Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Jurisdiction Rda topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwood conservation commission issues negative determination for 25 East Hoyle Street with stormwater conditions
Summary
Commission found the site’s roadside ditch non‑jurisdictional but approved a conditional negative determination requiring on‑site stormwater controls and coordination with the town engineer.
Tom Schutz of Goddard Consulting told the Norwood Conservation Commission on May 28 that a 2.5‑acre parcel at 25 East Hoyle Street is “primarily just pavement” and that a man‑made ditch on the western and southern edges conveys only stormwater into an existing culvert network. “In our opinion, we believe that this ditch on our site is serving only to convey stormwater and is not jurisdictional under the Wetlands Protection Act or the Norwood Wetland bylaw,” Schutz said.
Commission members tested that conclusion at the public hearing, with several members reporting that they had observed the ditch flowing after recent heavy rain and asking whether the reach receives groundwater during dry periods. Commission staff advised that the town’s drainage study (2004, updated 2020) maps the local pipe and ditch network and attributes flows into the ditch to stormwater infrastructure and an infiltration system associated with Norwood Hospital. Carly (conservation agent) noted that the town is adopting stormwater regulations imminently and that the town engineering department will be the local stormwater authority.
After discussion the commission approved a negative determination of applicability for 25 East Hoyle Street, conditioned on implementation of appropriate on‑site stormwater management and coordination with the town engineer. The commission recorded the vote on the motion by roll call (Kelsey Quinlan: aye; Catherine Walsh: aye; Anil Persaud: aye; Kalima Mustafa Woodburg: absent). The commission also authorized the conservation agent to negotiate specific language of the stormwater conditions with the applicant and town engineer before the permit is finalized.
The commission and applicant did not identify a firm development plan at the hearing; the applicant said the RDA was being pursued to confirm resource area jurisdiction before any design decisions. The commission and staff emphasized that a negative determination does not prevent later review if the applicant proposes additional work that alters the regulated area: any future on‑site work touching jurisdictional resource areas would require further filings or an amended determination.
The commission closed the public hearing on the RDA after making the conditional negative determination.
