Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Birch Hill II subdivision hearing continued as consultant revises wetland replication plan
Summary
Developers of Birch Hill II presented a revised replication plan by consultant Garret Tunison; commissioners requested updated photos and a revised report and continued the hearing to Feb. 5, 2026 to allow applicants to stake the replication area and submit modifications.
The hearing on the Birch Hill II subdivision (NOI SE280-0669) was continued to Feb. 5, 2026 after applicants presented a new wetland replication plan and discussed revisions to on-site grading and tree protection.
Representatives for Birch Hill Trust Corp. — engineer Steve Gioiosa (SITEC) and environmental consultant Garret Tunison — described changes from earlier plans, including replacing a proposed retaining wall near the buffer with a 3:1 graded slope and relocating the proposed replication area to soils and hydrology Tunison judged more suitable.
Tunison said he selected the alternate replication location after surveying plant communities and soil conditions; he proposed a 1,200-square-foot replication footprint, a planting palette emphasizing site-native shrubs (sweet pepperbush, highbush blueberry) and the New England Wetland Plants Conservation Wildlife Mix for seeded areas. Tunison described a monitoring approach of at least two years with spring and late-season checks and an annual monitoring report. He also addressed oak-root protection, recommending 4–5-foot root-pruning radii for nearby trees and offering to provide photos and references from prior work.
Conservation Administrator Josh Philibert and commissioners pressed for clarifying documentation: updated plans reflecting staking of the replication area, a revised Tunison report and photographs tied to the current plan, and confirmation that the replication would be constructed before other earthwork begins. Attorney Don Nagle asked the commission to consider the new NOI on its own merits rather than compare it to prior filings for the area.
The applicant requested a continuance to assemble the revisions; the commission granted the continuance in a roll-call vote (Westman moved; McKeen seconded; vote recorded as Cremer — aye; McKeen — aye; Westman — aye; Drisko — aye; Geller — aye; 5–0–0). The applicant listed next steps: brief office meeting with staff, Tunison to modify and resubmit the report, survey staking of the replication area and, if needed, an in-person site visit before returning to the commission on Feb. 5.
The commission did not vote on the subdivision or replication plan itself at the meeting.
