Conservation Commission Meeting November 5, 2025

So we do have a quorum present. So I am going to open city meeting. This is the uh Dartmouth Conservation Commission and this is our meeting of uh Wednesday, November the 5th and it's now 7 7:01 p.m. according to my and there's Richard. Uh so [clears throat] we have a uh a quorum of commissioners.

We have five commissioners present including myself. So, uh, affirmative votes required four out of five. Um, we are conducting this evening's meeting as a result, uh, remotely as a result of Governor Healey signing legislation on March 25 or excuse me, March 28, 2025 to further extend the hybrid remote option for municipalities.

and she extended that through June 30th, 2027.

Our meeting does allow for uh audience interaction. There's a raise your hand feature, a chat feature, and if all else fails, um wave your hand. You will be recognized.

If you're not speaking, I'd request that you do mute your microphone so we don't get the ambient noise interfering with anyone's presentation.

Um this meeting is being conducted in accordance with uh the channel state. It was duly posted at the town hall website and we have complied with regards to both state and uh that being said we're going to move on to our greatest matters. First is the approval of the October 14 2025 minutes.

Uh those were submitted by email earlier in the week. Does anyone have any excuse me? May I have a roll call vote to so approve?

I'm sorry. Need a motion first.

Motion and roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes. Richard.

Yes.

My vote is yes. That passes unanimously.

Oh, I'm here as well. This is Don Miski.

Where are you, Don?

Okay, I see you now. I don't see you, but I see your name.

Okay, very good. Yeah.

All right. So, Donald is also present.

So, we have um six commissioners. We still need four out of six for an affirmative vote. Thank you, Donald.

[clears throat] Uh, our second administrative item is the approval of the field trip reports for October 28, 2025. Can I have a motion to that effect?

So moved.

Second.

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

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Our final administrative item is to receive the minutes of October 28, 2025.

I have a motion to that effect, please.

Second.

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

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That passes unanimously.

We don't have any [clears throat] field trip reports this evening, so we'll go right into our public hearings.

[clears throat] The first public hearing on DP file 15-2801 NOI2534 is [clears throat] from Nathaniel Gums to construct a single family dwelling with garage a detached garage with living area inground pool a cabana septic system well and all associated grading within the 100 ft buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland. The [clears throat] applicable regs are 310 CMR 10.02, 10.55, and section 360-2

of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. It's on land described as map uh 24, lot 42-1.

It's otherwise known as 6 Peters Farm Road. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So move second.

With seconded motion, roll call vote.

James, yes. Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes. [clears throat] Is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Uh, Mr. Gomes, are you here this evening?

Um, I don't believe he is. This is Chris Vandenberg with CEC. Um, actually, I believe him and Elise um are actually either on a plane to Florida or in Florida. So, um, I don't Is is Mr.

Garrett on this call tonight?

No, he's not. He unfortunately has a um he had a medical issue. But Eduardo, I did receive Mark's notes, but if you want to tell us staff's recommendation, that would be fine.

Okay. Yeah. So, um staff's recommendation for St. Peters Farm Road um based off the revised plan dated October 28th, 2025 uh largely addresses the previous concerns raised by staff centered on the size and aggressiveness of the development and the apparent clear cutting of most of the buffer zone to accommodate the proposed project.

So the four pres um preserved patches of existing vegetation [clears throat] with the additional augmenting of the native vegetation works towards the goal of avoidance and minimization and further mitigates towards minor impacts.

Uh staff's recommendation is for standard order of conditions be issued in accordance to the plan dated October 28th, 2025 with the following added conditions.

This order of conditions contingent on the detached garage structure equipped with plumbing shall not be used as the third dwelling on the property and the other modified condition should any of the preserved vegetation be damaged. The replacement shall be the property of the applicant or any successor in interest.

Thank you. Does [clears throat] uh any commissioner have any questions regarding what you heard?

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

I don't see anybody. So at this juncture, uh I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Second. We have a seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. James. Yes, Megan.

Yes, Nat.

Yes, Richard.

Yes, Donald.

Yes, my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to issue a standard order of conditions uh in accordance with the plan dated October 28, 2025.

and that's on D file 15-2801 uh with the following conditions.

The order of conditions will be contingent on the detached garage structure equipped with plumbing not be used for uh habitation or as a third dwelling on the property. Uh number two, any uh preserved vegetation that is damaged shall be replaced. Um and their replacement shall be properly shall be the property this their replacement shall be the property of the applicant or any

successor in interest. Um I'm not sure I understand that but um I think that just means that um shall be the responsibility of the applicant or any successor and interest rather than the property.

I'll read it again the way I think it should be. Should any of the preserved vegetation be damaged, their replacement shall be the responsibility of the applicant or any success or interest to the applicant.

So, may I have a motion to that effect, please?

So, moved.

Second.

Second.

With a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Matt, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

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

Thank you. Thank you [clears throat] very much. Our second public hearing is on D file 15-283 NOI 25-36, a notice of intent from the Greater New Bedford Regional Refuge Management District Care of uh Alan Kersner to construct structures in the buffer zone a pertinent to the Crapo Hill landfill capacity expansion was within the 100 ft buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland and is described as map uh 84 lot 25 is

otherwise known as 300 Samuel Barnett Boulevard. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, [clears throat] yes.

Megan, yes.

That yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

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

So we don't but we do have uh from the from the uh staff from Mark Garrett we have a u a statement that the applicants requested via email to continue this to the next scheduled meeting which is November 25, 2025 um so that they can get final approval on storm water management design um uh for the peerreview consultant.

Uh staff has uh agreed that this is a reasonable request. Does any commissioner have any questions about that?

Um, seeing none, um, I'll entertain a motion to continue this public hearing on D file 15-2803 at the applicant's request until our next public hearing, which will be uh, November 25, 2025.

So moved.

I'm sorry, November 28th. I said 25.

November 28th. No. Nope. I was right.

I'm getting confused on my dates here, folks.

It is the It is. I was right the first time.

So moved.

Second.

Second. Motion. We have a on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

Richard, yes.

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

The third item uh on this is a public hearing file 15-2796 AOC25-9.

It's from Pocono Realy Trust and ECTL realy trust care of David M. Dignon to request to amend the order of conditions. So that page one of the amended order of conditions also lists land court lots 23 and 24 on land court plan number 15450 L described as map 100 lots 5-1 and 5-2.

It's otherwise known as 11 Poconog Lane.

Um, this is a this is not a change uh of the pro of the property ownership, nor is it um a change in what we ordered.

It's basically to comply with what is required for this to be accepted for recording by the land court. Is that correct David?

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, good evening. Dave Dicknen representing the applicants and owners of the property. Um yeah, you are absolutely correct. Um this is a uh is a project that is uh for a seaw wall reconstruction and a relocation of a gravel driveway that impacted two properties which are owned by the same family but under different trusts. And when we tried to go and record it

against one of the properties, the land court um wanted it recorded against both properties. And basically based on a technicality, we couldn't update page one of or Mr. Garrett told us he couldn't update date uh page one because it wasn't advertised for both property owners even though again they're one in the same um same family. So, we're requesting to amend the order so that

page one can be updated to reflect both property owners and both land court lots and therefore in the end both the the order conditions will be recorded against both properties at the registry.

Thank you very much. Does any commissioner have any questions?

Yeah, w with this change does this affect notification of a butters?

There were uh all the abutters were renotified for this hearing.

They were they were sent uh certified mailing and this was advertised in the newspaper. So those abutters would have gotten the same notification that they would have gotten originally which is per uh state law and town of Dartmouth bylaws.

Did the addition of the additional lot create any additional abutters?

Um, we originally notified the we had an abutters list created for both lots.

Um, so it was essentially renotifying the same lot of people.

Okay, good questions. Um, does anyone in the audience wish to be heard on this?

I don't see any. And uh, staff has recommended the approval. Um, so [clears throat] at this juncture, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

All moved.

Second.

Seconded motion on the floor. Uh, roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes. Matt, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Uh, I would entertain at this juncture a motion uh to approve the request on D File 15-2797 to amend the order of conditions as uh articulated by Mr. Dignon on behalf of the applicants.

So move second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Uh we're now moving on to the fourth public hearing and [clears throat] this is a public hearing on D file 15-2780 AOC [snorts] uh 28 25 rather 88 is from Joseph Tattlebomb care of David Dignon to request an amendment to the order of conditions to reduce the length of the proposed pier by 22 feet as per Army Corps of Engineers New England district requirement. It's on land described as

map 124, lots 8 and 13. It's otherwise known as 31 Mosher Street. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

Seconded motion. Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Matt, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Uh Dave, you want to uh just I mean I think I know what what it is. It seems self-evident, but you might want to just give us a little background.

Uh sure, Mr. Chairman. Um in case anybody's joining us late, I'm Dave Devnan from Schneider Deal Leone. I represent Joseph Tattlebomb. May I screen share?

Absolutely.

I am trying to screen share on my second device and I'm waiting for permission.

Oh, I got the permission.

Yep. See it clearly.

Okay. So, the uh the property is 31 Moer Street.

Um, this being the house, if you can see my cursor, and the jetty in question, uh, straddles the northerly property line. This was the plan which was approved back on April 9th, 2025.

Um, after receiving the order of conditions. We were we continue with the permitting process through the Army Corps of Engineers and the chapter 91 waterways um, licensing program. The the second plan basically uh the Army Corps wanted us to bring the uh reconstruction of that jetty back uh 22 feet from the uh the originally approved plan by the Hong Kong. Um so we did receive an Army Corps authorization.

After that we then proceeded and completed the chapter 91 waterways program licensing. So, this jetty is now licensed and permitted to be reconstructed.

And we've also licensed the Southernland jetty, which was not uh never was licensed. Um so, um we are back here before you to basically get the final permit, which would allow our clients to go proceed with reconstructing the jetty. Um so, we're seeking a a an amended order of conditions uh due to the fact that we'll be doing less work Yeah, I think that's the key. This is actually a reduction from what was

previously approved. Um, [clears throat] uh, I see that, uh, Eduardo, I agree.

Uh, you could comment if you'd like, but I think staff has recommended the approval of this request. Is that correct?

That's correct. Yes.

Okay. So, is there any commissioner that wants to be heard on this? Uh, if you could stop screen sharing, that'd be helpful. Thank you. Um, appreciate it.

Does any commissioner wish to be heard on this?

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

I don't see any commissioner or anyone in the audience wishing to be heard. So, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So, move.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes. That yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion on uh DP file 15-2780.

um to amend the order of conditions reducing the length of the proposed pier by 22 ft uh in accordance with the um current plan which I believe was dated 512 2025. Is that right?

Yeah, that's what it says here. 512 2025 is the revised plan.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I could clarify.

Yep.

Um why the plan is dated so far back from today. That was when the reduction of the design happened when we're doing the Army Corps and at that time I did revise the site plan for the Concom filing. Um we just waited all this time so that we could complete the federal and state permitting.

Gotcha. So, I just wanted to be sure I was reciting to the right date, you know, and and not have a mistake in our um our decision. So, commissioners, we have a I'll entertain that motion.

No.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Uh so we're moving on now to our final public hearing.

It's a public hearing on D file 15-2805 NOI25-39.

It's a notice of intent from the Dartmouth Natural Resources Trust, Inc.

DNRT care of David Dignant for the site improvements that include installation on site gravel road access with signage, parking areas and storm water controls, improved sight lines along Flag Swamp Road, and to remove a steel, excuse me, catwalk, two pump houses, and a wooden pier. These activities will occur uh on or within an inland bank, land underwater, uh bordering land subject to flooding, uh riverfront area,

and the 100 ft buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. It's land described as map 79, lot 34-1, otherwise known as 293 Flag Swamp Road. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

Second second [clears throat] motion on the floor. Roll call vote. James, yes.

Nat, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yeah. Just for information purposes, I'm a member of DNRT, but [clears throat] not a member of the board and have no financial interests in this project. And my vote is yes.

Very good.

So we have that motion allowed. Mine is yes as well unanimously.

And David, you want to tell us what this is all about?

Thank you, commissioners.

We can just go right to a continuence because I guess we're waiting for um some engineering uh comments um and supporting calculations like DPW engineering. We're waiting for them to approve this. So have you gotten DPW comments? We have not uh we have reached out to engineering regarding uh the actual square footage and and how it fits with the requirements for storm water. Uh but have not heard back.

Okay. So, I I'll leave it in your discretion, David, if you want to just have us uh vote this evening to continue and you can give a full uninterrupted presentation at the next meeting or you wish to present um but you can at this meeting and obviously we're not going to be able to close the public hearing.

Understood. Um this is Nick Wildman, the executive director of Dartmouth Natural Resources Trust. I'd be pleased to give a short presentation on the project uh and entertain any questions uh but certainly grateful for the continuence so that we can take care of this question on the storm water.

You've got the floor.

Okay, great. I will share my screen.

All right. Thank you very much for having me tonight. Um the property we're discussing is the Flag Swamp Bog Reserve. Uh this is property purchased by DNRT in September of 2023. About a 43 acre property outlined by the lines that you see on the plans that were submitted. Um it was funded in part by executive office of environmental affairs and the property is protected under a conservation restriction held by

Mass Ottabon. All the proposed work in this notice of intent meets with the requirements and restrictions of that CR. The goal of the project is the safe and stable access of the property for visitors to be able to enjoy the property. There's no dredging. Uh there's no uh waterways work that would require a 401 or 404 90 chapter 91 and no natural heritage impacts. Um there's no mapped habitat on this site

surprisingly. Um as uh excuse me as the chairman mentioned we have a number of resource areas present on the site. Um we have extensive inland bank and land underwater associated with the canal that runs along the side of the property. We have riverfront area associated with the Shingle Island River which is located in this portion off to the south of the property.

Um we have bordering vegetated wetland which is defined uh mainly by the large bog cells here. These are jurisdictional wetlands as you may know. And uh we also have ordering vegetated wetland that was delineated in the field um based on field conditions and field observations by myself and Michael Riley mainly in this area at the south which I'll describe and uh a small area here at

inset C. In addition to that there is some bordering land subject to flooding mainly in the north portion of the bog uh associated with the canal. The canal is connected hydraulically to the Shingle Island River.

Um, all the proposed work was designed to meet with the wetland protection act performance standards and those described in the town wetland bylaws. U, that material is outlined and described on starting on page eight of the narrative in your packet.

Uh, the proposed work, as the chairman mentioned, uh, really has been minimized to meet the extent of the goals. Um, we are proposing to remove some remnant very decrepit small structures. These old pump houses, uh, steel catwalk in this area, which I'll describe. Um, installation of gates and fencing. This is much more legible in your packet. Uh I can zoom in a bit but you know in in

ter in the in terms of limiting and ensuring safety we have various proposed controls which lie in the 100t buffer to bordering vegetated wetland.

Uh we also propose to install a parking area which I'll describe next and some very localized grading of ruts within the gravel roadway. Basically filling those in with some gravel and stabilizing them for foot traffic.

So here on the on the cover sheet of the the plan set that was submitted um you can see the location of the gates and fences. Those really don't have any impact on any of the resource areas but they are within uh mapped resource areas. So that's why they're shown. I'll move next to sheet one of the plan set and that is inset A on the south part of the property. On this

sheet you'll find Flag Swamp Road running north south approximately and a proposed um installation of a crush stone driveway and parking area. Parking here and parking here. Total parking uh crush stone area is about 2,640 square feet. It is all entirely outside of the bordering vegetated wetland which is denoted by this line and delineated in the field with test pits um examining indicators of hydraology, soil

conditions and vegetative communities along that that gradient.

Uh the two parking spots here are pro are not proposed to be constructed immediately. Um but are we are seeking a permit for those. If we do construct them, there will be associated storm water detention as shown in this area.

Storm water management for the rest of the parking area will be handled by an infiltration trench um as described in the detail on the right here.

We also have some guardrails and fencing to make sure that we have safe access.

DNRT has also submitted to the town of Dartmouth planning board for a scenic road uh alteration permit specifically with regard to the proposed removal of several trees in this area. Um these contribute to a very poor sight lines along this horizontal curve of Flag Swamp Road and You know, it's my personal opinion that they contribute to poor visibility for motorists now um and would be extremely

dangerous uh for the use folks coming into or out of this driveway. So, we propose to remove those. All disturbed areas will be receded and planted with native plants.

Moving along to inset B. Just in respect for the commission's time. Inset B is located on the eastern side of the property. Uh along the canal, we do have a small pump house approximately 8 foot by 10 foot. Um it has been tested. There are no hazardous materials associated with this uh pump house. We propose to simply remove it and dispose of it legally um you know at the dump basically at a transfer station and the

steel truss catwalk. We propose to remove impacts to from turbidity to the canal will be controlled by a turbidity curtain and all disturbed areas will be covered with lom and seed.

There are no impacts to the small bordering vegetated wetland that borders uh the bank in this location.

Oops, pardon me. And finally, inset C describes our work at the very northern end of the bog. Uh here we propose to remove the pump house and to remove a wooden dock and uh telephone pole that's embedded into the the bed of the canal.

To do this, we will protect uh limit turbidity by using a turbidity boom. All access at this time is planned through the neighbor's property. um he's verbally agreed to grant us access and we'll have that documented and just like all the disturbed areas on our property, his area will be graded and receded as necessary. This is a very quick operation. We're envisioning probably two days or so um for this work as well

as for the inset C work as well.

Um, in closing, there are no other uh approvals that this project is aware of and we look forward to satisfying the requests from the engineering department uh and any other that come up. Be happy to take any questions from commissioners or others.

Does any commissioner wish to be heard this evening on this request?

Uh, is there anyone in the audience that wants to be heard this evening on this request? Um, we certainly you do not forfeit your rights to uh comment at any continued public hearing.

Okay. I don't see any unless I missed it, but I don't see any. Uh, commissioners, I I certainly uh I don't know how long it'll take to get that.

Um, David or Nick, do you believe that you'll have those uh uh DPW engineering uh recommendations by the next public hearing?

I hope so. I I intend to contact Tim again tomorrow u really try to sus this out. It's um Mr. Dignon's opinion as a professional engineer that the proposed work does not require uh an in-depth storm water analysis. And so we're going to dig into what the those thresholds are to make sure if they are, we can prepare those, but um we can report back to the commission uh as soon as we know more.

Yeah, not a problem. Uh you know, Mark's comment was that, you know, he recommends continuation until we get DPW sign off on the proposed drainage strategy. Those were his words. Um, so, um, if if you think that's all doable by the, uh, 25th of this month, I'm okay. I'm okay with that. I'm trying to accommodate you. I want to make sure, you know, you don't get on the agenda and you still don't have it. And you're

saying, can we have another continuence, please? Because we are getting a little less lenient about second and third continuences. I mean, the first ones were very lenient with.

So, this request is is certainly not uh unusual, but if you think you might need more time, um it'd be easier now than later, although I don't think even that would be a necessarily a no, but I just want to let you know that we've had discussions as a commission about um continuences and how, you know, some at some point we we definitely have to be a little more stringent about requiring

either a vote or a withdrawal without prejudice. So, I just wanted to let you know that I don't want to surp surprise anybody.

Dave, do you think that's a reasonable uh two weeks is reasonable or should we push to the next one? Just as a reference, you know, our planning board uh hearing isn't until the first week of December or so. So, going to the next one in case we do have to do a little math isn't doesn't sound too crazy.

Um, Mr. Mr. Chairman, did you say the next meeting is two weeks or three weeks?

Uh the next meeting according to our uh thing here is November 25.

Okay. So, we have three weeks. Um based on my opinion, I looked at the the storm water regs, we we're not um subject to D stormwater regs. Um it seems to me we fit under a minor minor storm water permit at worst case. We just want to confirm that and um we'll we'll find out um if if I'm correct or not soon enough hopefully in the next day or two and uh

if it's if that's the case then it would just solely be on uh what kind of schedule or how long it would take you know but uh um so I you know I think 3 weeks is reasonable and if we if it turns out to be more than what we think then the ne the second extension requests are continuous of course would be, you know, a lot longer so that we're not on your agenda multiple times.

I can appreciate that. That's that seems reasonable. So, commissioners, unless there's any objection or any comment further, um I would [clears throat] entertain a motion to continue this public hearing on uh D file 15-2805 until our next scheduled public hearing, which is Tuesday, November 25, 2025 at 7 p.m.

So move.

Second.

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

Megan, yes.

That uh before I vote, Mr. Chairman, I just want to disclose that I am both a member of DNRT as well as a volunteer member of the DNRT finance committee. Um I have no financial interest in DNRT or this project and therefore do not see a conflict of interest. So my vote is yes.

Very good. Uh Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That passes unanimously.

And for the record, I concur with Natt.

That is not a conflict of interest, but I appreciate the disclosure as I did uh Donald's. I think in the the public needs to know and we put it on the record, but I don't see that as disqualifying you from participating or voting.

Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you, commissioners.

Have a good night.

We're going to move on now to our items for discussion. And Eduardo, you will have the floor because we have a um I don't know if Mark left you notes on the wetlands regulation u discussion. Uh if not, I can say that we did, you know, Mark and I met with town council and um went through the comments town council had the wise and the wherefors and Mark was in the pro was

going to uh take yet another stab at uh putting together a draft that would incorporate all of town council's concerns while keeping intact what we wanted to do. Um, so it was a productive meeting, but we didn't get to the point at that meeting where um I'm ready to present anything to you, but there will be something coming our way shortly, I believe.

Is that accurate, Eduardo?

Um, I haven't I haven't gotten any notes since [snorts] my return from my trip uh about the New Wetland regulation discussion.

So I can't really comment about that.

All right. Well, I can that's why I kind of figured he may not have left that.

But it was it was a productive meeting.

You know, as these discussions have been in the past, you know how tedious it can be and it took a while, but I think we finally got through all of comments, all comments that town council had with the wise and wherefors for them and we had some good uh good discussion as to whether those comments some of them probably will be disregarded uh because there's no need for it, but some were

very good and help help make a tighter document. Um, so we'll go to the enforcement actions. You've got a bunch of them that you want to talk to us about.

Is that true or not?

Me?

Yes.

Uh, yeah, there's a couple.

Okay.

Uh, so the first uh we're moving u 1342 North Hicksville Road from enforcement order to town council. Um, as many of you know, it's been an ongoing an ongoing issue. Uh, over at this site, we haven't gotten any response since I'm not even sure the date, but it's been far past the deadline of August 28th 2025.

Okay. What's happening with 1363 1395?

Uh so 1363 1395 uh we're also issuing an enforcement order. It's been an ongoing issue since uh 0510 2024.

Um I don't know much about this one in particular. Uh, I believe Mark would probably know a little bit more about this project since he's been uh he was around when when this happened.

Okay. I just want to back up a little bit. This is has this already gone gone to town council or do you want the motion for both of these matters 1342 1363?

Do you want us to move?

I believe 1342 is going to town council, but I believe 1363 and 1395 are to issue EO.

Okay. Commissioners, you've heard uh Eduardo's comments regarding 136395 North Hicksville Road. Um the the staff is looking for a motion uh to issue an enforcement order in this matter. What is your pleasure?

Issue a motion to that effect.

So moved.

Second.

Mike, I'm having trouble hearing you.

You're cutting out at least on mine.

That's why I'm not responding right away.

I don't know why it's doing that. I can't. It might be mine. We've had trouble in the neighborhood.

It could be here, too. We have a lot of wind. Um, does everyone else hear me?

I can hear you, Mike. Yeah.

Okay. So, we have a motion. Do we have a second on that motion?

Second.

Seconded motion. Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes. My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. And now, Eduardo, do you have something to say on 801 PMs Road?

All right. So, 801 PMs Road. Um, I believe this property was originally bought out by a new owner. Um, I don't recall his name. Um, but his name pops up every now and then around town. Um and so I believe board of health um we're coordinating with B board of health. Board of health went out believe either today or yesterday and we're pretty pleased with um the work they were doing on with their

enforcement issue on that property. I believe Mark and I are planning on going out to the site to re see um the ground conditions, see if this old um enforcement order uh has, let's say, uh healed itself. the the wetland has healed itself in in a certain way, but um that remains to be seen.

Okay. I believe the person who or the principal of whoever the owner is is Ronald Aloea.

Yes.

All the email exchanges between Mark and he.

Um so, okay, that's pretty good.

Anything else that you wish to report to the commission?

Uh, nope. Nothing else.

Does any commissioner have anything to add to the joy of the meeting?

I don't. So, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.

So moved.

Second.

A seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Nat, yes. Richard, yes. Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Eduardo, thank you. Thank you, commissioners. I appreciate you attendance tonight and have a good evening.