Conservation Commission Meeting - September 1, 2026

I see that it's after 7 o'clock. It's 7:03 and we do have a quorum present of commissioners.

So I will call to order the meeting of Tuesday, September 1st, 2026 of the Dartmouth Conservation Commission.

We're conducting this meeting remotely uh because on March 28, 2025, Governor Healey signed an extension for hybrid remote meeting options to municipalities and that extends through June 30, 2027.

Our public hearings are accessible for interactions by the public and we have a raise your hand feature, etc., etc. Now, uh, I can't see if anybody anybody is waving their hand, so I'll count on one of the other commissioners or Jennifer to point that out to me so you can be recognized.

This meeting was uh duly posted and noticed in accordance with both state law and town of Dartmouth charter. Uh, that being said, uh we will begin with administrative items. And the first administrative item is any update from staff.

Yeah, if we could save that till the end. Um I think over everything uh items at the end. Thank you, Mike.

Not a problem. Uh we were asked uh to move out of order an item for discussion and to bring it up now. And that's an item for discussion regarding Pascam Masset Valley uh CR.

And I would entertain a motion to move out of order and bring up as the first item of business an item for discussion or pass Commen Valley. Uh CR move.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

We'll do a roll call vote. Liz, yes. James, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Okay, Jennifer and whoever else wants to be heard on this. Uh, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mike. I'm actually going to turn this over to um both R Mark Rasmusen um from Buzzards Bay Coalition and Cody who um our town administrator who are both here um to present on this topic and then if there are any questions specific to this office, I'll kind of do my best to answer those as well.

All right. Thank you, Jennifer. Uh Cody, you have the floor.

Sure. Um thank you the commission. Cody, town administrator for those that I have not met. Um Mark Rasmmanson is here this evening and he has a um I believe a brief presentation to provide the commission with this project. Um and I'm just here you know to let you know this is a joint application that the Buzzards Bay Coalition the town of Dartmouth are seeking CPC funding on. Um and that we

are fully supportive of this from the administrative level the select board and you'll hear a lot of why this is a great project and really aligns with the goals of um of the town as a whole. So, I'll hand it over to Mark, though.

Thank you, Cody. Uh, Mark, you have the floor.

Thank you, Cody, and thank you, Mr.

Chairman. Um, can I share my screen here?

Absolutely. DCTV, please let Mr.

Rasmusen share his screen.

Can I?

Okay. Uh, good evening. Yeah. Um, thank you. Thank you for seeing us. Um, and I I have just a few slides. This is not a long presentation, but um a conservation project like this always tells its story better in maps and photos. And so, um I wanted to tee it up that way. So, as Cody mentioned, uh we are working closely with the town to acquire 29 acres along the Pascamit Valley. Uh this

is the Hawthorne Country Club site, the back half of the of the project. So, we are we're calling it the Pasmanit Valley Conservation Project. It is currently pending before CPC for funding. And as you know, as we've done in other projects, the CPC requires that any funds spent by CPC be protected with a projects be protected with a permanent conservation restriction, even if it's

proposed to be held by a conservation entity like Buzzards Bay Coalition. So, we're here tonight to ask for your support to hold the conservation restriction on this property.

So, just to get everybody oriented, I have a bunch of uh bunch of maps and photos. So, this is Hawthorne Country Club. I'm sure you all know the site on Tucker Road. We are talking we are talking about purchasing the back approximately 29 acres of the 56 acre site. Um the remainder of the site uh will be uh redeveloped and I have I'll show you a picture in a second uh about

that. But this is the uh context. Um and for those of you who know the golf course well, you know, right behind the the function hall, there's a really dramatic slope, right? It drops right down into the Pasmanit Valley. We're trying to acquire as much of that slope, the most environmentally sensitive area of the land and closest to the river with this acquisition.

So, a few slides just highlighting the conservation values of this land. So, why protect this property? I think first off, um it helps guide growth away from sensitive resources. So, what we're doing by purchasing the back half of the site is we are eliminating development on that back half. Um, and like I said, the area of the sea slope, the areas closest to the town water supply, the

area closest to the river, um, and allows for its ultimate restoration to forest. So, the best environmental outcome on the back half of the site.

Um, by doing this, we'll also be reducing density this property for what is currently 147 unit 40B development uh to a new development proposal which is looking at approximately 65 units 55 and over age restricted. um a great reduction in strain on town services and infrastructure. And Cody can speak more to this, but this is a really this this idea of conserving the back half is helping to reduce the density of

development by more than half on the on the whole Hawthorne site.

This is what the layout looks like for the approved 40B. This is the current 147 unit approved 40B. This is what get gets built if we don't um buy the property as we're proposing tonight. Um and so you can see it fills the entirety of it. Um lots all the way down the slope right to the edge of the the area of the woodland behind it. So this this will change it under our scenario. None

of this back half gets built and the front half gets built at a lower density and is also then age 55 and older age restricted. Um a very different development uh is accomplished.

I think the second reason to protect this land and uh I think this is the most compelling. This is why Buzzard's Bay Coalition's so interested in it. Um it helps pro protect the Pascamit River and the public drinking water supply. As you'll see on the next map here, this is the core zone 2 for the town drinking water system. The blue shaded area. Um the stars here are the town wells, like

literally where we take our drinking water out of. The red parcel here shows the 29 acres we're hoping to conserve and the orange shows the remaining development area up on Tucker Road. So very close to the zone 2. Um and it's so close to the zone 2. Um I think it's very likely that most of this 20 acre parcel is actually also zone 2 contributing area but was never so

mapped because it had a laned use like a golf course on it before. Um and so that because all the characteristics of the site would lend it to be zone 2 as well.

So the maps show it as immediately adjacent.

Gotcha.

Yep. Um other reason is the property is also adjacent to mass natural heritage and endangered species program mapped core habitat and critical natural landscape. So it's really important for wildlife as well. You can see on this version the state mapping I think did the same thing here. It draws the line at the edge of the manicured course, but the orange is critical natural landscape. These cross-hatched areas are

actually areas of core habitat for rare species. Comes right up to the edge of the property. I have every expectation that once this is reforested and renaturalized, those same wildlife habitats would extend onto the conservation parcel as well.

And then I think the last the last piece of this is this is a really quite an impressive uh corridor of conservation that's been assembled between the conservation commission, the water department, DNRT and us over the years.

This parcel sort of fits as a key link.

If you look at it in this context, all the green is existing protected open space including a very large parcel controlled by you all right behind it.

Its entire western border is uh contiguous with the Kong land. Um but water department, DNRT, concom Buzzards Bay coalition, um we're really doing a great job conserving the Pascamitic corridor and this adds to that adds to that effort and makes really cool linkages. There is currently not a trail network or anything that takes advantage of these linkages, but you can easily see how in the future such a thing could

happen if we're if we continue to conserve all these missing links.

Um the details of the deal. Um very quickly, it's a $2 million purchase price we're talking about for just the back 29 acres. Um that value is currently being confirmed as part of the CPC process by an appraisal which will be done in a couple weeks. Um but it will the value is likely to come in higher than the 2 million. Um but we cannot buy it if it's not appraised at

at least 2 million. The funding scheme is to split the costs between the community preservation committee u if Dartmouth if town meeting in October approves it a million dollars from CPC funds and then a million dollars raised by us through private donations making the $2 million purchase price.

As I mentioned the CPA funding requires that there be a permanent CR on the property. We we're proposing that Buzzards Bay Coalition will own the land but they will be subject to a CR held by the Dartmouth Conservation Commission.

We've come to that same um scenario of ownership and CR before um because of the next point which is if we structure it this way the ongoing land management doesn't sit with the town. It sits with our team. So we'll be responsible for all property care, stewardship, trail maintenance, trash pickup, whatever um comes to us and not the town as the CR holder. Um, our plan for a property like

this is because of this dramatic slope is to do what we can to encourage reforestation of the site as as forest along the river would be by far the best environmental outcome for the river for this site. Um, and then develop public trails which will be accessible from the new development. We're talking with the current the developer of the the proposed new site um to specifically

have very clear public access points for the trail system built into the layout of the development. So, that's sort of what happens if um you all uh join us in this. And I guess the last point is just to end where I started, which is um we're hoping that tonight you would agree to hold the conservation restriction on this property um subject to the project's approval by CPC and town meeting. Obviously, that's central

to this whole thing and that's not coming up till October. But if they do approve it, the Concom would agree to hold the CR and that just as with other CRs, we'd be back to you later for approval of the final terms of the CR prior to any recording.

Okay.

So, that's what I had for slides.

Thank you, uh, Mark. That was a very, uh, clear, concise, and thorough presentation. Um, commissioners, I'm going to open it up to you for any comments or questions, and I'll have to um trust that somebody's got their hand raised because I won't be able to see it.

Anybody?

Um, no, I I don't have any questions. I think you've answered them all. Um, quite frankly, I think this is a remarkably good outcome for everyone, the developer, the town, and most importantly uh the environment of Dartmouth. And so I would be I'm going to make two uh recommend that we have two motions. The first motion would be for the conservation commission to endorse and recommend to CPC uh the funding

um as requested by Buzzards Bay Coalition uh to allow them to acquire the parcel uh described this evening and to grant to the Dartmouth Conservation Commission a conservation restriction on said parcel.

Both second.

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

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. And the second motion I'd recommend and entertain would be a motion uh to agree to accept a conservation restriction on the land to be acquired by uh Buzzard's Bay Coalition on Pascamid Valley and that to that CR to be reviewed and accepted by the conservation commission at a later date with approval of Town Council moved. Second.

Have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Gentlemen, thank you for a very thorough presentation and good luck.

Thank you all very much. Okay. Have a good night.

Good night. Y good night.

Okay, now we're back on to the regular agenda and our first items of business are wetland site inspections, determinations, and uh requests for certificates of compliance. So, the first is a wetland uh site inspection at 120 Ryder Street.

Uh Jennifer or Eduardo, if you want to uh let us know what you think about that.

Um, I'm just going to share my screen here, uh, really quickly. See here.

All right. Everyone, can everyone uh, see that?

Yes.

Okay, great. Uh, so starting with 120 Ryder Street. So staff made a site visit on August 27th, uh 2026.

uh and uh our basic um investigation uh analysis uh discovered that there did not appear to be any wetlands on the site itself. Uh so we're recommending the commission to uh approve that wetland line.

Okay. Uh any comments or questions from commissioners?

Uh, I can't see any, but if anyone has one, just speak up. Um, not hearing anyone.

I would recommend uh a motion to approve the wetlands line as determined on a August 27 26 2026 uh site visit for the 120 Ryder Street property. So, second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

The second item is a wetland site inspection for Six Blackberg Court.

Eduardo, you have the floor. Um, just like 120 Ryder Street, uh, we also, uh, did a site inspection on August 27th, 2026, and the results are were pretty similar.

There weren't any wetlands that we could see um, on site at six Blackbird Court.

Uh, so we're recommending the commission to uh, approve that line or thereup.

Thank you. Uh, any comments by any commissioners?

Not hearing any. No.

I'll entertain a motion to approve the wetland line as determined on a site visit of August 27, 2026 for number six, Blackbird Court.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Donald, yes.

Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um that does conclude the um wetland site inspections, but we do have two uh requests for certificate of compliance. The first is on file 15-2650, 10 Water Street, map 117, lot 10. The owner is Stuart T.

and Lee S. McGregor. and it was the installation of an additional of additional floats and four new anchor piles with a relocation of existing piles. Um, again, Jennifer or Eduardo, your recommendation or staff's recommendation regarding this request?

Sure. Um, I don't see anybody representing this property, the property owner or um, the engineer on right now.

So, I'll just give a basic overview. Um, in terms of the certificate of compliance request, Eduardio and I did perform a site visit um just to see what the final construction looked like. Uh, everything, you know, as well stabilized most of the work taking place in the water. Um, as far as the compliance with what was approved in the plan, the engineer did note some minor changes.

Um, I'll say and and looking at historic aerial imagery and um what the original dock structure looked like, there is a substantial increase in size, but it is in compliance um or substantially in compliance with what was approved um for the site. So the the length of the outer float was um approved to be increased and then the two side floats were also lengthened. Um so they changed that

configuration a little bit. Um but I would still agree with the engineer that it's substantially in compliance with what was approved.

So would be would staff's recommendation be the issuance of a complete certificate of compliance?

Correct. Yes. Okay. Does any commissioner have any questions?

Not hearing any, I will entertain a motion to issue a complete certificate of compliance for D file 15-2650.

So moved.

Second. A seconded motion. We have a roll call vote. Donald, yes.

Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes.

unanimously.

Our second certificate of compliance request is on D file 15-2706 which is 472 Rocka Dundy Road map 24 lot 73-1 and uh the owner is Silus Costa and it was a project for the construction of a single family house with associated landscaping grading and utilities.

Is there someone here other than staff that wants to discuss this?

Yeah, again, I don't think there's a representative on I just looked through the list of participants, but um I did talk with the property owner um after Eduardo and I did our site visit for this um certificate of compliance request. And uh the site it it's a single family um home with the typical amenities, driveway, septic um landscaping and uh a little bit of grading. Uh the site's well stabilized.

The grass is growing in. Um vegetation has been planted. Um there were a couple of minor items that I asked them to correct. Um those being that they still have their erosion controls in place.

Uh, so their silt fence withdrawals. So I asked them to remove that since everything is stabilized to set us send us some follow-up photos. Um, and then they have a fire pit area set up and um some play equipment um that are outside of uh the limit of disturbance into that 25 foot no touch. I just asked them to move those back inside to the grass uh lawn area. Um, and they're going to,

again, they'll send some follow-up photos at the end of the week, but I would recommend that the commission approve it as a complete certification, and then we'll just wait to issue that COC until we receive the photos.

All righty. So, uh, any commissioner have any questions or comments?

Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to issue a complete certificate of compliance on D file 15-2706.

That's before 472 Rockadundi Road.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

That moves us on to our public hearings.

For the first public hearing, I am going to recuse myself. And Liz, if you would take the helm, I would appreciate it.

Absolutely.

Okay. So, our first uh continued hearing tonight is notice of intent file 15-2825.

It's in reference to zero state road, map 53 and 174 with lot 2 and 24 respectively. Uh it's on behalf of the owner Morgan Blum and the representative is Brandon Fenu of Ecosystem Solutions and David Otter of Air Corp. The proposed project is the construction of a commercial automobile dealership with associated parking, grading, landscaping and storm water infrastructure.

Resource areas affected are the 100t buffer zone to a VVW per 310 CMR 10.02 2 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaw.

Well, I could and a roll call vote. James, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Uh it's my understanding that this public hearing is being continued. Um I just want to double check that there is nobody here representing the applicant that wants to speak and if not um I will hand it over to staff to elaborate on the continuation.

Yeah. So, for this one, um, in talking with their representative, Brandon Vanis, um, he indicated that they are looking at making some changes to their proposed um, wetland restoration areas or wetland replication rather. Um if you recall there are this was initially started under a different filing um to take some isolated vegetated wetlands in the middle of the property um and then replicate those against the back

bordering vegetated line where it would actually end up being a connected wetland system and offer um higher quality habitat. So there were four polygons, if you will, so irregular areas that were going to be replicated along that border on the back of the property uh behind the automobile dealership. And then there was a fifth polygon much further back um accessed through the very back of the Walmart

parking lot. So kind of at the top of the hill towards the back of this larger property. um and and getting some initial quotes, it seems that the fifth polygon is going to prove very hard to um get the replication accomplished there within a reasonable budget. Um so they're looking at trying to reconfigure the replication proposal. Um and we'll be getting back to us at the earliest for the 15th, the September 15th

meeting, which is when they've requested the continuence till. Um, but I'm guessing it's going to probably be more like early October, uh, before they have all the information back and can submit a new proposal. And then they'll eventually come in with a request to amend, but they want to get some feedback from the commission first.

Is there any concern about us moving into what I believe is known as sort of prohibitive planting season with regards to this? Do you foresee that this could be protracted out into 2027 based on seasonality?

So, right now the site is they cleared the site. I I'm not sure if it was done last year or two years ago, but it's so it's treed and stumped cleared of shrubbery and I guess there was other debris on the property historically, but it's regrown to a stabilized state at this point. And so they the way it's um conditioned right now, they wouldn't be able to do any site work until they do

the wetland replication. So it's it's stabilized at this point to get through the winter season because I think you're right, Liz, they are going to miss that window to do the planting um and needing to come up with this alternative um and get approval from the commission to request to amend, but they'll revisit that in the spring. And then the priority before they can do any of their

site development work for the dealership will be the wild replication itself.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Sure.

Uh does any other commissioner have any questions about this continuing?

I'm not seeing any.

Uh does anybody here from the public have any comments with regards to this continuence of this application?

I'm also not seeing any at this juncture. Uh I will entertain a motion to continue.

Uh notice notice of file intent 15-2825.

I I heard a first motion from Richard.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay. Roll call vote. James, just just quickly, I'm sorry. Just to clarify that we're continuing to September 15th. Yep. Thank you for that.

Continuing to the next conservation commission meeting on Tuesday, September 9th, I'm sorry, excuse me, September 15th, 2026.

Um, I will take a roll call vote. James, yes.

Donald, no. I think you ought to uh put it off longer than the 15th. That they're not going to be ready by then.

So, we can't continue to a date other than what they've agreed to, and their request was to the 15th. So, we have to continue to a date and time certain, and it has to be at their um agreement, and so they've already submitted that request. If they were on tonight, Donald's, we could ask them if they'd like to continue to a further date, but at this point, the 15th is the only option that we have.

Okay. No.

Okay.

Richard.

Yes.

Uh, my vote is yes. That motion passes 3 to one.

Mike, I'm I'm here. Um, I would make a suggestion on that last Jennifer. Why don't you contact the applicant and just let them know if their if their materials aren't ready in a week? They should request a further continuence so we don't end up with a last minute on the agenda um kind of problem here. But um anyway, that's just my two cents to see if we can. So I think Donald, you

were right. The likelihood of them being ready is probably slim and none, but that's what they requested.

Okay, we're moving on. We have the second public hearing. It's a continued public hearing. Uh, NOI file 15-2827 810 State Road, map 163, lot 31, 32 and 35. The owner is Kevin Maderos.

Representative is Kevin Silva, SNK Engineering LLC. The proposed project is a construction of multifamily apartment complex with associated parking, grading, landscaping and storm water infrastructure. And the resource areas involved is a 100 ft buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland BVW.

And the regulations involved are 310 CMR 10.02 10.55 as well as section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

Moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Is there someone here this evening on behalf of the applicant? I see Kevin is here, but um I should be clearer.

Yeah, Kevin Buros is here. Sorry.

I am. I'm I'm filling in for Kevin Silver. Um, thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Kevin Maderas. Uh, so we've been working diligently with uh Paul Dart from DPW along with Jennifer. Uh, we made some modifications that they recommended. Um, and I I think uh they we we received an approval letter from the DPW, so they're satisfied. And I and hopefully uh Jennifer is satisfied. So, we're looking for a vote tonight, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. As I recall, that was the that was the holdup from the last meeting that there was some issues that DPW wanted addressed in their letter came the day of the hearing. But um anyway, uh Jennifer staff's recommendation on this request, please.

Sure. So, the concerns from um our peerreview consultant u Mr. Raposo have all been addressed. um he issued a final final letter saying everything had been addressed um a couple of weeks ago and as Mike indicated I'm sorry Mike and Kevin um the concerns from DPW engineering have also been addressed um or worked with their engineer uh yesterday to make a couple of changes to the erosion controls um that was for in

terms of site development so that um we can be comfortable with the types of erosion controls that are in place. They made those changes. So, I think everything's been addressed from our perspective and um we feel comfortable recommending approval at this point.

Okay. So, we're going to be recommendation will be for the issuance of an order of conditions. And what are the conditions that staff's recommending for this project? It would be the standard special conditions for a commercial site.

Okay.

Does any commissioner have any questions?

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

I'm not hearing any, but if anybody sees a hand raised, please let me know.

Okay. So, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing since there were no responses to the call for questions or comments.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Commissioners, on this matter, I'll entertain a motion to issue a standard order of conditions subject to our standard special conditions for commercial projects. And that's on U D File 15-2827.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you everyone. Thank you Kevin and good luck.

Thank you very much.

Number three. It's a continued public hearing on D file 15-2829.

That's 21 Rockland Farm. It's map 118, lot 133.

And the owner is Caen LLC. The representative is Jeffrey Coutur from Scitec. The proposed project is the construction of a 266 foot pileup supported dock and float system located on Clark's Cove. The resource area is land subject to coastal storm flowage, land under the ocean, coastal beach land containing shellfish, rocky and tidal shore, 100 ft buffer to coastal bank and within both estimated and priority

habitat. The regulations involved are 310 CMR, 10.02 10.25 10.27 10.30, 30 10.31 10.34 10.37 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaw.

I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

Second.

Second.

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

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes. My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. The applicant has requested a continuence until our next public hearing September 15, 2026.

Does staff any have any comment regarding that request?

Just a couple of quick notes. So um this one we were waiting for feedback from the harbor master and um we also had some concerns about the intersecting property lines along that section of the shoreline. Um, so they're still waiting to hear back from Harbor Master. Um, and um, the applicant may be moving in a different direction entirely. So um, in the meantime, the engineer has asked for

at least um, twoe continuence um to September 15th and they hope to have um, a little more certainty on the direction of the project at that point.

Very good. So, commissioners, I'd entertain a motion at this juncture to continue the public hearing on D file 15-2829 at the applicant's request until September 15, 2026 at 7 p.m.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes. My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Our fourth public hearing is also a continued public hearing. NOI file 15-2830.

That's zero Gulf Road. That's map 35 lot 31 on I guess space one. The o owner is Margaret Ketrick Revokable Trust and the representative is Brandon Barry Merl Engineering and Land Surveyors project is the alteration and extension of an existing gravel access road.

Installation of utilities and construction of a single family home on the upland portion of the parcel with 483 square ft of wetland take to a wetland crossing for the um driveway and 1,000 square ft of wetland replication.

The resource area is 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland BVW and land subject to coastal storm flowage. The regulations involved are 310 CMR 10.02, 10.04 10.55 as well as section 360-2, the town of Dartmouth bylaw. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

I'll second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

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

Uh, yes. Good evening. For the record, Tim Santos from Merill Engineers representing the applicant. With your permission, I'd like to share my screen.

DCTV, please let Mr. Santos share his screen.

Hoping everybody can see that.

All righty. Um again, Tim Santos from Maryland Engineers representing the applicant. This project was before you, I believe, three or four weeks ago. Um at which time there were some questions in regard to the plans and there was some discussion back and forth with um with the agent with Brandon and the agent. So, uh, I'm just going to go quickly over some of the modifications we've made to the plan and then address

any questions you might have. So, I'm sure most of you are familiar with the property. It's about a 20 acre property.

It's well off the uh, Gulf Road and it's this kind of vacant land to the rear that the applicants looking to develop.

There's currently a driveway that comes down through the access. And then what we have here is a stream crossing. So during the last hearing there were some questions in regard to the compensator compens compensator flood storage calculation tables. Um so we kind of updated those tables to make it a little easier to read and understand. We also added some um temporary sandbag diversions. So when

they replace the the culvert first culvert, we'll put some bags in divert the stream to what I'll call um you know culvert 2. Then once that's replaced, we'll put re relocate those sandbags.

And then while that culvert 2 is being replaced, everything will go up through culvert one. So those were kind of the main changes that took place on our plan. Um there was also a request to update the wetland replication plan with some additional construction notes. Um there was a discussion between the agent and Brandon in regard to some construction sequencing. Uh we discussed that the crossing and the driveway

improvements would be done first and then once that was all done and in place the rest of the site work up in the upland area would be um would be completed. Uh the agent also asked about a dewatering plan. We have no issues with a condition being placed on that a dewatering plan needs to be submitted to the agent for review prior to any construction or work taking place. So, we have no problems with that. We

believe we addressed all your open comments and concerns. So, we're hoping the board can close this hearing and approve the project tonight. If you have any questions in regard to the revisions, I'd be more than happy to address them.

Sorry about that. I had muted myself.

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

Um, so I appreciate both Tim and Barry's work on this project or I'm sorry, Brandon's work on this project. Um we um did go through a number of items um that I wanted added to the plan. Um they've added those all in. Um so with some additional special conditions on top of the standard special conditions for a single family build. Um because this does involve a stream crossing. Um I feel comfortable recommending

approval. Those additional special conditions would relate to wetland replication, stream crossing, stream diversion, compensatory flood storage, and dewatering.

Very good. Does any commissioner have any question?

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

I'm not hearing any um commissioner or anyone in the audience. So um I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for D file 15-2830.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. Commissioners, on this request, I'll entertain the a motion to uh for the issuance of a uh order of conditions with our standard residential uh conditions al special conditions along with the additional special conditions as articulated uh by Jennifer uh in this evening's meeting.

Second.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Thank you for your time. Have a great night.

You too. Our fifth public hearing is a new public hearing. Uh, NOI file 15-2834 3 Raphael Road, map 110, lot 157. The owner is Rosa Ingress. I'm probably butchering your name. I'm very sorry.

Um, the representative is Peter Cruz from CAB Engineering Solutions, Inc. The project is the construction of a single family house and pool area with associated driveway, patios, walks, landscaping, grading, and utilities within the 100 foot buffer to a bordering vegetated wetland BVW. The resource area uh is the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland BVW and the regulations are 310 CMR 10.02 10.55

as well as section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaw. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes. Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

And on behalf of the applicant, I see Mr. Cruz is here. Peter, you have the floor.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. Just requesting permission to share on Zoom.

Yes. Uh, please DCTV, let Mr. Cruz share a screen.

should be able to share now.

Let me know if you can see the screen.

I'm the worst person to ask that. So, I haven't seen anybody's screen. So, we can see it.

Okay. Thank you, Jennifer. Um, for the record, uh, my name is Peter Pierce, uh, president of CAB engineering solutions.

We're located at 25 Diamond Street, Sweet 202, uh, New Becky, Mass 0270.

And, uh, we meet tonight is the Apple.

Um, again, this is for the Mass DP file number SCE 152834.

Uh, and I'm here tonight to present um this project located at 33 Raphael Road at 110 block 137 for the construction of a new single family home and associated Floodway, the uh proposed utilities, an outdoor patio area and inground pool and the um the erosion controls being proposed in the projects. Um just to sort of go over and give you guys some um some some bearings here of where

we're at. Um the the property is roughly uh 2.15 acres. Um the site was far uh was forested. I believe it's coming somewhat cleared um um by the developer of the subdivision.

Um the uh uh to the south we have the subdivision road, Raphael Way. Uh to the west we have the resource area, the BBW.

Uh to the east we have the subdivision lot three. And to the north we have our budding neighbors that are faced on golf.

um uh the project that we're proposing. Um as you can see from the uh the plan in front of you, the uh our lot consist of mostly wetland with the buffers that takes about 3/4 of the buildable world area on the lot.

um the existing topographic of the uh the site. Um we have contour 71 and everything slopes towards the towards the north um down on down on elevation 69. So we have roughly a um a 3 foot two foot threeft drop in elevation. Um we're proposing to build a 4,000 square foot home uh which uh about 4,400 square feet of that house would be within the uh BBW.

Um uh and then we have the associated grading along um the um the east side here uh for the driveway um and the erosion control to protect any sentiment to make it down to the uh the BDW.

Um and I believe that's pretty about it.

I think uh we did get a couple of comments back from uh the board of health and Adam um uh and planning um which was uh really regarding really not the plan about the covenants for the lot uh which the developer seller um is trying to resolve with planning. my my uh the applicant did reach out to me once uh she heard that it was an issue with the covenants.

So uh she's been proactive in uh coordinating with the developers and to the best of my knowledge the developer and the seller um have reached out to you and can set up a meeting to discuss that issue. That concludes my presentation and be able to follow to the boardings.

Thank you, Peter. Um, Jennifer, I'd like to hear staff's comments regarding this application.

Yeah. So, um, Eduardo and I did go out and visit this site. Um even though the wetland line was it is still currently an approved wetland line um under the subdivision um I'm not familiar with the site and um I always like to to see the sites beforehand so I can get familiar with it and answer any questions that you or the public might have. Um, a couple of items of note that relate um,

more I guess more broadly to the subdivision um, order of conditions as that the erosion control barriers are being maintained on the property including on this lot. Um, so there was some initial site clearing done for the overall subdivision um, for the for the parcels. They've uh a good portion of them have reveated except for the two currently under construction only one of which has an order of conditions with

the Hong Kong. The other one is outside jurisdiction and then this would be the third one in the um subdivision under construction of approved. Um but we need to see those erosion control barriers maintained um both for this lot and the other lots um and around the subdivision in general like the roadways um and the storm water basins. And then the catch basin inserts or the catch basins themselves have been

paved over with the binder course. There are no catch basins except for at the end of the roadway at Bakerville Road.

Um those need to be reestablished and catch basin insert bags need to be put into those. um the storm water infrastructure is not um easily identifiable or visible. So whether it's not been constructed or just hasn't been maintained like it's completely overgrown. Um and Eduardo and I were not able to easily locate those. Um and then the stone construction pad at the lot under jurisdiction um is it's in place

but it's not being used. So they're accessing the site through um a different portion of the frontage. Um so there's a number of items that we really need to work on with the developer and um as Peter indicated um there's a covenant lot issue that needs to be addressed. Um, I don't know that it's really fair to this applicant to hold up their order of conditions based on a subdivision issue, but I do think um,

you know, I so I guess my recommendation would be for the commission to approve the project as submitted. Um, but to have a couple of special conditions specific to these items being addressed for the overall subdivision. Um, and then for the covenant law issue to be resolved prior to uh staff signing off on the building foundation permit and that's like our our pre-construction type visit

is usually contingent upon these type of items being addressed.

Jennifer, I have a question. Um, I I I understand the um the problems on the subdivision at least based on your observations in Eduardo's.

Um, and you're right, it does seem a little bit unfair to a an applicant to say your subdivision has some problems when they're only one of the lot owners or potentially one of the lot owners. But, you know, it is an issue and um I'm just thinking out loud, you know, we could if we voted that and made that a condition with these conditions having to these addressed before before the uh installation of a

foundation. Is that is that reasonable and doable um or is it just the before the issuance of a building permit?

I think uh from my perspective either one is fine. It's going it's ultimately going to impede the process of moving forward with constructing the home until these items are addressed and and they really should be addressed especially the Cupnell issue. uh the the erosion controls for this specific lot is part of our pre-construction. We wouldn't approve construction proceeding without

the erosion controls being in place anyway for that specific lot, but it really should be done for the entire subdivision and like the storm water basins being paved over. That's um definitely unusual. Um those should really be in place um reestablished.

I've heard of them being paved over with the binder course, but they usually get uh cut out and reestablished right away.

There's seems to have been going on for some time.

I'm just curious how, you know, wouldn't that that would impact the issuance of a um certificate of compliance for the other lot or lots that have that are within our jurisdiction.

Um, so it's really an issue that I think needs to be addressed between these owners and the developer. Um, because I I don't think it's fair to the owners that the developer is has not done what they're supposed to do and it's now causing them some issues with the town. And frankly, if they're not addressed, there'll be issues with the develop with the homes. And we'll be getting the DPW will be getting calls to

try to solve a developer problem, um, which isn't fair to the town.

Um, so, okay. I I'm thinking, can I ask a question?

Is there a time frame, Peter, uh, that they're looking for the foundation to go in? That's why I asked the question because sometimes you want to get it in now and you're going to then you can deal with these other problems and but you're not going to be able to build a house until they deal with the other problems.

Mr. Chair, um you do have a we do have something scheduled towards the end of this month. Uh it's uh scheduled uh depending this approval. Um the applicant does have um a fun or a reputable contractor um can be doing the work. Um she pretty well known and I mean by the books. So um she's looking to get those uh foundation the end of September right after the 21day appeal uh and start start the work. Um

so I I just wanted to sort of circle back way Jen are these conditions that the developer has onsite going to affect our client in any way where if we keep our site site clean uh you know maintain um we we have no control of when this developer is going to fix all the issues that you listing which I have passed to uh the applicant and who is going to

reach out to the uh the owner and developer uh to say these are the issues you have to address. I imagine and I think you copied lot Mr. Lemur on that too. So, um I I just, you know, I just want to make it clear that, you know, we're going to be doing the right things and putting in our all our erosion patrols for the plan. Uh that's in front of you tonight. We're going to be

maintaining this. Um we're we're not going to be cutting cornings. I know this development personal personally.

done about 40 to 50 jobs with him now and so I think he's very reputable and he's going to really keep on maintain a really tight summit here and to be uh very honest to be sort of held up due to the developer which no one on this board myself or the applicant can you know sort of push them to get stuff done. um you know he could come down and DPW new

gen finding them but again we have no control in that aspect if we you know I would have I I would say if if it was centralized to our our lot and we weren't maintaining it for our order conditions that would sort of make sense you know I I don't see my applicant going down the road cutting out catch basins or cleaning catch basins or anything updating whatever erosion controls that have been um deemed um

unacceptable. Uh so I mean we can only control whenever he's on lot three I mean lot two sorry. Um so I just was wondering if you know anything to do with the subdivision because we we made off our order conditions and just deal with what we have on so we don't impact our construction snow.

Yeah. Um I Jennifer I got a question.

Did the developer who got the order of conditions get a certificate of compliance?

Um, so that's a great question, Mike. I have not checked on that for the subdivision because typically so at least in my experience, we wouldn't issue an a certificate of compliance on a subdivision till all the homes are constructed and the final course of pavement is done.

uh have seen this in one other subdivision in Dartmouth where the certificate of compliance was issued prior to the home the final course. So I agree with you. I think what you just described is the proper course of action, but I'm also aware of the fact that sometimes that isn't always honored. to go to Peter's point. Um, if there hasn't been an issuance of a certificate of compliance, then Peter,

your client's got a title defect because that that'll have to be noted. There's an outstanding order of conditions with potential violations on it. And so, it impacts all the lots. So, those lots are transferred subject to that order of conditions, which hasn't been accepted yet. Um and if one of the conditions that was in that original order of conditions was the maintenance of those

um storm water facilities, that does become a problem. Usually the town would require that there be a homeowners association as part and parcel of the approval of the um subdivision. And it's that homeowners association that be responsible for the maintenance. And that would be including the restoration of the erosion control barriers, catch basins, etc. And most homeowners associations just charge each lot owner

for the costs. So you divvy it up between all the lot owners. And that's how those things usually get done. So there's a little bit here that's sort of troubling to me how how it got this far um without that having been done. So, um, at least I I'm not sure um how it happened, but I and I understand your client's point. Look, I'm only wanting to buy one lot, but it's one lot within

a development that was approved with an order of conditions that affect that lot. So unfortunately the things that Jennifer mentioned are important to the issuance because we have a history here of in many cases not really issuing a certificate or excuse me an order of conditions when there um is an outstanding order of conditions with no certificate of compliance. So we've often asked that that be done. And I

know we've done it um we've done it on the ex Elm Street extension, the little development out there with what 14 homes that tied up a uh a few lots because there were things there were things that were done incorrectly on that Elm Street extension and the order of conditions wouldn't or couldn't um be closed out. So, I think we need a little more information on what's going on with that old order of

conditions before we can properly address this request. At least my opinion. I I'm more than willing to condition um the issuance, but it's going to have to be on, as Jennifer said, if you want those off, we have to do some more digging to find out what we got out there.

Yeah. And I I if I could just add to that, Mike, I I think the covenant lot issue is is a significant one. This lot was supposed to be the covenant lot, the last lot released under the planning board decision for this subdivision. Somehow, this lot was sold um and not held back as the covenant lot. So the developer needs to address that through the planning board either by putting down an additional

bond or putting another lot as the covenant lot. Um so that that also needs to be addressed and um it's important because it affects how this subdivision is completed which is not only important to the town but each of those individual lot owners. So, we're, you know, this is, you know, all of the departments trying to ensure that the residents in that subdivision are protected and that

the storm water infrastructure is built and maintained properly so that when the HOA takes it over, they don't inherit a mess. Um, which affects the town as a whole.

Yeah, I I I agree with you, Jennifer. I mean, I'm that's why I was a little I'm a little surprised that the developer didn't address all these things. And I I live in a development which got to the point where things that were supposed to have been done weren't done. and the developer said to the town and went back up north around Boston and there were lawsuits going all over the place. Um, including

I don't I wasn't involved in it, but I was told so anecdotally against the town for releasing the bond before the work was done.

So the homeowners were stuck with having to do developers work in order to get the what they wanted which was in many cases I'm just you're asking for Peter because we have wetlands all around us.

So before they could get anything they had to do what the developer should have done and the developer was let off the hook by the town and I don't think they'll do that again um because the work wasn't done. I'm just concerned because I don't want to have another situation like that. It usually leads to litigation and nobody wins then.

Very true. And I would say, Peter, from your perspective um and your client's perspective, you know, we'll obviously be reaching out to the developer and um assuming to Mike's point, we will look into see whether a COC was issued for that subdivision. assuming it hasn't been, we would also be looking at, you know, enforcement violation um notices with the developer. Um but that could

also lead to a cease and assist being issued which again halts and effects activities happening on each of those lots.

No, I appreciate um the town's concern and comments and brought up.

I would like to proceed with if you guys want to put those conditions on the approval. Uh I I'll work with the applicant. Um I think think we have the common aspect of it. Um but the other stuff, like I said, Jen, I think we'll we'll push them. we try to push that home, you know, that email that can be sent to all all the open items that you

and I want found on site, we will we'll do our part to help the town and try to push that get the development to uh make right of it. Um and you know, I think the covenants in talking with uh Mr.

GIOSA uh in planning. I think we we have that somewhat um we have a better understanding of what's needed and I think the applicant like I said has reached out to uh the developing and the seller to get that resolved. um machine. So just unfortunate that oh I understand your client your client's innocent to the problem and unfortunately they're they're you know it's almost like guilt by association. Um but you

know this this issue really affects every lot in the subdivision. Certainly the the covenant with the planning board does and as far as the uh order of conditions, it most certainly does because it affects the ability for that road to be considered um appropriately uh constructed. And quite honestly, the issues aren't really just to be mean to people. But, you know, if this wasn't if

this isn't done right, isn't maintained, every property owner there is going to have issues with water, and they're going to be looking at the town to fix it and say, "How could you let us get build here? Look at this." You know, you have to send DPW down to fix the problem. They really was a developer problem andor a homeowners association problem. So my question would be and Jennifer I guess maybe Dan Giosa has the

answer. Is there a recorded homeowners association? Who's in charge of it? And how much money do they have to do all this? Because my guess is they haven't been assessed very much. The developer will wait till the last lot sold and then let them worry about making up the shortfill on the amount of money they need to do the work to maintain the subdivision and I mean this this is one of two lots

of tumble the funding so this will be another issue for another lot so well it's just going to keep coming. So, well, I um you know, I appreciate the explanation, you know, Mr. Chad.

Oh, you're welcome. I I just want to make sure that you know, your clients, I know disappointed because of all this, but she'd be more or they'd be more disappointed if they ended up with a house that's submerged because of things that they didn't have any control over.

Um, and I just think that, you know, let the developer do the job that they were supposed to do. And, and I think it's important, this is a good lesson for anybody that's listening, your homeowners association, don't always go with the cheapest monthly assessments.

Go with the right amount so that you can get the job done and maintain what was originally constructed to the standards they were constructed to. um because otherwise you're just going to beg for a bigger problem down the road and I don't know if the town is even enter would even entertain accepting the road but they certainly won't with those things still outstanding.

So it would it wouldn't even be an a blip on the horizon until all that's done.

And I know Peter, you know what I meant when I said that, but for those in the audience who don't, uh, there's probably a private road and the private road is owned by the association who has all the obligations of maintenance, including snow removal, etc. And in order to have the town do all that, the town has to accept the road. And it won't do it under ordinary circumstances. it has no

no obligation to do it, but it won't do it unless the road meets all of DPW standards, including uh storm water and associated uh amenities. So, it's really in the best interest of those lot owners to put and I think more than your client, it should be all the other lot owners to put some pressure on this developer and the town can put pressure on them too. And that's planning because if there's any other

vacant lots that haven't been sold yet, they're not going to be.

He really shouldn't be selling lots that are in violation of the covenant. That's a really big no no.

And I I saw Eduardo put a note in the chat that he's fairly certain this one doesn't have a certificate of compliance. Um but we'll we'll check tomorrow. Yeah, I'm going to be sure because it it really has a major impact um even on the people who've already begun working on their homes.

You know, it's uh it shows it should show up in any title examination. it'll show up in the letter and in most cases um people who proceed without assurances that the order of conditions will be closed out with a certificate of compliance. In other words, that the work has been done or the money has been put aside to do the work. uh they proceed at their own peril because they have problems.

Anyway, um if I I'm inclined, Peter, just to say let's see, let's let's push this off for two weeks, but if we have to in two weeks time, uh which is our next meeting, um if we haven't gotten some some developer asurances of what's being done, these conditions really I think are a must.

And your client, I would be remiss if I didn't say this, but I think your client has to think long and hard about whether they want to sink money into building without this being addressed because they could be putting themselves in the crosshairs.

U I'm okay with continuing with that. the board would like uh to give us another two weeks or or give the county two more weeks and give the advocate and myself uh some time to reach out to the developer and tell them give them how this is affecting our plans to develop this.

Yeah. And it may affect their ability to sell any future lot if they have any left.

No, I think they're all sold off last month.

Okay.

Well, you know, they're going to they'll be sold off, but when when there's a problem um like enforcement orders in those lot owners with their existing homes or partially constructed homes, the developer would be looking at a host of lawsuits.

That ain't I mean that's because someone's going to have to do the work and pay for it and the developer is the one who should have done it. that's that was their obligation to to the people they sold to. And uh again, I I would look in into um you know with the town would only know whether the homeowners association was created and I bet they did create one and it is recorded and

I'll bet the developer is in charge of the homeowners association because they usually don't part with control until the last lot is sold.

If the last lot has been sold, they're probably long gone. But the lot owners would have to have elected a board. And then the question would be okay homeowners association how um who who is the treasurer and how much money has been allocated for doing what's now obviously needs to be done the storm water infrastructure uh catch basins reestablished um etc etc and if there's no money

there's going to be a big assessment for each lot to do it and people are going to be saying, "Who can I sue to get my money back and to be the developer?"

So, you know, that's that's just a little stick to use, but I'm sure you start with a carrot. But, you know, this is really the developer's responsibility.

They should have made sure they were maintaining these structures in proper fashion. And they should have helped these lot owners by telling them, look, here's the budget. Here's how much money I spent to do it. You guys are going to have to do it periodically. So, this is the budget. You're going to have to assess each other for this for the taxes on the roadway, etc. Whatever it is, I mean,

you can't expect people who are buying home lots to know how to run a homeowners association unless they've already been involved in one. And that's my two cents and I'll get off my soap box.

So, uh, anyone else in the audience that wants to be heard?

Any other commissioner that have been monopolizing this conversation? I'm sorry. Well, my only uh comment would be the uh continuence again in two weeks, especially with Labor Day coming up and u I I don't think these things are going to be resolved in two weeks. I' I'd ask if the representative would uh agree to put this off to the first meeting in October.

When is that date, Jennifer, if you have it? I don't.

Sorry, I believe it's October 6. Let me check real quick. Yeah, it's the 6th of October.

Um, you heard what uh Commissioner uh mentioned. Is that acceptable?

No, I I did I did hear that. I know we have a a really tight schedule. Um, I' I'd like to just continue it from the next two weeks to see what information we can find as a team there. See what the town can find and what we can find out from the developer and at least, you know, worst case scenario, we continue it for another week, but at least we can

report back in two weeks what we have um from our end and maybe uh Jen and the other department heads may have come, you know, find something else. And I think at that point maybe uh this board can make a decision to maybe uh table it for another two weeks or um um go ahead and and approve it with all the conditions that uh Jen has mentioned and possibly any other conditions that uh I

say the building department or BPW or even planning has. Um you know I I I I'm okay with that. I I'd rather just see if we can table it for two weeks. um maybe still try to save this window of opportunity to get a foundation in it.

Maybe maybe the developer will we'll upright the ship and get things completed within a in a timely fashion to to to allow us with our conditions on this permit be able to get a foundation permit to be able to put that in before the winter.

Um, yeah, Don, I think your point's well taken, but I also understand Peter's.

Um, and I would think that I'd be inclined to say it's okay for the two week extension, but um, at the at the end of the two weeks, um, barring recommendation from staff, we have to vote. So, there wouldn't be a further continuence. Um, and if we vote, we would impose all the conditions that Jennifer had outlined in her recommendation, which I know Peter doesn't really want or his client doesn't really want, but

that would probably be what course we would take. Um, and then vote yes or no on it. But I I'm I'm inclined to agree with you though, Donald. Uh, you know, it's going to be tight, but if they can do it, they have a tight window for de for the foundation. I get that, which is why they're trying to um get back before us as quickly as possible. But um until these are

resolved, I I stand on what I said earlier, um Peter's client is taking a risk, putting a foundation in without these things being resolved. So, um it's a risk that personally, you know, I would be a little bit leerary of if it were me, but it's not my money. Um and like we could probably have a discussion next week when I do lead group with her. Um we will be very

transparent to tell you we are you know we we're going to see the foundation and we're going to hold off uh until maybe next to resolve all the issues that I understood. Listen, I I again, like I said, it wasn't my money, but I I just wanted I just wanted Donald to know that, you know, the recommendation this evening was to issue a standard order of conditions with our our standard

residential uh special conditions. And then there was a series of I guess you'd say special special conditions involved here. And uh that's when Peter gave us a little push back saying, "Wait a minute, those are not my clients responsibilities. They're the developers." And that's why we're doing this hiatus here of two weeks to see if some of those issues can be resolved.

But there is an opportunity to issue the or order of conditions if it's so voted subject to all of the special conditions including those articulated by Jennifer which again it p it it it puts a burden on Peter's client. Okay. It really does because they um they proceed at their peril and um there's a possibility there'd be a big problem down the road. But that's their issue uh to deal with. We we can

only say what we just said. It's not up to us to, you know, say, "Hey, listen. I wouldn't do it if I were you, so you shouldn't do it." Hey, people have done things that I wouldn't do, and they've turned out to be good things for them.

So, I'm not always right.

But um anyway right.

Again, that was a good comment though, Donald. Um, does anyone else have any comments?

Is there anyone here this evening that came specifically for this matter that wants to be heard tonight?

I don't see any. Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion at this juncture uh to continue uh public hearing on DP File 15-2834 until our next meeting on September 15, 2026 with uh no further continuences unless recommended by staff.

So move second.

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

James, yes.

Liz, yes.

Donald, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, I think Peter, I'd reach out to uh Dan as well over in planning and rolling. I just want to say thank you for providing feedback tonight. See you guys in two weeks and hopefully we have some answers.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Have a good evening. Bye. You too. Our sixth public hearing is a public hearing on NOI file 15-2835 718 Reed Road map 179 lot six. The app the owner is Max Isacson and the representative is Rick Sharon Sharon Associates. Um it's for the construction of a garage with a residential dwelling above driveway landscaping and utilities. The resource areas are the 100 ft buffer zone to a bordering

vegetated wetland BBW and inland bank to Lake Nokachoke ordering land subject to flooding per 310 CMR 10.02 10.54 10.55 10.57 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. I know that Liz would have to recuse herself or ask to be recused on this matter. Um, so aside from Liz, I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading. Donald, we have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, Rick, I see you are here. So, you have the Mr. Chairman. Uh Rick Sharon for the record uh from Sharon Associates here on behalf of uh Max Isacson. Uh good evening to you and the commission members. Um this is a Can I um share the screen? I'll put the plan up on the uh screen.

Certainly. DCTV, please let Mr. Sharon share his screen.

Are you able to see that?

One of the other commissioners will have to speak.

No.

Okay, I'm hearing I'm doing something wrong.

My hell I just wait.

Okay.

How's that going?

Not yet. You're okay.

Yeah, it's up now.

Okay.

Sorry.

should have my grandson helping me with this stuff.

Yeah. Um this some of you probably familiar with this project because just um the end of June and two years ago uh an order conditions was issued to uh the estate of Paul Kataret and it allowed um a new home to be constructed on this site a little more central to the site pretty much where where you can see the container over in here in the center. Uh this proposal is a little less

ambitious. It's about half the footprint. Uh you see a a one-bedroom uh house that'll be located above a garage.

Uh this number one is a flood zone and uh No joke Lake was um uh is an Azone.

However, it has no base flood elevation designated for it. So, we spent a bit of time chasing uh FEMA and few other folks trying to get a a base flat elevation for this and uh really didn't have much success. Uh we finally did get a chance to talk with Eric Carlson at Mass Mass DCR and uh he indicated that um that the there's a simplified method in these areas where uh the designed flood

elevation is typically taken as 4T above the uh highest grade on the property. So on this on this property it's about 64.

Uh that would put us around 68 ft. Uh now designed flood elevation would be for habitable floor. Uh in this case the habitable floor is above elevation 73.

So uh what you're looking at here is a garage with storage and uh parking of vehicles on the lower level and then the uh residence on the upper level uh again above elevation 73. Uh so well above what would be considered uh designed flood elevation uh in this zone. Um the proposal has um um as I say a small house, one-bedroom house. It'll be connected to a town sewer and town water. Uh the connections are already

out at the front of the property. We have to make uh just tie into those.

We've got a uh um a water stop existing water shut off and we've got the uh sewer uh connection out there by the street by the utility pole that'll be extended in. Um, also, um, we've got, um, the the, uh, general area around the house, uh, being designated for just some some sprucing up to get some lowend seed. So, that basically fills in the rest of the area within what you see is

a limit of work, uh, which is this bold line right in here. And just outside that limit of work would be our siltation control. Um the the there was siltation control that was put up along the shoreline of the pond. Uh for the prior project, we're going to leave that in place uh and add a new one in here.

So basically there'll be two layers of protection. The old one is still in pretty good shape, but um it was suggested we take and relocate it in here, but uh I just think the uh the chance of damaging it, we're not going to have a we're not going to have a first glass siltation barrier if we do that. So, we're going to put in new material in here. We'll leave the other

one for the time being in place uh by the shoreline. You can see there's u in far in terms of resource areas, the dark blue line here is the edge of water that was measured uh in April of uh this spring. We had elevation 61.3 for uh for the lake. And you'll see your contours running up from there to about 63 and 64. Most of this lot is right around 64,

slightly under or slightly above in a couple areas. Uh but um uh pretty much a flat lot running all the way out uh to Reed Road. And you'll see also the FEMA zone A you see extends across the road at this location here. Uh all of this lot, there's a small portion of the adjacent lot that isn't in zone A, but basically all of this all the subject lot falls within that. In addition to

that, the underfoot buffer zone you can see runs all the way through here. Um I'm not sure if it's turned on.

I'm sorry it's not shown on here. That lay has been turned off. This is a front setback line here. But you can see the 100 foot zone would extend to here and then it because of the um because of this point right here and here. Uh it pretty much spills out this way. So basically all of the proposed work is within the buffer zone. uh for work during construction. Uh we would suggest

uh because we think we've got a fairly high water table here. We're only a few feet above lake level. Uh we'd have a dewatering silk trap so they could dewater and put the pump discharge into here. Uh we would also uh uh have a mud trap out at the street just so that during the construction phase any any of the uh uh vehicles construction vehicles running back and forth onto Reed Road uh

would not be carrying sediment out into the road. There is a small apron already right now a little paved apron. So they'd be going over that mud trap and then eating the paved apron before they hit the pavement on uh Reed Road. So that should work fairly well because I don't see extremely heavy material in here. There's no basement involved. Uh this is going to be frost wall construction. Uh so relatively minimal

disturbance uh to the site.

Um aside from that, that's that's the proposal. Uh one of the things that did occur, however, was that um uh there's a dock out there which we weren't aware of. Again, we did our work back in the spring and ended up in uh several months chasing um the wrong authorities trying to figure out what the what the designed float elevation was uh on the site. Uh when we got the plan turned in, the

owner had placed this uh relatively new dock in here in a boat lift in the water. Um we've added that in and um talking with Miss Miller about that. Uh she suggested that we file a new notice of intent uh for that rather than trying to combine it into this group. So we will be filing a new NOI for the private dock that'll be coming in within couple of weeks. Um, I think uh other than that

um I'll answer any questions you might have about the project.

Thank you. Thank Thank you, Rick. Um, Jennifer, I'd like to hear staff's comments regarding this application.

Well, we went out to um the site um you know, it's it's obviously a site that's been altered um you know, historically, even if it hasn't been um lived on in quite some time. Um so it is a relatively flat site. Um which is helpful given the the sighting within the flood zone and uh the lack of the ability to create compensatory flood storage uh really anywhere on the lot. Um initially for the initial submitt there

were um some additional additional contours showed with some Phil. Um Rick and I talked through that and he was able to redesign it to eliminate um the majority of um the fill around the building footprint and um he now has it shown in that small table with the cut and fill summary. Um so it's limited to about 130 square feet which is really small. um very minimal for um fill and

then uh there'll be 200 square feet of cut. So that creates a little more compensatory flood storage than it currently has, but certainly this is a very trivial amount um compared to what we see at most sites. Um the dock was one of the the major concerns um that we had seeing that it was installed um in the last couple of years. it's removed seasonally. Um, but we can see through

aerials that it's been there for a couple of years. Um, and that hasn't been permitted. Um, so as as Rick indicated through our conversation, my feeling was because that's an after the-act issue separate from the house um that that should be handled through a separate notice of intent and that way if there are any changes that need to be made um or any additional considerations for that dock um it won't impact

proceeding with the house. Um and then some of the other minor items um in terms of revisions Rick has already addressed. Uh so I feel pretty comfortable um with this one at this point. Um just a reminder Rick, we do need the hard copies of everything here for the office though um for both the NOI and the revised plan.

I'll take care of that.

Thank you.

Jennifer, are we talking about for the the issuance of a um order of conditions with our special conditions for residential?

Yes.

Okay.

Does any commissioner have any questions?

Not seeing any. Is there anyone here this evening that wants to speak on this application?

I'm not hearing any. I should have said that earlier. Um I don't hear any. So, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on D file 15-2835.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Richard, yes.

Yes. I'm sorry.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Commissioners, I entertain a motion to issue an order of conditions subject to our standard special conditions for residential.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes. My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Thank you, Rick.

Thank you all. Have a good evening.

Thank you. Um that concludes our public hearings. We now have items for discussion and also we can roll into the items for discussion the updates from staff which we um I guess tabled to allow uh an item for discussion on past command valley CR to be heard first.

So Jennifer and Eduardo, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Um, so I I know this has been a longer meeting. I'll keep it short as far as um updates. Um, we did go through go through the process uh Eduardo and I and the member of uh Cody's team, Melanie Perry, of interviewing several candidates for the administrative assistant position, which was um part-time.

Um, so um I don't know. I guess my feeling over the last couple of months is that uh we could really use a full-time admin role here um and was able to talk through that some more with Cody um earlier today. And so we're going to be readvertising as a full-time role um and hopefully um it'll draw in some more interest as well um so that we can um find find someone who wants you

know a longer term commitment here and um is willing to do full-time hours because I think that's where we'll end up eventually and I would hate to hire someone part-time only wants part-time and then be looking to go full-time. So, um that's the direction we're moving in with that. Uh which will delay us a little bit longer, but I think ultimately we'll be happier with that in the long run. Um that that's really the

only um update I have specific to our office right now.

Okay. Um appreciate that. Uh Liz, Jennifer, and I um interviewed a large number of candidates for the open vacancy uh that was created when um Nat resigned.

And um I will tell you this, the I was uh remarkably in a happy way uh stunned by the number of applicants and also by the quality of the applicants. Um there were people who um under you know ordinary circumstances you'd love to take them all on board but you can't. Um so I think we the three of us agreed that there were uh two particular candidates that stood out and I think uh Jennifer

if you want to amplify that but they stood out for different reasons. Um, and I think either one would be a tremendous addition to our conservation commission and our, in my opinion, we should probably um recommend both to the town select board and let them determine the candidate that they feel uh would best be suited for our commission. Um, and one of the candidates is somebody we had previously recommended, Jay

Talerman. So that's why we're we're uh, you know, we understand that there had been an issue before. Um, that issue for whatever reason uh made the select board have us go back to the well. Um, I don't know why, but they did. But again, again, Mr. Tangleman along with um the other applicant um just stood out to me as being uh outstanding and I'm I feel very good about that. The other applicant was

Alexi Rudman. Uh I may be mispronouncing her name. Uh she didn't have the same kind of experience that Mr.

Talman had in my opinion in terms of Mr.

Talman being a municipal attorney with emphasis on participation as a commissioner of a conservation commission in his former hometown. He's now a resident of uh Dartmouth, but she had tremendous scientific background, research, um very both very intelligent, very willing to serve, understanding the commitment on the hours. Um, I I will say that I I personally feel either one would be

excellent for this commission and I could live with the select board's decision on either one. But Liz, if you want to amplify or Jennifer, please do so.

Sorry, I didn't want to step on your toes, Liz, if you wanted to to.

No, I mean, I think Mike, I think you summarized it well. I think both candidates offer a much needed background in conservation and regulatory. I think both come from different backgrounds and can offer I think one of the things that I really liked about one of the candidates, Alexi, was her vision for what the conservation commission could look like in the future. I think she offered a lot

of really progressive ideas of how we could optimize as a group and some of the things that we could set forth as goals from like a fivey year, 10 year, 20 year plan perspective while and I wasn't on the interview for Jay Tyler, but my understanding is he has a little bit more um senior experience in um actually serving on boards. Um, so you know, he'd be able to come up with,

I'm sure, very quick, um, regulatory questions and be able to provide a lot of insight for applicants in live time. Um, I wish we could have them both. It's It's going to be a really difficult decision to be honest with you. I support both candidates unanimously.

Yeah, I agree with everything both of you have said. Um it was it was really nice to have um to narrow down the pool of applicants. I've been I think most of of the 10 years that I've served in this municipal role in other communities, you know, it's crickets when you have openings and can be months before um vacancies are filled. Um, so it was really refreshing to have, you know, a

pool of 10 or so different, um, interested candidates or applicants for this one Vegas one. Like Liz said, I I wish we although I I want I'm glad we have all of you present, I wish we did have alternates or something along those lines to offer um some additional capacity on the commission um with the interest that we have right now. So, um, you know, that being said, and knowing

that this meeting has run a little long, I'll just say I I agree that I think either of these candidates, um, Mr.

Tolivan or, um, Miss Rodman would be excellent, um, choices for the conservation commission, both providing different areas of expertise. Um and um I feel comfortable um with the commission recommending both uh as options to the select board and letting the select board make the ultimate decision on that.

We can't go wrong with either one, I don't think.

Does any commissioner have any questions comments observations about the recommendation from our little subcommittee?

No.

Okay. Uh, commissioners, I'll entertain a motion uh to recommend to the select board uh both Jay Talerman and Alexi Rudman um for their consideration as a commissioner of the Dartmouth Conservation Commission.

So move seconded motion. Roll call vote.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes. Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Do you have I think you had wetland site inspections issues and changing project parameters. Is that something you want to go through tonight? Um yeah, if we could just spend a couple minutes talking about it and then um based on feedback I will um well you either will or will not um put together for the next meeting um something more um like a better framework. Um, but basically in

in the time that I've been here and even during the interview process, um, I've felt that um, the wet and sight inspection process, one, it's it's very unique to Dartmouth. Um, and not something that I don't I don't think there's another community in Massachusetts that does it and and in talking with town council, they kind of agree. Um, and I just have some hesitation when it comes to

um, staff setting a wetland line, so hanging flags for properties. Um, and then also serving in the role of checking that wetland line or providing a recommendation to the wet uh, to the commission that that wetland line is correct. So, it's like we're we're on both sides of this in some cases um, when it comes to this process.

Um, I understand I I think the intent of of why the wetland site inspections were created and and some of the long-standing members here can correct me if I'm wrong is that when smaller projects come up like say um a septic replacement on an existing single family home um or a small addition or an above ground pool deck like those type of really minor projects truly a minor project on a single family residential

home. um it's like a a big lift or a big burden to ask that homeowner to go through the process of hiring a wetland scientist and an engineer um just to move this minor project forward. And so this was to help kind of ease that burden um to to allow those projects to move forward and just determine are there wetlands and if they are here's kind of the approximate area and just

making sure that the project is set well outside that area. Um but over time um that scope has expanded and and we're being asked to go out to sites sometimes two acres or more um to review or not just review but also set well in lines.

Um, and I think when it comes to like new construction for single family homes, subdivisions, commercial sites, those are really intended to go through the notice of intent process where we're not setting the wetland line. A wetlands consultant is setting that line and we're going out to check it and verify it. And on a bigger project for say a subdivision or commercial site, sometimes those want to we'd rather see

that go through an ANRAD process um and then a notice of intent and it's kind of skipping some of those um and it puts us in a precarious position. has come up recently that we've had a couple of sites that were delineated historically um through the wetland site inspection process and then um as we're asked to reexamine those sites for a different project, we find that the wetland line

isn't isn't where we think it should be and it puts us in this kind of conflict of well, we set this wetland line a few years ago and now we want to change it.

Um and I I just think we we shouldn't be on both sides of that fence. So, um I've talked with Cody about it. Um he agrees that we should look at um changing our process. So, we still would offer it for those minor projects, but really change the scope of what a minor project is. Um and just wanted to get some feedback from the commission as to whether you feel strongly One Direction or not. Um

answer any questions that you have.

Well, I think your suspicion as to how it all came about is right on. Um, and originally it was very very minor projects and it evolved over time it to where it is now and I'm not sure why.

Yeah. I I mean, so I don't have some of that history. And you know, I'm sure this is conversation that I I could have at some point in time with with Mike or Mark, but I think at the heart of it, it's how do we want to move forward? Um, and you know, so rather than revisionist history and looking at why we did it, just kind of figuring out how what's the

best way to move forward. Um, I took a look at back at the bylaw and the regulations just to make sure I was remembering things correctly. And um when I looked at the bylaw, it you know, it's it's funny. It says that um a minor project will be considered um as outlined below or the following. Um and then it doesn't make a list. It just kind of goes over how the wetland

delineation will be performed. Um so I I think there's some opportunity for us to kind of revisit that and to revise the form. Um we and obviously this isn't anything that's going to happen overnight, but I just wanted to have an initial conversation, get some feedback, um and then figure out our next steps for moving forward with that because because we do get a lot of wetland site inspection requests

and it does fill up our site visit um like our ability to perform site visits uh for other wetland projects. So, our active like NOIs that are under construction, um if we're busy doing wetland site inspections instead of a wetland consultants do that, we're not getting to recheck sites and then we end up with things like we saw earlier tonight where there's a subdivision that hasn't been

checked on in quite a while and there are things that need to be fixed and that, you know, hopefully we would catch early on um before lots start getting sold so that um we don't run into the issues that this homeowner is running into tonight.

Um, commissioners, I'd entertain your comments on that. I I for one agree with Jennifer. We should revise and make sure that we truly are only setting the flags for the very minor and our job should be more review what engineers have done rather than be the engineers on the project.

I trust Mike, I concur with you wholeheartedly where that's concerned. It would be much much easier for the commission to have it done that way. It would loosen up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Jonathan, your time uh for things that are equally as important, if not more.

Definitely well said.

I'm I understand. I'm sorry.

I said well said. Oh, thank you very much. First time today.

Well, I mean, again, how we got to where we are today, I'm not 100% sure. I think it just over time morphed into what it is. without any real understanding we were changing because the original intent was just as you described Jennifer for very minor projects because you know we couldn't see having to put somebody at the expense of going through the normal process for that small of a project and

whether we and we can discuss it later but I do think it's time to look at it revise Okay. So, um I will look at in the next couple of meetings, whether it's the 15th um of September or the 6th of October, putting together um maybe some a revised form would be a good place to start so we can agree on what the the scope should be, what qualifies as a

minor project, how we would change that, and then we can see if we need to adjust any of our bylaw or regulations to meet that. Jennifer, I'm wondering if we could do it uh on the 2nd of October.

Unfortunately, I won't be here on the 15th, but I'd like to hear what is said to give my input for what it's worth. Uh so, if you could do it on October 2nd if it meets with the other commissioners uh convenience and scheduling.

Yes, it it'll be the sixth, but yes, I you know, kind of like like Don was saying earlier, two weeks is going to go by really quick.

So, the six is probably more realistic anyway.

Yeah, I I I I think that's fine. I want you to be present, Richard. Um I want you to hear it because I I value your input and I think it's important that all the commissioners are able to u review and comment on so we get something we all agree with.

Fantastic. Well, thank you.

Very good. I don't have anything further, but if anyone has anything for the good of the order, let me know and you will be heard.

Hearing none, I was going to say seeing none, but I haven't seen anything. Um, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes. My vote is yes. Hey everyone, thanks for attending. I appreciate it.

And have a good night.

Good night every nice seeing you all again.