 |
CONSERVATION COMMISSION December 2, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING Town Offices, 53 Orchard St.,
Raynham, MA 02767
MINUTES
Present: Jim Ross, Chairman
Mary Ellen Rochette
Ann Avelino
Mark Peterson, Vice-Chairman
William Smith
Erika Ueberbacher, Conservation Agent
7:00 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS SESSION
The Chairman called the meeting to order 7:00 p.m.
A motion was made by Bill, seconded by Mary Ellen, unanimous vote by the Commission to accept the minutes of the November 4, 2004 meeting as written.
Jim distributed a thank you card from Judy Christine, previous Conservation Agent.
Chairman Ross announced that Hearings #3 and #4 have been continued by the applicants and would not be heard this evening.
Erika read an article from the SRPEDD Regional Review newsletter announcing that Raynham was one of eight communities to receive E.O. 418 funds. Raynham utilized $30,000 of E.O. 418 funds to prepare a new open space plan, revise Planning Board rules and regulations, and prepare zoning articles recommended in the recently completed master plan.
1. Continued informal discussion regarding Sunflower Drive 15-33, DEP File #SE 269-532 for a Certificate of Compliance – Can Four. Jim asked Erika the status of Sunflower Drive. Erika stated that the engineer was not aware that the seeding had not been done and he said that he would make a site visit. He would also revise the as-built. A brief discussion followed. This informal discussion was continued to December 16, 2004 at the applicant’s request.
2. A request was received for a complete Certificate of Compliance for Rosewood Common Chestnut Farm, 1305 North Main Street, DEP File No. SE 269-532. Commissioner Bill Smith recused himself from the discussion. Erika stated that the Commission performed a site visit on November 20, 2004 to look for soil stabilization. The areas by Unit #4 were excluded because the landscaping had not been completed. Behind Garage 6, the soil was not stabilized. Erika recommended issuing a Partial Certificate of Compliance to include Units #1, 2, 3 and the maintenance building and excluding the areas behind Garage 6 and Building #4. Jim recommended supporting the recommendation of the Conservation Agent. The Chairman discussed the wildlife
corridor that had been created from the vernal pool to the broader wetlands to the uplands. Mary Ellen motioned, Anne seconded, unanimous by the Commission to issue a Partial Certificate of Compliance for Unit #1, #2, #3 and the maintenance building and excluding the areas behind Garage #6 and Building #4. Commissioner Bill Smith recused himself from voting on this particular project.
3. The Commission received a request for a full Certificate of Compliance for American Material
Handling Corporation, 370 Paramount Drive, DEP File No.# SE 269-600. Erika performed a site visit to check for soil stabilization and to see whether or not the drainage basins were installed correctly. She advised the Commission that the area had been liberally hydroseeded and that during the heavy rain no soil erosion had occurred. She recommended issuing a complete Certificate of Compliance. She also advised that Town Planner, Rich McCarthy agreed to notify the Conservation Commission if there were any existing problems that would affect the stormwater. Mary Ellen motioned. Commission Bill Smith asked about the hydroseeding and asked if there was any growth. Erika said there was no growth and that there was no erosion.
Bill said that the Commission has never issued a full Certificate of Compliance unless there was growth, usually after the third cut. He asked if the Commission could issue a partial Certificate of Compliance. Jim said that there could be a major freeze before there was any growth. Mark suggested a re-visit in the spring or not signing off completely as they may have to re-seed. Jim said he would not be voting for a full COC with just the seed down. Bill made a motion to issue a partial COC until stabilization occurs. Jim said he didn’t know how the Commission could issue a partial certificate because Paramount performed the work even though we don’t know if it will be successful. Erika suggested issuing a partial COC and note
that the Commission would re-inspect the hydroseeding in the spring. Jim asked if there was a way to issue a partial COC in order to recognize that the work had been done, but leave it open so the Commission could re-inspect in the Spring to see if the hydroseeding had survived a couple of cuts. Jim asked Mary Ellen to withdraw her motion. Mary Ellen withdrew her motion. Bill then motioned, Mary Ellen seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to issue a partial Certificate of Compliance with a note indicating that the Raynham Conservation Commission or its Agent would re-visit the site in the Spring to insure that the hydroseeding has been effective.
4. The Commission held an informal discussion with Dan Gioiosa of Sitec, Inc. regarding a modification to approved plan for DEP File # SE 269-651, South Main Street, “Forge Knoll”. Dan Gioiosa, Sitec, New Bedford, appeared before the Commission. He said that the original filing consisted of a road and a 3-lot development. He was asking the Commission whether or not the proposed modifications to the existing approved plan were acceptable and if they were considered a major or minor change to the project. He stated that the land was sold and the new owner wanted a different style house. He proposed changing a front garage to a side garage in order to create a larger back yard. Mr. Gioiosa said that the 25 no touch zone would be
maintained with the new house configuration. The consensus of the Commission was to treat this change as a minor modification. Mary Ellen motioned, Mark seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to accept minor modification on plan dated 12/2/04. Commissioner Bill Smith recused himself from the vote.
5. There was an informal discussion on the poison ivy treatment protocol letter from Dr. John Jahoda based on a request by Peter Richer representing the Transfer Station to ask the Commission to address the treatment of poison ivy and maintaining less than 50% vegetation cover within the habitat area of spotted turtles. Erika stated that she had done a lot of research online for the best treatment. She had forwarded the information on the herbicide, application and process to Mr. Richer who in turn forwarded the information to Dr. Jahoda. Erika stated that she indicated to them that no treatment is to be done from June 1 thru June 30 while the turtles were nesting. She suggested using glyphosate as the best choice. A brief discussion followed. Mr. Richer asked if this methodology and field protocol would be acceptable by the Commission. Erika said she would notify Mr. Richer that the Commission accepted the methodology and field protocol for the treatment of the poison ivy.
Erika advised the Commission that she had performed several site visits herself because they were minor in nature. She suggested setting up both the Two T’s ANRAD/NOI and the Seventh Day Adventist site visits. The Commission agreed to meet at the Conservation Office on Saturday, December 11, 2004 at 7:00 a.m. to perform these site visits.
There was a brief discussion on the possibility of setting a third cut policy. The Commission agreed to have Erika write up a policy regarding the third cut and would discuss it at the next meeting.
Erika asked the Commission if they wanted to review the minutes in draft form. The Commission agreed to review only the final copy.
7:30 PM PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PUBLIC BUSINESS:
1. Continued Public Hearing for an Abbreviated Notice of Area Resource Delineation for 20 Warren Street West, Assessors’ Map 14, Plot 110; the applicant is David Butler. Mark Tisdale, Hayward Boynton & Williams, Taunton, represented the applicant. Mr. Tisdale stated that at the last meeting he had asked the Commission for their comments on the plan. He stated that he had installed the missing flags, marked the intermittent stream, had done some re-labeling and that all of the revisions had been made. Erika had advised Mark at the last meeting that a site visit had been done but that the Commission would have to do another site visit because there had been snow cover and the B Series line could not be determined. Jim had asked about soil
logs. Erika said there were no soil logs and that was a concern of hers.
Mark asked about the Commission’s site visit. Erika went to the site both before and during the rain and believes soil logs are needed. She said that there was a lot of flooding in the areas and that the wetland flags were sitting in the middle of a pool of water. She stated that the lawn’s color also differed in the flooded areas. Erika recommended that the soils be done because when a lawn is maintained, it is difficult to see the vegetation. She stated that she did an auger test in an area that she thought was the farthest extreme of where it could possibly be wet, and it came up with modeling within the first 8 inches. She was concerned that the applicant might build a house over an area that would flood. She stated that she wanted to
have an accurate line and would not want to place flags arbitrarily based only on the presence of water.
Jim said it seemed that the rest of the line was pretty clear and the Commission is in agreement with it. . Jim stated that most of the line was in the woods, but that it was very easy to follow. He stated that the B Series requires more than vegetation. Flags B1 thru B4 were fine, but Erika recommended they start at B4 and follow through to B 11. She suggested doing a couple of groupings just to make sure it didn’t bump out. Erika said that she thought if it wasn’t maintained as lawn, it would probably be a wetland. Mark Tisdale will contact Dr. Hewitson for his help in establishing the line based on soils. Jim said that he had an issue with the big piles of loam that was sitting on the edge of the wetlands and asked Mr. Butler what
he planned on doing with them. Mr. Butler replied that unless he could use the loam for fill, he didn’t know what he would do with the piles. The discussion was tabled as the movement of the flag line could necessitate the movement of the piles, as there could be an enforcement issue.
Jim advised that at this point, the Commission was in agreement with the line and did not have any questions on the ANRAD. Jim informed Mark that if he could have the flags done by the 11th, the Commission could make a site visit in order to clear it up for the NOI process. This hearing was continued to December 16, 2004 at the applicant’s request.
2. Continued Public Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the construction of a single-family dwelling with associated grading and utilities within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands and within the 200-foot Riverfront Area. The applicant proposes erosion control devices down gradient of the limit of work; the site is located at Finch Road, “Steeplechase Preserve”, Assessors’ Map 16, Lot 33-5, Subdivision Lot #5; the applicant is Quequechan Builders, Inc. Dan Guise, Sitec Engineering, New Bedford, represented the applicant. He stated that all the work is now outside the 200’ Riverfront Area and that the new hay bale line is right on top of the 200’ riverfront area. The Commission agreed that the new plan was a
major improvement. Mary Ellen motioned, Anne seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to approve plan dated November 26, 2004. Commissioner Bill Smith recused himself at from this hearing. Standard Conditions that apply: #1-13, #15-23, #25-26, #29 hay bale/silt fence, #30-32, #33 monthly progress reports, #34-39. Standard Conditions that do not apply #14, #24, #27, #28, and #40.
3. Continued Public Hearing for the filing of an After the Fact Notice of Intent for some cutting and clearing done within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands; the site is located at 46 River Street, Assessors’ Map 18, Plot 23A; the applicant is Mark & Colleen Karsner. This hearing was continued to December 16, 2004 at the applicant’s request.
4. Continued Public Hearing for an Abbreviated Notice of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands for #84 Forge River Parkway, Assessors’ Map 14, Lot 242-6; the applicant is Two T’s Realty Trust. This hearing was continued to January 20, 2005.
5. Continued Public Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the proposed regarding, fill, and associated drainage easement work on the east side of the parking lot within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands; the site is located at 1134 New State Highway, Assessors’ Map 15, Lots 152, 153 and 153A; the applicant is Timothy Bruno, Mibobden, LLC. Tom Pozerski, Hayward, Boynton & Williams, Taunton, represented the applicant. Tom stated that at the previous meeting, the Commission had asked him to stake out the swale for their site visit. Tom said he was proposing to utilize the fill pile, grade and install the construction swale. The 25 no touch zone from the wetland would be maintained. He discussed the grading and the product that he would like to apply. This natural wood fiber and binding agent would be applied like hydroseeding. He stated that the product would adhere to the contours of the land and would dry like a heavy burlap bag. He distributed a sample for
the Commission to examine.
Erika discussed the site visit that was made on November 20, 2004. Jim stated that the swale was deep in the woods and was very flat in that area. Tom explained the construction of the swale including the 6 ft. bench. He explained that with this design, the swale could be maintained and they could gain access from the back in the event of a problem. Erika asked Tom where the plan stood in terms of the Planning Board process and if the Commission had to send in a recommendation or approval. Jim stated that what was being proposed would actually exceed what is actually necessary. Tom said the system is designed for 50% over the 100-year storm. Erika stated that when she had spoken to Tom, there is not a full schematic plan on what they want to do next but it would
be easy to design now because this phase was overdone. Tom said he just wants to fix the problem and get rid of the potential erosion problem out there, allow existing stormwater system to work properly and then stabilize. He told the client that will help clean up any issues. Then get together for an overall drainage system for this entire site and permanently fix it.
Jim asked if any of the fill pile was going to be used. Tom replied that almost all of it would be used along the slope and some would be used for contouring. Tom stated that there would possibly be a screening operation. Erika asked if they might have to crush the fill. Tom replied they would only be screening. Jim said he is agreeable with this project and that it sounded like a plan in place that could be done safely this time of year. Mary Ellen motioned, Bill seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to approve plan dated November 29, 2004. Jim said he would like to add a Special Condition that the screening of the fill be done at least 100 feet away from the wetlands. Standard Conditions that apply: #1-9,
#10-13, #15-16, #17-23, #25-26, #29 surface hay bales, not entrenched. #30-32, #33 report when project is completed and immediately when construction ends. Standard Conditions that do not apply #34-35, #36-39. Special Conditions: #41, 42, #44, #45-48, #50, and #51.
6. Continued Public Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the proposed construction of a single family house and associated utilities within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands; the site is located at Brook Street, Assessors’ Map 16, Parcel 7-10, Subdivision Lot #10; the applicant is William Griffith, Creative Homes, Inc. Chris Yarworth, Yarmouth Engineering, Norton, represented the applicant. He asked the Commission for their comments following their site visit. Erika stated that a site visit was made on November 20, 2004 and the Commission did not have any questions. She stated that the corners were well marked and that the biggest concern was the drop down and the grading but thought that the erosion control measures were
adequate. Jim said that it looked pretty flat where the septic system was being proposed and stated that the plan did not indicate that. He agreed that the house corners and swale was well marked. Mary Ellen motioned, Bill seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to approve plan dated November 1, 2004. Standard Conditions that apply #1-13, #15-23, #25, 26, #29-39. Standard Conditions that do not apply #14, #24, #27, #28, and #40.
Bill motioned, Anne seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to adjourn meeting. Meeting adjourned meeting at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Guay,
Recording Secretary
| |
