Conservation Commission Meeting November 25, 2025

So, good evening. Uh, this is the Dartmouth Conservation Commission's meeting for Tuesday, November 25, 2025.

And we do have a quorum present of five commissioners. Uh, an affirmative vote will require uh, four affirmative votes out of five. Uh we're conducting this meeting remotely because on March 28th, 2025, Governor Healey signed a further extension of the hybrid remote meeting option for municipalities.

And that option is extended until June 30 2027.

Our meetings are accessible by the public, not only to watch, but also to participate. As you'll notice on the bottom of your screens, there's a chat feature. There should be a raise your hand feature and if all else fails, wave your hand and you'll be recognized. Um, we would respectfully ask that those who aren't speaking keep their microphones muted so we don't have extraneous noises

interfering with anyone's presentation.

Um, this meeting was uh duly posted according to the state laws and town of Dartmouth bylaws and uh it was also in our on our website. That being said, we're going to move now to our first items for um consideration and those are administrative. The first Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, if I could just jump in. You said we have five members. We actually have six members sitting.

Oh, I forgot to count myself.

Well, including me, we have six dinosaurs. Mike, I heard that line before.

Okay.

All right. Who Who's the We picked up Don. We picked up Donald.

Oh, okay. All right. That's That's good.

So it's still going to be an affirmative vote requiring four. So the first item of business is the approval of the October 28, 2025 minutes. May I have a motion to that effect?

So moved.

Second.

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

Richard, yes.

That yes.

James, yes.

Donald, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

The second item of business is the approval of the field trip reports for November 8, 20 November 5, excuse me, 2025. I have a motion to that effect.

So move.

Second.

Have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Nat, yes.

Donald, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. The final administrative item is to receive the minutes of November 5, 2025. We have a motion to that effect, please.

Move.

Second.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Nat, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Mr. Chairman, before we move on, uh I need to uh make a little bit of an announcement as it relates to minutes.

Uh I was informed last Friday that we have lost our minutes clerk. She has resigned from the position. Uh she had been doing minutes for ourselves, planning board, and I think maybe one other board. Uh she is no longer doing minutes. uh they are trying to figure out how to replace her or substitute her services to us. So moving forward there may be some delays in receiving minutes.

So uh just making you aware.

I appreciate that. And I wonder if the town has looked into u the AI assisted transcription devices that might be helpful because then all you need to do is edit.

Um you won't and it's pretty good actually. It's not like the old u voicemails on your cell phone. It actually is pretty accurate and it's not very I don't I don't know where they are in the process. Uh like I said, this came about very late. So, all right. Well, I'll give Cody a call and see if the town is looking into it.

That would be a big help to all of the It'd even be a big help if you had somebody doing minutes because their job would be immensely uh enhanced. They'd be basically editors. Um, okay. We're going now to the field trip reports and the first is a request for a certificate of compliance with D file 15-2703 RCC25-21 from Walter Shepard and Christopher Zamito Caraval and Haru. It's for the

removal of 14 linear foot wooden bulkhead replaced with a 38 plus or minus foot linear foot uh stone revetment. It's on a coastal bank. The regulations were 310 CMR 10.02 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. The land is described as map 91/94, lot 4/4. It's otherwise known as 307 Smith Road. What is staff's recommendation for this request?

Uh, that would be 307 Smith Neck Road.

um for the address. Uh yeah, this uh this work was uh done in full comp conformance with the plan of record.

Staff is recommending a complete certificate of compliance.

Is there any discussion amongst commissioners?

Mr. Chairman, just just make uh make everyone aware I live at 307 Smith Neck Road. Um, I have no equity in the Roundill Corporation and uh, so I don't see any whatever you call it issues with me voting on this. Just a Yeah, I don't think there's a conflict there either, James. I agree with you.

Um, so we have a recommendation from staff of of issuance of a complete certificate of compliance. May I have a motion to that effect?

So moved.

Second.

Second.

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

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Nat, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, our second uh field trip report is a request for a certificate of compliance uh D file 15-186, RCC25-23 from Christine M. Wong for a partial certificate of compliance for a single condominium. The regulations that were involved are 310 CMR 10.02 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaw. The land is described as map 43 lot 13-5 13-6 13-7 13-8 13-9 13-10 13-11 and it's and 13-13

it's known as 178 green drive mark what is staff's recommendation on this request uh just a little background file number 1518 1886 was a file number issued to a neighborhood within the Fairway Drive condominium complex just to the south of the former Hawthorne Country Club. Uh the request is for a single unit, unit 17 of 8 drive and upon inspection all the work was done on that unit in

conformance with the plan. staff is recommending a partial certificate of compliance limited just to the 178th Green Drive unit.

Thank you. Does any commissioner have any questions?

I don't see any. I'll entertain a motion to issue a partial certificate of compliance um on DP file 15-186 uh only as to 17 8th green drive.

So moved.

Second.

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

Richard, yes.

James, yes. Natt, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Our third field for report is a request for certificate of compliance D file 15-2760 RCC25-22.

It's from Douglas and Charlene Curtis to construct a 15 foot by 35 ft inground pool patio landscape beds and pavers within land subject to coastal storm flowage and within the 100 ft buffer zone to both a coastal bank and land under the ocean. The regulations 310 CMR 10.02 10.04 10.26 10.30 30 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. It's on land described as map 117 lot 11. It's

otherwise known as 14 Water Street. And um Mark, I recognize that this is registered land. So if we were to um grant the certificate of compliance, it will require wet signatures.

Yes, it will. And those wet signatures will be ready by 9 9:15 tomorrow morning.

Is town hall closing early tomorrow?

Town hall is closing at 12:00 noon and will be closed on Friday. So, uh either we get it done the first half of tomorrow or it goes over till next week.

Uh and there we'll have a discussion on on that a little later in another case.

Uh staff's recommendation uh the work has been done in full con performance with the plan of record. Therefore, staff is recommending a complete certificate of compliance that will require wet signatures.

Thank you. Does any commissioner have any questions?

Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to issue a complete certificate of compliance on D file 15-2760.

So move second. Second.

Okay, we have a seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Matt, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. We're moving now to the fourth field trip report, and that's a request for determination of applicability RDA25-23.

It's on the request for determination of applicability from Randy Mtoso to install wooden fencing and cattle panels for cattle and equines for a nonprofit 501c3 animal sanctuary, leaving a 1-ft gap at the bottom to allow wildlife to pass through safely and to square off the back of the house of the house paddics um within the 100 ft buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. The applicable regulations are

310 CMR 10.02 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaw. The land is described as map 38 lot 16. It's otherwise known as 32 Pemrook Drive.

What is staff's recommendation on this request for determination of applicability?

Yes, the work proposed is within the buffer zone to uh jurisdictional wetlands. Uh no wetlands are involved.

The purpose is to uh limit animal access into the wetlands and to secure them within a an existing paddic area and a uh to be developed paddic area. Staff's recommendation is a negative three determination uh with two conditions. The first being our standard erosion control. There is some work proximal to wetlands and I think that h bales uh waddles hay bales ensil fence should be required. And the

second condition would be a 10 in plus or minus uh gap at the bottom of the fence to allow for wildlife passage. 12.

If they want to do 12, that's fine, but I think that's a little much. Uh 10 in I think would suffice.

Very good. Does any commissioner have any questions?

Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to issue a negative three determination with two conditions. The first being our standard erosion control conditions. The second being that the gap be a 10 in plus or minus gap. Actually, probably a 10 in plus gap cuz they're talking about a foot, but a 10 in plus or minus gap at the bottom of the fencing.

Second.

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

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Matt, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Uh, Mr. Chairman, I see that Mr. Muosso is on, but he's muted. I just wanted to let him know that a negative is what he was seeking. If we were to if the commission was to seek a positive determination, there would be future filings. The negative is an approval with as long as you follow the two minimal conditions.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

You're welcome.

Um, our fifth and final field trip report is a request for determination of applicability RDA25-24.

It's on the request for determination of applicability from Roundill Community Corporation, who proposes to install a uh 3-in by 10in horizontal beam, well beams top and bottom along both sides of the easterly and westerly sides of the existing historic pier coffer dam for the Charles W. Morgan at South Beach to shore up the structure within land under the ocean land containing shellfish

land subject to coastal storm flowage and within the 100 ft buffer zone to a coastal bank and coastal beach. The regulations 310 CMR 10.02 10.04 10.25 10.27 27 10.30 10.34 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. The land is described as map 94 lot 4. It's otherwise known as 307 Smith Neck Road. And we note again for the record that uh James uh resides at that location, but he is not uh have

an equity stake in Roundill Community Corporation. And we believe there to be uh no conflict of interest for you participating in voting.

What is staff's recommendation?

Yes. Uh the proposal is overwater work.

It's actually not in the resource. It's over the resource the o over the resources that were cited in the uh reading of the uh legal ed. Um, if anybody's been down that way, the uh the coffer dams and the pier structures have been ravaged by high energy wave action along South Beach. It certainly does need to be reinforced and I think it's necessary or there will be a continued debris field both on the

Roundill property and potentially on the Town Beach which is uh adjacent and to the west. Having said that, staff is recommending a negative -2 even though they're not in resource areas. They're over resource areas and they're not in buffer zones per se. So I think it's more appropriate to uh recommend a negative -2 with uh our overwater uh erosion control condition of a boom with a suspended silt fence isolating

the work area from the uh adjacent open waters during construction. And also if barges are to be used uh there will be no grounding of the barge at the project location.

Does any commissioner have any questions?

Don't see any. So at this juncture I would entertain a motion to issue a negative two determination with our overwater erosion control conditions. uh particularly um with the use of the boom and uh if a barge is to be used, no grounding of the barge during construction.

So move a second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

Okay. James, yes.

Nat, yes. Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

That concludes our field trip reports.

We're moving now on to our public hearings.

The first public hearing is a continued public hearing DP file 15-2803 NOI25-36 on the notice of intent from the Greater New Regional Refuge Management District Caraval and Kersner to construct structures in the buffer zone pertinent to the Crapo Hill landfill um capacity expansion. It's within the 100 ft buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland.

The regulations involved are 310 CMR 10.02, 10 uh 55, and section 360-2 of the town bylaws. The land is described as map 84, lot 25. It's otherwise known as 300 Samuel Barnett Boulevard. I'll attain a motion to wave the reading.

I'll move.

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

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Nat, yes.

Donald, yes.

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

Yes. Hi, good evening. My name is Anthony Nolli. Can everyone hear me? All right.

Yes, I can. I am the executive director for the Greater New Bedford Regional Refuge Management District. Thank you for your time this evening. Um, as mentioned, this project is related to the Crapo Hill Landfill in Dartmouth.

Um, the district is a public entity created by the town of Dartmouth and the city of New Edford to manage municipal solid waste and this is the site where the municipal solid waste from the town of Dartmouth is disposed of. Um this capacity has always been anticipated by the district and is is the next phase of development um on our site to continue providing that disposal capacity for the

city and the town. Um so um if there are any district related questions I'm I'm happy to discuss them. If not we have our team here from Brown and Caldwell to present the project. I will turn it over to Liz Wilson barring any other questions.

Thank you Elizabeth. You have the floor. Hi, good evening everyone. Elizabeth Wilson, Brown and Caldwell, joined by Alan Kersner and Adam Guda, also from Brown and Caldwell. Um, Adam's going to be sharing his screen and um I'm going to start by just referencing figure 4 that was submitted with the notice of intent and provide some background and just let me know when you are able to see

uh the figure pop up. I put in a a request to turn on sharing it if that's allowed.

Wonderful.

Uh yeah, you should be able to share your screen. Um wonderful. Thank you.

There you go.

There it is. Now I can see it.

Excellent. Thank you. Um so as Anthony mentioned, uh the Kbo Hill landfill is located on Samuel Barnett Boulevard adjacent to the New Bedford Business Park. Uh the landfill property itself consists of 152 acres that was site assigned for its use as uh a municipal waste landfill um back in 1981.

Um over the years starting in the early 90s uh phase one was constructed and came into operation in 1995.

Since that time, phase two that you see in sort of the center of the landfill, um cell disposal cells within phase 2 were constructed and most recently um phase 2 cells five and six, so on the southern portion of where you see those steep contours, uh those were constructed um in 2015 and 2018 uh in accordance with mass D uh authorizations and uh those phases is uh also required an order of conditions uh

from the from the commission. So to summarize to date uh 49.7 acres of landfill have been built and are currently in operation. Uh this uh proposed uh new cell that's part of the existing footprint and site assignment um is going to be known as phase 2 cell 7. And you can see that on the western side of the site where there's an existing storm water basin. Uh the existing landfill as it is today uh is

expected to provide uh the community with waste disposal capacity uh through around late 2029. And so that provides enough time for this additional capacity to be constructed and be ready for use to provide uh much more additional uh capacity for the community.

So that's sort of the lay of the land.

Um Adam, if you could just switch to figure six, I'll go over the the project description specifically. So, as it relates to the notice of intent, just to provide that the context for the NOI, uh the work as it relates to the wetlands protection act is uh limited to the construction of two storm water basins within the 100 uh foot buffer zone uh and no direct impacts or encroachment onto um BVW.

Uh so you can see where the the storm water basin 2 is on the western side.

That's where the the cell 7 will be located and it's it's contiguous with the the cells that are currently constructed and in operation. Uh that's about 3 and 1/2 acres in size which relates to about 750,000 cubic yards of gross landfill volume.

Uh where you see the hatching to the north of that basin, that is the location on of one of the storm water management basins uh proposed for construction. And then to the south, there is a second basin proposed.

There we go. Also, a portion of that is within the 100 foot buffer. Um, that it's designed to keep the the the landfill cell itself is designed to keep that entire footprint out of the buffer zone. Um, but the the activities associated with constructing the basin, including site grading and the basins themselves, uh, are within that um, buffer zone area. uh the total amount of buffer zone that would um is within the

footprint of the storm water basins is approximately 55,000 square feet um for the construction of those storm water basins.

So again while the construction doesn't um enter into the BVW uh those basins uh are are part of the buffer. Uh the the 25 foot no disturb is also identified on here. Uh certainly there's there's no activity proposed within the 25 foot no disturb. Uh so that reduces the the impact there as well to the buffer zone.

So no work in the buffer buffer zone meaning there's no loss of that vegetated um wetland um in this area.

There are also no habitats for rare vertebrates or inverte species. Uh no areas of critical concern uh in this area.

So we're meeting the performance standards of of the BVW there. Um in terms of protective measures for the BBW uh during construction uh of course erosion sedimentation controls will be installed prior to any earthworking activities and on the downgradient side those would be installed before any type of uh disturbance takes place and maintained throughout uh the duration of the construction. Um, additional erosion

and sedimentation controls and or things like diversion BMS may also be installed in upgradient areas as needed so that we can minimize any storm water runoff that may um increase in volume so we can control the flow in the direction. Um, construction materials will be stored outside of the buffer zone. things like equipment, fueling and maintenance would take place uh within the the active

workings of the landfill which is contained by a liner system or the there's also a maintenance garage on site. Um the facility itself uh on an operational basis has a storm water pollution prevention plan and a spill control plan. Um those same concepts are going to apply to the construction phase. Certainly in terms of spill prevention, control and response. Uh and the construction itself will have a

construction general permit and construction storm water plan specifically for those activities along with the inspections um that are required.

I'm going to pause there for questions um if there are any before handing it over to Adam to talk about the storm water design. Um what we usually do just so you know um we'll let you put your presentation on and then I'll ask uh staff for their comments and then commissioners may ask questions and if there are none from the commissioners we'll open it to the general public.

Okay. Great. Um Okay. Well, thank thanks Adam. I'll turn it over to you to talk about this the storm water.

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, sounds good. So, uh similar with the other landfill disposal cells, storm water that falls within the active disposal area will be collected as leech, uh within the line portion of landfill that Liz had referenced before. uh on the outside slopes of the the landfill where there's intermediate cover placed uh rain rainwater runoff will not come in contact with the waste materials

themselves and storm water in that area will be directed to the storm water management basins the one on the western corner that Liz had referenced before and then the one in the south uh basins one and two respectively.

Currently, uh, landfill is designed to collect all storm water runoff into perimeter swells and then that runoff is directed to two storm water management basins. There's the South Basin, which I'm hovering my cursor over now. It's approximately 1 acre in size that was built in 2015 to retain a 100year storm and then infiltrate water into the ground with a 100year storm water level

approximately 1 ft below the grip wrap lined emergency spillway. That south basin discharges storm water to the adjacent wetlands. I'll be referring to that later the south wetlands. And then this basin is going to remain in place and in service and will continue to receive runoff from uh the southern portion of the landfill. Uh the other basin which is uh the one that will be discontinued proposed to be discontinued

service is approximately 1.7 acres in size was built in 2006 would also retain a 100year storm event and infiltrate groundwater or water into the ground. uh and then also has a 100year storm water level approximately 1 foot below the rip prep line emergency spillway.

That spillway uh discharges to the western wetlands which I'll be talking about later. This is the basin that will be taken out of service and then replaced for development of cell 7. So construction of cell 7 which is in the footprint of the the west basin is going to require construction of two new basins along with some other management features which includes basin one which is in the northwest corner of the area

and that will it's next to wetland I'll zoom in here it's next to wetland sea uh the sea areas which is shown on on this figure six and also on figure five. Uh this basin will receive runoff from approximately 23.8 acres of drainage area which includes the west and northwest portions of the landfill most of which are the existing capped landfill and the western side of the proposed landfill. Basin two which I'll

pan down to now is proposed in the southwest corner of the facility. It's uh also shown on figures five and six. That's going to be adjacent to the B series wetland flags and the bogs that southern wetland area.

Uh this basin will receive runoff from approximately 4.7 acres of drainage area which is limited to the the southwestern side of the proposed new landfill cell 7. Uh existing and new storm water swailes are proposed to convey and direct storm water runoff into these two basins. Um vegetated slopes uh sorry direct runoff from vegetated slopes into these basins. And then lastly, there's

um a series of covert pipes that are proposed in three locations to convey storm water beneath the perimeter access road.

And that is the storm water design portion. Very well.

And more to the presentation or that conclude the presentation?

Uh Liz or Allen? Anything last you'd like to add?

Uh no, my my I think our summary of the of the proposed work is complete. If anyone has questions.

Very good. Um, with that, Mark, are you going to need the uh screen share to remain when you give your comments?

Uh, that would be helpful.

All right.

Uh, staff comments.

Uh before I make any comments, uh I was wondering if we since we have several new members of the commission who may or may not be aware of landfill landfill design and landfill design within close proximity of wetlands.

um as is Crapo Hill and I'm not questioning the design it's sight assigned and all that but could somebody summarize your leech management and your liner system to prevent groundwater contamination uh beneath the landfill and then certainly seeping to downgradient wetlands.

Sure. We have Alan Kersner on the on the line who can speak to that.

Yeah. Yes. Thanks Liz. Um so so it's a good question. Um the the landfill the entire landfill as it exists today has um uh full liner and lie collection systems beneath it. Um most of the the existing landfill. I'd say about 90% of it has what we call a double liner system and and that will be continued in the cell seven area as well. So what I mean by um the double liner system is it

has uh two uh systems for collecting lee one beneath the other. So uh if if you will it's somewhat of a redundancy so that uh if something doesn't get caught in the primary it does get caught in the secondary. Um so it's um that's the system that will be part of cell 7. So, um, starting from the very bottom of the liner system, I'll just give you a quick overview of what it consists of. Um, the

the bottom of the liner um has to be set 4 feet above the maximum groundwater table. So, that's the starting point for the the very base.

Above that we'll have um a 12 inch thick clay liner, compacted clay liner. Above which we will have a geocynthetic clay liner on the surface of the the clay liner. Um above that will be a a geommembrane.

Um and above that and this is the secondary liner system. Above that will be the secondary leech collection layer.

Um and then above that is another geocynthetic clay liner, another geommembrane and then the primary lie collection system which is just beneath the waist that um that system comprised of um 18 to 24 in of sand placed above the liners.

um all that material or anything that enters those systems are uh captured in a sump that will be at the northwest corner of cell 7. And um in that sump we'll have I I should say sumps because we will have two um one for the secondary lie collection system and one for the primary leech collection system.

Both of those will be equipped with pumps that are automated to um remove lee that enters the sump when it reaches a certain fixed level. Um from there uh the leech will be pumped um up through um into the main pump station where it will then be discharged into the u the city of New Bedford uh wastewater sewage system in Samuel El in um Samuel Barnett Boulevard.

Um so that's kind of a high level overview. It's the entire new cell um will be uh situated with a liner as I just described. That liner system will be connected to the existing liner systems uh which are along the western boundary of the existing landfill. So in essence, we will have one continuous liner system beneath the whole landfill without any sort of interruption or gaps between the different cells.

Alan, just as a quick followup, thank you for that. Uh could somebody just indicate on the plan for those members unfamiliar where this pump facility is that discharges into the New Bedford system? just so they have a pictorial of the existing landfill, the proposed expansion and where this material is al ultimately going and leaving the site.

Yes. So, so Adam, start with um where the sumps will be located in cell seven.

So, um there will be two sumps right about where Adam's cursor is now.

Uh, those will pump through a force mane up to what we call the main pump station.

Run that on up, Adam. Main pump station is right there. Um, and that's that's where all the leech from the entire landfill is collected together. And from that point, um, there's a a series of pumps in there that will pump it through a force vein up through the existing hall road to, uh, to the sewer and in the street.

Could you just show where that whole road is in relationship to all of this?

I mean, I know where it is because I've been out there, but but not everybody goes out there.

Yep. Yeah. If you could run that right up, Adam. Wonderful.

And then out through the main gate.

Through the main gate. Yes.

There's the facility entrance here.

Yeah.

There we go. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Uh that was my those were my only questions. Uh I wanted everybody to at least understand where this material goes because ultimately that's the greatest concern u of landfills you know over the course of time and it's a it's a system that has vastly been improved the designs have been improved to minimize uh underlying groundwater contamination or adjacent surface water contamination. So, thank you for that.

Um, comments. Uh, this project is a commercial project. Therefore, it requires uh third-party peer review for storm water. Uh, the initial review, I think I sent you uh our peer review Gus Reposo uh professional engineers comments and he had several questions um several weeks back. Uh those questions were answered in plan and in narrative and uh I also copied you on a letter from Mr. proposal uh dated November 21st

last week indicating that uh the uh revised response satisfied all his his concerns relative to storm water and he is he has concurred and has signed off on the storm water system.

uh he does make a comment and I also made the comment and it's not so much that the plans are wrong, it's kind of the presentation. There's a storm water analysis and there's a project design.

Uh one of my concerns was some of the plans were not dated. Uh they were stamped with a date but the plan themselves were not dated. And the second issue was I think that there needs to be a plan set because a lot of what was discussed was in narrative and that's great for peer review but based on you know the constructibility contractors build what they see on plans. They don't read reports and then

build. So uh Mr. proposal is requesting and I'm going going to also include within the uh my proposed conditions of approval that uh a full construction set be submitted to the commission for the record. We have the plans of record which we will stamp but for the record so that we have the plan set that the contractors are going to have. Uh I think that's very important because ultimately in a project of this

complexity uh we all need to be on the same plan sheet on the same page same date uh when we're evaluating whether the project was successfully constructed or not. So that that is that was a concern. So uh the storm water findings are fine. We'd like the plan inclusion. We got the description of the lead shape management system which uh I think was uh very thorough. And having said that, I am

going to request uh I am going to recommend a standard order of conditions with some modifications to our standard conditions. And I did send copies to the um to the commission, but uh I will read them in for the record. Uh the first modification is for special condition number 21 which reads this order is contingent on the applicant obtaining all other necessary and required permits or

licenses. also filing a completely updated revised construction plan set, including all revisions to the storm water program that were submitted to and approved by the third party peerreview consultant within 21 days of the close of the public hearing. No activity shall occur prior to obtaining all such approvals and the submittal of the aforementioned revised construction plan set. Special condition 41,

which is the number just changed. It's when using seed mixes, which the uh applicant is proposing. When using seed mixes of any type or source, the conservation commission shall require all sewing of seed to be at the specified density and aerial coverage.

And lastly, condition 42, all plantings that fail to survive through the first full growing season for any reason shall be replaced by the applicant or their successors or assigns. Uh so staff is favorable to this uh with those conditions.

I just have a quick question mark. You had indicated uh at the beginning of the narrative that you wanted a um updated revised construction set for the commission's consideration.

But I don't think we have to consider that. That's just a condition that you want. No, it wasn't for conservation uh commission consideration. It was for the commission to have as of record for future review. The plans the plans that we have and I believe what was the dating on them? Yeah, the plans that we have are dated 82025.

Uh that's the design plans for permitting purposes. I'm okay with those. they meet this standard and they meet the storm water consultant standard. I just think that the way the plans have been presented, they are very disjointed and we would like to have for our record the construction plans that will be handed to the contractor to to build uh cell 7.

Okay, I get that part. I just want to be clear to the commissioners that the construction plans are not something we vote on. Uh nor do we actually review them before either approving or not the request. Okay, that's that's just a condition. It'll be in the file subsequent to the vote assuming the vote is positive. So that being said, uh can please discontinue the screen share so I can see who's in speaking please.

Thank you. So, um, does any commissioner have any questions?

Is there anyone in the audience that wants to be heard on this request?

I don't see any commissioner wanting to be heard and I see no member of the audience wanting to be heard. So, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

I'll move.

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

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Nat, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Commissioners, I'll now entertain a motion to uh enter a standard order of conditions on the plan dated August 25, 2025 or uh 20th 20th 2025 with the modified conditions um condition number 21 as articulated by Mr. Garrett and 41 as articulated by Mr.

Garrett and 42 as articulated by Mr.

Garrett.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Nat, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Good luck, folks.

Thanks very much. presentation by the way. Very thorough and concise.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Take care.

Thanks. Number two is a uh continued public hearing DP 15-2805 NOI 2539.

It's on of intent from the Dartmouth Natural Resources Trust, Inc. the NRT care of David M. the Vignan uh for site improvements that include uh the installation on-site gravel road access with signage, parking areas and storm water controls, improving sight lines along Flag Swamp Road, and removing a steel catwalk to pump houses in a wooden pier. These activities will all occur within land in within inland bank land

underwater bordering land subject to flooding riverfront area and the 100 ft buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. The regulations are 310.02 10.54 through 10.58 and section 360-2 of the town Dartmouth bylaws. It's on land described as map 79, lot 30- 34-1.

It's otherwise known as 293, Flag Swamp Road. I entertain a motion to wave the reading.

Second.

Have a seconded motion. Roll call vote.

Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Nat, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, is there someone here tonight for the applicant? Don't I didn't see David?

No, they uh submitted an email request to the commission which I forwarded to the commissioners uh requesting a uh continuence to the December 23rd, 2025 hearing. The reason for that is that when an NOI is submitted on the portal, there's an opportunity for various departments to comment on um on the uh presentations and the applications. DPW does an engineering review and they do their own storm water review. Um

we don't ask them to do peer reviews as of yet but uh they do many times review storm water. Uh DPW engineering uh was concerned that there were drainage basins designed with no supportive storm water calculations and close proximity to the wetlands. I agreed with their statement and their concerns. We aired I I forwarded their concerns to Mr. Dignon and uh suggested that I was in full

support of them and uh they said they needed time to put those together. Uh so they've requested this continuence. Uh staff is recommending uh the requested continuence to December 23rd 2025.

Very well. Any commissioner have any questions?

Is there anyone in the audience who wants to be heard tonight?

Okay, I don't see any commissioner having any questions or anyone in the audience wishing to be heard. So, I will entertain a motion to grant a continuence on D file number 15-2805 until our meeting on December 23rd, 2025 at 7 p.m.

Second.

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

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Nat, yes. Darnold.

Yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Our third public hearing is on D file 15-2806 NOI25-40.

It's on the notice of intent from Mary Ellen Malone uh to construct a 16 12x 23 1/2 ft singlestory addition and deck to an existing family home within land subject to coastal storm flowage. The regulations involved are 310 CMR 10.02, 10.04, and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. It's on land described as map 127 lot 28. It's otherwise known as 19 Lucy Street. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So move.

Second.

We have a second motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Nat, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Do we have uh somebody here this evening that will speak uh for this application?

Yes. Hello everyone. Um my name is uh Mary Ellen Malone and I'm the homeowner at 19 Lucy Street. Um this is a 1 and a halftory Cape house that was built in the late 1950s. I purchased it in June of 2024.

Um and as you said, it's land subject to a coastal storm uh flow. And uh what I'm proposing is to enlarge the footprint from 1524 square ft to 1913.4.

Um basically adding a first floor bedroom so that as I age in place um with my son and daughter-in-law and grandchildren next door. Um I I won't be navigating stairs. Um I'm happy to share my screen. Um Mark Bucher uh is uh the uh surveyor who did this work for me. Um and and I am sharing the wrong that's you know. There we go. There we go.

There we go. Okay. Now I got it.

All right. Yeah. It's not like I haven't done this for work a million times but um so as you will this is the property.

Um there there are no uh variances required. This is all within the existing setbacks. Um um not sure what additional information uh you need beyond this. Um there's a comment from DPW about using a slightly narrower and shallower um um construction exit um than than the one that Mark was recommending.

But other than that, there were no additional comments from from DPW.

Okay.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Uh Mark, staff's comments on this request, please. I know you wrote some up, but yeah. Uh well, it's it's it's pretty simple. Um it's a deck and a uh proposed addition within land subject to coastal storm flowage. The proposed construction happens to be on existing lawn area. So this is not a clearing project. Uh DPW did make some comments. Uh the first one Mary Ellen did outline as uh the

construction entrance. From our standpoint, it really has no merit within the wetland uh wetland jurisdiction or wetland protection one way or another. Uh the the site is a developed site. It is a single family residence in a yard area in a you know a neighborhood. Uh so uh the width of the construction exit uh certainly the narrower the better but it really doesn't have an effect on the uh functional performance

of land subject to coastal storm flowage. Uh Marilyn if you could scroll down because DPW does make another comment in red at the bottom which also is a utility question not so much a wetland question. Uh so I think that uh from staff's point of view I think that the um applicant should uh certainly comply with the uh DPW comments. Uh again they are nonwetland issues. So I don't know that

this really should halt our decision one way or another. Having said that, staff is recommending a standard order of condition as per the plan dated August 29, 2025 contingent on satisfying the DPW comments and submitting any revised plans including those uh comments to the commission uh to the commission file just for the record. Uh it's not these are not going to change anything to do with the design.

Thank you. Does any commissioner have any questions? Um if you wouldn't mind, please could you stop sharing your screen just so I can see the Thank you.

Does any commissioner have any questions?

Is there anyone in the audience this evening that wants to speak on this application?

Um, I see no commissioner uh having any questions and I see no one in the audience wishing to be heard on this matter. So, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Move.

Second.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Nat, yes.

Donald, yes. My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Commissioners, I'll entertain an order to issue a standard order of conditions on uh DP file. I want to get it right. 15-2808 06 to the pardon me 06.

I didn't get it right. Sorry about that.

It's Well, if it's 06, it's wrong in the uh it's What am I doing here?

No, you're reading.

I'm sorry. I went to the next one. I see where I am. Yep. Oh, you're right. 2806.

Sorry about that, guys. Um, pursuant to the plan dated August 29, 2025, uh with our standard condition number 21, that the order is contingent on the applicant containing obtaining, excuse me, all other necessary and required permits or licenses, that no activity shall occur prior to obtaining all such approvals, and the applicant shall show proof to the commission that they have addressed

all DPW review comments as presented prior prior to commencing the work and present to the conservation commission any revisions pursuant to such DPW review comments.

I move second. We have a second a motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Nat, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Good luck.

Great. Thank you so much, everyone. Have a good evening.

Now, we're finally going to get to the D file 15-2808.

So, we have our final public hearing on file number 15-210 2808 uh NOI 25-41 on the notice of intent from 600 PMs land trust care of David M.

Dignon to construct a residential pier and perform improvements to the existing cart path within land subject to coastal storm flowage land under the ocean land containing shellfish uh the 100 ft buffer zone to a salt marsh and within 200 ft riverfront area. The regulations are 310 CMR 10.02 10.04 10.25 25, 10.32, 10.34, and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. The land is described as map 19, lot 202

or 600 Patska Road. I entertain a motion to wave the reading.

Move.

Second.

Second.

Have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Matt, yes. Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

And I see that we have a request by email uh from the applicant to continue this until December 23, 2025.

Um this is the first request for an for a continuence, right? Because it's the first time we've called this.

Yes. The the reason for it was that he submitted the plans and the harbor master uh commented that he thought that the location that was being proposed presented a significant navigational hazard to the channel, not that it's a marked channel, but the channel in the Slope and River.

And he suggested another location uh on site. And there was some question back and forth and we suggested that uh Mr.

Dignon further evaluate alternative locations to locate the end of this uh dock and float system uh further away from the channel. Uh he needs to do some additional baometric work along a separate area of the shoreline and to do that he needs time. So he requested the continuance and staff is supportive of the con the continuence as requested to December 23rd.

Thank you. Does any commissioner have any questions?

Is there anyone in the audience tonight who wants to speak on this request tonight?

I see no commissioner having any questions nor anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this matter this evening. Therefore, I'll entertain a motion to continue um the public hearing on D file 15-2808 until our meeting on December 23rd, 2025 at 7 p.m.

Moved.

Second.

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

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Nat, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Mark, you have some items you want to discuss on our items for discussion.

Yep.

Okay. Uh couple of things. Uh and I'll try to make these quick updates. Uh first of all, uh on the draft regulations, uh an update on that. As you know, uh, I sent an email out to the commissioners that, uh, Chairman Kio, myself, and town council, assistant town council Cruz met to discuss the regulations. We came up with a a plan, um, to modify further the regulations. Uh step one was uh town council had a

concern relative to the wording of the wetland site inspection A1 process. He came up with a alternative language which allows us to continue to do them.

Uh and I thought it was a very reasonable compromise.

So uh we have imported that into the new regulations and deleted all other references. We've also updated where necessary the filing and the fee structure procedures and we have added those into the regulations which the commissioners haven't seen yet. Uh the last item that we had to handle was uh I made a a significant attempt and I think somewhat successfully in responding to many of the uh assistant

town council's con comments. Uh I didn't agree with all of them and there's some further discussion that he and I have to have. The bottom line here is I don't think uh Mike, myself or Brian wants to bat this around too many more times. So, right now, uh, Brian and I are knocking heads, and hopefully we'll have some sort of revision in short order, probably after the holidays, but a a a final addition that

we can p finally have a public hearing on and put to bed consistent with the bylaw revision. So, that's where we stand on that.

on the Deval Field Climate Resiliency Project. Just uh as a refresher, this is that's this is the house lot on the south side of Tannery Lane. Uh the house is set back. It's a triangular site bounded on one side, on the western side by Horseneck Road, on the eastern side by the Pascamit River just upstream of the destruction Brook Confluence. Uh it's a piece of land that uh the Buzzards Bay Commission in concert with

a an arts council wants to develop for climate resiliency. They want to take the house down and do some plantings and some artistic features. They they need needed to be in a conservation restriction which we discussed at a previous meeting. The commission was in favor of that.

uh they came in requesting uh that we file we the town files uh a grant application on their behalf for the CR.

Uh it was necessary that the town do this. They could not do it for the town.

So uh assistant uh town administrator Chris Vitali, uh, worked with me and we got they they provided the text, we provided the formatting and the submitt. So, that went out, uh, last week.

Um further uh on a different matter on the CPC conservation restriction ongoing discussion. Uh we had a meeting last week and the town administrator is putting together uh after some back and forth on some sample documents is putting together a memorandum of understanding which we will use whenever we are requested to requested slash required to enter into a CR. This memorandum of events understanding is

going to uh present a partnership agreement in which we will hold a name and the the partnering entity will provide us services uh to meet the requirements of any conservation restriction monitoring and the like. So that's uh that is also moving forward on enforcement. Um, I have some reasonably good news, especially for Nat. Um, we, uh, 801 PMska Road was sold. Sergio Mazo, uh, the former owner, which we had

numerous enforcement orders on, which he ignored for many, many years, uh, while dumping on his property, was forced to sell by the state and he did. and uh Ron Olivea purchased the property and has entered working with the board of health and working with us uh has entered and started cleaning up the site. I had not been on the site for about three years and I went out last week and I was

favorably impressed with the improvements. It's not completed. It's um but he's well on his way to doing uh uh cleaning it up. uh in all more ways than one. Uh relative to our enforcement, uh we discussed the scope of what I wanted him to do. I presented him with a letter which I believe I copied to the commission in which I outlined our discussions that he agreed to in the

field. I will have to follow up, but there was a proceed uh the proceedings is to file uh an after the-act notice of intent. uh although I think as a good faith effort I'm going to wave the after the-act uh portion of this regarding fees because he was not the person who perpetrated the violations. These are longstanding violations and he is doing at this point a reasonably good job of

rectifying those problems. He will flag wetlands over the front two plus acres of land which is where all the activities have taken place. He will evaluate a damage assessment uh of the wetlands and do uh restorative plantings while continuing to remove debris structures.

There's a boat hole. there's uh some debris out back in the uh fringes of the woods and he's going to get in there and clean that up. So, I think that having lived with this lack of attention to two, I believe two enforcement orders, uh this seems like a step in the right direction and uh will be an improvement to the to the site.

He's also basically uh from what I understand gutting the house and rebuilding it. Uh the skin he thinks is pretty much intact with some repair work. He's not changing the footprint of the house at all, at least not at this point. Uh I told him if he was and he's in jurisdiction that he's going to have to file for that. Uh but uh I think all in all the site is in a better place

today than it was four months ago. Uh so that's uh so there has been activity. There will continue to be activity moving forward.

So that's just an update on that. Uh that's a longstanding um you know enforcement order that I think we'd all like to close and I know that the abutters would like it resolved and closed also.

Um the one other item which um I didn't put on the agenda because we found out about this yesterday.

Um 11 Pocono uh Lane filing the the property information that was submitted by the applicant's agent was largely incorrect when we got it and we They could not record the documents because of the erroneous information which we just transcribed from the uh from the the filing. So they sent it back and g I got verbal changes.

Those were not good enough. So I told the a I told the agent Dignant Snider Dignant and Leon I said give me the first page. You talk to the registry, find out what the information is, write it down, and I'll make whatever changes the registry wants. But I'm not going to do this three-way. Well, yesterday afternoon, I got a copy of the um front page. And lo and behold

uh one of our one of the trustees of the realy trust which have changed uh over time uh is Mike Kio and uh Mike thought that he and Mike correct me if I'm wrong I'm paraphrasing this. Mike acknowledged that he was a trustee but he thought that he had resigned that trusteeship several years ago. Uh upon further 11 years ago but okay provide uh so uh the question became well according to the land well the

regist the registry the registered land division Mike is still a trustee. So, uh, while we were talking on the phone, Mike did a search and apparently the person who that was the person who Mike submitted his resignation to was supposed to record his resignation at the registry those 11 years ago and apparently did not. There's no record of it. So, Mike is still a trustee in legally even though he probably hasn't

functioned as a trustee in those 11 years.

Correct. Suffice to say, Mike cannot sign the amended order of conditions, which he did uh originally.

So, sum total is, and this is what I referred to before with the previous wet signatures, I need additional wet signatures on this 11th Poket Lane um amended order. Uh that document is ready to be signed and will be on the table as soon as I get in the office tomorrow. Uh I'd like to do this as quickly as possible, but I do understand that this is a holiday week. Tomorrow is

a half day. The office will close at noon and I understand that people might be hardressed to get in to do this. I ask you that since we have two wet signatures that have to go out, uh, that we if we can't get to it tomorrow, we get to it as early as we possibly can next week.

I'll try to get one again, but I I will try to get in for the previous one.

Understand Mike cannot sign this one.

So, uh, and I forget I mean, we I generally will get four signatures and that's a quorum and I'll send it out. Um, if I get more, that's fine. I think I have everybody listed who voted on it. I think there were six of you, but uh I need four signatures as soon as possible.

I can get in tomorrow morning and sign sign both of them.

Probably they're around 11.

Yeah, I can do that as well just before close.

Okay, that that'd be great. That'd be great.

Well, that's that's all I got.

I have nothing else myself. So, unless any commissioner has a matter they want to bring up right now, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Chairman, one thing, apologies. Um, just as it relates to 801 PTOMC Road, I just thought it'd be good for the record and for the commission to know that I would be I think it's appropriate that I recuse myself from any vote on that property. Um, my parents are Butters and so it could be inferred I have some sort of financial stake although it would be indirect certainly.

So noted and I so far we haven't had to do anything. I'm knocking on wood here.

Uh, but if it does come up, I think you're correct. That would that would be a conflict.

Well, there will there will be there will be an order of conditions that needs to be signed. And I think that's appropriate, Matt. I I understand that situation all too well.

I second the motion to uh adjurnn.

To adjourn. Okay. So, we have a seconded motion on the floor. We'll have a roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Richard, yes. James, yes.

Matt, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. Meeting adjourned. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Enjoy your holidays.