of really good resources.

Um, and I think that it's going to take a good amount of time and planning and discipline um, with this group to really get it to a point where it's educated enough to start advising um, you know, Cody and town administration or you know, the water department or the board of health or town meeting members as to you know, what kind of funding that we're going to be able to get to. accomplish some of

these um priorities.

So, it's a lot. Um and uh Jennifer, am I able am I able to speak candidly about what we uh sort of talked about in emails the past few days?

Sure.

Okay. Um so, uh transparently, I have actually decided to rescend myself from the committee. Um, there are some scheduling conflicts that I've recently encountered due to promotion that I've received from my full-time job. Um, and it's going to it's going to prohibit my ability from evening commitments going forward and I want to ensure that my loyalty lies with the conservation commission. Um, so I

have actually decided to take a step back. So I believe and and Jennifer, correct me if I'm wrong, we will be looking for somebody else to kind of backfill that. Um it's it's I think initially it's going to take some time commitment with you know a couple of meetings a month um to start which is absolutely necessary for the role. Um I just think there's a lot of organization that needs to occur first with identifying

good individuals for different subsets that can be utilized within the committee um because there's a lot to accomplish. So transparently I am taking a step back from that. Um so I'll let you know Jennifer and Eduardo kind of lead that discussion as to you know where we want to take that. Um but I have recently um been reappointed for another three-year term with the conservation commission. So you guys uh

can rest assured um my commitment is with you for the foreseeable future.

Well congratulations on the promotion.

So thank you. probably um you know it's um a little bit mixed emotions here because I think you would have done a superb job on the water quality control but hey like I said at the beginning family first you know and uh do what you can uh but I I I think it's important um to me it's important for uh our town that somebody within the commission participate. It's an area where we should be involved. Um

but I realize there's so many so many hours in the day, so many evening hours in the in the week too, you know. So I I certainly understand that. Um but if people put their thinking caps on and somebody thinks this might work for them, they'd like to give it a shot, just let us know.

We'll recir we'll circle back on it, but I'm not certainly going to ask anybody tonight because we just found out we need to we have a vacancy now. Um, but give us some thought. You know, it's an important it's an important aspect of living in the town that we have, to use the terms that have been banding about, we have good quality drinking water. We have programs in place to

ensure that we're doing what we can to protect that valuable resource into the future and hopefully improve it from the current state. So, you know, I think a conservation commissioner can add to that. Um, anyway, I'll leave it at that.

Can I add one note? Um, sure.

So, the next meeting for the group is July 28th. Um, so next Tuesday.

Um, so right now they're looking at meetings I think every every two weeks at least until they kind of get their feet under them as as a group in terms of their direction and priorities um and kind of forming some subcommittees um like Liz had mentioned. So the the frequency might be a little bit more on the front end right now, but I think it'll certainly um eb down a bit unless there's like a

specific um action project or priority that a a subcommittee is focused on. Um, so if there is anybody who is thinking about whether this might be a good fit for them and something they're interested in, um, I think it couldn't hurt to be at that meeting. Of course, if you haven't been appointed officially by the commission, you wouldn't be able to vote on anything, but um, I think it

would still be good to go and get a flavor for what the group is working on and considering. um if it's something that you're interested in. Typically in terms of um staff from the town, myself, Chris Misho, and and Tim Barber will will be there and and representative from the town administrator's office. I however can't be there next Tuesday. Um it's my actual birthday, so I hope to be

doing something uh not at work.

I I again, family first. Family first.

So uh you know, happy birthday.

Thanks. Thanks. So, um, if there's somebody who's interested, that would be great, um, in in attending next week, just so we have a sense from the commission's priorities like what took place.

Liz, um, where is the meeting?

It's at town hall. It's right in room 304, which is, I believe, typically where the select board meetings are held. It's on the third floor.

Yeah.

Um, 6 p.m. And it it it's going to be a phenomenal group. Um, I look forward to hopefully reinserting myself in the future. It's just unfortunately something I just am not going to be able to accommodate at this time, but I would encourage you guys to think about it. I think um I think you guys all have an area of expertise that the committee could definitely benefit from.

So I again um any questions about that or any um thoughts please, you know, reach out to Jennifer or myself. Um, and I, like I said, I think it's important. I think it's a very important aspect of of living here, and I think our commission can add to the value of what they're doing. And certainly, um, I think it'd be something down the road you'd sort of say, I'm glad I did it

because I think I made a difference. And that's why, at least for some of us, that's for me, it's one of the reasons why I've served on the conservation commission so long, trying to make a difference to improve how um how we as residents of the town live. Um but anyway, enough said. U there'll be no guilt into it, okay? I won't do that to anybody. Um, are there any other uh

matters that need to be addressed this evening?

I don't see any. So, entertain a motion to adjourn.

Moved.

Second.

Have a seconded motion. Roll call vote.

Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

And my vote is yes. So, that motion passes unanimously. Everyone have a great evening and thank you for attending. I appreciate your time tonight.