Conservation Commission Meeting - June 10, 2026

My watch says it's like a minute after 7. So, um, I will call to order the meeting of the Dartmouth Conservation Commission for Tuesday, June 9, 2026.

Um, we're conducting this, well, actually, it's the June 9 meeting being held on June 10th. So, I should be clarifying that a little bit. Um, and we're holding this meeting remotely because Governor Healey on March 28th, 2025 signed into law uh an extension for hybrid remote meeting options for municipalities.

And that extension carries through through the 30th of June, 2027.

The meetings are publicly accessible through either the raise your hand feature, the chat feature, or um make a motion, wave your hand, and you'll be recognized.

Um I would ask that if anyone in the audience wants to be heard, they do let us know that and then they will be unmuted. Otherwise, uh please remain muted so that ambient noises don't interfere with anyone's presentation.

Um, this meeting for tonight was posted properly in accordance with Massachusetts law. Unfortunately, it didn't get posted properly for the meeting that was originally scheduled for last night. So, if any of you tried to get on last night, apologize. Um, that being said, administrative, it says updates from staff. So, I'll I'll uh let either Jennifer or Eduardo carry the water on that.

Sure. So, I have a few updates. Um some of it may be items that you all are already familiar with, but um I've had a a chance to have a few meetings with Cody and kind of go over some different items. Um I know one of them for the uh was the water quality committee, the water quality advisory committee. Um I had a chance to talk with him about that. He wanted to um assure the

commission that there is the the original charge for that group did um contain a a position allocated from the conservation commission. Um so my understanding in listening to some of the prior meetings is that Liz was the person appointed as the representative for concom. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. So Cody will be reaching out or his office will be reaching out with an email um for a couple of different dates in the next couple of weeks for um the first meeting for that group. And so um I've let them know that Liz is the representative. I'll send out an a formal email um so that it's all um documented. Um and then uh I I think it's going to be a rather large group at

least in the beginning because 16 people were appointed from the select board meeting. Um but it's it's good to know that water quality is very important to this community I would say at the same time. So um you know we'll we'll see how it works with having such a large group and um move forward from there. But so that um I think is all squared away and the first meeting should be coming up in

the next couple of weeks. Um, we got through our town meeting, which means there is now money allocated for an administrative position for our office, which is fantastic. Um, I know Eduardo and I are very excited about that. Um, and so more to come with that, but we'll be working with HR to put together um, a basic job description and um, working with Cody's office to keep moving that forward. Um, and then, uh,

Eduardo and I went through and put together the July through January schedule. So, July 2026 through January 2027. Um, we tried to do it for the most part, it's a first and third Tuesday schedule. Um, there are a couple of dates as you get into the fall where we shifted it because of town meeting. um and Thanksgiving and those sort of things.

So um it's posted on our web page if you all want to take a look at that. Um we tried to the way we did the schedule seem to avoid a lot of the holidays um or being what we need to do um just so you know we we need to maybe at the next meeting just um circulate that and we'll vote it. We usually vote that. Okay. So we have official um majority vote at least.

Okay. Okay.

Um I attended the first meeting for the resilient coasts um launch which is so it's a statewide initiative.

Um the plan was accepted put into place in 2025 and what they've done is they've broken out all the different coastline in Massachusetts into um I think it's 14 or 15 different regions. We're in district 14. um they did the first uh cohort launch for that. So there's a couple of different consulting firms that are leading that charge for our area. Um I'll be providing updates as we move

more into that. Um but I think that certainly aligns really well with the town's interest with the water quality advisory committee too. Um and it get, you know, it's more than just water quality. It also gets into coastal resilience and um making sure we have infrastructure upgrades in place, but it's more of a regional approach. So looking at our local projects and how they can be incorporated into the regional um

priorities that have been put into place.

Sorry, getting a little froggy. Um hazard mitigation plan. The town is working on um getting a consultant in place for our hazard mitigation plan update. And once we have the consultant picked out, so I'm working with planning on that right now. Once we have a consultant picked out, we'll be putting together a community um team to give input on that. I'm sure we'll be looking for representation from the commission

for that for sure. Um and then I've had a chance to catch up with town council on enforcement orders.

Um, so I've got a good sense of where we are with litigation on all of those.

I'll plan to provide an update uh maybe on the next agenda. Um, and then um what else?

I know one thing that that came up kind of on the side um between the last meeting and this one was um we're planning I'll I'll be working with Eduardo to put together a project tracking spreadsheet. And basically what that does is it keeps track if anybody has to miss a meeting for especially our longer hearing items. Um we'll just be keeping track of any any absences to make sure we don't have more than one

absence for each project for the members so we can help you all keep track of that. Um and then um oh along with the um meeting schedule, one thing that I just wanted to make sure you all are aware of is um we we had to step back the posting deadlines for projects because we weren't meeting the ad requirement the way we were doing it before. The ads weren't running um with with enough length between the

meeting dates and uh when the ads were going in. So, um, we've stepped that back. So, people are looking at submitting about 21 days in advance now, which is actually good timing for the regulations. So, if you when we circulate the schedule, you'll notice that.

Um, and then I think that's it for updates for now, but we will definitely get that meeting schedule circulated to all.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Seems like a lot a lot of catching up was done and done in a rather short order. Thank you.

Thank you.

We now go to the wetland site inspection determinations. Um, and we have four of them. Do you want to do them? We'll do them one by one or do you want to do We can do them one by one, Mike.

All right. First one was uh 950 State Road.

All right. So 950 State Road. Um so they're um they have an exist existing uh cesspool at at the site and so they're proposing a new system which is was the reason for the um the wells site inspection and so staff and uh uh staff went out to flag uh the edge of um the welllands over there. Uh the property itself sits abuts Lake Noachchoke. Uh and so most of the flags are pretty much almost against

the bank. Uh so we flags uh Concom 1 through concom 5. Uh and so that's that's basically kind of just going through um the bank of Lake Nokachoke.

Uh the actual system itself sits a little bit over 100 feet from uh those flags. So we don't see any concerns when it comes to um any setback issues for that new system.

Uh in terms of FEMA flood zone, uh a very small portion of the lot uh actually sits on flood zone from Lake Nokachoke. Uh so there's no issues uh when it comes to that. So we're asking the commission to uh approve uh those uh flags concom 1 through concom 5.

Thank you, Eduardo. Any questions from any commissioners?

Okay, I'll entertain a motion to approve the wetlands flag that Concom observed on site visit at 950 State Road.

So moved.

Second.

Seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Donald, you're muted. Donald, yes. Thank you, Liz.

Yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Nat, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That passes unanimously.

The next uh is at 1256 North Hicksville Road.

Um so just to give you the commission a little bit of backstory about 1256 North Hicksville Road. Uh so there was a previous uh wetlands site inspection done uh I believe a little over three years ago and so that was uh approved by I believe Mark originally was the one that uh did the original wetland site inspection and so three years had passed and during that time there was a foundation built

outside of the buffer zone from those wetland flags that were hung And since then there hasn't been any uh development uh within that three-year period. And so the applicant uh requested us to go out um and redelineate or rather recheck the flags uh that were out there that went from B29 to B34.

um as it as the original flags uh had expired were past that three-year uh three-year mark and so staff went out um looked at the flags B29 through B34 and it looks they looked pretty accurate uh look like they matched the existing wet condition wetland conditions uh so we're uh recommending the commission to uh approve that um that new wetland line B uh from B29 through B34 over at 1256 North Hicksville Road.

Thank you. Any commissioners have any questions?

Okay, I'll entertain a motion to approve the wetland line um that was observed by staff on its site visit for 1256 North Hicksville Road.

So moved. Second. Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Richard, yes.

Nat, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Uh, next up is 31 Deerfield Road.

Uh so once again, staff went out to double check um the wetland conditions on site. While there weren't any wetland um wetlands on site as it was mostly just a a lawn, uh there were potentially wetland uh impacts about a over a little over 100 feet away from uh a derelic structure. Um, so I guess just to give you a little uh a little sidebar here. Um, there's a derelik structure over at 31 Deerfield

Road that they're looking to demo. Uh, most of it, when I say derelict, I mean there's maybe three walls and two pieces of plywood that were a roof.

Um, and so while there weren't any wetlands within 100 ft of the building, uh, Lake Nokachoke, this one also sits by Lake Nokachoke. Lake Nokachoke does, um, sit across the street from it and a portion of the lot does uh, is encumbered by that 100 foot buffer zone from Lake Noachchoke. However, I um believe from just some GIS um measuring uh it looks like it just uh the building itself just misses the that 100 foot

buffer zone. Um but that's something that uh the applicant will have to measure out themselves uh when it comes to that. Um, but in terms of actual wetlands, there there weren't any any wetlands on site.

Okay. So, we don't really have to approve anything there. So, we'll go to uh 10 Z5 Reed Road.

Uh so one Z5 road a little bit similar to the uh first um inspection where there there's an existing system that they're proposing a new septic system. So staff went out flagged some wetlands that were in the very very back of the property.

Concom one one through concom 5. Um the new system sits uh possibly I believe it was close to 300 ft away from that that wetlands those wetlands over to the back. So there we see no real concerns for the septic replacement. Uh so we're asking the commission to uh approve those that wetland line.

Thank you. Do any commissioners have any questions?

Okay. Seeing none, I entertain a motion to approve uh the wetlands line um delineated and observed by staff on its site visit for one 05 Reed Road.

So move.

Second. Have a second motion on the floor. Roll call vote.

Megan, yes.

Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes. Natt, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

U we now go to items. I'm sorry.

Sorry. Can I just clarify for for the third one, 31 Deerfield Road. Um I know there weren't any wetlands on site, but does the commission ever vote um just to confirm that there are no wetlands on the parcel?

Not really, because it doesn't it doesn't require that. Um okay that's an observation of staff but okay you know when when we are asked to delineate the wetland lines we're confirming that and we never even did that before and I think Eduardo might inform you that was part of the uh recommendation by town council and we made that part of our uh rules and regulations. Uh, and I know Mark was

thinking we could do them with one vote, but I like breaking them down just in case somebody wants to say no.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I just want to double check. Thank you.

That's not a problem.

Okay. We move on now to items for discussion and we have some uh pending projects and enforcement orders and then I want to reserve a few minutes uh after all of that for Richard.

Okay. Who wants to present the pending projects?

Okay. So, I think for the Smith Neck Road project, we have someone here from UMass Dartmouth to um go over kind of what they're they're looking for and then I can jump in as well if it's helpful. Um Okay.

Well, Is it Julia? Are you on?

I see it. Jul I see your hands raised.

DCTV may need to unmute Julia.

Yeah, probably.

Hi.

Oh, good.

We can hear you. We just can't see you.

Okay. Yeah. Sorry about that. Um, so, uh, yeah, I guess I've never done one of these before. Am I required to share my screen or If you have a screen, uh, sharing ability, I'll ask DCTV to allow you to share screen.

Okay, Julia, if you would like, I can kind of go through what what my advice was as far as presenting to the commission tonight for the project. And then if you want to add in anything you can.

Uh yeah, I would definitely appreciate that.

Okay. So um basically as the commission heard at the last meeting um UMass Dartmouth is for this particular project um they had an existing uh determination of applicability from the commission that's still valid um for a um Spartina research project. So, uh, cord cordg grass project. Um, and while that research um did move forward, they're now looking to kind of shift gears a little bit and change the layout

for the um plantings to see if they can do um five plantings over five different transexs instead of within um five or six smaller uh one meter boxes that were limited to one specific area. So now they're looking to cover maybe a greater portion of the marsh that's um losing some of its vegetative cover um with the cord grass. So um my advice to the after our discussion at the last meeting um it

seemed like the consensus from the commission was that because the project description from the existing DOA is so specific that we really couldn't change um or allow the work that they're looking to do now under the current DOA.

Um and because of that they would need to submit a new RDA um which they've already done. they they've moved forward with submitting the new RDA. It'll be heard at our uh first meeting in July.

Uh so that'll be pull up my calendar here, July 7th. Um just because of the submittal timing and uh the running of the ads, it'll have to be put off till the July 7th meeting. Um but that doesn't really align with their planting schedule for this the ideal planting schedule for the Spartina. So um my advice to them was to come back to the commission and say you know we we have an an existing active determination

that allows us to do work in that area.

Can we move forward with um these new proposed transexs in the planting window we need to which is basically right now um and knowing that we've already submitted the the new RDA and that the commission is supportive of that new RDA.

So basically, you're looking at having what was what's recently been submitted be an after the fact.

Exactly.

It's interesting.

We've never done that before.

I think I think the good and I think for good reason. Okay. that not because of UMass Dartmouth or or anything like your current proposal, Julia, but we've done it because I can envision every contractor and developer just doing the same thing, going ahead and doing what they want and then coming back with an after the fact. Um, and I'm a little concerned about that as a precedent to be very candid with you. Um

it it's we have had after the facts, but that's after we've sent notices of violation and given the recipient the opportunity to either restore or get if they can an after the fact order of conditions. And sometimes they do and sometimes they don't get an order of conditions and they have to restore. But in my experience on this commission, that's the only time we've allowed after the fact

uh because of a need for an advanced schedule, but I'm only one person here and I'm certainly anxious to hear the other commissioners thoughts on this.

If I can, Mike, I concur with you wholeheartedly.

The last thing in the world we want to do is open up the door in this particular way. And I can envision and agree with you that if we do uh then contractors or whatever whomever may do exactly what you uh thought could happen and then come in afterwards and ask for permission. And I just have a problem with that.

Yeah. Maybe a little more nuanced, Richard. I mean, I see them filing but then doing it before we have a meeting.

Yeah.

Then say, "Well, it's an ad hoc after the fact." We did file, but we didn't want to wait because our timetable for construction meant we couldn't get the framers out there on time and would cost more money to do the I mean, they'll have a million reasons why they did it.

I I think it would be a recipe for disaster. Period.

I just think we're we're going to find that we'll be doing we'll be dealing with these fires frequently and it'll come mostly from developers.

Can I respond to that?

Not from academia.

If I could just respond to that quickly.

I think I I agree with you in that regard, but I think the difference is that they have a currently active determination that allows them to do work in that same area for the same type of research. It's just transexs instead of a box.

No, I I I I understand that nuance. Um I understand that nuance. Okay. And we've had people have to come in and amend before we allowed them to do something differing from their order of conditions if they had an operative order of conditions. I think there was a concern that maybe it wasn't still operative, but I understand that.

I I'm just very reluctant to go down a slippery slope and then find myself having to explain to a developer why it's okay for research project to have this but not them.

if they go in and they wanted to amend and we've had that with pools, um, terraces, location of cess pools, uh, excuse me, septic systems, not cess pools, location of driveways, width of driveways, uh, all these things. They had to come back before they could do the work and get an amendment.

Um because they as site was being developed, they found reasons why what was originally shown wasn't optimal and we didn't have a problem with them trying to amend it. But we didn't let them do the work first and then amend it later.

And that that I think is the commonality between this request and what I just said. I understand, you know, that and I can just see because developers love to push things to the limit.

I I can see them taking that next step, but I could also see them not bothering to wait for the amendment to be voted upon before they do the changes.

And that's that's a real problem for me.

But again, I'm only one person here and uh Richard has spoken. Anyone else who wants to speak on this, please do. I mean, you may have you may convince me that I'm wrong. I've been wrong before.

I can be wrong. Liz, you're next.

Uh, thank you. I was just curious. Um, I I'm not familiar. Is is there any other type of workaround that would would be able to accommodate this? I see both sides of the scenario to be perfectly honest. I'm just wondering if if in your experience there's any kind of other workaround to allow them to expedite the work. I I imagine probably not, but just curious.

The only thing I can think of that's in our regulations is emergency work and that's usually like we've had a a flood situation and they've got to do something and they've got 48 hours to file. There's some, you know, that's not this. I mean, this emergency is a planting season.

um which I understand is a real problem, but it's not in the same vein as what our regulations seem to imply is okay to do in very extreme circumstances.

Right. I just don't think it's the same thing. But again, I might be I hear what you're saying. I don't like taking this position, but I feel a duty to sort of say what I think. And um my concern is that when you start making exceptions and there's then it almost becomes we've made an exception for you because we like you.

That should never be. Okay. Um and I I really like to think that if there's some logical solution, I'd like to hear it. I'd like to rethink my position if somebody can convince me that that's that's wrong. Um because I don't really want to say no. But I on the other hand, I feel compelled.

Mr. chairman. Um I suppose if we were to make if we were to make an exception here while it could certainly be argued it sets a precedent for us that we don't want to have to follow in the future.

You could also though denote that this is a this is not a development project.

This is not the construction of a home or the building of a road. And so you could make the case and I'm not necessarily advocating for this. I'm just kind of talking it through. But you could say, you know, if a developer were to give us a hard time in the future, say, oh, well, you know, that Misus Lane Smith Neck Road project, you gave them an exception. The difference is that

this isn't a development. This isn't construction. This isn't meant to be, you know, this isn't a commercial endeavor, I suppose. So, there's you could differentiate.

Would that have to be delineated though in our bylaws?

Well, that was where my I was headed, but um you know, that's where I agree. It's a slippery slope.

Um because we didn't make that distinction.

Agreed.

In our bylaws or the regulations. Um, so we don't have a I'm going to use the term academia, but we we don't have an academia exception like research exception and and and maybe we should.

Okay, so I'm not saying that it's it shouldn't be, but it's not. I didn't when I went and looked I couldn't find I did read them again as a prelude when I saw this agenda um as a prelude to that and I thought I wonder if there's something else that we can do that follows the procedure because um you know I don't like I said I don't want to say no but I just don't know

whether I want to set a new president and it have to explain in the future.

Well, but you're not an academic. You see?

Yeah.

You say, "Well, where in your bylaws did it say the academics get special treatment?"

But I I agree that we I think you can make the argument that it would be like UMass Dartmouth has other projects before us where there is an impact where they are looking to construct you know a new sports complex or a new dormatory or whatever it might be and those do have um an impact to the resource area even if they look to mitigate those with storm water infiltration all of that. this is

actually a will hopefully this research project will lead to restoration actually have a net benefit um I I get that totally get that I think it'd be wonderful if this could lead to restoration of that you know would be wonderful and I I'm I'm in favor of the research I'm in favor of the exploration of possibilities to make an a positive impact so Um but you know you know you know know what they say about you

know what's what you use to pave the road to good intentions. Okay. Um and so I know that whatever we do it it's going to be something that we have to be able to justify.

And obviously if you follow e if you follow the rules and regulations and follow the bylaws, it's easy to justify one decision. What we really want to do is try to help and I'm struggling to find the precedent. But I know we don't have it and but I'm also struggling to find procedurally how we can do it and then with a straight face say but it only involves research that we believe will

have a positive impact and it doesn't involve construction because there's nothing in our rules, regulations or bylaws which say that you know and and I think maybe they should but um particularly because we have a UN I see uh Anna I'll get to you in a moment. I see your hand is raised.

Um uh you know because I we have UMass Dartmouth, we have had other organizations that are doing things with like the Osprey and what have you that really want to make a positive impact and they're really not trying to construct anything or to do a development that's a for-profit enterprise or even a residential my own home enterprise. So, it's really projects for the greater good. And I get that, but we don't have

an exception for that that I could find.

I wonder if Wait, Donald, I'll get to you in a moment. But I have a Anna had her hand raised so you can have the floor. Anna, you can unmute yourself.

Good evening, everyone. Um, I know you cannot see me. I am also from UMass Dartmouth. I'm one of the research associates here and the current lab manager. So both Julia and Julia and I are here to represent this project. Um I was wondering if there is a way you had spoken earlier about the potential um I guess um reasons that you may have given and after the fact look at a determination and I'm

wondering if if there are any adjustments we can make to the like the purpose or the scope of the project that would make it be considered under um anything that could be considered like the t timeline emergency or anything of that sort cuz I'm thinking of the reality of when we plant these grasses and when they get put out you know the the real growth and the purpose behind like marshes you know will it's a it's

more than just like oh we're happy that the marsh is back oh and it's growing you know for like just even the social and local impact for coastal protection storm form mitigation, etc. And so, um, but the time frame in when these are put down will limit the potential for the grasses to even grow at all. And so, anything later and past the summer, we're looking maybe another year and a

half before you can even tell if these things or if the plugs will even come to fruition. And the previous project that the current RDA is um supporting and allows for you know showed was a very successful project and those grasses did really well. And so however the time frame over which they took to show any progress is is there's a really narrow window between when you put it down in

hopes for when you're going to see it.

So, um I'm wondering if there's a way to adjust how we propose the scope of the work to get this potentially put forward so that we're able to put the um the seedlings down. I don't know if this is a possibility or not.

Well, when you were speaking, I can speak for myself. I I certainly appreciate the timeframe dilemma and I think it would really be stretching things but I mean you know there is a uh element of protection that if su your project is successful you'll be able to restore that as a fully operating marsh and that would protection from storm surges too, I guess. So, I'm trying to come up with

something that might fit the bill of emergency here. Okay. But, uh I'm stretching it beyond almost credul.

Okay. because it's it's not like there's been a flood situation and there's a road that got washed out or something like that and they want to go and fix it now before there's further damage. We don't have that type that's what I think the emergencies were all about. This is this is more like if we don't replenish that marsh and we have strong storm surges, they won't it won't be

able to absorb that water and it's going to cause problems. And I don't disagree with that. I think that's true. I just don't know if it fits under the category of emergency.

And I' I'd love for it to Natt. I see you're Well, Donald had something he wanted to say then I'll get to you Nat.

Yeah. I wonder if the nature of the work of this project is similar enough to the the past project, the existing permit that that could simply be amended. I mean, both of them involve basically planting uh Spartina, and it I don't know, doesn't seem like a big stretch to me to be able to amend a slightly different research project, which basically does the same thing as the old one to put that under the existing

um permit.

I I I'll get back to your comment, but now I want Natt, you were going to say something.

Well, I was I was just going to agree that I don't think I don't think the language within our bylaws specific to emergencies would qualify here.

I agree. Now, as far as what you said, Donald, I agree. But I think what we're hearing is the time frame for planting is now. And even to file for an amendment would put them past that time frame because they would have to to request that and it's not something that we could do tonight. We can't amend it.

Um so

you know, I hate to say it, but it's almost better that if they're going to do this, they just do it without our permission and go in on an after the-act approval. and you know because that at least is something that's happened before. I don't love it, but believe me, I do not love that. But when I'm being asked to approve something that I don't have the right to approve or amend,

I'm troubled by by doing a positive vote. I I have a hard time convincing myself that's okay. Now, if it comes up that when at the meeting, you know, maybe they have to be sent, you know, a notice of violation or something, but they have it already filed. So, now it's after the fact, but how do I vote on it tonight? I can't. I can't.

Mike, I I concur with you wholeheartedly. For them, we're discussing this and for them to go out and do what they have to do with full knowledge that there is no approval. Uh that's stretching it. That's really stretching it as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, I I I do get that, Richard. I'm like I said, I don't love it, but you know, it gives me and maybe I'm just a stickler for rules, I guess. But you know, as you well know, we were taught that, right, Richard? Rules of civil procedure.

Absolutely.

We know. We know that the rules are there for a reason, to keep order and to keep things fair.

To keep things fair for everybody.

We're opening up a Pandora's box here.

And so, um, you know, to me, we've had plenty of opportunities as a conservation commission to have to consider and vote on after the fact filings.

Some of which were, I'm pretty sure, purposeful violations, others of which were innocent. Ignorance is no excuse, but it certainly makes somebody innocent of the fact they're doing something wrong. But we voted on those.

And I mean, temperature in the room. I don't think anybody on the commission doesn't think what's being proposed as far as the experimentation is concerned is bad or is harmful. Okay.

So, I would pretty much guess we all think it's a good idea.

I don't want to speak for anybody else, but I think that's probably the temperature in the room.

But what's our remedy tonight to give approval where we don't have the ability to give approval?

You know, I I mean, to me, I look at it and I say, "Look, I can't approve tonight.

myself. I haven't been convinced otherwise yet. Um, but if something per chance happened and they do get a notice, maybe they don't. Depends on whether anybody complains and whether anybody sees it from the commission or from staff.

We've got a we're going to have a hearing. It'll just be a de facto after the fact hearing. I know that's not a great bit of advice. That's like telling somebody, you know, go ahead and break the law. I'll get you out of jail later.

Um but I can't for the life of me think of a way I can vote tonight with taking the process that we have and ignoring it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I that's the way I feel right now.

Richard, you were saying something.

No, I concur, Mike. I I I understand the situation, but rules are the rules, and if we do to the contrary now or break it, we're opening up Pandora's box of the future for like or similar people actions coming uh before us. And the rules are the rules, and you have to follow them. And if we don't, uh we're going to have a problem.

self-created problem.

Well, you know, we would have to do something and maybe we should consider it. um whether we want to include it won't help them tonight but in the future maybe we should consider um let's say something that would be an expedited process if this is of a scientific nature not a construction nature so research projects so if they need to amend and they have an expedited way of amending

and Jennifer and then Eduardo and I don't know Anna if you want to speak again I see your hand is raised but that's the way it'll go.

Go ahead Jennifer.

Yeah. So I just I guess I want to reiterate so it's what they have currently is a determination of applicability that's still valid. They don't have an order of conditions so we can't amend it. determinations can't be amended unfortunately.

Um so any change in project scope and unfortunately the description is is very specific is kind of sending them back.

That's what we decided after the last meeting was that it needed to come back as a new submitt. I think they've followed that direction. They've submitted the new RDA. um it's just it's not going to allow them to move forward in this planting season. And so it sounds like to me like they would be basically at this point waiting a whole another planting season which I would agree doesn't li rise to the level of

emergency for an emergency certification um filing you know that's more like public safety issues. Um, but I correct I think I think what we're looking at tonight and I I think how it's different from, you know, Joe contractor wanting to move forward with um, you know, his pool project before his hearing is opened is he doesn't in in that scenario doesn't necessarily have an already active order

of conditions or an active determination. this has an active DOA for a very similar project with the exact same species of grass in the exact same location.

It's just a different layout. Um, and so I think that's where that's where my direction is on this is that they can if what we're looking to do is for them to be able to operate under their currently active DOA until they get to the July meeting for which they've already filed. It'd be different, I think, if they hadn't filed yet because it'd be like, well, now we're approving it and we don't even

know if they're for sure going to file.

But we're saying we already have their filing. we already kind of have a consensus even from the last meeting that everybody's on board with this project. It's more of a formality at this point. Um, and I so I I understand where the the heartache is is coming at with this and I I understand that, but I think this is this is different and every every filing is different. Um, as far as

what's the scope of the project, um, what's already in place, what work have they already been doing? Like, it's great to hear that they've already had some success with their prior plantings.

Um and um I I do think it makes a difference that this is a research project that has a net benefit to an important resource not just locally here in Dartmouth regionally and and even beyond. Um it's it's really important work.

Eduardo.

Um, I just wanted to mention or to the commission one one other point that I just came across. Um, so just uh so the commission can kind of I suppose keep this in mind as well. Um, so under 310 CMR 10.02 I believe section two, uh, the planting of native species is listed as a minor activity. I believe Spartina alter the floor is considered a minor activity uh which would be considered I suppose

an exempted minor activity under the under 310 CMR. So I suppose, you know, granted is it is within a wetland. Uh but if you were to do some I suppose um rearranging of the the wording or re-examination of the wording under under that uh section of uh of the wetlands protection act. You could sort of consider that as a minor minor activity under 310 uh 10.02 H.

That's an interesting point, Eduardo.

Kudos to you.

Is that the escape hatch, Mike?

What's that? That might be Is that the escape hatch?

That might be the escape hatch.

I think Eduardo may have hit a home run here.

I like that, Eduardo.

I think you may have convinced me there's a way around this.

Do any other commissioners want to speak on this?

I'm comfortable going ahead with it given what what I just outlined personally.

I as well.

I've changed my mind. I'm in.

All right. Well, I got to tell you that was a logical and very thoughtful um bit of research you did there. And it I think it's although maybe not directly directly on point, it's close enough to convince me.

So, I'll have I'll uh entertain a motion to consider the proposal by University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth regarding uh the project at Smith's Neck Road Matter Lane.

um to be construed as a minor activity under the state regulations and that they be allowed to proceed with planting as described.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

James, yes. Natt, yes.

Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes. Kudos, Eduardo. Kudos.

That passes unanimously. Uh, Julia and Anna. Eduardo came through.

He absolutely did.

So, I am convinced. Good job, Eduardo.

Now we move on to our enforcement orders and notices of violation of which we apparently are uh some some of them um you probably have already seen there was email correspondence but um I'll Jan Jennifer I'll allow you to go through them. I think we probably should do them one by one.

Sure. Um, let me I have to try and share from my work screen. So, let me see if I can get that to work.

Okay. Um, so this is 700 Old Fall River Road. Um, basically it's a single family residence um that sits across from um Cornell Pond across the street and um on either side of the parcel you have um is it Copa Cut River?

Um sometimes I'm I say the I'm saying the local names wrong, I think. Um, no, you said it right.

And then the there's a tributary on this side as well. So, um, there's been quite a bit of work that's happened um on this parcel over the years. I know this is one that the commission is, you know, familiar with because Mark had issued uh the prior um conservation director had issued um a number of letters over the last year to two years um providing direction on how to restore activities that had

happened and the limit of activities that were um allowed. and those letters have not been complied with. Activities have increased on this site and are and having an increased impact on the wetland resource areas here. So, um the reason why we have three enforcement orders is this main parcel here is 700 Old Fall River Road.

Um let me try to turn down this a little bit so you can see the parcel lines better. So, this is 700 Old Fall River Road here. Um the property owner has gone off of his parcel onto his uncle's property at the rear here, which u my understanding is he has a lease agreement for, but it um you know, obviously doesn't allow him to um do work in the wetlands without a permit.

Um, so he's done a little bit of work across the river onto this other parcel and then he's also done a little bit of um had some impacts on this abuing parcel of 686 Old Fall River Road. Um, and so that's why because these are three different parcels owned by three different people. Um, it just seemed too cumbersome to issue it all as one enforcement order. So we issued it as three separate enforcement orders. Um

so if we look at near map back in 2016 um sorry 2017 you can see this site uh while there is a pretty big landscaped area um compared to what we see out there today. Uh it's quite different.

There's a lot more vegetation. There are a lot there's a lot more tree cover. Um and just as we fast forward in time I'm going to skip ahead. I have to unfortunately I have to go in three-month increments, but I'm going to skip ahead a little bit and you start to see that there's some activity happening on the parcel um within the riverfront area for this perennial river. Um and almost the entire parcel lies in FEMA

flood zone. Um so there's the majority of this is going to be subject to protection. Um, and there is not a permit for any of this work other than the work for the house itself, which that permit has long long expired.

Um, so if we fast forward to more recent time um you can see that there's more and more site work happening, um, especially along the river itself, um, and its tributary. And we get down here to the lower part of the site. You can actually see that um concrete and wooden structures have been erected across the river. None of which are permitted. Um and then you'll start to see that some

tree work has been done as well. Um you can see it better in this area here. The trees have been taken down. Actually took a piece of heavy equipment across uh through the stream bed it bed itself onto this other parcel to do work. Um, so we have some photos from our most recent site visit. Um, this is up near the roadway and you can see that he's added some stone armoring along the bank. Um, and

taken down quite a bit bit of vegetation on that abuing parcel as well. Um, I know that there were two trees that had come down in a storm and and talking with the neighbor. Um, and that those were trees that Mark had talked with him about being able to remove because they were hazardous, but all this other vegetation work was not part of that.

Further down the stream, he also uh has damned the area.

This is still at the front of the property near the roadway.

And you can see all the mud caked in the tracks of the um excavator where he took it across the stream. Uh so this is all the caked mud. I guess it was stuck in there for a couple of days. Whoops.

Um this is where he's damned up the stream, the tributary. He's put um like a basically a metal plate and then wedged a piece of um I don't know metal machinery behind it uh so that he can dam up this front portion.

Uh this is where he crossed the stream at the back of the property onto his uncle's parcel. And you can see that there's some tree work that's happened.

More photos of the tree work. Um, and then this is the other spot where he's actually put concrete. I I don't know if you can really call them pilings cuz it's more like stacked concrete blocks.

um and then put concrete over top of that to make a pad so that he can cross with equipment and again do some tree clearing activities. Um these aren't the most egregious I think sections of the property. Um unfortunately as you kind of round and come around the property and come back up towards the roadway uh there's been more work that he's done uh where he's actually starting to fill the

wetland. So he's pushing material down into the edge, stream edge, and basically changing the river course. And then he's also taking down trees and other vegetation um and laying it on top of those filled areas.

Um and that's kind of where you see that jet ski in the water to to the north of that is where he's doing the filling.

this area here.

Um, so to me, this is pretty egregious and I think it it's it's moved to the point where it can't be handled through a notice of violation anymore, especially when site work is continuing to happen.

And I do app I want to say I appreciate Liz letting us know that she was seeing more activity happening out here.

Um so we because I did already have an appointment to talk with town council about some of the active litigation. And I also touched base with him about this and he just made wanted to make sure we um if the commission does vote to ratify the enforcement orders tonight. Um cuz I've already served the enforcement orders to the property owners that if the commission does vote to ratify them,

they need to ratify it um or you all would need to ratify it retroactively to the date of issuance which was um May 29th.

Um, and he also felt it was important even though the activities on the other two parcels were relatively minor compared to what's happening on the 700 old Fall River parcel, he did feel it was important for the commission to consider ratifying all three. And then in the future, the commission can choose to only move forward with the 700 Old Fall River Road as far as um referring it to back to town council to move

forward with pursuing it legally.

Questions for me for this one?

Think pictures tell a thousand words as they say. Yeah, this this seems like the the Reese Asphalt guys re revisited, but um okay, I u will entertain a motion unless there's any further discussion for the commission to um ratify uh retroactive to May 29th, 20 or 20 26 um Enforcement Order 2026-02700 Old Fall River Road.

So move, Mr. Mr. Chairman.

Yes.

Forgive me. Could we amend that motion to include all three EOS?

They're different owners, I think she said.

Yeah. So, yeah, that's why um because they'll be they probably will all be consolidated if it ends up in court. Okay. But um Sure.

You never know.

So, we have a motion. Is anyone willing to second that motion?

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Natt, yes.

Richard, yes.

Megan, yes.

Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, I suspect that these others are the same photographs that you showed before occurring.

Is that correct, Jennifer?

Hello.

You're muted, Jennifer.

I don't know if she can hear us.

I don't think she can.

Sorry. No, I I could. It's I'm trying to operate between my town files, so I have to actually log into my work PC and it won't allow me to get on Zoom from there. So, um anyway, uh yes, it's the same photos.

All right. So, I'll entertain a motion to ratify retroactive to May 29, 2026, uh, enforcement order 2026-3 Old Fall River Road.

So, moved.

Second.

Second.

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

Natt, yes.

James, yes.

Donald, yes.

Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

I'll now entertain a motion to ratify retroactive to May 29, 2026, enforcement order 2026-4 686 Old Fall River Road.

Seconded motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Matt, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

And we have one more enforcement order, but it's not it's not related to the old Fall River Road people, I guess.

It Yeah, this one is a different one.

So, this is a little quite a bit less egregious. Um, and so we just have this one listed as a notice of violation. Um, and uh, let me see, share my screen again, and I'll kind of give you a sense of place.

Um, so this is on Hicksville Road, 277 Hicksville Road. Um, there is a very small isolated wetland area right here.

um that guess has been the subject of prior issues um between 277 Hicksville Road and one Sparrow Lane. Um so the wetland sits the wetland itself sits on one Sparrow Lane. Um but there the edge of the wetland um does run right along the property line for 277 Hicksville Road.

Um, so Mark had um visited the site previously um a couple of different times over the years and through a wetland site inspection process. Um the property owner was permitted to put in some abberites to try and provide some screening and and stave off issues between neighbors. Um but as part of that um the neighbor went beyond the scope of that wetland site inspection or or the property owner rather at 277. Um

and what was permitted in that as far as minor activities was strictly the planting of the trees and um bringing in some um fresh lom uh as part of that planting project.

Um but what also happened at that same time was a stone wall was erected right along the edge of the wetlands. There was remnants um of a stone wall previously but they basically took it upon themselves to complete that and shore up the retaining wall from my perspective. Um trying to get back to a better picture of it. Zoom in for you. So this is what's there currently. um that wall was

not in place. If we go back to prior photos, and I'll show you those, um there were some pieces, scattered pieces here and some pieces back here, and it became more formalized further back. But this section is new. Um, from from my perspective, it's it's it provides a a bit of a benefit to the wetland in that it is helping keep soil from eroding down into the wetland, but it was never permitted.

Um, and I just think it's it, you know, again, I guess it gets back to um, if we're going to allow people to just do what they want to do in their yards versus going through with a formal process and issuing a notice of violation. Um, so at this point, I don't know that it's necessarily beneficial to have them remove the stone wall. Um, because I think it is serving a purpose

and removing it going to probably cause us more harm than good. But I think they probably should be going through the process of getting the proper approvals for it. Again, an after the-act filing.

No, I think that's appropriate. U you know, again, this would be classic after the fact, but uh I think you do have to serve notice of violation. And I think that in that notice, you're going to probably uh being very glib about it, but you're going to have to say, "Look, that wasn't permitted. It either has to be taken down in the area restored or you should or you must file an after the fact

notice of intent and let the commission decide what it's going to do about either issuing the order of conditions or not." That means they're going to have to have a plan drawn by an engineer, which they don't want to pay for, I guarantee you. But that's what it has to happen. And we're going to also have to have that engineer give us that opinion when it's if we vote in favor of issuing the order of

conditions that what's built conforms to what's on the plan submitted for the order of conditions. So we can issue a certificate of compliance.

But I I I definitely think that a a notice of violation has to be served. We have a violation.

Okay.

Anyone feel differently about that?

Okay. So, I'll entertain a motion to authorize the issuing of a notice of violation uh number 2026-01 for 277 Hicksville Road.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Donald, yes.

Liz, yes.

Nat, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard.

Yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Although I don't have anything reasonably anticipated. I know Richard does. So Richard, the floor is yours.

Thank you. I think the last time we had met we were talking about putting together a time for Mark concerning his retirement. I finally got a hold of him and um we were looking provided other people find it convenient for them also a week from tomorrow which would be June 18th 5 or 5:30 uh at Max's um hamburger joint if I could call that restaurant call it a restaurant okay they it's a great place in my

opinion I hope others there agree with They they have a phenomenal cheeseburger and Mike and Mark loves cheeseburgers.

And I thought we'd all get together and if it meets with your approval as to time and date, I can then speak to the people at Max's to see if they could give us a large table far on the corner so we can give Mark a good send off. But again, that's all up to you and you just tell me what you want me to do.

That time and date work for me.

works for me.

Yep. Yep.

That is my 10th wedding anniversary. So, I'm a I'm a maybe right now. Just got to see how things play out.

Yeah, that would work.

Don't schedule around me. I know it's I know it's hard getting things scheduled.

Don't schedule around me. I We If I can make it, I certainly will, but um I can't commit right now.

Are you kidding me? You even considering this?

Well, I don't think we're actually I don't know if we're actually gonna celebrate that night. I don't know.

We'll see.

Oh, boy. I'll tell you what. You better bring a lot of flowers home or something.

Got to need more than that, Mike.

I know.

I'll tell you I'll tell you one little story. So, what you know, I used to love love love to play golf, right? And uh my wedding anniversary was in August. So, get up in the morning. My wife said, "What are you going to do today?" I said, "I think I'm going to call David and go play golf."

And next thing I know, downstairs, I hear the cupboards being slammed. It was our anniversary. But I just said, I mean, I hadn't even taken a shower yet.

So, I'm getting out of bed thinking, "Oh, it's a beautiful day to play golf."

So, now I've learned a very valuable lesson. I always say, "What do you want to do?

because I figured there's not be I'm not being asked for no reason at all.

Happy wife, happy life.

There you go.

I learned that lesson the hard way.

The second escape patch mic of the evening.

Well, that sounds good. I think Jennifer Eduardo, how does it sound to you too?

That works for me.

Great. Uh, works for me, too.

Well, Nat, you can just pop by and say hello and keep good graces with your wife.

Yeah, we'll see how the day plays out.

We have to we have to figure out our plans.

If it works out, I'll definitely be there.

Understand why you if you if you're not there, we'll understand. And congratulations. It's a big big number there. It's a good number.

Yeah. Thank you.

So, congratulations. Uh, will some will Rich, will you communicate or somebody communicate at the exact time?

Well, I tell you what, I'll I'll get a hold of Eduardo tomorrow or Friday morning as to the time and location and he can send it all out if it meets again with your approval and we'll have a good time.

Sounds good.

Mark is looking forward to it.

Good.

Well, it's a big it's a big chapter that he starts now in his life, right? It's a brand new chapter. So, I'm uh I'm happy for him going into the retirement and u I think it's appropriate that we thank him for his services personally and this is gives us the chance for doing that.

Well, the second thing he said and I sort of laughed because I believe it was true. He wanted to know if it was black tie.

No, tell him it's black bib so we can get the hand won't get all over my shirt, which it almost inevitably does.

Look, we we'll all have a good time and it's about time we all got together instead of on the internet.

There you go. It would be fun.

Yeah.

Okay, I'll let everyone know and uh no later than Friday morning.

How's that?

Sounds good.

Okay, folks. I have nothing further to add. So I obtain a motion to adjurnn.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote.

Megan, yes.

Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Matt, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. Meeting adjourned.

Take care everyone.

Thank you. Have a good night.