Welcome to the uh conservation commission meeting being held at One Government Center. Uh we're in the uh public hearing room. It's uh Monday, July 6, 2026, 5:30. Um 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 mediums. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible. We'll start roll call
to my left. Chris Bo, >> Lewis Ferrer, >> John Bren, >> Jim Cusk, >> and we also have tonight Dan Agi, our conservation agent, Patty Agi, our uh head clerk, and we have Craig from For
TV, and we're missing committee members Drew Carine and Tim McCoy. Uh, first discussion is a update on Bell Rock Road. Uh so nothing new since the last meeting. Um waiting for better
conditions to replace the trees along the street. Um once they're done with that, I would assume they'd be filing for a certificate of compliance. So things have been a little bit too dry. Don't let today fool you. >> Mhm. >> So just keep we'll keep an eye on this one.
>> Okay. Motion to table. >> Motion table. >> Second. >> Favor. >> I >> I >> I passes. Uh, next a review and discussion of adopting uh, fee structures. >> All right. So, um, I haven't gotten a lot of input other than what we had
initially. So, I've drafted a set of what I think we'll we'll move forward with. I will forward that to you all via email. I also reached out to um, Serpent who I had found out at a meeting a couple of weeks ago just when they were doing an environmental update for things
that they had working on. They often help municipalities draft bylaws as well. So I reached out to to one of the the girls there that I work with and she said she was more than happy to help us with some of that stuff. So I would told her I would send her a skeleton framework of where we want there to
start off with. So once you guys look at the fee and again I'm not asking you to vote on a fee. That's why you take a look at it via email respond seems reasonable just so that I can have her create the general framework and then you will have a discussion of the entire
package. Um but again >> the bylaw fairly stripped down just from the things that John and Chris and I had talked about. So, can we send her or do we want to wait um can we send her that with the the work that Eugene and I did and then hear back from her with
reputations or do you need to hear from the full board or >> No, no, no. I I would just like to before I send her the draft fees, >> I would like somebody everybody to say we're good with something like that. So, okay. >> Once I get a comment back on the fee, >> um then I will send it to her and see uh
what services she can provide. >> That'd be great. I can I have a motion at the table? >> Motion to table. >> Second. >> Uh all in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay. Uh review and discussion outstanding uh enforcement order.
>> We don't have any that are completely outstanding. They're all in various degrees of coming in compliance. We did get an update on remember Redwood Lane. >> Yes. >> I don't um off of Blossom Road. Remember it was
the path through the woods. I did get a call last week to schedule a sitewalk next week to go look at where they're at with the restorations, which is positive. Moving that one in the right direction. Other than that, no uh no movement, no response back from D on the items that we had sent to them. So
>> So they they they do acknowledge and that and they have reviewed their deed restriction out there. >> Yes, 100%. Yeah. So what we had talked about um on their plan for modifications when they when they responded to the
enforcement order, they've started to do some work of removing the fill areas and preparing some restoration areas. So they're ready for me to go look at them elevation wise before they >> Right. because foot paths are okay, but what was that? >> Right. Okay. >> Yeah. I have not seen another plan. They just asked me to go do a site visit to look at the areas that they're in the
process of restoring. >> Good. Okay. Uh can I have a motion table? Motion to table. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Okay. Next. Notice of intent SE-24-855. Applicant Weaver's Cove Industrial Park
LLC. Project location New Street Assessments Map is T-2 lot 001. This was filed by Chris Fertelli of Goodart Consulting LLC. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant is proposing after the fact restoration of the area cleared of vegetation. This was tabled
from June 1st. So, we have had some movement on this. The two consultants have met. I believe they've come up with a dis an agreement on where the resource areas are. Um, which I think they did a great job. I mean, the the applicant, the consultant that's working for us, um, very thorough. So, I believe that's
been nailed down. That was just emails going back within the last couple of days. So, I think that's been resolved. We did get another email from attorney Nylan. I reached out to him earlier in the day. He responded at about quarter past 4 requesting that they be tabled until the August meeting so that they can work with the restoration plan now.
But we're we're still moving that one in the right direction. Not at a not at light speed, but nothing's happening out there until we say it's okay. So >> all right. >> Motion to table to August. Seconded. >> All in favor? >> I I
>> Okay. Uh next uh notice of intent SE-24-857. Applicant is Liberty Utilities owner Spectrum Realy project location 994 Jefferson Street Cessors Map D-20 lot 0002 filed by Ryan Erling of Trimmont
Engineering Company on behalf of the applicant. The applicant proposing to install 222 of 4in carrier pipe with 2-in main gas main through means of horizontal directional drilling. Uh project also includes an entry and exit pit. This was
tabled from June. I haven't received anything new as far as design plans go. I have discussed with Liberty Utilities um regarding their the easement that they're required to obtain from the city of Fall River because it actually what they thought was a an actual street. It
is not. It's a privately owned piece of city land. So, they'll have to get an easement. So, I know they've been working with the at uh corporate council to to acquire that. That's runs parallel to what's being requested of you. So at this time nothing um as far as a revised
plan uh that for you to review. So with that I recommend the matter be table. Okay. Motion table. >> Motion to the table. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I next is a notice of intent SE-24-861. Applicant is uh Irene Rocowski Cahillo
NEPC National Grid. Uh owner is Weaver's Cove uh Industrial Park LLC. Uh project location existing overhead transmission line. Uh multiple locations filed by Erica Marcelo of power engineering consulting on behalf
of the applicant. The project is located within a section of existing rightways from Sky Road substation to Somerset Fall River municipal boundaries over Taton River. Uh the project consists of separation of existing N12 and M13 transmission lines uh on prepared uh
multiple uh structures within this existing rightway. >> So again running concurrently with the Weaver's Cove project. We did receive correspondence today from National Grid and their attorneys requesting that the matter be tabled while they continue to resolve the internal issues between the
two bodies. So with that, I'd recommend the matter be tabled. >> Motion to table. >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay. Next, a request for a certificate of compliance SE-24-762 project location 3820 North Main Street.
Such as map is X-3- 00010 filed by Alexander Kowski of Kowski Engineering on behalf of the applicant. The applicant request certificate of compliance table from June. >> Um we have nothing new. We're still waiting for a revised asphalt plan
responding to our initial comments. >> Motion is table seconded. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Okay. >> Next, a request for certificate of compliance SE-24-756. Owners Casey Manoski of Trustee of Casey
Mqualskis. Sorry about missing that there. uh revocable uh trust project location 40 Frederick Street's map is C-15- Z007 filed by Alexander Kowski of Kowski engineer on behalf of the applicant the
applicant request certificate on compliance this was table from June >> uh same as the last one we're still waiting for those revised as plants that respond to our comments >> motion table motion table seconded all in >> favor I Hi. >> Hi.
>> Okay. Next is notice of intent SE-24-875. Applicant is Mallister Towing and Transportation Company, Inc. Uh, owner of One Shaw Street LLC. Project location
Shaw Street. Says his map is H-20-00001. uh filed by Todd my bills associate on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing to repair and replace sheep pile bulkhead elevated portions of the site behind the seaw wall repair existing peers reinventment install
fendering system and install reinforced ballards to support vessels birthing the applicant's additional proposing to dredge portions of the terminal basin to E1-27.43 43 to accommodate the deeper uh draft vessels anticipated to make the use of
terminal dredging will occur within the footprint of prior authorization for dredging of the terminal basin to E E1-24 MLLW. Finally, the applicant will improve the site utilities including shore power
components capable of supporting cold ironing cold iron vessels at birth reducing emissions to noise impact. This was table from June. >> So uh if you remember at the last hearing we had a discussion and you voted to send this to a peer review
consultant. I sent it out to three different companies. We did get a response from one actually we did get two responses. We got one positive response from fourth infrastructure uh with their proposal for services uh Judith Niche Engineering after I followed up with them. Initially they
had wanted to um offer services. I followed up with them today. um they responded back today that they don't feel that the scope of work is something that they could provide um adequate services for. I'm still waiting for a response from VHB. Um so I would say we
I don't want to just pick one. So let's see if I can get another one in for that. Is anybody here for that tonight? And what are you here for? What you hearing? >> He's with me. >> Oh, okay. Good. All right. I don't want to I don't want to ignore somebody at least they have comments. Uh so with
that I recommend that the matter be tabled. >> Okay. >> Motion to table. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> uh next request certificate of compliance SC-24-161. Uh owner 3G Reality Limited Partnership
project location 372 Steven Street. Testers map is E-26-001 followed by Sean Ainsworth of Insight uh engineering. on behalf of the applicant. The applicant requested a certificate of compliance. This was tabled from June. >> So at the last meeting, if you remember,
we discussed with um Sean Ainsworth regarding the asbo plan that he had submitted over the last month. They have been on site with the contractor uh continuing to uncover drainage structures that were installed, uh installing some cleanouts, doing some additional camera testing. So, we're
just waiting for an updated asbuilt plan and photographs that illustrate compliance with the plan. So, um I think we're close and as long as we get it on paper, we'll be okay. But, believe it or not, it apparent I mean there were some sub substantial drainage structures
installed under this parking lot >> that I don't think the owner even knew were there. So, you know, they weren't necessarily maintained properly, but they've all been jetted clean. Installing some cleanouts moving forward. So hopefully we can get this cleaned up because I know they are waiting to sell this. Um but they can't until they get this order released.
>> Yep. For the purpose of recording orders and conditions >> want to sell. >> So can I have a motion to table? >> table. >> I Okay. Next. Request for determination
accessibility- 208 owner Massachusetts Coastal Railroad. Uh applicant Thomas Lewis property location Mass Coastal Railroad rightway sessions map na filed by Thomas Lewis of TEC Associate Consulting Engineering. The applicant is
proposing vegetation management on railroad rightways in coordinance with the guidelines set forth in the massus rightway management regulations 33 CMR and approve vegetation management plan. No work will take place within 10 ft of
uh resource area. Identify uh provisions of wetland protection regulations with uh applicant uh having to file a notice of intent. >> So um this is fairly standard. We deal with it every couple of years. This is just having to do with vegetation
management along the rail lines. Um standard paperwork is submitted. I would recommend that we issue a negative determination and allow their maintenance program to continue on as as it currently does. >> Y motion to issue a negative determination. >> Second.
>> We'll do a roll call on this. >> I >> I >> I >> I >> Okay. Next. The request of the determination of accessibility-207 owner is TRM Development LLC. Project location Bark Street, Monarch Street,
Norwood Street, Cess Map K-3- 0005- 0014- 0057 and 0094 filed by Alexander Kvowski of Kvowski Engineering on the applicants proposing site clearing, grubbing
install, erosion control per approved plan to prepare for future development. >> So we had actually dealt with this at last month's meeting where m Mr. Gardenski promised us that he had filed the appropriate legal advertisement which he had not. So, we placed it again
on this month's agenda. He has supplied the uh correct advertising um alerting the public to it. Obviously, we have no one here from the public tonight to offer comment to it. So, with that, I would recommend that you issue the same negative determination that we did at last month's meeting now that we have
the copy of the legal ad. >> Okay. Can I have that motion? So moved. Second. >> Okay. Do roll call. >> I >> I >> I >> I >> Okay. >> Read off your agenda, John, not my report. I >> So, next is
the uh request for certificate of compliance SE-24. Yeah. -207 U owner uh James Valanc Court project location uh 4041 North Main Street Census map is X-3-000042 >> uh filed by Alexander Kowski of
engineering on behalf of the applicant the applicant request a certificate of compliance >> so uh Alex had submitted an asbill plan of sorts um with the appropriate paperwork to get this order of conditions closed out with a certificate of compliance we do not have record of
the 207 file which dates back to 1992. Um, Alex did not have it either. >> So, I've sent out an email to D if they can find a copy of the plan. He's also reached out to the owner and see if they can find a plan. Uh, so my comical email
back to Alex was how do you know if how can you sign a paper that it was built in accordance with the approved plan if you don't have a copy of the approved plan? I don't have it either. So, um, we'll table it and and see if we can come up with that plan. So we have something to compare it to. >> Okay. Have a motion to table.
>> Motion table. >> Seconded. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. >> Okay. Next, uh we have a discussion on 52 Ferry Street. I know me and Dan were down there last week uh looking over.
>> Yeah. So, let me give you a few comments. So, the this is normally something that we would just take something in in correspondence. Uh we were CCD on some comments that were received by the Army Corps of Engineers for the permitting of the 52 Ferry
Street um marina expansion that we had issued an order of conditions for maybe like two years ago. They had gone through the process of going through uh D and getting their chapter 91 license just not all that long ago and they actually had to re they received a
variance for doing so because of where it's actually located. So just a dates back to to June of 25. So they're still in the Army Corp peritting of it. Um part of that process allows for comment from even the general public adjacent
land owners and um there is an adjacent land owner board in Remington who has um provided significant comment to the Army Corps of Engineers. So, they were courteous enough to send all that along to us um just for our own edification
for the time being while they figure out what's being done, what can be done, what has been done, what did have permits, what did not have permits. There's a lot in the correspondence. I read through it all. I found a couple of items that I think are can be responded
to fairly simply, but there are some there are some bigger ticket items in here, mostly having to deal with navigation. um when when you have a facility that brings in ships that are 400 to 600 ft long and we and we discussed this at the time, right? That when when we were permitting the the
marina that we had reached out to the harbor master who was our specialist with dealing with navigation, but that chapter 91 and the army corp would deal with that. So they are hitting some hurdles with the navigation portion of this. Um, we I I we do I I don't do we
send the copies to everybody when we receive them or just my the normal ones that I that I send them out. I can send out comments of of everything just so that you're aware of it all. >> Um, >> yeah, there we got them. Yeah. Um, so you can read
through it and and basically the majority of it of of it is the land owner directly north wants to preserve their ability to bring in certain size ships and this may may have an impact their ability to do so. Um, so we're just putting everybody on notice. Um, I
started doing some digging based upon some of the assertions that are in some of the letters from the consultants that were cemented to Amy, but at this time I'm not ready to give you any findings on my behalf yet. Once we do so, then you can determine which which path you
may want to go once it's been determined whether some actions have either been permitted or not permitted. So, >> okay, >> with that, does anybody in the audience want to add to that? >> I'd be happy to. Okay, sure. just uh take too much your time. >> That's okay. >> Um it just uh my name is Bob Bogen. I'm
the president of the board of Remington and I'm also the uh owner of the property. So uh at 63 Water Street uh as uh Mr. Agar was saying that you guys got CC to a letter uh electronic mail that was also sent to six
additional D mass state in Boston and also southeast of Mass. um uh NEPA mass uh coastal zone management and so this was uh through our research through our engineering
firm through our maritime lawyer that uh we found some significant uh issues with this. So for what we do, we bring in vessels in from Europe. Product is for sodium hydroxide. We're bringing in uh six times a year. Uh significant uh
investment to bring that in. But also our ability or lack of ability to uh bring these vessels in. Also you see a letter from the pilots association. they they are um uh against any kind of expansion from marina where they cannot
bring in safely into any of those vessels. So for us it's a big impact for our business if we lose that ability to bring in these vessels uh to this to the extent where jobs are at stake and that's not an exaggeration but I and to a certain point I'm here for those
protect those jobs that are going to be severely impacted. So for again for our business for what we do um this project along with some issues where we feel that whatever the responsibility for the conservation commission to do you know
look to any enforcement action which is again this is uh uh factual this is research this is not rumors this is not accusations so we don't waste time we're not going to waste your time on that stuff so uh a lot of people put a lot of
good time into on So whatever the conservation can do on your end for your responsibilities, we appreciate it. But if there's any questions anybody has, what we do or what's going on. So I appreciate uh Mr. A, Mr. Brent coming down. We got to show
them what we do and and uh it's probably a long time coming. I mentioned it to bring in people. So we have a good relationship with all our regulatory agencies. It's an arms length of all between D, EPA, OSHA, Homeland Security,
Coast Guard along with CZM, you name it. Uh, Federal Rail. So, we deal with uh as many people as possible. And we always say the people that need to know know. And so, I I recommended you want to talk to the environmental compliance officer
with the Florida Fire Department. She does a great job and she's great to work with. So, you know, um, highly recommend any of that kind of conversations. >> Uh, can you do you know where where you're at in the process as far as
>> So, what Army Corp does at this point is that they uh wait for the other side to make a presentation say okay how >> the comment period's closed. So, now you're just so they waiting for their end. Uh, we would never list it as an abuter in this process as well.
Um so obviously for 63 water street our our property is where is the biggest impact. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um what's the largest vessel Bob you bring in? >> We average well over 500 ft but we have taken in the measurements on that report
was one that's around 620 ft. So today's shipping process is they're trying to get as many big large vessels out there as possible to get as much uh uh as they can. So for because it does make me multiple stops. It doesn't just come one stop the fall river. It'll go down the
coast or vice versa come back up this way. >> And you said about six times a year you get to it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So each Go ahead Chris. >> What percentage of that Bob is what percentage do you see that impacting of your >> Oh, that's probably a good 25 to 30% of that business.
>> Significant. So it's not, you know, so each vessel cost, it's a commodity product and it's it uh averages out to uh $1.3 million per uh delivery to come in. That's so it's a significant impact
on us uh to purchase and bring in. So >> it's uh it's it's allows us to be very competitive for what we're doing. There's really no other way to do it. So just so just so everybody understands multiple facets to this matter. Some you
have jurisdiction over, some you don't. So you you administer the Wellins Protection Act. So So your scope is fairly limited. So the actions taken by this commission don't necessarily deal with the ongoing issues that Bordon Remington will have
with bringing in ships, right? We don't deal with the navigation part of it. So, so we deal with the land where improvements are anything between meat and high low water and then that goes to to DV and they issue the licensing for um for the structures themselves. The
actual um navigation part of it and the logistics of how it operates and how it impacts abuing properties. That's why it's now at this point. Um it would be nice if there was an agency or that all agencies started at the same time and provided
comment so that we don't continue get further and further down the road. So >> does this also go to site plan review or >> No, it does not. No. So again, any of the issues that So there there are many issues that were brought up here that have to do with 52 ferry operation and
uh one ferry which is Bordon Light Marina. Some historic matters there. Technically what's in what's in front and what Bordon Remington commented on is the navigation issues of the expansion of the marina. >> So because some of these other items
were brought up then then it may have jurisdiction with you that I need to resolve before advising or recommending or figuring out our like what is our job in in all of this. Um, so I was very appreciative that it was brought to our
attention by by the core. Um, and and we'll keep moving things along. I'm sure Bob will keep us up to date. >> Yeah, we felt it was very important in uh incorporating the uh conservation commission, what we doing, so where to send it out, where to get it to keep you guys >> uh up to speed, what's going on.
>> You're you have a large footprint down there. >> Yeah. >> I'm just Is there any reason why you weren't included in as an abuter? You can't answer that question. Look >> back at the notice of intent. So for conservation commission purposes, the assessor's office >> created
>> we have uh as much actually your office provided us with information which we never received. >> So uh you had I can't answer that question. >> Okay. >> I can but you should have at least received a letter >> from the applicant that says they're
before the commission for this marina creation for the initial hearing for the conservation. >> Correct. So, so that I that I want to check and make sure that you were on the list. >> We have another property south of that and that sporadically received notice,
but that's not that's not impacted by any of this. >> Well, impacted or and a butter are within 100 ft. So that so the law states that they have to notify a butters within 100 ft. >> We're within 100 ft. >> So So then you should have received a notice of the notice of intent that was
filed. Other than that, there would be no notification here as far as the as far as chapter 91 goes, >> adjacent land owners that that show up because they're labeled on the plan, the chapter 91 plans. >> Yeah. So, you are listed. No, Mike
Marina >> Ferry Street ERT Holdings 52 Ferry. So, no. So, you're you're not Oh, no. Lee Francis LLC. >> That's that's south. That's the property. That would have been the abuter that got >> That's the one I was saying. We
sporadically received notific. >> So that one would have received because they're they technically share a property line. So then they're in a butter. >> Yeah. >> So they were notified >> but not the property that's getting impacted by >> No, I understand you're so um cuz that's what so we rely on the assessor office
creates the list then the the property owner notifies and show gives us the green cards that they were all notified. So um but what I wanted to say is have only because as I've read through this and again started doing some homework there were some comments made about some
of the structures and work that was done at one ferry where they reference that that there were no licenses correct >> or orders of conditions issued. >> Correct. >> I think there were or was an order of conditions issued for the specific area that they called out. I can't say that
they went forward and modified their license afterwards. Um, but have them call me and I I can >> through VHB. That's what they found through their research. >> Right. Right. But but it's I I just want to make sure that what what they are saying
>> I I don't know whether they that they just looked at what was recorded at the registry of deeds. >> No, it says it in the report where they looked it up under. So there was nothing filed with coastal zone manage or meepa or anything like that. >> Right. They make reference that there was no notice of intent or order of conditions issued.
>> That I think may be wrong on on one of the matters, but we really I don't want to discuss that tonight because >> we're just talking about the correspondence today, but >> we will uh we will keep an eye on it, but keep us in the loop and hopefully we can provide some assistance getting this matter
>> resolved. This is designated designated port area, right? >> Correct. and looking at regulations, whether it's coastal zone management, whatever, they put a high priority on industrial
use. So, they had to go get a variance from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for constructing a recreational marina in a designated port. And that took them a while to do, but but they jumped through that hoop and they did get that done
prior to the prior to them getting their actual chapter 91 license. >> Not easy to do. >> Yeah. Just reading the regulations. >> Yep. >> It seems like uh they really really push for the
industrial use and water dependent >> companies there. It didn't seem like they look kindly on encroachment. >> Yep. So again, in the June 26 letter from D and it's 24 pages long regarding
written determination pursuant to MGL chapter 91 for a variance of 310 CMR 9.0. Uh and that's what that's what they had to deal with. Um so we we have that and in our record as well. It's it's fairly lengthy, but it's
what they were it's what they determined and what they relied upon allowing this to happen regarding chapter 91 licensing. >> Yeah, that's a separate matter. So that's that's D with chapter 91 and then Army Corps with with the uh the other
matter about continuing with the project. So >> yeah. >> Okay. >> Well, we thank you for your time. >> No, thank you. I appreciate it, guys. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, moving forward, are uh you're going to like the work done. Can we >> I'll do a little I'm I'm going to do
some assessing of >> because there it's various >> per I don't know what you want us to say on now before we but um there's some stuff that's looks like it might not be it might it may or not >> I think it benefit both the marina and
that there was one main area of concern that I think >> we at least covered our end of the permitting. >> Yeah. I don't know if moving forward if the applicant went and amended their license. >> Yeah. >> Um sometimes marina owners feel that they have a marina footprint and
anything that happens within the footprint is fair game. Um I'm not of that mindset, but I can understand how a marina owner might think that. So that that that we got to look into a little bit more and and if if I come up with
something that I think is a violation then at that point I I will let you know. >> All right. Uh so can I have a motion to table this? >> Motion to table. >> Yeah. Seconded. >> I uh next approval of the minutes from May
4th. Um May 4th. I vote on that. Can I have a motion? It's both approval minutes May 4th and >> uh the only thing you and uh I wasn't here for June. >> I cannot vote June 1st one need to take
these separately separately. >> So the first one May 4th >> yeah motion to approve. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Okay. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Okay. Next is June 1st. What do we have?
The only two that were here were you and Jim for that >> table. I can ask you a question. >> All right. Yep. >> Any citizen input? >> Nope. >> Can I have a motion motion to adjurnn?
>> Second. All >> in favor? All right. All right.