Welcome to the Forward Conservation Commission meeting uh being held at the One Government Center. Uh we're in the public hearing room. It's uh Monday, May 4th, 2026, 5:30. Pursuant to the open meeting laws, any person make an audio or video recording
of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible. We'll start roll call to my left. >> Chris Bole,
>> Lewis Ferrer, >> John Brandt, >> Jim Crick, Drew Carl, >> and we also have Dan Agi, our conservation agent, Patty Agu, our uh head clerk, and Gary from FRGTV. And we're missing Tim McCoy tonight.
Uh first is a review and discussion of updates on Belrock Road. This was tabled from April 6th meeting. >> So I spoke with the um representative Dan Nunes last week. They were scheduled to begin today or tomorrow with uh that remediation work. >> I told him just to give me a heads up
with which day he was. He did not reach out to me today. So I'm assuming it's going to be tomorrow, which is good. Tomorrow I've got a fairly open day. So I'll go up and take a look in the morning. But they were they were ready to go. and he said things have dried up enough out there that they can. >> Okay, >> that was encouraging.
>> Can I have a motion to table? >> Motion to table. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I pass. >> All right. Next, review and discussion adopting fee structures. This is tabled from April 6th. So, in your packet, you have um a draft uh fee schedule and then
also on the second page, draft potential bywall items that everybody has discussed in the past. It would be my recommendation that that you take this home, read it, mark it up, send your ideas to me, and then we could have a
singular discussion at a public hearing once we're ready to move forward with it. rather than start throwing around ideas openly and speaking off the top of our heads, um I would recommend that we at least take this framework, add to it, and craft it before we come back and have a real discussion.
>> All right. Anybody has questions on it outside, feel free to give me a call and we can have one-on-one discussions as well. >> All right. Um >> motion table. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I I have it. All right. Uh, next a
review and discussion outstanding enforcement orders. This was tabled from April 6th. >> So, we're still waiting to hear back from D on a couple of the of the difficult ones that we had sent. One that I did want to add that was a specific um concern to Chris was the Yellow Hill Road one.
>> Um, their representative came in two or three weeks ago. They have a survey plan done. So, they've made an analysis of what some of the outstanding issues are. They will be filing a notice of intent um that deals with either permitting
stuff that's permittable and then restoration for areas that need restoration. It's it's substantial. It's substantial. So >> is that an after the fact NOI? >> Yeah, 100%. Yeah. So it can either be handled as an after the fact NOI or we
could actually issue an enforcement order and it's a response to an enforcement order. Right? So, we have not issued a formal enforcement order yet. That remember this just came in when they requested a certificate of compliance. So, right now, the only avenue they do have is to file a new notice of intent.
They did tell me that once they came up with their final draft plan that they would let me review it before they decided why and how to file. >> Okay. So, there's no restoration plan filed yet. No, that's that's going to be on on this and whether it gets filed as
one of the questions that comes up is if it's an enforcement order and they're filing a response to an enforcement order, not a notice of intent, that may allow them not to have to deal with the Army Corps of Engineers. Mhm.
>> If it's if it's a notice of intent because of the size of quote unquote the alteration, >> it would require Army Corore filing. >> Right. >> Now, that's if I haven't gotten the answer to this yet.
If the proposal is to restore all of the unpermitted areas, I don't know if that would trigger Amy Park because they're not asking to alter. I don't I don't know the answer to that. >> It would require moving buildings, removing buildings to do for them to do that.
>> Well, it's different. So, as there's there's the Army Corps would deal with just the size of the wetland alteration, which there are no buildings in the actual wetland, >> right? >> Anything else could theoretically be permitted as buffer zone activity.
>> So, they're trying to figure out >> where they're moving forward, but since we don't have that yet, we shouldn't discuss it too much. Okay. >> Once we get that that in, we'll direct them. But right now, their only option is to file a notice of intent. >> Can I have a motion to table?
>> Motion to table. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I have it. >> All right. Next. Notice of intent SC-24-855 at Vince Weaver Cove Industrial Park LLC. Project location, New Street.
Assess map is T-2 lot 00001 filed by Chris Vartellia of Codart uh Consulting LLC on behalf of the applicant. The applicant proposing after the fact restoration cleared vegetation. This was table April 6th meeting. Are
you here for that? What petition you here for? >> Um the one on 3820 the certificate of compliance. North May. >> Okay. >> New business >> that's coming up. Um, so on this one, I do know that our
consultant um and GDARD met on site again last week and I think they worked all their stuff out as far as delineation goes. So I see those emails going back and forth. Um, so with that, I recommend that we table
the matter until they've gotten their deduction and file. >> Motion the table. >> Second. Okay. All in favor? >> I >> same thing here. >> Yeah.
>> Next is a notice of the 10 SC-24-857. Uh applicant is Liberty Utilities. Owner Spectrum Realy. Location is 994 Jefferson Street. Justice map is D-20 lot 002 filed by Ryan Eer of Trimon Engineering. On behalf of the applicant,
the applicant is proposing to install 222 ft and a half of 4 in carrier pipe with 2 in main gas main through the means horizontal directional drilling. It's table from April 6th. >> So, as I explained at the last meeting,
um they had not addressed a number of concerns. Um, and I did take it upon myself to actually mark up their plan in red to show them where the deficiencies were in the in the submitted topography that they had sent in. Um, it was pretty
bad. So, I mean, it's pretty flat out there and we've got a stream that connects one wetland to another. Should be pretty simple, right? Their topography was actually going uphill into the well like dramatically. But again, this is a utility company that just usually shows I want to put in the
gas line here. So just the basis of the existing condition survey that they were come working off of wolffully inadequate. So I think it's in the right hands now, but we're still waiting for those plans to come back. So with that, I recommend that we table until they can get it resolved.
>> Motion table. >> Motion table. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> I I have it. Uh, next notice of intent SE-24-861. Uh, Aaron Wcluski Cahill of NEPC
DBA National Grid owner Weaver's Cove existing overhead transmission lines map is multiple locations filed by Erica Marcelia Power Engineer Corp. On behalf of the applicant, the project is located sections existing right away from Sky
Roads substation to Somerset Fall River municipal boundaries over Taton River. The project consists of separation of existing N12 and N13 transmission lines. Uh multiple structures existing of rightway. This was tabled from April 6th. >> So again, this one ties hand inand with
Weaver's Cove with getting signatures on on each other's applications dealing with the restoration area. So no additional information has been forwarded for this one either. So I recommend that item be tabled. Motion table. >> Motion table. >> So moved. Second. >> Okay.
>> Excuse me. I >> I >> I haven't. All righty. >> Next. Request for certificate of compliance SC-24 uh 762. Owner uh Carlos Eststera. Project location 3820 North Main Street. senses
map is X-3- 00010 filed by Alexander Gorgowski of Kowski uh engineering on behalf of the applicant the applicant is requesting a certificate of clients this is table from April 6 did you file that one Alex no must be the engineering name must be
wrong um so as we had talked about at the last meeting we had sent back comments through site plan review to the engineer and applicant um with some outstanding items which we have not received back So similarly as I mentioned at the last meeting you should withhold the issuance
of the certificate of compliance until all those items have been resolved. But I think we have some >> that's me. Okay. So you want me to make the changes that I got from Chris and engineering before conservation will sign off. Correct. >> Correct. Yeah. So so get all those items addressed. >> Okay.
>> Then once that gets a clean bill of health then we should be good here because some of the things some of the concerns overlap. >> Yes. >> Um so once we get that we can >> Okay. All right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. All right. Thank you. Do >> I have a motion to table? >> Motion to table. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I I >> I have it. >> All right. Uh new business. Uh request for a certificate of compliance SC-24-767. Applicant is Highland Farms Development 2 LLC. Project location 294 Philstone
Lane. Vessels map is U-4-0061. filed by Steven Gallowski of Scitec on behalf of the applicant. The applicant requests a certificate of compliance. So this was for again the property at 294 field zone which you all know well was an enforcement order that went out.
>> It's going to be three or four years ago. Um they finally had filed a new notice of intent for the work that had taken place. Did that work. Closed that work out. You did that, right? Did you file that one? No. We had some or you
didn't end up taking it. All right. Um, so they they got a new order of conditions, did all of that work. Fine. Closed that order out. The underlying previous order for this file number they had never submitted for compliance. So
this was still outstanding at the registry of deeds. So the appropriate paperwork has been submitted. we can now issue um the certificate of compliance for this because this is work that fell well below the thresholds of the second order of conditions. Um so with that
being the case and that enforcement order being satisfied, there's no reason not to issue the certificate of compliance on this. You have a motion for certific. I >> I Okay, passes.
Next is nose and intent SC-873 uh Antonio Casta. Owner is Valort Realy uh Trust and BRT Realy Trust. Project location North Main Street's map is X-3-0052
followed by Alexander Kodowski of Kodowski and Engineering on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing a single family home instruction and related work. >> I'll tell you what, John, why don't you read both of them in because they're both on the same plan. >> Okay. The next one is a notice of intent
SC-24-874. Applicant is Antonio Costa. Owners are Valanc Court Reality Trust and BRT Realy Trust. Project location is North Main Street, Sus3-0053. followed by Alexander Poduski of Podski engineer on behalf of the applicant
deput proposing construction of a duplex home and related work. All right. So this is the project at the last meeting uh you issued you issued determination of the wetland
and subsequently to that uh this is two two lots. There is one single family lot. This is the first notice of intent and on this letter we're proposing construction of single family home. There is no work proposed within 25 foot
no buffer zone and grading will match along the 25 foot no buffer zone and erosion erosion control lines. I believe site plan has been reviewed by Mr. a year >> and it's
>> Alex only because I didn't have time today. Can you explain to us >> what the plan change was? >> Minuscule. I I just some things were overlapping text were overlapping and there was here like somewhere here
catch basin that was not >> it just extra can error all together. That's it. No no changes. whatsoever except on the plan before I changed one duplex but the changes that I provided you
there I just recite OCD kicked in yesterday and I couldn't resist. >> Got it. >> That's that's all that's all it is. >> So as Alex stated this um so this is up on North Main Street just before the Shores Plaza on your right hand side there. Um
and again the wetlands line was approved under an RDA at the last meeting. Uh this site plan had already been reviewed and and through the review process just pending getting some of this well work uh resolved. The southerntherly lot is is the work that's most in proximity to
to the BBW again maintaining the 25 foot no activity zone. um majority of it is retaining wall which would be well delineated. The 25 foot no touch zone gets a little bit close to the structure. So I I do think you're going to want some type of permanent barrier
along the 25 ft um outside of the area where the retaining wall is. That's pretty clear. The retaining wall is at the 25 ft. But for the rest of the way through, um whether it's post and rail fence, you know, a normal um a normal signage or whatever you think would be
appropriate for keeping two-legged animals from encroaching in the 25 foot no activity. So other than that, I don't have an issue with with either one of the projects. And I would recommend an order conditions, separate order conditions for each one. >> Any questions from the board?
No, no questions. >> Can I have a motion for compliance with the 25 no touch uh policy and uh order of conditions for both projects? >> Well, one question is the green cards and collect. >> Okay. >> As soon as it came in,
>> I missed that. Sorry. I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. I >> I >> I >> Good. Jim, >> just a side note, you know, when this project originally started,
>> what is it? 1998. >> Really? Well, well, you should have just built what it was permitted for the first time and you wouldn't have to have been back here today. >> No, of course. >> Standard conditions. >> Standard conditions. Yeah. Standard special conditions.
>> All right. >> All right. Can I uh have a motion for approval of the minutes from April 6th? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> I >> I >> I passes. Uh no public input. Can I have
a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. Roll call. Hi. >> Hi. All right.