Developers and neighbors spar over access, truck routes at White Dog Farm subdivision; commission schedules site visit

The Middleborough Conservation Commission continued a hearing Tuesday on a proposed subdivision at White Dog Farm, 79 and 81 Plympton Street, after engineers and neighbors sparred over access points and truck routes for earth removal.

A representative for the applicant, Cranmore Drive LLC, described two flagged bordering vegetated wetlands on the roughly 22.5-acre site and said the only work within the 100-foot buffer would be construction of a stormwater infiltration basin designed to infiltrate runoff and handle a 100-year storm event. The engineer said the basin and associated grading are designed to remain outside the 50-foot wetland buffer and that erosion-control and SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) measures would be implemented during construction.

Planning-board peer review by Apex Companies has been completed, the applicant said, and the planning board has approved associated waivers; however, commission staff asked for a copy of Apex’s report and requested a site visit before the commission takes further action. Commissioner Trish asked staff to forward the peer review and suggested the commission undertake an on-site inspection; the hearing was then continued and a site visit was scheduled for Saturday, Nov. 1 at 8 a.m. The hearing itself was continued to the commission’s Nov. 6 meeting.

Several abutters raised concerns at the meeting. Anne Marie Hodges, who said she and her husband own 108 Katrina Road, objected to the prospect of construction vehicles using a nearby gravel access path that abuts Katrina Road. “It looks as though the access is going to be off of Katrina Road,” Hodges told the commission, asking whether heavy construction traffic would be routed down the dead-end residential street. The applicant’s engineer said there is no planned access from Katrina and that trucks will use Plympton Street to the site as set out in the planning-board truck-route submission. The engineer noted an existing informal gravel track on the property but said it is not the proposed construction access.

The commission noted that truck routing and any earth-removal permitting fall primarily under the planning board/select board jurisdiction; staff advised abutters concerned about construction traffic to raise the issue at the planning-board public hearing, which remained open. Commission members also asked for a clearer record of where existing access paths are on site plans so neighbors can see the difference between existing informal tracks and the proposed roadway for the subdivision.

The commission did not vote on the application Tuesday; commissioners continued the hearing to Nov. 6 and scheduled a site walk for Nov. 1.