The most notable issue involved the Notice of Intent for a property on Canton Avenue, where plans to raise an existing dwelling and construct a new single-family house, including a septic system and lawn, within 100 feet of a wetland resource, were discussed in detail. Craig Sanowski of Rim Engineering represented the applicant, noting that the existing house, built in 1940, sat on a lot with a variance for lot frontage, measuring roughly 108 feet instead of the required 150 feet.

Sanowski described the property, emphasizing that most of it consisted of wetlands, with a bordering vegetated wetland across the street to the south. He detailed the proposed new house’s dimensions and the placement of a two-car garage. The application included plans for a new septic system, as the town lacked records of the original system, likely an old cesspool that would be abandoned. Groundwater testing down to 10 feet showed no issues, and two dry wells for roof water management were proposed.

Concerns arose about the removal of large pine trees from neighboring property. John Thomas, the Commission’s Director, highlighted the necessity of obtaining the neighbor’s signature for tree removal on adjacent property to define the limit of work. He advised focusing on the applicant’s own property to expedite the process.

It was confirmed that the trees on the neighboring property would not be removed, as a property owner participating in the meeting stated, “We’ve talked to the owners with the other Tall Pine trees and we’re not going to remove those.” The Commission reviewed a letter from an abutting property owner expressing a preference for the trees to remain, underscoring community concerns about the environmental impact of tree removal. The Commission agreed to remove the tree removal from the plan and noted the need for an updated plan to reflect this change.

The hearing for a property on Canton Avenue was closed following a motion and roll call vote, with the necessary adjustments to the plan. The next hearing involved 171 West Main Street, but connectivity issues briefly interrupted the presentation, delaying the discussion of the significant number of parcels totaling approximately 1,395 acres.

Another topic was the discussion surrounding the mapping and delineation of wetlands on a 139.5-acre parcel. The conversation included references to FEMA flood zones and previously confirmed single-family home approvals within the area. The potential existence of vernal pools was raised as a issue, with concerns that some wetland delineations were conducted outside the vernal pool season, potentially affecting the accuracy of findings.

A participant insisted on using updated data from the Mass Mapper to ensure accurate representation of potential vernal pools. The importance of treating potential vernal pools with care was emphasized, asserting that any potential pool should be treated as certifiable until proven otherwise. The Commission’s agent, referred to as John, was tasked with conducting a site visit, with discussions about whether assistance or transect data would be needed.

The review of flagged resource areas related to a project revealed confusion regarding the classification of various resource areas, particularly flooding zones. The site fell within Zone X, a minimal flood zone with no regulated floodplain. The need for accurate calculations and the inclusion of isolated land subject to flooding in the ANRAD process was stressed.

The next agenda item involved a new public hearing for a 30,000 square foot industrial building at Zero Hill Street. Tom Schutz from God Consulting presented the project, focusing on stormwater management and the impact on buffer zones. The presentation highlighted efforts to minimize environmental impact, particularly concerning a certified vernal pool on the site. The design included stormwater management systems to retain water on-site and prevent runoff.

During the discourse, concerns about potential pollutants from truck traffic and snow storage on the site were raised. The need for a detailed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was emphasized due to the scale of the development. The Commission also discussed the management of materials stored on-site and the necessity for secondary containment measures for fuel storage tanks.

A resident raised concerns about ongoing developments on Hill Street, recalling the presence of otter families and urging the Commission to closely examine the situation. A representative from the development project assured that the site did not have any estimated or rare wildlife habitats and would maintain a buffer zone from all wetland resources.

The meeting also addressed requests for certificates of compliance, with discussions on improvements and conditions for stormwater management at various sites, including 61 Main Street and a single-family home. The Commission granted a three-year extension for a property on Somerset Street due to ongoing litigation.