The most development from the meeting was the commission’s decision to place continued public hearings at the beginning of the agenda. This change, led by the chair Julian Kadish, aims to enhance public access and understanding by informing attendees upfront about which hearings have been continued. This will allow attendees to decide whether to stay for the rest of the meeting. Kadish emphasized the importance of maintaining focus on the Wetland Protection Act during discussions and suggested that questions and presentations should be concise and itemized to expedite the process. Additionally, if an applicant cannot present substantive updates, they will be removed from the agenda and are expected to reschedule for the meeting before Thanksgiving on November 25.

The commission also discussed enforcement orders, notably for a property on East Main Street and Plain Street. The owner of 92 East Main Street was reported to be engaging in restoration efforts, with the commission anticipating that by spring, they might seek a certificate of approval to release the enforcement order. For 258 Plain Street, known as the Stone Dog, the owners had contacted a representative to develop a restoration plan. There was also mention of a YMCA billboard area where a surveyor would meet to clarify existing markers in the field. The commission expressed satisfaction with the progress being made by various landowners in addressing these enforcement issues.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to addressing continued public hearings for ongoing projects. The golf course project on Arnold Palmer Boulevard requested a continuance until October 28. Another public hearing regarding file number 250-11161 was also continued.

The final continued public hearing pertained to file number 250-11620 on Hill Street. The commission was informed that no changes had been made to the plans in response to comments, leading to a debate on whether they could proceed to a decision without formal sign-off from the peer reviewer. The commission pondered whether they could conditionally approve the project pending the peer review’s response. It was highlighted that there were no substantive plan changes resulting from the peer review comments, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) had been added as requested. However, the peer reviewer had not yet reviewed this plan.

The meeting also covered a new public hearing concerning a request for verification of resource areas on South Worcester Street, with a representative from DNL Design Group present. The site, consisting of four parcels totaling 24 acres, had its wetlands flagged by AEC, with two vernal pool locations added to the plans after a recent site visit. Technical difficulties arose during the presentation of visual materials, but it was established that the site had a wetland located near South Worcester Street, classified into various series. The representative emphasized the importance of the vernal pool classification for future development compliance with stormwater management regulations. The commission agreed to work towards closing this matter at the next meeting, with the understanding that the absence of a file number was a complication.

Another agenda item discussed was a project seeking a negative determination of applicability for selective canopy clearing within a 100-foot buffer zone. This project aimed to alleviate shading on a downgrading solar field. The representatives noted that the impact area was approximately 28,100 square feet, with only canopy species being affected. The understory would remain largely untouched, except for necessary equipment access. The project included leaving stumps at an 8-foot height to promote habitat development and installing an orange construction fence prior to tree removal activities to prevent further encroachment.

A commission member raised a question about sediment controls due to the presence of a bordering vegetated wetland (BVW) nearby. The project representatives explained that since they would not be grubbing and only accessing areas without significant substrate disturbance, sediment controls were not deemed necessary. However, they expressed openness to any conditions the commission might suggest. The commission discussed the need for a shading study and whether one had been conducted prior to the project’s initiation. The representatives admitted they did not have a record of such studies since they inherited this phase of the project post-construction.