Uh welcome to the Fall River Conservation Commission meeting being held at uh one uh one government center, the public hearing room. It's uh Monday, December 1st, 2025, 5:30. Uh pursuant to the open meeting laws, any person who make an audio or
video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any mediums. Attendees are therefore advised of such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible. We'll start with roll call to my left.
Chris Boil, >> Lewis Forever, >> John Brandt, >> Jim Cusk. We're missing um >> Tim McCoy Tim McCoy and um >> Drew >> Drew Drew.
>> And we also have in attendance Courtney Pereira, clerk, and Dan Agu, our uh uh conservation agent and planning. And we have Craig from our FRGTV. Uh is review and discussion updates on Bell Rock Road.
>> Nothing new. Um I'm going to meet with the contractor now that all the vegetation's down to look at the um sediment to be removed from the wetland area. Last time we went out maybe two weeks ago was underwater. So we actually couldn't take a look at it. soon as
things dry out enough and even if it freezes or getting close to being freezing crusty sometimes good to scrape crust off. So we we'll keep an eye on it. He's been he's been very responsive. >> All right. Motion to table. >> Motion to table. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> I >> I >> I >> I
>> Okay. Next review and discussion adopting uh fee structures. >> Nothing new. Still waiting for somebody to come by. >> Okay. Um >> next year we'll do it for the new year. I'm going to come by like a week. >> Week before Christmas. >> Why don't we just do a Christmas theme?
>> Yeah. All right. Why don't we table that and we'll try and get in before next and we'll start uh getting the ball rolling next year. [clears throat] >> Motion to table. >> Motion table. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> I >> I >> Okay. Uh review and discussion
outstanding enforcement orders. >> Uh so what I'm what I'm going to do only because we've had discussion about a couple of these for the January meeting. I'm going to give you an update of the year's enforcement actions, where they're at, what's taking place with each one of them, like just a little
matrix of where we're at, and how you want to proceed with some of them. Some of them might have a few dotting of eyes and crossing of tees that are still lingering out there. So, we can take a refocused look at it at the beginning of the year and and get on those. Okay. >> Okay. Motion table. Motion [snorts] to
table. Seconded. Ro. I >> I >> I >> I >> Okay. Next, a notice of intent is uh SE-24-843. Applicant is Marcos Fritz. Uh project location 565 Detroit Street. Assessor's
map is E-27-0042. Filed by Farland uh Corp. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant is proposing to install inground pool and concrete pad and paper patio with associated grading. This was tabled from November.
>> I did get an email correspondence from the applicant Farland Corp asking that the matter be tabled uh to next month's meeting. It was actually attached to the email for the one on Shannon Street. So apparently I mean they're they're capable of doing the work and getting the work done. I just think that the
applicant just has to come up with what they need for a design. >> All right. What about the certificate of compliance? should uh have we should >> for which one? >> Uh Detroit Street at some point we >> they never applied for one. So
>> they they they've got to resolve the uh the violation as part of this filing. >> Then once that work's done, then they should be able to get the certificate of compliance for all. >> All right. Motion. >> No movement on that one. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Uh roll call. I >> I
>> I >> I next notice of intent uh SE-24-847 applicants John Henry owner Hawkins Whitfield LLC project locations 121 Whitfield Street Sessions map C-17
lot 0024 filed by Sean Ainsworth of Insight Engineering on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is opposing construction of a single family dwelling. This is tabled from November 3rd. So, we have Mr. Ainsworth here, which not for this project, but in particular, but I'm assuming that it's
to be tabled again. This is the one that we're trying to get coordination of two separate land owners. You're you're the adjacent land owner, right? Which property are you here for? >> Me? >> Yep. >> Um the 372 Stevens. >> Okay. Separate one then. Okay. Um, so
I've given Sean the information of the butter that we want him to include the work on so that they can deal with it all. But I'm assuming you've gotten nowhere with that. >> No, not yet. >> Okay. >> All right. So, I recommend that we table it and approval until we get a resolution.
[clears throat] Motion table. So, move >> second. Roll call. I >> I >> I >> I >> Okay, >> next is a notice of intent SCE-24-855. Applicant owner is Weaver Cove Industrial Park LLC. Project location
New Street Cessors map is T-2 lot 0001 filed by Chris Farley of Goodall Consulting LLC. on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing a afteractor restoration of an area cleared of vegetated uh wetlands. [clears throat] >> So, I did get an email correspondence
from attorney Nyl who represents Weaver's Cove Industrial Park LLC just giving us an update that our third party consultant LEC um is out on the site working with their consultant, Guarded Consulting. They had asked for some additional information from GuardD that
they're waiting to be uh presented with. So with that being the case, I would recommend that the matter be tabled so that those two parties can resolve the outstanding issues. >> Motion the table. >> Second robo. >> I >> I >> I >> I
>> All righty. Next notice of intent is SC-24-857. [snorts] Applicant is Benjamin Phillips Utility uh Util Liberty Utilities. Uh owner Spectrum Reality uh project location 994 Jefferson Street sensors map is D-20 lot
00002 followed by Ryan Harling of Traymont Engineering Company. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant is proposing to install 220 foot and half of 4in carrier pipe with a 2-in main gas through the means of horizontal directional drilling. Uh
project also includes entry of an exit pit. This was tabled from November. So, we still haven't gotten anything new from the initial comments that we had been given. I don't think there's anybody here for it. Um, I think part of the problem is multiple hands for
Liberty have been involved in this from the the initial. >> So, when I send an email out, I get an email back from somebody else and then that one doesn't follow up. And the engineering company, the same thing. I did speak to Ryan a month or two ago, went [clears throat] over all the cons concerns with him. So, we're just still
waiting for revised information. >> Okay. Are all the uh like stakeholders or any any people in the parties, Liberty Utilities and such, are they all email communications? Like are they all being CCD? >> Yeah, absolutely. 100%. Y um and I've
explained to them that we're still waiting for the consultant to give us additional information. I think it's a lot of [clears throat] Liberty doesn't understand because they don't deal with >> topography, wetlands issues, things like that. Um, and the applicant or the engineering firm, I don't know how much
site work they do either. I think they're more just getting gas permits for the gas company. So, it's been a little bit of a teeth pulling exercise, but >> Okay, >> we'll get there eventually when somebody wants gas, right? >> So, got a motion to table. >> Motion to table.
>> Second. Roll call. >> I >> I >> I >> I >> Okay. Uh, next is a notice of intent SE-24-861. Applicant is Aaron Wcowski of Cahill of NEPC.
Uh, DBA National Grid. Owner, Weaver's Cove Industrial Park LLC. Project location existing overhead transmission line RO assesses map multiple locations filed by Erica Monseria of Power Engineering Consulting on behalf of the
applicant. The project is located within a section of existing rightway from Sky Road substation to the Somerset forward municipal boundaries over the Taton River. The project consists of separation of existing N12 and M13 transmission lines on a prepared
monopoly structure within the existing rightway. >> So this is the same application that we've been looking at. We still do not have a signature from the property owner which is Weaver's Cove Industrial Park LLC. Um, I don't think there's anybody here tonight representing them. So, as
soon as they're able to work out the previous petition from Weaver's Cove LLC and they sign their notice of intent, then maybe Weaver's CO will sign this one and then we can move forward. But until we get signatures from the owners acknowledging the work to be done, um, I
recommend that the matter be table. >> Okay. Motion table. >> Motion table. >> Second. Roll call. I >> I >> I >> I next notice of intent is SE-24-864. Owner is Captain Joseph H. OConnell
Company, Inc. Project location 180 River Street. Sessor's map is X-1-000016. Uh applicant is seek an extension of existing commercial marina. This is table from November. So, um, early last week, >> yeah,
>> we had a meeting between Sean, um, the applicant, and myself with Carara. Um, went over a couple of the outstanding items. On Wednesday, we did receive a revised set of plans and supplemental information that's addressed um, all of the outstanding permanent requirements,
mostly having to deal with the exist existing structures and labeling them, and dimensioning them so that we had a clear path forward. So with that, I would recommend that uh we issue an order of conditions um with the following special conditions and then in your letter as well. A letter of
approval from the city of Fall River Harbor Master shall be provided prior to the start of work. Existing piles, docks, platforms, and floats are deemed accessible with regards to size and location only as no construction details or specifications were provided. They're
already constructed so we don't chat wants to deal with them at this point. Proposed piles, docks, platforms, and floats are deemed acceptable. No approval or authorization has been provided regarding any activity landward of the high water line. That's fairly standard. Any construction activity
proposed required as a result of chapter 91 licensing below mean high water will require an amended order of conditions. So, if chapter 91 requires some type of a modification for the docks, piles, anything um is substantial enough, then
we would amend our order of conditions. If any construction activity is proposed or required as a result of chapter 9 upgradient of mean high water, like the construction of public access along the whole frontage or a bathroom or a
pumpout facility. So anything above mean high water would require a filing of a new notice of intent. All chapter 91 licensing and army corps of engineers permitting shall be completed prior to the start of work. Uh and all work shall be performed in accordance with the letter dated October 6, 2025 provided by
the division of marine fisheries as repeated. I'm not going to read through the whole thing. Um everybody has the letter. It's about time of year restrictions keeping floats off the bottom with with with float stops. And with that, I would recommend approval with those special conditions
if the applicant or the representative would like to add anything. >> I'm just assuming just to reward five and six to any construction outside the applied activities, I think is what you mean to say, right? Because the application is for the new construction
of the dock. So during the chapter 91 licensing, I know what your intent is here. It's like anything if they require us to >> the attent if if if they tell you you can't have >> whatever >> anything. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. >> Yeah. They may not say the attenuator is
good enough for whatever the case. >> So so that their plans are consistent with ours. If if their plans require you to make any change, just file an amended order condition so that we can adopt those plans as part of ours. Um now again, Landward, if they require you to do anything, whatever it may be, would
require a new notice of intent. Anyway, it's just it's just put it in the the language here. That's all. >> Okay. Can I have a motion with the order conditions? >> I don't know if there's any >> Oh, anyone in the audience with this? >> Dan, I don't have anything checked.
Patty went and checked everything that was >> motion with the order of conditions. >> I'll make the motion to approve with the uh conditions as stated. >> Should have been done before. >> I first time. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank
you. >> You guys have a good night. >> Okay. >> Uh, next discussion of violation at 394 Kilburn Street. >> So, as this is one that's relatively new. Um, we've received nothing um after
the applicant appeared at the previous meeting >> two meetings ago. >> Two meetings ago. So this this will be on our matrix of January meeting to discuss and >> and move on a number of enforcement action. >> What's that? >> We enforcement. >> Yeah. Oh yeah.
>> Absolutely. >> Motion table. >> So move. >> Seconded. >> Roll call. I >> I >> I >> I >> All righty. Next is a abbreviation notice of resource area delineation se-24-867.
Uh owner is Russ Pereira 3G realy uh limited partnership project location 372 Stevens Street map is E-26 lot 00001 filed by Sean Amesorth at Insight Engineering on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is uh seeking uh to
confirm the boundaries of vegetative wetlands. So at the last meeting we did ask the applicant and their wetlands consultant to extend both ends of the watering vegetated wetland line both northerly and southerntherly. Um that those lines were extended. They've been added to the plans that I've looked at
them. So the representation shown on the plans most recent plans I deem to be accurate and I would recommend that uh we approve the bordering vegetated wetland delineation as shown. Okay. If the applicants representatives would like to add anything. This is with regards to just establishing where the
wetland line is, nothing else. >> So, can I have a motion to uh approve the >> I don't there's anybody else in public. >> Anyone? >> Okay. Uh can I have a >> you want to add anything at this point? This is just to approve the wetlands line that they flagged. Not and not any
work that's being done. >> Okay. >> But if you want to add anything if you don't think the wetlands line is right, then you can say something. Well, I don't really know. Alls I know is there was some clearing done, >> right? So, that's separate from this. >> This is in response to that. So, we can
determine if the clearing they did was in the wetland or not. So, this is at least that the flags that they've hung that show where what's a wetland and what's an upland whether that line is accurate or not. So, this is just establishing that line. That's all. >> The the rest of the matter will be coming up. >> It's coming up on the next hearing.
>> Oh, >> like two minutes. Oh, [clears throat] >> okay. So, can I have a motion to approve the uh border and vegetative wetland? >> Uh, I make that motion. Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Roll call.
>> I >> I >> I Okay. Next up is uh request for certificate of compliance SE-24-161. Uh owner is 3G Reality Limited Partnership. Project location 372 Stevens Street. Sessor's map is
E-26-001. Filed by Sean Ainsworth of Insight Engineering on behalf of the applicant. The applicant requested a certificate of compliance. Um, so following up to last month's meeting and Sean is also here for for that petition as well and we've
discussed this maybe about a week or two ago because this plan was permitted so long ago and the work was done so long ago. There are a number of construction activities that are very difficult to determine if they were done like underground infiltration systems for instance from the catch bases. So Sean I
know [clears throat and cough] is doing some additional work to try to make some assessment of what was built um so that we they can provide us with that information um in some response to and this is shown on on the plan set as well at least to what the neighbors concerns
are the clearing activity that has taken place recently falls outside of the 100t buffer zone. um anything beyond what has currently taken place would require a filing of some sort of intent or request for
determination. So with that at this point we have an established wetlands line of where they can and can't touch. Right now the clearing that was has been done and we have a letter from uh the environmental consultant that's working on the site is
for environmental remediation to do soil testing in the vicinity of that old foundation wall. So, we haven't signed off on the work that they had done previously, which was basically build the parking lot. So, that's still pending. Uh, and anything new
construction-wise would require them to file a new notice of intent with this office. So, they have their framework for what needs to be done. But up until now, what they've done has, other than violating the existing order and conditions that
didn't allow this work to happen, the clearing that they did is considered an exempt activity under the wetlands protection act for environmental soil testing. Uh, so they're proceeding under that part of it, but there will be nothing built until they if they come back and file. From what I've what I
understand, the owner told me, he has no intentions of expanding the parking lot like I believe we discussed. I wasn't sure if it was you that I spoke with. It may be, but I can guarantee you that will not happen without a filing in a review from this from this commission. So, at this point in time, they're still
working on did they build the site originally 15 20 years ago in compliance with the permit that they got. Until they provided that, this commission will not sign off and and say that that work is is deemed complete. >> Okay. >> So, that's where we're at right now. >> Okay. But I noticed on the other side
there was clearly not >> on coming in off of the driveway side. >> Yeah, it's it's near towards the entrance to get in and there's like woods over there and some trees were
chopped down over there. >> So the all the wetland line all the wetland associated with this is behind the building. So, if this was from the back of the building to Steven Street, >> it wouldn't be in a jurisdictional area. So, if it's a wooded area along the right hand side of that driveway entrance,
>> it would be out of our jurisdiction. Now, if they're clearing it to put down pavement, that's something else that they need a permit for. >> Um, so we can go and investigate that and see what the intent is of that or Sean can ask the applicant what his intent is with that. [clears throat] And that would if they're going to build
something that would require permitting through this office and most likely through site plan review as well. >> So at this point in time we don't know where the boundary is. >> We do the wetland boundary. We do that was that's locked in place now. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And I can give you a copy of that
plan so that that that you have that. So it shows where the wetlands line is where the 100 foot buffer zone is to that. That's the that's the area of jurisdiction that this commission has. outside of that 100 foot buffer zone, this commission does not have jurisdiction. >> I see. >> So, as long as they're doing stuff
outside of that 100 foot buffer to the wetland line, then they can they can proceed. They can't build anything, but they can they can cut trees. >> Oh, okay. So then, so as far as you know, there's no building. >> They have no permit to build anything. Now, that doesn't mean [snorts] that they don't build anything, but if they
do build something, >> just like all the other enforcement actions that we have on our agenda, that's that's the process. If they build something without a permit, then we have to go and stop them, force them to come in here. I I think the applicant is is understanding what he needs to do here. >> Um and I believe his representative has
advised him of that as well. >> Okay. So, I mean, as far as we know, we don't know what the endgame is, like what they got to do. >> No, I have no idea. We can only act when somebody brings something to us to act on >> and as of right now, there's no proposed activity that we would be required to
act on. >> Okay. >> Okay. But we have they have been put on notice. They understand that they have outstanding outstanding permits that they need to resolve. So technically what happens is when you when you get a permit from this board, it gets recorded
at the registry of deeds, >> right? >> That's an outstanding permit that hasn't been satisfied. If the applicant or the owner were ever to go and try and sell this property, the buyer's attorneys or the buyer's bank would do a title search and see are there any outstanding
permits, leans, anything like that that they're inheriting. This would show up there as an outstanding item that's not free and clear. So, that would pose a problem for them most likely trying to sell the property. >> Um, that's why these get recorded at the registry of deeds, so that people are
held responsible for those things. >> [snorts] >> Okay. And they're and they're aware of the fact that they need to close that permit out before any other permit is ever given. >> Okay. >> That's an additional level of >> first before you can do another >> Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. >> Gotcha.
>> Okay. We can't pour uh more gas on the fire once it's already started. We want to put that fire out first before we pour more gas. >> All right. >> So, with that, I would recommend that the matter be tabled. >> Okay. Can I have a motion to table? >> So move. Second roll call.
>> I I >> I uh Dan, I do have one question about the cease and assist. I noticed it wasn't on here. Is that >> That's just pending at this point cuz cuz right now the work that is being done >> Yep. >> is an exempt activity. >> Okay.
>> So, the wetlands line is locked in place. >> All right. >> Um we can we can see what happens and then we can lift that cease and desist. So you are able to go do the environmental testing. >> Okay. Including removing the foundation and everything. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> So so for the email that I sent you once
the line was in lock locked in place. Yep. >> And the activity that you want to do for environmental testing are outside of the buffer zone. Okay. I can authorize you to do that work. So we can do that tomorrow. >> All right. Very good. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> All right. Next is a request for
termination accessibility of 202 owners of Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Applicant is Anna Rita [snorts] Pascal of Soul Commuter Services. Uh property location railroad rightway says map NA filed by Matt Donovan at EI applicant
proposing to renew the 5-year vegetation management plan uh expired uh December 31st 2025. >> Great. So um this if you remember we were going to move in the right direction but we the applicant had not provided u legal advertisement. We do
have copy of that legal advertisement. So I would recommend the following that we issue a positive 2-way determination for the delineation and a negative box 2, three and five uh for the proposed activity and this has to do with the maintenance of vegetation
through the entire uh MBTA um through the fall. Okay. >> Okay. >> And it actually doesn't expire. So, just if anybody doesn't know, and this wasn't a big published document this time around, but
there was another permit extension act, a two-year permit extension act for any permits valid between 2023 and I believe January 1st of 2025. So, this would have covered that anyway, but a lot of people don't know [clears throat] >> that there was an additional permit extension act.
>> Okay. here for this one. >> It's inside like a 4,000 page economic development bill, [snorts] >> but it's there. So, >> all right. >> So, we're going to have a a motion to make a positive 2A determination for deliation and a negative determination
for boxes 2, three, and five for proposed activity. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> I >> I >> I >> I. All righty. Next. Abbreviated notice of resource area deliation. SE-24-86
vote. >> We don't have file number. >> No file number yet. So, we waited till quarter past 5 to see if a new file number had been presented for this. You'll see in my comments that I was recommending approval ultimately for this, but without a file number, the board's um
past practices been not open here. >> So, can I have a motion table? >> Motion and table. >> Second. >> Roll call. Hi. >> All right. >> Hi. >> So, just so that you guys know, you can move ahead with whatever design. Alex isn't paying attention,
>> Alex. >> So, the Alex, there was no file number, so they're not going to they can't approve the line, but I've reviewed it. So, you can start doing whatever design you want to do. You can technically have a notice of intent submitted to be heard the same night as the line
gets approved as long as there's a file number for it. So that's that. Okay. >> That's it. And we'll get green cards and legal ads at the next meeting once we can open it here. >> What's that? >> You can you can drop them off today if you have them. Yeah. So that way Patty can lose them before the next meeting.
[laughter] I was rushing all day. I had to modify my report that we had no file number. It was written with the approval earlier in the day. >> Must be held up for the holiday. >> Yeah. Well, D's been terribly slow about stuff
anyway. >> Okay. green cards and one receipt. >> Awesome. Thank you very much. >> Showing the two that >> Yeah, okay. >> didn't need it and the uh >> legal >> Thank you.
>> Awesome. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Yeah. We'll see you soon. >> All right. Next is requesting a certificate of compliance SE-24-500. Uh owner is uh Marcelio Reposa Jr. Uh
project location 427 Yellow Hill Road. >> Hold on one second. Get his uh >> Jim. >> Jim, get her number because she might need you in a couple of minutes. >> We've known each other since we're
>> Okay. Well, wait a few minutes outside for you because you're going to have to talk to her. >> Sorry. Go ahead. Okay. Uh 427 Yellow Hill Road. Census map is W-38- 00062 filed by James Aiar Tri Space Corporation on behalf of the applicant.
The applicant requested a certificate of compliance. This is an outstanding order of conditions that was issued many years ago 06 um that the owner apparently didn't even know that they had or whoever had
recorded it. So I was able to find the copy of the recorded order conditions for them and and gave them that they did submit an asbuilt plan and if you compare the asill plan to what was permitted >> was the bond permitted the workshop
>> it it's bad. It's bad. So the only thing before you tonight is a request for a certificate of compliance. My recommendation is that we do not provide a certificate of compliance. I did speak to um the owner's representative, Mr.
Aguar, um and also Jim Sabre, who was here tonight, and explained to them that we expect the notice of intent to be filed immediately for the restoration of the altered area. >> It's bad.
>> Oh, yeah. that >> but it's cleared entirely around well the ver on the back left corner of this site >> there's one right across the street from the site and that water that water is >> that water is >> it went right where the bond was >> okay >> at one point in time
>> yeah so when you look at the historic photographs of what's happened here and even on the asville plan they have the original wetlands line overlaid >> and the exist and the existing tree line previously and where the >> it's it's bad >> so 100% we cannot issue a certificate of
compliance, but beyond that, we can you can vote tonight to give them x number of days to file the the notice of intent that we're requesting before we send a well violation. I mean, it's probably one of the larger well violations that we've had to deal with. >> Um, so
>> can we see if that that lodge it looks like a construction building? >> Yeah, actually that can see if that was permitted. >> I can tell you. Yeah. Okay, I went through I'm wondering >> it might be the 06 notice of intent.
>> And of course, this only now comes to light when they want to sell it. >> The second time it was for sale in 2010 where they went So that so this is the asville that shows new tree line. >> Yeah. >> Here's buffers. Here's his here's
wetlands line. And we go back and look at what was permitted in 06. So this is the plan that there was a garage >> but substantially >> Oh yeah. I mean everything I mean
>> this this was the old tree line which was basically the wetland lot. So this this used to be entirely wooded and now so all this is cleared now. >> It's so the swimming pool is there but none of the other structures the outdoor kitchen >> 100%. Now, it may not fall. I mean,
some of some portion of it falls outside of the buffer zone, but clearly outdoor kitchen may fall outside the buffer zone, >> but clearly they did not build what was permitted. >> Yep. So, they have some work to do. >> So, you can vote to give however many years you want to see a notice of intent
before you expect me to send a violation. So, they have to submit a subscript. >> Oh, no, of course not. Um, I've made it clear that it's a notice of intent for complete restoration of the resource area. Now, whether we get that or not,
we'll see. But it's just a matter of how long you want to sit for before we send a violation. So, we don't see it for a month and a half. Do you want to then force them to >> would 21 days be appropriate >> too long?
>> Probably I I would say if it's not filed by let's say by the next meeting. >> Okay. >> Cuz it's you're waiting on consultants. It's Christmas. It's >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> They were aware that this was most likely going to be the case. They were hoping that we close out the existing first, right? >> But no, I mean when it's disagreeous, we
can't. You know, if you're if you're 50 ft into the buffer zone, we're clearing some trees. That's one thing. and you evolved it half of your site. >> So the the garage it's it's >> Oh, it's much larger. >> Oh, of course. >> Um what was it permit to build it?
>> Building permit. Yeah. Oh, that I don't know that that I would have to check. >> Permitting to our office. It's the smaller garage shown on this plan. >> Could you sure could you check for us to see if the building permit? >> Absolutely. >> 100%. Thank you. Y
>> Okay. So, uh, read a motion to file a notice of intent by >> Well, a motion. >> Well, first you want to make a motion to deny their certificate of compliance. >> Um, >> and to request >> with that require the filing of a notice
of intent within 30 days or I'm directed to send an enforcement action that might get I mean, it's it's holding up a closing. So, I think they're going to from what I understand, they're going to move pretty quickly on it. But that also doesn't mean that they just say, "Forget it. I'm not selling it and don't deal
with it, right? Because this is substantial. >> I make a motion that we we deny the certificate of compliance and we request a notice of intent, a new notice of intent uh within 30 days. Does that capture what we need to capture then? >> Yep.
>> Okay. Second. >> Second. >> Uh roll call. I >> I >> I next up is uh notice of intent SC-24-86. We don't have a file number for that.
>> Correct. >> Can I have a motion in the table? >> So move. >> Seconded. >> Roll call. I >> sorry >> I >> I >> Okay. Next is uh request for determination of
accessibility 203. Owner applicant Anne Harkkins property location 960 Valentine Street. Census map is U-16-000013 followed by applicant who proposed to remove the mature trees located within 100 foot buffer zone of bordering
vegetative wetland. The above reference property no stump grinding or soil dist disturbance is supposed. Stumps will remain in a place to minimize the impact. Wood chips will utilize as mo uh mulch to stabilize the soil. All work will be conducted using low pack method
will require the tree removal was intended to migrate the potential hazard, prevent future storm damage, flooding liability, maintain safety while preserving wetland integrity. The area in question part of the residential lot that will be landscape replanted
with vegetation such as orient um fruing plants and for this one. >> Oh, come on. >> Two things. >> Um, >> yep. Come on up. >> Do any of you have >> State your name and address? Then
>> Ian Hawin, 960 Valentine Street, Ba. >> James HVA, same address. Do any of you in your packet have the second plan referenced here which was wetlands file number 24-202
DP superseding order of conditions? >> Well, do you have a copy of that? >> No, it was attached to every plan that we submitted. >> I know that's what it's not part of mine. I don't I have >> again >> there was they reference a superseding order of conditions for wetlands file
number SE24202. Oh, no. The original uh No, the original plan. >> Why is that reference here if it wasn't submitted? >> Just for your reference that there was a plan. >> It says plan or reference. >> So, it's
>> Well, there was there there was a plan. No, there was a plan when when we originally built the house, right? >> There was a plan submitted. >> All right. So, we're going to have to track that down for Okay. And there was an order of conditions >> submitted as well for uh >> and we think and do we think that order
of conditions was closed out? >> Yes, >> it was today. >> So, we're going to track down that stuff. >> Yeah. >> The the question I have is on the plan that you did submit. It has an area shown area where trees will be removed. >> Yes.
>> But that area falls inside of the wetlands line shown on this on that same plan. No. >> You want to come look? >> Yeah. >> You also you're [clears throat] aware that that's a vernal pond, correct? >> It's a vernal pond. Yes. >> Yes, it is. Okay. We're going to get
there. >> So, that see this line walk it. >> Yeah. Well, this is >> one today. That's still >> even the pot that doesn't have water. >> You see in red? >> Yep. Is it? That's wet.
>> Mushy there. Will you show it goes quite a ways >> is in the this side of the wetland is >> it's a big area this is the ditch a lot of it >> this is the see this line right here >> the plan the plan's not big enough to
>> okay so then so then we can't act until we get I I had advised you to get a real plan >> a while ago about this >> yeah but we're not going to do that >> then then we're not going to cut the trees how's that >> cuz right now you're showing trees being cut in a wetland and in your location. You're saying you're cutting it in a
>> here. Here's a story. >> There is a drainage ditch there, >> correct? >> And from and the and the drainage is collected from the roadway for the most part. When the vernal pond fills up, that gets drained. The city never takes
care of it. There's trash, there's leaves, everything in that ditch. along that ditch there's our property and we're filing this because and that plane doesn't show it correctly
but we're filing that because the trees are next to the ditch not necessarily in the wetlands they're next to the ditch. So that's what you show there. It goes through the ditch and goes back around
not inside it. That's not inside the wetlands. >> But that's what this plan shows is that you want to clear. >> This is the wetlands over here. >> Correct. >> You got it the wrong side. >> No, no, no, no. What I have shaded here in red. >> Yeah. >> Wait a minute. So this green blurb,
>> it goes around the >> No, no, no. This is the This is the wetland. So what I advised you to do a while ago, multiple times now, was to hire a consultant. And that's why I miss asked Mr. Waltz to hang around cuz he is the most qualified person to go and help you here and whether you want to see
>> what is his qualification. >> He is he is probably the best wetland scientist that I've ever worked with in 28 years. So he's the one to start with. So he will go hang the flags that tells you >> what's a wetland and what's not. >> The Okay, but the thing the thing is
it's going to be in a wetlands period. >> Well, is it or is it not? >> It Well, you you can look at it many different ways. If the ditch if the ditch is the wetlands, it's in the wetlands. >> But this is the ditch. If the ditch is not the ditch is this narrow part, the
ditch is associated with the bordering vegetated wetland next to >> I know it, right? That's what I'm saying to you. Have you been out there looked at it? I know drive by and the ditch there and the trees are next to the ditch. >> Mhm. >> And that's you want to remove those
trees next to the ditch. So being a good person saying well maybe we should get wild permit if we hire hire a uh someone to cut the trees down and someone may complain and that person cut down the trees would be >> the results of the results of not doing it correctly. >> Well yeah well trying to do trying to do
it correctly. I just want to plant some I want to plant a garden there. I want to plant some fruit trees there. I just want to get rid of those trees. It's on the south side and I want to use that land. And again, the only that land does not get wet.
Okay, the wetlands are further back. We lived there for 20 years. I know where the water is. The wetlands back there. And the only time it gets wet is when the city doesn't clean the ditch. >> Okay. So, >> and it backs up pond.
>> Watering vegetated wetland does not mean water. Does not mean standing water. It means wetland vegetation. I understand. >> And I believe they I could be wrong. It's been some time, but you know, there was a prevalence of high bush blueberry out there and stuff like that. >> Yeah, we have some in the backyard.
>> Yeah, that's a wetland plant. >> Yeah, I want to I want to keep [laughter] planting them in the backyard. So, if that plant >> I'm not saying Okay, I'm not saying it's not in the wetlands. Okay. >> I'm saying the trees are not going to impact the wetlands. >> That's not what your application says. Your application says you're cutting
trees in the buffer zone >> to a bordering vegetated wetland. >> Not in a bordering vegetated wetland. >> The application, let me read it. >> Yeah, you can read it. >> Uh the application respectfully request that the conservation commission issue a negative uh determination applicability
confirming that the proposed tree removal will not alter the wetlands. Right? >> That's what I Let's go back to the description of activity and and the proposed work. >> Yeah. >> 2 A. Read me that box that you wrote. >> Okay. Remove the the trees. I don't want
to read it. >> Stop. Just read the whole thing. >> Yeah. Remove the trees. [cough] >> Keep reading. >> Yeah. [clears throat] Do I need to read the whole thing? >> The first No, the first sentence is plain. >> Huh? Remove mature trees within the 100 foot buffer zone with a boarding wedge of 10 bit. >> Period.
>> Okay. Okay. So, you're saying you want to clear trees in the buffer zone, but on the plan you want to clear trees that are in the wetland itself. >> Well, I just Well, yeah. I'm I'm >> And that's Listen, stop because that's why I told you to hire a professional to do this for you. >> I am a professional.
>> I have a company JC Environmental Services. I've been in the business for 40 years. >> Okay. Well, then if if you can if you want to flag the wetland and if >> I flagged them, they're there already. I know. Listen, I am submitting it's in the wetlands.
Okay? >> I want to remove the trees. What I'm saying to you is that the removal of these trees will not impact the wetlands. >> I disagree with that. >> Okay. >> Shade cover, reduction in evaporation,
all of which >> okay >> can impact. It can also impact the vernal pond. There's increased sun exposure to that vernal pond. It can also have an impact. It can increase. Yeah. No, I disagree. >> Well, the vernal pond is pretty far up. >> So, I know the area. Like I said, I know
the area well, so I respectfully disagree. >> So, all right. >> I don't know if there's anybody. Oh, actually, before we open, did you give Patty the copy of the legal ad? >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. No. No. Period. >> That's it. Okay.
Let's put that so we can we can table it if you want to get add if you want to have a vote. Okay. >> I'd like to have a vote >> that we need anyway. >> Yeah. >> Cuz we don't you know we're
>> we're elderly people. We're limited. I just want to plant the garden there and you know the trees are on the south side of the roadway and the city doesn't take care of it. The city doesn't take care of the ditch. the full of leads. It's full of trash
all the time. You think it's a beautiful area. It's a nice area, but no one's taking care of it but but me. And we're we're 77. My wife's, you know, I don't tell her age, but we're there and we want to plant a garden and just cut down those trees that are causing a problem.
And also, I talked about drainage. >> Those leaves fill up that ditch and cause about flooding. It's going to cause flooding and also cause a tannon problem with the with the uh pond at BCC
and you know nobody complained when the when the >> problem the tanning problem can also be from the thousands of oak trees around the pond too. So >> but there's not allow >> it's there's there's more leaves there than you think.
But anyways, the the issue is that >> nobody complained or nobody filed a notice of intent when when the gas company came by and filled up the ditch and nobody from the city came by and says, "Hey, you're filling up the ditch." I had to go out and say to the gas company and file the gas company,
hey, you can't fill up the ditch. And typically when you say vernal pond, vernal ponds don't have a drainage area. They usually sit there. That's the definition of vertical. This one has a drainage area and the drainage area and I've been arguing with the city for many
years. The road slopes down on I get the drainage from the road >> on my property through my property and then onto your property again >> into the wetland. >> No. No. Into my ditch. It doesn't go into the wetlands. It goes into my ditch. Is that the ditch?
>> We own the ditch. >> Is that the ditch along the Valentine's? >> Yeah, we own the ditch. We own part of that ditch. It goes from your ditch, your land. I know it will. >> You're the conservation commission. You own that land. >> It goes from your ditch to my ditch to
the city ditch. >> Then out to the city >> and out to the uh >> to >> out to the uh uh uh pond at BCC, >> which they don't take care of. >> To help your case, I think and a plan that accurately depicts these things that you're mentioning as
well would help the the case and whether or not Well, what's the plan going to show anything more than what's already shown? >> I can't I I can't show anything. >> We're not um I mean >> I can go out there and delineate the wetland. I can put flags out there and
do everything else. It's not saying like the plan isn't showing. I can see what I can see the wetland icons or the symbols, >> but I don't see and I can interpret there's a wetland line there, but that's it's not there's no legend to indicate
that that's the case. It's just an image for better for better or worse. >> I know. We got to understand we're we're simple people here. We're trying to do we're trying to cut down some trees. >> Completely I completely sympathize with you, but as a commission, we we are required to do things the right way. >> I understand.
>> And if we're approving a plan that we feel is an error, it doesn't appropriately it doesn't appropriately indicate the work that is to be done and where it's to be done, >> it it won't be irresponsible of us to actually >> I know, but it's there. Everything is there in front of you. I have pictures of it. I got the Google pictures of it.
Everything is there in front of you. And I'm trying to be reasonable here. Everything is there in front of you. There's nothing else that I could do to for you except make it bigger. >> No, what they're asking you to do is delineate the weapon. >> It's there already. I wouldn't do what I'm saying to you. I wouldn't do
anything more than what is already there. >> Who delineated the weapon? >> Oh, it was done by the engineer when it when we first >> 1983 >> when it first when it first application. That's why I mentioned that. That's why it was done. So that that's the plan that you're >> Yeah. And I I there is a big plan somewhere with it.
>> Time in 1983 that vernal pond was never certified by NHSP. >> No, it wasn't did when you weren't owned it. You didn't own it. >> Certified in 200. >> Yeah. No, you didn't own it, right? >> Shardan gave it to you. >> I don't know anything about that. >> Yeah, he did. Certified. >> He did. Well, he was the person who owned the land. >> Well, delineation that didn't recognize
a general pond. Well, now we know one's there. So, we have even more question. We didn't and to to give you a little backstory in this. We didn't own that land at one time. We owned the land on the other side and we and we put the house in there.
The planning board made a a had an issue with that because we didn't have 150 foot frontage on Valentine Street. We had 100 foot frontage on Elbury Street. Well, we said our address is Valentine Street. So, they had to give us that extra land. So, I had the land surveyed
this summer and we found out that we own that land. [snorts] We own 70 ft of land where we think we didn't own and it only goes back 40t 70 by 40. So, it's something land that we never had before until we had the
survey done. And if you look at the early plan, it's going to show you that that land is not ours. That was your land that the conservation commission land. So, the whole thing is the whole propertyy's gone all screwed up. And
again, I'm I'm trying to trying to get people I call every month to try to get the city to come out and clean the ditch and clean the trash up. You know, I clean what I can and I blow it out. You know, there's tons of leaves there. >> And I think one of our initial
discussions was that if you had a plan that shows the ditch and the ditch is on city property. >> No, no, no. >> Then No, wait a minute. Okay. >> Then we would maintain the ditch. >> It is on city property. >> Okay. But we don't have a plan that shows >> Yeah. Yeah. It's your plan. >> But you keep saying your ditch. Is it your ditch or is it
>> We both own it. >> The ditch comes down from the vernal pond. Then it goes into our property. Yep. It's staked out. We got it staked out. Surveyed and it goes into our property. Then goes back into your property again. The city's property, right?
>> Conservation Commission property. property city >> has been provide us with an accurate plan wetland delineation and existing >> okay you keep on right we ke on going around in circles here I I gave >> there's nothing more I can give you
that's what we need I mean >> I know what do you you're not telling what do you need that I didn't give you an >> accurate plan >> that is an accurate plan that is an accurate plan there's no more accurate I can't do any more accurate plan I mean I can go out to how You want it
bigger? You want I put it on the screen? I can put it on the screen for you. You can put a Google map. That is an accurate plan. >> Okay. >> I don't know what to tell you. You can say that's an accurate. It was stamped by an engineer, right? [snorts] Stamped by an engineer. It was signed.
It's all It's all approved. >> Our conservation agent and our engineer feels that the plan is not accurate. So, the plan's a copy from 1983. >> That changed. >> What do you mean? You mean you're in this business. So you don't think hydrarology changes? >> No. That's hone.
>> When you guys when you got >> we want you we want you to act on >> delineation request >> for determination of applicability. >> You have my notes. >> I'm asking for a request that uh um
>> they understand. >> Exempt from the application. >> Yeah. I would make a motion to die. Just needing a better plan here. >> Okay, I have a second. >> I roll call.
>> I >> I >> I have that in writing. Now what what you want is a plan. >> No, no. Oh, we're going to we're going to give you what you've asked for, which is a request for determination. We are going to give you now a determination of applicability. >> But I don't know what plan you want.
Well, then the same kind the same plan that everybody else submits to this office for wanting to do a permit. You hire a registered a wetland scientist. You hire a registered land surveyor, which you apparently already have done this summer. They go out, they locate the wetlands flags, you submit a plan that
shows these are the wetlands flags. >> I can't do it. >> No, you're not you're not a registered land surveyor. >> So sketching it on a piece of paper. >> Do I have to have a registered land surveyor do the wetlands? >> No. to locate on put on a plan. Yes. >> Okay. We just had it surveyed. Do we
have a plan? You have >> have wetlands line shown on it. >> You have it. >> You >> You don't You didn't give me anything of a survey plan that you've recently had done. You gave me a copy of the minute. >> The the surveyor surveyor did not do the wetlands.
>> Either or. It wasn't It wasn't this summer like he said. He just had a land survey. >> Oh, we did have a survey. >> We had a land surveyed. Not Not a wetland survey. wet lands weren't delineated. >> Huh? >> The wetlands weren't delineated. So, you're realizing that's a good start. >> You're you're you're you're utilizing the delineation. >> Okay. When I'm asking, can I do it? Then
I go out there and flag it. >> Yeah. Then we'll go look and see if it's accurate. And if it's not, then we'll deny that. So, it would behoove you to spend a few hundred with >> No. Listen. Listen. >> Listen. We listen. We can't tell you what to do. You've asked You asked for a
permit. They've denied it. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. >> That's it. >> All right. Thank you. I think you're all wrong. So, sorry to say that. >> All right. >> Been on. Um, can I have a approval of
the minutes from uh >> meeting schedule? >> Yep. Approve. >> How you doing? >> Approval of 2026 uh meeting schedule. >> I don't see any conflict with any holidays. So yeah, I make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> I.
>> Roll call. >> I >> I >> I >> I. >> All right. Now we have approval of minutes from November 3rd meeting. >> So move. >> Seconded. >> Roll call. >> I >> I >> Okay. No citizen input. >> You want to add anything?
>> Now's your chance. Seriously. >> Um I just wanted a copy of that thing you said. You >> want me to give it? >> Yeah. Yeah, if you have a copy of the uh the >> I'll show you what it is. >> Okay.
>> Cuz I'm not an engineer. >> I'm smart, but not that smart. >> See, cuz this is what I go by. See the Google picture. >> Yeah. Well, no, they definitely clear trees. There's no doubt about that. >> Oh, yes. And there was nests in there.
>> I'll get the hawk's nest, I might add. You guys can finish up. >> All righty. Um, no. Okay. Uh, we can have a motion to [clears throat] >> move. Second. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> All right.
>> All righty. Well, have a good