Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the After The Fact Well Replacement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

After-the-fact well replacement at Cravenymeadow Shore Road presented to commission; public hearing closed

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 commission reviewed an after-the-fact Notice of Intent for a replacement well at 89 Cravenymeadow Shore Road, heard a presentation from the project engineer about emergency replacement work, and closed the public hearing without issuing a permit pending further paperwork and inspection.

The Town of Charlton Conservation Commission closed the public hearing on an after-the-fact notice of intent for a replacement well at 89 Cravenymeadow Shore Road after hearing project details from the applicant’s engineer and confirming erosion control and floodplain considerations.

An engineer representing the owner said the well ran dry and the owner engaged Charlton Well to install a replacement; because the work was an emergency to restore water service the owner proceeded with installation and later filed the application. The presenter said specialized equipment (a tracked rig) was required due to tight site access and that the well replacement cost approximately $27,000.

The engineer explained staff and the contractor had GPS-surveyed the site, located the high-water mark at a nearby dam and transposed those elevations to the property, and concluded the new well location is outside the mapped Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF). The commission asked whether erosion controls were in place during work; the presenter said erosion controls had been installed and staff planned a site inspection.

Commission staff said the work has ‘‘security compliance’’ steps and that, because the installation was completed before the filing, the case was processed as an after-the-fact filing. The commission closed the public hearing by motion and noted it would not issue the permit the same night; staff will complete a site inspection and follow up, and the commission discussed whether to remove certain recorded order conditions if the site is compliant.

No permit was issued at the meeting, and the commission closed the hearing by unanimous vote.