The most notable discussion centered around the ongoing issues at Smelt Brook, particularly concerning erosion control measures and stormwater management. Persistent violations, first noted on September 25th, had not been resolved, raising questions about whether existing erosion controls were adequate or had been removed without replacement. The commission discussed the potential appointment of an environmental monitor to oversee the site and ensure compliance. This monitor would assess site conditions, provide recommendations, and hold the property owner accountable for maintaining sediment control measures.

There were instances of improperly stored stockpiles and a portable toilet placed too close to the road, which contributed to sediment issues. The suggestion to use wood chips to stabilize disturbed areas was debated, though its feasibility remained uncertain. The dialogue highlighted the need for a more robust approach to address the complex erosion challenges, with an emphasis on aligning the project with original compliance conditions to avoid enforcement actions.

Contributing to the conversation, a representative from Royson Properties LLC expressed support for collaborating on a condition for an environmental monitor. The commission was reminded of the two-year statute of limitations for violations.

Another topic was the selection of Bills and Thomas as consultants for a peer review of an application involving a $5,100 fee. Despite initial hesitation, the commission unanimously voted to proceed with this firm, citing their satisfactory performance on past projects. This decision followed a recommendation from a commission member who expressed confidence in the firm’s capabilities, noting the absence of any conflict of interest due to the company’s size and frequent representation of applicants.

The meeting also tackled the notice of intent (NOI) for a proposed construction project on Rocky Nook Avenue. The application involved the removal of an existing deck and the construction of a new deck and addition within a 100-foot buffer zone to coastal wetland resource areas. Members scrutinized the project’s impact on drainage and water management, particularly given the proximity to shellfish growing areas and declining eelgrass beds. The commission emphasized the importance of ensuring that construction practices do not violate performance standards and agreed on the necessity of special conditions for the project, including maintaining minimum spacing between deck boards to ensure permeability.

Further discussions addressed the proposed amendment to an order of conditions for a stormwater management project at Smill Brook. A peer review had raised concerns about compliance with Riverfront Area standards and the effectiveness of the proposed rain garden as a mitigation measure. The peer review suggested that additional native plantings could mitigate habitat loss, but highlighted the project’s failure to prevent sediment issues affecting catch basins and the river. The commission expressed skepticism about the long-term effectiveness of the proposed solutions and emphasized the need for comprehensive engineering approaches to prevent contamination and flooding.

The commission also considered a project on Whopping Road, which involved demolishing an existing house and cesspools, followed by new construction within regulatory buffers of wetlands and riverfront areas. The proposal included a new septic system using alternative technology, which raised concerns about its environmental impact given the proximity to saturated soils. Members emphasized the need for further information and potentially exploring alternative systems that could mitigate groundwater contamination risks.