4.6.2026 Conservation Commission

Uh welcome to the uh uh conservation commission meeting being held at One Government Center. It's uh Monday, April 6, 5:30, first uh floor hearing room, One Government Center. Uh pursuant to the open meeting, any person may 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

and transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible.

We'll start with roll call to my left.

Chris Bole, Lewis Ferrer, John Brandt, Jim Houston, and we're missing uh Tim McCoy and Drew Carine, and we also have uh Dan Aguiar, conservation agent, Patty Aguiar, recording secretary, and we have uh you with us from FRGTV, Jacob Praer.

Uh first on agenda is um uh review and discussion of updates on Belro.

So I spoke with Dan Nunes who was the representative from Gopes Construction who had done all the work out there.

We're just trying to find the time. Um we agree that now before vegetation comes out is the time to do it, but there's so much standing water there right now. So we're going to get out there this week, him and I, to come up with a plan to try to get it resolved.

Um, it's just competing weather things.

They're they're fully on board with what they need to do and we'll get there, but it's kind of tough to take silt off of a surface while there's water on top of it. So, I'll follow up with him this week.

Hopefully, we'll get it dry enough time and then we can get it all cleaned up.

Motion to table.

So, move table.

Second.

Roll call.

I I I I review and discussion adopting fee structures. So, um, I met with John B and Chris Bole, uh, last Thursday. We came up with, um, preliminary draft bylaw and some preliminary fees. So, I will put together something, get it out to you all before the next meeting so that you have time to review and comment. So, hopefully at the next meeting, we can probably walk out of here with this is what we're going to

run with. It's very simple. It's it's the general framework and skeleton of what we need to create a bylaw. and then we had come up with some ideas based upon what other municipalities charge for fees to start off with and we can have that discussion. So I would expect maybe by the end of the week you'll have something to to look at before meeting.

Okay.

I think it's pretty pretty fair and pretty motion table motion table.

Second roll call. I I I uh next review and discussion outstanding enforcement orders.

So I have the all the letters drafted that we're sending out. I'm putting together now the actual historic packages for each one of them. All the past letters, enforcement actions, plans, aerial photographs to be able to get that sent out. And those are the that's all items that we're getting sent to D to ask them to intervene. So we're about halfway through getting those packages ready to bail out.

Motion to table.

Second. Uh just a moment. Is Yellow Hill in that?

Yellow Hill is not because it's not an actual enforcement act.

Okay. Right.

Well, we can talk about it briefly. So, if you remember that Yellow Hill that they had come in with a certificate of compliance for a project on Yellow Hill that on the ASBOT that they submitted, they had clearly gone into the resource area. So, we've been waiting for a couple of months because they had said that they were going to be putting together a filing to either permit what was done. So, it's going to be a

combination of permitting what was done to the extent that they could and then restore whatever areas they couldn't. We still haven't received that formal submission. I've been in contact with Jim Aguar who is their consultant and they're working on getting us something um the last this was just on Thursday I think we followed up on it. Um and told me that they had discovered something that they're resolving with

the attorneys.

I I explained to him if we don't see something soon, we are going to take it upon ourselves to to file an enforcement action and we'll get you to fix it that way rather than being so patient. So, but but technically we have not dealt with any enforcement action on that yet.

We were just being in response to the certificate of compliance that that they had submitted that we had rejected.

We got a motion and a second.

No, nothing on that that call.

No, no. You don't need to go on that one. That's just a quick little update, not an enforcement office.

All right, sounds good. Uh, next notice of 10sec-24-843 applicant Marco Fritz, project location 565 Detroit Street. As sessions map is E-27-0042 filed by Farland Corp. on behalf of the applicant, the applicant is proposing to install an ingground pool, country pad, table patio upgraded is table from March 2nd. So this is one of the two items that we had discussed at the last meeting where I had reached out to the

cannot permit the proposed activities and and meet the performance standards.

And this this is the one that also has the enforcement issue where they had already done a bunch of work encroaching on the previously approved wetland. So we can move that way or you can continue to allow them to t No, we're not going to continue. I me I'm speaking for myself. We've tabled this long enough. This is a matter and and I got no response.

Yeah, there's no respect for the commission and we've tabled this long enough. I think we're done here.

So, if somebody wants to make a motion to deny, it should be based upon the items that we've discussed that are in the report that we've been waiting for revised plans um and we've received nothing in response to our initial comments from day one.

Yeah. I make that motion to deny the NOI.

Second.

Okay. Roll call. Hi.

Hi. Sorry.

Okay.

Are they going to receive correspondence that has been denied?

Absolutely. Yeah.

And that um Okay.

Because we actually issue an an order, right?

But it's just it's just denied. So, yeah, they will receive that 100%.

Because they have the ability to apply.

And will it also um that they can, you know, they can't they obviously know? Well, we hope they know they can't proceed with this, right? Oh, no. 100%. So, following up to this. Now, they do have an appeal process.

Um, I would recommend that we let the appeal process or the appeal time period expire. Then you can determine, do you want to file an enforcement action for the violation? Now, clearly, this homeowner was not the violator.

So, we we'll talk about that when we have a discussion, but let's get past the appeal period because they could choose to appeal to D and think they might have better luck with them.

where I thought we made it clear that we were willing to work with them, but you got to show us what you want to do and how you're going to resolve the matter.

And we've just got no no response other than continued emails asking to be tabled.

So, do we have a full vote?

Yeah. 40.

Okay. Uh, next is a notice in 10 SE-24-847.

Applicants John Henry, owners uh, Hawkins and Woodfield LLC. Project location 121 Whitfield Street Map C-17, lot 0024 filed by Sean Ainsworth of site engineer. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant is proposing construction of a single family dwelling. This was taped for March 2nd's meeting. So again, this is the second followup or the second of this similar type of a hearing

where at the last meeting we discussed how many more times are we going to allow this matter to be tabled.

This this has a lengthy uh list of reasons why um we were not approving this and we have not received any additional information to address any of our concerns. This is the one that we asked them to speak with the neighboring that was here and engineering wise if you include both properties you probably to put together something that both properties could have been buildable.

Now, separately, it becomes more difficult.

Um, again, emailed the applicant, which is Sean Ainsworth, told him that we're going to be voting on this tonight with or without a revised plan, and we received no response guy.

It's obviously not a priority for them.

So, make a motion to deny the notice of intent.

Second.

Okay. Roll call. I I I I saves us two pages of agenda item for next month.

Yeah.

Uh next notes 10se-24-855 applicant Weaver's Cove Industrial Park LLC project locations map T-2 lot 001 filed by Chris Vartelli of God uh Consulting LLC. on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing after the fact restoration of uh clear vegetation. This is taped from March 2nd.

So, the good thing is is that the more John reads these Wait a minute. He's starting to pronounce everything correctly. Right. So, we're almost we're almost at this one. Perfect. Um some progress on this, you should have just received um within the last half hour an update from attorney uh Nyl. So, the two consultants have been going back and forth just about resource area delineation, never mind the restoration,

never mind the work, but they're apparently getting closer. So, with that, um, Attorney Nland is always very responsive, usually last minute. Um but um they are moving forward and I guess from what I read the two scientists are now scheduled to meet on the site next week the 15th as LEC wants to confirm that the resource area delineations for the two NOI applications are consistent.

We intend to return the commission when LEC has confirmed that. So we're at least getting to the point where the this is the resource area. This is what's been altered and then they'll be proposing what their uh restoration is.

any signatures?

Uh, no. But we did get No, no, but we did get um because if you notice on here, two notice of intent applications. Um the attorney for um for the electric company, they're on the same emails and they did respond that they that they had received the information that they were good with it on their review. So, they're all internally working to move this forward and we'll we can deal with that one when

when that one comes up under item eight.

But with that, I would recommend that we allow the consultants to continue to work and um that we would table this until we receive additional information.

Make a motion to table.

Second.

Okay. Roll call. I I I I Next is a notice of intent SC-24-857.

Uh applicant is Benjamin Phillip. Uh Liberty Utilities, owner Spectrum, project location 994 Jefferson Street, Ces Math D-20, lot 0002, followed by Ryan Iron of Triont Engineering. on behalf of the applicant.

The applicant is proposing to install 220 foot and half of 4 in carrier pipe and 2 in gas through the means of horizontal directional drilling. Project uh includes any entry and exit pits.

This was tabled from March 2nd. Um again I am working with the engineer for this project directly going through his plans. Um, I did send him another email today asking for his his availability to come in, go over a plan. Um, I think it's just a lack of engineering experience with with what he's putting on a plan because this is a gas company project. So, they don't often deal with having to deal with wetlands. So, I

think it's a little bit beyond his normal scope of work. And I was hoping not to have to do the work for them. But the gas company has been asking me to do whatever I could to help guide this this this applicant uh to get them what they're doing. So with that, I don't have an issue with tableabling this one.

Okay.

Motion to table.

Second.

I I I Next the notice of intent uh SE-24-861 Alyn has earned Wascoski of Cahill of NEPC uh DBA National Grid owner applicant uh Wever Cove Industrial Park LLC project location existing overhead uh transmission designs assesses map multiple locations filed by Erica Marcia of power engineer on behalf of the uh applicant. The project is located within a section of the existing rightways from

the sky road substation to the Somerset for municipal boundaries over the Ton River. The project consists of separation existing N12 and M13 transmission lines on to repair multiple uh structures within the existing rightway. This is tabled from March 2nd's meeting. So this dovtales again with the Weaver's Cove project and again both sides are working together um with that request that the matter be table.

Motion at table.

Second.

Roll call.

I I I Next is a request for certificate of compliance SC-24-756.

Uh owner is uh Casey Malakovich of Resourceful Trust. Project location is 40 Fedric Street Map is C-15- Z007 filed by Alexander Gronowski of Grouseowski engineer on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is requesting a certain compliance table for March 2nd.

Um so if you remember we discussed this project at the last meeting. There were a couple of outstanding items um that we were waiting to hear back from from the consultant. Any progress yet, Alex, or no?

Which one?

Frederick Street.

Uh, he's waiting.

He's working on some stuff.

He No, he has to repave the road. I don't think well like some of the other items.

You're just waiting to address them all at once. Okay.

Just the small ones paving the road has to be What do you think time wise when the plants are open and it's the roadway is not done, right? Yeah, I know. That was one of the outstanding items.

He has he can pay. So you want us a table? One month or two months?

When are the plants open? April plants are open.

Open.

Maybe plants are open.

I'll then I'll call him. I don't know.

Let's do two months. Everything else he did except except for the for the for the payment. He put signs. He put the fence. Okay. Everything else is you want to do he's already living there, right? So it's not like he needs an occupancy.

He's leaving the road. What he needs to do to repave cut the road and that's it.

Two months at the request of the applicant table.

Sure.

Motion is table for uh for two months to June 1st.

2026.

He may just

request a certificate of compliance SC-24.

Do we have the rest of the uh It does have a final number. I don't know why it's not on here, but 24762 762. Shoot.

It's on the agenda.

Okay. What was that number then, Patty?

762.

762. Sorry. SE-24762.

Uh applicant is Carlos Astera. Private location is 3820 North Main Street.

Assesses map X-3-0010.

Filed by Peter Lavoy at Landmark Site Design. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant is requesting a certificate of compliance. Anybody here for that? I don't think so. Um, so through site plan review, we had done a review, sent some comments back that were waiting to be resolved. Um, some of it had to do with some of the footprint and limit of work and some sides slope things. The site is

actually stable. It looks pretty pretty close. Um, I would hold off on issuing the certificate of compliance until site plan review is done in case they require him to change something. So with that, I would recommend that we we hold off and table this one.

And there's nobody's here to respond.

Dan, on the other side of the street, the water that runs down that hill, does that go under North Main?

Not in that location. It does ultimately go under North Main, but not there.

There's there's not a culvert there.

I went by when it was raining and a lot of water was coming down. But you thinking of this one or the one that's next?

What's that? Are you thinking of this one or the one that's next?

No. No. This is This is This is the three unit condominium on the on the bottom.

Yeah.

Yes.

There's water down the bottom there.

Oh, there's a wetland there. Big wetland. Absolutely.

There was water on the other side running down. Runs down during the rain, but I don't know if it went doesn't go underground.

No.

No. It's not covered.

Kind of disappears as it's running down.

So, I didn't know if it had gone under.

There's got to be a covert somewhere that it finds its way through. But yeah, that's a big wetland that actually comes feeding up from from the railroad track area.

Yeah, big wetland.

But the site itself, I was surprised how stable it was. But but I I had some questions on the review through site plan review. I asked them to show what the previous limit of work was where the pre make sure that the previous wetlands line is shown because the proposed grading that was shown required rip wrap which was at like a 2:1 or a one slope. So, I don't know how

they were able to grade it and have it be a grass slope. So, I'm thinking they may have extended their limit of work area. So, once we get those things resolved, then we can look at it. But if if it if it falls within the the approved limit of work, then everything should be okay.

Oh, motion to table.

Second.

Roll call. I I I I next determination accessibility 206 owner is val court royalty trust applicant is Antonio Casta project location and 4041 North Main Street says math is X03-0042 and 0052 filed by Alexander Kroski of Kroski engineer on behalf of the applicant the afternoon advisor is requesting verification resource area.

So while Alex is setting up I'll just give you a little bit of background. So as you continue up North Main Street just before you get to Shores there's a little private road called u street.

Just before you get to u there's a little open vacant area of wooded land there. There is a very well- definfined ditch um and perennial stream that runs underneath Main Street. perennial or is that coming off the highway? They dump the high.

It's coming over the high. We'll see what I thought it was.

Are we So, are we And that was my question because it there's a note on the plan that says does it say riverfront and VVW your note to the right hand side. What resource area are we?

Let's go both.

Okay. Well, that's so that's why I'm saying it's because it can't be per if it it can't be riverfront if it's not perennial. So, we've got to determine is it perennial or is it not? I for river it really doesn't make a difference as long as you provide the 25 ft but that's when we get to the development but so but if we're going to call it riverfront and VVW what do you think

it's not doesn't matter I looked at designing this you you've called it riverfront and BVW all right let's go so I I recommend approval of the wetlands line as riverfront and BVW W it might be an overreach, but I didn't delineate it. You did. So Oh, so Beth. All right. So it isn't.

Let me let me think for a second. Well, for for real, it really doesn't matter.

Well, not for you necessarily right now, but suppose just suppose we don't call it riverfront and you wanted to come in with a project that was 10 feet from the resource area. Okay. Now, we've got two different things to deal with. Is it 10 ft off of a BVW or are you now within the riverfront area of this stream?

I think it I think it exhibits intermittent characteristics.

It is, but I can only act on what you've suggested. So, all right, let's do let's call it intermittent.

So, so we are so we would be approving and two things. An RDA for BBW has already been established under a previous RDA as well. they just never went through it to work. Um, so the line I have no problem with. It's it's well defined. It's the top of the bank. Um, so that no issue with. If you look on the request for determination, uh, Alex whether inadvertently or No, you know, inadvertently this was not.

Okay. So, initially this plan had come through site plan review and we had a question about okay, let's get the wetlands line delineated and let's get the work permitted. So initially when it came in I was expecting that he was going to file the entire thing work included as an RDA. The work is about 25 ft from this resource area. So I think it was Alex's assertion to only file for

the line and then would file for a notice of intent. What he actually submitted was for you to determine whether or not a notice of intent is required. So if we're if we're removing the request for the work, then you don't have to act on the work. If you are being asked to move on the work, which we only received a plan today, I would recommend the filing of a notice of intent. So

this was my intent to file notice of intent. I advertised it as a notice of intent and you even if it go through the to the state, they would laugh me. Y me out.

So you're amending your application to only deal with the resource area being accurate as BVW and then I'll go for the notice which as much as I'd like to do it otherwise but uh that won't be touched that's going to well that's not before you but no no I'm just saying at certain times the proposed activity runs I go by that the proposed activity of what we know there will be nothing closer than 25 ft

to the top of that bank. All right.

I'm pretty sure that's being conveyed from Route 24.

It is. It's from Route 24. It's from Industrial Park. Even if you look at it, it's kind of it's clearly I would call it's even men man-made because it's Oh, it's eroded. It's highly eroded.

It's erod but there is a there is upstream there is a calver. There is like a stealing pad. It's going under the another cart and it's coming through the route 24. Route 20.

24 in its turn taking this water from swails and industrial.

So there are parts of it that you would say this looks just like steep brook but the upland drainage area that supports it isn't what supports steep brook. So that's that that's the difference right that's been diverted years diver.

So you're being asked just to deal with approve the BVW is what it is. So with that it would be I don't have it in front of me but a negative box whatever it is to approve the wers line as as presented and the work will come in as a notice of intent.

Okay, sounds good.

Well, you let them vote. They may say recommended negative determination for the delineation, resource area delineation.

Second.

Okay, roll call.

I I I Excellent. Thank you.

I25.

Let's see. Next is a request of certificate of compliance SE-24-829.

Honor is Jeffrey Johnson. Project location 24 Bronson Street Map C-16-0103 followed by Jeffrey Johnson. The applicant is request compliance.

So this is again one of the singular lots in that whole Bronson Street development. This is actually the most southerntherly lot, the lot that is most distant from the wetland.

So, um, this does get lumped in because the the auto conditions covered the entire piece of property, all eight lots and all of the infrastructure. So, what you would be doing tonight is a partial COC releasing lot C16-103 from the overall order of conditions.

Make a motion.

COC seconded.

Okay. Roll call.

I I I I Let's see. Next is a request of extension of permit for order conditions SE-24-827 owner African 52 Ferry LLC project location 52 Ferry Street assesses map N-14-005 filed by Mark Lequire on behalf of the applicant. the applicing an extension of war conditions.

Mr. Commissioner, members of board, um I know I spoke Dan spoke earlier about the possible extension and it's automatic. I did not realize it related to conservation orders. I thought it was permits and other things for building power. But since I'm here, uh, the only purpose is because we finally, although we came through a you a year and a half ago, it took a year, a little over a year to get D. I mean, u,

chapter 91. Yeah, chapter 9, the engineers department to finally give the D approval for that.

And with that it takes my client takes says at this point in time with the way things are in the world in the United States it's going to take about a year just to get all the materials he needs to bring to the site to start operating.

So that'll be beyond the September date that we initially were hoping that this would be done. So we're asking that we extend that further from September for two years. Um that's about it.

Okay.

So this is more than light marina expansion and the reason why an attorney is here and and this this actually has some legal aspect to it as well. So there is the permanent extension act that would have applied to this. However, at the registry of deeds and with any title you would you would need someone to make an interpretation at some point in time. Is this permit still valid? So somebody

would have to write a letter. somebody would have to make an interpretation and sometimes banks don't like that or for whoever may want to see it because there is no proof of it. This will at least give him a recordable document that gave them the same extension that the permanent extension act would have done and so they they've gone through chapter 91 with D. They're actually currently in

front of the Army Corps of Engineers which is item number five today on the agenda. So with that I would recommend the uh extension to the maximum extent.

I'll make a motion for that extension.

Yeah. Second.

Roll call.

I I Thank you.

That's it.

Thank you.

I'm not on number five though. They didn't ask me to come for that.

Do you want you want to throw in another bill?

Thank you.

Do you need me?

No, we'll be fine.

Okay.

Always happy if you guys need me to help.

Have a great night.

Bill, you too.

Uh next submission by 52 ferry street applicant permanent department of army the location of the army.

So this is um again same project for light marine expansion. The way the process works is we they first have to apply to the conservation commission.

They get a permit from us in order of conditions. Once that permit is in hand they then go to D uh and get their chapter 91 license. And what that does is it just gives them the ability to use the land which is the water that's owned by the Commonwealth. Once they get that permit, they can now apply to the Army Corps of Engineers, which is a construction permit. So that's the

process that they're in. Part of that process is that they notify I want to say it's used to be like 31 different agencies. It's everybody in this building from building department of planning conservation, it's tribal this, it's coastal zone management. So everybody gets notified. So that's the process that they're in. Um, so it just gives you the ability to question or comment and there's a time period. So

normally when you get something in like this that you would have already approved and where nothing has changed, you would just accept it and place it on file.

Okay.

We need a motion to place on file.

So yeah, motion to place on file.

Second. Roll call.

I I I All right. Next discussion of 180 River Street letter notification of 91 chapter 91 license submission by MADP master abilities question or comment.

So again this is the same let's back up one step from the previous. We issued an order of conditions for that um expansion at Okonnell's boatyard. This is them now going to the chapter 91 process and that has the same process as AMI call where a number of different agencies get notified. Plans are the same as what's been proposed and what was approved by you. They're just now dealing with the state portion of it.

All those look like there were about 20 floating docks down there just down from North Main right now or all piled up there on the uh road to go down.

Right. So it could be their winter removal or are they new? So I don't I don't look new.

So no well they they may be building in anticipation.

Yeah. No because I don't know if they have all their floats in for the year.

Yeah.

Um, but that as you go down the bottom to the left before you make the hot like you go underneath the overpass just before the overpass and just after the overpass, that's been their storage area for years for storing the floats when they take them out because the yard itself is covered in boats.

Um, so maybe they're in the process of putting them in. I don't know.

I first time I noticed them going by there.

Maybe it don't go down in the winter time. So, um, so no, that's the same thing. So again we if you don't have anything additional for comment or question then you should just place on file on file second roll call I I I I next uh election of officers

if some motion dominates if somebody you You can make a motion to keep the existing existing slate just to make it quick. That's up to you. Or if you want to change, make a motion to keep the existing slate of officers.

It doesn't include you. You put up everybody else on the hook.

Unless somebody wants to make All right. Roll call.

I I I I approval of minutes from March 2nd.

Motion to approve the minutes.

Second.

Roll call. I I I I All righty. Uh see no citizen input.

Motion to adjurnn.

Motion to adjurnn.

Second.

Roll call. Hi, I