Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetland Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves orders for Austin Court lots with restoration and marker conditions
Summary
The commission closed hearings and issued orders of conditions for three Austin Court lots (17, 27, 35), requiring buffer zone restoration, conservation markers, monitoring and partial certificates of compliance; the commission also discussed requiring removable bollards at Charlotte Street to deter dumping.
The Brockton Conservation Commission closed hearings and issued orders of conditions on Aug. 20 for three single‑family lots on Austin Court (17, 27 and 35 Austin Court). Each order requires restoration of areas disturbed during prior utility installation, installation of conservation markers, and monitoring of plantings over at least two growing seasons before issuing final certificates of compliance.
Why it matters: The lots were affected by earlier utility installation and associated construction work that disturbed portions of the 25‑foot buffer; the commission sought restoration, planting and monitoring so the buffer functions are restored and to ensure long‑term compliance.
Agent Kyle told the commission that the developer submitted buffer restoration and planting plans prepared by Ken Thompson and recommended conditions for each lot that mirror the subdivision’s previously permitted replication and monitoring schedule. Kyle told commissioners that the disturbed areas would be enhanced with woody plantings and seed mixes and that he recommended at least two full growing seasons of monitoring and reporting before issuing final certificates of compliance.
Developer representative Scott Faria explained site constraints and the proposed repairs and infiltration measures for roof runoff. On permanent markers the commission discussed options: granite bounds used in a prior residential project and less‑expensive alternatives such as split‑rail fences or commercial signs used at a nearby car‑wash development. Faria cautioned about cost and time for granite bounds: “They're expensive. I mean, that that's a a considerable cost,” he said, and urged flexibility by site type. Commissioners generally favored flexibility: for the hotel/commercial sites the commission preferred the sign or split‑rail options; for residential properties they discussed different marker types and spacing.
The commission also discussed an additional condition to reduce illegal dumping at the southern end of Charlotte Street where the utility lane could invite vehicular access. Kyle recommended removable bollards or similar barriers that allow utility access when needed but deter vehicles from driving and dumping. Commissioners agreed that a removable barrier was appropriate and that language would be added to the special conditions for Lot 6 (27 Austin Court).
Partial certificate of compliance: Kyle reiterated a proposed standard condition he has begun using across several orders — a partial certificate of compliance must be issued before certificate of occupancy or lot closing — requiring a professional affidavit of construction conformance, functioning erosion controls, installed conservation markers and initial site stabilization. The commission voted to close the public hearings and to issue the orders of conditions for 17, 27 and 35 Austin Court with the agent’s recommended conditions; votes recorded in each case showed the motions carried with one abstention (Leon Edwards).
What happens next: The orders require the developer to implement the planting and restoration plans, provide monitoring reports (two growing seasons recommended), install conservation markers and meet the partial certificate requirements before final certificates of compliance are issued.
