The primary agenda item was a public hearing regarding a Notice of Intent submitted by New England Power Company for the expansion of an existing power substation at zero Bishop Road and zero Park Street. Representatives from BC Group, Brian Wentworth and Lindsay Carle, presented the project, which involves substantial upgrades to the electrical substation. These upgrades include the construction of a 13 KV substation yard, a new control building, transformers, and capacitor banks. The project necessitates filling approximately 3,500 square feet of wetlands along the northeastern side of the site. To mitigate this impact, a wetland replication area of about 7,000 square feet will be created, meeting the local bylaw requirements for a 2:1 ratio of wetland replication.

The project also includes the removal of several mature pine trees outside the buffer zone and the addition of a second entrance to the substation from Bishop Road. This entrance is intended to facilitate access for mobile substation equipment, crucial for maintaining power during planned or emergency outages. The site’s location within a 100-year flood zone has prompted careful planning to incorporate compensatory flood storage measures.

Commissioners raised several questions about the details of the project, particularly focusing on the wetland fill and replication figures. Vice Chair Mark Phillips noted a discrepancy in the submitted documentation, questioning the relationship between the 3,500 square feet of wetland fill and the 7,000 square feet of replication. He referenced section 2.1 of the Notice of Intent, which mentioned compensatory flood storage to mitigate upstream and downstream impacts. The BC Group representatives clarified that the replication area and flood storage were addressed separately in their plans and offered to double-check the numbers for accuracy.

The discussion also reviewed an environmental resources map, which provided visual delineations of the wetland and flood zone areas. There were brief off-topic comments about mosquito spraying, but the focus quickly returned to the project. The representatives confirmed that the revised plans had addressed comments from the planning board, and they were preparing a response letter to clarify any outstanding issues. The meeting continued with further discussions.

Another topic was a blocked culvert, identified as possibly being an intermittent stream, with a headwall requiring clearing. The Department of Public Works (DPW) had previously raised concerns about this issue. The representative explained that New England Power is hesitant to take on maintenance due to liability concerns related to the infrastructure’s age. The current stance is that the town is responsible for cleaning the culvert, as it extends under Bishop Road and onto private property, including nearby industrial sites.

The conversation then shifted to concerns about a replication area and compensatory flood storage involving tree removal to facilitate new plantings. There was apprehension about removing trees, especially since the area contains both valuable native species and invasive plants. The invasive species mentioned included grapevine, buckthorn, and bittersweet. Around 20 trees are slated for removal, with a mix of native and invasive species present. Field staff observed that while some native species like Arrowwood and red maple shrubs exist, invasive species dominate the landscape.

A plan for the area included a healthy planting initiative, with the expectation that the area would recover quickly post-removal of invasives. A member sought clarification on a map referenced during the discussion, associated with a floodplain assessment. The Commission members agreed on the necessity of conducting a site walk to evaluate the area further. They proposed a date for this site walk, initially considering a Saturday but ultimately settling on a later date in the month. The site visit aims to provide an opportunity for all members to observe the conditions firsthand before the subsequent meeting.

Further, the conversation addressed scheduling concerns regarding the site walk. There was a suggestion to conduct the walk on the 21st of September at 9 AM, which was deemed acceptable. The members acknowledged the need for coordination, especially since one member would be returning from an absence shortly before the site walk. There was a sense of urgency to close out discussions on the matter by the end of September.

Lastly, there was an inquiry about the timeline for receiving necessary numbers from the relevant authorities, which had been taking longer than anticipated due to submission errors. A motion was made to continue the public hearing regarding the notice of intent for the property at zero Bishop Road and zero Park Street until the next meeting on September 26th. This motion was seconded and unanimously approved.