Conservation Commission Meeting September 15, 2026

Uh, so I am calling to order the Town of Dartmouth Conservation Commission meeting for Tuesday, September 15, 2026.

It's now 8 minutes after 7. Uh, we're conducting this meeting remotely because Governor Healey signed an extension for the hybrid remote meeting options to municipalities through June 30, 2022.

Our public hearings are interactive and the public can use the raise your hand feature uh in order to be heard. Uh this meeting was duly posted in accordance with both state and town of Dartmouth laws and our first order of business. We have a quorum tonight. So I want to first tell everybody we have a quorum of five. So all affirmative votes will require four that means 4 to one

affirmative 3 to two is is a negative.

Um our first order of business will be staff updates.

Um if we can hold those to the end that would be great. Um and then I just I'm trying to reach out to some of the engineers or consultants that I know are probably having issues with the links.

So, um I'm just going to mute myself and turn off my video while we go through the next like the wetland site inspections and the COC because Eduardo's going to handle those.

Yeah. Okay.

We're going to move on to the wetland site inspections, the terminations, and other business. The first item is a wetland site inspection for 12 Little River Road. It was a septic repair. Uh Eduardo or Jennifer, please give us your recommendations.

Um yes. Uh if uh can share my screen here for a moment, see okay, can everyone see this?

Yes. Okay, I can. Yes.

Uh great. So 12 Little River Road. Uh Jennifer and I uh did a site visit on um check my calendar here.

Believe it was

Wednesday the 16th if I'm not mistaken.

Um, and we there were no there were no wetlands on the property.

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

So just one one quick correction that it would be last Wednesday, the the 9th.

Well, yeah. I Yeah.

Yes. Yes. The 9th. I don't know why I said the 16th. Yeah. I'm already Well, because you're just trying to get through the week faster. That's all it Yeah, seems that way.

Does any commissioner have any questions?

Uh, hearing none, I'll entertain a motion uh to approve the wetlands line as delineated on the September 9, 2026 site inspection.

Some move.

Some move.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

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

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Our next is uh a wetland site inspection for 1541 North Hicksville Road. And that's also a septic repair. Eduardo, recommendation please.

Okay. Okay, let me just pull up the photo I have for that one. That one's 1251.

All right. Can everyone see that? I'm assuming.

Um, so Jennifer and I um went out to do this site visit um uh on September uh today's the 15th, so today the 15th.

Uh, and so the proposed work is um planning on taking place right around uh where I'm kind of hovering my um cursor there. You can kind of see that. And so, sorry, I'm There we go. Uh, and so there was an intermittent stream uh to the north of this parcel. Uh, and so we put a flags concom 1 through concom 4 to um mark the edge of that intermittent stream to the north. And that red line

that you see there is the estimated buffer zone from those four flags that we placed. Uh, so we're recommending the commission to approve that line.

Very good. Any questions from any commissioner? Please let me know verbally.

Mike, I don't know. I know you can't see right now, but it looks like it's like the image is partially frozen, Eduardo, and it's it's got like Little River Road on half the screen and the other half is blank.

Oh, really? Okay.

Um, let me see if I can stop the share and then retry it.

Okay, give me one second.

Okay. Did that fix the Yeah.

Okay. Great.

All righty. Again, any uh questions from any commissioner? Please let me know verbally.

I don't hear any. So, I'll entertain a motion uh to approve the wetlands delineation flags 1 through 4 as established on a wetland site inspection on September 15, 2026.

So, move second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Donald, yes.

Megan, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

The third item is a wetland site inspection, 750 Hicksville Road. It's a pool. Uh Eduardo, again, staff's recommendations.

Uh yes, I'm just going to open up another photo here.

Let me know if everyone can see that.

I think the same one is still up.

Okay, hold on one moment here. I'm not really sure why it's doing that.

Okay, how is that?

Everyone see that?

Okay. Uh, so Jennifer and I um did the site inspection on September 15th, 2026.

Uh and so there the applicants proposing a pool um partially in the patio area here kind of extending a little bit onto the uh lawn. U so Jennifer and I placed four wetland flags um to the south of the property over here. Um concom 1 through concom 4. Um so uh to delineate the edge of a bordering vegetated wetland. Um so we're um asking the commission to approve that line. There is no I should also mention

there's no buffer zone on this uh as it was very difficult to tell um where exactly through an aerial where exactly those points were. But this is basically the um general location of where those flags are but not the exact.

So the um whoever the engineer is will have to field locate those and put those on a plan uh at some point.

Okay. Do I have any questions uh verbally from any of the commissioners?

Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the the delineation of wetland flagging one through four as established on site wetland site inspection on September 15, 2026.

So moved, Megan, a seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Next is a wetland site inspection for 39 East Avenue is a septic repair. Eduardo staff's comments, please.

Um EDS. Um so, uh let me also pull up that here. Okay, give me one moment.

Okay, can everyone see that?

Yes.

Okay, great. Um, so Jennifer uh and I did the site visit last Wednesday as well, September 9th. Uh, and basically we flagged um the edge of a a wetland over here um to the east of this property um basically concom 1 through concom 7. The proposed septic repair is going to be happening right here in the middle of this lawn area over the back of the house. If you can kind of see

where my cursor is. And so they are within the 100 foot buffer zone of that wetland. Uh, another thing I also wanted to mention is that the there is flood zone off to the basically right around where one is. uh marks the edge of I believe an AE blood flood zone if I'm not mistaken and then kind of going off to V the further uh east you go. Um so we're um

asking the commission to uh approve uh concom 1 through concom 7 that wetland line.

Does any commission have any questions uh regarding the presentation that Eduardo just gave us?

I don't hear any. So, I entertain a motion to approve the wetlands uh line delineated uh flags 1 through 7 per the September 9, 2026 wetland site inspection.

So, move second.

Have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote.

James, yes.

Donald, yes. Megan, yes.

Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

The next item is a certificate of compliance request file 15-2762.

That's 21 Old Jetty Road. It's map 1717, lot 10. The owner and applicant is Darlene M. machine and the completed project was the installation of float in aluminum gangway.

Uh Eduardo, staff's comments, please.

Um I'm going to share my screen one once more. One more time here.

Give me one moment.

Way too many things open at the moment.

Okay, here we are.

Okay, so the applicant had an NOI um with us back in November of 2024 for this aluminum gang way and float that you can kind of well you can't really see from here but um this is an older aerial image uh but basically Jennifer and I went out to do a site visit on September 9th 2026 uh we found that um the based off the original um plans that the work was done

in sufficient compliance uh with the um plans of record. There was one note on the original plans uh that featured a um public access walkway uh right around this area right here. Um but after talks with the engineer David Nvan uh it appeared that waterways uh did not require them to build it. So that was not there but um uh everything else was in uh substantial compliance with the original uh plans.

So we're recommending the commission to um approve that certificate of compliance.

Any questions by any commissioner?

Hearing none, I obtain a motion to issue a complete certificate of compliance for D file 15-2762.

So move.

Second.

Have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

That's uh conclusion of page one. We're moving on to page two and the start of our public hearings.

Mike, if I can just make a quick note that uh typically we try to get the continuences listed on the agenda. So, if anybody's planning to attend um you know as a resident or an interested party that they know ahead of time that an item is going to be discontinued, but we had a few come in after the agenda was already posted. Um so, and they're to different dates. So, the first three are all continuences.

Okay.

Uh so if as everyone's just heard uh Jennifer the first three public hearings uh there have been request for continuances.

So if you're here for one of those you may wish to listen to see what we vote on but uh there's a probably uh a likelihood the continuence will be granted. So, your opportunity to speak would then be carried forward to the continued hearing date. You would want to wait and listen to hear what that date is because it won't you won't be given certified mail. Um anyway, first is a continued public hearing NOI

file 15-2821 and this is at 271 State Road, map 167, lot 101.

The owner is Ronan Drury and the representative is Andy Sergeant ET Engineering.

The proposed project is the installation of updated central vacuum stalls, payment kiosks, sight paving and buffer zone restoration work. The resource area is the 200 ft riverfront area, the 100 ft buffer zone to an inland bank. And the regulations involved are 310 CMR 10.02, 902, 10.53, and 10.58 as well as Town of Dartmouth bylaw section 360-2.

I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

Second.

Have a seconded motion. Roll call vote.

Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. U now there's been a request for continuance. Jennifer, do you want to give us an explanation as to why they're asking for a continuence?

Sure. So, uh this one's been off the agenda for quite a while. Um because they had continued over a couple of months. Um this is the car wash. Uh that's this is an after the fact filing for some site work that happened that was not um permitted. After meeting uh with um several of the department heads, it was decided that they needed to file with both ZBA and planning board in

addition to their filing that they had with us for the notice after the fact notice of intent. Um so they requested um a continuence till this date. Um because of some back and forth with the client and the engineer and some illness uh with the engineer uh things have not moved along with the planning department and the ZBA as they expected. So their timeline had to be adjusted. They just

recently submitted the planning board and ZBA. Um, so they are currently requesting a continuence to the November 17th meeting with hopes that they'll have all their feedback from planning board and ZBA by that time.

Okay. That h how long is it? How many continuences this had?

Uh, well, it's only been I think two or three continuances, but it was the after the fact was filed uh before I started.

Um, but they've done some lengthy continuances because I mean I I have to be honest to me out of fairness if this is to be continued again um I mean this evening I I think the applicant has to re notice all of the abutters.

I just think it's not fair to the abutters that they may not have any awareness of the fact that this is still an ongoing matter.

Okay. Um yeah, I don't I don't know that.

I mean, I guess unless they're willing to renotify that we would just have to issue a decision like a a denial at if we agree to this continuence and they're not ready at the November 17th meeting, it would be to issue a denial that would force them to refile for lack of, you know, for lack of action. Um, unless they're willing to renotify.

So that's November 17 they want, right? Yeah. So, we we have two meetings in October. Um, which for ZBA and planning, they probably won't have been heard um definitely for our first meeting in October. I don't know if they'll have been heard by the second meeting or they'll have a decision and that's why they opted for them no we only have one meeting in November.

Well, commissioners um and I know Donald's your point on this very well. I think you're right actually.

Um, uh, you know, I think if I, if they're going to get my vote to continue, it'll have to be with the condition that all the butters are notified certified mail um, and that they give us the green cards um, at the hearing or earlier if possible, but at the hearing. Um, and I also would want the notation that there's no further continuences at this point. You know, what they're doing is stretching us along until they

hear from other boards and commissions and they probably should just, you know, dismiss it without prejudice and refile once they know what's going on with the other boards. Um because it's now we've spent a good chunk of time just announcing the meeting, deliberating the continuences and um that's not an efficient use of our time. Uh nor is it frankly an efficient use of your time Jennifer and

Eduardo. Um so that's my feeling on it, but any other commissioner can certainly be heard.

Mr. Chair, I I agree. I I think especially with and I hate to have the bias, but I'm pretty sure this isn't a a second infraction on this particular parcel or business owner. So, it's definitely time to uh move the needle forward with this particular NOI.

Any other comments?

Again, I need them verbally because I can't see anybody.

I agree with sending out the registered letter or certified mail.

And if they I think you should make them make them show us that they did it before they even come to the meeting because if they say we'll bring it to the meeting and then they don't have it at the meeting, that's just even that's just a kick in the face. And so I want it before the meeting. That's my caveat.

Oh, I think it's a good caveat, James.

And I think it should be cuz like you said uh Liz these people you know doawle around and Jen as you said they t tend to stretch us while they wait for other things. So it's not I I I I think that's a great caveat to what I had been thinking. So uh what's the Jennifer? What's the uh Thursday before that meeting? What date is it?

Give me one second.

Uh the 12th, November 12th.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Okay, commissioners. Um, I'll entertain a motion to reluctantly continue this matter on D file 15-2821 until our November 17, 2026 meeting on with the following conditions. one that the applicant resubmit notice of the November 17, 2026 meeting uh to all abutters by certified mail and to provide the green cards so-called from such certified mailing to this office no later than noon on November 12, 2026

with the second condition being there shall be no further continuences.

And at that juncture, if they are seeking another continuence, the commission would either deny the requested relief or at the applicant's request allow the withdrawal of the application without prejudice.

So move with seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. Um, Liz, for this next matter, you're going to have to take the helm. It is going to be a continuence, but I can't I can't do it.

Understood.

Okay.

is pull up my notes here.

Okay. So, next we are looking at the continued hearing for notice of infile uh notice of intent file 15-2825 for zero state road. It's for map 53, 174 and lot 2, 24 respectively. It's for the owner Morgan Bloom uh care of Brandon Fenu Eco Ecosystem Solutions Incorporated and David Potter of Pair Corp.

The proposed project is the construction of a commercial automobile dealership with associated parking, grading, landscaping and storm water infrastructure.

The affected resource areas are the 100 foot buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland per 310 CMR 10.02 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of B Tartmouth bylaw.

I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So move.

Second and roll call vote. Donald. Yes, Megan.

Yes, James.

Yes.

And my vote is yes.

That motion passes unanimously.

And with the notion that this is going to be a continuence um yet again, we had some context with this two weeks ago, but Jennifer, if you wouldn't mind just um bringing us up to speed with where we stand on this particular filing. Yeah.

So, the applicant, as we talked about at the meeting a couple weeks ago, um on September 1st, um they're running into some issues with escalating costs for that fifth polygon of wetland replication area that's um disconnected from the other four replication areas.

Uh so they're in the process of gathering um quotes and and looking at different options to present to the commission for um a modification to that. Ultimately it'll come in as a request to amend. Um but first they need a good sense of um different options to present to the commission and the idea would be to present those before submitting a request to amend and understand which one is more favorable

to the commission. Um, so they're asking for a continuence just to the next meeting which is October 6th. Uh, they hope to have everything ready for that meeting.

Uh, and do you feel at this time confident, you know, after a few of these continuances that we've had with this particular hearing that they will be able to provide that information as necessary before that meeting?

I think there's been enough time. um you know un unfortunately if they're not ready what they've requested is to the 6th. So we have to continue to a date and time certain and we can't change it from what they've requested because they have to agree to that time.

So that's my long way around of saying hopefully the sixth but um yeah understood. Um, how many continuences is this going to be? Three.

Uh, this one's been around for a while, too.

I think it's more than that. More than that.

So, I think I think this one's going to get should get the same treatment, if not if not more, because this one I understand there's a lot going on, but you know, I was thinking about how Don felt the other week and these people are just, you know, stringing us along. No offense to us, but it's what they're doing. So, I think they need to get the same treatment as the last people.

Be ready on the six. If you're not, refile. Not our problem.

Plain and simple. That's how I feel.

Does any other commissioner have any thoughts on the matter?

I agree with James.

Okay.

um just if if that's the route you're going to go, can you just make sure to be um really to to list out the conditions so that it's in it's in the vote and I can relay that to the applicant and their representative.

Let me do my best here and feel free to interject if I miss something here, but I do tend to agree with the commission.

Um, so at this junction, uh, I would move to honor a continuence per the request of the applicant to the October 6th meeting, 2026 for the Conservation Commission with one order of condition that this will be the final continuence of the particular notice of intent and the applicant would therefore have two options which would be where we would have two options which would be to deny the application

altogether for a refiling or for the applicant to withdraw without prejudice uh to make their decisions going forward to allow them time to sort out what they need to with the fifth with the polygonal parcel that's been mentioned.

Uh, that is my motion. Uh, do I have a motion on the floor?

Yes. So moved.

Second.

I'll do a roll call vote. Donald, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. We're going to move on to number three, which is a continued public hearing for NOI file 15-2829.

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

The owner is Caen LLC, Patrick Carney, Senior.

Representative, uh, Jeffrey Cotier, Scitec.

Proposed project construction of a 266 foot pileup supported dock and float system located in Clark's Cove resource area is land subject to coastal storm flowage land under the ocean coastal beach land containing shellfish rocky inner tidal shore 100 ft buffer to coastal bank and within both estimated and priority habitat. The appropriate regulations in this matter are 310 CMR 10.02, 10.25, 10.27, 10.30, 10.31,

10.34, 10.37, and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. I entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So move second.

Have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Um, Jennifer, what is the uh reason for this requested continuence? And how many continuences have we given on this?

Um, I think this would be the third. Um but this one is a bit of a mixed bag I would say because it's both on the town side and the applicant side. So the last meeting um we talked about the applicant was looking at um considering changing uh the project scope. They've decided to stick with their original scope. Um part of what was uh requested at the last meeting where there was um a project

review with the applicant's representative um was to do some additional survey work that um division of marine fisheries had recommended. So that was some additional transexs related to uh shellfish and also uh eelgrass which was going to require diving instead of just uh above water uh work. So uh or low tide uh survey. So one is the scheduling component of that and then the other

piece is that we're waiting to hear back from the harbor master. So they've requested to continue to um October 27th to try and give with hopes that the harbor master will have gotten his comments to us uh before that date. Uh as you know the harbor master season uh should be closing out in the next couple of weeks. Um, and that'll give him more time to respond per the the policy we

have in place, which is after October 1st.

Well, you know, I'll say that my uh my concern is that we we're kicking the can down the road like the other two. And in this case, the difference would be the applicant is waiting for the harbor masters report which we've indicated we won't really be in a position to vote except a negative vote without it. So I understand the applicant's um desire to uh seek a continuence for this and frankly um

I do think that this is an innocent if there is such a word that can be applied to this request because the circumstances are within the town's control not the applicants.

I have a quick question in regards to this one. Doesn't this one have hair on it where they were going over different property lines, but they all own them or something like that?

Is that is that what the issue with the town is? Or is that going to come up and that's going to be another issue that they're going to all of a sudden be like, "Yeah, well, we didn't address that because we own these but we lease them out or I forget who, you know, the Carney family owns like half that peninsula over there anyways."

Yeah, they own most of it. Now my recollection James was that was brought up at the very first meeting as being an issue and we were told well this is all family related well then they need to still get authorization from the budding family entity and if they don't then we can't grant the relief and everything we're do that they're doing is for not but your point is well taken and

Jennifer maybe it would be a good idea for staff to remind the applicants professional they have to resolve the issue of if they haven't made a change and they're not changing the scope of the project then that issue still remains outstanding unless they've already filed the ascent or consent from the abuter so I think that should be a requirement for any continuence um that prior to the October 27th meeting and um

I would suggest earlier than the Thursday before that they file the u consent of the abuing land owner to this project so that we have yes so eliminated that title issue I mean otherwise we're they're asking permission to do work on somebody else's property typically we require for um revised or new documents ments. So, not the original submitt, but the any revised plans or additional documents like

you're discussing here. Um, we require to have them a week before. So, it would be the Tuesday prior to the meeting.

Okay. I might even want to go a little bit earlier than that because uh in my view, I don't want them to say, "Well, yeah, it's a family member. We can get that at any point in time. and we can't vote without it. Okay? And so that would be yet another reason for a continuence.

I'm not that's not going to be a continuence in my view because it should have it was addressed early in the very first meeting and here we are months later and it still hasn't been addressed. So I'm not going to wait till the bitter end to have it addressed.

I would want it addressed by by the uh Friday after our first public hearing in October. So, whatever date that is.

Um, let's see.

October 9th.

All right. That's when I would want it done. I would want to see that done because um you know I think that's out of sight, out of mind. Okay. And um they wanted this to be continued until what date?

The second hearing which is October 27th with the mindset that hopefully they'll have a response from the harbor master by then.

Yep. Okay. I mean, I think the 27th is an appropriate date for getting Harbor Master response, but I want to be sure that everything else that was discussed now months ago um hasn't been forgotten and we're looking at yet another continuence on the 27th because they don't have it in place.

This is actually helping them and I'm not trying to be ownorous here, but get it done. Get it done now while it's fresh in mind.

It's not that if this is truly all family, it shouldn't be that hard to get.

Unless it's dysfunctional, which I don't think it is.

So, any commissioners other than myself have any comments on this?

Nope.

I don't hear any. So, I'll entertain a motion to at the applicant's request continue uh public hearing on DP file 15-2829 until October 27, 2026 to enable the town and its harbor master to have issued a report on this matter uh with the condition that the applicant has to provide written uh evidence to the conservation commission by October 9, 2026 that the Abuter on whose land some of this project

is planned to be placed has given consent to the applicants doing so and that they will agree.

uh that an order of conditions if granted can be filed against their property as well.

So moved.

Yeah. Second.

Have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. And again, I'm not trying to be ownorous here, but you know, if you got an issue with the title, get it taken care of now. Um, so it's not something that Oops, we missed it. Can we have another continuence? Because that won't go over well. Um Mike just just so I can clarify typically you know if someone's proposing work on an abuing lot we would

need the signatures for the NOI and that additional parcel would be listed. So that's what you're looking for basically correct they would sign the owner authorization and and their lot would be added to the filing.

Correct.

Okay. And you know they you know people do vacation and travel and everything else. So they should get on it now because if they wait till the end they may not be able to get that signature and we've given them plenty of time to get it now. So they have you know almost the full month.

Our fourth public hearing is a continued public hearing. NOI file 15-2832.

It's UMass Dartmouth, 285 Old Westport Road, Map 49, lot 19, owner Jeffrey Martin. The representative is Christopher Garcia, GGD Consulting Engineers, Inc. And the proposed project is the construction of three basketball courts, the expansion of an existing parking lot with associated grading and storm water. It's on the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth campus located within the 100 ft buffer zone of an

isolated vegetated wetlands, bordering vegetated wetlands, and their associated 100 ft buffer zone. The resource areas are the 100 ft buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland BVW and the 100 foot buffer zone of an isolated wetland per 310 CMR 10 200 10.02 excuse me 10.04 and 10.55 as well as section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaw. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So move second. Have a seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Liz, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Is Mr. Garcia or somebody on behalf of the applicant uh ready to present?

Yes. Actually, uh Nathan Ketell uh tonight again. Um we were we had uh met approximately I believe a month and a half ago on the project. Uh if you want I can pull up drawings and and show them again. Um but I believe um my memory uh serves me correct. We were waiting for uh the peer reviews um final review.

Correct.

I I don't Yeah, I think that was correct. That's I'm looking at my notes.

I believe your memory does serve you.

What was comments?

Does the commission want us him to bring up the plans or are we good at this point with the conclusion of the peer review? So the u the peer review has been completed. All of the um comments from the peer reviewer have been addressed. Um and there are no additional comments from DPW.

Okay. I I I don't need u recitation a re-recitation of the uh proposal, but uh any commissioner who wants one certainly you're entitled to it.

I don't hear any. So, um, what is staff's recommendation, Jennifer?

We recommend approval with the standard special conditions. Um, and these would be similar to a commercial site, um, versus the single family dwelling conditions. So, um, because there are storm water involved, uh, there be some additional conditions.

Okay.

Any commissioner have any questions?

Hearing none. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to be heard on this application?

Again, hearing none, I'll 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.

Donald, yes.

Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to uh issue a standard commercial order of conditions.

So move.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, we're going now to number five, which is a continued public hearing. NOI file 15-2834 3 Raphael Road, map 110, lot 157. Owner Rosa, and I know I'm mispronouncing your name and I apologize. Representative Peter Cruz, Cab Engineering Solutions, Inc.

The proposed project is the construction of a single family home and pool area with associated driveway, patio, walks, landscaping, grading, and utilities.

It's within the 100 ft buffer to a bordering vegetated wetland. The resource area is the 100t buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland BVW. And the regulations are 310 CMR 10.02, 2 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. And um Peter, I think I saw you here. Yeah, you've got the floor.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the board.

Oh, I'm sorry. Stop. I've got to stop you. I'm I forgot. I've got to ask I have a motion to ask for the reading to be waved. So, I have a motion to wave the reading, please.

So, move.

Second.

Second.

Okay, we have a second motion on the floor. A roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Peter, now you have the floor. That was my fault. I'm sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, as you as you noted, uh, this is a continuence from last uh last uh last meeting. Um I'm just curious uh do you want me to repres uh represent what I presented before or um just go through um what we've discovered? I mean we've reached out to the developer uh and brought up some of the issues that did come up. Um and uh I think the developer was proactive. Uh I

think the the next day um the developer or the contractor on site did reach out to conservation uh to try to address some of the uh issues that uh conservation had. Um so I just would like to see what the board would like if I if you'd like me to uh present the the whole project over again just in case we do have someone in the audience that was not at the previous meeting. I will

definitely do that. um or we can discuss um any of the issues and topics that came up at the last meeting which were conservation related. I believe there was some some other uh um covenants was the other issue and some other various items too. So I just would like to see what uh Mr. sharing the board members would like to Well, I as if I recall most of the issues or according to my notes, the

issues that were involved were not um they were somewhat like you say with the developer particularly not specifically affecting your lot, but in general affecting the lots in the division. So I I personally don't need to see uh everything again or to hear the recitation of what your client proposes to do. I am more concerned with hearing the response to what had happened. But any other

commissioner that wants to see that plan or to hear again what uh was was being proposed, please speak up.

I don't hear any. If there's anyone in the audience here this evening for this matter and they would like to see the plan uh or have a a presentation made by Mr. Cruz of the proposal, please speak up.

I don't hear any uh when making that request. So, uh Peter, I think you can just start with let's address the questions that came up or the issues that came up.

I I think most of it was all the um and correct me if I'm wrong here, but a lot of it was the subdivision stuff. Uh I believe there was a a number of um concerns with um uh uh existing I'll call it existing slashproposed uh catch basins being cleaned over detention areas that weren't uh really maintained.

uh some of the erosion control uh within the site not being maintained. Um uh to to really speak on it, uh Mr. chair. Uh all I know is uh my client did reach out to uh the developer um and he did say he was going to engage uh the contractor to to um start updating and uh restoring uh these areas to the conservation's uh liking to be able to sort of uh help us

proceed with our project. Um, and then the covenants, I believe, uh, in talking with the applicant, um, they are working something out. I think the hold up with the covenants is really trying to get a, uh, construction estimate from DPW. Um, so I think we're waiting on that. Uh, and I believe the only two comments, Jen, and please step in, uh, that we have to address, uh, based on our

project is, uh, I believe, um, we have to label some some work, uh, within or actually add the 25 foot buffer zone to the plan and then update one of the callouts instead of pay bills. Um um Jazz would like to see u uh strong ones or compost patunes with some type of uh silk fence um along the grading uh along the grading. That was the only two comments and plan revisions that are

needed uh on our end. I don't know what correspondence Jen got from the developer, the contractor, but from what we did, we did we were proactive. uh right after the meeting we did make the the appropriate phone calls and um and engaged everyone and I believe they've been proactive.

Jen, I'd like to hear your comments on this please.

Yeah. So, um Eduardo and I as well as um the planning department and DPW engineering did meet the site contractor for the subdivision out um at the property and reviewed all the outstanding issues that uh Peter just went through as far as the lack of well the erosion controls are there but they have not been maintained um and it'll need to be muffled in order for them to reestablish the erosion controls. um the

when the binder coat was put down, they paved over the catch basins, which is fairly common, but they generally are reestablished soon after that. Um so right now they continue to be paved over, so they know they need to reestablish those and add and catch basin inserts. Um and then um maintenance of the storm water basin.

Um so I in my view um these items should be addressed before we're continuing to allow lots to be developed in this subdivision. Um I don't think they need to be all completed but there should be a plan of action to move forward with those from the developer. Um otherwise it puts us in a position of issuing an enforcement order with a cynicis which results in the same thing. It's going to

stop all work at the site. Um, and then so what we talked about at the last meeting was within the special conditions having all of the standard special conditions for a single family house, but adding to that that the issuance of the either the foundation permit or the building permit would be contingent upon um resolving the covenant lot issue with the planning department um and um addressing the

subdivision issues.

uh because we we certainly don't want to be opening up another lot in another area um if there's issues with storm water and erosion controls throughout the property.

Okay, that I mean uh that makes sense, Jennifer. And and frankly, you know, I know we talked about this at the last meeting, Peter, that um although you'd prefer to be able to just get a standard order of conditions for residents without this these two conditions that Jennifer just mentioned, I think you were leaning towards well, we'll accept it uh so that we need to have these resolved, the special

conditions prior prior to a building permit issuing, but that the foundation permit could issue so you can get the foundation in before the ground freezes.

If that's still the case, would you let me know, please?

Mike, I think in talking with the applicant, that is um we agree with what Jen just said. I think we can condition in that manner uh to get the permit. I think the applicant a and the team feels that the uh the developer has been proactive and we should be able to resolve this um and hopefully try to get this thing in in a timely fashion. So I think we're okay with this.

Okay.

Um does any commissioner have any questions or any any comments?

I do. I do. What So what are we voting on? We're voting on to put that to let them put the foundation in even though this whole development is built in code errors everywhere from what I gather.

I think that's it's I don't think we should be building period until this developer says and gets everything under control.

I don't know how this developer got so far down the road. I think I think, you know, to be honest, this needs to be halted until the developer gets either in front of us or in front of someone that can explain to us how he got this far and what he's doing to fix it.

Because from what I understand, those erosion controls are still garbage right now. I drive by that entrance every day to whatever road this is right off Bakerville. out. All I see is high grass on the way in and a orange ba water barrier there. I don't see anything else going on personally. And if the issue is the development in and of itself, well, this property is a part of that

development. So it by, you know, in and of itself is under this other issue that it has.

That's my personal opinion.

Well, I I appreciate that. Uh, any other commissioner have any questions or comments like James just had?

I have a question on the covenant lot and how that's going to be resolved. Um, doesn't sound like it's resolved yet.

I can speak to that. Um, so basically as Peter indicated earlier, um, part of resolving the covenant law issue. So this lot that is in question tonight is was one of the covenant lots. Um and in order to mitigate that and ensure that so so the town has enough shity or enough um bonding in place that all of the subdivision work will be completed in compliance with the approved subdivision.

um some other form of shity needs to be in place and in order to do that they are requesting an estimate from an updated estimate from DPW on the amount of that bond um based on what's still outstanding in the subdivision and uh there's going to be quite a difference in what that price will be once the developer has completed these outstanding items. So, in other words, without catch basins established and

without uh all the the pavement down, uh well, they're not going to do full paving until the lots are um constructed. So, I'll stick to the items that they would be working on. They would be reestablishing the catch basins, um reestablishing the storm water basins, the the uh infiltration basin, and u reestablishing the erosion controls. doing all those items is going to decrease the amount of their bond

significantly. Uh and so at this point, DPW is kind of in a holding pattern waiting for them to finish those items in the subdivision to update the bond amount.

Well, I got a question for you. Why why couldn't they just calculate the amount assuming that it doesn't get done the things that you mentioned and then they can release portions of the bond that they have attributed to the catch basins etc once it gets done because if they're waiting for the developer to do all this work then they're going to give them an estimate it's just going to take longer

correct I think the the rub is that the developer doesn't want to bond at the higher amount Well, I I suppose he doesn't or they don't. But the point is they got a problem here that is now impacting the ability of one of the lots to be developed, at least one that I'm aware of, this one. And they've got issues with the town. So, either they get the job done right away

anyway, and that's what they're saying.

We'll take care of it. Well, the faster you take care of it, the faster you get your money back, right?

Um because the town will then release the portion of the bond that's attributed to the work that they claim is going to get done real fast. So, um you know, I I think this goes handinhand with James's comment. Uh because you know then we're going to be left with a situation where either we issue this order of conditions tonight subject to uh no foundation permit or building permit

being issued until these are resolved or no building permit. But in either case, you've got an applicant who really isn't getting what they wanted uh because they're waiting on something to get done.

I think we do everybody a favor by making giving a little incentive to developer to do what they say they're going to do.

And that would be, you know, if you're really going to get it done that fast, you shouldn't have a problem with the bond reflecting the price and then getting your money back in a month or two or whatever you think it's going to take. Um, but if you intended to stretch this out, then you would object because you really were hoping not to have to do the work for a while. Um, and I I think

that's not appropriate.

Sounds like a credit facility ran a little dry.

Yeah, maybe. I mean, you know, I don't know the developer or or the finances, but I know human nature and if you don't sometimes put the tightening on the screw, you're going to have a lot of a lot of manipulation.

And in this case, um the work should have been done well before now and it wasn't done. and why, you know, we had to call it to their attention. That doesn't seem like it's possible that they weren't aware of the fact this work had to get done. They were just hoping it took a while for everybody to get involved to do something. Well, yeah. I mean, by the amount of growth

that's out there, this has been going on for a couple years. So, yeah. So, I mean, why now? Well, once we're we're told, don't worry, we'll take care of it. No, I'll give you an incentive. I think DPW should require the uh escrow of the amount for all the work and just release it as the work gets done. And I think that's that's appropriate. And it may cost the developer a little bit more upfront. But

if they do the work as quickly and as thoroughly as they say they're going to do it, that shouldn't be a problem at all. It's only if they don't intend to do it that way that it becomes an issue.

Yeah. I I don't disagree with you, but I think, you know, within our jurisdiction, our purview, we can condition like that these we're not going to sign off on these permits until these items are addressed, but we can't really force DPW.

I agree with you, Jennifer. I mean, we don't have the right to tell them what the escro amount or the bond amount is, nor how much to ascribe to any particular part of the project. But I'm just saying instead of saying let's wait till we hear from DPW of what they're going to want for a escrow or bond assuming we've done the work that we're said we're going to do.

I mean I that that's fool that to me is foolhardy. You go the other way around.

You say here's how much we want and here's how we release it. So, I'm just suggesting they've got a solution to the problem that doesn't require waiting on DPW if you really wanted to solve the problem. So, I mean, I'll leave it to them. We can't enforce that, but um as James indicated, we can condition our approval and our approval could be conditioned on no permits issue. I mean, that's one of the options.

All right. Um, and you know, then it it kind of, you know, then it I'm giving some ammunition here to Peter to say, "Hey, look, there's if they're saying we can't do anything, yeah, you can. Here's what you can do. Tell DPW."

Mr. Chair, I I really appreciate and I think we've had that discussion with the applicant and I think um, you know, we're at their mercy. uh you know, we don't control the contracting or how um he's going to put up the the the bond. Um but I think we would we'd be okay with conditioning it and and maybe what I would like to ask this board is maybe put this on the

agenda to just keep it fresh in your minds and just maybe track it uh where the developer is in the process. Um um I think conditioning is fine. Uh, James, you bring up a good point. Um, I mean, we would love to have the foundation permit not being held up just to get it in for the winter, but if if the board does not um agree with that, then I think we can condition both the building

permit and the foundation permit uh with uh tonight's decision. if you choose to uh to to do something tonight uh that it's conditional on um the issues being resolved and the covenants being resolved.

Okay. Does anyone else have any comments and just a revised plan as well? Okay.

Those two minor items.

Yep. Sorry about that.

Okay.

I suppose the the land owner could post the bond. Uh the uh fear I have is that the contractor uh for the subdivision goes bankrupt. if they haven't posted the bond and we've uh uh we've issued a permit for um a basement or whatever else, we're we're kind of stuck there um with a bankrupt contractor. And so the I suppose the the land owner who wants to build the house could post the bond for the subdivision.

Condition it on that.

Well, I I don't want to do that because now we're we're kind of merging conservation with planning uh and DPW.

Um, look, our our point is there's some issues out there which would normally make us hesitant to issue an order of conditions. And so to move things along, we say we'll issue an order of conditions, but you're not going to be able to get a foundation permit or a building permit until these other issues have been satisfied. Because really that and and Peter is correct that's an issue

between the developer and the town.

Unfortunately, his client is directly impacted by it and we can't give his client relief from that problem so we can condition it. She's now or they're now stuck with a situation where okay, they've got an order of conditions they can't use until this other stuff gets resolved.

Um yeah, they they they might want to work a deal out with the developer, but that's between them and frankly um you know the I don't even have a clue as to what the cost would be, but the bond may be substantial depending on how much work has to get done and that and then they still don't have the um ability to push forth the um you know some of

the work like they were saying to do the final uh road uh service, you're going to wait till all the all the building is done. So, some of this thing is going to be outstanding well beyond um tonight. I mean, well beyond this this year. Um so, how long can you hold up, you know, some one lot owner's money on behalf of a developer who should have done their work? I I don't I don't have

a problem with um a condition like as represented here. Um because I know that there's not going to be any additional construction until this gets done and nobody's going to be sinking good money into something which could be a problem down the road and then seek relief from us saying but can't you help me?

the the answer will be, you know, we kind of forewarned that this is a this is an issue. You know, it's like buying a car when you see the oil is leaking on the ground and deciding to take a risk at it. So, the applicant saying, "I'll take a risk. I know I'm not going to be able to use my order of conditions until this work, these conditions have been met."

That's their call. I mean, you know, uh it just means that Peter doesn't have to come back before us.

But that's my thinking. Um anyone in the audience?

I don't see anybody.

So, I'm going to entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So move.

So, move.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

Megan, yes.

Liz, yes.

James, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to issue a standard residential order of conditions subject to special conditions that no foundation or building permit um or or uh site work be performed on this site until the uh covenant issues been resolved and the subdivision issues which have been discussed including bonding have been resolved and that the conservation

commission be notified of the same and um that those special conditions have been satisfied.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James.

Yes. Megan, yes.

Donald, yes.

Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Okay, we're moving on to page three.

Page three, a new public hearing.

I'm getting goosebumps. Um, it's NOI file 15-2837 Eversource substation at 630 Fisher Road, map 32, lot 45. The owner's Commonwealth Electric Company.

The, uh, representative is Dorothy Lawrence, uh, VBH VHB, excuse me. Um the proposed project is for the proposed electric facility expansion to the Fiser Road substation including installation of new electrical equipment, underground conduits, storm water infrastructure, fencing, vegetation removal, grading and landscaping. Our resource areas has the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland BVW and the

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

So move.

Second.

Second. We have a second on the motion.

Roll call vote. Megan, yes.

Donald, yes.

Liz, yes.

James, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

And uh Dorothy, I see you're here. So, uh, you have the floor.

Thank you. I'm Dorothy Lawrence with VHB and also here with me is James Clancy with Eversource. He's actually going to do the presentation of um the project, so I'll pass it over to him.

Thanks, Dorothy. Yeah, good evening, Mr.

Chairman, and rest of the commission.

Uh, I'm James Clancy. I'm a senior environmental specialist with Eversource. Um, here to present the basics of the Fisher Road um substation expansion project. Um, I guess I'll do a quick rundown of the project, open it up to to Dorothy for anything I might have missed, which I I may. Um, and then leave it to the to the commission to uh ask any questions. Um, and hopefully we can get you some good answers today. Um,

I guess Jennifer too, before I start, is there a way for me to share screen on Zoom?

ACTV, if you would please let Mr. Clancy be able to share his screen.

He's all set.

Thank you. Let me see if I can pull it up here.

Share.

There we go.

Let me know when you guys could see that.

Nothing yet.

Oh, looks like about to display.

There it is. Technology takes a second sometimes.

Um, so here is the proposed plan for the substation.

Um, if you the commission would like after I go through the basics of the proposed I can go to existing conditions and show you kind of what the the site looks like currently. Um, so essentially there's an existing transmission substation uh out at 630 Fischer Road.

The proposed expansion um is I guess in both directions sort of um northwest and southeast including a um proposed infiltration basin. There's not a currently a storm water system on site.

This station's I think was put in in the 70s. So this is a pretty old station.

that's being upgraded um not only just for you know basic electrical infrastructure upgrades but also to incorporate um renewables that are about to be coming online in the next coming years. So this is part of a larger group of projects known in the industry as distributed energy resource projects or deer um or distributed generation DG projects. those usually interconnect um ground mounted solar, rooftop solar. Um

so that's I guess the basics of the need for the project um and the projects all being expanded um on Eversource owned property where an existing station is um limited improvements to the driveway access area and uh as I mentioned before a a storm water um infiltration basin. Um, we'll get to the existing conditions.

So, I'll just use Mass Mapper so you can see satellite view.

Um, are you able to see Mass Mapper or did it just stay on with the plan set?

No, the air photo is visible.

Okay, perfect. So, here's the existing station as is obviously uh about half the size of what's proposed. Um Dorothy has a map set showing the wetland flags and I think it shows the proposed expansion limits over um existing conditions. So we can share that further on for for questions. Um but this is existing um essentially where all the expansion is going to be is in sort of the upland 100t buffer zone on the site.

Um there's going to be some limited tree clearing on the north uh west and southeast version of the site just to accommodate the actual expansion. And then also we have a a standard of keeping trees I think about 30 ft away from the fence line just for security purposes. Um so no one can climb a tree and then get into the station over the barb wire fence to get into the station

obviously. Um, so that's sort of what the site looks like now. Again, that's the boring page.

Can't get the control screen out of the way.

Dorothy, do you mind sharing the wetland um flag sheet? I think that would get a give the commission a better idea of the expansion overexisting.

BCTV, please let Dorothy Lawrence share her screen with us.

Is all set.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You should be able to see a map right now with wetland flags.

Thanks. Give it a second. Sure.

Is it visible?

This was Yeah, this was one of the sheets provided with the NOI showing obviously flag locations, buffer zones um and the existing conditions um of the site with the existing fence line. Um so this might be a good um map to keep up just to go through questions I guess with the commission and I guess I will I'm not sure if Jennifer has shared it with u you Mr. the chairman of the rest of the

commission. We had a meeting virtually yesterday with a broader group of town staff and um the project team just to answer some initial questions that Jennifer and some other members of town staff had for the project. So there are a few things we're working on providing to her and other members of the town um staff that were there. Um so we do expect to continue this hearing just to

make sure we have plenty of time to get that to her and to you. So, just wanted to, you know, jump on here, present the project basics, and then sort of leave it to the commission to, you know, ask any opening questions. Um, that'll kind of lead us to getting more information for you guys.

Thank you. Um, Dorothy, anything more to add?

I do not have anything to more to add.

James uh covered it pretty well.

All right. Yes, he did a very thorough job, didn't he? Uh Jennifer, comments from staff.

Yeah. So, as James indicated, we did have a meeting yesterday um that involved uh DPW, one of the fire chiefs, the fire chief for this district. Um and planning board as well was present. Um, so we just ran through some of the items um that we would want to see included like adding the existing conditions uh sheet which I'm they'll be submitting in the revised plan set um for the commission's understanding

there's another project that will be occurring separately from this um but linked to it uh which is the undergrounding of utilities out on Fischer Road in Giggley. Um, so as you come into the site from Fiser Road, all of the utilities uh or the overhead wires are being proposed to be uh moved underground. Um that'll require crossing a culvert. Um and getting out to the site today. Um, James, what I

know when we talked yesterday, one of the items we talked about including was the potential replacement of that cast in place concrete uh, culvert pipe. Um, just in case there are issues with it during construction as you trench either above or below it.

Um, and it would be a replacement in kind.

Oh, and being out at the site today, it doesn't appear to me that there's much enough cover for for trenching um to occur above that pipe. Um so I think it it's definitely prudent that we include that in the orders of conditions. And then if you don't need to replace it, if it's, you know, the utilities are run underground without any issues with that pipe, it's work that doesn't need to be

done. But I definitely think we should include that. Yeah, I think I think that was a good comment yesterday, Jennifer.

I I I take your point and we'll I think we'll include it as part probably part of an updated narrative. I'm thinking how we handle I guess all the comments to be addressed is we'll probably submit a formalized letter numbering them out, issuing response, and then you know any attached plans or anything that needs to be rectified, we'll obviously submit those as as amended.

Okay. Um and then one of the other items has to do with the test pits and the infiltration basin um that's proposed and removing that um under drain that's proposed as well.

Yep. Um, so I know those are items that again you were referencing addressing in revised documents. Um, knowing that we would be continuing tonight um, but still giving the commission a chance to understand the project and take any of their comments as well.

Yes. So I think at this point, Mr. Mr.

Chairman, I'd open it up to yourself or other members of the commission to ask, you know, general project questions so we can if I can't answer them for you well enough now, we can take them back to the project team and then make sure we get appropriate answers uh by the time we're back in front of you.

I appreciate that. Uh open the floor commissioners, any of you have any questions you want to address to Mr.

Clancy, Miss Lawrence, or Jennifer, please let me know.

I'm not hearing any. Um I know that there's people potentially in the audience that are here for this matter.

If you have any questions um or comments, um you certainly have the opportunity this evening to speak. Uh as you heard that there was a a comment made that there's going to be a request for a continuance. So, uh, you're certainly welcome to speak tonight and also at the continued public hearing if the motion is granted.

I guess you dazzled us also that we didn't have any comments or questions.

Um, I'm glad to hear you had a meeting with the town and town representatives uh before this evening. So, uh, that helps us, at least as commissioners, to know that the other interested stakeholders on the town's behalf have seen what you are proposing, given you comments, and that you have, uh, making the effort to address those comments, so we won't get stuck with the ball being batted across

the net three or four times. So, um, I appreciate that. I know it's an extra effort on your part as applicants, but I think it's well worth it.

Yeah, it say it saves us time, too. So, I I never have any problem eating beforehand.

Yep. Well, I just I think that's a smart way to do it. Uh it really is. It shows that uh you've done this isn't your first rodeo. Um can I make one other quick comment, Mr.

Chair? Um, we did go out and look at the flags today and just Dorothy for for your own edification, we the flags have been reset out there. So, I don't know if they were just rehung in the original locations, but um the flags looked good to Eduardo and I. Um, we didn't have any issues with where they were cited. Um, and I think the one outstanding wetlands related item is just um getting a sense

of where uh the bank is going to be for destruction brook which is perennial and just understanding whether or not that's going to come into um the 200 foot riverfront area will come into that parcel andor into the limit of work.

Thank you.

Okay. So, when what date are you looking for um either Dorothy or James for your continued public hearing?

Yeah, I I had a chance to look at your guys's schedule for the next few weeks.

I guess there's town you guys have town meeting on on the 20th. So, and I have vacation coming up. So, making sure, especially hearing your frustrations today with continuences, um I would respectfully request we push to October 27th, this your second hearing in October, just so we have one, plenty of time to get all the information we need back to to you guys. Um and and two, so

that way um I I was hoping to meet with Jennifer again before our next hearing just to make sure I guess we covered everything to her satisfaction before coming back to the commission. So, I think that gives us plenty of time.

That's very prudent. I applaud you for that instead of taking uh October 6th and then having to kick it down the road again. So, I appreciate that.

Of course.

Does uh any commissioner have any comments or questions?

Uh hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to continue this public hearing on DP or excuse me, NOI file 15-2837 until uh Tuesday, October 27, 2026 at 7 p.m.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes. Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you for a very good presentation and for understanding uh how we'd like to operate without multiple continuences.

Yeah. Thank you. Uh and we'll see you in about a month and a half. Appreciate it.

There you go. Thank you.

Have a good night, everybody. Thanks.

Thank you.

Our final public hearing is also a new public hearing. and it's NOI file 15-2838 Featherbed Lane. It's map 95 lot 5-4.

Uh the owner is Ry-en L Featherbed Lane Realy Trust. Representative Mark Bush Cab Engineering Solutions Inc. proposed project uh is the construction of a new accessory dwelling unit including associated uh utility connections site improvements and a connection to the existing septic system. The proposed work is located within land subject to coastal storm flowage.

Our resource area is land subject to coastal storm flowage and the regulations involved are 310 CMR 10.04 4 as well as section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaw. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So move second.

We have a second motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Megan, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

is uh Mark or somebody from CAB engineering here. Peter, I see you're still here.

Peter is on. Um I don't know if he'd like to give just a quick uh synopsis as to why we'll be requesting a continuence till the October 6th meeting. Um but I can certainly do that as well. Um so I I'll jump in and then Peter if you want to add to it you can. Um, so, uh, when Eduardo and I did the site visit for eight feather bed, there were some additional, um, structures,

um, that had not been permitted and, um, Peter's team needs time to go out to do survey and, um, revise the site plan and also the NOI submitt documents to capture not only those unpermitted structures But there's also going to be some potential changes with the board of health and the septic. Um so in waiting for the answers from board of health and needing some additional time um they are

requesting continuence to the October 6th hearing.

Will that be enough time for board of health?

Uh Mr. Chair, uh Peter Cruz from cabins.

Uh we we we did sit with Chris and his staff. Uh what we're proposing is adequate. Um and I think uh Ariel is actually reviewing the buildings and we should hopefully have an approval from the septic side. Um like Jen mentioned, uh we were out on site uh this morning picking up the uh existing structures to be able to update the uh the plan. Uh I think we feel pretty comfortable to that

we can make the uh the changes this week with uh revised plans hopefully by Friday. So I think it's a it's a minor change to place. Uh it was something that um the team did not uh recognize that these these structures that were on site had not been permitted. So um we're going to do the right thing and then on the plans and hopefully per Okay. I think you have that in hand. Uh, does

any commissioner have any questions?

Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to continue NOI file 15-2838 until Tuesday, October 6, 2026 at 7 p.m.

So move. So move the seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you. Have a good evening.

You too. Um, that concludes our public hearings. We're now moving to our items for discussion and we also will have uh the administrative staff update at this time as well.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Um, so we had originally posted for a part-time admin position. We now have it posted full-time and we've gotten a we've received a huge response. Um, so I am in the process of going through about 30 plus applications right now. Um, and hopefully we'll have interviews set up in the next couple of weeks for u at least a handful or so. um and have someone in place before we get too far

into the holiday season. Um and then the other items are probably not so much questions, but just reminders um that the MAC Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions, their fall conference is coming up. Um so if anybody is interested in attending that, that is Saturday, October 24th um in Devon's Mass from 8:00 to 3:30. Um part of the revolving fund fees are used to pay for um our dues with MAC each

year which allows the commissioners to attend these and other uh trainings offered by MAC at a discounted rate. Um and then those are reimbursed with revolving fund as well. So, um it's basically an opportunity for you to increase your knowledge and your like skill set and expertise as a commissioner um at no cost to you other than some of your time which I realize is is definitely precious. Um but I just

want to encourage everybody if you haven't attended before. I've been to several of them. They're great and there's so many sessions offered simultaneously that it's often hard to choose which ones you want to go to. So, um I think it's a huge advantage. They have one in the fall and another in the spring. I would definitely encourage you to go or at least take a look at what they offer for webinars and other

classes um other field sessions. So that's one. Um the other one is for um as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, we have a um new commissioner um and we want to give Alexi a moment to introduce herself. Um, but one of the questions I have is for next month's agenda or for the first meeting that she'll be at. Um, do we want to have an item on the agenda for

reorganizing? I know a lot of boards and committees reorganize whenever there's a change in membership. I'm not sure if that's something this commission typically does. Um, we haven't actually, but I understand why you might want to do it. Uh, we haven't done that.

Okay. So, um I guess just a discussion or um a sense from the commissioner as to whether or not we should add that on an upcoming agenda.

Um and then also I usually prepare binders for new commissioners. I'll definitely put one together for Alexi that has the Wetlands Protection Act, 310 CMR regulations, our local bylaw and regulations. Kind of just a a reference manual. Um, I have one with lots of notes and I know sometimes it's helpful to have those. So, I don't know if the other commissioners um, and you're certainly not going to hurt my feelings

if you tell me you don't need one, but if you don't have one and you would like one, just send me a quick email and let me know and I can produce more while I'm putting uh, Alexis together.

You know, I I I think it'd be a good idea for all the commissioners to have the same binder. you know, um I put my own together because this is the first time. No one gave me a binder when I started, but I made my own and I've kept it updated. But I think it'd be great if we all had the same materials to work from.

Okay.

Yeah, I was I was going to email you anyway for a copy, so go for it.

No, I mean, you know, it makes sense, right? I I think that's a great idea that Jennifer uh will be giving a new commissioner something to actually help them do their job better. Um most of us were kind of thrown in the deep end and said hope you you don't sink, you know. Um, and so, but I do think that going forward, we should all have the same materials to re to review from so that

we're dealing with the same base. And, you know, I I got to be honest with you.

I mean, I'm in a position where I've got I've got assistants who can help keep me updated on these things.

Not everybody does. So, um I think it'd be wonderful if you could do that, Jennifer, that every commissioner will get it.

Okay, that's not I know it's extra work for you and I apologize, but I just it hit me when you said it. I'm like, my god, what a brilliant idea. I wasn't this done before. Um Yeah. Well, what if I'm making one, making a few more is not hard, so it's not a problem.

Okay. And and by the way, I want to echo uh what Jennifer said about Mac. Um, I I've attended some of the conferences and I've always come away feeling like I really learned so much and uh met people that I can rely upon to ask, you know, call or email and ask questions of that it made me feel more confident in my ability to do my job as a commissioner

better. And I I really like that. So, I would urge anybody who has a that Saturday um to uh consider attending and I if there's a an application uh I I suppose we could circulate that to by email so commissioners will have it ready to go. Um but it it definitely is a worthwhile uh expenditure of your time. You'll definitely learn and you'll also feel I want to go to more uh and being in

Dennis that's really not that tremendously far.

So it's it's a a little bit of a trek but again you can submit for gas mileage um and we we can get that reimbured. you can submit for um the conference expenses. So, we can either prepay it for you if you let us know um or we can reimburse you if you submit the receipt after. Um either way works. Um so, it doesn't have to cost you anything.

Okay. Yeah, it's a great it's a great opportunity and uh I would recommend it. I think it was it was worth my time for sure. I I I definitely felt I didn't waste it.

All right. Anything else for the good of the order?

The reorg question, do we want to have that on an upcoming agenda or are we we good with kind of keeping things as as they are?

Um, we can certainly put it on as an item for discussion.

Okay.

Um, and you know, uh, commissioners, you know, Jennifer and I very briefly mentioned this. Jennifer mentioned it to me and I kind of jumped at it, but get put your thinking caps on and we should have an item for discussion, Jennifer, of whether this commission would like to change from a twice a month meeting to a once a month meeting.

and um let's just talk about it and find out if there's enough sentiment that that might be uh good. Then we can look to see how we accomplish that. If people want to keep with the two times a month meeting schedule, that's fine, too. But just put your thinking camps on and give us some thought. I was thinking the agendas would be larger than they are now, obviously, but probably not by much. um but they

would be larger. So my uh thought would be if we went to once a month, we would probably want to start at 6:30 instead of seven so we could be completed roughly at the same time. Uh but give us some thought and I'd like to talk about it in detail at a late later meeting and get every commissioner's sentiment on that.

Yeah. And I've worked in communities that have had both. I've worked in two communities now that met twice a month, including Dartmouth, and in two communities that met once a month. Um, so I'll I'll maybe send out a quick email just with some pros and cons for each um to for all of you to mull over and then we'll put it on for maybe the 27th.

Um, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I I think it's worth thinking about, and that's great if you can do those uh pros and cons, and there are, you know, but uh we've been doing twice a month for as long as I've been on the commission, but there's no reason why we couldn't change it if that was the sentiment of the commissioners.

So, anything else for the good of the order?

Just a a moment for Alexi to introduce herself would be great.

Oh, yes, absolutely.

Yeah.

Hi everyone.

Hi.

Um I'm not sure if you can see me. I admittedly have not been able to see anybody or anybody's screens.

It's two of us.

Yeah, I've actually I actually tried to log on several times both through the Zoom app and through the web and it doesn't seem to have fixed the issue.

Um, but I was able to follow along the agenda. Um, I just wanted to say I'm very excited to uh virtually meet everyone. Um, and thank you Jennifer for putting together the uh binder of regulations. Um, I'm pretty familiar with 310 CMR 15, but not CMR10.

Um, so pretty excited to dive in. Um, and uh, would you like to me to give an overview of what I talked about yesterday at the select board meeting or uh, would you like me to hold on that?

It's up to you. I mean, you know, I I think people just I think we're very happy to have you as a commissioner on this conservation commission. and um maybe just a little bit about some of the reasons why you joined or wanted to join uh the commission would be great.

Uh totally. So um my background is in coastal environmental management. Um I've been practicing for seven years now. Um my first three years were spent at the EPA doing research on the adoption of nitrogen reducing septic systems. uh which lent me to become very familiar with uh wetlands, wersheds and some of the challenges that they face.

Um after that I worked in Barnstable County very briefly to roll out a responsible management entity so kind of a monitoring mechanism um for innovative and alternative septic upgrades. Um I then worked uh for a nonprofit called the Barnstable Clean Water Coalition. Um I've worked with them uh on and off actually for over six years now um on some cranberry bog restoration projects

and I was actually a part of the grant application that the town of Barnstable submitted for the municipal vulnerability program um for the $2.7 million restoration of the former cranberry bog over there. Um and then more recently I've been working more on working waterfronts. um specifically in a social environmental scientist capacity, trying to study how people are um experiencing climate hazards on

different working waterfronts um and how to better account for that in um local resilience planning. Um so I'm really passionate about our coastal areas um and specifically about this community.

I've been here for three years. Um, and I'm still exploring some of the trails and wetlands in town, but I also spend a lot of time kaying. Um, and I'm really excited to be here.

We're excited to have you.

Thank you.

Absolutely. Uh, so welcome. I'm sure you'll find this u rewarding and um love the enthusiasm. So, thank you for submitting your application and thank you for accepting.

So both.

Thanks for having me.

You're welcome.

Commissioners, anything else that you want to uh address this evening?

All right. I'm not hearing anything. I would normally say I don't see anything, but I don't see anything. So, I'm going to I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.

So move.

Second.

Give us a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

Donald, yes.

I think we've lost James. Um, so I'll vote yes as well. And that motion passes unanimously.