Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Wetlands 160 Bedford topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission delays 160 Bedford Street review, orders wetland peer review after stormwater and contamination concerns
Summary
The Lakeville Conservation Commission on April 22 continued review of a complicated stormwater and wetlands project at 160 Bedford Street to May 13 and ordered a professional wetland delineation and peer review after engineering and contamination concerns were raised.
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Wetlands 160 Bedford topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Lakeville Conservation Commission on April 22 continued review of a complex stormwater and wetlands proposal at 160 Bedford Street to May 13 and directed staff to obtain a professional wetland peer review. The decision followed a detailed presentation by Deb Keller of Merrill Engineers and Land Surveyors, who performed a stormwater peer review, and numerous comments from abutters and the owner’s representative about unpermitted site work, material piles and prior enforcement actions.
Keller told the commission none of the wetland lines on the property had been formally approved and that an ORAD appearing in older files is either expired or not applicable to the portions of the site now under review. "None of the wetland line on that property for either the pond in the front ... or the little pond that goes under the driveway to the neighbors is, none of that has been approved," Keller said. She recommended the applicant reflag the wetland boundaries in the field and asked the commission to hire a professional wetland scientist to verify them as a first step.
Keller also raised engineering issues in the revised grading and drainage plan, including unclear limits of proposed pavement and whether the large stormwater basin in the rear functions as a pocket wetland or a detention basin; she flagged modeling errors and open questions about how a proposed trench drain and an outlet—treated through chambers and stone—would behave under extreme storms. Keller noted the basin design depends on confirmatory test pits and on whether groundwater is intercepted as assumed in the design, and she recommended those tests before final approval.
Multiple residents and abutters described unloading of crushed asphalt and other materials on the property while enforcement orders were in effect. Tim Wynn, a nearby resident, said large volumes of fill and dumped material had been placed in areas that had formerly been wetland and that water has encroached near his driveway since the grading. Donna Catano, an adjacent property owner, told the commission she is concerned that new grading and parked equipment are now draining onto her property. Owner's representative Kenny Comfortberg told the commission there are currently no firm plans for future buildings; he described current site use as storage of trailers and equipment and said there were only a few daily vehicle trips.
Keller recommended that the commission and staff require: (1) a current, documented wetland delineation and peer review; (2) clarification and illustration on plans of the limits of proposed pavement and any future building footprints used to size stormwater controls; (3) additional test pits in the basin to confirm groundwater interactions; and (4) corrections to the drainage model errors noted in her letter. She also requested clarification of the project's intended use because stormwater-standard treatments depend on pollutant-load assumptions tied to site use (for example, truck parking would trigger higher treatment requirements).
Commissioners and staff agreed to arrange a peer-review wetland delineation. The commission voted to continue 160 Bedford Street to the May 13 meeting and asked staff to coordinate a professional field review (suggested reviewers included Brad Holmes, Environmental Consulting, and Brandon Fannock) and to provide notice to the applicant and abutters of the timing so staff and an independent reviewer could attend.
The record shows prior enforcement orders and a cease-and-desist on the property; the commission asked that all peer-review findings and outstanding questions about arsenic testing, paving piles and natural resource impacts be shared with the planning board and board of selectmen as appropriate. The commission did not approve any work at the April 22 meeting.
Action taken: motion to continue to May 13 carried; staff directed to secure a qualified wetland scientist for peer review and to require reflagging of the wetland lines for verification.

