The Conservation Commission on Tuesday continued a notice of intent hearing for a dam repair project on land set to be donated to the town.

Jeff Bellino and Craig Curtin represented Agilitas Energy, the owner of the parcel at 0 Frankland Road. Agilitas, which built a solar photovoltaic array at 69 Frankland Road last year, agreed to set aside the parcel for open space in exchange for a special permit and site plan approval. 

The 39.51-acre parcel has an earthen dam that is too small to fall under state regulations. It is about 7.5 feet high and 300 linear feet, and was built by the Liberty Mutual insurance company to create a pond for auto crash testing.

Bellino told the commission the repair plan includes minor surface grading, recoating the existing control structure and tree clearing on the dam.

Responding to a question from chair Melissa Recos, Curtin explained that the dam had 12 trees greater than 10 inches in diameter on top of the embankment.

“So, we’re catching up on the maintenance,” Recos clarified.

Bellino and Curtin explained they had responded to comments on a previous version of the plan from Lucas Environmental and had implemented suggested changes. One of those, Curtain said, was removing a 20-foot buffer from the toe of the dam to the edge of the water.

Recos informed the project representatives that the commission could not take a vote that night because Joe Orzel, the town’s wetland consultant, needed to look over and respond to the comments. As well, the project still needed a number from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

Member Ed Harrow, who described himself as “the resident tree hugger” of the commission, commented that a dam by the boat ramp at Lake Whitehall was “full of trees of substance like this” and the dam remained intact. He also asked the species of the trees requested for removal. Bellino said he could get back to the commission with that information.

Harrow raised concerns with plans to eliminate stoplogs in the dam by removing existing metal channels and filling them with masonry. Speaking in his capacity as chair of the Open Space Preservation Commission — which would take ownership of the parcel and dam once the project is complete — he expressed displeasure with the removal of the stoplogs.

“You need to work that out,” he told Bellino and Curtin.

Recos agreed with Harrow, noting a preference for maintaining the stoplog system rather than filling it and making it stationary. Bellino informed the commission that the town requested removing the system from the dam.

The chair also asked the representatives bring more information about the trees on the dam and their habitat value. She reminded her fellow members that the commission has required plantings to replace tree removal on dam sites in the past.

A preliminary continuation was scheduled for the next Conservation Commission meeting on July 14, though the project representatives noted they might need more time to gather the requested information.

North Mill Street request denied

Commission members unanimously denied a motion to reconsider a notice of intent for a single-family home project at 12 North Mill Street, citing no significant changes to the plan since it last was presented.

“There’s no change to the plans, no change to the design — nothing being presented that changes the material that we originally voted on,” said Recos.

The 12 North Mill Street project, put forward by applicant Lou Petrozzi, has been before the commission for more than a year. Petrozzi has submitted multiple project proposals for the property, but he failed to supply all the necessary supporting documentation and failed to pay money owed to Lucas Environmental.

The Conservation Commission called the developer out on these issues multiple times throughout the process. It also approved the notice in a 4-2 vote at its May 19 meeting, but a subsequent vote applying the town’s wetlands protection regulations stalemated 3-3. The proposal could not move forward as a result.

Recos explained that the request for reconsideration was made because of speculations that the property has lost value. “The owner can’t find any value based on the commission’s decision not to allow that building,” Recos stated. “Do we think that is a reason to reopen and reconsider?”

Member Jim Ciriello asked about the response deadline, wondering whether the commission could deliberate the matter later.

Conservation administrator Judy Day noted the request for reconsideration was submitted June 23, and the commission had 21 days to respond. “It would be on the safe side not to leave it to the next meeting,” she said.

Members agreed that the lack of substantive changes to the plan or design submitted with the reconsideration request did not warrant reopening the hearing. Ciriello noted that if the commission voted to deny the request, the applicant’s next option was an appeal.

“What do they hope to accomplish by not changing anything and requesting a reconsideration?” said member Walter Garland prior to the denial vote.