Conservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Comcast. And first thing first, we have a lot of continuations tonight. So if you are here for any of these items, we won't be discussing them. Item number nine, the continuation of the abbreviated notice of resource area delineation for 253 To 259 Wood Street will be continued. Item number 10, the the abbreviated notice of resource area delineation for 525 To 529 Wareham Street will not be discussed.

The enforcement order for 18 Cowan Drive, the request for the certificate of compliance for 18 Cowan Drive, and the continuation of the notice of intent for 18 Cowan Drive. Those will all be continued. As will item number 15, the continuation of the notice of intent for 64 Benson Street. So any of those, we will not be discussing. So we had a discussion at 06:45 of Campus 44, Lots 3 And 4, Isolated Wetland, and a proposed change. Is there someone here to talk about that?

Steve Gallagher, VMD Companies. And I believe Tom Schutz is going to be here in a couple of minutes, so I apologize, but I'm happy to kind of give you a quick overview of the the general, and then Tricia was out there today as well. So do you have a, is there a plan that we can take a look at here? Okay. Yes.

So the idea essentially is that we've recently got a order of conditions for Lot 4 of the Campus 44 Subdivision. We started construction and we discussed when we did a site walk right at the beginning of construction just as we were finishing the tree clearing. There's a small area that we noticed as we're clearing that we pointed out to Tricia, and she went out and looked at it today as well. And it appears what it is, is that it was an area that was flagged like way back at the original NRAD process. So it was flagged, I think it was noted in the NOI filing.

It appears to have been reviewed by the peer reviewer and it was noted as isolated at that point, but it was not depicted on the official NRAD plan that was incorporated into the ORAD. And that seems to have been a simple oversight as far as we can tell, Not really sure exactly what happened, but I think I mean it was flagged. So I think it was just, for some reason, excluded from the AMRAD plan unintentionally. There it is right there. So we noticed it and we brought it to Tricia's attention and our civil engineer now, Kelly Engineering and then wetland scientist, Goddard, took a look at it.

And they did confirm that it is clearly isolated, so it's not a bordering vegetative wetland. It's not an ILSF. Brandon Lee, who may be on the call here, did a calculation to confirm that. It's essentially zero cubic feet, I believe, under the ILSF calc. So it's definitely not an ILSF.

And it's not and I would defer to Tom on the technical details of this, but it's not a certified vernal pool. So Goddard prepared a memo requesting a minor plan amendment or minor plan change, I guess, would be the term, basically just to incorporate this information into the record, but noting that it's not a jurisdictional area under the Wetlands Protection Act. So while there may be some additional review needed by the select board under the WRPD bylaw, our belief, I think it's fairly straightforward in that memo that he prepared is that this is not a jurisdictional area under the Wellington Protection Act. So therefore, it should not be an additional impact under the NOI. So we're happy to incorporate that into the record and then potentially submit an as built plan showing that area at the end and any kind of like additional documentation that you want along with that.

But that was the hope is that we could do it in that way. So I'd be happy to hear from Tricia and what her thoughts are on it as well.

All right, let me start over. So I went out to the site today with Tom Schutz from Goddard Consulting to look at the isolated wetland to determine if there were any species in the water body that would be related to Varna Pool habitat. And we did find some of that today. I have pictures in Dropbox. Some of them might be a little bit hard to see, but, because there was a reflection that was sunny out today.

So there were some tadpoles. I'm not sure if they were wood frog tadpoles. I'm assuming they are, but I didn't net them and look at them closely. There were also more than five egg masses of, I believe, yellow spotted salamander. But again, that would have to be analyzed a little more closely of which if those are the two species that those are considered obligate species and would qualify the pool to be certified.

As Steve said, it is not currently certified and it's not shown on any maps as potential for a pool. But of course, those maps aren't always accurate, like the wetland maps aren't always accurate either. So given that, that's why they're in here for discussion, mostly because it was an isolated wetland that wasn't documented on the plan, but was discussed in the peer review process. That's why I have some of the old ORAD information in here. We had, I believe it was Ecosystem Solutions that actually reviewed this portion of the property.

So I think there were a couple ORADs But for the entire this particular ORAD was for the vicinity a lot for they looked at the cranberry bogs to see if they were wetland bogs or upland bogs. And part of that was looking at these isolated areas and the other wetlands, the other BBW. So, yes, so it's just something it was like an oversight that this isolated area didn't get on the plans for I believe the notice of intent for Lot 4, correct? Lot 4

That's right.

Because we just it was a

different civil engineer too. So they essentially just carried over the ORAD plan, which didn't include it. So that's why it wasn't on.

Right. So we were trying to find a mechanism. So obviously, like, before they request anything, there is a discussion, which that's why they're here. So with that, there are choices and I've kind of brought this up before with similar situations. And in here is the policy 80 five-four for amended orders.

It talks about like there's three choices that you can make. You can have them request an amended order of conditions to then update the plan and include this as part of the record. You can make them file a new notice of intent if you feel the change is significant or you can have them deal with it under an as built. So at the time of a certificate of compliance, they can show it and go from there. Now in terms of the vernal pool issue, I don't know they're willing to kind of work with the commission.

That's what I've been told. Sometimes rental pools can be replicated. They can be moved because I know that this isolated area is an area that they wanted to put the access road from the cul de sac into Lot 4. So that's why we're talking about this. You could ask them to avoid it and redesign the plans or you could have them

they still have to go to

the Select Board too if you decide that it's okay for them to fill this, they still have to go to the Select Board with the WRPD process. It's not jurisdictional as far as the Wetlands Protection Act because it's not ILSF. I don't know if you want another engineer, we could have the town engineer kind of review that too.

So then why would they have to go to the select board if it's

non jurisdictional? Because under the WRPD, it's still an isolated wetland that if they're going to fill it, work in a 25 foot, they would still have to go to them. Yes, that's where it gets confusing and I wish we had a wetland bylaw, but here we are.

Yes. So we will talk to the slide board separately obviously. And as Tricia said, there is we didn't know about this until we started construction obviously. And so now under construction kind of under the clock and we do that does impact the driveway for the property. So we'd be happy to work with Tricia and there's other areas, large areas of the site that are not being developed at all that do have BBWs on them and other things if we wanted to modify something to sort of come up with something equivalent that doesn't impact construction.

I think there's ample opportunity to do that. But the hope is that we can do it in a way that's sort of administratively efficient just so that we don't have to do a new advertising because it will extend out quite a bit and would be more difficult for construction. So happy to work with you. Just hope that we can find an efficient solution in terms of the paperwork and timing.

Can you put so I can see in this the thing you've got there with the isolated land for Beacon Land, we can see the small view of what you're talking about, but I can't I don't see anything that puts that into context with the overall Lot 4. Yes, we need to know where it is. There's If we go to the other within that same Dropbox, Katie, is that order, the signed and stamped one. Don't think we have anything. We just have the ORAD part, right?

Not the plans of the project. What's the start? Where is it on this?

Would you like me to share my screen?

I'm a co host.

You all You all see my screen?

Yep. Thank you.

So this is the overall campus, West Grove Street to the south, Canopy Drive coming in, Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3. So as you come in to the end of the cul de sac at Canopy Drive, this is the new driveway to Lot 4. So that isolated wetland is, you know, right this location here. I can show you a more zoomed in to here. This is Lot 4.

This is the end of the cul de sac. So right at the end of the cul de sac, the IBW is approximately in this location right here. So we have the new driveway going, you know, between these wetlands. Show that on the next screen. Here, Loesac Driveway to Lot 4. So the IVW is, you know, approximately in this location.

You for that.

So moving it to the right in plan would impact PVW, so we'd hope to avoid that.

I mean, my initial thought is to not disturb what's already there, to move the project, but it's just my initial thought.

Carrie?

I had the same thought, but we can't shift the driveway a little bit over to the right to be closer to the wetland, but

If you shift it

to the right,

you'll impact the BVW. It

would be

Actually gets impacted?

That would be there would be additional impacts under the Wetlands Protection Act if you shift to the right relative to where it is.

Okay. Yeah. Think on this a little bit, Jerry.

Well, right now because I can't see what we're talking about, I can't

prove Is

your tablet not working?

No, I can't find it on here.

I know. Big plan. We've got the ORAD and the isolated land and a small thing. Don't have the

Yeah, I didn't put the

group. That's all. Sorry. No, I don't have bigger file here.

I didn't think to put the notice plan on here. Bart?

So we're thinking of moving this potentially?

We've had like an initial discussion about it. And Tom, I don't know if you have any thoughts on it as well. But my thought at a high level was that we're happy to work with you on coming up with something. There's large areas of the site that are not being developed of that lot. And if there's some modification to whether it's moving those egg species over there or whatever, we can definitely come up with a solution that would I think work for everyone. It's really just figuring out the administrative process and hopefully we can come up with something that's efficient in that respect.

We appreciate you're doing the right thing. You're coming to us. You're the one You're who found coming to us. You're doing all the right things. We really appreciate that. I don't want to In

actuality, there's no protection on that, right?

Right. And we've just discovered that there are species in there. If it was another time of year, we wouldn't see them. We were lucky that it was this time of the year.

Yeah. It's hard to make a decision without knowing what the decision is, in a way. But if you could come up with a I hate to, the only way around that is to say two weeks, I think, say, you know, here's an area where we, here's where we would replicate it, how big would the replication be, and then we would know if that's an amendment we can live with or

Yes, no, absolutely. So Tom Shutz, sorry, there was traffic. I was trying to drive down here as fast as I could to get in front of everybody here.

And I am on time, so I

should I be reviewed the site plan in our delineation, and if we were to move some of the vernal pool species, there's an IVW that's outside of the realm of the development that's fairly large, pretty deep, that all the species could be removed from this vernal pool here and then move to another one before the filling of the wetland, and it's approximately 500 feet away. So they wouldn't be out of the out of the water for long enough for any kind of major impact to them. We did do some review to make sure that that was legal to move the wildlife as well, And it is, in fact, legal if you are moving them between wetlands in the same system to prevent any disease transmission. And because they're 500 feet away, we assume that there's not gonna be major differences between the two pools with the groundwater being similar and then the wetland makeup being assumably similar as well. I don't know if Tricia has talked about it, but there was a lot of garbage in this one as well between TVs and monitors and things like that.

These are hardy animals that are

That's for sure. Yes, that's for sure. And we'd be moving them to one that's further away from one of these paths that were there previously where people were dumping garbage that's more in the undeveloped forest where deep back there where it won't be impacted and where in the future they'd be have opportunity to continue to use that pool as a vernal pool outside of the development space. Because again, we looked at it today, a lot of the area next to the Vernal Pool between the right and the left side is going to be fully developed now with a road and then also potentially a building. So there's not much of an area anymore that's going to be necessarily undisturbed forest space where these species are going be living and habitating.

So the Vernal Pool itself might not even be as populated as it is right now next year with all the current removal of trees out there.

So not really a replication in how we think of replication

in terms

of you make a new site. You're talking about just moving what's there to

Yes. We'd have a team of wildlife biologists go out with a bucket brigade and a bunch of nets and scoop up as much and as many as we can and move them 500 feet to this other isolated wetland and send a report into Tricia if that's what she would like. And we would report back to the commission to confirm our findings and what we moved out of there to confirm that everything that we could move is moved.

Is that what you were thinking, Tricia, versus actually a replication where you're digging something new in existing Right.

If there's something within the same system like they were talking about, I think we could take a look at that, too. I can meet you out there and look at that with the wildlife biologists, if you want to

set Yes, that absolutely. Okay. And they've been on-site before. They've taken a look at this area. So they're well aware of what's happening here today with the animals. I mean, right now is a perfect time to go and do that and review the other potential pools for suitability for that as well. But that's our opinion is this is a nonjurisdictional resource area. It's not isolated in landscape to flooding. It's not a potential vernal pool or a certified vernal pool. So that's why we thought a minor plan change in this case would be appropriate.

It just makes it a little bit more difficult with these animals in there. And that's why we suggested potentially moving them to another area to prevent that from happening.

So are the other pools on the property certified?

No.

Now, would the property owner be willing to do that?

We can talk about that.

Yeah, was thinking that too, Carrie. I'd be more willing to agree to move if the other ones would be certified.

Yeah. And how is the success rate usually with moving species like that?

Don't know. I think it would be my first rodeo of doing that. So I'm not 100% sure, but we would just use the same water from the pool that's currently there, make sure that they're out of the water and then into the bucket for as short a time as possible to move them back and forth. And we've been making frequent trips to make sure that the water is an adequate temperature between the two pools, and then they'd be allowed to sit in the water in the bucket to allow the temperature to adjust before they're added into the other pool if they are moved.

And you'd bring in, like, specialists in vernal pool?

Yeah. Yep. Yeah. We have a team of wildlife biologists at Gauder Consulting. So we have a group of six of them that would be able to do the bucket brigade between the two pools, and they're much more knowledgeable on this than I am. So they deal with this all spring, and then they move into the wildlife stuff for during the fall. So they're more adequately equipped to deal with it.

So if we're I mean, if we're not to waste your time, if we're open to the idea of an amended order of conditions, we can't say tonight because we can't see what it is necessarily. But if we're open to that, then it makes sense to take another meeting to meet with Trish, come up with the actual plan that you're comfortable with, as long as we're open to that. I don't want to make you do that and wait the time if no one here is open to that. Is everyone open to that possibility?

If I can see what I'm looking at and if there's gonna be a site visit, I'd like to go. Okay. I'd like to

Okay.

On it so I know what's going on. You know, I get a little question in my mind like Mhmm. We've got wildlife that's finding its way from to that pool. Yep. What's gonna happen next year when there's no pool?

But the pool isn't protected. It's vernal and not

protected. So

They will go they will find other pools.

Yeah. But

yeah. I mean, if that's been there for, you know, years.

Right. Just because it hasn't hasn't been verified before, certified, I

mean Right.

Doesn't mean that it hasn't been there forever.

Right. Right.

So that you're saying that land around the pool is gonna be developed. So it could be

Correct.

It could

be a building. There's gonna be definitely a road.

Yeah. If you go out there

today there can be a lot of things there, which that's where the the critters that are in there right now, that's where they live when they're not in their infant stages. They salamanders are living in the upland. And so if you move the critters from pool A to pool B and then you're developing around it, it's likely that the critters that get moved are going to have kind of like a herring nose where it was born and it goes back.

But the current population

Right. That

laid the eggs there.

Right. But they're going be displaced anyway.

Have to

defer that to biologists.

The construction.

Okay. But I'm hearing that we are open to the plan. We'd just like to know have a set sort of plan. And I think the idea of being willing to certify the other verticals that we know are there, that you're not touching, that you're moving them to would be a nice balance too. Does that work for you guys? Because I appreciate you're coming forward with this.

Yes, absolutely. And we just want to confirm that this is we're not moving forward with an amendment to the order of conditions, but still staying with the minor plan change that we submitted. So we wouldn't have public hearing for

it. So the choices are so it's not like planning board where we do a minor modification. It's like they have to pick, yes, as built, new notice or have them do an amendment. And the amendment,

we have to advertise and So do another with this, we'd be agreeing to an as built at the end. It's a little harder to have leverage, you've been so I feel like you've been very forthcoming with it.

And do they still have to go to select board? Yeah. Yeah, I'd be okay with a minor change if that's something we can agree on.

So one more meeting with the actual plan with Trish and a site visit.

Could you get some examples of your team that's done this before? Sure.

Yeah, absolutely. Can do you want resumes?

No, I just mean places where they've done it before and it's not really replicated, but they've transferred successfully.

Yes, absolutely. I know that they do these kind of situations. Maybe not this specific situation, but what they do is they, when there's a pool that could be impacted, they'll put a silt fence around it, and they'll have a couple of buckets that get are interior to the silt fence, so the animals will walk around and fall in the buckets. And then when they're trying to leave the pool into a construction area, then they'll be transported out into an undisturbed forested zone. That's not necessarily exactly what's happening here because a lot of them are juvenile and they're still using the water and they're not necessarily out of the water yet hopping around.

But it will be similar in that sense that they'll be moved from one area to another area that's going to be not developed in the future. And hopefully, that they'll stay in that area and not move towards the development that's going to be there in the next couple of months, hopefully.

Yes. I'd just like to see how it's worked in the past, like what town it is, what reports were given a couple of years after.

My concern would be the timing of this whole thing.

Yes, absolutely. I mean we'd be looking

at have

to go to another at least one more meeting with us, then you have to go to a meeting with the Select Board. Where are we at in a month's time with the species that's in that pool.

For sure. And what's good about right now is we have a silt fence around the pool. So anything that's in there is going to stay in there, and they'll just be at the edge of the silt fence. So they can be easily picked up and moved or placed in a bucket and moved as they progress through their life history.

Given that, John, are you suggesting kind of

I want to confirm what the meeting time is. We can't until the meeting meeting time.

Are you suggesting speeding up the process at all? Just Players don't

know how we can.

We can get

it. I'm not suggesting anything, really. I'm just my opinion is that the timing of this is not

good. When

is the next hearing?

Two weeks.

It's the twenty first.

Perfect. Okay. Well, I think that is good. We can get this thing done pretty darn quick.

And I will not be at that because I have to go to a graduation. But I will have notes. We'll try to get everything teed up you

on Let us all know when you're going out on the site.

Yep. Can do that. I can let all of you know. So if any of you want to go. Great.

Thank you very much.

Absolutely.

Thanks for racing over here.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks, Brandon.

Anybody who wasn't here right at the beginning, we have a number of continuations tonight. So, if you're here for items nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fifteen on the agenda, we will not be discussing them tonight at all. Item number two, the request to amend the order of conditions for 7 Winter Street. Bear with me one sec. The Littleboro Conservation Commission will hold a hearing under Mass General Law, Chapter 131, Section 40, the Wetlands Protection Act, for an amended order of conditions to extend the proposed dwelling 12 feet further to the north and to move a portion of garage and drive driveway 15 feet away from the eastern bordering vegetated wetland at 7 Winter Street, Map 16, Lot 5147.

Hearing has been requested by Dennis Welch. Hearing will be held 05/07/2026 at 7PM in the Select Board Meeting Room at the Town Hall 10 Nickerson Ave and Pierre Ramon. Hello. Hey there.

My name is Patty Spinelli. I live this lot is behind me. Okay. Okay? It's

I guess we can go normally, we have the person presenting it talk first, if you don't mind, just to have the might have the question with the engineer, but we'll definitely hear from you. We definitely want to hear from you. It's just to make sure they do their presentation and we're all on the same page. Absolutely. Don't go anywhere. Hi.

You

That's Rich. Rich is from Prime.

Hi. He's muted. You're still muted. If you can turn off your mute.

I'm no longer muted. Perfect. Good evening. So this is an existing order of conditions that is still active. And we're requesting to just amend the order of condition.

The garage shown on this plan is to the of the proposed building. Originally, it was aligned with the main dwelling. So it was tucked up tight against that 50 foot buffer to the wetlands system, third green line. And the driveway was in line with that. So it came down to the south.

And we're requesting to be allowed to move the garage further away from the wetlands and to have the driveway moved further away from the wetlands. The foundation itself is essentially the same. We're adding like a patio front porch on the west side. That's the left side of the building. That's doesn't have a full basement.

That's just slab on grade. And the roof infiltration system, which is just to the north, just above that dwelling, has been relocated slightly naughtily. And so its main purpose is to recharge the wetlands. So moving the infiltration system a little bit closer to wetlands is not considered deleterious. And that's essentially it.

The main driveway coming in from the road is going to be the same. The leaching system from the septic system is going to be the same. And the general grading and retention of walls are going to be the same. That's the end of my presentation.

Okay. And as I recall this, the driveway had been in partially in the 25 foot no touch and you've moved that out of it.

Right.

Krish, anything?

No, I just I've been there a few times obviously. It looks like the top of the foundation is going to be at 104 feet at that elevation. It looks like the existing elevation there is about ninety six, ninety seven. So I guess my question to Rich is, if you're going to obviously have this raised up, you're going to bring material in. There's already material there, but it's going to be raised up, right? Is it going to have a basement?

Yeah, it'd be full basement and there's a cellar drain proposed sort of the middle of the dwelling, you can see a retaining wall. It looks like a stone wall that's heading out. And just south of that is the proposed cellar drain that you can see. So it'll keep the cellar dry and that will just feed the groundwater into the wetlands. And the all the way around this lot, we're going to have a retaining wall basically so that none of the post fill is going to tend to run towards the wetlands.

Yes. So you do have it looks like you have the drain, the cellar drain going to some like riprap, it's like a pipe maybe?

Right. It's four inch diameter PVC pipe that at the very end of it, there would be crushed stones. There's no erosion. But that's not a roof drain that has velocity to it. This is a cellar drain where the water runs 20 fourseven.

So it's just trickle flow that comes out of it. If we have a tremendous rainfall and the water table rises up three inches, then over time this would just drain that elevated water table that's under the cellar and just trickle it towards the wetlands.

Is this like a French drain or is it a sump pump?

It's not a sump pump. The sump pump requires electricity and pumping and it has velocity to it. This is a cellar drain that is just below the concrete slab of the basement. And when the water table rises up to it, the water enters the perforated pipe and the crushed stone and it just slowly seeps out to the east towards the wetlands.

Okay. So you do have work in the 25 foot for that?

Well, it just reaches to the 25 foot.

It's in the 25 foot. It's solidly in the 25 foot.

It's in there. So I just want to point out that you'll have to go to the select board also for approval because you have work in the 25 foot. However, drainage is one of the exemptions, but you still have to go to the select board and show that to them.

Okay.

But it is concerning that you have to even put that in there because I mean the hole that's there, I've been there different times of the year and the hole that was dug always has water in it. Almost up to like the ground elevation, like the top grounds

all year round is going to be water flowing.

Oh, yes.

It's not

going to be

a solid drain in the floor. This is underneath.

Yes, will

as water before it gets into the basement Try to alleviate the pressure buildup. Right. Doesn't sound like the ideal place

to put a full basement.

No.

Yeah. So I yeah. I just wanted to point those things out.

But this is that this is already an approved It is. This is already an approved plan. Right. We're only so if we say no tonight to the amendment, they can go back to the prior plan, which puts the driveway in the 25. You're in a tough spot. So you can say no to tonight, but there's still a plan that can be built.

Right.

So no. And does that have to be well, you'd have another meeting, you probably don't want to do this. But can't that drainage not be in the 25 foot? Can't the drainage be somewhere else?

You want it to drain to gravity. You want it to drain to daylight. So it just flows naturally. You can't put water into water. So if we stopped it short, it would be into the water table. So that would back up water into basement. And you don't want a sump pump because then it's pumping with velocity and you don't want the erosive velocity. You want just twenty four hours, seven days a week trickle flow. It's just a it'd be almost imperceptible flow.

Anything else, Trish? That's it. John?

I don't have anything. Diane?

Can you just build the house without the basement? You build on a slab?

No. The order of conditions that we have allows us to build a full basement.

I understand that, but you're saying now that it's going be flooded immediately. It sounds like a bad idea.

No, no. Whoever buying it, I'm assuming they're going

to do their due diligence and read these meeting minutes before they buy it.

When they dug the foundation hole, the the surface of the soil was sort of slimed by by silty by silty soil. And so it's holding the water. The maximum water table that we found when we were doing the leaching field was lower than that. So we can pump the water out of the basement, not into the wetlands, but pump it out to the upland and get it so that the foundation can be poured in this sub slab drain will keep it dry from then on.

That's the only comment I have. Okay. Carrie?

So I just wanted to go over the water elevation is 94. The top of foundation is gonna be a 104. So if you had an eight foot foundation, that's, what, 96 to the bottom. So you're about two feet over the water table. So he is over it, and he's not in the water table. So But that would probably be a good reason to have that drainage pipe there. As a backup. Yeah.

Jerry?

I'm trying to figure out what's

in the bottom here that protrudes into the 25 That's foot

the red line.

Yeah, that red line that goes where?

At the bottom of the red line.

Near the end of the driveway?

What? This This here. Thingy?

This. Line.

What does the red line represent?

I think that's a silt fence. Oh. That

That's just a silt fence.

At the bottom

That's the riprap. So that's gonna be where the drainage ends.

So in the 25 foot buffer?

Yes. But that's an exemption from No questions. Bart?

No questions.

And Adam's not on. Just have one more thing. So I'm looking at the plan, and they have an example for the signs, the conservation signs. First of all, it's not a 25 foot buffer, it's a 25 foot no touch under the select boards WRPD bylaw and we have other wording for that. We have a free sign for you Rich after this. Okay,

sure. We have no problem using our signs.

Okay. Any comments from the public?

First of all, my lot is that funny looking lot right next to his property. Uh-huh. This zig you know, the pointed one?

You have one in between?

Yes. Okay. Okay. And our well is right by the driveway. And I wanted to see where they were putting the septic system.

Can you show

me? The shaded rectangular area. Kari's going point it out on the front.

And the driveway as well. Okay. And where is my land right there?

It's easy to see your driveway to the right of this main drawing. There's a smaller scale drawing to to the right of of what's being projected. And the shaded driveway is coming in the furthest away from your property, sort of hugging that southern property line.

Can you see where my well is? I just wanna make sure my well is not gonna be affected. I

don't

Okay. Look on the left side, just above the red line Trish just

went over there and pointed it out, Rich. Trish walked over and pointed to that point. Got it.

Right. So there's a well and there's a 100 foot distance and you can see the proposed septic system.

It doesn't have to be a 150 feet distance. That's what the Board of Health told

I would have to check with the health department. I called them.

Okay. You told me a 100 feet, but then the Board of Health told me a 150 for Middleborough.

Oh. Was this already approved by the Board of Health?

Yeah. I would think so, but my

key hasn't heard from them.

Two. Okay.

So, what's the perk timing on this?

It'd

And this this was originally approved back in

'22? 2021. Yeah.

The soil data is from 2015.

Yeah. From the PERC test. I don't know how it burnt. There was literally three feet of water there today. And we're having a drought. At times, it's six feet of water.

Do you know that, Rich? Do you know what the perk rate was?

No, it must be shown on this plan. I don't have the plan in front

of me.

Says for test pit 101, it says one inch in five minutes.

Five minutes.

Tested 103 says one inch in thirty minutes.

So is the septic going to be able to drain if the land is that wet?

Yeah. Leaching field is higher than the water table, the maximum seasonally high water table, and we we are staying four feet above that level.

But right now, it's a drought. Correct? And there's three feet of

Well, we're not an official drought. It's not it's

Yeah. Not right now. They had new maps that came out. The Cape is and then, like, north not Southeastern Mass, But we have been. But not anymore. Right.

Any other questions? I just

want to make sure my well is not going to be affected by the driveway or the septic. You

saw where it was on Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. You for coming. Any other comments or questions from the public? Sure. Alright. Anything else? Any other questions or comments from the commission? So we had extended it for a

year at the last meeting.

Is that

what it was?

So I'm a little concerned of how old the soil data is on this. And if it's one inch in thirty minutes,

where is

That's where the septic's going, Test Pit 103. It seems like a slow

perk. Well, I thought the perks were only good for two years, you know? They can be renewed

a little better.

For ten years?

But we're in a little bit of a pinch then because, again, we can say no tonight based on that. But they have an approved plan with an extension for not this plan, but this is the amended plan. They have an approved plan from before that they can do. So

This would fall under the Board of Health anyways if they needed new perks.

Right.

Right.

So the question tonight is, we don't have the option to say no to this amendment. We don't really have the option to say no to the building. So the question at hand is to approve the amendment or not. So it's still a hearing, so we have to close the hearing, right? Yes. Do I have a motion to close the hearing?

I have a question for

you. Okay.

This is still gonna go before the select board?

You will have to go before the select board about that drainage area, not about the whole plan, but about that putting that riprap drainage in the 25 foot, yes.

We have to pull it back a few feet.

Or not do it.

No, we would still do it, but we would just have it a few feet shorter. If the suspect denied it, we would just have it a little shorter.

Which is a plan change.

Okay.

Do I have a motion to close the hearing?

So is that change gonna be made then? That it's

I know, that's what I'm I don't

really wanna approve or disprove this and then we're gonna have to

Very fair.

Do an as built.

Rich, are you saying you're definitely going to move that drainage point out of the 25 foot?

If the selectmen deny us, yeah, we would just not make the pipe quite as long.

But you're going to go with this plan to the select board, and the only question is if they approve it or not. Not that you're not going to change the plan so that you don't have to go.

No. We would go to the select board and get the approval. I I You wouldn't have us have a new hearing to make the solar drain further away from the wetlands, would you?

No. We could continue this amendment request.

Oh, no. I don't want to continue. This has gone too long. I'd I'd like this plan approved as it is.

Yeah. This wasn't I don't remember this part of the plan being on when we decided to do the amended order, this drainage area was not on the plan that we were shown for this potential amendment. So we would've we would've brought this up about the 25 foot before we said yes to hearing an amended order of conditions. This is new.

It was on there. Is it? Mhmm. Hold

on. I guess here's

the thing, right? So, if you are keeping this plan and we vote on it and you go to the select board and they say no and then you change the plan, I don't wanna see it back after it's built and you're asking for us to approve an as built plan instead of an amended plan.

Okay, that's fair enough.

So we could leave it open while you go to the select board.

No. I just don't have this plan approved.

Honestly that probably is a time saver for you in the end versus us.

He's going to have to you have to advertise for two weeks to go to the select board.

And you have to go to the select board. I don't think that's a bad idea, Diane. But will the select board want to hear it that way? They usually want to hear our decision before they look at it.

Yeah, like usually when somebody submits a select board, they already have an order of conditions from us and they put that as part of their package to them.

So I get you don't wanna, like, slow things down, but this plan was approved years and years ago. You're you're in the we've granted you an extension. So I I don't think it's really, you know

I have one question about the septic. If to come you up to the podium because it's recorded. Sorry. State your name again.

Question the 150 feet from the well for the septic. Is it over 150 feet?

That's Port of Health, though. We don't I don't remember that one. On the

map, no.

But we usually do have an approved septic, that's another thing.

Rich, do

you know if the septic is actually 150 feet away from her well? I mean, you're showing the 100 feet away from her well, but do you know the measurement? Is it actually 150?

I believe it is 150, but if it

is

not, then we would have to just slightly modify the leaching field so it was 150 feet. That's not a problem.

Well, it might be a problem for me.

It doesn't look a 150 on the plan, so

I

mean, I can see the 100 foot setback, but it doesn't look like another 50 feet

to

the

Corner of

leaching field. Yeah.

I agree.

That's because it's based on the thirty minutes bridge, the design.

Which would require a 150 feet, There you go. Thank you.

And it is more than 100 feet away.

Yes, it is.

He is an engineer as well who's answering for us. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Anything else?

This one got tricky.

Our first

step is to close the hearing for comments so we can move on and then decide what to do. We can still discuss after we close the hearing, but we're closing comments from people. So do I have a motion to close the hearing?

So moved.

Motion by John, second by Second. By Jerry. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Now discussion on what to do from here.

I think I think the plan is a messy plan. It sounds like I mean, I guess, you know, in terms of our board, would would we wanna see that drainage out of the 25 foot? Because I think the select board is gonna ask us that.

I don't think that is really the biggest concern here. Right. But that's

what I'm saying. So I feel like if we're concerned about that Yeah. The select board is probably gonna be concerned about approve it,

the select board is probably going to be okay, they're okay with it.

It

Right. Right. Right.

It's an exemption. You can have drainage in the 20 foot. So

And then, I mean, with the 100 versus 150 feet from the neighbor as well. I'm guessing that the neighbor is going to go to the health department and ask some questions about that. I don't know what that process is. Maybe nothing, maybe it's no process at all, maybe it's fine. But is that another potential plan change in the future?

Well, then they'd have to come back for another amendment. Right. If it's in our jurisdiction, if it's in the 100 feet, you know? Right.

Okay. So, does that mean you have a motion?

No, I don't have a motion, but just some comments.

No, it's true. That's a fair point. Going to select board is going to that's why delaying it sounds good for select board because then we do get to this problem of amending the plans again, but they're going to be looking for guidance from us. Right. Mhmm. And I mean, how does everyone else feel about that? Is that drainage, since it's an exemption, everyone is comfortable with that drainage or not?

I don't have an issue with the drainage. I

don't like the idea of us approving something that the select board will then think that we're encouraging or okay with dumping into the 25 foot zone.

It is an exemption.

But

It's allowed. But.

I mean, it has the rip racks, so it's going through that.

And Is

that a best practice

for us to

Does it have have

the close to having it at the 25 foot?

Well, usually

or further away?

You can have drainage that's closer to, within the 25 foot because that water has to get back to the wetland. The whole idea is to capture that drainage and then slowly release it eventually to go back, but not direct discharge. It's supposed to have the riprap and stone.

This is going to be a constant flow, though. This is not going to be just like seasonal or whatever. This is going to be year round that you're going to have constant flow

So coming out of

it's also a perforated pipe underground. So some of the water will go out through the pipe as it comes through. It'll go into the ground through the pipe. And then you have the end of the pipe that will go out to the stone area. So some of the velocity, you know, it might not be, like you were saying, like a roof drain. That's gonna be a faster velocity because it's capturing the whole roof, an impervious surface. But, yeah.

Bart, you had a question? Or comments?

I was similar to what, Trish was saying. But, so we're actually moving the garage and the driveway further away.

Making the house bigger. Yes.

From 25 foot. But we're moving it further away. So Does that's good

that mean you have a motion?

To Carrie's point, it's bigger, right? So it's creating more water. I don't know. Is it really further away if it's bigger and it's only a tiny bit further away?

Actually, no, because we closed the hearing. Sorry.

Alright. Well, do I have

a motion? We have to vote on something. Do I have a motion to approve the amended order of conditions for 7 Winter Street?

So moved.

Motion by Bart.

Second.

Second by John. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Nay. Nay. Opposed? Nay. Sorry, we had. Was Jerry nay?

Yes.

Jerry nay, Carrie nay, Diane nay, John, Nancy, Bart.

Yes. But Diane was nay

too. So the motion doesn't pass. So the motion did not pass. Alright. Which is awkward.

Well, why I said we should have had them apply for a new Well, can. They can. Yeah.

Okay. This is why it's good to have an odd number here. Yes. Very true. I think the chair can break the tie. I don't know. Voted. Yeah, you did. So maybe not.

Yeah, think sometimes the chair doesn't vote and they'll just But break the

yeah, they would have tied it up. Since we were split, Rich, we the it did not pass.

Okay. So we just moved the driveway back closer to the wetlands and the garage back closer to wetlands.

That's the consequences we go back to the Yeah.

Well, we just greater impact on wetlands and we'll just you have to remember that when this gets built. I

just know just he wasn't like I was making sure he understood what our that we voted and that it didn't pass since he's the applicant. I just wanted him to know that we voted, it did not pass. Can

I ask a question? Well, it's closed. Well, you can't.

Why wouldn't a commission be allowed to ask a question?

The hearing had closed.

Right. So you can't change the vote, but they can speak.

Debbie, we couldn't take comment or We're

not taking any more information after the hearing. Yeah.

After we close the hearing before we vote, we don't take any more outside comment either from you or anybody else, and then we deliberate and vote. So we made the we asked for any more questions before we closed the hearing. And there were none, so we closed the hearing.

Right. Yeah. I agree. I

think the resident wanted just wanted to know if the driveway was closer or not to her house.

No. The driveway is gonna be closer to the wetlands, not your house.

Next on the agenda is item number three, the notice of intent for 4 Captain Hall Road. While we're signing, I can at least read the notice. The Middleborough Conservation Commission will hold a hearing under Mass General Law, chapter 131, section 40, the Wetlands Protection Act, for the construction of a 24 foot by 24 foot garage within 100 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland at 4 Captain Hall Road, Map 063, Lot 5336. Here, you've been requested by Ariel Devon and Gregory Bitsinis. Hearing will be held 05/07/2026 at 07:15 in the Select Board Meeting Room at the Town Hall, 10 Nickerson Avenue, remote.

Before we I hate to vote. No. I'm just going vote some things in. I don't want to do other siding. 2026?

So moved.

Motion by Jerry Bart? Bart. Bart. Second by Diane. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Sonday. Aye.

How are we doing?

Okay.

Darren McHale is here on behalf of the property owner. So the reason for the revision was the GIS mapping shows a lot of perennial streams in this area, including Rocky Meadow Brook, and shows this area as being part of the riverfront area. In actuality, Captain Hall Road crosses the bog area where the river was actually shown in the map. When they created this entire subdivision, there was no riverfront on the original filings. The river is actually out behind the property towards Purchase Street.

So that's why I revised the NOI to remove the riverfront impact. But we still are within 100 feet of the existing bog with the proposed garage. We also have a small isolated wetland that's protected by the WRPD, so we're showing our distance from that also. Stay outside the 25 foot no touch. There is a shed right on the 25 foot no touch existing. It's one of those plastic sheds. If it needs to be moved, we could definitely move it. But it has been there for a number of years now. There won't be much excavation other than for the footing. Basically, half the back wall is showing on the garage.

There's no room to grade it. That's how the existing house is. It's got a doghouse walkout. We have about four feet of foundation showing on the back of the house. And other than that, just some minor grading up near the driveway.

So under the DEP comments, I don't know if you want to read them. But I did look at some of this information based on the comments. And I talked with Whitney McCleese from DEP, I think it was yesterday. So she pointed out that there was a wetland change on that MassMapper program. And I looked at it and I went back to the 2006 plans for the subdivision.

And there is an isolated wetland there, but it was delineated and it's not the same shape as what they're showing on the mass mapper. So I think the mass mapper wetland change is incorrect, honestly. I don't think that that isolated wetland was ever altered. The other thing I wanted to point out was about the perennial stream. So Whitney still feels that even though I had pointed out, I have a screenshot of the USGS map and I highlighted where the Rocky Meadow Brook is. It is further to I'm trying to think, it's further to the West.

Yes, Southwest.

Southwest. She thinks that the stream that goes to the bog is a perennial stream because it's showing a solid blue line. But if you look, all the bog dikes, ditches are solid blue lines also. So I don't agree with that. So I don't think there's a 200 foot riverfront area there.

I don't know if she still wants Darren to demonstrate under the performance standards about the status of the stream. So I don't know if she was looking for the four days of observation that it's dry, da da da da. But I'm just telling you, from my professional opinion, that it's not a perennial stream in that location. And also, when that subdivision road was put in, they didn't do, like per the stream crossing, they did a I think it's like a corrugated plastic

12 inches

pipe. Pipe. So it's not like a span or a bridge like it would be for a stream. It's for a bog ditch.

Yeah. Basically, where you see the pond with the 103 in it, there's a blue line that comes down and runs along Purchase Street and then joins into Rocky Meadow. That's all bogs the entire way. And we have a crossing in between with concrete weir with a 12 inches pipe that only feeds the other side. So obviously, the first day, that side was dry and then someone pulled the board, so now that side has water.

So you could do the four day test by putting boards in and then you have to do four day test. So it seems a little silly.

And another thing to think about that is where it wasn't called Riverfront originally, now if we call that Riverfront, you were impacting the homeowner saying, well, now you worked in the Riverfront without a permit, so now you're going be penalized and have to replicate. And it's really a bog that they're abutting. They're not abutting the actual river flow. So this is a minimal impact, I feel. As far as the project, we're not doing any grading, minimal excavation, just adjoining the garage right to the house.

They have just so you know, we have had a case where DEP has proactively protested our decision in the positive our decision was positive, and they proactively came after it anyway. So if she does disagree, I do that.

They could intervene, but I think she basically said to me, it's up to the commission. Okay.

And I provided pictures of both sides of the wall with the pipe and the weir. And one day it's dry, the next day it's not.

Anything else, Trish? Do you want me to read those into the record?

Yeah, sure.

One sip of water and a minute. These are the comments from the DEP when they issued the file number. Although a file number is being issued, please note the following. Conservation Commission, the Mass DEP Wetland Change database indicates there is a wetland change on a portion of the project site, map 63, lot 50 Three-thirty 6, dash WC3A dash one eighty hundred two dash 36. Please investigate the status of this wetland change and whether it is authorized by a local order of conditions.

The wetland changes are available for review on Mass GIS or Mass Mapper. The most current USGS map, which gives a web address, all shows a perennial stream located within 200 feet of the subject property. Please investigate the status of the stream per three ton CMR 10.58. If the stream that runs through the Cranberry Bog is considered perennial, demonstrate compliance with three ton CMR 10.585. Additional information should be provided to the Conservation Commission in the manner they require, as well as MassDEP. So those are the comments. Any questions or comments, John?

Diane? So Trisha, were saying that the change on like the change map in purple, I guess, like from 'eight to 'nine that extends it. That You don't think that's correct?

I don't think that's correct because the subdivision plans from 2006 and that was a different shape.

Yes. And I scan those plans into mine after I locate my flags to complete the wetlands. So it's the same shape of what was flagged then.

Yeah. I found that that wetland change is not consistent. I mean, there are wetland changes, and this program does not pick up on it.

I have two. It's just

going by aerial photos, right?

Right. That's all that's analyzed years ago when they started this program. I think they had interns doing it. And then they also didn't do any ground sleuthing. I don't I think it was all desktop analysis. Yeah.

All different things. Right.

You know, some of the wetland changes because, yeah, there was maybe a wetland crossing because they got an order of conditions to do that. But they're yet they're still showing it. Any

questions or comments? No. Gary? No. Bart?

No questions.

Any questions or comments from the public? Do I have a motion to close the hearing?

So moved.

Motion by Diane. Second. Second by Bart. Any discussion to close the hearing?

Hold on, I got another question. Are you showing silk fence anywhere on here? Oh, I see it now. Forget

it. No worries.

That's okay. We had a motion and a second to close the hearing. Any other discussion? All in favor? Aye. I do feel like we have been pretty consistent with people of moving sheds and things out of the '25 foot. So I know it's a minor shed thing, but consistent. I feel like we have

Yeah, we can do that.

So do I have a motion to approve the NOI for 4 Captain Hall Road with a special condition to move the existing shed outside of the 25 foot no touch zone?

So moved.

Motion by Bart. Second. Second by Diane. Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Thank you

very much.

Thank you. Item number four, the notice of intent for 6 Spencer Street is next. The overall conservation commission will hold a hearing of the national law chapter one thirty one secondtion 40. The Wetlands Protection Act for the construction of a 970 square foot storage shed, modify a small portion of the existing parking and circulation area, and to relocate an existing memorial area of 590 square feet within 100 feet of bordering vegetated wetland at 6 Spencer Street, and at 58 D, Lot 1565. Hearing has been requested by Julie Mather, Midorah Housing Authority.

Hearing will be held 05/07/2026, 07:30PM in the special meeting room at the town hall, 10 Nickerson Avenue, a remote. Before we start, do I have a motion to vote into the record revised WPA form three page three of nine? So moved. Motion by Diane.

Second.

Second by Jerry. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Do I have a motion to vote into the record, the wetland summary letter from Lucas Environmental dated ninethirtytwentytwenty five? So moved. Motion by Diane.

Second.

Second by Jerry. All in favor.

Aye. Aye.

Do I have a motion to vote into the record the RFA alternative analysis dated 05/05/2026? So moved. Motion by Diane.

Second.

Second by Jerry. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. CEP has comments which you can read after if you want to talk first.

So I appreciate everyone's time tonight. My name is Megan Bruckman. I'm the civil engineer associated with the project with CEC. I'm also joined by my colleague Justin from TBA Architects. He did the architectural design on the proposed shed that we have shown on there.

As was mentioned, we're also proposing relocating an existing memorial that was previously in the center of a roundabout. And then we're just reallocating some existing impervious space and adding a little bit more impervious area to have a more efficient parking layout that generates 12 new spaces for the residents of the residential community at the Middleborough Housing Authority property. Some of that work is within the riverfront area. We're not proposing any work within the 25 foot no touch. And that's about everything.

Okay. DEP comments. Although a file number is being issued, please note the following. The stormwater report must include the stormwater checklist completed and stamped by a registered professional engineer. Please provide the conservation commission and the department a copy of the stormwater checklist. For the general instructions for NOIs referenced in three ten CMR 10.054 A, a narrative and supporting documentation describing how the project will meet all performance standards for each of the resource areas altered, including standards requiring consideration of alternative project design or location, is required for NOIs proposing work in the areas subject to protection. Demonstrate compliance with three ten CMR ten fifty eight 5A through H.

So the alternatives analysis was provided, but I don't believe you can amend the DEP filing. But if you can, I can update that with what was provided to the commission? We're not disturbing an acre, so we hadn't provided the typical like CGP stamp. We're only disturbing 0.19 acres associated with the project, and that is portions that are outside buffer or RFA. It's pretty negligible impact.

But I can confirm because we did provide stamped stormwater report to them and we are meeting the recharging water quality volume requirements associated with the modest amount of new impervious area. As a result of the project, we will be recharging the clean roof runoff associated with the shed roof. And that generates more than the required recharge volume as well as more than the required water quality volume.

Yeah, so Megan and I kind of went back and forth a little bit on the Riverfront analysis, some of the calculations. Thank you for I did see that this afternoon. No problem. So thank you for that. And that should also be in Dropbox. I was just kind of reviewing that alternatives analysis. So the reason for that is because they do have work proposed in that area, which is considered a resource area. It's not a buffer zone. So that's required even though the lot is prior to the Rivers Protection Act in 'ninety six. We still need that.

And so they go through kind of the scenarios that they could have chosen besides what is being presented.

Actually it was a very thorough Yeah. I appreciate that because we're just like, well, we couldn't build the house we wanted to. So there's no alternative. So I appreciate that.

But yeah, it was pretty thoughtful in the reasons why you chose this proposal over something else. Obviously, of property is already within the Riverfront area. So I think and it's under the 10% impact. So that would be the existing degraded area along with the proposed air impact areas. As long as you're under 10%, you don't have to do mitigation and or restoration under redevelopment. So that's why we go through all that exercise.

That's it. Any questions or comments, John? No. Diane? No. Carrie?

No, I don't have any.

No. Carrie? Nope. Bart? Nope. Any questions or comments from the public? We'll be online. Okay. Do I have a motion to close the hearing?

So moved. Second. Yeah.

Motion by Jerry, second by Diane. All in favor?

Aye. Do

I have a motion to approve the notice of intent for 6 Spencer Street with a standard order of conditions?

So moved.

Second. Motion by Diane, second by John. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you

so much. All right, we'll let you know when that's typed and ready to be picked up.

And just to reiterate, if there's anybody new here, we will not be discussing items nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fifteen on the agenda. They're going to be continued. No? So next up on the agenda is item number 5480 Wareham Street. The Middleborough Conservation Commission will hold a hearing under Mass General Law, Chapter 131, Section 40, the Wetlands Protection Act for the construction of a commercial development of a container park within 100 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland at 480 Wareham Street, Map 87, Lot 6463.

Hearing has been requested by Tim Haslam, Lex Development LLC. Hearing will be held 05/07/2026 at 07:45PM in the Select Board Meeting Room at the Town Hall, 10 Nickerson Avenue, D. R. And vote. And before we get to vote some things in before we get get to you and just waiting for something.

There was a note on

this just about additional funds.

Additional funds?

It was for that the other building that's in the buffer zone?

Oh, yeah. That's correct. I'm sorry. Well, it's my fault, too. I didn't tell you to bring it to us. Okay.

Katie writes it down, I'm going to

say it.

Yes, yes.

We just can't give

you anything until we get that.

Yeah. Yeah.

So do I have a motion to vote into the record revised site plans dated 05/06/2026?

So moved.

Motion by Bart? Second. Second by Diane. All in favor? Aye. Do I have

a motion

to vote into the record the narrative to accompany the NOI dated 05/06/2026?