Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Wetlands Rda topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Norwood conservation panel issues negative determination for after‑the‑fact deck replacement at 255 Sumner Street

5613708 · August 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Norwood Conservation Commission voted to issue a negative determination of applicability for an after‑the‑fact deck replacement at 255 Sumner Street with a condition that the owner work with the conservation planner to manage invasive purple loosestrife adjacent to the work area.

The Norwood Conservation Commission voted to issue a negative determination of applicability for an after‑the‑fact deck replacement at 255 Sumner Street (Norwood file N‑2025‑11), the commission said at its August 2025 meeting at the Norwood Senior Center.

The determination covers a deck replacement that was built over an existing patio behind a single‑family house in a buffer zone and riverfront area beside a perennial/intermittent stream and in Flood Zone AE. Karen Skinner, representing the property owners, said no new impervious surface was added, the replacement sits over an existing patio footprint, the new footings were already excavated and are outside the 50‑foot buffer, and no vegetation removal was proposed.

Carly (Conservation Planner) advised commissioners that the project could qualify for a negative determination because it is effectively a deck placed over existing impervious surface and does not propose new disturbance to the wetland resource areas. The planner noted a 38.5‑square‑foot compensatory flood‑storage area was identified and recommended a condition to address invasive plants found on the parcel.

Commissioner [name recorded as making the motion] moved to issue a negative determination with the special condition that the applicant work with the conservation planner to manage the purple loosestrife on the site; another commissioner seconded the motion. The commission recorded aye votes from Kaleema Musafa Woodburn, Anil Prasad, John Carbone and Catherine Walsh; the motion carried.

The commission’s condition does not require removal of native plants; it instructs the owner to coordinate with the conservation planner on an invasive‑management approach. No fine or additional restoration work was announced at the hearing.

The property owner and the applicant representative were present and accepted the condition on the record.