Charlton conservation commission to advertise stormwater regulation changes; issues orders and negative determinations for multiple property projects

The Town of Charlton Conservation Commission voted to advertise a public hearing on proposed amendments to the commission's stormwater regulations and took final action on several wetlands and land‑disturbance filings at its meeting, approving orders of conditions, issuing negative determinations and continuing other hearings to August 13.

The commission voted unanimously to authorize advertising a public hearing to consider changes to stormwater section 1.6, which governs how the commission classifies lane/land‑disturbance permits as minor or major. A staff member describing the planned change said the current definition of a "larger common plan of development" has produced expensive, time‑consuming outcomes for applicants and contractors. The staff member said, "It's become unfair in a way. It's becoming expensive, but that's the way the regulations are written," and proposed narrowing the definition so some projects would qualify for the commission's minor permit review instead of triggering a major permit and external peer review.

Why it matters: the amendment is intended to reduce cost and review time for single‑family and smaller projects that, under the commission's current interpretation of "larger common plan of development," have been subject to major permit requirements when older ANR or subdivision plans exist for the same parcel. Staff said several contractors are holding projects pending the outcome and asked the commission to advertise the amendments for a public hearing on July 30 (advertisement and final schedule to follow). The commission set a hearing advertisement and authorized the public hearing timeline.

On permit matters, the commission closed hearings and issued orders or determinations on multiple individual properties. Applicants Chelsea Haley and Zach Zegazewski received an order of conditions for work at 70 Lehi Echo Shore Road covering a perimeter drain that will discharge toward existing surface drains, a stone discharge bed approximately 30 feet from the lake bank, a patio under an expanded deck, replacement of 4x4 supports with 6x6 posts, and construction of a fire pit and associated grading approximately 20 feet from the shoreline. Haley described the proposal: "And we're proposing doing a trench perimeter drain around our home and a patio under our deck as well as a fire pit around where our old well was." The commission closed the hearing and issued an order of conditions.

Property owner Steven Broussette received an order of conditions for his proposal (presented as alternatives 2 and 5) to improve or relocate an access cart road and install a new driveway aligned to minimize impacts to bordering wetland resource areas. Broussette summarized the process and said the preferred approach was to move the driveway as far from wetland resources as practical and to establish a vegetated conservation strip: "the best approach was to put in a new driveway as far away from the resource areas we could."

Other approvals and determinations included: - A proposed single‑family house at 0 Wister Road (vacant parcel) in the upland area received an order of conditions after the applicant described minimal grading, erosion controls and utility availability. - A renovation converting a summer house to a permanent residence (site described as outside the 50-foot buffer) received a negative determination with conditions; the commission required erosion controls and limited disturbance using small equipment because the house sits below the street grade. - A septic replacement at 8 New Spencer Road (owner identified as Gordon Latour) was processed as an RDA (Request for Determination of Applicability) and resulted in a negative determination with the usual conditions for erosion control; staff noted the proposed system sat about 55–60 feet from the nearby wetland.

Several other hearings were continued to August 13 (35 North Main Street; Lot 2, Sandersdale Road; Block 4, Sandersdale Road; 80 Richardson Connor Road; Stevens Park Road; Lot 5 Harrington Road and other listed parcels) to allow outstanding peer reviews, additional information, or coordination with DEP filings. The commission also continued review of a fiber installation along an existing 1.75‑mile transmission corridor; the presenter said most fiber will be overhead with two short underground sections and that the work is exempt from the Wetlands Protection Act's filing requirements as a utility maintenance limited project, though the applicant plans to seek a comprehensive water quality certification from MassDEP prior to construction.

The meeting closed with routine certificate of compliance updates and an appointment recommendation: commissioners voted to recommend Armand Pessette for the Town's "Fame of the Farm" committee (motion approved). The commission then adjourned.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to advertise public hearing on amendments to stormwater section 1.6 (authorize advertisement and set hearing scheduling process): approved (motion passed unanimously). - 70 Lehi Echo Shore Road (Haley/Zegazewski): close hearing and issue order of conditions — approved. - Steven Broussette (Ferrego property): close hearing and issue order of conditions — approved. - 0 Wister Road (vacant parcel, single‑family house): close hearing and issue order of conditions — approved. - Renovation of summer house to permanent residence (location outside 50 ft buffer): negative determination with conditions — approved. - 8 New Spencer Road (Gordon Latour, septic replacement): negative determination with conditions — approved. - Multiple parcels (35 North Main St; Lot 2 Sandersdale Rd; Block 4 Sandersdale Rd; 80 Richardson Connor Rd; Stevens Park Rd; Lot 5 Harrington Rd; others): motions to continue to August 13 — approved. - Appointment recommendation for Armand Pessette to the Fame of the Farm committee: approved.

The commission noted that detailed proposed regulatory language on stormwater section 1.6 will be circulated to commissioners prior to the advertised hearing; staff asked for a quorum at the hearing so the commission can receive public comment and consider a motion on the amendment at that session.