FINAL MINUTES FOR THE RAYNHAM CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING ON JUNE 15, 2006
The meeting of the Raynham Conservation Commission was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
Staff present: Teresa Vickery, Verbatim Recorder, Erika Ueberbacher, Conservation Agent
Members Present: Mark Peterson, Chairman
Anne Avelino, Vice Chairman
Mary Ellen Rochette, Commissioner
Dave McRae, Commissioner
Shelley Coelho, Commissioner
The meeting of the Raynham Conservation Commission was closed at 7:35 p.m.
Staff present: Teresa Vickery, Verbatim Recorder, Erika Ueberbacher, Conservation Agent
Members Present: Mark Peterson, Chairman
Anne Avelino, Vice Chairman
Mary Ellen Rochette, Commissioner
Dave McRae, Commissioner
Shelley Coelho, Commissioner
Informal Meeting
2. Correspondence from Natural Heritage
DISCUSSION:
The Agent suggested to the Commission to read the correspondence from Natural Heritage about the pipeline project. The Agent states that the conditions that Natural Heritage made ConComm add to the OOC made the project completely unworkable. Natural Heritage has amended their own conditions, which are, also, on ConComm’s conditions. With ConComm approval, the Agent will substitute the Natural Heritage conditions in for the ones that ConComm issued, and cc the DEP. The Agent stated that our condition was the no work period of April 15 to September 1. She would like to rephrase this to include “or, if you put in a silt fence, the work could commence”. The Natural Heritage condition replaces #43 and #44 of
ConComm’s standard conditions. ConComm made conditions that echoed Natural Heritage’s first conditions. The Agent will either take out Natural Heritage’s condition or add in the “or” phrase as stated above. The Agent would like ConComm to approve this to replace the conditions in the last memo from Natural Heritage.
VOTE TO:
Substitute the Natural Heritage conditions in for the ones that ConComm issued, and cc the DEP.
MOTION MADE BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
MOTION SECONDED BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
VOTE:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
1. Enforcement Orders
Mark Peterson recused.
DISCUSSION:
Roger Stolte attended to discuss with ConComm the house on the corner of Buck Knoll Road. Correspondence will be referred to, and pictures will be shown.
Mr. Stolte stated that he tried to get the homeowner to install a swale around the property . The swale that he had in mind would be installed on the bottom, it would be stone, and there would be a sub-drain so that one would never see the water. He mentioned that it should have gone directly past the driveway, or it would have connected to one of the catch basins . However, the homeowner never made that connection. Instead, he directed the outfall to a sub-drain that he put in at his design. It goes past his driveway, and it discharges past his house.
The Agent stated that the homeowner did not revise the plan for ConComm in having done the work stated above.
Mr. Stolte states that he did not want an overland water flow redirection. He had wanted the homeowner to build a sub-drain down along his property and connect it, but the homeowner never did that.
Mr. Stolte states that at one point, so much water was coming out of the embankment, and there was an electrical conduit box there, and the conduit box was the drainpipe, and there was water pouring out of it. Mr. Stolte brought this to the attention of TMLP. He states that TMLP did not seem concerned when he told them, however, they must have done something because the conduit box no longer acts as the drainpipe.
Mr. Stolte told the Commission that the homeowner did put in a type of sub-drain, but he told the homeowner that what he put in would not work. The homeowner put in a perforated pipe with a sock on it, but the sub-drain needed to be encapsulated.
Mr. Stolte stated that he was going to take his development bond, and fix it, but he couldn’t fix it for $2,000. He wasn’t even sure if he could fix it for $30,000. He states that this was a virtual river; it was around 18” deep.
Mr. Stolte decided to send him a letter to default the homeowner’s bond. On Wednesday, June 21, he was asking the homeowner to come to a hearing with an engineer to tell the Highway department how he is going to solve the problem. The Highway Department will pay a consultant to evaluate his proposal, Judith Nitsch. The development bond requires that he replace it after 30 days. Mr. Stolte states that, at one time, he did have it in the bylaw that one could lose their occupancy permit, but that was stricken by the Atty. General’s office. The only alternative is to take legal action, unless the homeowner can come up with a reasonable timeline and a reasonable solution to the problem.
Mr. Stolte, further, states that he shared his vision with the homeowner on what should happen. All the water in his detention basin is full of silt. The homeowner has an obligation to clean the pipes.
Mark Peterson, now speaking as an abutter, states that water now goes over to the neighbor, right through past the shed, along the stonewall, and out to the street.
The Agent states that an enforcement order should be issued due to the homeowner being in violation of DEP standard conditions, and in violation of ConComm’s standard conditions, such as flood control, storm water, and prevention of pollution and wildlife. Some others that cannot be proven at this time are public, private, and groundwater concerns. The Agent recommends issuing the enforcement order, and inviting the homeowner in on July 6 to ratify the enforcement order. The homeowner should also be asked to replace the existing, eroded hay bale line with a siltation fence, and fresh hay bales, double staked, and placed per the approved plan of record dated 1/17/01. She, also, states that an engineer, or surveyor, must submit a letter to ConComm certifying that the locations of the hay
bale/silt fence are correct. Also, all wetland flagging should be refreshed so that all flags are located per the approved plan of record, and someone should certify that they are in the right location. Further, no fill can be added on site until ConComm has approved the addition of fill in a formal meeting. The Agent, further, states that a narrative should be done on what work remains to be done on the project in order to achieve compliance with the OOC, and detail how the as built plan differs from the proposed plan of record. Lastly, an existing as built plan must be submitted with topography shown on the plan by 7/27/06 with a discussion to be held at the 8/3/06 meeting.
Lastly, Roger states that the homeowner never acknowledged anyone in the neighborhood that there was an issue.
DECISION:
Issue an enforcement order.
VOTE TO:
Issue an enforcement order, and invite the homeowner in on July 6 to ratify the enforcement order. The homeowner should also be asked to replace the existing, eroded hay bale line with a siltation fence, and fresh hay bales, double staked, and placed per the approved plan of record dated 1/17/01. An engineer, or surveyor, must submit a letter to ConComm certifying that the locations of the hay bale/silt fence are correct. Also, all wetland flagging should be refreshed so that all flags are located per the approved plan of record, and someone should certify that they are in the right location. Further, no fill can be added on site until ConComm has approved the addition of fill in a formal meeting. A narrative should be done on what work remains to be done on the project in order to achieve
compliance with the OOC, and detail how the as built plan differs from the proposed plan of record. An existing as built plan must be submitted with topography shown on the plan by 7/27/06 with a discussion to be held at the 8/3/06 meeting.
MOTION MADE BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
MOTION SECONDED BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
VOTE:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
3. Roger Stolte Update on Storm Events
DISCUSSION:
This storm issue was on Forest Street. Sewer was put in there, and they lined the street with hay bales. However, the sewer contractor damaged the pipe, and then repaired the pipe.
Mr. Stolte would like to proceed next week with the work. He would like to make some silt basins, and put beehives in, and load with stone.
VOTE TO:
Allow Roger Stolte of the Highway Department to do some emergency work on Forest Street.
MOTION MADE BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
MOTION SECONDED BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
VOTE:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
4. Benevides Prospect Hill Street
The packet is in. The Agent needs to post everything with the Gazette. The amended order is to be heard on July 6.
Continued until July 6, 2006
5. Minutes 5/18/06
Postponed minutes to July 6, so the recorder can catch up.
Postponed until July 6, 2006
OPEN FORMAL SESSION – 6:40 p.m.
1. DEP # N/A
Continuation of a public hearing relative to the filing of a request for Determination of Applicability under the Wetlands Protection Act, Mass. G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40. The Request for Determination of Applicability is being submitted for the construction of a 4,215 square foot addition to the existing garage and a 320 square foot concrete pad to support fuel oil above ground tanks. The proposed activities will result in approximately 1,710 square foot increase in impervious area. The proposed project is located at 1555 King Philip Street, Assessors’ Map 8, Parcel 229A, Town of Raynham. The project is being submitted by the Raynham Highway Department.
DISCUSSION:
Roger Stolte came representing the Highway Department. The last time ConComm saw this plan is when Roger was on vacation, and they had some questions they were hoping Roger could clarify. ConComm thinks this is a good plan, however, they had questions regarding the fuel storage tanks, and their proximity to the wetlands, and if there’s a place for it. They also had some questions regarding bollards and if they need protection, or if that hampers access to them. Lastly, they want to know if there is a standard procedure if those tanks get penetrated and if there any kind of a collection system. Mr. Stolte responded that the tanks are double walled, and the outer shell can contain the viable material that is on the inner tank. The Highway Department is required by DEP to have these
tanks tested every five years. The testing goes around the tanks. There are certain areas when water will sit in the tank and corrosion will take place, and the walls of the tank will get thin. Mr. Stolte has a device that can determine what the thickness of the metal is there. The test is good for five years, and, then, another test is to be completed.
ConComm asked Mr. Stolte how thick the walls on the tanks were, and he thought they were maybe 1/4'”, but was not sure. He mentioned that they could install some bollards. Mr. Peterson asked what is done when the tanks are being filled. Mr. Stolte responded that it’s part of the SPCC plan. There have been training sessions for all employees, they have emergency spill kits, they have booms, and they all know how to use it. If a wall were to be broken, they would have to go to those kits. He also mentioned that they do not want open containment because it would hold water, dirt, and debris.
Ms. Rochette asked why the tanks are being placed in the location chosen. Mr. Stolte responded that they didn’t want to bunch the tanks together, they can access the tanks through the building because of the doors that are there, and it works best for fueling. He also mentioned that the tanks get emptied frequently by Soares.
Mr. Peterson asked the Agent if there were any conditions for storing fuel in a buffer zone. She responded that there were some proposed protection measures, but they were mostly environmental. Mr. Stolte stated that the SPCC plan might have some information in it that she could use to draft some conditions from.
Mr. McRae asked if there was any type of curbing that could be used on the wetland side of the tank so it wouldn’t drain toward the wetland. Mr. Stolte responded that they could put some absorbent pads out there as they do not absorb water. Ms. Avelino, and Ms. Rochette responded to make that one of the conditions.
The Agent stated that what she needs to do, then, is add the two extra in, double check what Roger has for information, and keep in our standard conditions because there’s the addition going in. She will also add bollards as a condition, so they do not have to change the plan. She will email the conditions out, and they will just need a verbal acceptance on the conditions, and, then, Mr. Stolte can use the conditions as part of the bid. She suggested that Mr. Stolte change the plan, she will draft the conditions, Mr. Stolte can get the plan drafted up and sent to ConComm, and ConComm can open/close it at the next meeting without Mr. Stolte even having to be present.
DECISION:
Continue to July 6 pending a revised plan and approval date.
FOLLOW UP REQUEST BY:
Erika Ueberbacher – Add the two extra in, double check what Roger has for information, keep in our standard conditions, and add bollards (sp.?) as a condition. Email the conditions out.
Roger Stolte – Verbally accept the conditions. Use the conditions as part of the bid. Change the plan, get the plan drafted up and sent to ConComm.
2. DEP # 269-0783
Opening of a public hearing relative to the filing of an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation under the Wetlands Protection Act, Mass. G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40. The Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation is being submitted to confirm the boundaries of 1,269 feet +/- of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands for 382 South Street East, Assessors’ Map 17, Parcels 74 and 77, Town of Raynham. The Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation is being submitted by Kasem Satayahurasksa.
DISCUSSION:
Richard Keller, of HB&W, attended as the engineer on the project since the original engineer, Mark Garrett, could not be in attendance.
There are two parcels involved, however, tonight there is a concentration on one of the parcels of about ten acres, or so. The Agent explained that tonight’s outcome is to approve the BVW line which goes through a portion, not the whole lot, just for a portion already disturbed for the horse farm. She went on to explain that there are only plans to build in one section, and if there is to be more building in the future, they will have to come back.
The Agent walked the wetland line with Mark Garrett, the wetland guy on the project. There were no discrepancies with the wetland flags. He did soils, and stopped at the property bounds, and did not cross over. She stated that this did not go property line to property line, only BVW flag numbers 6 to 36 were to be approved, and a note should be made saying that there may be other resource areas or buffer zones not delineated. At this time, this is a good line.
Some abutters did attend the meeting. The property at 364 South Street East is owned by Mary Jo Foley, and her sisters, Barbara Rogers and Patricia Sousa. She just came to see and observe what is going on. Also, Ron Medeiros, another abutter, attended the meeting. He owns land in between the two properties.
The Agent’s recommendation is to approve as accurate, the BVW flags WF6 – WF36WI, and the only caveat is that other resource areas or buffer zones may exist on the subject parcels.
FYI to the public – if this comes back through for flags 0 – 50, they will receive another notice for a NOI.
VOTE TO:
Accept the BVW flags of WF6 to WF36WI.
MOTION MADE BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
MOTION SECONDED BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Shelley Coelho
Dave McRae
VOTE:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Shelley Coelho
Dave McRae
3. DEP #269-0768
Continuance of a public hearing relative to the filing of an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation under the Wetlands Protection Act, Mass. G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40. The Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation is being submitted to confirm the boundaries of 180 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands for 1635 Broadway, Assessors’ Map 3, Parcel 77 and 78, Town of Raynham. The Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation is being submitted by 1635 Broadway Realty Trust.
DISCUSSION:
Bob Murphy, the wetland specialist on the project, was not in attendance. Mr. Peterson asked if ConComm could refer this project to an outside resource. The information received from the wetland specialist noted that the land changed from an ILSF to a BVW, so he is not sure if it is believable. The Agent stated that they could deny it as inaccurate, or send it to Jeff Bridge, however, Jeff Bridge is waiting for the same thing we’re waiting for, and the applicant would need to pay for Jeff Bridge. Mr. Peterson stated that the applicant should have to pay for Jeff Bridge. The Agent mentioned that if ConComm does deny him, it is, probably, what he’s looking for, so he can go to the DEP. Ms. Rochette thought he
should be given until the next meeting. The Agent asked what happens if he does not want to pay for a consultant review, and, then, it was discussed that ConComm would then vote to deny him.
The Agent suggested a motion be drafted that ConComm wants Jeff Bridge to review the existing file, and existing materials, as he wouldn’t be able to do another on site.
Mr. Peterson suggested a motion to have it reviewed, and pay for anything else that’s already happened. He, also, suggested that a letter be sent to the applicant’s represetative stating what the motion was that ConComm has requested, and if he wants to withdraw he can decide.
VOTE TO:
Request that our consultant, Jeff Bridge, review the materials submitted to the ConComm, and provide an estimate with a cost not to exceed on reviewing the project thus far, and any continuous work in order to achieve the end of an order of Resource Area Delineation which will all be payable by the applicant.
MOTION MADE BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
MOTION SECONDED BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Shelley Coelho
Dave McRae
VOTE:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Shelley Coelho
Dave McRae
4. DEP # 269-0769
Continuance of a public hearing relative to the filing of an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation under the Wetlands Protection Act, Mass G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40. The Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation is being submitted to confirm the boundaries of 260 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands and 240 feet of bank for 476 South Main Street, Assessors’ Map 11, Parcel 216, Town of Raynham. The Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation is being submitted by Barrett Johnson.
Dave McRae recused.
DISCUSSION:
Bob Murphy, the wetland specialist on the project, is not in attendance. The same motion will be sent out as in number three, above, to send out our consultant to review the budget not to exceed.
VOTE TO:
Request that our consultant, Jeff Bridge, review the materials submitted to the ConComm, and provide an estimate with a cost not to exceed on reviewing the project thus far, and any continuous work in order to achieve the end of an order of Resource Area Delineation which will all be payable by the applicant.
MOTION MADE BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
MOTION SECONDED BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
VOTE:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
5. Continuation of a public hearing relative to the filing of a Request for Determination of Applicability under the Wetlands Protection Act, Mass. G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40. The Request for Determination of Applicability is being submitted for the construction of an addition to the existing deck and to install an 18’ by 33’ above ground swimming pool. There are no proposed grade changes associated with this activity and all of the work will be limited to the existing lawn area. During construction a silt fence erosion barrier will be installed and maintained until all disturbed areas are stabilized. The proposed project is located at 63 Gretchen Way, Assessors’ Map 18, Plot 14-20 A Town of Raynham. The project is being
submitted by Thomas Mathieu.
CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 6, 2006
6. Opening of a public hearing relative to the filing of an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation under the Wetlands Protection Act, Mass. G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40. The Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation is being submitted to confirm the boundaries of 13,000 feet +/- of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands for Pleasant Street/King Street, Assessors’ Map 11, Parcel 50, 50-1, 50-2, 98, Town of Raynham. The Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation is being submitted by Robert and John Romani.
POSTPONED UNTIL JULY 6, 2006
DID ANYONE RECUSE THEMSELVES, OR LEAVE EARLY; IF SO, FOR WHAT NUMBER HEARING, AND AT WHAT TIME: Yes, Dave McRae recused from #4, formal discussion. Mark Peterson recused from #2, informal discussion.
TIME MEETING CLOSED: 7:35 p.m.
MOTION MADE BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
MOTION SECONDED BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
VOTE:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Dave McRae
Shelley Coelho
SITE VISITS:
1. Need a site visit scheduled for Gretchen Way. Dave McRae wants to go, and the Agent wants to go. Meet at Town Hall on Monday, June 19 at 7:30 a.m.
The Agent has a draft with the flags for Gretchen Way. They can move out of the 25’, if needed.
| 
