In a key decision, the commission unanimously granted a certificate of compliance for Eversource’s Carver to Kingston reliability project, identified as file number SE037-0920. The discussion centered on the verification of pole locations and compliance with environmental regulations. Matt, a participant in the meeting, referenced a letter from the survey manager at VHB, confirming that pole locations were within ten feet of proposed sites and had not caused additional environmental impacts. Peter Defusco, a senior environmental specialist from Eversource, assured the commission of the project’s adherence to design specifications and regulatory orders. Despite these assurances, there were calls for stronger language in compliance documents. Ultimately, the commission found the project satisfactory, passing the motion without public objection.

The commission also engaged in discussions regarding a request for a determination of applicability for a construction project at Two Wildwood Circle. The applicant requested a continuance, prompting Matt to propose a new review date of May 28, 2025, which the commission accepted. Another project at Map 48 Lot 16 on Howland’s Lane, filed by the Pilgrim John Howland Society, sought to preserve an archaeological site. The commission debated the environmental implications of using plastic sheeting for artifact protection and the presence of invasive species. Members expressed concern over the ecological impact of leaving plastic in situ, advocating for its removal to prevent river pollution. The commission also reviewed landscaping plans for a nearby archaeological site, stressing the importance of balancing accessibility with environmental preservation.

The commission’s attention then shifted to a Notice of Intent for dock construction on Monks Hill Road, presented by Paul Seabourg from Grady Consulting. The property, adjacent to Smelt Pond, currently features a deteriorating dock and a shed non-compliant with wetland regulations. The proposal included constructing a new dock and maintaining the shed’s location with native plantings as mitigation. Discussions highlighted the dock’s compliance with Massachusetts Chapter 91 standards and the need for Chapter 91 approvals. The commission also deliberated over the shed’s variance request, balancing wetland buffer integrity with practical considerations.

As the meeting progressed, the commission examined another project on Old Orchard Lane, which proposed replacing a structurally unsound home with a larger dwelling. The new construction aimed to move further from a nearby stream, minimizing environmental impacts. Clarifications were sought regarding the stream’s classification, which could influence regulatory requirements. The commission also considered the removal of impervious surfaces and the need for accurate documentation in the official record.

Further deliberations focused on a residential project in a historic apple orchard, where the commission assessed potential impacts on a horseshoe-shaped lot. The project included a drainage swale and mitigation planting area. The classification of a water feature as either a perennial or intermittent stream was a critical point of discussion, affecting environmental compliance. The commission debated the necessity of establishing wetland boundaries now or deferring it to future filings.