Uh welcome to the forward conserv conservation meeting. Uh we're in the atrium tonight. It's uh uh January >> 7th >> 6th um it's 5:30 uh one government center.
Uh pursuant to the open meeting law, any person to make an audio or video recording of this public meeting and may transmit the meeting through any media. Please therefore advise that subject quaries or transmissions are being made for received or unreceived by those present deemed acknowledged and
start roll call to my left Chris Bole for John Grant McCoy and we also have uh Dan Aguiar uh conservation agent uh Patty Aguiar recording uh clerk and we We have Gary
elect from uh FRGTV. Um let's see. Uh updates on Belro. So updates on Belro. Nothing new to add. Um waiting to get through um the season. I did again speak with the consultant waiting for a drier and off frozen time
to deal with whatever silk we can. So we're probably approaching a time now where things will dry up a little bit and frozen conditions will allow them to figure out what we need to do as far as moving. So the site itself is fine completely vegetated now is dealing with getting the silt out of the resource center that had been transposed there
over the last few weeks. Keep it on the agenda and we'll keep on motion to move. Second >> review and discussion of adopting fee structure scheduled December 1st. Still
nothing new on that. >> Uh if we can try and get stuff in this month so we can start moving forward on that motion to table. >> Motion to table. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> I passes. Uh next uh review and
discussion of outstanding enforcement orders. >> So I know at the last meeting we had planned on having an updated list uh and status of all of the outstanding enforcement orders. I was not able to complete that. So we would pass them table and get you guys the list.
Can I have a motion table? So move >> second. All in favor? >> I I pass. Okay. Next, the notice of intent is SE-24-843. Applicant is Marco Chris. Project location 565 Detroit Street Census
M-27-0042. File on behalf of Farland Court on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing to install an ingground pool concrete pad and patio with associated grade. This is taken from Janu I mean December 1st. So this again we did received an email today from the
applicant from Faron Corp asking that the matter be tabled. I did explain to him that at some point the commission is going to just act on the information that we received. Um I can reiterate that fact to him again every month it's we're close we'll get something file and
we don't get anything. So at some point I told him that he will have had enough with that um and we'll just act on it. But it would be good to let them know that we're going to act this meeting. might want [clears throat] to get in if something wants to go out to double
check to see there hasn't started. >> Um, no, I can go check. I don't I don't anticipate that any work has started. Um, but I can I can at least go check. >> Motion table. Motion table. Second.
I I Okay. Next notice of intent SC-24-847 applicant John Henry owner Harkkins Whitfield LLC project location 121
Whitfield Street Map C-17 lot 0024 filed by Sean Awood of Insight Engineering on behalf of the applicant the applicant proposal construction of a single family dwelling statement from December 1st. So again, we received an email today from Sean Hworth from Inside Engineering
requesting that the matter be tabled. This and Detroit Street have been both about on the same schedule as far as when they were submitted and waiting for revised information. Um I explained to Sean as well as I did the final court that at some point enough is going to be
enough to act. Um so he he again responded to the email saying that one month continuing should be enough. So I would anticipate on this one um after February by motion table motion table second
>> I I >> I >> next notice intent SE-24-855 applicant owner we code industrial park LLC quad location map is T-2 lot 001 followed by Chrisali
of Woodart consulting LLC on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing an after the fact restoration of an area of presentation table. So I did receive an email from Chris Feroli from God consultant um today a
memo updating us. Uh you recall this is the project that we hired a third party reviewer from LEC. They've been going back and forth looking um to try to determine where the water and vegetated wetlands actually are. LEC's been doing a good job of
holding their feet to the fire. Regarded in that email, I don't know who it will do. Um is that they anticipate having all outstanding items ready for February. Let's hope >> and I'm assuming that it will come along
with signature from see Okay. Motion to table. Motion to table. Second. >> I >> I >> Okay. Next is a notice of 10 SE-24-857 applicant Benjamin Phillips
utilities own spectum realy project location 994 Jefferson Street map-20 lot 002 by Ryan Edgler at Triount Engineering Company. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant is proposing to
install 222 and five of 4 in carrier pipe with 2 in of gas beam for the main or drilling project also entry in an exit pit from December 1st. So I was able to finally get a response from someone at
Liberty Utilities. It's not their consulting engineer but one of the project managers. um they are working with part of this project and one of the outstanding comments was that it was crossing over parcel land owned by the city of Fall River and they needed to acquire an easement in order for the
work to even proceed. So they have started that discussion with the law department to acquire and easement. So we have made some movement on it at least with the groundwork that is needed to take place underneath the uh underlying wealth protection act uh
jurisdiction. We are moving forward on that. But at that I would recommend that the matter be tabled until they can resolve the outstanding items. Motion do >> second call. Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi.
>> All right. >> Next is a notice of intent SC-24-B61 applicant Ernie Wuski Kahill 80 PC uh DBA National Grid. uh owner of Weaver's Cove. Modesto Park
LLC a project existing overhead transmission line RO systems map multiple locations filed by Erica Maria of Power Engineering Corp. On behalf of the applicant, the project is located in section existing right away from the Sky
Road substation set for municipal boundaries over the top river. project consists of separation of existing N12 and N13 transmission lines from a repaired monopoly structure within existing right away from December 1st.
So again, we did receive uh email correspondence from Jessica Wall. The only outstanding item really for this um this petition is the signature from the um landowner which is the Cove land owner for previous application. So as soon as each of them signs each other's
applications as they are the underlying land owner then we can proceed on both of those. So with that recommend that the table got vot I >> I uh discussion of violation of 394
Kilboard Street. So, I had at I think two meetings ago, um I had sent email correspondents to the land owner asking if they were going to be filing those intent relatively soon. I have not gotten a response back. So, when we do the update of enforcement orders, we'll
deal with that one. And where in our schedule or menu of violations do we want to deal with? You just want to go directly to the or we want to have them give a specific time motion table. It's a move.
>> Second. I >> I >> I >> uh next request for certificate of compliance SE-24-161 applicants G Realy Limited Partnership project location 372 Steven Street map
Z-26-001 followed by Chain Sean Hansworth of Insight engineer on behalf of the applicant the request certificate compliance table from December 1st No. Um, so just an update on this. When
we dealt with this at the last meeting, uh, this applicant had two petitions before you. One was the welcome line delineation which was signed off on fine. Then they had submitted his certificate of compliance for work that had been done many years ago. Um, that the plan submitted clearly did not
indicate that work done compliance with plan. I don't know if they'll ever be able to get to that. um the amount of utilities that were underground, specifically some drainage structures. So, we can do one of two things. We can allow them to continue to work towards
getting this revised plan or you can act on just denying the specific off agenda. It's a matter of space on the paper or we want to give them a little bit more time to try to come up with something. >> How long has my matter been on the agenda? >> This has probably been two months, I
think. No, and they've been very responsive. Um, but when the applicant or when they the consultant they submitted a plan, an as plan of what they were able to see and when you look at what was permitted back in '95 or 96, there's all kinds of
underground drainage that was supposed to be installed. There was no way of determining what was done. Uh, so I've explained to them that they may want to decide just to file a new notice of intent. and start fresh,
but they haven't decided to take that that direction yet. So, so they are cooperative. Oh, they're being they're being very cooperative. I honestly just don't think I don't think they can give us what we would want in order to sign off on this, but they haven't they have not pulled the club and said we can't give you what
you're asking for. I think we can afford them sometime. >> Motion at table. >> Second. >> Roll call. I >> I >> I >> Excuse me. So that's tabled again? >> Yep. >> Yes, it is. >> Okay.
>> They haven't submitted anything new. >> And and and what this is, all this is is the work that they've done >> 15 or 20 years ago. >> They're just asking for us to sign off on it saying that it was done correctly. This isn't proposing any new work.
>> Oh, okay. any new work would require them to notify you to come to a meeting to discuss something that they've proposed. What's on the agenda tonight is only dealing with is what they constructed 20 years ago done in accordance to the permit they got then. >> I see. >> So there's nothing new happening. This
is just dealing with >> but there's a machine there. >> So they're authorized to do the environmental cleanup >> that they're required to do. Yeah. >> Once they got the weapons line approved at the previous meeting. >> Okay. So the areas that they're working in, they've been given permission
because there are exemptions under the protection act that allow the kind of work that they're doing to take place. >> Okay. >> So that's what they're doing. They're not constructing anything. They're removing a foundation. They're doing soil testing and environmental cleanup if they find something that's hazardous material. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> All right. Thank you very much. >> By any means feel free to call the office with any questions or comments or >> Thank you. you see something. >> Thanks. Uh next abbreviate notice of resource area uh SC-24-868
applicant Michael Bisco owner of greater forward development court project location 95 and 151 assessment map Z-3 box 0012 and 0018 consult the
proceeding seeking confirmed boundaries of both ordering good things now be able to move this. >> So, previous last meeting we did not have a file number. We have a we actually get a file number the following day which seems to always be the case here which actually it's Tuesdays I
think when they issue file numbers which actually helped that we did a meeting today and not yesterday that wouldn't have had a file number yesterday. They did get one today. Um so we do have a file number. Do we have the legal ad and green cards?
>> Everything. Yeah. be the green cards or the receipts. >> Okay, that's fine. So, >> yeah. Well, no, they were like I gave them all last week, last meeting. >> I think they were submitted last night. >> Um, so with that, I have no issues with the with the delineation. There's actually been two previous delineations
done on this piece of land and this was within 5 or 10 ft of either way of those lines. So, with that, I recommend the approval of the water and vegetated wetland delineation as shown. No other resource areas just I make a motion to approve the BVW delineation as shown.
Second >> I next 10 SC24-869 the owner um Christian silver um applicant I mean owner is Ryan Soros project location 6 Shannon Street map is
D-9 box 0029 filed by Steven Carado of Parland Corp on behalf of the applicant the applicant construction of the garage edition of the associated grading. This is table from December 1st. >> But before we start, you want to ask
Stevie about Detroit. He might be able to get the answer on that. >> On which one? >> Are you working on Detroit? >> No, I'm not. I actually just texted the uh project manager on that express. >> He emailed me today. It's always a last minute thing. >> Yeah, it's a tough project. >> I'll have a conversation with with them. And >> I don't think it's him. It might be the
applicant. Yeah, we need to let them know either move or withdraw. >> So again, uh previous to the last hearing, we did not have a file number for this. This is regarding uh an addition being built to the existing dwelling at at Shannon. So we can get green cards and legal out if we don't
have them already. And then after that um through my review, this this parcel did receive um zoning relief and is in site plan review as well. So, um, with that, I would recommend the issuance of the order of conditions subject to a few special
conditions that you see in your package regarding the extension of erosion control up the side lot lines. No work shall take place until site plan review is satisfactory completed. No work shall take place until the letter from the board of health has been provided regarding adequacy acceptance system. No
work shall take place until the building permit has been issued. But we can let Mr. Kaval leave this presentation. >> Sure. Um, for the record, Stevie Kavalo of Farland Corp., I gave you the hard copies of the green cards and the certified mailings. I also emailed all
of that stuff along with the the legal ad. I emailed that as well. >> Um, I do. >> So, I do have reduced scale copies if anybody wants one. >> They all have copies. >> Okay. So, the applicant's just looking to construct a garage edition with
living space above the rear of the property. They abut south of pond. you pretty much the entire properties within 100 ft to the top of bank of the southwaba pond. In an effort to offset the increase in imperous area, they're
removing the existing paved driveway and putting down gravel. Um, as a result, they'll be reducing actually uh maximum lot coverage just slightly from 29.3% to 24.2%. Um, there's an existing well at the rear
of the property. They're looking to um use that just for irrigation. So, abandon it for um domestic use and tie into existing water service um on Shannon Street. The site does have a septic system at the front of the
property as sewer's kind of far away. They plan on keeping that. There's no increase in the number of bedrooms. Um currently working with the board of health on on that situation. um be happy to answer any questions commission may have.
>> Yes, I mean zoning was a big hurdle for this, but they were able to get past that portion of it. >> Questions, we're going to have a motion for order conditions with the following special conditions control extended to the 100
foot buffer zone on both sides of the work limit. No work shall take place until site plan approval was satisfactory. No work shall be take place until a letter from the board of health has been provided regarding the existing septic system and no work shall
take place until building permit has been issued. Just want to double check. Make sure there's nobody here yet that have comments on radio. Anybody here? >> I'm not I'm not There's six of us on that street and we're all 110% for
>> Okay, good. I mean, we all have big homes and they're like, she's been working, her and her husband, for two years for this and why not? They're a young couple. They give to the city. Tax isn't going to be better. So, let's do it. >> Okay. >> They've just been fighting and I've been
going to meetings. I did it 30 something years ago. I'm literally next to her and I'm like, it was so much easier back then. I don't know. I'm just old. And we're the owners and I just want to thank the commission for reviewing this case. Thank you.
>> I'll make an order to issue the order of conditions with the additional four special conditions as you see. >> I thank you. >> I'm going to go have a drink. Mr. Chairman, do we have a motion to
take the first four new business items at once development? >> Yep. We have a motion. >> Second. >> I >> I >> I
uh let's see. First request for certificate of compliance SE-24-829. Outer is Jeffrey Johnson. Project location 16 Bronson Street assessments map at C-16 uh 0105.
Uh next one is uh request of certificate of compliance SC-24-829 owner Jeffrey uh Johnson project location for Bronson Street assessor map is C-16-108. Uh, next one is request of certificate
of compliance SC-24-829. Owner is Jeffrey Johnson. Project location 12 Bronson Street is match C-16-0106. And the last one is request for certific owner is Jeffrey Johnson project location 20 Bronson Street such as map
C-16-04. So these are uh requested compliance for individual lots that fall within the overall order and conditions for the development in general which included roadway construction drainage structures. So we're not dealing with that part of the project. This is these
will be partial releases releasing the individual lot construction from the overall condition similar to what we had done. I believe it was for lot seven maybe a meeting or two ago. So the work has been done in accordance or substantial accordance with the approved plans um and so that they can move these
parcels along. I would recommend that we issue a certificate a partial certificate of compliance for each. Can I have a motion issue a partial bit of compliance? >> Oh, we need a second. >> Second. >> I >> I
>> I >> I >> Next notice of intent SE-24-870. Uh owner is High Development LLC. Project location SS Slate Street just 8-17 lot 002 filed by different Tomman
Northeastern Engineer and Consulting. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant will propose construction of 48 unit apartment development buildings area utilities on lot H-17-2 located on the south side.
So we have green cards already. We have legal ad already. We dropped off to the office today line shown on this plan was previously approved through ORAD a few months ago. The only standing comment that we received from DP was the same comment
that they had given us uh when the ANRA went through some potential alteration that happened behind the building. We addressed that during the ANRA process. Um so really no concerns. I just wanted to call it to your attention. Um, in a nutshell, I'm going to let Jeff give the presentation. What else will offer is
that um the actual the construction is actually downgradient from the wetland, which is the way that this site kind of works. They have observed the 25 ft no activity zone uh from the DVW line. Um drainage design and calculations are currently being reviewed through the
site plan review process. We've already sent out comments. Those are being addressed. Uh so with that we'll let Jeff give a presentation but outstanding of the drainage review we would normally issue an order condition subject to site
plan approval. We'll let Jeff give his presentation. >> Okay. Good. Uh good evening. For the record, Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants here on uh behalf of High Development, the applicant for this notice of intent. Um, as Dan had mentioned, this property, um, this is a property that has been before
you before in the form of an ANRAD. Um, what we're dealing with here is the back part of lot 2 as shown on assessed map H17. Uh, there was an ANR plan that was filed a few months back to formally divide that property even though it was two land called parcels. We went in and
got that um, straightened away. So what we're proposing to do is um is to divi is to uh build three 12 unit buildings on this property. Um the property is kind of unique in the sense that as Dan
had mentioned the upland portion um is rough roughly around the same grade maybe a little bit higher um where you have the the wetland line in this area than the than the uh the upland portion is just a little bit higher than the wetland portion. So water comes down a steep slope from Bay Street, enters this
flat area and then work works its way to the south and then eventually um west to the uh towards Mount Hope Bay. So what we're looking to do is to to build these three um 12 unit buildings, construct an
associated parking area as you can see here with the dock uh shaded gray area. Uh the buildings would be in the dock shaded blue as you can see in the you know two along the railroad track. uh the former railroad track and then the third one being on the southern uh
portion of the southeast portion of the upland. Um what we a large part of the site will have a retaining wall going around it um along the the uh western property boundary uh where the two buildings are
on that side. There will be a retaining wall that goes around that. It'll wrap around and head to the east on the southern port uh part of the property. Um that retaining wall will be constructed roughly um along the southern portion right right on the 25
foot no disturb buffer um and will act as a permanent barrier um so that'll get established when the construction of the site happens. Um for drainage we're simply proposing to do underground infiltration as best we can. Um we have
gone out and done soil testing on this site. I think we have seven test pits um on the upland portion here. the soils themselves uh not the best uh not ideal for infiltration, but there's no room um that we have for a detention basin. So, we're going to try to, you know, work
with it as best we can. Uh the infiltration rate that we're using is pretty slow. Um so, we do have quite a few chambers that we're proposing on this site, uh to store the the uh the extra runoff due to development. Uh we'll have three independent systems.
We'll have an infiltration system number one in this area which will be for basically the rooftop of building one. Um another infiltration in the middle of the parking area which would be for the the building um along the souththeast portion of the property. And then the final infiltration system which would be
in this area right here in the parking area would be for uh the final building at the southwest corner of the property and the entire parking area. uh all the drainage from the parking area will be collected uh piped through a storm septer unit, one of two units that we're
proposing and then ultimately into that infiltration system um and released at the desired rate post development or below rate. So, uh design itself is pretty straightforward. The the site itself is problematic in the sense that the soils aren't the best and it is kind
of tight. We didn't leave ourselves a lot of room for the drainage, but uh we're going to be able to to make that work. um we provide the calculations that show that we'll work through any uh issues with the site review committee uh to fine-tune that if need be. Uh but I'm confident what we're proposing here on
this plan uh will not change as we move forward with the revisions with the site plan review committee. Um, so quite simply what we're hoping to accomplish here tonight is to uh lock in our limit of work uh get a conditional uh or get order conditions um for this site uh so
that we can move forward with the site plan review committee finalize those revisions and ultimately get going with the project. I'd be happy to answer any questions that the commission might have. >> What are the soil types? the hydraologic group C. Uh based on the soil mapping and based on uh testing, uh there's
quite a bit of fill on this site. Um Ugra or >> what's that? >> Ura fill or >> um I'm not a soil scientist, so >> basically urban fill. Urban >> urban Oh, yeah. Yeah. All right. Yes. >> Yeah. Um you know, there is a parking area
currently on this site in in this location and it wraps around to a loading dock behind a building at number 47 Slate Street. Um obviously that'll all be removed as part of that project, but it appears as though a lot of fill was brought in um during that construction on the supplement portion. So >> yeah,
>> if anything changes, it'll be more units underneath paper. So the footprint of of not encroaching the 25 ft. >> Yeah, >> that that will not change. And once we're finished reviewing drainage through my office and community
utilities, that's really the only thing that would or could change is the addition of additional content. >> Yeah. >> One thing I want to be sure just so in case there's anybody in the audience or on TV, this is 48 units, correct? Not 36. >> 48. >> 48. Did I say 36? >> Uh, 48. I bet
>> your application says 48. Wanted to make sure. >> I don't think it'd be a big deal if we lost 12 units. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure. So, >> no, 48. So one you may recall so this is shoehorn in between two projects that you guys have been looking at recently.
The project up on Bay Street in Slate and if you remember our comments to that were old 25 foot no activity zone whether it requires retaining walls. So I I commend the applicant for taking those same comments and implementing
that same design approach or otherwise I'm sure we would have seen less rotating wall and we would have seen grading up to the well. Um so that's good. This is also upgradient of the Birch Street wetland delineation which is also on tonight's agenda. Um, so this
wetland system is what drains through that Birch Street site ultimately to that co that we talked about underneath the railway, but we'll talk about that part of the project this evening. So when you see that little bit of a sliver of green to the clam left on this, that's the edge of the bordering
vegetated wetland. That would be the upland side, the upgraded side of the BBW that we'll be discussing later on. Can I [clears throat] have a uh motion to order conditions uh approval of successful site plan?
>> I thank you. Thank you everybody. >> And project location 294 Lane. >> [snorts] >> So, this is hopefully approaching the end of a long drawn out peritting
process for this home. This is 294 Fieldstone Lane that you may recall was um subject of an enforcement order probably three or four years ago. This was part of the uh Highland Farm subdivision, the first house that was built on stage where the owner had
encroached into uh the W. So when they had submitted for a certificate of compliance, we did not grant that certificate of compliance and required that they file a new notice of intent uh for dealing with what had occurred in the backyard. So Mr. Walsh had um lovely taken this project up for
the Borges family. Um got us in a new notice of tent did a good job of delineating new wetlands edge type work that had taken place. Uh permitted the location of the shed as well um in this new application so that we weren't
dealing with this project moving forward. So work is complete. >> This is the require the site require restoration. >> No, that was next door. next door. >> Next door. >> Um so this one did not require a restoration. This did require some tree
plantings in a 25 foot activity zone. >> Okay. >> So so the order so the order of conditions had required um some fence some permanent fencing to be installed and then row of trees to be planted behind it and our typical welcome signage. So as you know I can be picky.
Um fencing isn't exactly where it should be. Just a couple of feet off. Trees aren't where they necessarily should be. They're a little back on the fence. to just be right up on the fence. Um, but I do think everything is, let's call it, substantial compliance with the order of conditions. Um, the applicant has waited
a long time to try to get this these matters resolved. So, with that, I would recommend the issuance of a certificate of compliance for SC 242 specifically as requested. Just one quick question. So, the signage is not installed in the courts, but it is installed. It is installed. It's just it's like so they
installed this beautiful black metal fence and behind that fence was supposed to be right at the 25 foot. It's a couple of feet wet side but not not substantial. And then the wetland signage should have been basically on the front of that
fence. It's on the it's on stakes maybe 5 or 10 feet behind it. And then the row of trees that were supposed to be right against the fence is about halfway to the 25 foot. But they didn't. >> But with that, I can't say that they they constructed it exactly to the plan,
but in substantial. Yeah, absolutely. >> Anything to add, Mr. Ross? >> What was that? >> Anything to add? >> No. Well, I said is is part of the problem was uh because of me when I put the 25 ft state measurements. I measured
with a tape and then the surveyor comes in for the asill and he's going to I'm uphill through brush. >> So, uh not not everyone not not the entire fence is off, but there is a couple of areas that and but that was entirely
>> my fault. >> And the other thing uh is the signage. They replaced all the signs that were there. We just pushed them behind the fence. >> The fence is substantial enough that they should not be enclosing. It's 5 foot metal fence, right? >> Yeah. >> Pretty well.
>> Yeah. >> Motion to issue a certificate of compliance. >> Second. >> I I >> Okay. Thank you. >> Same to you. Next termination
accessibility 204 property location work 8-79 So we have what we So you may recall when we dealt with the interact from this possible land were able to determine the easterly side of the uh of
the there was still some question about the westerly side due to the location of potential 30inch cover where it was still covert underneath the railroad and then dealing with that end of the well. At that last meeting, we had
discussion about asking them to file a request for determination for the removal of all of the construction debris that's in there. It's piled slabs of concrete, asphalt, down trees. I mean, it's an absolute mess. So what
this application will do, it'll allow the applicant to go in and remove those items from buffer zone and DVDW um because they are are allowed to do that under certain exemptions of the the request for the termination process. Um
and through that that will allow us to make a final evaluation on what are the utilities that are there, what is this code that's being filled in underneath the railroad. uh where is this 30-inch cover in this application? So, as far as all
of the work goes, I have no issue with that. I recommend a negative determination box three and five for the proposed work. Um with just a couple of conditions, one um there is a proposed stock pile area, the West O1, I would like that pulled away from the catch
basin that's directly in front of it and find a better spot for that one. um additional soap fencing in addition to the erosion control models that are being proposed. And then you have a note that points to the BVW line that
references your note 7, which I don't think it was meant to. Um so halfway, put your pen up. I'll show you the note up left. I think where you where you keep going left you pull up
the BVW line. It references seven at the end of the note where you I think we have to be further left yet. Sorry. Look right over there. Is that is that the one that references? >> If I pulled out my sketch draw it references note seven. If you read seven that doesn't really have anything to do
with the wateration minor issue. Um, as far as so we're also being requested to approve the BBW line for that westerly portion of the site. I don't think we can do that until these
until this work is completed. Um, but I'm all for getting them in getting the work done. Then we can revisit that line once we know what is the cover, where is the cover, get a better idea of soil conditions, once we can get to look at
these slabs because again the wetland to the north, the project that we just approved on was the milestone project. If you see the wetland delineation that he has along your plot line, dramatically different than what this representation is. So, we've got to find a melding right somewhere because because his water
>> is getting through somewhere. Uh, so of course it's easy for them to go and flag their wetland and their whole but I think if we if we look at that and I'll send you a copy of what their wetland delination looks like um and just see how we can get that tied off because it
what you have clearly makes no sense of what was already approved with their just overlapping and something's missing. So when we deal with the wetland line part of it and it may only be minor um we'll want to make sure that we're dealing with how their line is proposed as well.
>> But as far as the work goes not not but my >> now now will will approving will not approving that line have an effect on us going up to the 25 ft no disturbed if that line is not >> fully determined. >> No. As I said before, how we don't I don't have a problem with you working in
the buffer zone or in the resource area itself when we're dealing with the removal of debris. I would ask that we don't take down trees within the wetlands line shown. Um but outside of that, whatever you need to do, clean the site up and then we'll deal with determining.
>> It's going to be arduous to go in and determine where this wetland line really is because if you look historically at the topography here, you can see what was happening drainage wise. >> Yeah. At some point in time, someone installed, and not this property owner, installed this 30-in culvert that was
intended to convey all of the drainage away from the culvert that went underneath the water. But that doesn't include the hydraulic connection that may or may not have existed between the site northerly because there is a ponding area of the site nor USGS and
that topography clearly shows this connection. But I think once we get the site cleaned up, then I think we can check some boxes, cross eyes, cross dot some eyes, cross some T's to figure out where is this line that'll allow you to do some future development. >> But for right now, you'll be able to
question. >> All right. going to have a motion to issue a negative termination of box three and five of the code work including the following pallet area
and for this filing it'll be a positive determination box 2B for the delineation which means you're just not additional control measures and correction So
>> second >> I >> I >> So and I I noticed on the plan with with the new red comments. Are we thinking the 30 in to the sewer manhole further west now? >> Well, I just wanted to include anything we could on there because we're going to do some exploration and just wanted to
make sure that was included on our plan. That's all. Uh, so I I think it's going to be a matter of coming from both ends and seeing where it >> meets. Good. But this should give you the ability to go in and see better, right? >> And hopefully next time I go, it's a little bit easier. >> Well, thank you. Appreciate it. >> I'm glad this time we um gave you the
plans in advance of the meeting. So, >> yeah, we changed our tech. We we changed our technique. [laughter] >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, next is a request for termination as an accessibility- 205 owner hot drive
management company prime engineer location street-27-1 by Richard prime engineer on behalf of the applicant to add transfer pad. Mr. Aon, please please tell me you have
a copy of the legal ad. Do we have a copy of it? >> Do I don't have it? >> Was it was the ad placed? >> We I I mean I had it at at my house. Yeah, that's what you're saying. So, so
you can we'll we'll move forward and condition upon you sending it just to say >> I'll email it. I'll email this really a minor activity. Um we'll we'll allow them to go forward, but if it doesn't come in, we'll have to do it again the next month. >> I understand.
>> So, just quickly, this is um a request for determination of applicability for uh the installation of a new transformer basically within a previously developed site. The only question that I had um regarding my review of it is on the plan
set that came in there were a bunch of items that are still labeled proposed. >> Oh, >> like there's a pylon sign I think almost out in the river that says proposed. There's some other >> right none of those >> only dealing with the transformer >> only nothing else on the plan that says proposed were not composed.
>> That's correct. So we wanted to show them where the resource area is and where there's >> so this is the tower with the dollar tree over the to the right. The blue line I've shown is the top of the bank of the Quick Shan River and the green
line I'm shown is the 100 foot off of that resource area. And we're only concerned about this area where there's an existing transform. This is the building itself.
This again is the top of bank. There's a fence that runs along the top of the bank and then the whole area is paved and the hatch area here is where the existing transformers are and the pink
rectangle here is the proposed path. So the 100 foot line, we're the other side of that 100 foot line. were outside of the jurisdiction, but obviously there's going to be disruption on this side of the line. So, this is a fenced in area
and supposedly put um silk barriers along here to prevent any migration of the excavation. So, they would first dig this, put this pad in and secondary containment for the mineral oil that's in the transformer.
And then they would install this transformer. And once they've got this connected, they will disconnect this and remove the existing transformers. So it's the the work itself is outside of the jurisdiction, but there'll be some slight encroachment
a few feet into the office. >> So in my notes again, you'll see that my recommendation is a negative determination box two for the proposed transformer replacement. U any other proposed activity labeled on the plans you're not making action on. You're not being asked to make any specific
designation with the resource areas themselves. So you're really only dealing with the transforming work itself. >> Yes. >> On existing disturbed area well enough away from resource area. >> That's all I can
make a motion to issue the negative termination box two solely for the transformer replacement >> approved based on with approval based on the receipt of the legal >> legal. Yep. >> Seconded. >> I >> I
>> I thank you very much. >> Thanks for coming on. Happy New Year. >> Going to have a motion for approval of minutes from December 1st, 2025 meeting. >> Motion approved this. >> Second. >> I >> I
can I have a motion to adjourn? >> Second. Hi. >> Hi. Hi. Hi. >> All righty. We're doing good with the new filings.