The Conservation Commission on Tuesday approved the notice of intent for a single-family home on 12 North Mill Street per the Wetlands Protection Act standards in a 4-2 vote. But in a separate vote applying the town’s wetlands protection regulations, the commission voted 3-3, essentially defeating the proposal.

The commission reopened a hearing on the plan. This item has been before the commission for more than a year. Chair Melissa Recos explained that town counsel advised the commission to close the previous hearing and reopen it.

Reasons cited for reopening the hearing were the change of membership since the project first was presented and the length of time that the project has lingered. This would allow Walter Garland and Peggy Shaw, the newer members, to vote.

Developer recaps project history

Developer Lou Petrozzi of Wall Street Development gave a project summary. He noted that the first iteration came before the commission in January 2025. It called for access from North Mill Street via a driveway crossing the abutting wetlands to the rear of the home.

Preliminary documents on 12 North Mill Street date back to 2023.

“Over the course of time,” alternative sites for the house and its septic system were submitted, said Petrozzi.

Complications previously arose because of an intermittent stream channel that had not been documented. Also, the commission repeatedly called out the incomplete submission of documents and payment due to the wetlands consultant.

Petrozzi said the Board of Appeal approved his request for a front yard setback to be reduced from 60 feet to 30 feet.

The most recent version of the plan allowed the house and the septic system to be located in the front of the lot, avoiding the wetland crossing. But it required wetland replication as well as repositioning a drinking water well. The well’s location raised concerns by both the Conservation Commission and the Board of Health regarding emergency vehicle access.

The plan presented at this meeting located the house, septic system and well within the front portion of the property, Petrozzi explained. It still would require a Board of Health waiver for the well’s setback from the wetland.

Stressed Petrozzi: “This is the best plan to avoid and minimize and/or mitigate the impacts to the resource areas.”

Consultant, chair feedback leads to votes

Joe Orzel, the town’s wetlands consultant, noted that this plan did not address some outstanding items. He continued to call for an invasive species management plan during the construction phase. Orzel noted the presence of glossy buckthorn.

He also asked that Petrozzi submit a formal waiver request rather than “just a sentence” regarding the wetland replication plan checklist. Petrozzi said he felt this request was “redundant,” noting the required wetland replication protocol repeats some items.

Orzel also asked that the proposed sump area for the well be lined with a waterproof barrier during construction.

Recos said that because the project is seeking a waiver from a local bylaw, separate votes needed to be taken. The town bylaw’s requirements are “more stringent,” she noted.

This waiver was requested because the applicant is seeking to build within 50 feet of the wetland buffer zone. Recos pointed out that it is within “less than 20 feet,” which is “uncommon.” Building that close to the wetland could lead to future encroachment issues and potential buffer zone elimination, she stressed.

Each vote included a series of conditions. They included providing the invasive species management plan and incorporating wetlands checklist items not specified in the wetlands replication plan. It also called for a deed restriction on the rear of the property to prevent future building.

Recos, Jim Ciriello, Walter Garland and Matt Moyen voted for the project in the first vote. Ted Barker-Hook and Ed Harrow voted against it.

Town counsel to be consulted

Recos voted against the project under the town bylaw, splitting the vote 3-3.

Petrozzi said he did not believe the project was voted down because of the tie. Conservation Administrator Judy Day noted that not having a majority vote constituted defeat. The hearing was closed.

Petrozzi called for a reconsideration at the next meeting as well as a review by town counsel. Petrozzi also said “it was up to the commission members” to determine if this is a worthwhile endeavor or if the town could “end up in litigation.”

Petrozzi said he would apply for reconsideration while Recos reached out to town counsel before the next meeting on June 9.

Charleswood School site dewatering effort reviewed

The commission also received an update regarding the dewatering of the Charleswood School project site.

At the last meeting, Day noted that water was observed flowing from the site onto property owned by the commission off Briarcliff Drive. It was caused by geothermal well drilling.

Vertex owners project manager Chris Eberly said the “big update” was that town counsel determined that any modification to the structure of the commission’s property, whether temporary or permanent, would require an Article 97 process. Known as the Open Space Act, it states that modifying natural resources used for public purposes would require “a two-thirds roll call vote of the Legislature.”

To avoid this process, Eberly said the design would be modified to avoid that area. A restoration plan would be determined at a future date.

Eberly stressed that Brait Builders has pulled back its erosion control barrier to protect the disturbed soil. The contractor also reduced its drilling to one rig.

Eberly said that after the last meeting, Brait “continued to discharge at a high rate.” Vertex told the company to split the discharge into two separate areas.

Orzel mentioned his concern about potential impact to the groundwater table in the disturbed area from the runoff. Site monitoring may be needed.

“I think a lot of progress was made since our last meeting to really kind of figure out what was going on and change the course,” said Recos.

Eberly stressed that this situation “wasn’t a rogue action by the design team.” It was permitted by the town. A resident later pointed out that it encroached onto Conservation Commission land.

“While the responsibility of the contractor to do their dewatering has been poor, the overall intent of encasing this area and identifying it as a place for discharge was part of the permitted plan,” he reiterated.

Added Recos: “I don’t think there was ill intent.”

This matter also was discussed at the Elementary School Building Committee meeting earlier the same evening.

75 South Street revised plan approved

The commission approved 6-0 the plan to repurpose 75 South Street from a commercial/industrial building to an office building/warehouse.

Consultant Joe Marquedant said the plans were modified to expand a proposed rain garden and vegetated filter strip at the commission’s request.