8.4.2025 Conservation Commission

Uh welcome to the Fall River Conservation Commission meeting being held at uh one public uh hearing room uh government center Fall River Mass. It's Monday, August 4th, uh 5:30 p.m.

Uh pursuant to the open meeting laws, 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 or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible.

We'll start roll call Lewis Ferrer, John Brandt, Jim Cusk, Tim McCoy.

We are missing uh committee members uh Chris Bole and Drew Cowine. And we also have in attendance uh conservation agent Dan Aguiar and recording clerk Patty Aguiar. and from FRT TV, Craig Salvador.

Um, first on is the uh review and discussion update on Bell Rock Road. Nothing new going on out there. Growing season has ended, so things are pretty dry for the month of July, but we'll see what happens coming September and October.

See if we get some additional green out there. It It's filling in, but nothing will be happening for the next month or two.

Okay. Motion to table. Motion to table.

Second.

All in favor? I I.

Motion passes.

Uh review and discussion adopting fees. Um still haven't heard anything back from the state. So if we can get a motion to table.

So moved.

Second.

Roll call.

I I I I All righty. Uh review and discussion of outstanding enforcement orders. So, um, there are a couple of outstanding enforcement actions that have not been responded to. What I would ask is that at the next meeting, I'll give you a list of those and then you can determine them one by one. I'll alert the applicant that they're because if it's not a specific item being discussed on

the agenda, then they don't necessarily know to be here. So the couple that are super outstanding will list them separately to be discussed and I will alert them that they will be discussed.

So they don't come up to that meeting or file by that meeting then I would recommend that you make a determination to send it to D for asking them to intervene. So okay, we'll do that with a couple like Barton Bronson is one of them where that's been kicking around for the longest time.

They're going to respond. They're not going to respond. They went back to the owner who sold them the land. He was going to take it over but he hasn't. And so it's just Yeah, it's comedy of error. So, we'll deal with that one next month, but on an itemized basis so that we can make sure our eyes are dotted and tees are crossed.

Okay. Can I have a motion to table?

Motion to table.

Second.

All in favor?

I.

Okay. Next is a notice of intent SE-24-843.

Uh, owner applicant is Marco Fritz.

Project location 565 Detroit Street.

Assessor's map is E-27-0042 filed by Farland Corp. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant is proposing to install an ingground pool, concrete pad, and PA patio with associated grading.

This was tabled from July 7th meeting.

So, as you all know, this has been tables tabled. It's got to be 8 to 10 months, I'm guessing. Um, in every meeting we get an email correspondence from the consultant that they ask for the matter to be tabled so that they can continue to work with their client to modify their plan. So, in keeping with that, I did get an email correspondence this morning asking that the matter be tabled.

Okay. Can I have a motion table?

Motion to table.

Second.

All in favor?

I I Next is a notice of intent SE-24-847.

Applicant is John Henry. Owner Harkkins Whitfield LLC. Project location 121 Whitfield Street. Assessor's map is C-17, lot 0024, filed by Sean Aworth of Insight Engineering on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing construction of a single family dwelling.

So again, tabled for an extended period of time. Normally I have I've gotten requests to table um the day of the meeting. I did not reach out to the applicant today. Um I I did not receive a request to table. So the commission could go in one of two directions is one is either deny the project based upon them not providing the revised or additional information that we asked for. Um then the applicant would have

the ability to appeal to D at which point your hands would be out of the project with with no no permitting authority whatsoever. or you could um on your own allow the matter to be tabled so that the project is still before us.

Either way, nothing's getting built there for the time being. So, no harm, no follow with you deciding to table it on your own. But there was no request on behalf of the applicant.

Okay. What we motion to table motion to table?

Second.

All in favor? I I next is a notice of intent SE-24-855 applicant owner Weaver Cove Industrial Park LLC project location New Street assessor's map is T-2 lot 001 filed by Chris Roli of Gode Consulting LLC on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is uh proposing after the fact restoration of area cleared by vegetation. This was table from July 7th.

Okay. Before we begin, Mr. Ch, I just want to make sure that I have a copy of the legal ad proof and I have a point of information for the commission if I may.

Sure.

Before we begin. Hi, my name is Olivia.

I just want to make sure you can see me.

Sure.

Hi.

Um, I'm here on behalf of National Grid.

Um, and I I understand. Can you spell your name properly? So we can make sure first name is Olympia. O L Y M P I A.

Last name is Ber. B is in boy O W K E R.

And I'm from Anderson and Greger. Um and I know this has been a long time in the works and the commission is probably very excited to hear this restoration plan presented. I just did want to flag that National Grid has not had the opportunity to sign this notice of intent and some of the restoration is proposed on National Grid property and National Grid has a proposed notice of intent that hasn't been filed yet

because we're waiting on the signature of the owner and I understand the proposed restoration NOI proposes phases and it's really kind of intricately entwined with the project that we haven't had the chance to give the commission and I just wanted to flag that it might be um the most efficient use of everyone's time and perhaps we could sign each other's uh respective notices of intent and the commission

could consider them concurrently. I understand the phasing in this proposed NOI does assume certain parts of the project will be uh approved in a certain way and we just haven't had the chance to give that to you yet.

So, two things. One, since you haven't signed on as owner, the board could not condition the work that fell on your property. So the applicant can still move forward for the portion that's on their property, albeit not necessarily the most productive manner to do it. Um, but we're conservation commission isn't the authority to deal with legal dispute or or land ownership, but we absolutely

will not permit something on your land if you haven't signed the notice of intent. We actually have another hearing this evening where it's actually Liberty Utilities uh wanting to install um a gas line. They signed the notice of intent, but they didn't have their own the owner of the property that they're working for sign it either. So, my recommendation was that we wouldn't act on that or even

open that hearing. So, commission will have to decide how they want to deal with this if they want to just deal with the national grid part of it. I mean there is a violation um on the national grid piece as well which the applicant has acknowledged that they were responsible for but without them signing the notice of intent in response to the enforcement action. Anything that you do approve their land could not be

encumbered by it as they have not signed it.

That sound about right everybody?

I think that's a a fair understanding. I just wanted to raise the opportunity.

Oh no I I I understand none of this has been right since the beginning. So we don't expect it to go smoothly from here on out.

Too easy for all of us.

Understood.

All right.

Thank you.

So good evening. Uh Chip N on behalf of the applicant. I have Chris Friedulli from uh Goddard um Consulting who prepared the restoration plan. Um as the agent has indicated, we we've been one of those ones that's been on the table for a number of times as we've tried to get this thing right. This is for uh an enforcement order that was issued actually back in 2024 for work that we

did out on the uh Weaver's Cove site. We own a 50 acres that we've owned since 2016. I think everyone understands that it's an industrial piece of property. Uh it's a the old Shell refinery. Um the reason that we haven't come w without getting into you know um attorney client or other reasons uh work certainly was done on both pieces of property more work was done on our property than on

the national grid. We provided the um phased restoration plan. And by the way, National Grid had nothing to do. I've said that when I've been in front of you. Had nothing to do. Didn't participate. Was not aware of the work that took place. Our workers cleared more work than than than should have been cleared. We've shared the notice of intent. Um by the way, the reason we've we've been tabled is because uh

initially we tried to do it under the enforcement order. Then we filed a notice of intent. D said, "No, you have to do it as an ecological restoration plan." So, we had to go back and file a different notice of intent. And then at the last meeting, we hadn't taken care of our notice. So, we apologize for um for causing those delays. I will tell you that nothing no work has taken place

on the site. Um and uh Chris will talk about the restoration that's taken place already as well as what we're looking to do. We would not be looking for um uh permission to do any work on on National Grid, but we did take into account National Grid, as they will tell you, they're doing that split transmission line from Somerset O over the Taton River. It's going to go onto their property, but they're looking for

easements from us to perform staging work. So, they're looking for temporary and permanent easement. So there may be a disagreement in terms of what the terms are which may lead us in terms of why we haven't signed the uh add uh each other's reciprocal uh notices of intent.

We'll get there at some point. We just haven't gotten there yet. And this enforcement order has been kicking around way too long. And I thought it would be appropriate for us to come and present this to you. Um what we'd like to do and we can the um the um property line is actually on the uh is on the plan that you can see and north would be uh national grid and we're and we're

south. So um I think you know know the history as I said we we performed the work out there. uh when it was brought to our attention when I found out about it. We retained Gddard uh we took steps to put erosion controls down. We've stabilized the area. No, as I said, no work has taken place. There's no fill.

The two primary um well, there's three resource areas. Two primary are the coastal bank and the um and salt marsh.

No fill placed on on either one. and they are going, as a matter of fact, we both went out again this p just today to see to verify the uh uh the restoration.

So, what I'm going to ask Chris to do is get the lawyer out of the way and have the technical person explain to you what he did in terms of stabilizing the area and what the restoration plan is, what's taking place out there. I'm hoping at some point um it might be worthwhile to have a a site visit um with members or the a however you'd like to pursue this

so you can get an idea of of what's taking uh taking place out there. So if you have any questions on the history, I'm here for that. Otherwise, I can have Chris talk about the restoration plan, which again I said I have we provided each iteration and there have been several too um uh uh to national grid.

So they're they're they're well aware of what the phases phases are. And what we tried to do is take into account that they're ultimately going to have a terminal out there. So the phases are to take into account what work they're going to be doing so that we're not putting vegetation and then ripping it.

ripping it off. So, it is it we did attempt to coordinate. So, if I could turn over Chris, unless anyone has any questions for me.

Just one one question if I if I'm under the right impression this uh the property of interest here. Well, um it was a former Shell Depot, but there was no Shell operations. The depot wasn't had nothing to to do in this particular property that was National Grid plenty in in elsewhere south of it, but not in this particular right. The National Grid is not part of the disposal site.

Right. So the but the Weaver's Cove site is part of you know since whenever 1980 or so it's been for the you know the last 40 years it's been part of the a disposal site regulated by mass D but national grid is not part of the disposal site.

Right. Okay. And so I'm just I guess I'm getting to the point then then uh that this this particular area is has been was undisturbed until recently.

Yeah. I'm not sure. It's it's it's not developed like other portions. There aren't we don't have any of the monitoring wells etc that you would see uh physically. So yeah I I guess it would be it's certainly less disturbed than any other portion of certainly less disturbed in my time working on and I apologize for the record Chrisoli with Goddard Consulting wetland scientist. Um, in my time having

sat with this and going through historic aerials, it has experienced various states of roads being cut through or this little corner being cleared, but for the most part, this was a a generally natural area. Uh, and you can see in the in the ortho photo, just to orient you, everyone knows where we are in terms of layover facilities to the on the to the right. Yeah. Oh, yeah.

For the MTA.

Yep. Railard off to the east. uh the remainder of the Weaver's Cove parcel to the south. You can see some of those structures down here in the corner. This was sort of the uh the tail, so to speak.

Okay.

So, should we go forward with the restoration plan? How would you like to proceed?

I think if you go Why don't we start off with the delineation of the resource areas so that the commission members can get an understanding of what resource areas that we're talking about. Let's talk about what was altered in what fashion and then what the proposed restoration is.

Right. Absolutely. So for resource areas, uh we have a couple of major items obviously we have uh sort of along the the shoreline here there was sort of a buffer that was left pretty much undisturbed. Uh so this kind of dash blue line is the 25 foot riverfront area. We have blue as coastal dune uh coastal beach. Beyond that, obviously those areas are were relatively undisturbed. Certainly no grubbing or

tracking or anything like that. Uh this kind of awkward shaped pink polygon is the coastal bank obviously delineated on topography.

And then this green wedge up here is a wedge of salt marsh. So generally speaking, that's what we have for resource areas. We also do have uh land subject to coastal storm flowage because there were no performance standards for land subject to coastal storm flowage and it overlaps with other resource areas. We're not showing it for the purposes of this graphic and especially because there was no fill brought in or

cut created here. Um so overlapping with other resource areas. I think it kind of gets covered under those other resource areas.

Again, northern section is the grid parcel. southern section is the top four or so acres of the 50ish acre site.

The work that happened out here was essentially wholesale clearing. Um it was a large excavator machine that went out there, knocked trees down, grubbed trees out, this sort of thing. Um really through essentially very nearly this whole area that we see here. There's obviously, you know, some vegetation left around the existing tower. Uh, kind of the perimeter relatively undisturbed,

but sort of the the fat middle of the site was essentially entirely cleared.

Um now essentially what we have um in terms of leftovers so to speak from that clearing work uh there's obviously clearing occurred here but we have seen a surprising amount of regrowth sort of unassisted uh from whatever rootstock or you know seed bankank was still present in the area. So, as attorney Nyl said, we were out there just an hour ago and there are, you know, dozens, if not

hundreds of respouts and volunteers of oaks and birches and things like this.

So, certainly it does not make up for the kind of mature wooded area that was here, but it is something. The entire area really is very well vegetated with herbaceous cover. There's a ton of switchgrass and blue stem and golden rods and yarao and these sort of desirable native uh ground covers out there. And honestly, we didn't see any any bare spots bigger than maybe the size of this table. So, part of the

restoration plan does include uh a bit of seeding of some of these bare areas, but ultimately it's going to be relatively light in terms of what's uh going to be required to achieve full stabilization.

That's kind of where we're at now.

Generally pretty well vegetated, certainly stable. I have no concerns about uh erosion in the last several months or in the coming days. And in fact, uh let's see, I printed out a handful of photo sheets, and these are several copies of the same if you would like to pass them down. Just a handful of representative photos. These were from May or June I want to say. So a little bit more vegetation now even but

generally you can see again very well covered. No immediate erosion concerns.

Um there are still waddles down at the kind of downgradient limit of work but they they've been entirely engulfed by the grasses now. So in my opinion, I don't have immediate concerns about the stability of the site particularly um you know as it is one of the performance standards for Coastal Bank. I I don't really have concerns about the stability of the coastal bank at this point. Uh it

has reveated remarkably well on its own to tell you the truth as far as our restoration plan. So, we've kind of broken it into two different zones. And again, we have the issue with the property line running down the middle. Setting that aside for a moment. Um, well, I suppose before I I move on, the salt marsh is not accepted from this sort of natural reveation. From what we can tell, there had always been a pretty

good stand of fragmitees in that salt marsh. But, you know, that is written into the regulations as sort of an indicator of salt marsh. This area is is really very nearly fully vegetated with salt marsh grasses, fragmmites, there's things like high tide bush in there. Um so while it certainly was tracked through and disturbed and to be sure, you know, free of vegetation for at least a portion of a growing season, uh

at this point it is essentially reveated entirely on its own. There's a couple of of thinner spots in there that perhaps we could discuss. Um, you know, maybe there's something to be done there, but by and large, 90% of that salt marsh area is well vegetated with salt marsh species.

Now, moving on to restoration work.

We've sort of um well, we we received a graphic from grid sort of outlining what they anticipated their work area would be.

we've kind of transposed that onto this and what that is is this orange stippled area through the middle here. So this is essentially what we anticipate to be grid's work area whenever that that notice of intent comes in front of you.

Um so in that zone, what we're proposing for now is only seating. We would hate to go in there and plant trees and shrubs just to have them removed in a year or two or whenever that project comes to fruition. Again, you know, there are plenty of volunteers and respouts of woody vegetation in that zone, but we figured that adding more to it just for them to be removed in however in however long from now was

probably not the best use of anybody's time or money. These sort of blue hatched areas to either side are the areas that we are proposing as sort of our our full scale restoration areas.

Um, so again, primarily kind of focused on the coastal bank here, shown in pink, coastal bank up here shown in pink, and indeed the surrounding areas.

But what we've proposed is a uh a seating scheme of a couple of different seed mixes to, you know, obviously fill in those sparser areas, add some diversity to what we have there, hopefully provide a little bit of pollinator habitat. some things like this um to kind of continue to improve the revitation of the area.

What we have uh for plantings proposed, you can see trees are shown as green circles on here, shrubs shown as blue circles. Again, we've kind of mostly kept these to the coastal bank because one of the standards for coastal bank is that any work shall not impair its stability. So, we really want to get root mass in there. Make sure that coastal bank is stabilized as much as possible.

So what we're proposing split between these two zones um is 52 trees, 105 shrubs, all native species. Uh let's see, we have pitch pine, white oak, red cedar, tupelo for trees, black chokeberry, sweet pepper bush, berry, arrowwood, and Virginia rose for shrubs.

So you know, over 150 plantings at the end of the day to kind of fill in and assist in the regrowth of these areas.

All in all, that that essentially sums it up. I don't think I've really missed anything uh too major here. It's the the proposal itself is fairly straightforward. Um we're going to be, you know, getting seed, getting woody vegetation in there, continue to bolster the reveation of this area. Uh and to make sure that we we see that through.

We also include um a monitoring protocol in our plan to make sure that these things continue to survive, thrive, spread ideally. Um, and that would, you know, include probably me going out there, evaluating what has lived, what has grown up on its own, what our cover is like, what the soil stability looks like, and any corrections that might be needed to kind of keep it along the

right trajectory. Um, so unless attorney N, unless you have anything to add.

I just had a couple of things just to to to finish off before the commission may have some questions. First of all, the uh terminal proposed terminal is is the one to the south. That's the the the existing one is the one to the north. Uh second when when we retained uh guarded what I asked them to do was to take a look at what the functions were of those

resource areas. You know how do you pick a number of shrubs or can you know with the with the three levels with the canopy the shrubs and the ground cover.

So what they tried to do is to take that into account and second to take into account what we think is going to going to take place for with national grid in in terms of that that other uh that other property. So that's what we've uh that's what we've taken into account.

And finally I have I I apologized at the first meeting and the second meeting I've been at there was clearing that was done there that shouldn't have been done. It was in excess of what should have been done. We have no plans on doing any work in Salt Marsh. You can't do work in Salt Marsh. So, um I uh we we know that what we did was wrong and that's why we're looking to to restore

that and coming up with a with a with a best plan. I'm I'm sorry it took a while to get it right in terms of a regular notice of intent versus an ecological notice of intent. We had to get the check marks from um from D. And so I we're ready to proceed with um with restoration. We'd like to be able to do some of the you know seeding in the

fall. Well, as you know, we have two growing seasons and so, you know, we're we're ready to we're ready to proceed with that at the at the commission's direction.

Now, on your picture here, I see that uh probably like almost two dozen trees that uh came back on their own and you have 52 tree plantings. Is what was the number of trees there? Do we have an estimate number? It it's it's really difficult to say. Um the seems like 52 is on the light side.

Well, it may be um we again we are kind of taking into consideration the fact that you know at least probably half if not twothirds of the site is going to have more work done in the coming correct in the coming year or two or however long it may be. Um so you know again being a very difficult thing to estimate especially when stumps were grubbed.

Yeah. um we kind of uh came up with a number that we thought was likely representative of the density that was out there. There's not a hard and fast calculation to that. Uh but in you know kind of general understanding of of how these sorts of natural areas frequently are structured and a little bit of cross referencing with some historic aerials. Uh we felt like that was roughly an appropriate number.

Okay, questions.

I can ask just a couple of questions.

Um, I haven't been out at the site um recently at all. Where are we at with invasives moving in at all throughout the site, specifically in the salt marsh?

So, in in the salt marsh, we do have, I'd say maybe 40 or so% is fragmitees.

And have you contemplated that in the restoration plan with dealing with invasives throughout the site? Uh we don't believe that this w that those came in as a result of this action.

Sorry.

But they're there now.

Correct.

When we're going to want to deal with that in the restoration to some extent, but beyond that um in the bottom photograph, bottom right photograph and we see, you know, the standard trees that still remains. Where is that photograph on the site? So th that st that line of trees is basically this perimeter up along here.

So then you so you could say that the spacing of these trees would be similar that what could have been 15 ft away from it that was disturbed probably. So that can give us some idea of what I think in response to the chairman's question of what was the previous density size type spacing of um of woody vegetation on the site. Um, as has been past practice of the commission, um, it would first be my

recommendation that the commission seek a third party consultant for the review of the delineation, the alteration and proposed restoration and then that same consultant continuing on as an environmental monitor to look after the restoration. Putting that aside, I do think that the restoration plan should be complete as it's presented and approved by the commission.

If something is to happen, I don't say the work has to be done, but it should be on paper as this is what the restoration should be and it could be done in phases where maybe this area was put on hold pending additional permit.

There's nothing to say the national bridge is going to get their permits either. Um, so in case that doesn't happen, in case they can't get their easement, there's there needs to be a timeline and a plan in place for restoring the entire site as the commission wants it to be restored. So that's something to contemplate. But those types of details I think we can deal with once we get a consultant on

board and have them start dealing with that.

Okay, those are just my initial comments.

Any thoughts from the board?

Just one other question. If we um you had mentioned maybe a site visit sometime in the future. That's to be determined. But uh in the meantime, if any of the commission members wanted to see the site, would there be a contact that we should reach out to?

Yeah, I would have reached through me because there two they're patlocks on the gates. So, we'd have to arrange for you to be able to to access the gate.

You can walk in, but if you want to drive down in, you need to There's no easy way to get there.

No, it's easier by boat. And that's how I looked at it.

No, you can drive down to where the shed is in the south. Uh then it'd be a matter of if if because there are a couple of gates even to get to that point. There's one on there's one on the bridge and then there's one down at the end side of the other first building that I think you'll accomplish. But the bridge is over the um the the MBTA tracks. Yeah. So,

and that's coming in from North Main Street. Correct. Correct. Correct.

From North Main Street. Right. We we don't own the air rights. We actually have an easement from uh from the MBTA because they they own the air rights over the bridge.

Okay.

While you guys are here with this and only because somebody has asked me about it, does anyone have an official weight limit for that bridge? Has anybody reached out to you over the last month or two?

No.

I just got an an email. I forgot from who the authority was, but I could forward it to you asking what our rating for the bridge was. And I said, "Well, it's a privately owned bridge, but I don't know what the weight limit is."

I, you know, I will ask I will ask that question. I'm not I don't know.

I don't even care to know the answer, but I'll just put enough for an excavator.

Yeah.

That did the clearing.

No, it's it's substantial.

Yeah.

Um, well, it had a very low rating. It had to be replaced, right? It was replaced that long ago.

So, so that would be my recommendation.

Um, I don't know if anybody in the audience wants to speak, so don't forget.

Is there anyone in the audience that they like to add to it?

I just had a quick question.

Yeah.

Um, so I understand you were I I just want to make sure I fully understand what you were recommending uh to your commission is that um the commission review and approve the whole restoration plan at once even if it does include phases.

So on the plan I want to see restoration area.

Okay. the timing of each specific area can be spelled out in that order of conditions based upon what the two parties come back to us with. So if National Grid decides to pull the plug on this for whatever things happen, not that I think that's going to happen, but if it does happen, we have a big gap in the site that has no proposed restoration. So I think we need to

handle it with big picture and backing down when that kind of work gets done.

It would be great if both parties can come to some resolution and allow the commission to look at this holistically, but if we can't get that done, we still need to act considering both the permanent and temporary easements. Right.

Yeah. On on both pieces of property.

Because what what's going to happen is if the alteration has been acknowledged on National Grids property, that doesn't mean that the commission can force this applicant to go restore your property. They need your permission to do that and really permanent. Okay. At some point, a letter is going to go to National Grid that says you have a violation on your property. Now the chase is on and you

can chase them. So no, it's a matter of of what end the cat is chasing the mouse from.

No, understood. I was curious about We need to catch the mouse eventually.

Yes.

No, I was curious um if I know you mentioned or uh attorney Nland mentioned easements. That's not I know that's not the job of the commission, but I was thinking that works both ways that if the commission were able to review National Grid's proposed NOI, that does not mean by any means that Mr. Tibo needs to grant National Grid the easements to complete the work. It just allows the commission to holistically look at

what National Grid is proposing, which I know was mentioned several times and demarcated on a plan that we haven't had a chance to review. Sure.

Or approve or look at the delineation or see where structures might go. You might want to move that stuff around. Um, and so predicating one restoration plan on a unknown could just be logistically difficult. We just want to make it easier for you.

A lot of what I mean towards a complete restoration plan is really dealing with the gap on their own property. Okay. of where they think your corridor is going to be coming through. You know, when we look at alteration north of that line that then although it is substantial, you know, you have the ability through your own notice of intent to modify anything that's permitted through this notice of intent

if if it does get permitted. So, we want to see something. Again, if you don't sign this, the work that's shown on your land can't be conditioned.

So, they can only work from their property line southeast.

So, what would the commission's solution be? I'm just curious of this process. So, if hypothetically, well, hypothetical world, you approve um the restoration not on grid property right now.

Y and we we agree with the concept of restoration. We just want to know what our plans are as approved before we kind of allow this other work to take place.

So, we're not duplicating work. We're not like pulling stuff out. Um, and we we think the, you know, the the goal and the um restoration plan in general looks good. Um, would we sign would they have a second order of conditions for restoration to complete the remaining work? So all of all of the restoration work can be conditioned with a time schedule and conditions subsequent to it like

five years. National grid doesn't come through in 5 years then the area needs to be restored. I'm not saying that's what the time frame will be but the commission has the ability to place any condition on a piece of land with any requirement with any specific time frame. So, we need to see what the whole I want to see what the whole thing looks like with you not doing anything ever on

this piece of land. Then we'll stop from that and then we'll back down with what areas are not required to be restored within the certain period of time as established for the other areas that do need to be restored.

Contemplating what work you may or may not be doing and try to incorporate that. That's why I said if if everybody could be included makes our job much easier and our conditions and our order does not to be that convoluted.

And I was hoping that would be the case but we're not there yet. Hopefully with buying ourselves a little bit of time here we go to a third party consultant.

All the parties can at least come to agreement on restoration and who's responsible for the restoration. And you know, yes, we are taking a deeper dive.

If if you had no need for an easement, this would be a lot easier, right? So, if you had no contemplated work or need for easement through this property, then it's simple. They acknowledge their error and they go in and restore it at their own at their own cost. So the business end of it, negotiating easements and what subtracting the cost of what the restorations might be, that

that's all for you to deal with. But we will do whatever we can to condition it in a manner that allows both parties to move forward in a productive manner.

Understood.

Okay.

Thank you very Thanks.

Okay. So can I have a motion to one question before I vote? Olympia, you you said you were with McGregor and Lair. I used to be with McGregor and Lier. We worked on the article 97 rail.

See, I was just wondering there'd be any bring up that rail trail.

No, I just was wondering there'd be a conflict because of her representing.

No, she's still representing a client.

All right. So, all right. Just want to make sure not at the same firm anymore. Okay.

But thank you for for raising that.

That's a Yes, I'm all right. I'm fine. So what what we would ask tonight is that you make a motion and approve to send it to a third party consultant in view of the delineation alteration restoration.

Could I just ask one question? Would that be for the entire piece? So that would be in both both parcels, not just ours.

Correct.

We're going to review it, right?

But we won't be able to condition it.

Well, I Yeah, I agree um wholeheartedly.

What my expect again we hoped that we could have resolved this but we weren't able to but we've been under the gun.

You have been very patient allowed us to luckily I'm busy doing other things.

Well it's so we need to come in front of you to let you know what we were what we were proposing. We know that you don't grant property rights with the issuance of an order condition. So we're not there's no right and we would have to work that out with them.

Um I'm perhaps they'll file their notice of intent and we can look at them together at some point. But but we're I just want to make sure that you're going to be looking at our entire restoration plan and then we'll deal with as you out outlined afterwards.

We will review whatever is here. But when it when when we get to the date where it says we want an order of conditions, then we can only condition the piece of land that's before us regardless of what's shown on that plan.

Right?

And our and our approval will be contingent upon property line. So and that's what we anticipate because they're they haven't even been approved yet. So they're they're a ways away from construction. So but we still want to do our restoration or you know our seed and the other before then. So that's why we have in your negotiations with them and not to mediate this. But if they have no intention of ever going

near the salt marsh or or that piece, then they should be able to say at least we'll let you go deal with this part of it and get that done and out of the way.

one less. But I I do understand ace of spades versus the ace of hearts and they dealing with that negotiation.

I'm not aware that they have any uh intent to do anything with an assault crush.

Okay.

So, okay. So, do will uh do we continue that until So, they have to vote for us to send it to a third party. I'll send it out. I'll get three quotes. Send it to you. You can pick a consultant out of that.

Okay. Go from there.

All right. Sometimes it's difficult because God has worked with everybody.

So sometimes, although I don't consider it a conflict all the time, but some applicants or some consultants will defer and not want to to work on a third party consultant. So it may take a little while. I know one of the last ones we did, I had to reach out to a couple consultants in the western part of the state. Hopefully we got one close, but the price ranges were just

absurd compared to what it should have been. And we were want to get a local consultant. This isn't rocket science, but it's it's a lot and it's to to deal with in in a expeditious time frame is probably the best.

It's a big site, but I think the resource areas are pretty easily delineated. I think that you'll I think where there's been, you know, alteration, growth back. You know, I I have no issue with, you know, dealing with areas that have grown back if no vegetation's been there. But I don't have the time to go out there and look at plant by plant, species by species.

going. So, I appreciate that.

Okay. So, I have a motion motion to refer to a third party cult uh consultant to review full restoration plan.

Second.

Okay. All in favor?

I I excellent. Thank you.

Thank you, folks.

I'm very much looking forward to getting this meeting.

Thank you for your patience. Yeah, no worries.

Okay. Next is a request for determination of accessibility uh 2011. Owner applicant is Jason Lopes.

Property location 77 Brierwood Lane.

Assess map is U-5-000068.

Followed by Phil Cado and Allen and Major Associates, Inc. The applicant is proposing to install a 27 ft diameter pool with 3Tx3 concrete pad for pool filter as well as electrical conduct spanning from the meter to the pool filter location. The applicant is also proposing a 6ft high privacy fence uh around the perimeter of the area. So this is back before you only as a technicality where you granted

a determination of applicability uh two meetings ago, a negative one to allow this poll to go in. The applicant at that time made the assertion that the legal ad had been placed which it hadn't. They tabled it off to one meeting. He couldn't get a copy of it at that meeting. So we do have a copy of the ad.

So we are covered legally. Okay.

Um so I would just ask that you make a similar negative determination as you previously had.

All right.

I believe we pay for it. Has it been already issue?

They didn't.

No. Okay. So, that's all we need you to do. Negative determination.

Motion to issue ne negative determination is this delineated work uh falls within the previous approved limit of work.

Seconded.

All in favor?

I I Okay.

Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you.

Sorry to make you come back again. Not your fault. Thank you.

All right. Moving on. Uh notice of intent SC-24-857.

Applicant is Benjamin Phillips. Uh from Liberty Utilities, owner Spectrum Realy.

Project location 994 Jefferson Street.

Census map is D-20-00002.

Filed by Ryan Einhurling of Try Mount Engineering Company. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant is proposing to install 22 and a half of a of 4 foot uh carrier pipe with two uh foot gas main through means of horizontal directional drilling, HDD. The project is also on entry uh and an exit pit. So this project before you has to deal with the installation of some gas man through a

section of Jefferson Street, the very southerntherly end of Jefferson Street out near future pond near Spectrum Lighting at that that end of the world.

Right over the overpass.

Exactly. On the other side of the overpass. So in review of of the notice of intent, I had a few comments to make.

One, the property owner being Spectrum Lighting had not signed the application.

So, exactly what I had just explained previously that although Liberty signed as the applicant, the land owner did not. So, these comments I sent to Liberty and their consultant today, I'm assuming they realized we weren't going to move forward until they got these items resolved. So, um I'll just go through the comments with you. So, that was the first and the applicant had not signed um the application. The project

also crosses over a parcel of land owned by the city of Fall River beyond the street which they didn't acknowledge in their application. So the city also needs to consign as an applicant on this.

Nothing was given to us with regards to perennial or intermittent stream. And then following up to that if it was determined to be perennial. Uh my question was is there any uh activity in the 25 foot riverfront area? So they have some work to do. Benjamin Phillips in my email response to him no longer works for Liberty Utilities. They recommended that I contact two other gentlemen that I deal with. Sent

forwarded the email to the two of them.

One of them come back also on vacation.

Sent it to another one. So I sent it to four different people today, but I'm assuming somewhere along the line somebody got it because they didn't show up here today. And then their consultant, which Mr. Mr. Chair, I don't blame you for not being able to pronounce this one, but Ryan Ellering, I'm guessing from Triang M Engineering, if you look at the notice of intent itself, his email contact was blank on

that, so I could not forward it to him.

So, I asked the gentleman from Little Utilities to forward it to him. So, I would recommend that the matter be tabled. Give them the month to resolve the issues. They may need to include the city of Fall River in their petition.

Not may, I know they have to. Um, so give them some time to do that. They may want to withdraw it. They just want to modify it, but I have not heard back from them.

Anybody?

No one.

All right. Ready?

Motion to table. Motion to table. Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

I I.

Next. Request for cert certificate of compliance SE-24-740.

Owner applicant New England uh power company. Applicant is Ireneigi.

Got maybe that close. Project locations 181 Belro Rock Road.

Substation assessors map is existing substation uh RO easement filed by National Grid on behalf of the applicant. The applicant requests a certificate of compliance.

So this is for the substation that was built up off of Bell Rock Road and the associated work that was done with that.

What year was that built?

They finished in 2023. Yep.

Okay. Um so submitted for certificate compliance. We reviewed the asbuilts.

We've, you know, done our site visits.

I found that all the work is in substantial compliance with it. Site plan review also signed off on it. So I have no issues with it and would recommend the issuance of the certificate of compliance.

You'd like to add anything?

I'm Carmen. A vacation. No worries.

No. Um I wonder why you I know.

Not my problem.

So what's your name? Uh Carmen Dansancy C A R Men and then D anc Y.

Awesome.

Yeah. So if the commission remembers, we extended this order of conditions um late last year because we were in review with the city on the asbuilt plans. Uh this the planning department had several comments on the asbuilts uh which were addressed and we did receive a certificate of occupancy for the new building that was built within the substation property. Um so that's squared away. And then the other big

item that if you see the application um for the order of conditions, it was to comply with uh two years of monitoring of a wetland replication area um on the site to provide mitigation for uh wetland fill. Uh so we did do that. Um that took place or the creation of the wetland restoration area took place in 2022 and we monitored it through 2023 and 2024.

Um so a lot of the application is mostly just showing that we did um achieve you know the Massachusetts general standards for bordering vegetated wetland including having native species within the site and then also a hydraulic connection with the existing wetland um and it did show to have like wetland indicators in the soil and is functioning properly um and providing resources for wildlife out there too.

Okay. So just so you know when when we do a wetland restoration we require that at least 75% of the area is satisfactory. I think common said there were 76.43%.

So they they exceed the 75%.

All righty.

Sounds good.

I believe motion to issue certificate of compliance seconded. All in favor?

I.

All right.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh let's see. Next is a notice of intent SE-24- 85. We don't have 85 question mark. We don't have a file number.

Okay.

They're all They're all 85, but we don't have this one. We're going to be table and I suppose.

Okay.

My comment, but still read them. Still read them.

Okay. Applicant is One Shaw Street LLC.

Project location One Shaw Street. Cess's map is H-20-Bot 0001. Filed by Delvin How and Bill's associate. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant is proposing placing a series of piles along the edge of South Berth area. The work consists of pulling piles out, putting new piles in the same location. The piles be as a fender piles or bumper piles and not morning mooring structures.

So again, as the standard is, we do not have a file number yet. So we cannot open the meeting. Um we would normally collect legal ad and about notifications. I did respond to to Devon today with a couple of questions that I have. Um, most notably, was there an existing chapter 91 license for the piles? These are eight piles that are actually interior to the site almost like in that little cove that the at the

little the little square. Um, he he responded to me later on in the day that there was no existing chapter 91 license. So, my comment was have they planned on applying and and getting a chapter 91 license? and then also what were the size and material of the existing piles and the size and material of the proposed pile. So really some minor things but technically since we don't have a file number we can't move

forward.

Okay.

Have a motion and and again so just so that the audience understands and that you um the reason we don't move forward without a file number is because the file number from D gives D the ability to send comments. A lot of the times those comments are pertinent to your review.

Like for instance, Weaver's Cove, their comments were, "Hey, this application is deficient in a number of areas stopped."

You know, so once a file number is issued, it means that the petition that the submission is at least complete. Um that fees have been paid. They've gotten eyes crossed teased. The merits of their petition may be wrong. It doesn't get reviewed for that, but at least it's a first line of defense of, hey, we see no technical issues with them not proceeding with the public hearing.

That's the reason why if we were to move forward, grant an order of conditions, we may get a letter back from D saying, "Hey, wait a minute. There was a problem with this or that." This, for instance, requires a letter from Department of Marine Fisheries because they're doing work in an area of shellfish. Um, luckily we did get an email from Marine Fisheries saying that they had no negative comment, but that formal

response usually comes through D by way of the issuance of the file number. So, okay, that is it. I don't know if there's anybody. Are you here for short street?

Yes, you are. Okay. Did you Did Deon tell you this today?

All I got was a letter.

Oh, you're on a bud.

Oh, okay. So, so you're not the land owner. Okay. No.

All right. So, because D hasn't given a number for this saying that they've reviewed it and that the submission is complete. This hearing does not get open. So, it'll be put off till the September meeting, which is September September 8th. Um, so you won't be notified again. Come to the September 8th meeting. If you have any questions at that point, you will be asked.

They'll ask the audience, "Does anybody have a question?" At that point, you can raise any concerns that you have. But in the meantime, if you have any questions, come by the office if you want to look at the plans or get an idea of what they're doing and we can show you what what that is just so you can be prepared. Okay.

Excellent. Thank you.

Sorry about that. Go ahead.

Move the table.

Second.

Uh all in favor? I I I I Okay, next is a notice of 10 SE-24-85.

We don't have NI either. Applicant owner is Madison FR Properties, Paul Jonas. Uh project location 420 Airport Road.

Assessor's map is Z-3, lot 00008.

Filed by John Connelly of Scitec Engineering Environmental Consultant, Inc. on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing construction of 69 space uh pave parking lot associated with drainage and lighting.

So, similar to the last no file number on this, I did speak to the consultant today and I did explain to him that I had some questions and comments regarding the drainage calculations and drainage design. Um, we are going to meet sometime this week. He has not filed for site plan review which he needs to and I told him it would be better if he and I worked out these

items before he even did that just to be a little bit more progressive and since it was a no file number he would have some time to do that. So he was completely understanding that hearing would not be open and that he wouldn't be here tonight. So it would be my recommendation that the matter be tables until file number and we can get some of these comments resolved.

Motion table.

Motion to table.

Seconded.

All in favor? I I I All righty. Uh approval of minutes from July 7th. Motion to approve minutes. July 7th, 2020.

We had the right people here to do it.

Chris was here.

Chris was here. John was here.

Okay, we're all here. Yeah, we're good.

Okay, we had a second.

Second. All in favor?

I All righty. Uh no public input. I see.

Uh can I have a motion to adjurnn?

Motion to adjurnn.

Second.

All in favor? I I meeting adjourned.