Plympton conservation hearing continued after applicants propose filling small isolated wetland with 2:1 replication

The Plympton Conservation Commission on April 21 opened and then continued a Notice of Intent hearing for 55 Crescent Street after hearing from the applicants and abutters about proposed wetland impacts.

Attorney Adam Brodsky, counsel for applicants Kenneth Thompson and Jeri Gardner, told the commission the proposed single-family house and septic would be located outside the 100-foot buffer to the bordering vegetated wetland (BVW) but that a corner of the crushed-stone driveway, part of the garage, grading and the filling of a 1,080 square-foot isolated vegetated wetland (IVW) would occur within the site. Brodsky said the IVW is believed to be the result of long-term stormwater runoff and described it as a "low-functioning wetland." He said IVWs are not jurisdictional under the state Wetlands Protection Act but are regulated under the town bylaw and that the applicants are offering mitigation, including creating a replication area at a 2:1 ratio and recording a permanent Conservation Restriction (CR) covering 4.47 acres of the 5.01-acre lot.

The applicants’ wetland scientist, Brad Holmes of Environmental Consulting and Restoration LLC, reviewed the plan details and answered commissioners’ questions about the deck, garage and the pervious crushed-stone driveway. Commissioner Amy Cronin pressed for clarity on plan drawings after a line placement made the deck appear to fall inside the 100-foot buffer; Holmes and counsel clarified the deck is outside the 100-foot line and that the drawing weight made one iteration misleading. Commissioner Molly Hutt asked about fill volumes; applicants said most material from foundation excavation would be reused and that erosion controls and stabilization measures would be installed during construction. The plan includes dry wells to collect roof runoff.

Several abutters raised concerns. Jessica Kinsman, who lives nearby, asked why the house locations differ across plan sets, requested that the house corners and the 100-foot buffer line be staked, and asked whether the 1,080-square-foot IVW measurement matched prior delineations; Holmes said the delineation is consistent with earlier measurements. Kinsman said she is not opposed to building on the lot but worried allowing this project could set a precedent and asked how future encroachment (paving the driveway or removing signs) would be prevented. Brodsky and the applicants said the CR will be recorded with the state Division of Conservation Services and monitored annually; they argued the proposed replication and enhancement of higher-value BVW areas meet the bylaw’s waiver criteria.

Abutter Russell Kierstead asked why a well was not shown on the plans; Brodsky and the applicant said the well likely would be sited near the road, outside Commission jurisdiction, and agreed to provide confirmation from Webby Engineering.

Chair Rick Burnet and Conservation Agent Brian Vasa said Webby Engineering will stake the house corners and the 100-foot buffer line on the property so the commission can perform a site walk. The commission tentatively scheduled a site visit for April 28 at 9 a.m. and continued the hearing to the commission’s May 5 meeting at 6:40 p.m.

The commission’s next procedural steps are the site walk and receipt of the engineering clarification about the well location; the hearing will resume on May 5.