Uh welcome to the fall conservation commission meeting uh being held at uh one government center. Uh it's Monday, October 6th uh 2025. It's 5:35. We're in one government center room. 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 medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible. We'll start with roll call to my left
here. Chris Coyle here, >> Lewis Ferrer, >> John Brandt, >> Jim Kusik, Drew Carlin, >> and we're missing committee member Tim McCoy. And we also have um Patty Agi, our recording secretary, Dan Agie, our conservation agent, and Craig from
Forward TV. Um let's see. Uh first is uh review and discussion updates on Bell Rock Road. >> You gonna read the open read the open meeting last time? >> Yeah, >> you did. Okay. >> Uh so Rock Road, you'll see in your
report I have a site visit scheduled them on Wednesday to go over the silt removal like we talked about. I reached out with them. So we're going to meet and go over the methods by which they can pull that silt out of that well area now that the site is pretty much established. So >> is that going to be across the street or just down those
>> two? Both sides both sides. Sorry. Yeah. >> Great. That's awesome. >> That'd be nice. Okay. Um, make a motion to put that on the table for next month. >> Motion to table. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> I >> I
>> I >> Okay. Next. Review and discussion of adopted uh fee structure. Um, like we said the last meeting, uh, I don't know if you emailed or set up a uh time to meet with Dan. Uh, we probably want to start putting something together in
November. Yep. That'll be fine. >> So, uh, if we do have anything, let's get it in this month. >> Yeah. >> So, make a motion to table that, uh, till next month. >> Motion to table. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> I >> I >> I >> I.
>> All righty. Review and discussion of outstanding enforcement orders. This was tabled from August 4th. >> So, this is the generic category for enforcement orders that have been issued in the past. The only one that we haven't had real response from is BART and Bronson Streets. I don't know if
anybody's here tonight regarding those. I don't see anybody. That would be Nicole Martin. Um so again, following up with with the last train of thought, at some point in time, um you'll have to decide to send it to D and ask for them to to step in if we
don't get any response. whatever time you feel is necessary that that we waited long enough. >> We've been 6 months on this matter >> at least. >> At least >> and I reach out every month sometimes.
>> Okay. >> Let's make somebody make a motion to send it request D's intervention. >> Motion to request intervention in Department of Environmental Protection. >> Second. >> Uh roll call. I >> I >> I
>> I >> Okay. Um can we have a motion to table that uh till next month too? >> Sure. That way I can give you an update with what's gone to D. >> Okay. >> Motion to table.
>> Seconded. >> Roll call. >> I >> I >> I >> I >> Okay. Next is a notice of intent SC-24-843. Applicant owners Marco Fritz. Uh project location 565 Detroit Street. Assessor's
map is E-27-000042 filed by Farland Corp. on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing to install an ingground pool and concrete pad and paver patio with associated grading. This was tabled from August 4th. >> Had received email correspondence today requesting that the matter be tabled so
that the applicant can continue to work with the landowner. >> Okay. Can I have a motion table to next month? >> Some moved. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> I >> I >> I >> I ready.
>> Next the notice of intent is SE-24-847. Applicants John Henry. Owner Harkkins Whitfield LLC. Project location 121 Whitfield Street. Sessor's map is C-17 lot 0024. Filed by Sean Ainsworth of
Insight Engineering. on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing construction of a single family dwelling. This was tabled from August. >> Similarly to the last one, this is one that we keep getting requests for um to table the matters. I did not get an email response today, but I do know that
the uh engineering consultant Sean Ainsworth has been working with not only this land owner, but trying to get in touch with the adjacent land owner to file as one singular permit. So with that, I recommend the table. >> Okay. >> So there is progress. From what I understand, they're I've gotten phone calls from each saying that everybody's
speaking something. >> Good. Fingers crossed. All right. >> Table. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> I >> I >> I >> Okay. Next is a notice of intent SE-24-855.
Applicant Weaver Cove Industrial Park LLC. Project location New Street. The assessments map is T-2 lot 001 followed by Chris Fali of Goodart Consulting LLC. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant is proposing after the fact
restoration of an area cleared a vegetation table from uh August 4th and September 8th meeting. I don't see attorney Nyl here, but he did send me an email earlier today. There is a site visit scheduled um believe this week
with between the peer reviewer and um the consultants that were working on a job carted consulting. So we'll let that take its course. I did respond to his email asking him if they've made any progress with getting um authorization by the signing of the notice of intent
from the adjacent land owner or um looking for the complete restoration plan that we had previously requested. But I did not get a response to those two questions today. So just let it play out as it is. >> Okay. Nobody in the audience from >> Yes.
>> Hi, I can >> just come up. Yeah, just come up. >> Hi, good evening. I'm Jessica Wall. I'm an attorney at Anderson and Creger. We're outside council for National Grid. Um I can provide just an update um in response to your questions uh about the
site visit. So, uh, a little after 5 tonight, we received I received, um, correspondence from Mr. Nland with an update about the peer review. Um, so I understand that there's a site visit scheduled for next week per that letter. Uh, representatives from National Grid would like to be at that meeting because
it pertains to our property. Um, so provided that we can be in attendance and that we can review what the peer reviewer might be recommending because it would pertain to our property. um if we review the the uh report there and are comfortable with it, I think that we
would be in a position to sign that notice of intent. So, I just wanted to give an update that >> we'd like to be part of the dialogue. >> Appreciate it. >> Did you respond to attorney Nyl requesting to be at the site visit? >> Um I think that email just came in. >> No, I know I did. That's what I just reported. I literally just got it a few minutes ago myself.
>> A few minutes ago, so I can I can respond to the email for the record, but I figured >> I can't force them to let you do it. I can tell them that they can't go on your property. So, if you don't want them on your property, then just send in an email to us and we can alert them to the fact that they're not allowed to and then we'll decide at some point to segment this project and not deal with
National Grids land with the restoration. >> Yeah. >> So, at some point in time, we're we can't keep the back and forth going on between the two different land owners out here. No, >> utilizing this venue, this commission as
I don't know, some kind of a proving ground between the two entities and it's going to end, including the petition that's before us for National Grid tonight. >> No, understood. I'm I'm confident that Mr. Nland and I can figure out something practical about the site. >> Thank you. Thanks. Good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Can I have a motion to table next month? >> So moved. >> Seconded. >> Roll call. >> I >> I >> I >> I >> Okay. Next, a notice of intent SE-24-857. Applicant Benjamin Phillip uh Liberty
Utilities owner Spectrum Realy project location 994 Jefferson Street. Assessments map is D-20 lot 002 followed by Ryan Ellard of Tron Engineering Company. on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing to install 222
1/2 ft of 4-in carrier pipe with 2-in uh gas main through mains of horizontal directional drilling. Uh project also includes an entry and exit pit table from August 4th and September 8th meeting. Anybody here?
>> I will offer that. I've communicated with the applicant and with Mr. Ellarding from Try Mount Engineering uh with the initial concerns that we've had. They have not responded or provide us additional information as of yet. So with that, I recommend that the matter be table. >> Okay. Motion table.
>> Motion table. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> I I >> I Okay. Next is a notice of intent SC-24-859. Owner applicant is Madison Fall River Properties. Uh Paula Jonas project
location 420 airport road ces map Z-3 lot 00008 filed by John Connelly on Scitec engineer environmental consultant on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing construction of 69 space pave parking lot table from
August 4th and September 8th meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, thank you. Uh, John Connell, Scitec Engineering. Um, as you mentioned in that preview there of the project, uh, 420 Airport Road. Is is this okay if I can hold it like this?
>> Sure. >> Uh, you can see the site um, as you come into the airport um, airport road as you take that right. Duncan on the corner. Um, three sites down on the left. Um
it's SwimX. There's a there's a uh two buildings up front on the parcel and then another um industrial storage in the back. You'll see that on the existing conditions plan here. Here's the site itself. The dock line being the perimeter. It's roughly 5
acres. Um this is uh 390 420 and 420R. And then um my understanding was this is where they used to make the batch. And this was like a batting cage area. Um they it's a
stone retaining wall and then this area was flattened and they had posts with the net. So they used to I guess go out there and take that and practice. Uh the owner U Madison FR properties would like to construct uh additional parking back
there. This is uh the proposal for paved parking. Uh no change to the entrance. The entrance will still be at the south end of the property. Um the proposed uh access aisle would go
behind 420R along the the property line and then to service those 69 proposed paved spaces that you mentioned um in the summary. There'd be lighting out there. The drainage improvements
are shown on this next sheet here. you see see a detention basin down at the we call it the southerntherly and southeast portion of the parcel the bordering vegetated wetland runs um it straddles the the line here so you have
a a portion of it on our property here and then on the adjacent property this is a large wetland area here so we propose a detention basin to attenuate the storm water in accordance with the mass EP regs also infiltration or
treatment um by way of a storm scepter unit, a water quality unit, and then chambers um a row of chambers underneath the actual pave parking to uh handle the recharge requirements. Um and obviously
siltation measures, um silt fence and silt socks along the entire length of the bordering vegetated wetland to prevent any sedimentation from getting into the wetland during construction. Uh, I think that's
that's about it for um an overview. I' um be happy to try to answer any questions you might have on the project. >> Anyone have any questions? Sir, >> what I can offer um commission members
is that um again the storm water management system being proposes to offset attenuated peak flows for the new pave surface. This is an odd site. This and the lot next door where the wetland is you remember as is actually upgradient from the sites themselves. So
the storm water generated from this site actually discharges through a series of culverts and then it gets into the ditch that runs along airport road. So the runoff from from this site actually doesn't even make it. It's not even directed towards the wetland. Doesn't run towards the wetland now. It runs
towards the swale. So um with that being said, I recommended that um an order of conditions be issued with a couple of special conditions. One that site plan um review approval is obtained and then also our standard wetland signage along
the limit of work at 50 foot intervals. Okay. >> Other than that, I can offer that the site's been designed in accordance with mass DP stormwater guidelines. They have appeared before the zoning board of appeals. Um, not that has anything to do with this uh board, but with regards to build uh setbacks to the parking lot,
the property line, which they were able to look at. This parking lot will sit up higher than the remainder of the lower parking lot. Thus, the need for that access drive to get around to it. >> That's all. >> All right. So, can I have a motion to anybody in the audience? Is there anyone
in the audience for this one? >> No. Okay. So, can we have a motion to order conditions with the two uh stipulations? >> Uh yeah, make that motion. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. >> I >> I
>> I >> I >> I >> Okay, thanks. >> Thank you everyone very much. Appreciate it. >> Next is a previous notice of resource area delineation. Uh owner applicant George Malttos of Mount Hope uh Bay LLC. Project location
0 Bir Street and 1205 Bay Street Map H17 lots 0019 and 0025 filed by Jonathan Nero of Beta Corp. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant is seeking confirmation of border border bordering vegetative wetlands. This is tabled from
September 8th. >> Good evening. Just one moment. Set up here. >> All right. Evening. Uh John Nero, professional wetland scientist with Beta Group, joined here by uh George Molados and Fred Manx. So you folks had uh
gotten a presentation on this anat application at last month's meeting. Um, so we wanted to follow up based on that meeting and some correspondence that's been had since then. Just as a very brief recap, we have Bay Street running north to south, Bur Street from the
intersection of Bay Street down towards Mount Hope Bay. Two properties in question are 1205 Bay Street on the right here east and then what we call Zero Birch Street uh to the west. It's a about 4 and 3 and change acre lot. um
almost entirely wooded with a uh uh old brick garage, one-story building near the center of the parcel. We have the wetland one series uh that's generally follows the toe of the slope here, encompasses a good portion of the center of the site.
We have a B1B2 series stream that flows within wetland one into a 30-in uh steel inlet. More on that in a bit. We have uh some What FEMA shows is land subject to coastal storm flowish associated with
Maho Bay flowing into a small portion adjacent to the site a lowlying area through the stone culvert. More on that as well. And then we also have the wetland 2 series here which is an isolated wetland that we determined would not be subject to jurisdiction under the wetland protection act.
So at the last meeting um based on some comments and discussions that were had as well as some uh subsequent um correspondence um you know it seems like there's um you know there has been some questions on two aspects of the plan
essentially talking with Mr. Jaguar um during that meeting and after one is uh this stream channel that essentially flows from parcel 17 lot 2 to the north through this wetland complex onto Zero
Birch Street and into this 30-in steel inlet. After that um it essentially disappears and Dan had raised a valid question of well where does it go? Um, so following last meeting, I did go back out to the site. Um, did some
exploratory work. Um, got out to that inlet. The stream was in fact flowing at the time. I then went down to this uh what we'll call the swale area, this lowlying area down in the southwest corner of the site. Um, bone dry and no
sign of any um, uh, surface water flow coming through there. So, we're able to at least surmise that the stream does not connect um subsurface and daylight within the swale. However, uh something I've always had in the back of my mind wondering is, well, does it
tie into uh the combined sewer drainage system in the street? Popped a few manholes uh in the vicinity of this brick building here, one here and one here. Didn't see anything aside from sewer effluent. um
prepared a memo uh sent that over to Dan. He did review it and he did send over some uh information that we didn't have previously about this stream uh potentially appearing to connect to that drain system I was looking at. However,
further down, uh there's some proposed improvements in Bird Street proposed by the DPW for some sewer separation. And they did on their plan have a record manhole that is just over the property line on our site um coming from this direction. So it
very well could be the street. And however at this point and George and Fred can certainly attest to this um as well. You know this site is difficult to say the least and I think Dan you can attest to that too. Um, you know, it's
essentially a understory of multifllora rose, uh, Japanese honeysuckle, bittersweet. Um, nothing good. You know, when I access the site, it's usually on my hands and knees, uh, to get in. So needless to say, you know, I'm able to
get in there as a person, but um you know, Dan had had made a request for us to take a closer look in terms of survey location of the elevation of this inlet and then do some, you know, exploratory work to find the tie-in point of where the stream actually goes. So that would
require us to get survey crews out into this area in the middle of the site as well as to the manhole that's shown by record on the DPW's plans in the southwest corner of the site. We would ideally like to be able to have this ANRAD accepted and have a ORAD
issued. Um, with that aspect of the project not being confirmed, the only feasible way at this point that we could see uh, collecting that information is to file an RDA concurrent with having this ANRAD open to do some clearing to
be able to get some survey crews into the site. >> That would um, that would delay things. So, we would ideally want to be able to punt that um to when there if and when there is some development work at the site that through a notice of intent that the
location of that subsurface stream gets confirmed. Uh but short of that, you know, we would need to uh potentially pursue an RDA to do some clearing to get there. Um so, I do want to stop there and just so that's a very urban area
obviously urbanized area. What is the source of the water for that stream? Where are the headarters for that stream? >> This wetland complex, you can see the wetland symbols up here. There's a pretty broad wetland complex. It's all one in this area. Um >> I can't tell you exactly where that
stream originates from, whether it's from what I could see from the property, it's likely a groundwater breakout, >> okay, >> that then concentrates and flow. It's a very obvious stream through the wetland probably 3 to four feet in width um and has some good flow to it even with
recent drought >> because the topography there's significant upgradient. >> Correct. >> Yeah. You know, Birch Street, you know, everything slopes pretty sharply down towards the bay here. Um but yes, it does originate within this wetland complex and then disappears into that pipe
>> because a 30-in culbert is a relatively large culver. Oh, yeah. and they're not, you know, it's meant to accept high volume of water yet. So, I'm curious as to where is there any potential that it ends up down along a shoreline anywhere. >> Um, we think it it does tie back into
the infrastructure within Bird Street >> CSO >> because you have what is it 60inch pipe under there? Something pretty large under there. um you know, you know, you look at old, you know, DP records, um you know, like, you know, D wetlands
layers for whatever it's worth, it does show a you know, hydraologic connection across the site. It's not out there. So, at some point, probably in the early to mid 20th century, something probably called industry, >> somebody buried it. >> Yeah. They didn't want it anymore. Um
good. So, we wanted to know before I proceed, we wanted to know, you know, if there was if that was something that could be dealt with at a later time or if the commission absolutely wanted that as part of uh this ANRAD process to confirm that.
>> Well, I I'll offer that. I've asked for this information on multiple occasions. I've been out there myself. I actually cleaned off the manhole that I think this connects to in the street. Um, which that's not one that was opened. I don't know if you've made an attempt to go back and open that manhole to see if
30 in is coming into that manhole or not. >> Uh we we opened it manhole 49. >> And what what did you see? >> We saw some pipes connected but not in the direction of our property. More so towards the >> So not the way that it's indicated on on that plan.
>> We couldn't determine that. We put flashlights down there. It's about 12 ft below grade. >> Okay. >> Mystery pipe. >> I mean it's not a mystery pipe. It's just a matter of putting in the effort. >> But we could tell it was 8 in in diameter and it was heading towards it.
>> Should be the plan that I sent you shows a 30 in diameter, right? Coming into >> Yeah, I believe clay coming into uh the street here coming from a manhole on this property, but um >> you know, as George said, I wasn't out there that day, but they they did try
and open that manhole and did and couldn't find the connection coming back to the site. >> Okay. So, when we entered our our property, the grade dropped off dramatically. Um, and we sent someone down on a ladder to
see if any pipe was coming out roughly at the grade that we thought below grade what we thought we saw in the manhole. There was no evidence of that. But to Jonathan's point, it was like dealing with hedge groves and >> Oh, I know. You filed a wetlands line
for me to go look at and I had to go in there to look at it. know I've been in there. I'm not a little guy. >> No, no. >> But so it's possible, right? >> It's possible, but to put >> I I don't think what we've asked for >> is a lot >> and there was ample time to provide that
information. That along with some information about what's referenced as the stone culvert >> because that will make a determination on what is upstream of it. I'm assuming FEMA's maps are are illustrating the flood zone based upon the fact that
water is coming in from underneath the tracks. It's not coming in from over the tracks. So, is that depressed area is that a bowl or is it actually draining? You just haven't provided that information. >> So, I can I can speak to that now. Um, so putting the you know, they are
related, but putting the stream aspect of it aside for >> I'm sure the stream went through that at one point in time. >> It is possible. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, the water's going to have to go somewhere at any point in time, and it's how it's going to be handled. That's the concern because it's going to
go where it's going to go. And >> so, I do just want to show this is that blow up of that swale area of the southwest corner of the property. So, looking at this edge here, there was, as I said, the stream was flowing. When I was out there about a month ago, there
was a little less than a month ago, there was nothing coming in from this side. the the swale so to say or the bowl was bone dry and once you get up towards the railroad where the stone culvert is called out likely by record um it's essentially a wall of of rip
wrap and stone so likely silted in over time um Dan did um you know rightfully so bring up the possibility of the area being you know uh isolated land subject to flooding so just a few things on that
that we want to provide for additional information. FEMA does show what would be considered land subject coastal storm flowage coming into this area likely as a essentially a backwater condition of the EB of the tide coming in pushing it
through that cover. That likely is the case if the covert was functioning. Um, so one piece of information I'd offer is that with that stone culvert being there, albeit like we silted it in, buried, that would
provide an outlet for this area and that would disqualify it as isolated land subject to flooding. However, we did go through the exercise um, you know, acknowledging that that stone culvert was essentially nonfunctional at this point in time. We took a look at this
area generally bounded by contour 20 and that gives you about 5600 square feet of area. So isolated land subject to flooding is uh defined as an area which at least once a year confines water at least 6 in deep on average to at least a
quarter acre foot. So quarter acre foot you're looking at about 10,860 cubic feet um of water. If we take the average depth of this area, we picked the middle about three feet, did the calculation based on that, the volume is 16,800
cubic feet, which is in excess of that quarter acre foot. However, um regardless of that volume of the basin itself, there is no evidence out there that that much water is actually confined there. Uh you do have, you know, you certainly have shallow depletions and the docomorphic features
down there. is probably a high groundwater table, but you have almost entirely upland vegetation of mowing maple, honeysuckle, bittersweet, um, and no signs of water uh, standing in that area for any prolonged period of
time. Certainly not up to 6 in. Likely this area just accepts runoff hitting the Jersey barriers and coming off Birch Street. Um, is is what I could see out there. So long and short of it
is we were not able to identify where that stream goes based on the field work conducted to date. But we do feel confident that it does not connect to this swale. And this swale except for small portion just off of our site that's identified by FEMA as a flood
plane would not constitute a resource area itself. Um and so with that information, we do want to see what the next steps forward are. um acknowledging that we were able to figure out at least what's going on at
the southwest corner of the site. We would love to be able to move the >> Yeah, but we we don't know what's happening at the southwest corner of the site. You you're giving us two options. It doesn't tell us which one it is. >> We're asking you to determine which one is it. Is there can you find the outlet on the other side of the rail line to
see where this don't cover is discharging to? >> Dan, if I if I may speak to that, please. Uh as far as the other on the other side, we uh myself and the contractor that was doing some of the work there uh we we were able to uh
catch the uh security guard let us into the gates. The problem with this whole situation here is there's no easy access. Liberty has it locked up. Can't get all through there. We happen to be there. Uh we see we see a head wall and there's something coming out from under
the railroad tracks. definitely uh as far as doing any kind of survey work, which I think we we have to do. We we can't just take a guess. I don't want to come here and and tell you that something is there and it's not really there. >> I I spoke to Brad Travis who's our uh
waterman engineering. Uh he and I discussed how to get in there and yes, you can get in there, but the problem is the instruments. If you recall some of the work that we did at the top of the I'm going to call it the upland side which is
on the east side. We did clear up some stuff that's definitely outside the bucket zone and it's it's terrible. There's all kinds of concrete and everything and you can't even get an instrument to to sight into something. So, one of the things I was I was
suggesting uh to to him and to George was to see if we can get uh a little further clearing. Unfortunately, it would be in the buffer zone. And the only way to do that uh was with with u an RDA. >> Well, the only instrument you need is is
GPS. You don't need to bring a survey instrument into the site. >> Uh >> you I'm I'm old fashion. So I mean I told you I told you survey by by by no means does he need to bring it. You don't have to run Traverse. You can run
Traverse down Birch Street. You should have some survey information already. >> Oh yeah, we don't. >> So when I tell you it's not a lot of work to provide us with the information that we're asking for, it's not a lot of work. >> Okay. Well then I think we should do it. I'll talk to Brad. I mean I was I was
asking for an instrument survey. Maybe that's my fault, you know, for asking for >> because >> if you can back I I think there is a covert acting there. I went there 2 days after the big rainstorm we had on the 25th and that area is bone dry. So it's
draining somewhere somehow. So my guess is all that rip wrap is dumped over >> the cover that's behind it. So if you can start from the other end, that may give you some information of of where it where it's heading. Brad mentioned he felt there was some there's some considerable silting down there because
they did get in there. They they couldn't get into the encampment. Let me go. >> Oh, I know. I was in the encampment. Yeah. >> But you can't find Well, >> listen. When it's your job to go in and look at something, when it's your job to go in and survey something, >> Yeah. >> you have to go do it, right?
>> Yeah. Well, it was I think >> So, there wasn't concern with me going in to look at the wetlands flags. >> Well, you know, >> there's more concern about the surveyor going in to locate 130inch culver and get an elevation on it. >> Yeah. Well, I don't >> and finding the street where it's going. It's not a lot of work. >> No, I Well, look at that. I've been I've
been told a lot of things about that area. I haven't been in there because I I have a bad I have a bad lake. So, I'm not going to go in there. >> I'm not going to go in there. >> It's covered with needles. That that whole depressed area. >> Yeah. Well, that's what I've been told. >> If you fall down walking and it's a steep slope. If you fall down that slope and you fall on a pile of needles.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, might might be uh way things are going might be a good thing for me to do. Yeah. >> So, anyhow, what what I'd like to do is uh see if we can move forward with some access, you know, with with permission from the board and and from viewer how to how to get rid of some of this stuff
that we can we can't physically get in there. Uh we can physically get into what you're talking about. If this is what we can see and what we think it it is, we have we need other pro we have other problems with especially with that corn there. There are three owners of property down there. There's the
railroad. I don't know who owns it now, but I'm assuming they still do. >> Uh, Liberty has to let us get in there to do any kind of work. If we want to clean up a culpit and expose a culpit, we have to get permission. So, I don't want to be accused of doing work outside, you know, without permission.
That's you and I have had that discussion and and we we took care of some initial cleaning. I think we did it according to the terms and conditions that we agreed to in the field. >> Yeah. So we we we were very lenient with the land owner allowing them to do some
cleaning. >> I know that and I appreciate >> So again, so I so I don't think what we're asking for is a heavy lift. I really I really >> No, I I I realize that and and and but I think uh to carry it a step further is that we I think we need some time to
determine what what exists on paper down there. Like some of this is had to be the city. I don't know if there's any information you have on that. >> The only thing I have was a plan that that I had sent. >> Right. But the swale wasn't built by I don't think by the land owner >> by which which swell >> pardon me >> which swell I don't
>> the swale at the uh at the >> that lowlying corner. >> Yeah. >> I I think that's always been there and that wetland I'm assuming at some point in time encompassed that parcel of land all the way down to that corner. I'm not going back into the history of world calling that this is a filled site with
with wetland six feet below the ground. We're not talking about that. But this this this culvert is to drain that area and get it past this area. So it's it's it's tied into one of those manholes. So if we can get those things clar you can file a request for determination to do
any work that you want to do. >> But you haven't done that. >> No, >> you don't need this delineation to file that request for determination. So by all means file it. >> Okay. >> But it's my recommendation that this order not be granted until we get the information that we've asked for. >> Okay. So the IDA can can be uh can be
>> you can ask for anything. >> Well, I know that >> that that's all I don't vote. >> I've spent my life asking. >> You got a 30 inch cover and and and that's to transmit a lot of water. >> That's a sizable cover.
>> I would want to know where that water is going. That's right. >> I would not want to develop a site and not know where that water's going. And that's I I >> I think that's mission critical is to find out what's at the end of that 30-inch culvert because no one's going to put in a culvert larger than they
need to. And I and that's my that's my thing. I would as as as a developer I'd want to know where that water is going so that we don't run into problems later on. >> We do too, but I think uh getting clear on how we can access without getting into trouble, I guess, is >> right. No, I guess I can put So, so file
a request for determination for clearing whatever area you want to have cleared. I I sent an email that I'm in agreeance with where the BVW flags are. So, as long as you're not clearing within those BVW areas, then then the commission
should most likely allow you to do some clearing, >> right? Can Can we like >> you can file a request for determination, >> right? >> And we can act on that when it's before us. >> Does that does that make sense? >> Yeah. And I just want to you know, the RDA can go on its own track um you know, while this is still open, but just to
confirm uh what you're looking for, Dan, because you be working jointly with Waterman uh to make sure we get everything we need. So, we're looking at locating the inverted elevation of this 30-in steel inlet within the wetland. And then at the same time, we can probably stake out to that record
manhole that is shown on the property um at the southwest corner and trying to figure out if we can see where it is actually directed. >> Yeah. Again, in my email, I will again request that you provide the information regarding the existing 30-in culvert
terminus, including the inbra elevation of the exposed end. So, that's pretty clear. >> Okay. Would it make sense to send a camera to >> If I may interject? >> Yes. No, you can, but I don't even think you need to do that. I think you you're going to ultimately find one of the sewer manholes in the street >> that's going to show a 30-in connection,
and it's that simple. >> Would a die test help in this situation? It it it it would of course, but I don't even think I don't think you need to get to that point. >> You know, if you if you see a 30-in one of those manholes has a 30-in >> covert coming into it,
>> which we haven't seen, but >> right. But put a camera down the bottom, get an idea of what you're seeing. Who knows how far it is to the side. >> Spend a little bit of time and then this all could have been. If I understand the RDA would allow us to clear the other >> well issue that determine what we want to call
>> you know >> the human factor there's an encampment there and we've had it we've had people removed there and it's a no trespassing zone >> police have come they've found people with open warrants things like that but
I'm trying to get you know a construction fence out >> so it doesn't repeat >> y >> you know without being cracked There's like a new tribe every week. >> I understand. >> And and I've reached out to >> um Star and Dan Long and people involved
with the homeless and they've all helped >> um two two sad days ago they the Friday night they lit a fire to stay warm and John Deantis from Liberty Utilities got the call. It was >> it is >> there's a public safety issue here too
and >> I own it because I own the property, right? So I have to solve it >> if if I may. I don't want to keep everybody here too long. If I maybe I can see you separately as to >> you've seen me separately on many occasions and and we've been able to
resolve most of these matters pretty pretty >> amicably. I I think uh let let me my feeling is that I would like to answer your question. I don't and I agree with you. I was thinking of an instrument survey but now that you mentioned it it'd be very easy to answer your question.
It's not for lack of >> who located the wetland flags. >> Uh, >> did you locate them or the survey survey crew already in there? >> Not sure what their method was. I don't know if they had control out there controls. There's some spots there. >> Well, the surveyor didn't want to go down there because there was heavy
activity with the encampment about the encampment. No, the flags up. >> No, I'm talking about the 30-inch cover upstream. >> The 30-inch cover. >> Yes. >> So, they located everything around it except for the invert of the >> Exactly. >> They may have even located the culvert. Maybe they even have an elevation on it. Survey.
>> He didn't have an elevation on so they located. >> We'll get that. But my problem is I'd like to >> I'll develop something to ask the board or ask to the RDA to ask through you is to Okay, we find out where it goes in. We know where it goes in. Now, the
invert is a good thing to have, but I mean the where it comes out is, as you point out, is is really what we'd like to find out. and um the locating the manhole that supposedly is in there. We don't even know if it's in there. The die test to me if I put some dye in that
invert that that we can see that's easy enough to get to. What if it doesn't come out anywhere? Well, maybe at the manhole is bad. I mean, there's no way to tell. You almost have to trace that pipe in the field cuz I don't know how deep it is, but it isn't that deep where
it goes in. >> I don't see it. It's >> you can try calling I mean I got the information from the sewer department and the sewer department's filing for their work that was going to be done on Bir Street where they showed that that cover coming into that manhole. >> Right. >> Right. And they show they show a new
connection a 20 a 20 foot connection. >> Right. They they're going to run an entirely new line which your line is going to tie into. >> Tie into. Yeah. There's a there's a connection. But again, let me try to figure out as as the project manager, not not I don't know too much about flora and fauna here, but but I'll tell
you it getting the logistics of getting in there and finding out what you want to know is is more difficult because I want to know how much to keep going. And I I want to know not only where that pipe comes out, if it's if
it's attached to to uh the storm drain system, then then that's easy, you know, and and the same with the culprit. If we can find the culpit in the invert, there's no problem there. But the access of getting into Liberty, uh George and I were talking about it, they're going to want they're going to want us
identification. You know, they're a big company, so we just can't walk in there and pretend we don't know what we're doing. So that's going to take a little bit of time. So the the RDA would be a nice thing to do and >> and so get it in before the next meeting and theoretically both items should
could potentially get resolved. >> Okay. >> This would be on first earlier in the evening. So at that point the line could be locked in place and then the RDA could be acted upon. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Uh just one more question so I know going forward. So >> we are able to uh find that additional
information. Um, would that also, you know, speak to, you know, this area not being considered a source area? >> Well, it's not, it's not BVW, right? That's clear. It's not wet with soils. I mean, it's actually was about 12 in of fill. >> It's real sandy filled before you hit
any hydrate material. It wasn't Pete. Um, but and it was draining. So, that's why I'm saying I'm the it has to be draining through that stone culvert. Now whether that's a completely filled stone culvert. So stone culvert you think of a
stone box or stone >> but that doesn't mean that it's not just >> stones >> and that the water works its way through stone. So the term stone culvert >> is sometimes >> not very indicative of what's there but it is drain. There's no downside but not
actually a channel. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Excellent. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. Thanks. Motion make a motion to the table. Wait till Chris gets back. >> You can if you want. >> You got four. Got four.
>> Motion the table. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> I >> I >> I. >> All righty. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next up is a request for certificate of compliance SE-24-829. Applicant Jeffrey Johnson.
Excuse me. owner HJ Holding uh Group LLC project location 21 August Street Cessors Map C-160074 box uh 2363 82 86 87 and 88 followed by Jeffrey
Johnson on behalf of the applicant. The applicant request a certificate of compliance. So this is a request for a certificate of compliance for the entire project which meant driveway infrastructure common driveway which is really a road detention pond retaining walls a bunch
of things. We've got a revised asbuilt from them on 103 um which clearly indicates that they're not ready for a certificate of compliance for the entire site. However, there is one lot, lot number seven, which is internal to the piece that if
the board chose to, they could issue a parcel certificate of compliance releasing lot 7 from the order of conditions. Um, but beyond that, I've spoken to the owner, that's why he's not here this evening, and their consulting engineer, they understand the the amount of work that still needs to be done for
the site. There were a couple of glaring issues that that they didn't address that I brought to their attention. Um and hopefully over the next couple of weeks they'll get that resolved. But um so 100% you cannot issue a certificate of compliance for the entire project as
requested. However, if you chose to um release lot 7 with the issuance of a partial, I wouldn't oppose that. >> Okay. Anyone from uh does the board want to issue a partial order of conditions or partial lot
seven? I have no problem. Make a motion to issue a partial COC for lot 7 parcel C16-107. >> I have a second. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> I >> I
>> I >> Okay. >> Thank you. Next is a notice of intent SE-24-863 Atlantic West LLC uh South Beacon Street SES map H-06 lot 0025 filed by James
Walsh on behalf of the applicant the applicant proposing construction of seven condominiums building total 17 units proposed bio retention area retention ponds storm water treatment driveway parking uh 34 spots proposed
landscaping grading This was tabled from September 8th. >> So, as Alex is setting up, I will offer that this is um a continuence of the previous petition. There were a couple of items, if you remember, that were in a D um letter.
One of them was in relation to uh being work being performed in the riverfront. Um I I think improperly asked for, but the EP still asked for it. So we had asked for some additional storm water calculations, some revised plans, all of
which we have received in the office. Um I would say that the site has been designed in accordance with uh wetland protection act standards. I would recommend the issuance of a certificate I mean an in order of conditions two special conditions uh wetland signage at
the at 50oot intervals at the limit of work and then also conditional upon a satisfactory comment resolution to D regarding those outstanding items. >> That being said, we'll let Alex give his presentation. >> Well, I received email from D. I believe
I formed it and the late the reviewer didn't know that in a city there is 25 ft riverfront area and not 200. So and well she said that she it's usually it's not her forte to review for the river.
Usually it is done by her supervisor but but if it is 25 foot then it's also okay that's the gist of email maybe not baiting. So I did see a copy of the email and that was basically what she said that she was not accustomed to dealing with
riverfront zones that are only 25 ft which is what it is in the city of Fall River. So this project as designed um provides the 25 foot no activity zone that that you asked for. Um, it happens to be that the 25- ft no activity zone
and the 25- ft riverfront line coincide. Uh, because the filing for the previous RDA and a subsequent ANRAD for the riverfront area, the line was the same VVW line and the riverfront line were were determined to be the same by Mr. Walsh who's here this evening. So,
there's no work being done within the 25 ft no activity zone and no work being done within the 25 ft riverfront area. >> Okay. So with that, I would recommend the issuance of the order with those special conditions. >> I don't know if there's anybody here in the audience. I don't think there was last time.
>> Okay. Do I have a motion to issue a order of conditions with the two uh stipulations, wet wetland signage and satisfactory DPE? >> So move second. Roll call. >> I >> I >> I
>> Okay. >> What's that? That's for the second one. Right. >> Uh, next is a notice of intent SC-24862 High Development LLC. Owner uh Potter
Street Realy Inc. Project location SS Slate and WS Base Street Cessors Map H17 lot 002 filed by Jeffrey Tolman Northeast Engineer Consultant on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing construction of nine unit townhouse
development consisting of three buildings associated parking area utilities on lot two as shown consist um on the city of f river sess map 87 located west side of base street and the south side of slate. A portion
of proposed work is located within the buffer zone of border and vegetated wetland. This was tabled from September 8th. with me. One second. >> Do you have Do you have the green cards in the old >> Thank you.
>> Patty won't let you through the gate without it, but she whispers it to me instead of asking you for it. Yeah. >> Okay. Good evening. For the record, Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants here on behalf of High Development LLC, the applicant for the
notice of attendance before you tonight uh for the 9-unit residential townhouse style development uh located on Bay Street and uh Slate Street. So, just to quickly go over the the
project site itself, the uh again the property is located um south of Slade Street to the west of Bay Street. It does have frontage about 200 ft of frontage on Bay. Uh some additional frontage about 167 plus the 40 ft on
half of Potter Street and also 122 ft on Slate Street. the uh there's a large bordering vegetated wetland located the middle of the property. Um we have been before you in the past uh to review that
line and approve it. That was approved on July 17th I believe or July 7th of 2025. So the line that you see before you tonight is an accepted line. The uh topography on the site is a little
tricky. Um, as you can see on the plan, um, from Bay Street, the first 20 ft is relatively flat, >> uh, till you get to a section about 30 40 ft where you have a anywhere between like a 6 to1 to 5:1 slope
>> before you get back to a real steep slope, uh, which ranges anywhere between 3:1 to 2:1 um, before you get down to the border and vegetative weather. Um the other area, the other upland area off of Slate Street, um is a little bit
easier work-wise, but there is an 8ft ridge that kind of runs through the middle of the park here. Um that goes from like elevation 57 down to about 49 in that location. But uh the wetland is roughly about 140 ft southwest street.
Um the one on Bay Street, you have about 120 ft uh from the street line on Bay Street to the left. So just to go over what we're looking to do, you know, this is just an overall plan showing you where the uh units would be located. Uh
again, it's going to be nine units and three separate buildings. um ball triplexes. So, three units in this location, three units here. So, total of six on bay and three additional units on the slate.
So, on the Bay Street uh side of things, um again, we're we're dealing with a uh an area that, you know, an upland area, usable area, but it does have it challenges with the slopes that we are dealing with. Um, as you can see on the plan, we are proposing uh the two
buildings, one to be, you know, along the northern property boundary, the other along the southern property boundary with a parking area uh located in the middle. The way we have this designed now is that the parking area would have about a uh 6% slope going
from the property line on Bay Street U back to the uh the edge of parking in the back where we um have some drainage uh located that would collect storm water runoff. Uh we are proposing a dumpster pad at the back of that for trash removal for the project. Each of
the buildings would have their own individual um roof drain drywall systems. um southern building that would be located to the south, northern building to the north. Uh the pling area itself would also have a drainage system uh comprised of a catch basin in tandem
with a storm septer 450i unit. So the storm water that enters the catch basin would be passed along to the storm sector and then out into the uh infiltration system. The rooftop runoff um there is no overflow with that.
That's typical what we do on these designs is we have it at the down spout itself. So if water if this does ever fill up in that event, the water would then back out, work its way down the slope into the wetland. Um the uh
drainage system within the parking lot would operate similarly where if the catch basin and storm sector were ever over storm or runoff, it would simply sheet flow over the burm and work its way down into the well. As you can see here, we're proposing to develop I want
to say it's roughly the first 90 ft of the usable upland area. Then beyond that, uh with the steep slope that we're dealing with here, we are proposing a 1 and a half to one rip rock embankment to be located here. Um
so we are due to the slope and how close the steepest portion of the slope is to the edge of the border vegetated wetland. Um, we felt this was the best design to use as opposed to trying to construct a retaining wall uh and to
maintain your your 25 ft no disturb buffer that you do like to see on projects. Uh we do feel given the steep slope in the location of that first 25 ft. Uh again being anywhere between a 3 to one to 2:1 constructing a retaining
wall on a slope that steep would be uh presents a lot of challenges. Um so we felt it best um you know for the wetland itself to do as little amount of work as we can in this area. Uh so again the proposal would be to construct this
embankment, get it all set up, construct a stockade or vinyl fence along the top edge of it um and then let it go in its uh its condition after that. I mean there'd be no further encroachment. uh there'd be
no need to do any additional work um on that slope. I don't think you have to worry about anybody, you know, trying to push the limit. Um and it's just it makes a nice barrier between your usable upland up at the top and your border and vegetated. Well, >> Mr. Tolman, with that pitch, what were
some of the challenges that you would face by putting a retaining wall in? Well, to to try to maintain a 25 foot no disturb buffer, um I've dealt with the building and inspect around a actually a similar site right up on Bay Street
where we it was just a single family house development where we had a similar type slope. And he brought to my attention that there are certain uh building code regulations that require the base of the wall to be set a certain distance away from the slope. you know,
and there was a formula associated with it. And we would try to have to manipulate this. I mean, we'd have to dig down um to the basically the bottom elevation elevation of the wetland in here to get a firm base, build it back up. We'd probably at that point end up
with you're going to end up with a 10 to 15 foot high retaining wall um which would then fall down to a uh again to two to one slope before you got to the wet. So, and just because of that slope, I mean, the amount of work that would be associated with that would it'd
be extremely difficult for that not to have the result in an impact on the wetland just through the construction phase during heavy rains with, you know, whatever washing down the slope. Whereas, if you stabilize it with the rip wrap, you know, build it up to where we need it to be, stabilize it with the
rip wrap, set it in place, we're done with it. You know, we don't have to revisit this. um maintenance would be a lot simpler if any would be needed in the future. Um as opposed to trying to repair a retained wall, you know, that would be anywhere between 10 to 15 ft
high. So >> what one question while you have that there? What is the elevation distance between the bottom of that rip wrap and the top? The bottom of the rip wrap is at say elevation 45 was down to there was a small section at 44. And then at
the top of the slope you're looking at elevation 66. >> Okay. And that's over a span of uh >> a span of 100 ft. >> Okay. >> So >> 100 feet. >> 100.
>> Is the red line the 100 foot buffalo zone? >> Yes. from the same wetland. >> Oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry. I'm All the other the first claims are at 30 scale. I'm sorry. >> Well, it should be 25 times 1.5. >> Yeah. So, you're looking at like 30 32
33 feet in span drops, you know, to 20 plus feet. So, that's a challenge that we face with this particular outline. Um, moving forward on to the Slate Street side, which is uh uh bit easier grading wise.
What we're proposing to do here is to have the the townhouse style uh building face slate street parking in the front should be outside the buffer zone area. Um a roof drain recharge system located behind the building here. And this proposal would be we're taking that
ridge that you can see in this location and kind of shifting it to the west in here. We are utilizing uh the same type of rip wrap slope in this location but on a much smaller scale where this would be roughly 10 ft wide by about 70 ft in length. Um just
to leave us a little bit of room to uh put in a drainage type swale or water conveyance type swale to collect any uh runoff that makes its way down in this direction and direct it into the bordering vegetative wetland uh located
to the south. Uh so obviously this this development on this portion of the site is a lot simpler. We are able to maintain our 25 foot no disturb buffer um and just grade out the back of it naturally with um I think we're at like
a 3 to1 slope. Yeah. 3 to1 slope that we're proposing there. Um so that is basically the proposal that we have before you tonight. Um I'd be happy to answer any questions that the commission might have. Any
questions? >> You guys don't have any questions? Um because we only received the the plans relatively late. Um and we still don't have I think the the final set of plans. Um even the ones that Mr. Tolman has tonight, I don't think are the plans that we have. Um as we have
>> these were submitted. They are >> for site plan review or through the conservation commission. It's what I texted you about earlier, right? So we don't have the seven sets of plans that include an existing conditions plan and address a number of the items that we had asked for that just came in.
>> Yeah. I I mean the only thing I'll say to that is I do understand what we've added to the plan from the initial plan that was submitted to this one is just all additional um information. There's been no change whatsoever to any of the design that we have, the grading, the
drainage, the building locations, any of it. Okay, >> that remains. >> So, I'll give some of my initial comments. Um, the storm water management calculations reference a number of soil boring and and testing. Um, we haven't been provided that information. What's important about that is that the infiltration utilized for drainage
calculations here uses an infiltration rate of two over 2 in per hour, >> which is pretty quick for what is being classified as a sea soil, which at best would be 1 in per hour. So I think the systems are drastically undersized um
for the soil conditions that Mr. Tolman has stated in his drainage calculations. So like to see the soil testing data um the rationalization for using an infiltration rate of greater than 2 in per hour. Um I think it's incorrect but but we can deal with that. Again no 25
foot no activity zone provided as previously stated. I think the one and a half to one slope is excessive. Um, for instance, if you were to take the the buildings and and stagger their top of foundations two feet going down that slope, >> you're now six feet lower in the back of
the buildings than what you're trying to fill flat to now. So, that's 6 ft less fill that you need to the back of that building. >> Yeah. The the slope that we're proposing is it's about a 6% slope >> and that does carry >> right >> along, >> but the buildings are flat. So if you if
you staggered the the height of the building, >> yeah, we can drop those, >> right? And then if you were to put a retaining wall behind the the trash facility, so building corner to building corner and put your retaining wall there of like 6 to 8 ft, I think you'd be able
to provide a 2:1 slope behind that wall. We're not asking you to build a wall down near the wetland. >> Build it up at the top of the site. Just like you have foundation wall exposed on that outside edge, use that same 5ft elevation difference in exposed wall. And if you drop those foundations down
to 72, 70, 68, then your top of slope would be 63, not 68. So, so you've just saved yourself another 5T. So, I think there's there's rooms for minimizing that slope. I don't have an issue with 2:1 slope. One 1.5 to one is is steep. It's steeper than what's out there now.
At least with the 2:1, you can say that we're mimicking the existing slope that's out out there. um all the way down to the VVW and even not providing the 25 foot no activity zone. So I think some some attempt to minimizing the disturbance and and that height of that
slope um is possible for sure with that. I haven't looked that much deeper into it. So I would recommend that we table it anyway. But if the applicant wanted to make modifications on that idea, um
even with the drainage calculations, they still be >> Mhm. >> need some work. >> Okay. With a slope like that, you'd rather you don't want to underestimate >> um you know, paras. I mean, you may not you may to be honest with you, you may not even have to touch three quarters of
the slope if you if you put the retain if you if you stagger the like terrace the buildings down and put a retaining wall in line with the back line of the building. >> Yeah. >> Um you may not have to touch the slope. >> Yeah. The um >> because if you if you trace I trace the 63 contour
>> Mhm. >> and just leave everything from the 63 down gradient alone and you don't even have to cut a tree. >> I think it's pretty close. You can certainly take a look at that. >> The other side, not not not a big deal, but same thing. If you stagger those two
feet in elevation, then by the time you get to that tight swale on the westerly side, you could probably go two to one on that and open that swale up a little bit. But the biggest concern is the the slope, the steepness of that slope. And
then the infiltration rate. What happens is we get caught in between D stormwater management guidelines and then what site plan review requires. So this design would most likely meet site plan review guidelines for what the Department of Community Utilities has instituted. But
this being a project that needs to meet Mass Dwater guidelines, it's it's it's to a much higher standard. >> I don't know if there's anybody in the audience. Anyone? So, can I have a motion table? >> So, moved. >> Seconded.
>> Roll call. >> I >> I >> I >> I thank you, Mr. >> Next is a nose intent SE-24-861. Uh, applicant is Aaron Wakauski Callah of NEPC
DBA National Grid. owner Weaver's Cove and Industrial Park LLC by location existing overhead transmission line RO says it's map multiple locations filed by Erica Marcilia power engineer consulting PC on behalf of the applicant
the project is located within a section of existing rightway from Sky Road uh substation to Somerset forward municipal boundaries over Taton River the project consists of separation of existing N12 and M13 transmission lines and two
paired monopoly structures within existing rightway table from September 8th. >> Good evening, Erica Mcgrowi, Power Engineers. We did receive some more green cards. I wasn't sure if you >> Okay. >> do one of them.
>> Sure. Good evening. Uh for this project, we don't have any new updates. We were waiting um some comments and questions that I believe the commission was going to send over. Um but I'm not sure if you've had a chance to fully review.
>> Well, at the last meeting, I asked for full-size plans, which we haven't gotten yet. So, I've done no additional review since the last meeting. >> Okay. 11 by 17 plans are a little bit difficult to read especially in my aging eyes but >> okay >> so once we received full-size plans then then we'll delve into the review a
little bit more okay >> um but so that's the two questions I had full-size plans and if we made any progress with getting a signature from from the landowner as well on this one so I guess no >> no new updates apologies I thought last
time you had said that you were going to send questions via email and then I reached out and I didn't hear back so I'm understand and we actually watch the meeting back to make sure we did ask a full-size plan. So, yeah. So, I can't offer any any comments until I can >> until I can look at it. But things that we'll be looking at is being able to go
look at what wetlands were flagged where, the flag numbers, the locations of them, whose lands they're on, things like that. But I I honestly I couldn't I couldn't read anything on these plans, especially when they're in color and the lines getting pretty thick. So, >> understood. All right.
>> Okay. All right. Anybody in the audience with us? Okay, we got a motion to table. >> Motion to table. >> Second. No. >> I >> I >> I >> I >> Okay, >> next is a abbreviation notice of
resource uh area delineation. Uh owner Atlantic West LLC project location South Beacon Street assessments map H--60025 filed by Alexander Gautis. uh engineer on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is seeking to confirm
waterfront uh resource area delineation. >> Sorry for butchering your name. >> Tell them how to tell them how to say >> don't go for supper. >> Uh for the record, my name is Alex Herod. professional engineer 422 North
Main Street for river and this is the same project project that you just reviewed and what it is we formalizing riverfront deliation because it coincides with BVW line and it was at
this moment we received no comments from the D >> and we did finally get a final number at 2 o'clock right after right after Alex had an email asking where's my file number. >> I sent them email three times. >> So, Alex had filed this in response to
DP's comments on the initial file number for the development when they were questioning the riverfront location. >> So, to be clear, Alex took the steps of filing this application um where the previous application's now been approved. This is a little bit but
>> you can still issue um the resource area deliation. So, that that's locked in. Go ahead and do that. >> Okay. Do I have a motion to issue an NRA? >> So moved. Second. >> Roll call. >> I >> I >> I
thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next is a notice of intent SC-24-864. Owner. Applicant is Captain Joseph H. Okonnell Company, Inc. Project location 180 River Street. Assessor's map is
X-1-000016. applicant to seek an extension of existing commercial arena. I think it's this Yeah, she's she's >> these plants are in every file that came in the last minute.
I also have some >> Yeah, I spoke to Sean earlier and told we were going to ask for those. >> Do you have the ad? >> I do. It's attached to >> I had asked what copies of the existing pulled off of the news website. >> So, good evening. My name is Ashley
Doart. I'm with Northeast Engineers and Consultants. Um, our client is proposing to extend their existing commercial marina at 180 River Street. This is the current existing configuration of the marina. Um, and
this is all the new proposed um slips. She's proposing to do 80 new slips um all within this area with a nice wave attenuator to mitigate
movement in there. Um we're currently not um submitting the notice of intent for any of the disturbance within this riverfront area. This is just strictly for the new dock
configuration. Um all there's going to be is an 8 by6 fixed platform attached to the existing seaw wall um with a couple gangways down to all these float systems. Um
that's all that we're proposing as far as fixed like everything's going to be done with floats. Um >> so the hope here is going to be on a float. >> This is all floats. Yes. And there is some area where we might need float
stops to get your 30 in of water um below mean low water. Um I will address that with ramps. But >> okay, >> and I I um given the supplemental the existing license for this area. We're
going to license everything on the chapter 91 submitt. Um but for right now that's um >> Did you say you're going to file separately for the
uh activity work on >> Yes. all the parking, all that, that's going to be a separate not have any questions. >> So, I haven't had enough time to look that deeply into this. Um, just a couple of things that I had asked for what the
existing licensing was. Um, so it looks like there's a there's a couple of things not labeled, but I'll go through it in in greater extent, but one, we're going to want to make sure that all of these other items that you say you're not permitting need to come off these
plans. Um, so we can't have proposed granite block barrier shown on a plan or bathrooms and all those things. So that all needs to come off the plan. >> Okay. >> But we'll look at just the dock. But the the description of what was being proposed was very minimal. just said
expansion of existing marina. Um, so I wasn't sure what was anticipated to be included in in what. Um, can you again just off the top of my head, can you show me where the where the public access portion of the
site is? like >> meeting the requirement for for for the public to be able to access through mean high and mean low. Is that somewhere on this plan? >> There'll just be an easement >> where >> where the fixed period, but it looks like that didn't get added.
>> All right. So, all right. So, >> you can take comments from any anybody, but we'll review it and um I'll get some comments out, but it's a lot it's a lot to look at. How many existing slips are there now? >> How many existing? >> How many existing slips? >> Um, you know, I actually haven't counted
my the existing slips because we have one section that's just a straight dock. So, I don't know how anybody would count that because come and go for me to work on, >> right? >> Um, but I would say I have 35. >> And you're proposing how many here? Just
curious. >> I'm um to add 80. >> Add 80. Okay. So, significant increase. Yes. >> And what does the existing license allow for? >> So the existing license was from the 1932 and as you can see
>> well I can see it now. Yeah. >> It says that to drive timber pilings back then they didn't anything other than that drive timber pilings. >> I was granted to my grandmother. >> Right. But no floats, no. I'm assuming
that's why they want you to license everything now, right? >> Um, so it was, believe it or not, beached barges, >> right? That >> that's what they did. They just beached barges and they decked barges, >> right? That sunk and then you put rocks on top of >> and then um well, they didn't
necessarily sink. I mean, as pieces would float over the course of years, they would take them out because they would be a hazard. >> Um, so what what was left over was decked over, >> right? So, are you are you permitting this stone jetty? >> Not as part of this notice of intent.
We're not touching any of that existing. >> But that doesn't have a license. >> No, but we are going to license it with >> But you need a notice of intent. You need an order of conditions to be able to go to chapter 91. So, I think anything that's not in this license, that's why we ask for the copy
of the license. Anything that's not on this license falls under the review of the commission. now with this order of conditions. Um then we get into resource areas, delineation of resource areas and and what we're dealing with. So there's a lot here um that hasn't been contemplated yet. So with that, I won't
say anything else, but we'll we'll review and get some comments out. >> Yeah. I mean, I'd love your feedback. I did leave you a message a few months ago trying to set up a meeting with you. >> Yeah. >> To to sit down and see what you wanted. Um >> it's not what I want. >> Not what you want. >> I'm not I'm not the consulting engineer.
>> Of course not. But >> okay >> to sit down and open the door for discussion >> to get some feedback. >> Okay. Anyone with the audience here? Any questions from the board? Uh we can have a motion to table.
>> Oh, we do. Did you guys get a copy of your marine fisheries letter? It came in late today. >> No. >> No. You can have this copy if you want. >> I think you you should have been on the email correspondence, but you can have that. came in after 2:00. >> Okay. >> Which was good. So I I got to take that
off of my comment list and >> it's not too bad. Just some time of the year restrictions and of course the post and all that kind of stuff. >> Okay. Motion table. Motion table. >> Second roll call. >> I
>> I >> I thank you. Thank you. Next discussion of violation enforcement order SE-24-161 372 Steven Street. So we had received a phone call from in
the butter regarding some clearing taking place behind Swan finishing down at the end of Steven Street up against uh Route 24. >> Um I went out clearly there was some clearing being done what looks to be
like in the buffer zone to a wetland. Um, then once I got back to the office, I did find an existing order of conditions that hadn't been closed out yet. So, we may have a violation. We clearly have violation of the order of conditions because that work wasn't
permitted in that order conditions. So, I explained, gentleman was very good. Sent him a certified letter, came in right right away. We sat down, we had a discussion. He was unaware of the original order. It was done. I forgot what the what the date was for the order.
Um, off the top of my head. >> It was old. >> Yeah. Mid 90s maybe. >> Oh, Patty actually pulled it out. >> 90. >> Yeah. 1990. Uh, any to build an addition, some rear parking area, some retaining wall, just never closed out.
It's been in it's been in the same hands, right? So, certificates of compliance only get asked for when >> bank says, "Hey, we can't refinance you. You've got an outstanding order of conditions." So um going to work on getting that cleaned up. >> Okay. >> From that util from looking at that
wetlands line he also when he came in brought in a plan where he had just had the wetlands line delineated surveyed by Insight Engineering but of course didn't think to file anything to go and do the clearing that he was doing. So told him
to stop. He stopped. Um he said a lot of the work was being done in response to environmental remediation that needs to go on at the location. There was an old building in the back that may or may not had a release. So, they're working on that, but they clear cut a pretty decent area and that's why the phone call came from the neighbor.
>> I guess there's been somewhat of a >> a relationship strain over the over the time from this subdivision and this landowner for a number of reasons, encroachments and things like that. So, he was very responsive. I told him he didn't need to come tonight. He's working on um submitting the COC request
and then also um either an ENRAD to get the new line approved or with that an order for doing whatever clearing and work that he needs to do. Now, of course, the excavating contractor told the people in the subdivision he's
building a new parking lot. That's one end of the story. The other end of the story was we're going in to do environmental remediation. The end game may ultimately be parking lot at some point in time, but for the time being it doesn't look like he's in a wetland, but definitely within the bubble zone. Um
hopefully I said when you submit the ANRAD show what you've cleared to but very responsive. I would expect to get something from him soon. So with that, I I recommend that we table that matter or at least wait till he responds. >> Okay. Can I motion table? So move. >> Second. >> Roll call.
>> I I >> Okay. Next discussion of violation 394 Kilburn Street. >> Are you here for that? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Are you the land owner? Mr. Marks. One of them. One of them. Mr. Marks. How are you?
>> How you doing? Nice to meet you. >> So, we had received this was a few months ago. Um, we had received a call from the building department that some clearing had done been done on Cook Bond. So, this is the parcel directly south of the Kilburn Mill that just got renovated.
So when you look at some aerial photographs of that area, you'll see there was a vegetated area that ran along that edge of Cook Pond and then there was a gravel belt parking area behind this mill which was Corbett Mill. Uh Corbett Hat factory I think at some point, right? Now it's Skyink. Is that your company?
>> Uh that's correct. Yes. >> Okay. Um so I went down clearly some some clearing had been done. There were a bunch of storage trailers that had been placed um within proximity to the pond. I had sent out some initial uh email and phone calls to Mr. Markx. We
did have some conversations back and forth. One of them was one of the last ones was that he wasn't interested in moving forward with anything at this point in time. That point we had a conversation at the last meeting um where I found that that wasn't a satisfactory response that there needs
to be something done in response to the order. I have a question whether or not it's even real estate that's owned by the landowner. Um, when you look at either GIS maps or some of the property line plans, the the the land adjacent to the Cook Pond isn't owned by the mill,
but once we get a real survey plan done, then we'll be able to figure out some of that stuff. But, um, Mr. Marks, I did ask him to come tonight. He can respond. I do know that he has um some, uh, information regarding removal of a car that was in the pond at some
point in time and some of the clearing was done because of that. >> We're right. So, um I had sent out an email regarding I should I pass it along? >> Sure. >> All right. Regarding I believe I sent you this photograph of um there was a report of a vehicle in the pond about
from a fisherman, a local fisherman and uh police were called in, fired um as well and they had multiple vehicles in that area to work on pulling that uh vehicle out of the pond. Um push come to shove. It was just sitting there for a
period of some time and um there was no nothing done to kind of fix the topography and the grade. And what that caused was uh which we started was just exposing
tires and cleaning up the area because it's been a dumping ground for years um in that general location and we had no intention of going into that area. we just kind of picked up what was exposed at that time and that's this is kind of
what led to a delineation of wetlands and this is why we're pretty much here today. um that that delineation there was an area before the construction of the mill um I've outlined in this kind
of aerial photograph before construction was done in that general area outlined in orange there was an existing delineation present this was before we occupied the mill just to kind of show and represent what was existing um so I think there is might be a little bit of
confusion as to how much delineation was actually done >> when you say delineation what do you uh uh removal of the wet area or the >> delineation is determining where the wetland's line is. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> That's okay. Yeah, >> that's okay. >> So,
so what what you offer today is that you didn't clear anything within 100 ft of the pond and that you're not utilizing that area for anything? >> No, that's not where that's not what we're saying. >> All right. >> Whatever was existing was existing. We didn't pursue anything further than
that. that I that I I question. Um and that's why we've asked you to put together a file done by an engineer that shows what the condition is of the area right now, what it's being utilized for. >> Yeah. And we're currently currently the
area the area right now is currently being storage for storage containers. >> Right. You got a bunch of storage containers now within 100 ft of the pond that wasn't there before. >> So Mr. M. >> Yes. So th this area in orange and I'll pass them down to my colleagues. >> Yes.
>> So that you're saying that area was already cleared prior to you owning the building or occupying the building. >> Correct. Correct. There's >> you occupy the building.
>> It was um I believe 2024. I don't have a specific date. I think it was in your letter. Um, >> May of 2024. May 1st of 2024. >> So May 2024, you correct took occupancy.
>> Correct. Okay. >> And this is what it currently looks like from the street. regarding the four storage containers in that general area. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Were the asphalt were the asphalt millings there before?
>> Uh, yes. There's an aerial photo of that showing the millings in place. >> What year was that photo taken? >> Um, it was prior construction of the Kilburn Mill. I'm not exactly sure. I have another photo too. before um the construction was going on next door.
They next door contractors also decided to kind of help themselves and utilize the next door currently which is what we occupy is the Kilbury mill. Um and they've left they left uh rubble and
material there. Um here it is. And they they had said originally they were going to take care of it and clean it up, but they never did and never pursued it. This is them using a man lift on the property. And the next picture is rubble and granite block that they kind of left in that general area.
So they utilizing that side of that our current mill in that general area. So we we were just trying to be proactive and clean up what was existing existing and and exposed from the uh
removal of the vehicle in the pond. >> So what so then how do we get to the storage trailers and the millings that are underneath it and the removal of the vegetation that was there? >> Oh, there was there was a there's an aerial photo. >> I've seen all the aerial photographs for
the last 20 years. So so I know what I know what the sites look like. >> Yeah. So they >> there have been some vehicles parked in that general vicinity, >> but the le the level of clearing >> that you see out there now is not what's historically been on that site. >> So in the in the enforcement order,
>> yeah, >> we ask that you hire a consultant >> y >> submit a plan of what where the wetlands lines are, where the limited clearing is, and through that they can provide information on what clearing historically has been there in relation
to what's actually on the ground. Now that's what you were requested to do. >> Okay. We we pursued an engineering firm out in Swansea. Um and that kind of fell on deaf ears and uh it was amongst the
owners that do we really want to >> it's not whether you want to or not. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Because what's happens if you're not responsive to this commission, this ends up going with the D and D will can issue fines. >> Mhm. So, we try to work with land
owners. I tried to work with you >> without even filing an enforcement order. >> And you weren't interested. >> It wasn't I interested. I wasn't interested. >> You're you're the you're the managing partner of that of whatever the land owner is. >> Correct. >> Um,
so you chose not to to try and do it simply and then we have to ask the commission to issue an enforcement order to get you to come here and be responsive. And first of all, you haven't responded in the manner that they've asked. Yeah. >> So you you need to get that otherwise >> it gets sent to D. This gets recorded on
against your deed. You won't be able to refinance. You won't be able to sell the property with an outstanding enforcement action. So it it may turn out that everything that you want to do is completely permittable, >> right? >> But you need a permit from this board next door. You can see the amount of clearing that they were allowed to do.
They went through the proper permitting process. So they didn't just come in just start cutting down vegetation and putting in storage containers. >> Right. Right. So, so that's what this commission is here for is to protect that water body to make sure that stuff gets done correctly. I I've taken photos
of millings almost all the way down to the edge of the water. >> Yeah. >> That that clearly was not the case historically. >> Right. >> So, those are the types of items that that we need to get addressed. >> Yeah. And and we're here to, you know, I'm here I want to work with the board and make sure those items get addressed. >> Okay. So, the best thing to do is so
find an engineering consultant. Doesn't have to be the one from Swansea. find one that that that wants to do the work. Yeah, >> there were two or three here tonight that you can reach out to them. They're they're very familiar with what we need to do. >> Y >> um and then we can move the the process from there. So, >> y that's fine.
>> Um if if you don't if for some reason you can't get them to respond before the next meeting, just send an email. I've obtained the services of X. They're going to need X amount of time to to put this together. The board is very, you see how we we'll table these things for months as long as somebody's being
responsive, right? And doing what we ask them to do. >> And and we're just here being proactive, trying to do the right thing. That's all. >> Okay. >> Nothing else questions. >> No motion to table. >> Yeah. Motion at the table.
>> Second. >> Roll call. Um >> I >> I >> I >> thank you. >> All right. >> All right. Can I have a motion for approval of minutes from September 8th? >> Motion.
>> Second. >> Roll call. >> I >> I >> I don't think you were you were out September 8th, right? >> You can still vote on this. Okay. Public input. None. Can I have a
motion to adjurnn? >> Seconded. >> Thank you. All >> in favor. He's not there. Uh