Commission pauses 52 Clearpond Road work; restoration report and DEP ecological‑restoration path required

Lakeville Conservation Commission · October 29, 2025

Loading...

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 Lakeville Conservation Commission continued the 52 Clearpond Road matter to Nov. 13 after commissioners concluded the disturbed area likely exceeds the 5,000‑sq‑ft threshold that triggers Massachusetts' ecological restoration process.

The Lakeville Conservation Commission continued the 52 Clearpond Road matter to Nov. 13 after commissioners concluded the disturbed area likely exceeds the 5,000‑square‑foot threshold that triggers Massachusetts' ecological restoration process.

Chair Nancy Yates and the commission said plans submitted to date include a construction sequence and planting notes but lack a standalone restoration report and a certified wetland scientist’s written findings. Mark Minton, the town conservation agent, told the panel he calculated a disturbed area larger than the 24,500 square feet shown on the plan and that DEP guidance indicates anything over 5,000 square feet falls under more detailed ecological restoration requirements.

Commissioners directed the applicant to provide a formal ecological restoration plan prepared or signed by wetland scientist Steve Schmiel (PWS). The commission said the restoration plan should include Schmiel’s delineation and test‑pit findings, a planting/replication schedule and milestones, demonstration that the plan meets the cited restoration sections of the regulations, and reference to any survey sheets used. "We would like his report with his ... findings," the chair said when explaining why a separate, stamped report is needed rather than only notes on a survey.

Commissioners also noted that a portion of the site was flagged as estimated habitat in the Natural/National Heritage database (the meeting record references box turtle habitat), and they asked the applicant to consult Natural Heritage and include any coordination or permitting notes in the restoration plan.

The commission emphasized that the enforcement order for the site requires an approved restoration plan before the enforcement action can be considered closed. Commissioners suggested the applicant have Steve Schmiel coordinate directly with the conservation agent and then return with a revised plan and Schmiel’s written report. The hearing was continued to the commission’s Nov. 13 meeting at 6:30 p.m. at the police station.