[music] >> Good evening everyone and welcome to the May 12th meeting of the Lakeville Conservation Commission. We are being being recorded by Lake Cam. Is anyone else recording? Seeing none, we'll start like we always do introducing ourselves.
Mark Minton, I'm the conservation agent. John LeBlanc. Michelle Bouchard. Nancy Yates. Joseph Chamberlain. Mark Knox. William Rafanos. Geoffrey Furno. Okay, first on our agenda we have 234 Kenneth Welch Drive.
Uh good evening. I'm Jeff Wyman, I'm with Kelly Engineering. We're the owner's representative overseeing design and construction on the proposed cold storage addition at 234 Kenneth Welch Drive. With me tonight is Steve Horsfall, he's
a principal of Kelly Engineering. They've been doing all of the engineering and design for this project. Uh so since the last time we met in late March, Merrell Engineering was contracted to do a site plan and storm water peer review.
Um Kelly Engineering worked directly with Deb Kel- Kel- Keller from Merrell, um who wanted to see a couple changes to the plans. Um all very minor in nature. Uh so we added a 15-ft wide berm around
the basin. Um in addition, we added a stone wicking channel in the new proposed infiltration basin. Um the basin was lowered by 6 in to maximize uh the storage capacity. And lastly, a grass swale is being
proposed uh to be instructed constructed around the basin, which will handle flow from uh up gradient site flow from this lot at 230 Kenneth Walsh Drive. Uh so Deb issued a uh report to the board
on April 21st uh signing off on the plans in the stormwater report. Um and as part of her report, she suggested a few conditions to be added to the order of conditions, um which I know Nancy, you've been working hard to prepare. Uh we're agreeable to
all of those, but before we go there, um Steve Ryer, happy to take any questions the board may have. I think unless our board has any questions, everything came back. I talked to Deb personally. She's satisfied with everything. Um I added uh
I think it's attachment A on here as uh conditions recommended by the peer reviewer, and all the rest of our standard conditions, so uh we've and as promised, I have it right here. We're going to sign two copies tonight, and you can leave with it. >> Excellent. We appreciate that. That's
great. You don't know how we're going to vote. >> [laughter] >> Yes, I do. Yes, I do. So somebody want to make a motion? No? All right. So we need a motion. I'll make a motion. You can just say like you always do.
>> [laughter] >> I make a motion that we close the hearing. Issue an order of conditions with all our standard conditions and additional attachment A with conditions that were advised by our peer reviewer. So moved. Second.
All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. It will take a few minutes to just can start on She needs one for them, one for us. Excuse us, everybody else, for one moment. Do we have to sign our real names?
Are you going to call me those tonight, Joe? Your official town alias will do. I set one up for you long ago. Actually, it seems to be some The owner seems to have some traction with a couple different rental
users to fill that empty space. Yeah. But the price just keeps Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's why he's like Let's see if it proves so we can construct We just did another facility in Fall River and they had clients ready to move
right in early. They were ready to stock it. Yeah. Yeah, it's going crazy. That's storage. >> Cold storage. I heard that guy was getting really good rents. Astronomically good rents. It's worth it, I guess, right? The
addition on and modernize it and >> No scallops, huh? They do uh This one was cranberries more so. Uh that's at 2:30 and 2:34 right now is is a variety of seafood. You can do the last of them. Yeah, the lobster and scallops.
That's our coffee. You do the homework. >> Yeah. >> [laughter] >> Yes, all set. This is ours, they have theirs. I'll give it to Mark. In the basket. Thank you. Okay. All right, thank you very much. Thank you guys. >> You're welcome. Take care.
Okay, next up on the agenda, 52 Clipper Road. Good evening, Darren. Good evening, Darren McHales, Foresight Engineering, here on behalf of the property owner. One moment. Yeah, sorry. We need to open the hearing. I'm still taking notes from the last one. I was waiting.
And I was told you can. Okay, motion to open the hearing. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. I. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 131, the Wetlands Protection Act, the Lakeville Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on May 12th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. at the
Lakeville Police Station, 323 Bedford Street, on a notice of intent filing. The applicant, Derek Maxcy, is proposing the upgrade of a failed septic system that is within the groundwater table and the buffer zone of bordering vegetated wetland. The proposed tanks are in the
buffer zone, while the proposed leach field will be outside of the buffer zone. The project is located at 52 Clear Pond Road, and is also identified as Assessor's Map 59, Block 1, Lot 48. All right. Now we Now I go.
Good evening. Darren McIllous from Foresite Engineering, here on behalf of the property owner. Uh, I'm sure you're all familiar with this site, the wood chip lot. Um, so this the existing septic is behind the house, almost in the wood chips. Uh, definitely in the water table. We looked at putting a new system there.
Um, we even had to done a sieve. Uh, very poor soils, high groundwater. We're going to need retaining walls, and pretty much that entire backyard would have been a septic system. Uh, so instead we went up in the back on top of the hill where we have good gravels. We're going to need a pump system either way. Uh, this way we're
less intrusive on the buffer zone. Uh, the only thing going in the buffer zone now will be the tanks and the force main, which would have been in the buffer zone either way. Uh, now we have the leach field outside the buffer zone on top of the hill. Uh, we are crossing through some of the wetlands at one point with the force main, unfortunately, cuz there's not
enough room there between the property line and the the old wetland line. So, we plan to do that, and then you're replicating anyways on top. Um, I wouldn't foresee any issue in those force mains. I've never run into a force main issue in 30 years. Uh, we are sleeving it at that point to
prevent any water issues. Um, and back draining to the tanks. Uh, I the applicant thought that this was part of the enforcement order or I thought it was filed under the enforcement order and some of the work has been done. The tanks have been put in the ground already and the leach
field is constructed up on top of the hill. So, the only remaining work is to connect the force main between the two of them. So, the pipes going down and that replication's going on top, right? Okay. Easy enough. Yeah. Anybody?
Yep. Um Darren, I think on the uphill leaching field side, when you trench up that um, I I'd like to see you do something to ensure that that doesn't become a
the hill is pretty elevated there. So, that it's not a a washout trench to run everything right back down. So, obviously with that disturbed soil, it's a little more vulnerable to that runoff. Yeah, we can do that. We're going to avoid the trees, too. So, we'll be weaving in between a couple of the trees that are on the hill. Uh
Even if it's just across the trench, maybe in two spots, as you get closer to the wetland, put up 5 or 10 ft of silt sock or something across there and just just to make sure that you don't get a continuous trench washout of that It is nice gravel I saw up on the hill there. Um, but I think
that would be good. >> Yeah, we don't want to travel on 200 ft down the hill to the wetland. Yeah, and but I we also understand that the restoration's still going on a replication and you're going to be they're going to be in there, but just to protect from any additional flood. >> Yep. We can put some silt fence at the
bottom of that trench. No problem. You have sign off for the quarter hour? Yes. So Darren, we were out there we've been out there several times but I you know there's been a lot of progress made to get all the wood chips out. I don't know if you've kept working like
in 2 weeks or so it is it getting to the point are you are you ready to do Yeah. You know I'm not part of that project. Yeah, yeah. So he he has a welding specialist taking care of that that's beyond my my realm. I'm I'm the septic guy.
If I could Nancy I have another point. >> Okay. Um Your statement brings up a good point that you're the engineer for the septic project but the enforcement was it's [clears throat] getting handled by somebody else. Yes. I know that the applicant that's getting the work done is right behind you. Um
I guess my concern is you oversee and they put the pipe in to go through the wetland. And we all know there was continual work going on. Probably should mark where the pipe is until Yeah, they'll be marked with at least with a at least
with a two sleeves we'll have stakes sticking up right there so everyone knows where it's at. Just so they don't run an excavator over in the Yes. track kind of collapse in Yeah, I have to agree with you Nancy. Yeah. Yep, we can stake those too. Okay. All right, so I need a motion to close
the hearing and issue our standard order of conditions with an additional silt sock along bottom of the trench Yep. and to stake out where pipe is installed. >> Yeah. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye.
Aye. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Where are you going? Thanks again. Thank you. All right. Next up is
zero Myrick Street. So move to open the hearing. Hear a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Pursuant to Mass General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40 of the Wetlands Protection Act, the Lakeville Conservation Commission will hold a
public hearing on 5 12 26 at 6:30 at the Lakeville Police Station, 323 Bedford Street on a notice of intent application. The applicant, Carl Malac III of DSM Property Group LLC, is proposing that
the construction of two warehouse buildings with site access driveways, parking, stormwater management, and You say that word. Up appurtenances Thank you. Appurtenances, utilities, along with a wetland stream
crossing and wetland [clears throat] replication. The location of the project is zero Myrick Street, map six, block four, lot one. Um okay. Before we go any further, I I need to say that we do not have a deep
EP number on this. And um Yes, I would kick it to Mark. He could probably explain where it's at. >> Yes. Well, he's >> be very good. Okay, Mark. And and it can also um
give an update Yeah, happy to fill you in. But so my understanding is that well, there isn't a deep a deep EP number hasn't been issued yet. And in part, they're waiting I guess they're you or the project is still being reviewed under MEPA. Right. And I guess
uh 401 water quality. So I I I don't know where the project is exactly Yeah. there, but you know, DEP seems to want to make sure that any comments that come out in that process come before the commission, so we're not
you know, uh re-hashing. Thank you. Right. So I guess a a little bit more of an update there. We did file our ANF. Uh we are in MEPA review as as um as of right now. Uh we've kind of we had a virtual site
walk maybe a week or 10 days ago with the MEPA folks. Uh bunch of questions and comments came out of that that we are in the process of addressing. Uh I did get an email also from Whitney Macliese from Southeast Region who kind of just reiterated some of those uh
a small subset of the full sum of comments to me and asked that we provide some of that information before she issues a file number. Um so that's where we're at with file number. Um they typically, my understanding, the MEPA office typically asks commissions
to hold off on issuing an order of conditions until they are done or at least close to done with MEPA review, which I think we can expect within about 4 weeks. I think we we would have a certificate uh from the MEPA office. So
that's kind of where that stands right now. So, So, what's the um and I'm uh pardon my ignorance, but I there's also a 401 water quality that's right that's separate Yeah, that's that's separate. That usually comes after that you typically have an order of conditions
when you apply for your 401 water quality cert and that's for discharge of dredge or fill material um and because which we'll get into we exceed 5,000 square feet of wetland fill that's what necessitates the 401. Now, Nancy, could I make a suggestion?
Sure. Um I'm sure that there's going to be different opinions on how we proceed. I'm sure these gentlemen would like to give their presentation. Could we allow them to give their presentation without any action from the board and
one suggestion that might be beneficial is start a peer review process. It's going to happen, right? Yes. For a project of this scale? Yes. My concern with I mean we could start the process, but not have it done because what if their plan has to be
altered based on the the final MEPA review and their input because then we wouldn't be requesting if we requested based off the current submittal it would doesn't have any of the MEPA input in. Currently, we don't usually allow this without a DEP
number because we get the comments from DEP that might impact questions we're going to ask. Um Right, and that's why I said we don't act, but we'll have them make their presentation and at least broach the subject of peer review and then we just continue the hearing to
the next meeting. And then do an updated presentation if they have changes to make? We would like that. >> Right, and and through the chair if I may I think you're exactly right. We've kind of got a couple of processes running concurrently here. Uh it's the type of thing that you kind of got to leave them all open until you
get close to the end of each of them for exactly that reason is cuz one might have changes that the other doesn't, but they all kind of impact the the overall site plan at the end of the day. So, I think that that makes perfect sense. I think if the commission is willing, we'd love to give a presentation, get the ball rolling with
the understanding that, you know, we've got a little ways to go before we approach an order of conditions. Um and also through you, Nancy. >> Yep. Um just so we're all on the same page and you guys would understand if changes come back and we've
after the next meeting, we start a peer review process and then then those changes come back, we would want the peer review person to re-look at that and we understand there's a cost involved. We're not trying to overburden you with that. I think that's probably some of the concerns with obviously that was their concern the way that was
just worded was to not overburden you financially, but also in our fairness of us, you would expect that. Absolutely and I think that that makes perfect sense. Um we could even, you know, just get that process in motion. I think what you're suggesting is and just not really start review
um until we kind of feel like we're we've at least gone through the first sweep of review comments or something like that. So, what you explained to us and what you're going to when we are looking for a cost for a peer reviewer, we need
something to send out that's like on a broader scale, I suppose, and then narrow it down as comments come back. Right. Yeah, that that might make sense and and to be frank, I mean, I don't think we're expecting any major wholesale changes. There's lots of like
clarifying questions and provide more detail on this and, you know, provide potential alternatives on that. I don't think we're in a position where we're going to have, you know, major site layout changes or anything like that. Well, an alternative that analysis This
one of the things that the EP is looking for. Right, exactly. So, that is something that we provided as part of our ENF to the MEPA office. Um it wasn't specifically included in the notice of intent. So, we just have to do a little repurposing for the purposes of the
notice of intent. Provide that to DEP. I think our intent was to get the peer reviewer to start look not looking at the plan, but put the price together on what they're going to charge for their um to review. Yeah, really just get the ball rolling on that. And I guess if any
of you have preliminary comments, those are things that we would, you know, love to take into consideration now and as we are working through MEPA comments, comments from DEP, all these things, we can incorporate any questions, comments, concerns that you folks have as well in
that same sort of flush of revisions. So, would you be okay with us just hearing the presentation? Is everybody Yes. >> everybody feel about the presentation? I'd like to see it.
Yes? Yep. Yes? Yep. You want to take a vote? Since they traveled, I just Yeah, okay. They seem very amenable and understanding that if things change, it's It could change. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, not uncommon at all with the
project of this scope. We get it. We're just trying to get the ball rolling. Um especially, you know, since we're already kind of midway through MEPA here, there's the not quite a light at the end of the tunnel, but at least, you know, we're a good way through that process and um you know, don't want to wait too long
to start the process with you folks because that the kind of the flip side of that coin if then if you or your peer reviewer has comments or revisions to request of us and then we're changing a plan that MEPA's already taken a look at and that similarly gets messy. You know what I
mean? So, um I think that's where we're I'm >> [clears throat] >> I think we should listen and then continue it. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Nobody's opposed. Okay. Sure thing. Well, thank you. Appreciate that.
For the record, my name is Christopher Adarola. I'm a wetland scientist with Goddard Consulting. Joined by Jason Youngquist, professional engineer without back engineering. Um we're the civil engineers on the project. We are here before you for this notice of intent for this property off of Myrick Street here on behalf of the
applicant, Carl Mallock from DSM Property Group. This is a parcel behind the Star Drive-in lot, um which I'm sure you're familiar with. Map six, block four, lot one. As far as wetland resources, uh there was an ORAI issued not quite a year ago.
So, what we have here and I've kind of just colored up the site plan for a little bit better visibility. Uh we have kind of a large BBW system shown here in this kind of whitish with blue hatch. We have a section of intermittent stream down here. Uh that
will have to cross. There are also two small isolated wetlands as well. Otherwise, aside from the wetlands, the site is undeveloped forested upland. Um there's a cart path that snakes through, but that's about it. For the project itself, in addition to
what we all what we just talked about there, we are also subject to a second notice of intent because the Taunton Lake bill line crosses through the site here. Uh so, we've also filed notice of intent with Taunton for the work on the front quarter ish of the site. Uh we'll be in
front of that one Monday night, I believe. >> [clears throat] >> The project we are proposing two warehouse buildings, access roads, parking, um stormwater management, utilities, all the things that go along with it.
One of those buildings here in the back is actually the building itself is entirely outside of the buffer zone. Um parking, etc. around it is in the buffer zone. The first building here, we've been able to keep, you know, mostly outside of the buffer zone. There's uh
something like, you know, 8,500 sq ft of this building that is in the buffer zone. The balance of the work in the buffer zone, some site access drives uh that kind of flank this building in the front, shown in this orange here, in the buffer zone,
as well as uh a wetland and intermittent stream crossing here towards the back of the site uh to get to some more usable upland, substantially usable upland at sort of the back corner of the site there. Uh we have
one and two and a half surface drainage basins uh within the buffer zone. We have another one that's actually outside of the buffer zone here, about 110, 120 ft away from the wetland. Um I think probably most importantly is
going to be this wetland and stream crossing here. So, we've got um you know, obviously erosion controls we've highlighted in yellow here. Crossing the stream here, we are proposing a 23-ft a substantial open-bottom box culvert
to essentially allow that stream to remain intact uh underneath that road. The total footprint of the impact there uh is 6,757 sq ft of permanent impact to the wetland
with about 1,600 sq ft of temporary construction phase impacts on either side. Um so, all in all, you know, the permanent impact number is about 6,750 sq ft. That exceeds that 5,000 sq ft threshold that we're kind of used to.
Um so, that's you know, that has resulted in a handful of things. That's why part of why we're in MEPA. That's why we've filed this project as a limited project because it gives the commission discretion to approve a project that exceeds that threshold. It's also why we'll need a 401 water
quality cert as part of this as well. In exchange for that 68, we'll call it 6,800 ish square feet of wetland impact, we're proposing a substantial wetland replication area shown over here in
green. That exceeds a two to one ratio. It's about 16, it's a little shy of 17,000 square feet of wetland replication. So, at the end of the day, the site comes out with about 10,000 square feet
more BBW than it started with. Um Those are kind of the highlights of the kind of programmatic aspects of the project here. I don't know if Jason, if you had anything to add on anything stormwater civil related that I might have missed,
but I think that's that's pretty good overview. Yeah, so for stormwater, we analyzed pre-development conditions with compared it to post-development to make sure we weren't having increases in runoff to the wetlands. >> [clears throat] >> I don't believe there's any offsite flows to begin with. Most everything
goes to the wetlands. So, we're using infiltration basins with pre-treatment to recharge ground runoff to the groundwater before and any excess would be discharged to the wetlands. Again, that's all treated runoff before it gets to the infiltration
basins. And that's about it. So, I think if there's any questions or, you know, immediate feedback, we'd be more than happy to entertain that and kind of loop that into any changes, revisions, additional information we're preparing now. Okay,
I'm going back to the old red. Sure. In the old red, that um there was a second intermittent stream that, um, was not flagged as part of the ANRAD submittal. Okay. Okay.
It is adjacent to 1G 5G. Enters from south from the south either from under or next to 140. And they were, um, when the peer reviewer reviewed the ANRAD, they observed old
blue wetland flags in this location, but they were not flagged as part of the submittal. So, I think you need to identify, or I would like you to identify like where that area is. Okay. Okay. Yeah, absolutely.
Now, in full disclosure, you know, we my firm was not involved in the ANRAD, so thank you for that. Um, we'll be happy to look into that. Okay, it's on the it's on the old red. Got you. Because we approved everything else
except that. Okay. Noted. Okay. And then you would just have to flag it. Anybody else? So, um, I understand that, um, the NOI
identifies this as a limited, uh, project. Um, I just would like to note that there's there's criteria within that that presumably would be the peer review. Um
and that's laid out couple places. It's laid out in the act, I think, but then there's a DEP program policy that gets into the the criteria a little bit more. And so I just would flag that I and I would think that would be something that
would be part of the peer review to uh the assessment and evaluation that you've already done in here and uh concur or you know, have comments. I just flag
would flag that. I and I don't know what the commission thinks, but I that would that's just my thought. And I'm not sure if that's what the commission is thinking. So has um I don't think this has gone to Lakeville
planning yet or or Board of Health. I don't know if it needs to go through planning or not. >> I don't believe so. I'd defer to you on that. Yeah, so it'd be site plan approval. You know, but that's a long ways down the road stuff. Okay. And and board the septic would go through
>> That would. That's the We've done perk tests out there already. And and that's the Board of Health. That's been completed, but Board of Health would be a long ways down the road. >> And and I I spoke with uh Ed Colon and he said that it what you just said, that you've done
perfs out there and he didn't really anticipate that there would be a big issue, but in terms of process, just to to put that out there. But those are two perhaps minor Mhm. pieces, but they're outstanding. Yeah.
Okay, so what you'd like from us is to get some prices on peer review. That's got to be a great place to start. If I may. Yes. In addition to um awaiting DEP and MEPA and all the uh follow-up, I would also be interested um
in getting any responses that you get back from Taunton um in your hearings with them and what they have to say. Sure. Thank you. Sure, yeah, we can keep you abreast of that. I have another just observation, I guess. So, the pro- the
way the NOIs are laid out at there's a Lakeville component and then the Taunton component and the storm water report plan would apply to the the whole site. Is that Am I correct on >> Yes. Yeah. It's a It's a Well, and that that
is I guess something to consider, you know, the town line straddles one of these basins. So, but it's a tough thing to, you know, separate it from from itself. The water does not pay attention to town lines. >> does not care. Yeah. Neither do all the little critters. Yeah. So, you're asking so, Taunton's going to
be doing a peer review also? Um we haven't gotten that far yet. I wouldn't be surprised, but um you know, there hasn't been a decision made on that. All right, so that's another thing we'd have to consider to have the peer review was at least
somehow communicate with each other instead of having The last job I did with Taunton in another town, but Taunton because it was minor work in town, they deferred to the the other town's review.
Okay, but then we would have to have our reviewer review the Taunton work. >> Right. There Yeah, there's only half a basin in Taunton, so really wouldn't He's going to be analyzing the whole basin, he's not going to be analyzing the half basin anyway, so >> Right. It really isn't anything extra then.
Can I make one more observation? >> Sure. So, and and again, this is this one I just noticed um probably I was looking at where the star driving was actually, but no, any yeah. Uh looking at the replication and this
is in Taunton, so that's their concern, but it's right up on Route 79. >> it's just a little off the sheet up here, yeah. >> So, expanding the existing wetland closer to that. >> Right, so that's that that is, you know,
another component of this. There's also there's actually even more wetland replication going on in Taunton. Um so, the Lakeville portion of the site, as I said, will come out with a net positive of about 10,000 square feet of BBW. Um the Taunton side is even more than
that. I don't I don't have the number off the top of my head, but um all in all as part of the project, you'll end up with something like I think at least half an acre more wetland than currently exists out there. Can I Can I make the one in Taunton 20 a little over 23,000 square feet being
replicated? So, again, you're picking up I do have a >> 10,000 Just a question or comment. Just a Yeah. So, kind of cool, exciting, you guys are going to be able to build a bridge. I see the the culvert detail.
Um I notice water lines all run underneath there. That's city water coming from Taunton. I I don't see any subsurface sewage disposal. Is that going to be tied into the sewer and will that line go under there as well? >> to be uh the buildings will have septic systems, so
um that was one of the things DEP was wanted to know exactly where those are going. We haven't designed them with Board of Health, but we're We're to put the um where they're going on the on the plans. So, well, if they're within the buffer zone, you'll want to see those too, though. >> Yeah. More than likely it'll be outside the
buffer zone. Okay. So, I think we're at a good point. I'm I think >> Mark had one more. I just said this is minor, but I I I was looking at the replication part and I think it says in there and I could be wrong. I could have misread it, but
it's some about the the 2-year requirement to monitor it and and report. And I think the way it was worded, and again, I could be wrong, but it that the report would be submitted at the end of the 2 years. And and again, but you might want to check that. I
think it's it's the replication guidelines. I think it's supposed to be at the end of each growing season. And that way you don't get to the end of 2 years and not be able to recover. Just a minor Just a minor Yeah, that was actually there was a kind of ancillary
comment that came up in the NEPA process, so something we'll be taking a look at. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Gwen? Would you like a continuance too? Let me think. This is Our next meeting is 5/26 and the one after that is 6/9. I
don't know that we'll turn it around for the 26th. Well, NEPA stuff hopefully by the 28th or something. Um what's after the 26th? Um June 9th. June 9th. Does that sound good? Yeah. So, we would hope to have any any
materials by then. >> Sure. Um and I brought this to a line. You're going to have the septic systems. Could you just show a at least where the culvert's going to go, any other like electric or other utilities that might need to go there, if there's a gas line. Sure. Just to
show proposed so that there's a plan involved and if a reviewer has comments, at least they're seeing that. Please. And Nancy, is anybody here before we continue it? Is anybody here for this?
John Coronas I think you need you Jason, you want to move there? That's okay. Thank you. Okay. >> John Coronas 49 Myrick Street, Lakeville. Happened to be an abutter. And you you guys were asked to touch upon some of the
I'll say questions and concerns that the collective looked at. And I'm glad you mentioned septic and utilities and some of that on a site plan. Just understand because of the unique, I'll call it, elevations, wetlands, amount of replication in the Taunton-Lakeville kind of collectiveness, if you will,
where well, this is a piece we want to talk about with Lakeville on Cons Com today. And maybe it's Monday and you'll over here for Taunton and just that comprehensive look of what it looks like. I know I looked at some of the plans and looked to be going with the most of the
landscape and stuff, but I was interested in some of the elevations, septics, utilities. Just what does it look like? Probably that stuff you best to when they go through the site plan review in planning board, you'll see a lot of that stuff. It's kind of the elevations are
really outside of our purview. Sometimes >> nice elevations actually on the drawings for the buildings. It also a lot of curiosity with maybe taking a volumetric size [snorts] of these Are they some four-story type superstructure? >> Particularly the one up at like the larger one in the back that has like 48
loading docks or something like that. It'd probably be around 32 ft high. Probably Excuse me. If you If you're going to speak, you need to come up to the microphone. And identify yourself. I'm sorry. Okay. Uh C.J. Malik, DSM Property Group. Um
yeah, so we're probably at the 32-ft height. Max is the you know what we're allowed in that in that zone. In that zone, for the building height. Yeah, building height. Oh, got it. Thank you. I'm just more curious coming down at 140 you're going to be right apparent. Right. From the highway you can't miss
it. I think it dips down a little bit there. I don't know what we have for fill, but yeah, you'll definitely see it from 140. Yeah. No, that's all. I was just curious the size of that one with the 48 docks and stuff, but yeah, that was it. Just for information purposes and and more of the Taunton-Lakeville combination and
and some other you're probably right about planning. Site water does it Lakeville allotment, Taunton is it there you know those types of questions. For your information, if you haven't checked the Lakeville site, there's a a site for every board there with their calendar of
hearings and their agendas are also posted publicly. So, go to lakevillemass.org Lakevillema.org and follow the different um divisions, but in this case planning, that'll have some updated information on the project as well. Right, and we're continuing to a date specific tonight,
so you'll know when the next time they'll be here. Thank you. So, what was that? Forgot to add that we discussed today was um our our landscape architect is going to be involved um as part of the request from DEP. Um
additional plantings that are going to be cuz there was trees removed, they want mitigation, so our landscape architect is going to be come up with a plan um to enhance the site. Um all the disturbed areas and and with plantings and and make things um make things look nice. Let's just not
cleared area. Did we have a date to continue to? Well, that's what I'm asking. So, Jason and I were just saying, uh do we need to come back to you to talk about peer review prices and select a peer reviewer, can that happen offline? What's your typical
MO on that? Well, I think probably some of the additions to the plan, we'd like to have those on the plan for the peer review. So, I don't know if like just to like I I brought up showing where the electric or if there's going to be a
gas line going through that culvert. I don't care about where it comes into the lot, that's not our purview, but I just we're we're having them review the culvert and we'll ask structural questions to make sure that it exceeds and to make sure that they're placed
because I assume that you'll be either going right above the culvert in stone and in you know, fill material, not under because you're not worried about electric or gas freezing, but just to make sure that they're not impacted and show some sort of a uh
shaded area on the plan just so that when we do have somebody review that, that that's being picked up by them. Well, be nice if you gave us a plan before we Well, this is to get you their prices. To get their price, this plan is
it's not going to change enough. As a peer reviewer myself, Okay. um this plan I'd be like, all right, this is what it's going to cost us to review. If this revised plan comes in and it just changes, okay, there's some utilities shown, that's not really changing my price and if it does, it's just a quick, all right, I'm going to need an extra
thousand fifty-nine dollars because of the change, but I've already done my initial assessment of the plans. I'll spend all that time, you know, whether it's you know, eight eight hours maybe just to to figure out the >> is the plan you want to go to the peer reviewer. To get their price. I think at least for
scoping, yeah, I think this plan is sufficient. >> a price. Yeah. Yeah, so we wouldn't meet for that. No. Yeah, we can do that offline. If you don't want to come to another meeting. All right. We would want the updated Absolutely. plans submitted to us before we can vote on that. >> Everything goes through us. Once we get
you a price and >> Absolutely. everything goes through us. Yep. So, or copied or Uh so, again, back to the the MEPA process and this idea that so, presumably, there's not going to be any major changes or you you all have been
involved with it. I don't know what the kind of comments you're hearing, but um when is when does that Do you know when that runs at its course? Is like public comment still open? Is it still dealing dealing with DEP and So,
as of today, the comment period, I believe, was extended to the What was the date? I think it was 22nd. 22nd, I think, the comment period. Uh so, we've got a couple of more or Yeah, maybe two more weeks or so, um
to receive comments. Yeah. And then I think they expect to have a MEPA certificate issued about a month from then. So, it would be like >> It's 6 weeks out. mid or late June, um to be kind of wrapped up with the
MEPA process. Yeah, and and to Jason's point, maybe any comments you're going to get isn't going to change the plan significantly enough that it would affect a quote, but >> Right. and and depends on if if you're saying what a month, I don't know.
Anyhow. Yeah, I I I mean, I think we'd be comfortable with, you know, and I'd defer to you, obviously, you know, if we sent it to get scoped and get prices and something changes that says, "Hey, like Jason said, you know, we need an extra 1,500 bucks for this or that." I think we'd probably rather get the ball
rolling on that. Um yep. Yeah. Absolutely. Okay. So, we'll continue to June 9th. I think that makes sense. Yep. Okay. And hope that we have a first round of Make a motion to continue with this hearing to June 9th
6:30 p.m. At police station. Police station meeting room here. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you very much folks. We'll be in touch. Have a good night. Thank you everyone. Hey Chris.
Seriously, tell your dad I said hi. Funny to see you and good to see you. Okay. Look, we're going to go twice. Next stop is 107 Hemlock Shore Road. This is continued from 428. Well, it's all the comments from
natural heritage. If you If you give me a moment, I'd like Yeah, sorry. Yes. Jason, [clears throat] when we talked and about the comments from natural heritage, did you say you weren't working in the water so you didn't think they applied? The muscles.
Um the first comment from natural heritage talked about the muscles. Um and working in the water. No, we will not be working in the water. The dock already exists. We're going to be working uphill from the top of bank to create an access way to get down to the dock.
So, I think I think that Go right ahead. All right. Um what I'm looking at from natural heritage, when I went back and looked at it, it says based on the information provided
that this project as currently su proposed must be conditioned in order to avoid adverse effects. Yeah. So, it would be a condition from the commission to re-emphasize the fact that we will not
be working in the water. Yeah, I think that what I was going to say is if we condition it this way, so if they do go in the water, which we won't be. Which they won't be, but they they know They have to do a >> as part of their notice of intent that these conditions are there
for if they did go to the water that they would need to do a a muscle sweep and everything else that they commented on. Yeah. No work between said dates in the water for the red-bellied cooter. Yeah, and the red-bellied cooter is not in the water. That's um that's on the land. >> Right, that's that's my point.
>> be a condition from the commission, no work between Right. May 15th June 1st date. And then uh That's why I think we just we make this part of our conditions entirely, not try to cherry-pick it. Okay. Yeah, just like we have in in other work
said in addition to any conditions handed down by wildlife or natural heritage, so Yeah, as well as all of the attached conditions from Mass Wildlife or Fisheries and Wildlife regarding
tidewater muckett, red-bellied cooter, and bridle shiner. Yeah, I think we can make a copy of this list of conditions and attach it. I would. >> As a as appendix A to our standard conditions. >> Yeah, because they talk about using native species for the plantings as
well. Mhm. So, all right. Um trying to find where So, do we have Then we have to add the condition that you weren't We can attach this but our conditions we have to say you're not working in the water. That is perfectly
fine. >> Okay. I'm just trying to figure out the logistics of how this works. Yep. Excellent point, Nancy. It could be um um the applicant will not work in the water um per
um Mesa's comment number two about muscle protection um to not affect the muscles. Okay. So, we need a motion to close the hearing. Mhm. And issue an
order of conditions where one of um the commission's conditions will be the applicant will not work in the water. So, comment number two. Plus our standard conditions. Plus our standard conditions. Okay. And the addition of all of natural
heritages Fisheries and wildlife. >> Fisheries and wildlife. Oh. All right. Yeah, but natural heritages It came off It was stamped from natural heritages website, but the order of conditions came from Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. >> Okay. So
>> Dated April 29th Yeah. And it has the natural heritages file number referenced. So, our standard conditions Yep. plus the condition that no work be done in the water plus the additional appendix which will
be attached which refers to all the conditions applied by Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife shall all be considered. Okay. So moved. Spec second. Discussion.
Natural heritages is under Fisheries and Wildlife. Natural heritages is like a generic term almost. >> Right. Wouldn't it? Right. They have different They have different divisions that cover Right. land, water, aquatic. Yeah. It's all under Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Right. Okay.
Just saying. So, we have a motion and a second. Good to vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Thanks, Jim. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. You guys are done for the night. No more yet?
Little more on the Indian. quite. No audience. >> [laughter] >> 8 Peachtree Road Okay, 30 Howland Road. Um As requested to continue to 5:26. So
Second. At 6:30 p.m. at the police station. Yes. So moved. Second. Have a good night, guys. Thank you. Good night. All right, 8 Peachtree Drive. We need to vote. We have a vote. Motion and a second.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Kind of complicated trying to take the notes because sometimes Lori, if she doesn't watch it, needs to know what she needs to do. All right, 8 Peachtree Drive. And we got the letter from Natural
Heritage, no impact, so we need to close the hearing. And issue an order of conditions with all our standard conditions with the additional condition that any further work on that property needs an additional filing.
So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. So, is the off Montgomery asking for a continuance? I see nobody here tonight. Um just give me 1 second, all right?
Yep. Okay. Yes, off Montgomery Street would ask to be continued to June 9th. Here at the police station at 6:30 p.m. >> Yep. So moved. Second. All in favor? >> Aye. Aye. Okay.
Mark, you're up. This is the OSRD. Yes. Um well, it's a lot of pages. There's a lot of pages. Um I'm going to have to actually
I I don't have a To be honest, I don't have a whole lot of concrete comments that I can share right now. There were a couple of things that I I thought there was a process for um Honestly, I'd rather have a chance of looking at it.
Okay. I I think that's what she's asking. A lot of reading. Well, maybe Mark and you can tell us what you've been going to the meetings, right? >> I got to also. Well, we do a little bit of the reading. They they um Yeah, a little bit of the reading. Yeah,
I get it. Oh, this is the AP. That's right. Well, since it was pushed to, I believe, the fall town meeting. Yeah. We it was there's there's been a a pause, but one thing
that my I'm sorry. Um >> [clears throat and cough] >> One of the impressions was there was a whole new new process proposed that it raised questions in my mind
um Don't we have one? No. No. No. Open space, no. It seemed like there was a lot lot of additional review that applicants
proponents of building or or or development would have to to go through and And again, I can't really comment, but it seems that in my mind it seemed a little duplicative of stuff that already existed, like storm water.
Ultimately, I thought this was for a specific location, though, or it's being done for Oh, we doing spot zoning? For the goal of having a town-wide bylaw regarding open space.
It would be town wide but it doesn't apply to every piece. >> Yeah, right. At the certain acreage, what's the acreage mark that would apply to? Is it 20? I I have a comment that I think
thing that bothers me the most about this is SRPEDD's doing this. And they're doing it for Lakeville and they're doing it for Middleborough. Look at Middleborough's, it's way different. It doesn't say anything about residential at all. Middleborough's talks mostly about
They have an extra initial on there. It's not OSRD, it's OS something and it's more >> Open space and recreation, is that I was trying to look at both of them and to be honest there were a few things going on which is >> Middleborough's in front of you exactly
what it says? Yeah. It's 15. It's uh 15 continuous acres. Is what triggers. >> acres. Yeah, open space and recreation. There's a couple other criteria but continuous track lands totaling at least
15. Yeah, they they did it all around even their opening statement is all about preservation. So they looked at it differently than Middleborough. >> The intent. >> Yeah.
Ours is seems more towards the residential part like we don't have enough residential already. Um but theirs was more about preservation have the preserving part. And it was done by SRPEDD. It just to me
seems funny that they maybe they orders they were given by Middleborough were more about land protection than what was given about Lakeville. And I think in we'll put a copy of Middleborough's in the
That's what I would like to see in the packet is a copy of Middle Boroughs. So, it's going to be 10% deed restricted housing. There's There's his longer actually, too. It was I I didn't print the whole thing out. I was I got the first 10 pages. John, what did
you just say? It's going to be 10% to determine how the project will meet the mandatory 10% deed restricted housing quota. It's going to be either subsidized housing senior or starter homes. Well, that's what you're all Which are all state programs. It's a state program. Yeah.
So, this is a straight state program? Or is this a way to allow Lakeville to approve their own? It's the condition for approval of any special permitting under the OSRD development. So, Lakeville's Lakeville's conditioning. Yeah. Because of 40
essentially a 40B. Yeah. Well, that would be 25% deed restricted housing. >> This is a minimum of 10 um percent as affordable units and restricted in perpetuity. Which is actually a good deal for a developer.
But I If I remember right, didn't we try to do a cluster zoning bylaw? >> Yes, we did that before. We were But it was But it was for Rocky Woods. We were doing it just for Rocky Woods. It wasn't >> No, it wasn't. No, because Rocky Woods >> with them in mind.
No, this was prior to that. Oh, okay. >> just a general bylaw for cluster zoning, which I I agree with, but Did it ever really go to town meeting? >> a developer had to have enough land and up and upland to do,
you know, full lots. And then they could apply >> Right. >> a shorter road with smaller lots, but they had to have Right. I'm not sure. So, I don't know if this calls for that or not. So, is this just a way to
build smaller lots? Frontage setback. >> That's what I'm saying. Middleborough, the one that Surprenant did for Middleborough was more in line with what I think we should have done. >> Come on, let's go again. And I don't think that one went to Do you remember,
Mark, back in go to town The only one that didn't go to town meeting, though, did it? Didn't they pull it? I don't think it ever went, and then they tried again when Rocky Woods came. So that must have been the second time it came around. Because um
the Rocky Woods people said they would be amenable to to doing that, and then it just never came about. I think there's a lot to digest in here. >> went to town meeting. So I think there's a lot to digest in here without just searching for answers
while we're talking about it. >> where it just to me seemed more like you like, you know, preserving it, and like John said the first time around, where you take everything out and decide how you can how you do by right. This is interesting. We have
two adjacent towns >> Right. >> that have such And Surprenant's doing it for both. I don't I mean, I see things happening in Middleborough that uh are kind of astonishing to me. But they're they're getting to be a
place to park your rusty old truck a lot. It's popping up all over the place. And you know, the the lots where you can just park you know, park your truck. >> Isn't that your yard? >> [laughter] >> Just But on the other on the other hand,
you know, you know, the Dairy Queen in Middleborough? Yeah. They're Well, I got a 12-year-old that I have to take care of all the >> You You know who built that, right? No. My dad. Okay. It just sold. God bless him. The Dairy Queen? The Dairy Queen sold to the same family that
he sold it to originally. They're on the three generations. Make a guess what that piece of property sold for. They've been keeping it supposedly as a Dairy Queen. 4.2 million. 4.2 million. You guessed correctly. Right. And I
>> Somebody read the news. Yes. >> [laughter] >> It's been in the local news and I'm just, you know, my brain is going Yeah, I I I'm afraid to sit down and figure out how much per square foot that comes out to. >> That's a smart building. It It It's There's money in those places. >> Those small DQ's are around. There's a
lot of money in ice cream. That is either number one or number two in sales in the state. It's always been that way from the time my father had it. All right. So, we did the right thing. That's where the good traffic was. My father built stuff where there were intersections.
Smart. But But constant traffic and And this was prior to Interstate Highway. If you were going to the Cape, You went down 28. You went down 28. That's where they got their money. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. So, do we I'm just
wondering if there's that much difference in the commands to serve it that you're ending up with two different results. That must That must be it. The The circuit will go and do what you want them to do, I guess. >> Right. That's my point is like why are
we making it like easy for them to only do 10% of what we need or not take the make them >> Don't know. do the by right thing or We got minutes to do? Yes. >> Yes, we do. Yes. Do we want to decide to
push this, you know, At least >> two at least at least two meetings out. So, two We'll put it on the agenda for the 9th of June. Right? Yep. Sure. >> the Middleborough version minute.
Can she email that? It's 364 pages the middle girl. And and my apologies articulated more clearly but I think I think I passed one over to you without signing it. I passed one out over without signing
it. So we have the minutes from January 27th. Who sets the minutes? Can we do them both at the same time? Yes. I make a motion that we accept the minutes of the town of Lake Winthrop Conservation Commission meetings of January 27th,
2006 and February 10th, 2026. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye.