The Conservation Commission on Tuesday voted 6-0 to continue the hearings on a single-family home plan for 12 North Mill Street with associated soil testing until March 24. It cited the nonpayment of the peer review consultant as one reason.

This proposal has been before the commission for numerous meetings over the past six months. It is the second one that developer Lou Petrozzi has pursued for this project. He created this proposal because the original one would have caused deeper crossing into the wetland area, including a driveway.

The current plan has been hampered by issues over the installation of a drinking water well by the Conservation Commission and the Board of Health. Access to the well in case of emergencies was a mutual concern. When the plan last was reviewed Jan. 27, the commission sought more details regarding the “means and methods” the well driller will use during the installation process.

Also, the plan has had to be revised several times due to incomplete information. It did not show any permanent immovable barriers after conservation administrator Judy Day brought this to Petrozzi’s attention during more than one meeting.

Since the last review, Petrozzi said the well company submitted its installation protocols. He added a post-and-rail fence to the plan that would serve as a permanent immovable barrier at the wetland’s edge.

Petrozzi also submitted a requested Wetlands Protection Act Form 3 that the commission requested. According to the state website, a developer must submit this in order to obtain a work permit, otherwise known as an order of conditions. It must be submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) as well as to the Conservation Commission.

“Submitting a complete and accurate description of the site and project will minimize requests for additional information that may result in an unnecessary delay in the issuance of an Order of Conditions,” according to the state website.

Petrozzi brought up the charge of $1,800 for review of these documents by Joe Orzel of Lucas Environmental the town’s wetlands consultant.

Said Petrozzi: “I find that to be not very reasonable.”

He reiterated his complaint several times during the hearing. Later, Petrozzi suggested a $500 payment instead of $1,800.

Chair stresses need for complete file, time for review

Chair Melissa Recos confirmed that the documents were received Sunday night. She explained that Orzel would review the new information as well as the entire plan set to “make sure everything is squared away before our votes.”

She added that Petrozzi could request that the proposal move forward for a vote without a peer review. It then would be up to the commissioners to decide if they are comfortable with proceeding without it.

“But you know, it’s reading a document,” Petrozzi said. “It’s common sense. I mean, it’s not like you need technical assistance on this particular aspect of the project.”

He added that he would agree to a continuance to give the commissioners time to review the information. Recos agreed with this idea.

Recos noted that the current plan shows work within the 25-foot no-disturb zone as well as the 50-foot no-build zone. The vote, she explained, would be “bifurcated” between the Wetlands Protection Act and the town bylaw because they involve different standards. The work would occur “almost up to the wetland line,” necessitating a waiver.

Petrozzi stressed, particularly to new commissioners, that this plan was presented “to avoid, mitigate and minimize impacts to the wetlands.”

Day noted that Orzel’s last review was “three plan revisions ago.”

“That’s why I think it’s important to get his eyes on the current plan,” she said.

She noted that any unused funds would be returned to the applicant.

Day also asked if the latest plan revisions were sent to MassDEP, which is a requirement. Petrozzi said they were not.

Co-vice chair Matthew Moyen suggested getting a quote from a different peer reviewer. But he said it could cost more money, because that reviewer would have to go through “the entire project from start to finish.”

Recos added that the commission must proceed with caution because of any potential legal ramifications of reviewing a file without all the required documentation.

Petrozzi expressed frustration. He said he would pay the $1,800 but called it “insulting.”

He added: “But if I don’t see a refund, there’s going to be an inquiry as to what Lucas Engineering is doing with their time. I want a complete accounting.”

At this point, Orzel spoke up. He said the bill included charges for “insufficient funds in the proposal for several additional rounds of review, if necessary” as well as for Petrozzi’s three supplemental filings. This would prevent Lucas Engineering from going after payment each time.

Recos said she hoped this hearing would be “wrapped up” at the March 24 meeting.