Conservation Commission Meeting - August 4, 2026

So, I am going to call to order the Town of Dartmouth Conservation Commission meeting for August 4th, 2026.

Uh, this meeting is being held remotely because Governor Healey on March 28, 2025 signed an extension for the hybrid remote meeting options to municipalities through June 30, 2027.

Our meetings are interactive. There's a chat room button, a raise your hand button, and if all else fails, DCTV will probably recognize if you wave your hand. Okay, [clears throat] this meeting was uh duly posted as well as uh those that are public hearings for the first time uh published in the newspaper and certified mailings sent to the abuters.

[clears throat] those that have been continued and are on the agenda tonight.

They were posted, but obviously no certified mailing to abutters, nor were they published.

That being said, we're going to move on to our administrative matters. And the first is to um approve the minutes of the June 10, 2026 meeting. May I have a motion to that effect, please? So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Any discussion?

[snorts] Seeing none, we'll do roll call vote.

Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Uh Jennifer, if you care to give updates from staff at this point in the meeting, I'd appreciate it. Sure. Do you mind if we hold those over till the end?

Oh, okay.

Yep. Not a problem.

Thank you.

By the way, we do have a request.

I should get this out of the way now, but we do have a request from David Degnon, and he has to be at two places at once.

So, if we get to public hearing number three, and he's not on, he had asked that we table his matter till the end of the public hearings. [snorts] Um, if there are no objections, I think that's an appropriate request given his conflict and he did give us uh notice of it. Uh so uh uh I think we'll wait till we get there before we vote on it, but I just

wanted to alert you to the fact that that is a possibility. Okay. [snorts] So we're going now to the second public hearing.

I'm excuse me, I'm sorry. We're going to the um wetland site inspections and determination other business. And the first is a request for a certificate of compliance on DP file 15-2759.

That's number one, Meadow Shores, map 88, lot 20. The applicants, Roland and Suzanne Valoy. Um they've rebuilt existing stone walls, stone seaw wall and revetment and they're now seeking a complete certificate of compliance. We do have letters on file from their engineer Alan Haru um stating that the work that was performed is in substantial compliance with uh the conditions that were imposed

as well as the plan that was part of the application and voted upon. Um, Jennifer would care to give us your comments on this or or Eduardo, whoever it is.

Sure. Um, Eduardo won't be on tonight.

He had a schedule conflict. Um, so you guys are stuck with me for tonight.

Not a problem.

So, um, at the last meeting, we had asked to carry this over because we didn't have the as submitted yet. Um, that was required as part of the natural heritage endangered species program approval. They've since submitted that asbuilt. Um, and you know, as you indicated, the engineers issued a statement uh that it's in substantial compliance with the approved plan. In reviewing it, it does

appear to be in substantial compliance.

And we've been out to the site and, um, as far as the site conditions matching up with the Asil, that all seems to be in alignment. So, I'd recommend um approval.

Thank you, Jennifer. Um, does any commissioner have any questions?

Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to issue a complete certificate of compliance on [snorts] D file 15-2759.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote.

Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes. My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

The next item is the request for determination of applicability RDA 26-.

It's regarding 54 Barney's Joy Road, map 6, lot 23.

The applicants are David Bogen and Pamela Spatz. Uh their representative is Eli Powell.

Their proposed project is the demolition and reconstruction of an existing garage to be rebuilt at a slightly larger footprint with associated tie-in to the existing septic system. Um, this is all within the resource areas of the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland BVW and the regulations 310 CMR 10.02 2 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. Uh

Jennifer, what is staff's recommendation on this request?

Um so we reviewed the plan with their contractor Eli Powell and um recommended some relatively minor changes including the addition of straw waddles kind of um hauling out what was existing versus um proposed so it's more clear for the commission those changes were made. Um Eli is on tonight if you'd like for him to kind of go over what they're requesting in the project. Um, as far as

the site visit, the wetland delineation had been um completed relatively recently uh through a wetland site inspection and um the project is is pretty limited in impact. So, there's an existing garage. They're basically proposing to tear down that existing structure and rebuild with a small addition off the rear um of that garage and then um some trenching that needs to be done um and also in the rear of of

the garage area. So, it's a relatively minor increase in impact from what's already there. So in in the staff's opinion, the request for the uh should be a negative determination.

Uh yes. So I would recommend a positive 2A to confirm the wetland line. Um a negative three with the standard conditions uh which it means it's in buffer zone only. Um and then just the standard conditions for erosion controls inspection and all that. and then a negative six um which is there's no additional perview for our commission.

Okay. Thank you.

Um Mr. Powell, if you have anything, you just heard staff's recommendation. Is there anything you would like to add uh relative to um either what you heard from staff's recommendation or you think we need to know?

Uh I don't think I have much to add. um uh that I'm aware of. Uh I can I'm happy to go through the plan, but it's it's exactly as Jennifer describes. Um it's it's the footprint that's laid out on the plan itself and um a small trench beyond that simply to the septic tank about uh just over 10 feet uh from the back of the proposed building. So, yeah, I personally don't need you to go

through the plan or the application, but if any commissioner um wants that [snorts] done, uh please just let us know and and I'm sure Mr. Powell would be happy to accommodate. Uh just so you know, Mr. Well, um staff routinely sends out uh before the meeting last week, um they send out copies of the plans and things that we're supposed to be dealing with at the public hearing. So, it's not

just the commissioners listening to a presentation the evening of, nor are we just listening to what is told to us by staff. We've had a chance to look at and evaluate. So, I just wanted to let you know that so you didn't think, you know, it was kind of a cavalier. I don't need to see it. Okay.

Yeah. No, not at all. I'm not permission and so I I Yeah, I understand how how it works and have uh all their all the respect for you guys. So, no problem. Oh, I appreciate that. But I just want to let you know and for the public, anybody watching, um that's how that's how I do business. You know, when these are sent to me, I feel somebody took the time to do that. I owe it to

them to review it and if I have a question I bring it up. Okay. Um, believe me, but it's what saves time.

So, this is going forward for from for from for most others, just so you know.

So, [clears throat] commissioners, any questions on what's been proposed?

Seeing none, um, I will entertain a motion on this matter. And I just turned the page which I shouldn't have on RDA 26-4 for a positive 2A as to the wetlands delineation, a negative three with standard conditions and a negative six.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Liz, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

And now we're moving on to the public hearings. So Liz, I'll give you the opportunity to read the first one since I'm going to recuse myself, but I am recusing myself from the first public hearing, D file 15-2825.

Okay. Thank you, Mike. Um, so again, um, moving on to our public hearings. This is continued hearing notice of intent file 15-2825 otherwise known as zero state road map 53a 174 lot 2a 24 respectively on behalf of the owner Morgan Blum uh care of representative Brandon Fenu Ecosystem Solutions Incorporated and David Potter of Hair Corp. Uh the proposed project is the construction of

a commercial automobile dealership with associated parking grading landscaping storm water infrastructure.

It's affecting the resource areas of the 100t buffer zone to a border bordering vegetated wetland per 310 CMR 10-02 10- uh 55 and section 360-2 of the bylaw.

Um, I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So moved. Second.

Second.

And a roll call vote.

Richard, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

And my vote is yes.

That motion passes unanimously.

Um, Jennifer, it is my understanding that this particular NOI file is continuing to the next conservation commission meeting.

Yes.

Okay.

August 18th.

Um, any context with regards to that that the public might be want to be made aware of?

Um, sure. So basically we're still in the peer review process for the storm water. Um the applicant has submitted their revised plans based on the comments from the peer review and uh the town engineer. Um we got those comments a few days ago and looking at the comments in the revised plans. We feel there's still um some some significant outstanding items that need to be addressed. And so the applicant has

requested or their engineer has requested um a team's meeting or virtual meeting to go over um those outstanding items and kind of get us all on the same page so that we can limit the delay with emails going back and forth and any um misunderstandings. So, it I find those type of meetings to be really helpful because it's it's nice to be able to have a conversation with somebody directly and um make sure we're we're

understanding each other in terms of what the expectations are for storm water.

Okay. Thank you for that. Uh commission members, any questions on your behalf of this particular application?

I'm seeing none.

Um, at this point I will uh make a motion to continue the public hearing to and forgive me because I do not know this date but I believe it is August 19th if I'm not mistaken.

18th 18th. Thank you Jennifer for confirming that for me. So, I will make a motion to continue the public hearing to the next applicable conservation commission meeting on August 18th, 2026. Do I have a motion to that effect?

So moved. Second.

And I will take a roll call vote.

Richard, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Okay, good job, Liz. Our second public hearing is also a continued public hearing. It's NOI file 15-2827, 810 State Road, map 163, uh, lots 31, 32, and 35. [clears throat] The owner is Kevin Madurus and the representative is Kevin Silva, SNK Engineering LLC.

The project is the construction of multif family apartment complex with associated parking, grading, landscaping and storm water infrastructure.

The project is in the 100 ft buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland BVW and the regulations involved are 310 CMR 10.02, 02 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. Um, I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

Some moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Is someone here this evening on behalf of the applicant?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Christopher Capone is here representing Stone Ledge Apartments LLC.

Um, could I share my screen with you?

Certainly. Is by the way, Stone Ledge Apartments, that's different than the name we have as the owner. Is there an assignment? Um, or is it just that Mr.

Maduros is the manager of Stone Ledge.

Correct. Stone Ledge Apartments LLC. The applicant and the owner at 286 Union Street, New Bedford, Massachusetts.

Very good. Thank you.

If I can share, I will.

DCTV, please let Mr. Capone share.

Can you see my screen?

Not yet.

No. Still no. Now I can.

Do you see it?

Yes. Yes, I can.

Thank you. Um, this is the approximate location of the project. It is pretty summized here. This is Route 6. This is Reed Road. You have Duncan across the street. You have Caskin Pig to the east.

Our property is sandwiched right next to Route 6 Marine and the Brum um auto repair place is just over here. Um this project is filed for a notice of intent for an apartment complex with work associated within the buffer zone. Um this wetland delineation is approved on a um A1 site inspection. There are two sections of wetlands. There is a wetland towards the uh west side of Reed Road

that runs behind the houses and just below the proposed construction site.

The opposite side on behind Brum uh auto service is the second wetland and this extends uh in a westerly direction off the site. So again, most of the project is a buffer zone activity with the center portion of the site being outside that jurisdiction. This site is encompassed in front uh with a large section of ledge. Uh this ledge in the process will be removed and that materials would be brought to the lower

section of the property and um creating the construction envelope for the building.

During the project, the temporary construction uh will require a storm water measures to control um any onsite erosion at the time. So here in this you can see the current complex with the associated parking in the front and to the rear during construction. The location of detention pond that you see in the far lower corner will be the temporary storage for any storm water during that process. So, we'll be

removing a ledge, bringing those materials down to that area, bringing the site up to grade, and preparing for construction. Uh, erosion controls I I didn't mention, will be set at as the limit of work uh prior to all that filling and will be staked in place uh per the plan.

we have in this design u been through the DPW and the planning board's comments. Um so this is somewhat of a revision um for what was originally submitted. It kind of pushed the project a little closer to the wetland than we originally had designed because of setback concerns. Um this project is designed to meet the 90% total suspended solid removal. Um this is going to be achieved

through uh roof runoff. All the roof runoff and the rear parking lot will be infiltrated within this field that you see in black. This infiltration area will also service to overflow into this larger dry detention basin that is the main uh proprietary um storm water measure. it it will encompass again the back parking lot and the building roof runoff. The front portion will be diverted into these storm water by way

of a vegetated swale and vegetated filter strips as well as the deep sump catch basins that will be installed in the parking lot. Uh again the main point of storm water is to the rear the sediment for bay the pond and the outflow associated with the 10 20 and 100year storm events um would be discharging just down gradient towards the easterly wetland.

Um again uh we have incorporated a storm water pollution prevention plan within our drainage report. This pollution uh pollution prevention plan will be incorporated during the whole time during construction is designed to protectively [clears throat] make sure that there are no adverse effects to the resource areas during construction. Um we'll be adhering to this uh as well as maintaining washdowns for concrete and

etc. upgradient from any resource areas as also is required. In addition per the DPW there's a large construction entrance that will be established uh when you enter the site. As you can see there is significant grading around the periphery of the site in order to maintain that elevations.

Um we propose to use erosion control blanket throughout this slopes um and stabilize with a seed mixture and staple that in place to ensure that we're not having uh any erosion uh towards those resource areas. Um Gus Reposa, your review consultant, has provided comments. Uh Kevin from SNK has worked recently with Gus and has made some changes um which are finalized which are pending finalization until after tonight's

hearing with the commission. I didn't know if any members may have some input they would like to add. Um we have a file number that's been issued.

um speaking with Gus um quickly today, I think he's relayed back to the uh agent that the con concerns are are not necessarily major. They're more minor concerns relative to what his revisions called for. Um but again, we're hoping to get a vote of approval tonight or we're willing to allow a continuence if that's in order. Um that's my presentation. And if you have any questions, I can try to answer them for

you. Thank you.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Capone. Uh, does any Well, let me rephrase it. Jennifer, I'd like to hear staff's comments first before we go into any questions.

Sure. Uh, I think overall, um, mo, you know, everything that Chris ran through is, um, I think fairly accurate in terms of of our review of the site. So, even though this site has a confirmed wetland line, Eduardo and I did go out to do a site inspection, um, just so I could get comfortable with what this site looks like and kind of the lay of the land and how much the site will be changing over

existing conditions. Um, there is a significant amount of grading proposed.

Uh, it's great that the erosion control blankets are already included. Um and for the um perimeter erosion control the limit of disturbance, Chris, is that proposed a straw water with silk fence or compost filter sock? Um we'd be willing to I'm not sure what Kevin spec so many sheets on this plan, but um we'd be willing to go with a a 12in straw waddle or or whatever would be suffice for the board. Especially

with this grading, I would suggest minimum 12in waddle.

Yeah, I mean generally for a commercial site I would prefer to see something like either a straw bottle with a silk fence um or a compost filter sock and and a decent size one given the so um just with a commercial site I mean as you know like the construction time frame is longer than say for a single family house and so um correct you know I want something that's going

to hold up through a winter season um and and not have to be hopefully replaced or repaired too much. Um, as far as the peer review, um, I mean, Gus's comments are pretty extensive.

There there are 11 comments total in his peerreview letter. Um it's great to hear that he and um your engineer from SNK have been in contact um to go over the letter um because he is headed out of town for several weeks. So I agree with you. It'd be great if we can wrap this up as far as the peer review process before he heads out of town.

Correct.

But I don't think we're ready for an approval tonight. the comments that are that are here um are considered outstanding until we have revised plans.

Um and you know they're pretty significant comments as far as not having the storm water calculations not being in compliance with the DP requirements. Um some of the the other calculations need to be fixed or the plans don't match up with what's in the storm water analysis.

So, I think you know it's more than just some minor changes to to numbers or making sure that inverts match up um over different pages. To me, these are substantial comments that should be addressed before the commission is issues an approval. Um but I do think it's feasible that they're addressed before the next meeting. Um provided we get revised plans, you know, next week.

I I have a quick question before I open it up to other commissioners. I I I was looking at what I just was writing and um Chris, I want to make sure I think I heard you say that you already have revised plans, but you haven't really submitted them yet because you wanted to hear about any other comments that come up tonight. Is that correct?

Yes, we have plans that are three quarters finished. Um, as Jennifer mentioned, there's some confusion in the finished product and what is going to be maintained on the site after the project is done. And that's what Kevin called out for was a grass or a shrub area. And Gus was concerned with how that was going to be maintained over long term.

And that changes your numbers relative to your drainage calculations. So they're trying to offset that so it doesn't change the entire submitt and makes it more of a minor uh change. Um but yes, he has voiced most of the concerns with Gus and Gus was I guess pretty close to accepting what Kevin was considering for the final plans.

Okay. So, listening to that and hearing Jennifer talk about Gus's I don't know. I'm going to say vacation plans. I'm assuming that's what his two weeks are for.

Yes. Yes.

You You really got to I mean, make sure you get to them soon if you're going to make the next meeting.

Correct. We are fully understanding that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. Does any commissioner have any questions?

I'm not seeing any. Uh, is there anyone here this evening that came specifically for this particular hearing and they want to be heard tonight? I understand we are going to take up a request to continue. I can't say how the vote will end up, but I have to tell you I think the request is reasonable and is not abusive. So, um I think it was likely to be granted.

Okay. I don't see any, but there's somebody in the chat room. Has that been there for a while or let me get my glasses because I can't read without them here.

I I believe that was the cable people advising on sharing.

Yeah.

Yes, it is. You're correct.

No problem there. Okay.

So, I don't see anybody in the audience that wants to be heard. Commissioners, um, you've heard the presentation and the reasons for this request. So, at this point, I'll entertain a motion to continue this public hearing until Tuesday, August 18, 2026 at 7 p.m.

Seconded motion. Roll call vote. James, yes.

Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, have a good night.

Thank you. Um, I'm looking to see what whether Dave is here.

And I I don't think so.

I think that's [snorts] a reasonable request, but I still have to open it before we can vote on that request.

So, [clears throat] what we have here is a um continued public hearing um NOI de NOI, but it's a D file 15-282865 Victoria Street, map 150, lot 139.

The owners are Andrew Manard and Kimberly Mason and the representative is David Devign of Schneider Dignant and Leone.

The project is installation of a 500galon above ground propane tank on concrete pad and two roof runoff recharge systems as well as minor grading fill and burm to direct storm water uh away from the house. The resource all of this is occurring in a bordering land subject to flooding the 100 ft buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland and inland bank and a 200 ft riverfront area with

associated floodway. Regulations are 310 CMR 10.02 02 10.54 10.55 10.57 10.58 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. I'll entertain the motion to wave the reading.

So move seconded motion. Roll call vote. Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Liz, yes.

Richard, yes. My vote is yes.

Uh, as I mentioned twice now, uh, the applicant's representative, David Dignon, has requested that we table this matter and have it as our last public hearing this evening. He is in a public hearing in town of Fair Haven. So, I have a motion to table uh, D file 15-2828 until the end of our public hearings. So moved.

Second. Have a seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

We're moving now to number four.

This is a new public hearing. NOI file 15-2830 uh zero Gulf Road map 35 lot 231.

The owners uh Margaret Mcketric Revocable Trust and the uh representative is Brandon Barry. Uh Brandon is with Merurl Engineers and Land Surveyors. The project is the alteration and extension of an existing gravel access road, installation of utilities, and construction of a single family home on the upland portion of the parcel with a 483 square foot of wetland take related to a

wetland crossing for the driveway and a 1,000 square foot of wetland replication uh for that take. the prop. This is all occurring or except for the construction of the house, but this is occurring within a 100 foot buffer zone bordering vegetated wetlands BVW and land subject to coastal storm flowage.

The regulations 310 CMR 10.02, 10.04, and 10.55, as well as section 360-2, the Town of Dartmouth bylaw. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So moved. Second.

Second. Move a seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. [snorts] And is there someone here this evening that wishes to speak on this application?

Uh, yes. Uh, I'm Brandon Barry with Merill Engineers.

The floor is yours. Uh, and can I have permission to share my screen, please?

DCTV, please let uh Mr. Barry share his screen.

Looks like I have permission and everyone can see my screen here.

I can. Yes.

Okay. Um, so our project, uh, as you mentioned, is a property at Zero Gulf Road. Uh, we're seeking a notice of intent for some work in the buffer zones, uh, as well as work in a flood zone. uh and changes to two existing intermittent stream crossings. Uh on the screen I have an aerial showing the locus of the plan. Uh on the uh right side which is actually south is G road.

Uh you can see the property is is an estate lot that accesses G road uh and then carries on to the back into where the large portion where the the proposed house will be. Uh you can see the area that is cleared uh plan left which is where the house is proposed. And in the um field just central to the site, you can see at the bottom of that area,

there is that um path that's coming in.

That is how the site is currently accessed today. Um I'll just go uh to my next slide just to give a little bit more context where this is in town to familiarize everyone. Um the property uh as you mentioned, Ascessers Map 35, lot 23-1. It's about 19.6 acres in total area. um is accessed via a shared driveway crossing through some of the other estate lots in the area through access and utility easements. Um the

upland area of the site um is primarily cleared. There are still some sparse trees in there uh but has been cleared and this is where the proposed house is going to be. I will zoom in in the area where we are working uh for the driveway connection and highlight some of the the wetland features. Uh our wetland consultant, environmental consulting and restoration performed an assessment of

the property in September of 2023 uh and recently went back out in May of this year just to confirm that their results were still valid, make sure the flagging was all still there. Um they confirmed there was a number of uh resource areas on the site. There's a bordering vegetated wetlands, a salt marsh, inland bank to the intermittent streams, coastal bank, land subject to flooding,

land subject to coastal storm flowage, uh, and some estimated priority habitats for rare species. Uh, there weren't any vernal pools, map streams, or areas of critical environmental concern. Uh, I will note that it was brought to our attention that Mashgis showed a potential vernal pool um in the left side of the gravel driveway in that wetland area there. Uh, our wetland consultant did not identify this and I

believe uh the agent in their sitewalk confirmed that that vernal pool did not exist. Um, I did mention there is a endangered species habitat but that is out near the the bay um and outside the limit of work by a couple hundred feet.

Uh, so not jurisdictional to the project that we're working on. Uh, in the area of the gravel driveway that we're improving, you can see there are two um intermittent streams that cross through the road today. Those are going through um a 12-in pipe. There's also bordering vegetated wetland as you can see in blue on either side of the road. Uh and then the orange lines that you're seeing,

there is um both the bordering land subject to flooding that we're working in. And then as you progress to the right, there is the land subject to coastal flowage uh which is outside of our limit of work.

What the applicant is proposing is to construct a single family home in the upland area of the site. Um, so the majority of this work short of some of the driveway improvements that we'll be discussing is outside of the 100 foot buffers to any of the resource areas on the site. Um, the existing drive that cuts between those two wetland areas is proposed to be improved as part of this

project. Uh, there's a slight dip to get down to it. So, we want to just do some regrading and filling to make a more natural and smooth access up to the site. We will be proposing um retaining walls on either side just to avoid needing to do horizontal grading and push our uh extension of work closer into the wetland areas. Um we are also the two existing stream crossings as I mentioned are 12-in pipes. We'll be

replacing those in place with um a 3x3 box cover culvert at each of the crossings. Uh these have been designed to meet the streams crossing standards to the extent we can as a replacement project. uh we're embedding them to allow for some organic material to be replaced in them uh to mimic natural conditions to the extent we can. Uh we're opening them up to get closer to the flow ratios that Army Corps would

like to see u but not opening them too much that we change the downstream hydraulic uh characteristics of the area. Um, as part of the work and the filling that we're doing within the driveway, uh, we will be filling some, and here is just a a cross-section of the existing driveway, um, and the two culverts that are going in. We also have utility connections going, um, over and under those through that driveway to

some existing services. So, just to provide some context into how that crossing is going to look, um the area of the driveway, there is a map flood zone with an elevation of 12.

Uh the driveway gets down to an elevation of about 10 and a half at its lowest point. So, we will be doing some filling within that area. Um we have proposed to the southwest of the proposed driveway an area that we can provide compensatory flood storage. Uh in total, we are going to be providing just under 200 cubic feet of additional storage. in this compensatory flood area than what exists out there today. So,

we're um matching the existing flood characteristics and actually providing a little bit more storage than what's there.

Um there is the retaining walls will for the most part be right at the edge of the wetlands. Uh but to construct them and the crossings there will be some temporary wetland impacts during construction. Uh as mentioned during the reading, those are just under 500 square feet or so. Uh and in our compensatory flood storage area, we are proposing a thousand square feet of wetlicate replicated wetlands uh at the edge of

the bordering wetland. Um so we are offsetting the impacts that will have during construction uh but are not planning to grade into those for long-term impacts just um temporary during construction.

Um last the areas that we'll be working in, we will be providing silt fence uh around the limits of the wetlands uh and on the edges of the retaining walls to provide protection to those during construction. We also have stabilized construction entrances so that we're not tracking dirt or erosion in or out of the site. Um the wetland replication narrative that we provided with the

plans for the replication areas detail how this silk fence should be installed uh around those areas and around the compensatory flood storage to protect them while they're being constructed and then after um they're all done. Uh in the wetland the erosion controls continue upstream as we or into the upland area as we construct the driveway uh to continue provide erosion protection to the wetlands uh outside of

just this crossing area.

Um so ultimately we believe our stream crossing meets the applicable standards will be an improvement over existing conditions. Uh we're providing appropriate compensatory flood storage uh to offset the activities we're doing to fill the driveway. Uh we've proposed wetland replication um to offset the areas that are impacted by construction.

We believe the mitigation methods that we've provided uh will result in there not being any long-term impacts to the resource areas. We did receive a comment letter back from the town's peerreview engineer. Uh they did not have any comments uh that resulted in any plan changes and it seems that they agreed with our conclusions that we've made. Uh and we did receive some comments from

DPW. We are in the process of wrapping up those revisions to the plans. Those are mainly around details uh providing additional details and notations on the utility connections. Uh won't result in any changes to the scope of work uh in or around the wetland areas. um really just changing some of the details we provided to town standard ones and providing some notes on uh type and amount of material to be uh ordered

during construction. Um so that is my presentation. Uh certainly happy to answer any questions the commission may have.

Appreciate it by the way. Very good presentation uh both in writing and verbally tonight. Uh Jennifer U staff's comments please. Um yeah, so I would just reiterate that um through the peerreview process, we did a limited peerreview because there really wasn't a lot, you know, in terms of this being a single family, this didn't have um a storm water analysis that needed to be done. It was more concerns with the

stream crossing standards. Uh so we did request that the peerreview consultant do a limited review and uh ensure that it does meet the applicable stream crossing standards to the maximum extent practicable. Um and based on the letter we received back from the peerreview consultant um they feel that it it does meet those standards. Um, I did have a question regarding uh, and I'm sorry,

Barry or Brandon, I know you just stopped um, screen sharing, but could you bring back up the compensatory flood storage slide?

Yeah.

Um so am I correct in that you're looking at I mean I know you're you're providing an increase in total but the regulations are that or the performance standard is that you have to provide the same amount within the same elevation and it doesn't look like that's happening.

So, in other words, for at elevation 11 to 10.5, um the existing flood storage is 682 and you're providing 1991. And then from 12 to 11, you've got it at 1483 and you're only providing 389.

So your totals your total is higher but you're not providing it in the same elevation which is a requirement of performance standard going to I do see how the table presents it that way. Um why is there

I'm just sorry I'm trying to just revisit how I had done these calculations. Um,

while you're looking at that, I will also say to the commission, we did when Eduardo and I went out to the site, um, we did agree that, um, although there was a potential veral pool area, um, called out in the mass DP layers, um, we didn't find it to be present there on site um and otherwise the wetlands appear to be properly delineated um with the one concern outstanding from the

mass DP comments which is um that the flags don't appear to differentiate between bordering vegetated wetland and salt marsh for areas outside of this project. So, if you're wanting those to be included as part of um the order of conditions, confirmed as part of the order of conditions, you just need to provide and differentiate between what's salt mar salt marsh and what's BBW.

Yeah. And I think just to um I think that's more of a graphical thing on our plans. The flag in the report Brad lists that you know from flag I believe it's B58. Um you know, he lists a range of flags where it's salt marsh. I think it would just be us changing notation on our plan to point out, you know, from this flag to this flag is Salt March versus bordering vegetated wetlands. Um,

and then just to kind of show where that area is, um, is actually just in the the top right of this image here is where flags 57 and 58 are. So that is where the the salt marsh portion of this was identified. It's kind of the very tip um of the the area before the bay. Uh so very far outside of our limit of work. Um yeah, it's just important because if

we're confirming that well line as part of the order of conditions, it'll be a line of record for years going forward and if they propose future work whether they want access down there or something along those lines in the future. We just want to make sure because they have different performance standards for BPW versus Salt Marsh.

Yeah, I think um I think part of I think part of it the the volume that we're showing in total here is correct.

I think part of how it's tabulated on the table may be um somewhat misleading because we're essentially what we've done is between the 12T and 11T contour that we're showing here where you can kind of see not the cross-hatching but just kind of the the single and dash line hatching in that compensatory flood area. We're calculating that volume in there and saying, hey, from 12 to 11

there's, you know, threequarters of a foot of volume there. And then I'm not extending that out over the area from 10 to 11. I'm then saying that goes up. So it's probably just a matter of how we've presented this because while it is, you know, I'm counting that area out there, it is still over the entire compensatory flood storage. there will be a lot of volume from you know when we look at the

volume that's you know between the 11 and 10 here um that is you know that is still getting volume between 10 and a half and 12 um it's just we've kind of put it into the table so I think it's more of a you know all of our our compensatory storage is between the elevations of 10 and a half to 11 12 which is what's there today um and you

know so it's it's not like we're you know we're digging that we just dug a really deep hole in that area. We kept it between the two elevations that it exists at today. So we are providing it at the same elevations. I think it just may be a uh how we presented this calculation um instead of showing just kind of this slice is everything from 10 1/2 up to 12 even though it says 11 to

12. And this 12 to 11 should really kind of show that 1 ft slice across the entire volume of area not just between those two contours. Um, so I think that's probably why these these volumes come off. I think it's just a presentation thing. The total volume that we're claiming doesn't change there. I think I probably just could have done a a better job showing how those were split between the two, if that makes sense.

So I I understand that you're providing more than than what we have for the current total storage. Um, but it again the performance standard is by foot for elevation. So in other words, from it doesn't have to be 10 and a half, but from 10 to 11, you need to provide the same amount of storage as you're proposing to take. And from 11 to 12, you need to provide the same amount of

storage as you're proposing to take. And th those numbers don't match up. So even like even if you look at your volumes, you've got 1483.7 for your volume currently from 11 to 12, but you're only providing 291.75.

most and and instead you have it at a lower elevation. Um so that that doesn't align with the performance standards.

So I and I when we're so when we're doing the volume that I'm showing from 10 and a half to 11 um you can see that's you know that area is the area that's underneath my 11 contour here. But then I'm saying that that volume actually goes I'm not saying it goes up a foot and a half up to 12. I'm saying it goes up 1.2 ft just to say that you know

there's some slope differences there and it's not going to be a perfect cylinder that contains that volume. But this area that we're showing here, this 2,000 square feet is that is the cross-hatch area in there. But then what we're calculating for volume is from that bottom elevation of 10 and a half all the way up to the flood elevation of 12.

So that what I was trying to describe is that these I think I've presented these incorrectly. Um how these are split up.

I should you know because over the entire area as it fills up to 12 there will be storage over the entire thing up to that elevation of 12. Um, so I think I can, you know, I can revisit that, you know, how we present that and kind of show it, but it's not, you know, this is not, this 2300 cubic feet of volume is not all between elevations 10 and a half

and 11. It's between elevations 10 and a half and the top elevation of 12 that it will fill up to there.

Okay. So maybe can you I would ask then that you revise that table and maybe provide a cross-section detail that shows those volumes from a side view so that it's easier to understand how that's being achieved.

Then can I also add something? I know you're you're you're doing the uh Jennifer, you're doing the uh staff comments, but when you do that revision, it would be very helpful, I think, to not only say what you're providing, but then to say what would be required at that elevation under our performance standards.

So, you can then show in your table that you're exceeding the performance standards or at least meeting them.

I'm sorry, Jennifer, I interrupted you, but I wanted to I just think that'd be helpful. I I I uh not required, but I think it's helpful.

And I think um Jennifer, you can correct me, but I think the table that we have that shows the existing volumes is is kind of showing that what would be required there. um because that's that's how their performance standards go is that they need to be, you know, at the same elevations that they are.

Yeah. So maybe you can just add existing flood storage maybe in parentheses required replacement. Um, yeah, but I I think the because you're I understand what you're saying now that you have overlapping elevations within the same footprint. Um, like the depth.

I think a cross-section, so a side view of that would really help us see that you're you're meeting those thresholds and kind of showing it um from that side view that what you have from 11 to 12 and what you have from 11 to 10 and a half.

Yep.

Any other questions or comments?

Jennifer, are you finished with staff's comments?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, does any commissioner have a question?

Concern.

Okay. It looks like there's still a little meat on the bone, so likely we'll be needing to continue. But I want to at this juncture find out if there's anyone in the audience who came this evening to speak on this matter and wants to say something tonight rather than um the evening of what's likely to be the continued public hearing. You don't forfeit your right as long as you show up the next time.

I don't see any.

Um, how much time do you think you'll need um in order to to do this? Uh, Brandon, um, I we could have our revised plans issued by or by early next week. Uh, so if there was a hearing in two weeks, I think we'd want to hold our spot on that one.

All right. So, the the next public hearing and that would be on August 18th.

Does that make sense? You'll have to have your plans in by um I think it's 3:00 or does it 12:00, Jennifer? I forgot now. But the Thursday before Yeah. So, 12 12 o'clock.

Okay. 12 o'clock. That's what I I I that's what I thought, but then I something said three and I wasn't sure.

So, thank you for that clarification.

Um, so, so it's not you got a little less than two weeks. Okay.

So, I want to be sure you won't be cutting yourself short on that.

Just to confirm as I'm kind of like back of enveloping it. This is like what you would be expecting for the cross-section.

Like here's our here's our storage area.

Here's what you know as we break these numbers down to say here's what's between 10 and a half and 11. And then here's what would actually between 11 and 12 um is what we would be looking at. And I'd want to get you these were just kind of quick rough calculations on roughly what these would split out as but this is what you were thinking.

Yeah. It basically to have that side view but obviously I mean I I know you're doing a quick sketch but to [clears throat] mimic more of the actual Yeah.

area layout.

Okay.

So, if you have any questions about what you think you need to do, Yep.

I would recommend you reach out to Jennifer. Um, you know, well before the deadline so that you get it in on time. If you can't get it in on time, it's going to likely you'll need to let her know that you're going to need it continued until our next public hearing. And that's not until um September. And I don't know exactly when because of elections that I know we have an agenda, but I just can't

give you the normal because I'm not sure if the election is going to bump us to a Wednesday or a Monday or something like that.

But if we can get if we can get Jennifer the revised information um by next Tuesday, you're fine. Absolutely fine.

Great.

Yeah, you're even earlier than you need to be.

Great. Okay.

Okay.

So um again I uh commissioners you've followed the bouncing ball. Um, so I will entertain a motion, uh, to continue public hearing on D file 15-28:30 until our next public hearing on Tuesday, August 18, 2026 at 7 p.m.

So moved.

Second. We have a seconded motion on the floor floor. Roll call vote. James, yes.

Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion continues.

And again, um, Brandon, any qu You're a little confused about what you need to do.

No.

I mean, if I were you, I'd also probably just say, "Hey, here's something very preliminary, Jennifer. Is this what you're looking for? Mhm.

We'd like to see this get to vote the next meeting.

As would be. So, we'll we'll certainly work with Jennifer to get that done. And um I appreciate everyone's time tonight.

Thank you very much.

You're very welcome.

Have a good one.

Thank you.

Bye.

Our number five public hearing is on uh NOI file 15-2831.

It's 10 Featherbed Lane, Map 95, lot 4.

The U owners are Bradford and Zoe Ster and the representative is Mark Buchet.

The proposed project is the construction of a single family home, pool, driveway, patio walkway associated landscaping, grading, and utilities.

This work is occurring within the 100 ft buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland BVW and land subject to coastal storm flowage. The regulations involved are 310 CMR 10.02 10.04 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. At this point, I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

And Mark, are you with us this evening?

Mr. Chair, this is Peter Cruz from CA Engineering. I'll be presenting tonight.

All righty. Peter, you have the floor.

Thank you so much. Uh, can I have permission to see uh share my screen?

Uh, DCTV, please let Mr. Cruz share his screen.

Please let me know if you can see it.

I do now.

Okay. Thank you so much. Uh good evening, uh Mr. Chair and members of the conservation board and the agent. Um for the record, my name is Peter Cruz, president of Cab Engineering, located at 25 Thelm Street, Sweet 202 in Builton, Mass 02740.

And with me tonight is the design team.

Uh we have the applicant uh Bradford and Zoe uh uh Stacer. Um also have Henry Lad project manager for Hollow Company on the line. Uh Claudia uh Ellery and Shy Chelsea Brown from Nora L architects. Uh we have Doug Jones and Rose Van Gender of uh Le Jones and landscape the architect on here and also uh Steven Shmeil the wetland consultant from Zenith Consulting Engineering LLC and

also Mark Rush from CAB engineering who did the survey of the project. As you mentioned this is NASDP file number SE 0152831.

Um and um [clears throat] I'm here uh to present the featherbed uh lane map 15 lot 4 for the construction of a single family home with the associated driveway underground utilities which will consist of water gas and electric an septic system and the uh erosion controls uh for the project. Uh as you'll see the uh the project is loc a portion of the project is located within the 100 foot uh BVW. Um so uh before I

do get into the actual site plan, I do because there was some confusion during the filing um I do want to show some of the rendering so that some of the board members can just really relate to maybe a 3D image versus the 2D that our site plan presents. uh and our team did take some time to put these renderings together. So I sort of want to show show

this and just give you a lay of the land. Um so approximately this is the the lot in question. Um uh the property consists of approximately 2.6 acres of undeveloped site that is uh mostly forested in some uplands and and wetlands. Uh to the south we do have feather bed uh lane. Uh to the west we have the existing single family home with an address of 12 Feather Bed Lane.

Uh to the to the east we have uh an open undeveloped grass field. Uh and then to the north we have the bordering uh vegetated wetland. Uh and out in the horizon is Buzzard's Bay.

[clears throat] Uh just to sort of orient us with the project, uh this is a north rendering of the building. It's an elevated structure. Um this is coming in uh from the driveway looking north. Um as you can see, it's elevated with a parking to the left here. uh just for talk purposes I'll be saying uh the right structure left structure with a common uh connection point of the dining room and

living room that spans between the two the two long uh the two structures uh but they are one single structure uh for taco purposes. Um this is a rendering looking south towards feather bane from the backyard. Uh as you can see we have uh the ingground pool with coping and some wood decking. Um some heavily vegetated area um within within the uh the back area of the property. Um this

is uh the proposed walkways with some vegetation underneath that area that spans the uh the left and right side of the house. Um, and then we have a view from the upper deck looking towards the pool looking out into Buzzy's Bay. Um, sort of to where at you all. This is sort of a nice little rendering um, showing what the site is proposed to do. Um, we have the proposed septic here. uh when you first

come in on the lefth hand side of the drive uh we have some parking. We have some underground parking underneath the uh the structure. Uh and then um you know a keystone driveway with some uh reclaimed granite access uh access pieces um to delineate the uh pulled up the keystone. Um and uh the pool area sort of laid out with a patio area here.

Um now going back to the the plan that was filed with you folks. Um I sort of marked it up so uh we can go through it.

Um the um most of the uh you know portion of the house is within the 100 foot buffer.

uh that portion of the house is roughly 2200 square feet of the house that will be within the the 100 foot buffer and uh the construction of the pool uh and the outdoor patio actually would be part of that construction. The the closest point um of the construction activities for being proposed is roughly about 33 feet from the uh the border uh vegetated wetland uh edge. Uh as as you can see

here um that would be the the fencing um for the the actual proposed pool. Um there uh there is proposed landscaping uh to fill in this spot uh these areas.

He proposed um you know the design team um one of the the goals of the design team that the client had um was to maintain the this beautiful uh tree line along the the easternly and westerly property line and also use native plantings throughout the property.

So, um we did get some some uh some comments from the uh the board of health which this plan that was resubmitted to uh conservation uh does address all those comments um which were mostly um some minor comments and labeling of the um of of the action system. Uh DPW did have a couple of comments uh which we address mostly details uh water line um uh details and the construction

entrance. So, uh we do have a proposed residential construction entrance proposed for the project and um uh pretty much the perimeter of the work being um uh uh I'm sorry the um the compost filter tube uh being proposed does encompass the perimeter of the work. Um the the the existing grading on site does uh tend to sort of run south to north um for the uh the entire site.

Other than that I if there's any questions or comments from the board I will be open to answering that and uh our team is ready for any questions.

Thank you Peter. Um, I'll defer until I've heard staff comments. So, Jennifer, if you will.

Sure. Um, so we, Eduardo and I went out to this site and initially we felt like the wetland line may need to be adjusted. Um, but we took some time to look at the soil. Well, that was based on vegetation. Uh we took some time to look at the soils and um unfortunately nitric soils weren't there to support vegetation that we were seeing. So uh we ended up sticking with the line that's flagged out there. Um

and uh we did work with uh Mark and Peter on some revisions to the plan to help us um better understand the site layout. So we appreciate those revisions being made. Um, and there were some changes to the elevations uh that were made for the the septic um detail as well. Um, outside of that, I don't really think there's too much that's left outstanding. They addressed a lot of our

comments early on. Um, and uh, the town engineer has signed off for this project as well. Um, so I think at this point we would be looking at the standard special conditions for a single family dwelling if the commission is ready to approve.

Okay. Um, is there any commissioner that has comments or questions?

Is there anyone in the audience that's here this evening that wants to be heard on this application?

I don't see any.

So, commissioners, at this time, um, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So, moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes. Richard.

Yes.

My vote is yes. That closes the public hearing. Commissioners, um I'll entertain a motion on um D file 15-2831 to issue an order of conditions subject to our standard uh special conditions for single family homes.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Uh, very good presentation, Peter and Mark. Very clear. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Have a good evening.

Two.

Our sixth public hearing. Do we have a uh file number for this one, Jennifer?

Yes, it actually came in this afternoon.

It's 2833.

Thank you. Mhm.

Our sixth public hearing is NOI file 15-283330 Jason Drive map 125 lot 19 and the owner is Leila Texera uh representative Jamie Besonette and it's the construction of a single family house with associated utilities grading paving and tree removal uh where work is being performed within the 100 ft buffer zone the bordering vegetated wetland BVW and the regulations involved our 310 CMR 10.02

02 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of bylaws. Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading on this matter. So move.

Second.

We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote. Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

I vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

If we have someone here this evening that wishes to speak on behalf of the applicant or the applicant you now have the floor.

Uh good evening Jamie Beset with Zenith Consulting Engineers.

Good evening Jamie you have the floor.

Do you want to have your screen shared?

Uh that would be great. Please uh DCTV please let Mr. Besonette which is on ZCE share his screen.

Yes Mr. Besonette you have permissions.

Thank you.

All right. Can everyone see uh the plan that I have shared?

Yes, I can.

All right. Great. Uh well, tonight uh like you said, we have a single family house um proposed via a notice of intent. Um a few years back, the uh wetland line was approved under an order of conditions. I believe that was done by Prime Engineering with the Dartmouth Conservation Commission.

um that line has uh has the benefit of uh the permit extension act that was done um which still keeps it valid today. So utilizing that line um with the um with the lots that uh were here uh we made a couple of minor changes uh via an ANR plan with the Dartmouth planning board and we have uh lot 1A and lot 2A as shown on the plan here. Uh

this plan is for lot 1A. Uh we're proposing the single family home. It has both municipal sewer and municipal water. The home is a slab style house, so there will be no foundation uh as far as a basement. Um so that is why we're able to keep the grading on site uh to a minimum. Um as you can see, we're providing a construction entrance at the beginning of the driveway uh for the

long driveway back with a turnaround in front of the house. Um, we've tried to minimize the disturbance by trying to keep a 25 foot uh protective buffer around the site and then some additional buffer uh were allowed. Um, we will have to do a little bit of work in the street um to tie into utilities. We do have a sewer manhole that is pretty much at the corner of our property. Um but for the

most part um the work itself will hap the majority of the work will happen within the 100 foot buffer. Um as far as storm water controls are concerned uh the flow for the most part flows um in a westerly direction. Uh it's kind of a southwesterly direction. And what we're doing is we're taking advantage of a swale on the southerntherly side of the driveway and bringing that back to the

wetland, well actually to the lawn area which will eventually discharge to the wetland itself. That way the neighbors aren't impacted by this. Um besides that, we're showing erosion controls at the limit of work. We've shown a clear um limit of tree line and proposed a retaining wall in the backside of the house to minimize degrading and keep that 25 foot no disturb. Um I'd be happy

to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you Jamie. Again I will defer until I've heard staff comments. So Jennifer, if you would please give us staff's comments.

Sure. So there are just a couple of items. Um, one, uh, I looked through our online portal, um, and there's a comment from, um, our town planner. Did you have a chance to take a look at that, Jamie?

I did. Yes. Yep.

Has to do with the lot the the revised lot configuration. It was approved, but it uh, by the planning board in June, but it doesn't look like it's been recorded yet. Have you recorded that?

No. Nope. uh we have not picked up and recorded the myar and in fact there's actually a a small revision for a scribers error on uh one of the dimensions that is in front of the planning board uh to be approved I believe next week um on their agenda uh once we pick up that newer myar we'll take and uh record it but that's that's the exact same configuration that's here

and that was approved like I said there was a number that was off by about 3000s Okay. I I think for, you know, overall for these projects, we'd like to have the same um revised plan date. Um I mean, my my feeling is if the commission is comfortable approving the project at this meeting after we go through some of the other items that it's some a revised plan, it could be approved pending a

revised plan. um because that is relatively minor but we would want to have the same plan date as the plan board.

So that that plan itself this plan would not change based on that. The scribers error is only on the ANR plan.

Yeah, I understand. But we would want to make sure that that's all then approved and reported. That's my perspective. Um, so just it doesn't my feeling is that it doesn't need to hold up the approval, but that we would want that approval before we actually hand you the order of conditions. We want to know that it's reported.

Yeah.

Yeah. I think we could make that a condition, Jennifer. I I agree with you.

And I think the way to do it is we'll make the condition that um no activity shall occur until an ANR plan conforming with the plan submitted to the conservation commission has been recorded and proof of that should be given to the agent.

I think that that sounds acceptable. Um, and then just in terms of other items, um, I we did look into whether or not the So, Eduardo and I performed a site visit. Again, even though there's an existing, um, an active line of record for the site, we just wanted to get a lay of the land and kind of what's what's out there um, currently under existing conditions. Um my my feeling is

the line would probably be a little bit different if we didn't already have an approved line, but it's an approved line. That's that's how it goes. Um and then as far as we also received a letter from an abuter that u they requested we read into the record. Um so I do have that avail Sorry.

That was too efficient and I put it away.

Mr. Chair, would you like me to go ahead and read that this time?

Yes, you may, please.

So, it says, "Dear members of the Conservation Commission, I am writing to formally report an ongoing environmental and zoning violation at the newly developing residential property at 1A Jason Drive. The property is located within a strictly residential zone.

However, the site has been used as a dumping ground for their private construction company. Over the past few seasons, our neighborhood has observed the regular disposal and accumulation of commercial materials on the site, starting at the curbside of Jason Drive and going back into the site. As an abutter and a longtime Dartmouth resident, I'm deeply concerned about the negative impacts this has on the

environmental footprint and character of our neighborhood. specifically the heavy accumulation of these materials and the risks regarding erosion sedimentation on the land, the disregard for zoning bylaws and the negative impact on the quality of our town's water considering the wetlands and its habitat that will be affected. In the past, the owners have agreed to remove some of their

business waste. They have also stated to neighbors that they are planning to continue using the site for their business storage of waste over time. I request that this letter be read at the upcoming meeting on Tuesday, August 4th at 7 p.m. with the Conservation Commission to bring this issue to your attention. Sincerely, a concerned resident and a mother and that was submitted yesterday.

Um when Aardo and I went up to the site, we did see um some materials being construction debris being stored on the site. My understanding is that some of it has been removed and this is not um what we saw is is only a small amount compared to what's been stored there previously. Um I have a few photos from that site visit if the commission would like to see, but again I don't think

it's a large amount of construction at this point. Um I would note from the perspective of um the the property owners that the this entire lot is subject to the jurisdiction of the conservation commission and um any storage on site would need approval as part of the plan.

So you can't have other activities outside of what's approved in this single family dwelling.

Is that the extent of uh staff comments?

Yes.

Okay. Does any commissioner have any questions? Oh, I guess I should I should ask this question of you, Jennifer. So the you're uh the staff is recommending the issuance of a u order of conditions uh subject to our standard uh special conditions for single family residences and the special condition as I read earlier.

Okay. Um does any commissioner have any questions?

Is there anyone in the audience that wants to be heard on this application?

I don't see anybody asking to uh be heard, either commissioner or member of the audience. So, at this juncture, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on uh NOI D file 15-2833.

So, move. Second.

We have a a seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote. James, yes.

Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Uh, commissioners, I will now entertain a motion to issue a um order of conditions on file number 15-2833 subject to our standard single family special conditions as well as a condition that prior to any site work or construction, the re a recorded uh ANR plan that complies with the plan submitted to the conservation commission and upon which we voted um will be recorded at the registry of

deeds and that evidence of the same will be presented to the conservation commission's agent uh in a timely fashion.

We have a motion seconded. Seconded. We have a roll call vote. Liz, yes. Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. And just just to reiterate, Jamie, to let your clients know that although we only acted on one of these two lots, the other lot is still subject to our jurisdiction. And any activity which occurs on that lot, including bringing construction materials must be approved by our commission or else it will be a violation of the town and

state wetlands protection act by and our bylaws. So business as usual in from the past will not be tolerated. It'll it'll result in an unfortunately in an enforcement action. Okay.

Understood. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Uh we don't conclude with number six. As you may recall, I think David is here now. We're going to move back to number three, which is uh public hearing on NOI D file 15-28286 Victoria Street, map 150, lot 139. Uh owners being Andrew Manard and Kimberly Mason. The representative, as I mentioned a moment ago, David Dvignan from Schneider Diven and Leone Inc.

[snorts] The project is the installation of a 500galon above ground propane tank on a concrete pad and a two roof runoff recharge systems as well as minor grading fill and burm to direct storm water away from the house.

This will occur within land bordering land subject to flooding. the 100 ft buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland and inland bank and a 200 ft riverfront area with associated uh floodway. The regulations involved are 310 CMR 10.02 10.54 10.55 10.57 10.58 as well as section 360-2 of the town of Dart bylaw.

I entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So move second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

David, you now have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, members of the commission. Um, I'd like to begin by uh just thanking everybody for allowing me to be placed after uh the fact of the agenda. So due to other hearing that I had uh for the record, I'm Dave Digner from Schneider Leone here representing um the applicants and owners of the property. I have two devices that I'm using. One to screen share. If I could um it's the device

that does not have the PE at the end of my name.

Okay. Uh DCTV, if you would allow that screen share, I'd appreciate it.

I can see it.

Okay. Terrific.

So, the the property is 65 Victoria Street. Uh the site contains a single family dwelling that has existed uh at a minimum based on minor research as far back as the 1940s.

We have a survey plan on record that shows it in 1942.

It's a uh unique lot. It's very long, 440 ft long, parallel to Victoria Street, but only 91 ft deep from Victoria to its back property line. Um the property contains various resource areas. Uh BVW as you can see highlighted um in green um pretty much uh wraps around the uh occupied area of the of the property. Uh there's Budwood Brook which the back of the property runs parallel to the back property line and

parallel to Victoria Street. From that uh we have the 200 foot riverfront boundary which actually goes off site um to the east um about 100 feet off of Victoria Street to the east and then we're in a regulatory floodway um which is associated with the brook. Um now this project has changed from the description that is actually on the agenda. When we first filed the notice of intent in the site plan, we were

taken uh taken direction from a landscape design contractor who has since been let go from the project. And upon receiving comments um from the DP, our office uh proceeded to meet with the owners at the site to basically define their goals, what what is important for them.

uh they purchased the property April of 2025 um last year and the first and foremost um goal for this project is last winter uh the heat pumps for the house could not keep up with the cold and they experienced um consistent uh temperatures in the house in the 50s and so they're uh seeking permission to um provide a second heat source for the house which is the proposed above ground

propane tanks as we're showing on the plan here just westly of the um northeast west corner of the house. So the tanks would be placed on a concrete pad anchored down and there'll be a propane line brought into the basement of the house. Uh so that's goal number one. Uh the second goal is um the site given its proximity to wetlands on three sides essentially um it the backyard uh gets wet primarily from um roof

runoff coming off the leaders around the house which basically just dumps roof runoff right onto the ground and from primarily a sump pump uh which discharges right behind the building in this location if you can see my cursor.

So the second goal here is to just put in a simple PVC pipe network to uh put that discharge um of uh the sump pump and the roof runoff and just discharge it away from the house where the the land slightly slopes away from the house. So that would uh dry up the backyard which gets uh wet in this area where the sump pump discharges and um you know help them to be able to enjoy

their yard a little more. Originally [snorts] we we had a burm landscape um uh designer wanted to put a burm over here to he thought water was coming in off the street. So we had this elaborate landscape burm which has been omitted from the project u that and we were showing filling in the backyard together with the two we were providing compensatory storage. We're not changing the grade around the house at all under

this uh new proposal. Uh we also uh under the last site plan had roof recharge trenches proposed in various locations and we've simply just taken them off the plan. Um we're trying to get them their goals by also keeping costs um under uh control.

So the uh the third item that we're seeking uh on the site plan is a uh a fence for the dogs. Um I've highlighted that in yellow. essentially would be parallel to the front of the house. Uh run out and then follow the uh the existing occupation of the tree line around the backyard and come back up to this historically occupied area where there's a a wire fence that exists today. Um by doing that, they'll

actually create uh a nice yard for the dogs to roam and they they can sit out there and let the dogs enjoy themselves and they can enjoy themselves because the dogs are enjoying themselves. That all makes sense.

So, um, and finally, the last smaller item is, um, there's some landscaping in front of the house that needs some care.

They'd like to rip out the shrubs, redo that. That's right in front of the house. Plant some trees along the roadside. Um, that should help suck up some water from that comes off the roadside. And then there are some divots in the lawn. There's a sort of a hole right here next to the driveway. and where the sewer when they when they bought the the property, the sewer line was was put in and they were connected

to the sewer in uh Victoria Street. It comes out the back of the house, wraps all the way around the house, and then kind of comes back up to the road at this point. There's a hole in this area.

They want to fill in holes and just restore the lawn um wherever it needs a little care. Um and then finally, the driveway. It's a crushed stone driveway.

They want to refresh the surface. Some of that driveway, as you can see, will be in the fenced in area. That'll actually be uh converted to lawn area for uh the dogs to roam. Um so there'll just be a fresh coat of crush stone placed on the driveway. Um so since the original filing to now, it's it's been simplified in and um in its uh entirety.

Um and that's the project. Um we do have a D file number and again the comments on the D file number had to do with compensatory storage which we're not um proposing to bring in any fill for the site. So with that I'd be h happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. U David I'm going to defer until I've heard staff comments and so Jennifer if you will.

Sure. Um, so I I agree that the the scope's been dialed back quite a bit, which simplifies um the request and eliminating that um the proposed changes to the flood storage um as far as the revised plan. I do have a couple of questions um for the sump pump um where it outlets. Is there um it would be helpful to have more I guess some sort of detail that shows how it's going to

be outletting? Um like is there going to be some crushed stone or anything like that to prevent um erosion in that area um to kind of help? I don't know what kind of volume they're seeing if their basement is wet quite frequently and that sump pump is running constantly or if it's something that only runs in major storm events. But I think knowing exactly how that's going to outlet would be helpful.

Uh okay. Uh good question. Um so right now the the sump pump line just it comes out into the lawn and it periodically goes on when there's a heavy rain. Uh the sump pump tends to kick on and it pushes out a small amount of water that sort of bleeds through the lawn and eventually finds its way to the brook.

Um, we we just simply want to do the same exact concept except for we'll be connecting the sump pump into the 4 inch ads roof drain line and it'll discharge um in a better location further away from the brook onto the vegetated area in this location up here instead of uh right down here by the by the brook. I don't think the volume that comes out of that. I was standing there in their

backyard when it did kick on, it kicked on and ran for maybe a half a minute or a minute. Um, and so the flow was relatively low and I don't think there's a really a need to to bring in uh crushed stone or or some sort of trap rock basin. Um, we don't intend to take out any of the vegetation that's pretty thick and overgrown in this area right here between the wetland and the lawn

area. Um, there'll be plenty of veg to really just suck up the water as it spits out here and there.

Okay. But it's the roof leaders too are in that as well.

Uh, they are. Yes. Okay. I I think some sort of crush stone uh with like a perforated pipe with crushed stone would be helpful.

Okay. We can provide that.

So maybe just a quick detail uh like a profile that shows that would be helpful.

Okay.

On the plan. And then um the other question I had uh two others. Will the driveway elevation stay the same? So you're proposing to convert it from crush stone to asphalt, right? Is that going to is the portion that's not going to become grass, will the elevations change at all or is it staying the same?

The elevations for that portion that'll be removed of crushed stone will will be the same. And as far as the existing crush stone driveway, we're simply going to add an inch layer on top.

Okay. So, you don't asphalt it. You're just going to add more crush to it.

That's correct. Yes.

Okay.

Um and then where the fence is shown, um Eduardo, and I did see on the site visit the area you're talking about that goes into the tree line where there's a remnant fence. Um, I don't know, you know, why the fence line was extended into the wood wood wooded area or if it was fenced a long time ago and the trees have just regrown in that area, but um I

I just don't know that where the site already has like the homeowners are already experiencing issues with rainwater um that removing more tree cover is probably not going to help them. Um, so I I would recommend like taking that fence line um that additional piece of that that little rectangle that juts out um near the propane tanks and just bringing it to the existing tree tree line instead of clearing more

trees and um exposing more area to increased storm water impacts proving their situation. Um, so that area wasn't a garden area. That's what the fence was for. We don't intend to take out any trees. Um, we're simply just looking to reoccupy what was historically occupied there. Give the dogs a little more area to roam. But there the the brush would be taken out but not the trees.

Okay. So maybe a clarification on the plan then a no to [clears throat] differentiate like what will be lawn and what will be wooded within the fenced area.

Okay.

I will say typically with a chain link fence you know I I understand as a pet owner myself like understand the need to and the desire to want to offer a safe space for pets and kids um but also trying to balance that we're supposed to provide access to wildlife. So chain link fence typically doesn't really do that. Um, but there's enough, my feeling is there's enough room on that parcel

outside of the chain link fence area um to allow for wildlife movement. So, you know, it's it's not like that's that chain link fence impedes them from wildlife from accessing and and moving through different corridors. I think there's enough area outside of that.

Um, so overall my recommendation would be I think there's a few revisions to the plan um that we would like to see um but those are relatively minor revisions that could be captured in a plan that's submitted um prior to the issuance of the orders if the commission is comfortable with approving that tonight.

Um the the one additional special condition that I would um request is so in additional to in addition to the standard special conditions for a single family dwelling. I would also want to include an additional condition for um no permitted grade changes in the FEMA flood plane for the site.

That's Mr. Chair.

Okay. And you're also if we're going to make some of your recommendations um special conditions if that's what we're going to do this evening. I just need to hear them again. So it's going to be um if you want to go through the things you want to see on uh um amendments to the plan. I think I need to know what they are specifically if they're going to become conditions.

Sure. So at the outlet for um the sump pump um and the the pipe um connected to the sump pump for there to be um a perforated pipe with embedded in stone that should be added with a detail to the plan. Um, if the plan could be to clarify that the driveway will remain gravel, but the gravel will be refreshed and that the fenced air within the fenced area clarifying which areas will

be lawn and which areas will remain wooded.

Let's see if I can read my own handwriting. Okay. Is there any uh commissioner that has any questions?

I don't see any. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to be heard?

Again, I'm not seeing anybody.

So, commissioners, I entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved. Second. We have a seconded motion on the floor. Roll call vote.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. Uh, commissioners, I'll unless you have any objection, I'll entertain motion uh to issue an order of conditions um subject to our standard special conditions regarding single family homes along with the following special conditions. Um there will be no uh permitted grade changes um other than those shown on the plan that has been submitted and we're voting upon this

evening at the outlet for the sump pump.

Uh the discharge will be in a perforated pipe um intombed in crushed stone. Um the driveway will only be a refresh with gravel and not an expansion or um utilization of other material. And in the fenced thin area there will be a clarification as to uh what will be lawn or grass area and what would be remaining wooded with particular emphasis of no um trees being cut down.

I think I captured it all. So, commissioners, you want to add anything?

Any discussion on that? Did I get something wrong?

Don't see any. So, entertain a motion to that effect, please.

Moved.

Second.

Have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. James, yes.

Richard, yes. Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you, David.

Thank you for your time. Have a good night.

You as well.

Hey, commissioners. That ends our public hearing, but it brings us to our items for discussion. And I know it's late, but we do have a few items of discussion. So, we are still looking for a water quality advisory committee rep as well as a soil conservation board member. Um, I'm loathed to a point.

I'd rather somebody wants to do it and volunteers to do it because I know when I get sometimes if people don't ask me and they disappoint me, I don't feel as compelled to to uh to to go frankly since I never had a choice in the matter. Um, so I don't believe this is I'm not going to reinstitute the draft. Um, [gasps] I managed to avoid it when I was

younger. I don't want to have to make anyone else suffer through that nailbiting ordeal. Um, I'll just say I have to I'm not going to be able to do it because it's in person.

If it was, you know, like if it was over Zoom and stuff like that. I mean, I understand when you have 28 people in a commission or whatever you want to call this thing now, whatever you call it.

Um, but yeah, I can't I can't make it there consistently enough with a seven-month-old at home. So, I'm I'm not going to be able to do that.

Understood. Again, I I I place my number one priority as my family, and I think everyone here does as well. Their families, not mine particularly. Uh, but um, you know, I get it. You guys have lives. You're volunteers and you want to do this a good job for the town, but you also owe it to your family to do what they need and not and not to let them have to sacrifice. So, I get it, James.

You know, to I appreciate you bringing that up and I want to let everybody know I understand that. I I absolutely understand it.

But if anybody's thinking, "Hey, that's something I might want to do."

You want to give it a shot and it turns out it's not what you thought it would be and it's not working out, you're not appointed for life. Okay.

Um I would also just add that um Donald wasn't able to be here tonight and then we do have a current vacancy, too. So, not that I want to kick the can down the road forever on these, but um you know, maybe in another month or so there might be um you know, everybody present all with vacancy filled and maybe um it becomes less hard to fill these spots.

That's a possibility. Um quite frankly, someone's interested.

I don't, you know, I have no problem with that. Like I said, I'm I I understand the town's need to have all these different uh committees filled and I do think there's some import to the conservation commission being represented, but I'm not going to force anybody to do it. I really that's not me. Okay? So you don't have to no nobody on our commission has to worry about me appointing them despite their objection.

It won't happen. Okay? And if that makes that puts me in hot water with the select board, so be it. Okay? But I'm just not I don't feel it's fair or reasonable um to put somebody in a position they don't want to be in.

Um and I I did check and see for the soil conservation board. I know at the last meeting um like we realized that that Richard was holding a spot on there and you are listed as a conservation representative not an ATL large member but we actually for some reason I you know I don't know why that decision was made but for some reason there's two um spots allocated to the conservation commission for the soil

conservation board.

I don't know why that seems ridiculous.

M Mike, if I could, in all the years that I was on the soil board, I have never seen another mandatory member from conservation required to be on the board. That's what you're saying. And I'm confused.

Well, so Matt was on there as well, right? So, well, that's right. Maybe they need to like maybe it would be in the best interest of the select board to put out a memo to all boards of what their desired headcount is on all of these committees.

I would love to do it, too, but it's it's definitely a time constraint between the two. You know, maybe as as my child grows and becomes a little bit more independent, I'd be willing to do that. But it's it's definitely, I think, going to take some commitment.

early on at least for the walk particularly the inperson items. I mean we're one of the few we're one of the few boards commissions or committees in the town that conducts its public business um via remote hybrid and I think a in large measure it was because Mark had a commute from Plymouth.

Right.

Okay. And so we kept up the remote meeting which I think all of the professionals who come before us are saying we like it better. Okay. Somebody like Dave Devnan could never have done what he did this evening which is attend two different town meetings the same night. Right. So um the professionals appreciate it. But I mean I've gone into other communities and nobody's meeting remotely. It's all in person

and I think the other comm like zoning board and whatnot, they're all in person now.

Um planning. So, but that's an even bigger time commitment. So, if you look at tonight's meeting, which is nearly two hours at this point, if we had to go to town hall and go back home, it'd be two and a half hours, if not longer.

Some of us even longer. not me, but for some others even longer. So, it just adds to the burden of um your time.

And I get it. So, I'm totally understanding of it. It doesn't take any argument to convince me.

But if somebody wanted to do it, they were interested in doing it, they had the time to do it.

I mean, clearly it's something the town would benefit from, but I shouldn't be at the sacrifice of somebody who has family or business um pressures that they need to address first. I mean, there's there there are priorities here, guys. And I recognize that your family is priority number one and maybe a really close second for those that are employed. Not like Richard and I that are kind of phasing

ourselves out, but for those of you who aren't um employment, I mean, you you want to keep your careers moving forward. Um you want to keep the paychecks flowing, right? So, I get it.

And I think it's important, and I I I believe the town recognizes that, too.

It's important if we're going to have folks who are competent, qualified folks on our boards and commissions, not to overburden them, um to be respectful of their time, respectful of their other commitments, primarily like I said, family and business. And um we work around that. And I think we can. Um, so I agree with Jennifer. Let's see what happens when Donald comes in and we're

going to have it. We're going to have a seventh commissioner at some point. We have eight or nine applicants for that position, which is Oh, that's good.

Yeah, it is surprisingly good. Um, you know, I just hope that most of them really wanted to be on the conservation commission and it wasn't like a couple of previous applicants who said, "Well, they gave us 10 different things. We had to rank them and conservation was 10th, you know, so they didn't know they could say I don't want to be on it." So, they put it 10th and they said, "If there's

anything else, I'd rather be on something else." So, um, but that's usually one of the first questions we ask. And that's all since the application process went through the portal where they put all the various boards and commissions on and you get to pick and people sometimes feel compelled to pick every one of them, but we're the last one.

So I I just want to say that I don't know that we have eight really interested or nine really interested.

We may we may we may. I just don't know.

We'll find out when it comes time for the interviews.

I'm happy to volunteer my time for that.

Okay. Well, Jennifer is circ can circulate to you um because she's already got my opinion of We're going to do them by Zoom.

Okay. We're going to do them by Zoom and we're figuring we're figuring like roughly 15 minutes per interview or so.

And then if we get down to two, maybe we only have one, we don't have to worry about it. But if we get down to two or three that we like, we might have a second interview, maybe. Okay. Um, but at this point, I don't see the purpose behind an in-person. I don't see the purpose behind half hour or an hour interview. You don't need it. 15 minutes will just ex should be more than enough time.

Yeah. I think just gauging interest. uh level and um background like pertinent background that might be helpful. Um yeah, I'm going to give you by the way I owe you my questions. So I have some standard questions but my my first standard question is you know h how how important is it to you to be on the conservation commission? And if I find out we were number 10 out of 10,

well then it isn't that important, you know.

Okay. So, we'll hold off. We'll keep these. Maybe we'll bring them back for um the second September meeting um and see where we are. See if we've got um we're back to a full board and have everybody there.

I think so.

Yeah.

I'm not I even then I I mean I'm not going to appoint somebody who doesn't want to be I just won't. I I refuse to do it. And if that means I've got to explain myself to the select board, I'll do it.

Yeah. Well, I think too like it's important to understand like there's a limited capacity for the commission to then also represent on all these other different boards and committees. It's great to have the representation, but um like this is the primary responsibility.

So I understand.

I agree. That's why most well that's why I signed up. I didn't even know about the other stuff. Um, but I I've served on other um committees as a result of being on the conservation commission and some of them I was happy to serve on.

Um, others I became disillusioned um with the way they conducted their meetings. So I uh resigned. Again, like I said a moment ago, it's not for life. you know, and if it turns out it's something that you say, "This is not what I thought it was going to be."

I get it. That happens too, you know.

So, it's not like I consider it almost like auditing a class, you know. You get a go to a meeting or two and you say, "Yeah, it's for me," or "No, it's not."

And frankly, not all of them will be.

They weren't for me.

Yeah. I I've had in other communities too where I've recommended people come to a meeting before they make it official and it's made a couple people kind of change their mind because they didn't realize exactly what it was going to look like, you know. So, um I think that's it's a really good idea, you know, that I think that's an excellent idea.

Is it?

I mean, it really is. It really truly is.

Yeah. Like, you don't want someone to commit to it and then be like, "Oh, this this really wasn't what I thought it was going to be."

I know I'm being And especially where we have so many people is like this is the most that I've seen ever. Um so and it's fantastic um for that one vacancy and um you know I feel like there's going to be amongst those there's going to be somebody who's this is exactly what they want to do.

Absolutely. And hopefully, you know, uh we we find that person because I do think uh we're fortunate we're fortunate in this town to have a number of people who want to do something for the town and um you know some sometimes just a matter of finding the right fit. you know, somebody might be wonderful on finance committee but not so much for planning or great for planning but not so much for

conservation and things like that. So, um you know, it's a little bit of yeah, we know you're you want to do something for your fellow citizens. We get it. And that I really like. I think that's being an active involved citizen, but maybe this isn't the right venue for your talent or your interest. And so, um, you know, it is bit that's why I like the idea of sitting in, watch the meeting

and say, "Hey, what do you guys do? Is that really what I thought it was? Maybe I've got it wrong." You know, for instance, somebody who's interested in planning may think they get to design things instead of just approve what or disapprove of what's being presented.

You got there, right?

Well, so I agree with Mike. I agree with you. I just don't think the membership should become a burden because if that happens then I mean your productivity and your input goes right into the toilet and uh it has to be something you want to do because you like doing it you know and that's one of the reason that's frankly one of the reasons why uh you know I know tonight is not exactly a

shining example for me but you know it's why I like to keep the meetings relatively brisk because I I've served on boards where I didn't get home until well after 11:00.

Oh.

And you know, it made me not want to be on that board anymore because I just felt like, you know, it's like taking three classes in a row. You don't remember what you heard in class two or three because you were so tired after class one. So, I want to give every applicant my full attention. They deserve it. They deserve to have somebody who's listening and thinking and not someone who's

worried about, "Oh, I haven't eaten yet." You know, I when I get home, I wonder what's left in the refrigerator.

You know, that's not a good thing. So, anyway, I point that out because I know some meetings in other communities, they have hard stops, too.

So, they will in the middle of a presentation say, "Okay, we're going to continue it. You've reached 10:00.

That's it. We turn into pumpkins. Boom.

You're done. And anybody who's later on in the agenda, it's all continued.

The advantages of doing Zoom with these meetings. I remember when we used to all get down to city hall and do it. And that was just an extra burden when you had parking difficulties or weather difficulties, etc., etc. And Zoom has made it a little bit more palatable.

Oh, yeah. Well, when when we used to way back, Richard, we would come with the when the school next door was the high school, when they had their theatrical productions or whatever else. Good luck finding a parking space within a half a mile.

Y I mean, you know, at that point, I wanted to say, "Adios, man. I gotta I gotta park in New Bedford to get to this meeting."

I agree, Mike. Those were the good old days huh Mike?

They were old days. I don't know how good they were, but I I you know was a lot younger then, so it didn't bother me as much.

Uh anyway, so I think that's a good suggestion Jennifer.

I have nothing more to add, but I know you have some staff comments that you wanted to defer. Yeah, I one of them was just um to kind of go over that we had some interest for the vacancy and that we were hoping to do um to schedule the Zoom interviews next week. So um we've kind of already covered that and um the other was that I'm also hoping to schedule um interviews for the

administrative assistant position um next week as well. Um, and we're looking at having um Eduardo, myself, and uh Melanie Perry from the select board's office or the admit town administrator's office um be on that panel. And we have a handful of applications. Probably I would say, you know, threequarters of those are um folks that we want to schedule interviews with. And hopefully out of

that we'll have one person that at least one person that's a good fit. Um so yeah my fingers are crossed.

Yes. Mine too. So that's it. I can save to a shorter meeting. There's nothing earthshattering to share otherwise.

Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you. Does any commissioner want anything brought before the board commission? Excuse me.

I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. So move.

Second.

We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote. Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

James.

I think we lost James.

I think we lost James.

Okay. Well, my vote is yes. So, it's unanimous.

Good evening, everyone. Have a nice night.