Commission issues certificate of compliance for cell tower at 1 Elliot Way; declines to clear wetland replication area without updated plan

The Lakeville Conservation Commission voted to issue a certificate of compliance for the cell‑tower portion of the project at 1 Elliot Way (SE192‑608) but held off on certifying the wetland replication work.

Commission staff who visited the property recommended issuing a certificate for the cell‑tower lot, saying the tower area matched the approved plan referenced in the original Notice of Intent. The same staff member reported they found no evidence that the wetland replication work—described in the original orders as shallow marsh creation and plantings of highbush blueberry, sweet pepperbush and seed mixes—had been completed to the standards required by the order of conditions. Commissioners agreed they could not issue a certificate of compliance for the replication portion until an as‑built and other supporting documentation are provided.

Applicant and property owner Glenn Cristalaney (identified at the meeting as associated with Lakeville Plumball) told the commission he intends to finish the replication work and has left equipment on site. He said he combined planned replication areas into a single bog and installed an underground pipe routing water to an on‑site pond. Cristalaney requested time to locate original plans and to work with a buyer who intends to complete the replication.

Commissioners noted the project file includes two separate DEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection) file numbers—one for the cell tower and one for replication—and agreed the two represent distinct filings. The commission voted to issue one certificate for the tower (SE192‑608) and to continue the replication matter to allow the owner to provide the as‑built plan or an amended NOI and to allow staff to inspect the replication area after plans are provided.

The commission set a continuance for the replication item to Feb. 25 (date set at the meeting) and asked the owner to submit the original plan or an amended filing if the work done in the field differs from what was approved. Staff offered to accompany the owner or his representative to walk the site after the revised plan is supplied, and commissioners emphasized the need for an as‑built and details about planting, grade/elevation and a plan for inspection and success criteria before issuing a second certificate.

Commissioners also discussed whether DEP had issued a superseding order and noted that the replication element involved a long‑running project with an order of conditions more than a decade old. That history, staff said, increases the need for current documentation before formal certification.