9.8.2025 Conservation Commission

All righty. Welcome to the forward conservation meeting. Uh it's being held in one public uh room uh first floor hearing room of one government center.

Uh it's Monday, September 8th, 2025.

It's 5:30.

Pursuant to the open meeting halls, any person who make an audio or video recording of this public meeting may transmit the meeting through any medium.

Attendants are therefore advised of such recording of transmissions being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permission.

First up we have a review and discussion of uh updates on Belroth Road. Take a roll call. Oh, forgot that roll call to my left. Chris Bole here. Leis Ferrero.

John Grant. Jim Kzik. Drew Carine.

And we have uh Patty Agu, our recording secretary, and Dan Agui, our uh conservation agent.

First up is review and discussion of updates on Belrock Road.

So, we passed around a photo a few minutes ago. Last Thursday, I just go out and do my monthly check-in. Um actually, Grass Growth is establishing very well. uh specifically on the area that we asked them to recede which was the southernly portion along that slope.

You can see the distinct difference between northerly and southerntherly end of that embankment but it's coming in well few little rivlets still that'll that they'll grow in over time. So what I would offer that is um I'll follow up with the consultant asking them to get into uh that silted area um that had stuff that had washed in and see if they can get that cleaned out before the

winter season as it approaches us. Um, I'll ask them to use a back truck.

That's probably the best way to go in there rather than have them try to go in and they can't use machinery. I'll make sure they use don't use any any hot machinery and do the best they can to clean that up. Of course, that area has become more vegetated as well. So, it's always easier to clean that kind of stuff up once the vegetation dies, but at the same time, it's also getting

wetter at the same time sometimes when the vegetation's dying. So, we we'll get them moving on that process as well. But that was encouraging to see the the vegetation growth out there. So yeah, with that, we'll keep an eye on it and uh we'll report back next month.

Okay. Can I have a motion to table?

Motion to table.

Seconded.

All in favor?

I I All right. Next is the review and discussion adopting fee structures. Uh speaking with Mr. Agar, we thought we'd be uh easier for us to send comments email or if you wanted to make an appointment to go in and see them to discuss issues that you think should be added to the uh um to the uh lost words here proposed proposed uh proposed uh regulations and features.

Yeah, regulations. So, if uh there's something, send them an email and then uh we'll just keep adding as we go. Next meeting, we'll add more and then we'll finally come up with. So, uh what I'll do is I'll have Patty send the last version of where we left off. I think we may have done this even a couple months ago, but we'll do it again in case people don't have it. So, you can just

pick up from that and move forward.

I think this is speeding along quicker than the meeting on it. So, can I have a motion table?

So, move second.

All in favor? I I I uh next review and discussion outstanding enforcement orders.

So the one enforcement action that we had discussed um that we had not see received formal response back yet was for Bart and Bronson Street. I did get an email from representative from the property owner that they did have a draft plan done by South Coast Engineering I believe it was but then I advised that a notice of intent needs to be submitted along with that for review and requiring that restoration to take

place. So um if we had no response I would recommend that we send D. do the proceed response. They have I think the consultant who did the plan has recently told them that they're too busy to put together the notice of intent, but we can still uh I think we'll we'll forge ahead and try to keep this in house.

Okay.

Got a motion to table.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor? I Next we have a notice of intent SE-24-843.

Applicant is Marcos Fritz. Project location 565 Detroit Street. Cessor's map is E-27-0042 filed by Farland Corp. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant proposal to install an ingground pool and concrete pad and patio paper patio with associated grading. And this was tabled from August 4th meeting.

So I I happened to have a meeting with this engineer at 3:00 this afternoon for a separate project and followed up with him. So he and I had a discussion about um the project itself and that he had been working with the with the land owner with coming up with a different scheme, different type of pool design um and I had him send me an email if he wanted to to request the table and so he

did send that email at the end of close of business today. So I recommend that we allow him to continue to work with doing that. I did explain to him the need for relocation of the pool, potential restoration of some of the previously altered wetlands and he said yeah they were having those discussions.

So, we'll just kick this one down the road until they can file something back again.

Got a motion to table.

Second.

All in favor?

I Next is a notice of intent SC-24-847 applicant John Henry owners Harkin Whitfield LLC. Project location is 121 Whitfield Street. Assess his mattress C-17 lot 0024 filed by Sean Ainsworth of Vincent Engineering on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing construction of a single family dwelling table from August 4th. Similarly to the last one, the these two have been lingering for a while. Um if you

remember, we had and a butter, which I don't see them here this evening of the next lot over um on Whitefield. and I had recommended to them that they sit and meet with the same consultant to try to come up with a team effort of trying to permit both of these properties. I did sit with uh Sean from this project last week. Sat down, looked at a bunch of plans, talked about a few different

ideas, couple of things that have created the problems out there. He has a better understanding of the area and I think what our concerns were. I gave him the phone number for the land owner next door who had also responded to me that their engineer was not being responsive.

So it might be good that they all come together now and and come forward. So with that they did uh request that the matter be tabled. I would expect that something substantial from the two parties gets resubmitted and we can move forward on that.

Motion tabled. Motion table.

Seconded.

Favor. I I Okay.

Uh, next 10 SE-24-855 African Weaver Cove Industrial Park LLC project location new street services map is T-2 lot 001 filed by Chris Farley of Good House Consulting LLC on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is proposing after the fact restoration to the area cleared of vegetation table from August 4th.

So what I'll offer that at the last meeting we had um sent the proposal or you were asked to send the proposal out to three consultants which we did. We did get two peerreview proposals back just today. Um you have copies of those.

I gave attorney Nylon a copy of that as well. So there should be some discussion about um which proposal if you do want to pick one tonight. Um one was very lengthy and very comprehensive in scope.

one, not so much, but at the end of the day, I think we end up getting the same price was about $1,000 difference, but attorney Nland did want the ability to come and weigh in on potentially which consultant we chose and whether that has any way on your decisions or whether it's just by money. I think we should give attorney Nyl to ask those questions and then I have a couple of questions about the project

itself since he's here. So, we'll let you go first. Good evening. Uh uh Chip Nin on behalf of the uh of the applicant. Um thank you for providing me a copy. Uh I know LEC I've dealt with LEC. I think the most important thing that I wanted to make sure happens is that there's conversations between the applicant and the peer reviewer that we don't have to go through attorneys and back through the commission ask

questions. And I do notice and and the LEC by the way is the one that's more expensive. The I don't know the firm from Warwick, Rhode Island. I'm not familiar with them. and and I'm not sure if this LEC group is the one out of Rhode Island, but I think that um you know that that's I certainly have familiarity with them and and they certainly know the rules and and are

familiar. So um again, my the purpose of of weighing in was just to make sure that there would be the one-on-one. I find it's much more effective to have the technical people talking to each other rather than me having to go through Dan have to come through the commission and back to them and waste time. So, um, whatever the pleasure is, you know, I like LEC even though that they're $1,000 more, but I do have

familiarity with them in in in my dealings.

And just so that you know, this this is for review of the well and delineation and the proposed restoration. Any additional work would be determined. So, once we get to the end of the project and if we agree on a restoration plan and you issue an order of conditions, that order of conditions can include an environmental monitor. Um and at that point we did solicit firms for that portion of the work. It would make the

most sense keeping with the existing consultant that we were using but for the time being this is just for review of the wetland delineation and review of the restoration plan and I would say through the chair that's how what we would understand that's been my experience to have that and and that's why I know LEC does do monitoring as well. So again that that's consistent with the

way that we would look at it. Okay. Any questions from the board?

I don't know if there's still audience.

I don't know if you can ask them to any questions from the audience.

So, the board like to take action on picking render.

Uh my only input is that I did review in the limited time I could the LEC um proposal um while it's oranges to oranges um I I don't like how uh ecosystem solutions is a it's a quick and dirty proposal. Um I do like the comp comprehensive explanation uh and it makes sense. Um, not that this the other one is wrong. It's just uh I don't write them.

Yeah, I' I've had the pleasure of writing them myself. So I um but yeah, so my preference uh if if we were to vote tonight would be for the LEC.

You can we can take it up at the end of the meeting if you want to have longer discussion. That's up to you too. If you want to think about it tonight, but if you act now, that's fine.

I agree with this. I mean I like specificity and this really seems proposing the specific is very clear including their fee breakdowns things like that. So we know again they're very clear in that it may be additional cost for that. So yeah that's why I have about two.

So, do we want to make a motion to make a motion we accept LEC?

Second.

Okay. We'll do a roll call.

I I I I thank you. Before you go.

Yeah.

Good. I just make sure that um that we agree that as long as um Mr. Auar is copied that they can talk to one another and but you you'll be copied on any correspondence that we would take care of that. I just want to make sure.

Yeah, that's fine. So, two questions.

Sure.

Um, and before we have LEC begin this work during the discussion, last hearing, we had talked about getting an updated restoration plan that is all-encompassing and then picking out areas that would not be restored if national grid permitted through the site because we had discovered we were going to replicate here, we were going to replicate here, we weren't going to replicate in this corridor. Correct. So

the plan should be comprehensive. So if National Grid didn't exist and we're dealing with the restoration of this area, that restoration should be shown on a completed plan.

Okay?

National grid goes out of business and they rip all the wires down and they have no need or DPU says no to the then we have to go and we have to restore this area. So, um, before I send it out, make sure that the consultant make sure got it gives us a complete restoration plan that they want reviewed only because I don't want them to review what we have now. And then one of their

responses is, well, there's this gap in between. So, let's get it complete and then we can pick apart and phase when restoration is to happen based upon the work that may or may not get permitted for national. And I've asked them to do that. We didn't have that for tonight, but that will be we will bring that along.

That's item one. Item two, where are we at with getting them to sign the application? And two, where are we at with granting the easement?

We've still we're still having discussions between uh uh as to you probably would be surprised it has the valuation of the property because they're, as you know, we we talked about before, National Grid is looking to have both temporary and permanent easements.

Temporary obviously for construction purposes and then permanent easements would be for the terminal and for other part. So there's uh we have to work out what those arrangements are and that we haven't uh we haven't finished those discussions.

So understand that the reviews can move forward but there will be no order issued until they have signed on as owner and applicant to one of these pieces of land that that we're dealing with. So my uh I understand my understanding from the last meeting was that if we went forward we would they wouldn't go we wouldn't go forward with theirs. If there was no agreement we wouldn't go forward with that on their

property because obviously we can't do work but you would still want the work to be done on our property.

The plan should be singular in comp restoring all of the areas.

If there ends up being a lawsuit between National Grid and your company for for you altering their land, that that's outside the scope of the Conservation Commission. So, let's get a singular plan approved. But right now, the submission that that you've submitted includes a piece of their real estate. So, until we get that resolved, we can't issue an order.

Well, what happens if we don't reach a agreement? I mean, we still have work that we're prepared to do.

We're prepared to do work on our property too.

No, I understand.

But they won't accept that.

But you've altered land on an adjacent property owner, right?

I wouldn't want to have to send this to D and let them deal with it.

So hopefully we can get this resolved at this level.

And we clearly are responsible for the work that's taken place.

Correct.

Um, we've we've asked them to sign and we just haven't reached agreement on what the terms will be for them to sign on to that project.

Have you asked them to sign on for the purposes of permitting, not necessarily doing the work?

Well, that's what we've asked right now is in front of them is to to sign on to this notice of intent. We've got time, but I I know we're pushing at one end, but we can't let it drag out on the other end. That's all right. Just want to make sure that our feelings were known.

Well, but I just want that, you know, we don't want to disclose what's going on between the parties, but there is a possibility that we won't reach agreement on the signature on this document.

Okay.

So, I hope that we can, but it is possible. And just for purposes of clarity, what types of communication between LEC and the applicant would be shared with Dan? Is that any and all forms of communication both?

Yeah. Well, I mean it's all just written or Yeah. anything anything that's taking place between the technical people should be copied. That doesn't matter.

It could be the time of them they they've proposed one site uh meeting on uh in their proposal. So they would set that up. So if he wanted to join them and if there were questions if they had follow-up questions about certain species that were going to be applied or or if they saw u you know certain soil characteristics that they would they could talk among them themselves and then they would include uh Dan in that

so I wouldn't have to go back and ask is it okay for the consultant to talk to us and and by the way this is a um this is a time and materials contract they've given an estimate of60 6,500 but so it's not it's not a lump sum so that uh any any discussions are not a question of payment for those.

Great. Okay.

Okay. Thank you very much.

See next is uh notice of intent SC-24-857.

Applicant is uh Benjamin Phillips uh Liberty Utilities. Owner uh Spectrum Realy uh project location 994 Jefferson Street. Assessor's map is D-20 lot 002 filed by Ryan Eldering of Trion Engineering Company. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant is proposing to install 225 and a half of 4 in uh carrier pipe with 2 in gas main through means of horizontal directional drilling. Uh project also includes an

entry and exit pit table from March 4th August 4th.

So at that meeting we had no um we had no file number. We had a few outstanding comments. I don't know if there's anybody here tonight to move the project forward. If not, I would offer that the matter should be tabled. I did send them some comments which they had attempted to respond to that was grossly inadequate. So, guess we can give them some more time, but I did not hear back

from them today. I do know that the original cons the original applicant um no longer worked for Liberty. So, it did take a few emails and correspondence of this one's not in the office. That's not who's picking it up. So, we did find that out, but um no need to talk about it too much until they come and give us that legal ad and start the process. So, with with that changes to there's still

an intent to move forward.

Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. So, this has to do with down off of Jefferson Street where Spectrum Lighting is.

Y um a series of bridges down there, but this is the very last bridge. There's a tributary from um Bleachery Pond over into Suckerbrook that runs along the back of the building underneath this steel frame stone bridge and they want a directional drill underneath that and the plans are just horrendous. So we we'll get it right before we deal with it. I have a motion to table so second. All in favor? I I Okay.

Next is a notice intent SE-24-858.

Uh owner is One Shaw Street LLC. Project location one Shaw Street assessor's match is H-20 001 by Devon Howard Bills associate on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is opposing placing a series of piles along the edge of South Berth area. The work consists of pulling piles out and putting new piles in the same location.

The piles are used as fender piles or bumper piles and are not mooring structures. This was tabled from August 4th.

We'll let you start. You have your legal ad in the I do. Thank you.

I haven't warned me.

Thank you.

Legal ad and then a lot didn't sign. So this terrific. Thank you.

Uh, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, my name is Todd my principal at Beiel Associates. Um, this evening I'll be playing the part of Deon How, I suppose. So, Deon couldn't make it this evening. Um, he's out on paternity leave.

He's a fortunate young man and it's welld deserved for him. So, we're here tonight to discuss a um it's really more of a maintenance project than anything else. Uh but as you may be aware, there's uh going to be some more ongoing activity on this property. So we just want to make sure everybody understands the various phases that we're going through. So this is really the first step here. Uh a couple of months ago, I

believe Devon was in front of you and your commission issued an order of resource area delineation. Um this site is a little bit unique. We don't see this very often, but the uh the delineation between the river and the ocean is kind of right down the middle of this. So, where we're proposing to do these piles is actually on the river side of that, believe it or not. So, we

hummed and hawed back and forth about is this land under ocean, is land underwater. I think even D made a comment asking why didn't we check off the land under ocean category? Um, we had a conversation with them explained because we're right on that line there.

We went land underwater. Um quite frankly, I'm not sure it really makes that much of a difference here, but uh we do want to make sure the paperwork's right and and everything's on board. Um in your packet, we also addressed uh the various interests of the Wetlands Protection Act. Again, since this is quite literally pulling eight piles out, putting eight piles exa in the exact

spot. Um really no uh significant impact of any kind through here. Um we expect this will take five to 10 day, five to 10 days to accomplish this. It'll be all done on a barge from the water side. Um the piles will come out, brand new piles will be put in. Uh and because I've been asked, um the new spe the the new piles will be made of greenheart

um which is a uh kind of an exotic wood, but it allows us to put these in without having to be coated with creassote or anything like that. So, so initially I had had a couple of comments and Devon and I had had talked through most of them. One of them was what is the size of the piles and what is the material of them. Second was I had asked if there was an existing

chapter 91 license for this location which he responded that there was not correct but that he would be accepting of a um condition that a chapter 91 license be granted for the for this work at this property. Um we did receive a letter from marine fisheries with no adverse comments. Um so with that I would recommend that we issue an order of conditions with uh with those conditions. No work without a chapter 91

license and all work is in accordance with the DMF letter which there were no outstanding items.

Would that include the replacement of the piles? Correct.

We need the license for that.

Yeah.

Questions from the board.

So like to make a motion for conditions in chapter 91 license and the letter moved second.

Okay. Roll call vote.

I I I good. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next is a notice of intent SC-24-859 applicant is uh Madison FR properties uh Paul Jonas project location is 420 airport road says map is Z-3 lot 00008 followed by John Connell of Sciteex Engineering Environmental Consultant on behalf of the applicant the applicant is proposing construction of 69 base pave parking lot associated with drainage and lighting table from August 4th.

So you may recall just prior to the last meeting we still had no file number and I still had um some drainage concerns that when I had met with the client that I raised with him. He has not yet worked through that or submitted revised information. I did speak with him um last week and then again this morning.

He does not have that work completed and has asked that the matter be tabled. Uh so technically this hearing has not been open. Um, so we still do not have legal ads or abundant notification cards, but he felt it would be advantageous to have my drainage concerns addressed before we open the hearing. With that, I I recommend that the matter be table. Have a motion to table.

So move.

Second. All in favor? I I next uh abbreviated notice of resource area delineation uh SE-24-86 860 uh owner is George Maltos Mount Hope Bay LLC project location 0 Burke Street and 1205 Bay Street's map is H-17 lots 0019 through 0025 by Jonathan Nero of Beta uh group on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is seeking confirm boundaries of bordering wetlands.

So while while they're setting up, let me give you my little spiel. So this is a property located um down off of Bay and Birch just to the north side of that commercial building up on Bay Street Metal Operation. Behind that is a large vegetated parcel that runs down to the railroad tracks. Um been out to the property a few times with George. We've been out there even a week or two ago.

So this is just a well under delineation. There's no proposed activities contemplated at this time.

It's a fairly degraded site for a good portion of it. A lot of filled place material, concrete slabs. There's actually an old building on the site.

So, a good portion of the site is relatively easy uh to deal with as far as BBW review. There is an area to the west of the building that there has to be some type of hydraulic connection whether through pipe or something that gets some of this water down to a covert that goes underneath the railroad line.

So, George and I did talk about that. Um difficult site to get into. So, God bless whoever actually flagged this. Um, it's also the location of a fairly busy homeless encampment as well. Um, a lot of clos portion of it. I haven't dealt with the voice portion of it yet.

I was hoping to get some answers before I even had to go in that end of the site. So, with that, we'll let you guys go. So, legal ad, green cards, and then we'll let you go.

Yeah, we should legal.

Yeah, here are the green cards.

Okay.

We did receive one.

Thank you.

Did you flag it?

Yes.

You're all healed up. He's the one who did it.

It was a while ago, but yeah.

Yeah. So, I'm Anna Hner um from Beta Group and we'll be presenting the uh ANRAD for Zero Birch Street and 1205 Bay Street. Um, as you said, currently 1205 Bay Street um is occupied by the MIW Corporation and uh Zero Birch Street is a vegetated lot um with historic disturbance that's mostly dominated by uh invasive and non-native species. So, uh, during our site investigation, Jonathan Nero, who's our lead wetland

scientist at Beta and I flagged the site, um, and we found no wetland resource areas. On 1205 Bay Street on, uh, zero Birch Street, there's a small area of land subject to coastal storm flowage. There's a um intermittent stream that was flagged as the B1B2 series and there's also land underwater associated with that stream and there's a BBW that was flagged as WF1 and there's also an isolated wetland that

was flagged as WF2 but it's our assumption that that is not jurisdictional.

So, Yep. And then we have some requests for the ORAD too. I can go over on this.

Yeah. So, so Mike and only having some history of this site um and the way that the topography is shown and I I don't I'm assuming this is just light topography. I don't think you have to do survey work, but it's my understanding that there is probably a culvert somewhere on the site from that wetland that discharges to that lower area closer to that south west corner before the water heads under.

So, right, but there there's so down in let's get down here.

So that's that end of it down here.

Okay.

There's a covert that goes underneath the rail line.

Okay.

And you see this this topography 20 21.

So along here and then also along here that water I think is getting down into that that corner. So if you can look at that again, I'll go look at it and try to decipher what it is as well. Um I just want to make sure that we're handling what's happening in that bottom lefthand corner appropriately. Are you talking about in the area that's a uh flood zone?

The Yeah. So, so down. So, if you look at that like the 20 the 22 contour in the very southwest corner of this site, it appears topographically that there would be something happening there.

Um and that does the upper wetland is it hydraulically connected to that area?

That that's I just want to make sure that that's not the case.

Okay.

I haven't been in there enough myself to to look at that corner. Um, and I only know because when we dealt with the wetland delineation on the northern piece, that was discussed at that time and that was the representation that it was given was that intermittent stream worked its way down through this site and then ultimately into that culvert.

So, yeah. Okay.

Just want to make sure that we're dealing with the the same.

Yeah. Every time we've been there thus far, the the B1B2 series that um is internal of the WF1 series has been had flowing water and there's never been flowing water coming out of that culvert in the um corner.

Okay.

So, I'm not sure if they're connected, but let me show you. Let me show you in the area then.

And George and I looked at it on the plane when we were out there.

And it's tough with this.

Yeah.

With this topography that's why. So we've got this cover here.

Mhm.

And it would appear with the way that these contours are that there's something here that's feeding this cover.

Okay, that's all. And then my then the question would be again looking upside down. So there's where's the 30 in up here?

So my guess is that is this somehow getting to this. Okay, that's all. So just take a take a look at that.

Okay.

And and I'll do the same as well.

Everything that we've seen, you know, flagging up here, it all seems fine. But I want to make sure that we're not missing something down.

We can definitely look at that again.

Okay.

All sounds good.

So I think if you wanted to table this we should be able to get this resolved before the next meeting.

Okay.

Motion to table.

So moved.

Second. Actually wait audience.

Anyone in the audience?

Motion a second. All in favor?

I.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is a request for certification of compliance SE-24-829 applicants Jeffrey Johnson owner JH Holding Company LLC project location 21 August Street map is C-160074 lots 0023 0063 0082 0086 0087 and 0088 followed by Jeffrey Johnson on behalf the applicant the applicant requested compliance.

So um this is a bit confusing. So the original order of conditions that was granted for this site was for all of the roadway infrastructure drainage pond wetland replication area and the number of houses that uh were being constructed singular plan single order of conditions. Few weeks ago, we received um an initial asbuilt plan that was dealing with the entire project as a whole and we had some initial comments

both through site plan review and and here as well with some asking for some additional information. Jeff and I had talked about that. Um have not received an updated plan responding to those comments. Then we received a new asbill plan today of just one of the lots. So I'm confused with what the request is.

Um whether it's a partial release just for this one lot is it for what was originally submitted I don't know because the the paperwork I believe just says request a certificate of compliance my concern would be is that there should be no certificates issued whether partial or complete until the underlying work for streets drainage replication area till that work has been deemed complete before we allow partial

cases of any individual loss regardless of their proximity to the wetland. Just my opinion. Um we can have Mr. Johnson give a presentation if you our purpose uh so for the purpose of this meeting when we submitted the plan that Dan had mentioned that that there was some inadequacies in the plan which we're looking to correct. What um the engineers on our side have done is if not since the the plan itself the

comments that we got back where there's there was some flagging issues and there was other comments that were made through there um they were distinguishable between planning and conservation. So, what I was um hoping the the committee would consider and throughout the discussion when when I saw that we were on the meeting today um that if not the full release, if that was not adequate, would there be the

possibility of releasing just the singular lot that is that is our first lot that we would be looking to to sell?

Have they substantially met?

I don't know. We haven't The asbuilt plan has not been submitted. An adequate Asville plan hasn't been submitted for me to say that they've can't I mean for what they've constructed in this one house potentially, but we just got this today.

Um, but this this would be like approving one house in a subdivision where you have no idea if anything else has been built correctly. We just we just haven't received that level of asbuilt plan that we've requested to look at that expectation would be that they don't get approved.

Right.

Which it would be fine once if we gave a partial release if we had an as plan just for roadway and drainage and replication area. give a partial for all of the road work and then as each house was completed we can give a partial for each of the houses that that would have been the proper course of action but it wasn't it wasn't submitted that way well knowing this area and how many

issues are out there I think we should be a little conservative on this okay and site plan review has still outstanding comments so site plan review hasn't signed off on it either for for either just singular house the entire project itself.

Any other questions from the board?

Nope.

When do you think they're going to have the asbill updated the overall one?

Uh when I spoke to him, they said that the roadway portion of it was 90% complete. Okay.

And might be able to drop it off tomorrow.

All right. Who's working on it now?

Uh Mark, I I I'd have to check to see what his last state is.

Which office? Still at CA. still cab the other person that was managing the project has been since gone and now Mark um his he's actually the one that stamped that drawing I believe his name is you want to have him tell him to call me bring in what he's got Mark oh Mark Busher well he's a surveyor he's not a he's not an engineer but still this this level of information you

is what should be given for the entire site.

So once we get that information then then hopefully we can move forward. The work when you go out there the work's done and the work's done well but until we get a plan illustrating that then we can't act on it. So but I do have a higher level of comfort knowing that Mark's working on it.

I was as I mentioned it certainly was let's see what we can do.

Okay.

Well, can I have a motion to table?

Second.

All in favor?

I I thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next is a notice of intent SE-24-863 owners Atlantic West LLC project location South Kein Street assessments map as H-06 lot followed by James Walsh. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant proposal construction of seven condo buildings total 17 units, bio retention area, retention pond, storm water treatment, driveway, parking, 34 spots, landscaping, grading, and fencing.

Always nice to see you, Mr. Walsh.

This is another file number at 130.

We're going to mall at 1:30.

The white snow green came back. That's why

We'll let you go first.

So the plan was prepared by Goretski engineering and I believe Dan that it's been to the other and uh so it's proposed in the former parking lot and uh

series of condos with parking, a bio pond and uh the uh discharge over here. Very steep slope wetlands at the bottom of the slope with the this stream running between the that and the houses on the back of bay.

So we um the the wellland line was done through an ENRAD quite a few months ago. Um actually a year ago, was it a year ago? DVW um and some riverfront that you see shaded in blue on that plan. Um and the reason I referenced that is D's file number um that they issued today was not without comment. I don't know if you have a copy of it. There were a couple

of comments which may be erroneous, but I think it's due to some labeling errors that are on the plan that so the applicant will 100% need to go deal with D before you can issue an order that to go resolve those comments. Um, one of them was throughout the site. You'll see that in green they have labeled um not Jim but Mr. Gardetski a 15 foot riverfront area zone. one, there's no

such thing as a 15oot riverfront area, but two, it's nowhere near the stream.

It's actually 15 feet off of the BBW line. So, I think it's just a labeling thing. But when D looked at it, um because on a number of the sheets, you can't see where the river actually is, and it's not actually labeled on the larger plan, um you'll find that there is no activity within the 25 foot riverfront zone, but the plan doesn't necessarily tell you that unless you you

know the project well. Um the only real general concern I had was that I thought um erosion control can be shown um throughout the plan set so that because we are working so close to um to the resource area that um that that get beefed up a little bit. And then secondly, although I had already reviewed the drainage design through the site plan review process, um that review process is not reviewed for the wetlands

protection act. No submission for drainage calculations or compliance with stormwater management was submitted with this notice of intent. So we're going to have to at least get that in house as well. And we're dealing with operation maintenance plans of the drainage structures, the drainage calculations, the nine standards of the storm water handbook. So we'll need to see compliance with that as well. The

project as a whole again I believe is completely permittable. There are a few eyes to do teased to cross and once we get that information and D is cleared up we should be okay to go.

Yeah. The uh the two comments from D one was the river front bank the other one just related to about a notification.

Yeah. Well and they they sent two file numbers. I don't know if you got two.

They sent us two. Yeah. one dealt with three of the comments which was the riverfront stuff and then they sent a second one five minutes later that they threw in the comment about that the abut butters list wasn't submitted to them.

So which I'm not worried about the list being submitted which reminds me I have the uh that's fine. So so I would recommend that the matter be tabled until we just get those few outstanding items and Alex can get us copies of the stom calculations and we get some few revisions on the plan get the erosion control labeled well. um so that we can make sure we keep this up on the slope wherever it wants to.

And will you contact Alex with the specifics because that's out of my pay range.

Yep. There you go.

Yeah. Cuz I think actually when I don't know if you submitted the the the NOI I wrote the NOI. I didn't submit it though. The who brought it in? Was it Bisco? Was it Mike that brought remember you brought it in and brought no plans and said, "Oh, you should have the plans." Oh, yeah. We had the plans through site plan review just because I handled more Alex and the company involved in it. I was okay.

I all I did was fill out the NOI.

All right.

I submitted.

Got it.

Got it. Anybody in the audience? Anyone in the audience?

Do I have a motion?

Move. Second. All in favor? I I Thank you, Jim.

Thank you.

Next is the notice of intent SE-24-862 High Development LLC owner uh Par Street Reality Inc. project locations. Slaves and WS Street uh such as Matis H17 002 followed by Jeffrey Tolman and Northeastern in here and consulting. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant proposes the 9 unit townhouse development consisting of three buildings associated with parking area facilities in lot two as shown on the city subs

located at west side of Bay Street and south side of S Street. Portion work is located within the buffer zone border and vegetated wetland. So again, file number we got around 1:30 today. Um the applicant understands that there were some outstanding comments. Again, um no storm water management calculations and compliance with the handbook was submitted. So they do have to provide

that so we don't have to get into the details of it. Um they did choose to request that the matter be tabled um so they can get some of those additional items to us for a real review and real protective meeting rather than just coming in giving a presentation.

With that, I would recommend uh that we allow them to table the matter.

Okay. Anyone in the audience?

Can I have a motion table?

Motion to table.

Seconded.

All in favor? I next is a notice of intent SE-24-861 applicant Irene Warski Cahillo of NEPC DBA National Grid Owner Weavers Cove Industrial Park LLC project location existing overhead transmission line row assesses map multiple locations filed by Erica have power engineer consulting PC. On behalf of the applicant, the project is located within a section of existing rightway from Sky Road substation to the

Somerset Forward Municipal Bery over the Taton River. Project consists of separation of the existing N12 and M13 transmission lines into paired model construction structure within the existing rightway.

Hello. Good afternoon or good evening.

Sorry, I butchered your name there.

M Carelli, it's hard. It's a lot of letters.

I have that and I have those green cards that we received.

Thank you.

Okay,

good evening. Eric Minkerelli, power engineers. Um, all right. here to discuss the M12 M13 double circuit uh tower separation project. Um to improve transmission system reliability and resiliency. Um you might be familiar with this project. Um this is in the existing rightway occupied by two 115 kilovolt overhead transmission circuits.

The N12 line, the M13 line. Um both lines currently are supported on a single series of double circuit steel lattice towers. Um the independent system operator or ISO New England determined that this was um an unacceptable reliability risk being on the on the one line due to potential for outages um and load loss.

So, the objective of this project is to separate the two lines so that they'll both be individual lines um to to separate the N12 line and the M13 lines and to eliminate the double circuit configuration and relocate the N12 and M13 lines onto a separate set of transmission structures within the already existing rightway.

Um so the separation is about the the length of line is about 1.85 miles. Um and it will require installing um installing and replacing onto a new series of single circuit monopoles transmission structures and installing new 115 kilovolt overhead conductors and uh optical ground wire.

Uh the work will take place from the Somerset Fall River uh municipal boundary over the Tata River um to New England P Sykes Road substation which is in Fall River and the proposed structures will be in New England P's existing overhead rightway and will replace the existing uh N12 and N13 DCT structures.

Um, we've identified that this project would qualify as a limited project for the construction, reconstruction, operation, and maintenance of underground and overhead public utilities such as transmission lines since it is an existing line or they are existing lines. Um, the project team has avoided and minimized impacts to the greatest extent practicable. Uh, construction will result in temporary,

secondary, and permanent impacts to wetland resource areas. Uh the permanent impacts are anticipated as a result of unavoidable installation of uh structures that are to be replaced within bordering vegetated wetlands or BBW.

Um there will also be uh permanent impacts to uh some coastal resources including coastal bank and um land subject to coastal storm flowage. The temporary impacts are a result of structure work pads, wire stringing, pulling sites and access to structures.

Uh and those impacts will be to land subject to coastal storm flow and coastal bank. Um as well as some uh non-coastal resources including BBW inland bank and riverfront area. And then the secondary impacts that are anticipated are from the conversion of forested wetland um habitat to scrub shrub habitat as a result of some necessary tree removal required in select locations. Um and that's to

accommodate for the structure replacements and the access routes.

So in addition or yeah in addition uh New England Power will obviously implement best management practices um to reduce the temporary impacts to wetlands. Uh we've cited the National Grid's environmental guidance document in the NOI that we've submitted. Um and that document is also referenced as EG303.

Uh some of the typical BMPs that will be employed during construction will include the installation of sediment control barriers. uh placement of temporary construction mats uh retaining an environmental monitor for periodic site inspections uh and supplemental seating of temporary impacted wetlands if necessary.

Um we've also proposed an on-site wetland replication plan uh to compensate for the proposed approximately 436 square feet of permanent impacts to BBW. Uh this plan was approved by uh Mass D and the replication site is approximately um 1,098 square feet. So 600 square f feet more than the proposed um permanent impacts to BVW. Um, so with that said, uh, NEP New England Power respectfully requests that the

Fall River Conservation Commission issue an order of conditions for the N12 M13, uh, DCT separation project and allow the project to proceed under the limited project provisions and approve the proposed wetland replication plan that we've submitted.

So, there any immediate questions? I know this was one of the 130 uh D numbers that were submitted.

Yeah. So, last minute. Um yeah, we'll start off with a few easy things.

Um I know the application lists um a number of property owners.

Is can you tell me what page the list is on? Um, and do we have signatures?

At the very I don't know what page it's on or two, three. Um, so there is one uh property owner missing from the signature list.

Okay.

Um, and that's Mr.

Expected.

Yes.

So understand same situation. Um, so unless you have easement rights and that the applicant signs this, this commission can't issue an order of conditions. I do have some comments to the technical aspects of it which I haven't only received this whatever it was 10 days ago. Um I will review this and and get stuff back to you. Some of it is some of the specificity of the plan wetland delineation

not necessarily you, but National Grid has heard our comments with u Mr. Tol's land. Um, and we understand that everybody's in this same fight together and we're hoping that everybody gets resolved. Um, but I I I don't I again I don't tell the commission how to vote, but I would recommend that we don't take any action on again either of these two projects until these matters gets resolved to some extent. Um, again,

proposing something on someone else's land without their authorization.

Probably shouldn't even allow the hearing to be opened, but we we will allow it. Um, but it will not be closed.

Uh, certainly until we get that matter resolved.

I don't have much more than that right now. I'll give us some thorough review over the next couple of weeks and get this review out before the next meeting.

Okay. Any questions from the board?

Anyone in the audience?

I have a few question. I mean, I'm going to butter to it. I'm at 2794 Highland A.

A couple of questions.

Just your name too.

What was that?

Your name too. when David PR so this seems like this has been a very lengthy project well this one just started well I've been getting letters from them for in the conservation commission it's maybe that part of it but you were speaking about the easement which part of it maybe I don't know natural grid can answer on your side of it but they're very difficult to deal with they called me to asked to buy an aerial

easement in my backyard with a very low number which I said know it. I wouldn't do it anyway. They're never going to offer you enough. And then they sent me in the mail a purchase and sale agreement with a sticky note and said, "Sign here in return." Which I called the DPU and said, "Isn't this some kind of unscrupulous business practice?" I mean, I've done real estate deals in the past. Generally, they don't

come in the form of mail like that with just sign it and send it back, but they never actually I've called I don't even know if the woman who I spoke to is even in their real estate division anymore.

They were hot to buy it. Pretty much threatened me that if they didn't or I didn't say yes to it, they were going to put a tower at the corner of my property in Highland A or what my property of butts and then I never heard anything again. And I've tried to reach out. Very little comment from them. I can't really get a hold of anybody. They have a representative from there like the

National Grid part of it. I don't know if it's the same company or if it's a different company. They've reached out pretty much just saying, "Well, if we do anything, we'll put Aquabites there up against your tree line."

I I don't know where it falls with that.

And I brought concerns to them also is that at least where I am, cuz we're probably approximately 50 ft away from the lattice tower in my neighbor's backyard. I said, "If they do come and clear this, which I imagine they're going for access, what are they going to do to control? I mean, Florida has a problem with homeless encampments. Are they going to do anything with that?"

cuz I really don't want it right at the back of my house. Um, no real answer regarding that. They spoke, well, maybe we can have a site visit. Maybe we can put gates up, but all of it's kind of gone to the wayside. I've attended the Zoom meetings they've tried to have, which are very vague. Um, I just, you know, as an abundu, I really don't know what they're doing or what their plan

is. I mean, the other concern is too is I'm an electrical contractor. I have some idea in construction. They're going to take a lattice tower and they're going to put in I would imagine these are probably 300 foot single pole towers that are going to go in its place.

I live in a highly ledge ridden area. If they have to do jackhammer, if they have to do blasting, I'm 50t away from the nearest tower in a 1930s colonial.

How much of an impact is that going to have on me?

Mhm.

very few answers and you know so what I'll offer is that this is the the conservation commission where we administer the wetlands protection act.

So um and we deal with the impacts on those resource areas.

That doesn't mean that all of your concerns aren't valid. Of course they all are. Um this board can only do so much about so many things.

I didn't know if this was even the right place. No, no, you should you because there are, you know, we I haven't looked at this proposal deeply enough to I I can't tell you what they're doing next to your property even. Um because even some of like I couldn't tell you.

Okay. So, the plans haven't necessarily like laid that out. Well, they do send every I mean, they've sent it been there 12 years. I mean, they've sent it before this even started was when they were going to spray for vegetation control.

Sure. But I they've sent letters and I've never once seen anybody spray. So I I don't know exactly what they do or what they're going to do. It's been very vague as a homeowner. I mean just in that So if I'm correct, the majority of this work is within the existing rightway which you already have. Correct. And this is to run the redundant line alongside of the existing line. So

you're not replacing any of the existing lines. You're just going to run new on the side.

Sorry, my name is Erin Horsey. I'm from National Grid. Um the the the point of this is to separate the lines. Right now there's two circuits on one and they're separating the two. Those wires will be replaced. Um they're not increasing capacity or anything like that, but they are going to be replaced just for resilience purposes.

But the structures, I don't care about lines. I'm talking about the wires as well.

Right.

And structures. Yes.

So the existing structures are being replaced as well.

That's correct. and a new structure being added on the side or just a different kind of structure.

That's correct. Yeah. They're going from a lattice tower to two monopol to the two monopols. I got you. Okay.

So, it's not I want you understand it's not only just replacing what's there.

Oh, yeah.

It's clearing and running another parallel set of poles along with it.

Yeah.

Okay. And I don't do you know where the where the rightway runs through his property or close to it or I I do. Um, I don't want to speak out of turn, but I want to say when they were originally looking at this from an engineering perspective, there was a possibility of blowout for those aerial wires and the request to several of um the homeowners in that stretch of the

right of way was being evaluated to see if we needed additional rights for that potential blowout condition. And I'm just not sure if that is the exact issue, but I can definitely get to the bottom of it.

Okay, great. Thank you. I have nothing else for now.

Okay. Can I have a motion table?

Move the table.

Second. All in favor?

I Thank you.

Maybe Attorney Nyl will take you guys out for a drink if we can get half.

Make him pay.

Next discussion regarding violation at uh 394 Kilburn Street. Um you can pass that down. So the um May I got a call about um some clearing that was taking place behind this property at 394 Kilbury Street. 394 Kilbury Street is the mill to the south of King Phillip Mill that were just restored to apartments. What's that next one down? Skyink is operating out of there now. um might have been Corbett

Hat before that, right? Was it?

Um and of course I went down saw so on that plan you'll see an area circled in red of vegetation um that the vegetation was cleared down to Cook Pond behind this building. Um there have been historically over a number of years, trailers, different things parked down close to the edge of that vegetation.

Um, but with this new owner of the building, the vegetation was removed and now there are a number of storage trailers pushed about as close as you can get to Cook Pond as possible. Sent correspondence to the owner um back at that time, explained to him what the issue was, sent him photographs of of what had taken place. Um, asked him to appear before the commission. um did not issue is issue an enforcement action

asking him to come in and explain what was happening and we were going to deal with it that way at first. Um if I don't get something, the commission will authorize me to issue an enforcement action and we'll we'll start that process. So we're at that point where we're being ignored to a certain amount of time.

Okay.

Um again, I don't want to add more enforcement actions to your table.

That's okay.

But something like this is is fairly substantial.

It's blatant. And then on on top of it, I don't even think he owns the land.

If you look on that plan, you'll see a yellow dash line. I think their property line, and I only know this because of surveying King Phillip Mill. Um, the yellow dash line, I think, is the property line. So, I don't even think they own to the edge of Cook.

When I went down there, I thought they had no trespassing in this area.

Keep out.

They may. Or you mean the water department had them or No, I just think they were I don't know if it was them. It didn't look like water department.

So I'm going to I'll contact the water department because they're the ones that have the rights and ownership to to the pond or whatever the rights are. So we have that to deal with as well. But beyond that, they may have altered land that belongs to the city. So but without having a real survey done of the area, and I explained that to the the land owner. Um but I would think that an

enforcement action would get his attention then and we'll start dealing with that. So the first thing would be is to submit an existing conditions plan and property line plan um that shows where the alteration was and now let's figure out how we going to get it restored because one even if you consider it a permittable activity, it's not permittable if it's not on your land. Right? Same thing we

tal this is the third time tonight that we've talked about wanting to do work on property that you don't own and throwing paperwork in front of this board expecting them to act on it just can't do it.

So to be consistent we'll I'll follow up with the paperwork on this get into his hands and um we'll see what we can remind me again when did that uh occur initially occur?

May, I believe. Yeah, end of April, beginning of May.

Um, because I I actually I had printed the email correspondence out because I we went back and forth about six times.

Um, and of course, I get, well, I didn't understand that or I didn't know this or well, now this is what it is. So, I was expecting him that he would be here tonight. So, yeah, with that not being the case, we'll we'll request him to appear formally.

So, can I have a motion to issue an enforcement order on 394 Kilurn Street?

Motion.

Seconded.

We'll do a roll call vote on this one.

I I I I right. Uh, can I have a a motion to approve the minutes from August 4th?

Motion to approve.

Seconded.

All in favor?

I can't vote. I wasn't I I wasn't here either. It wasn't yet three out of five.

So if you want unless you're comfortable doing it.

Okay, it's fine.

Um, no citizen input. Can I have a motion to adjurnn?

Second. All in favor? I I All righty.

That's it. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, T. Stand. Stand.