DRAFT MINUTES FOR THE RAYNHAM CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING ON DECEMBER 15, 2005
The meeting of the Raynham Conservation Commission was called to order at 6:15 p.m.
Staff present: Teresa Vickery, Verbatim Recorder, Erika Ueberbacher, Conservation Agent
Members Present: Jim Ross, Chairman
Mark Peterson, Vice Chairman
Anne Avelino, Commissioner
David McRae, Commissioner
The meeting of the Raynham Conservation Commission was closed at 8:10 p.m. by unanimous vote.
Staff present: Teresa Vickery, Verbatim Recorder, Erika Ueberbacher, Conservation Agent
Members Present: Jim Ross, Chairman
Mark Peterson, Vice Chairman
Anne Avelino, Commissioner
David McRae, Commissioner
1. Discussion re: Village at Wildflower drainage
DISCUSSION:
Mike Jones: Hi, I’m Mike Jones, and I’m here on behalf of Raynham Mills, LLC which is the 40B Subdivision which is just north of 495 and just east of 138. We're here tonight -- I had called Erika two weeks ago, one week, two weeks ago after a ZBA meeting, and the ZBA wanted us to go ahead and reduce what they felt was a dangerous situation with the ponds. We have -- Let me get you up to date, and I'll really make it quick because, at this point, we think we're probably 60% completed with the project. This detention basin, and this detention basin (pointing to an exhibit) were completed and we hydro seeded them in the fall, and it's rained since then. I'm fairly convinced that the seed never germinated. Water filled the ponds, and it hasn't really
leached. The original design, as I understand it, was for the ponds to fill up to a couple of foot depth, and for that water to infiltrate through the bottom into the water table. This season, with all the rain we've had, and the fact that, you know, the grass never germinated, and I think that grass has a tendency to separate the loam -- put all that water on top of the loam, and I think what's happened is that we sealed the bottoms. It was our intention to wait till spring, you know, empty them, reseed them, and go from there. You know, some of our -- one of our homeowners has been pretty active with phone calls and stuff, so, the ZBA had us in, and they felt it was a dangerous situation, so, they instructed me, a couple weeks ago, to lower the ponds, and put a fence up. We're in the process of putting the fence up; we have lowered the ponds.
Jim Ross: How did you that? What's the structure that --
Mike Jones: What we did is, we took the outlet -- two ways, we took the outlet control structure, we lowered the invert in the outlet control structure, as a temporary measure. We constructed, what I call is, a hay bale corral outside. We made it three feet -- three bales wide and two bales high, so, a little gravel, and filter it into the wetlands, and we also put pumps in the pond.
Jim Ross: Okay.
Mike Jones: My perception was --
Jim Ross: When you were pumping, did it pump out behind those hay bales?
Mike Jones: Into the corral.
Jim Ross: Into the corral, okay. So, you had both the gravity flow out in the pump into the corral?
Mike Jones: Right. It never over crested the hay bales. I visited twice a day to check on it, and it was my perception that that three layer of hay bales really did hold the silt back. You know, there wasn't the big silt plumes that you see beyond them. I think it’s working fairly well. I'm here tonight to let you know about that, and our plans were, initially, you know, wait till spring, get down to the bottom of the ponds so that we can see what's happened, make a determination since the – they really, the ponds aren't done. I call them ponds, they're spelled detention basins. And, once they're done, we'll let you know that they're done, and they should work. If they don't work, then, there's a problem, but, right now they're not
working, and, you know, until we can dry them up, there's virtually nothing we can do.
Jim Ross: Did you do something similar to the other basins?
Mike Jones: I did it to the two ponds, the one behind the clubhouse near the --
Jim Ross: Corrals on both?
Mike Jones: Corrals on both of them.
Jim Ross: Those remain, the hay bales? Mike Jones: The corrals remain, and we'll maintain them throughout the winter.
Jim Ross: So, at this point, any further precipitation will still drain out, so, the level in the basin will stay lower than what was originally planned.
Mike Jones: Yeah, I'd say the basins and the -- not the water quality, my mind today -- but, the settling basins have a big birm between that and the basin itself. The stone corrals around the settling basins are exposed, now, so, I'd say the water in the bottom of the ponds is six or eight inches deep.
Jim Ross: Okay.
Mike Jones: And, another six inches of ice.
Jim Ross: We were, you know, I've been a little confused, in some way, as to why it ended it up back here, and why it's not just resolved fully by ZBA.
Mike Jones: I think, you know, our attorney felt that when we went through the entire process -- storm water management is really (Inaudible.) Conservation Commission. I know in the traditional planning board process, the planning board is, sort of, glommed onto that responsibility, but, from a statutory point of view, storm water management belongs to the local compounds.
Jim Ross: I've got a couple issues I can think of, Erika, here, is that, you know, it certainly seems in this -- that, part of the season we're in right now, that, there's not a way to, that, you know, that we can't, permanently, you know, we've got to wait till the growing season comes. We can't even dig and do anything constructive out there. One of the concerns I would have, but, again, I don't think there's anything we can do, except, really, wait and see, is that we now have a situation out there with much smaller storm events than what had originally been planned. We'll, you know, we'll flood off of all those surfaces, and
come in and go now -- they've got that little corral, but, we'll be out of the detention basins, so, we won't have the same kind of treatment effect with that smaller volume in there as we might have otherwise had.
(Mark Peterson joins meeting.)
Jim Ross: But, that's the biggest issue that I can think of, right now, that would be, like, an impact on the wetlands.
Erika: We had a meeting this morning. The Zoning Board of Appeals called a meeting, and the town planner was there, the building inspector was there, and John Schmid was there. John Schmid offered to look through all of the files that we have because we've been considered the point person, and to provide some sort of an estimate as to, you know, what, exactly, a review would entail -- whether or not we need any soil control tests, any water monitoring wells, etcetera. Because the original consulting engineer (Inaudible) and, I believe, that there's been no contact with them since then. And, we don't have any funds that were
set aside for a up to the minute review, which we typically have with other projects. And, the ZBA seemed comfortable with that, and I pulled out all the files, and he's going to try to make an appointment to go through them and look at all that.
Jim Ross: Will he be reviewing that stuff with you, do you know, or will he just be doing it straight off the plans?
Erika: I believe that, today, he asked for anything that you guys had submitted to be sent directly to him.
Mike Jones: Yeah, we're going to try to put together a package, so that he can create an estimate for you. I think you have it in your files, all the submittals.
Erika: Yeah.
Mike Jones: But, it might be easier for us to put the package together than pull it from six different files here.
Erika: And, he's still going to go through our files, too, to see if there's anything else.
David McRae: I do have one question.
Mike Jones: Go ahead.
David McRae: This end of the map would be 138, correct?
Mike Jones: Here's 138; that's correct.
David McRae: Okay. As you come in off 138, there's a new group of houses being built on the left, and there's almost like a stream that goes underneath the road.
Mike Jones: Yes, that's right here.
David McRae: The last storm, I just happened to drive by there because I live there, and I noticed the water was backing up almost to the foundations of those houses. By fixing those detention ponds --
Mike Jones: No, I think what that was, is that there was a lot of junk -- there's a pair of flared ends here --
David McRae: Yeah.
Mike Jones: -- that are attached to, what size, I think those are 18- -- 15-inch diameter plastic pipes.
David McRae: Yeah.
Mike Jones: And, there was junk in front of them. The hay bales that they used when they were setting up the stone walls, they left them there, so, they raised the -- essentially, the water had to go up and over the hay bales before it could get into the flared end section.
David McRae: All right.
Mike Jones: So, we pulled those out, and the water mutually dropped down.
David McRae: I'm also glad to see you put a fence around that.
Jim Ross: A fence around both?
Mike Jones: Well, we're going to put fences around all the detention basins.
Erika: There's four.
Mike Jones: There's one right behind the medical center, one behind our clubhouse, there's the large one, and, then, there's one in the subdivision over here.
Jim Ross: Well, what action, if any, are we supposed to take on it? To use the consultant, or is that just a --
Erika: Yeah, I would do that, because it seems that we're going to be the point people, and, then, we're going to disseminate that information to whatever anybody else that's interested. I know that, typically, we have an engineer review any drainage designs and calculations, and, one of the thoughts is if there had to be any redesign, that, at least, he'd be up to speed on that. And, the ZBA wanted us to be able to have him, at least, come in, give a brief overview by, what was the meeting, the 14th of January, I think, the ZBA?
Mike Jones: Yeah.
Jim Ross: And, would you be following up on our behalf, and is there any other point in this where we'll be asked to vote on anything?
Mike Jones: I think only if we ask for a change in the plan.
Erika: Yeah.
Jim Ross: So, if the scope -- we might be -- or, come springtime, and find out things don't work, and we have to redesign, then, that would be a major (Inaudible) we would have to deal with.
Erika: Right.
Mike Jones: We would prefer what happens is, you know, wait till spring, we go into the bottom of the ponds, we do the investigation, we find out whether, you know, did we put too much loam down? You know, I have to admit that's not --
Jim Ross: That's the theory, right?
Mike Jones: That's not an uncommon situation. (Inaudible.) -- how good your controls are. I think a lot of the ponds -- people put too much, you figure, you know, three inches is what you're supposed to put, you put four or five the grass will grow better, and life will be grand, and all that. That's great if you're just growing grass, but the goal here is to infiltrate, not grow grass. So, you know, really, my perspective is there's not much we're going to be able to know until we can get to the bottom of the ponds.
Jim Ross: I agree, and, then, I think all I would ask, really, at this time is that those hay bale corrals be monitored, you know, if we end up with some storm events that really start to fill those up with silt they'll have to be maintained and dug out and stuff. So, do everything we can to make sure that there's, you know, as little impact on the actual wetlands and the outlets for those basins until we can get to the springtime, so, was that --
Erika: I would say that you should vote to allow them to use that hay bale corral method provided that they clean and maintain them because that is something that wasn't allowed in the original order.
Jim Ross: Okay, well, the issue is that we want tonight, should we bundle everything together, the idea of using our money for the consultant, allowing the hay bale, and any other points?
Erika: Yeah.
Mike Jones: If you want to marry it to the original situations, we have somebody walk the hay bales once a week, and, then, we maintain them on that basis if you want to tie it to that, you know, that seems sensical to me.
Erika: Like a weekly monitoring report?
Mike Jones: Yeah.
Erika: That would actually be good because, then, we could be the people that disperse it.
Jim Ross: But, so, to expand on it, too, that the weekly monitoring to be sure that it includes a monitoring and maintenance of the function of the new corrals.
Erika: Okay.
Jim Ross: Some sort of motion like that?
Anne Avelino: Yes, I will make a motion for what he said.
David McRae: I'll second it.
Jim Ross: Any further discussion? All in favor?
Anne Avelino: Aye.
Jim Ross: Aye.
Mark Peterson: Aye.
David McRae: Aye.
Jim Ross: Okay. Good luck out there.
Mike Jones: All right, thank you.
Erika: And, John didn't have an exact time of when he'll come in the office, but he expects to come in this week and look through the files, and, then, I guess you guys will talk to him about whatever he needs.
Mike Jones: I have his card. I'll give a call (Inaudible.) to see if I can get ahold of somebody.
Erika: Great. It seems like I have everything. I mean, it's this much stuff.
Mike Jones: I killed a lot of trees on this thing.
Erika: Yes, you did.
Jim Ross: Anything we're overlooking on this?
Erika: No, that's good.
Mike Jones: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Jim Ross: Thank you.
VOTE TO: Vote to allow them to use the hay bale corral method provided that they clean and maintain them, and also fill out a weekly monitoring report, as well as, vote to use Con Comm money for the consultant.
MOTION MADE BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
MOTION SECONDED BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
VOTE:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
2. Walter Drive, Extension of Notice of Intent DEP SE #269-648
DISCUSSION: A 3-year extension permit for order of conditions was requested because construction had never been started on this single family house. Erika called the building department to see if there was any problem with this, and she received a clear go ahead from the building department since no permits have been pulled, as of yet. Jim questioned if we typically grant 3-year extensions. Erika stated that we typically grant 1- or 2-year extensions if the work is started, but in this case the work wasn't even started yet. Jim raised a concern that the environmental, and wetland, lines change over time, so, how to keep an eye on this? Erika pointed out that there is a tracking mechanism on the permit where it
has to be put down what the previous extension number was. Jim has no problem granting an extension in this case, but a careful eye needs to be made to this type of issue in future.
DECISION: Grant a 3-year extension on this Notice of Intent - motion approved.
VOTE TO: Extend this Notice of Intent for a period of 3 years.
MOTION MADE BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
MOTION SECONDED BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
VOTE:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
3. COC Lot 9, Brook Street, DEP SE #269-716
DISCUSSION: Erika has no concerns on this. Grass has been planted and is grown in. Erika states that there are ongoing conditions that do need to remain on the form if a COC is granted.
VOTE TO: Grant a full COC with ongoing conditions (#8, 18, 21, 24, 30, 31, and 36) - motion approved.
MOTION MADE BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
MOTION SECONDED BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
VOTE:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
4. Setback Requirements BOH, CC revision
DISCUSSION: The BOH reviewed the existing setback requirements, and wanted a few changes made that would be helpful to applicants. Some of the changes were: a) add in words like full foundation and slab foundation, b) change caveat on RDA or ANRAD can be used for a wetland delineation, and c) put in that all filings can be subject to consultant review.
VOTE TO: Make revisions and clarifications as of today's date, 12/15/05, on the BOH & CC setback requirements - motion approved.
MOTION MADE BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
MOTION SECONDED BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
VOTE:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
5. By law Discussion
DISCUSSION: Initial discussion began on the process to work on the Local Wetland Protection Bylaws. It was agreed upon that department heads and past members of Con Comm should be included in the discussions. Comments about last years bylaws were that it was either too much information or that it was incomplete. Need to start with 10 or 15 and focus on them for the bylaws, at least initially. Jim put in writing to the Selectmen that he will be involved in creating the bylaws. It should not be a cumbersome document and the wheel should not be reinvented, rather pick up on things already out there, such as what the State does, and incorporate them for our community. Some initial ideas are as follows: 1) Wetland Protection Act, 2) Motor Vehicle Restrictions Section or a Trespassing Section, 3) Vernal Pools, 4) No Touch Zone, 5) Wetland Line Review Season, 6) Fees and Fines, 7) Soil Test Requirements for drainage basins and other things that pertain to storm
water. Mark would like to see each of them, for the Jan. 19 meeting, come up with 10 or 15 bylaws they would like to see put in place, share them, and from these ideas determine as a group which 10 to 15 bylaws they will work on. Erika made reference to putting file numbers on the bylaws.
DECISION: Continue discussion at the January 19 meeting which begins at 6 p.m.
FOLLOW UP ACTION BY:
ANNE AVELINO:
JIM ROSS: Jim has information at home he will bring in to the January 19 meeting that will help in creating/amending the bylaws.
MARK PETERSON: Mark has information at home from last year’s creation of bylaws. He will bring the information in for the January 19 meeting.
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE:
DAVID MCRAE:
ERIKA: The Sheehan Family Trust gave money to get help with the bylaws. Erika will fill out the form and send it in to get the help. Erika will also get in touch with Bill Napolitano from SRPEDD for some help.
Formal Session 7:15 p.m.
1. DEP # SE 269-0762
Continuation of a public hearing relative to the filing of a Notice of Intent for the installation of a finished water transmission pipeline underneath portions of public roadways, including Route 138, and an abandoned railroad right-of-way. There will be temporary alteration and associated restoration of bordering vegetated wetland, bordering land subject to flooding, and riverfront area for an unnamed stream over roadway right of ways and railroad right of ways, Raynham, MA. The Notice of Intent is being submitted by Moises Pariente, Inima USA Corporation.
DISCUSSION:
Moises Pariente: I just wanted to get back to the Commission, there was a question posed at the last meeting about the (Inaudible.), and they are, actually, outside the resources. And, I, actually, highlighted the area where the (Inaudible.) are. Those are small size drawings, but they are the same that are attached to the filing.
Jim Ross: And, so, it just so happened they were planned on being put in there about 2000 feet apart, and they all happened to fall outside resource areas.
Moises Pariente: Some places they are closer, some places they are a little farther together.
Jim Ross: Yes.
Erika: And, did you get the letter from Natural Heritage where they had flip-flopped the timeframe?
Moises Pariente: Yes, yes. We, actually, told him about it when we saw the letter.
Erika: All right, good. The last time you had passed out Natural Heritage --
Anne Avelino: It said, like, April to November? Right.
Erika: Yeah, it gave you conditions, yeah, but they should've flip-flopped the dates, so, when I, actually, typed in the conditions that they required, I had those.
Moises Pariente: Actually, we sent them this letter. (Inaudible.)
Erika: Oh, yeah, no, I didn't get that.
Moises Pariente: This, actually --
Erika: Is this an extra one, or should I make a copy?
Moises Pariente: You can keep it.
Erika: Oh, great, great. So, the dates were flip-flopped, but I took care of that.
Anne Avelino: Because I looked at that, and I'm like, really, they want us to start work in April, May, June, you know, it didn't make sense to me?
Erika: Right.
(Inaudible.)
Anne Avelino: This was the only thing that we had a question on.
Erika: Yes.
Moises Pariente: And, we got a DEP number?
Erika: Yes, we were waiting for that, and then --
Mark Peterson: Do you want to take a look at the booklet on that?
Jim Ross: I just looked at it when I was here, yeah, I did not bring it, I just looked at it while I was here. You can look at it if you want, quick, just read it quick because we're about --
Mark Peterson: Just give me a second.
Erika: I forgot, why didn't we put the feet in there? Is this something Mark would care about? Oh, yeah, that's additional.
Jim Ross: Moises, what's the date on our plan?
Moises Pariente: I think it's December 7.
Jim Ross: That's on this. Okay. What's the -- can you pull out one of the --
Moises Pariente: Oh, the application?
Jim Ross: Yeah, I want to know the current plan, itself.
Erika: The current plan.
Mark Peterson: November, '05, it says on the cover.
Moises Pariente: Yes, (Inaudible.) May 12, 2005, actually.
Jim Ross: 5/12/05?
Erika: That's the most current plan, May 12, '05?
Moises Pariente: Yes.
Jim Ross: Okay, and that's the date on all sections of all the plans?
Moises Pariente: Yes, right here, that's the revision date, that's the most recent.
Jim Ross: Okay. Thank you. And, would we want to make reference to the date of the (Inaudible.) letter, as well, or not (Inaudible.)?
Erika: No, what I did is I made reference to the conditions that they talked about and incorporated those.
Jim Ross: Okay.
Erika: Because I think that the major concern was that valve.
Jim Ross: Okay. And, people are aware that in your handout is a multi-page, misspelled, pipeline.
Erika: Yes, yes, oh yes. I just through these together on their draft.
Anne Avelino: Conditions.
Erika: Conditions, but if you -- I shrank back conditions because there were calls for, and we went over this last time, is they put things in and they just immediately, work, and, so, a lot of our hay bale conditions really didn't apply, and, so, I recrafted the conditions -- like I said, they're just a draft, I just did these before the meeting -- and, I incorporated -- conditions 32 through 35 are the specific ones from Natural Heritage.
Jim Ross: It looks good, you know --
Anne Avelino: You're looking for a motion to --
Jim Ross: I am, I know Mark is -- well, yes, we can give him a chance to speak in a second.
Anne Avelino: Okay.
Jim Ross: A motion to?
Anne Avelino: To approve the plan.
Jim Ross: Dated 5/12/05, is there a second?
David McRae: Second.
Jim Ross: Any further discussion? All in favor?
Anne Avelino: Aye.
David McRae: Aye.
Mark Peterson: Aye.
Jim Ross: Aye. Got your part down good, there.
Moises Pariente: Thank you very much. Do you want to keep that?
Jim Ross: No, you can have that. I just wanted the assurances from you. I'm glad you looked through that, so that makes me feel better that they're not going to have to muck around with a weak point in the resource area.
Moises Pariente: No, no, for us it's actually not good to put the park in the middle of a resource area because we have to go, you know, maintain them from time to time.
Jim Ross: Yeah, you might have to come back and see us just to go in and fix something. Heaven help you, then.
Anne Avelino: Thank you very much.
Moises Pariente: Thank you very much.
Jim Ross: Okay, do they need a, or want a, copy of the conditions, now, or are they all set on (Inaudible.).
Erika: What I could do, if you want, is email you the conditions because I'll just spell-check and I'll just put together a draft.
Moises Pariente: Okay.
Erika: Great.
Moises Pariente: Thank you.
Erika: Yeah.
Jim Ross: Okay. Thank you.
FOLLOW UP ACTION BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
ERIKA: E-mail the conditions to Moises Pariente.
VOTE TO: Approve the plan.
MOTION MADE BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
MOTION SECONDED BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
VOTE:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
2. DEP # - Not Applicable
Opening of a public hearing relative to the filing of a Request for Determination of Applicability for the replacement and removal of an existing deck; stair removal, relocation, and replacement; and after the fact driveway sealing at 277 South Main Street, Raynham, MA Assessors' Map 14, Lot 77. The Request for Determination of Applicability is being submitted by Gavin Curley.
DISCUSSION: Erika has been watching this, and there have been no runoff or erosion problems. An RDA needed to be done because of the location. Erika proposed a hay bale barrier between the work/staging area, and the resource area, prior to construction. Jim pointed out that there is nothing being done that will be closer to the river. It will all be done farther away from the river. Mark pointed out that there should only be hand excavation in the staging area. Erika to check to see that this is done.
DECISION: Negative three with conditions - motion approved.
MOTION MADE BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
MOTION SECONDED BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
VOTE:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
3. DEP # - Not Applicable
Continuation of a public hearing relative to the filing of a Request for Determination of for the delineation of a portion of bordering vegetated wetland line, the continued storage of stockpiled materials such as clean topsoil, asphalt, brick, and concrete, and the installation of permanent markers to delineate the limit of work, at 1958 Broadway, Map 1, Lot 19 Raynham, MA. The Request for Determination of Applicability is being submitted by Massasoit Greyhound Association, Inc., and Patriot Recycling Corporation.
DISCUSSION:
David McRae: I'm going to step out, Jim.
(David McRae recuses himself from this issue.)
Jim Ross: We were out there, on a cold day. Unfortunately, not cold enough to freeze the mud, as some of us found out. I almost lost a truck.
(Inaudible.)
Jim Ross: So, Erika and I were out there, and I walked the wetland line as flagged there, and had no problems with it.
Erika: So, one of the considerations for this was whether we approve a wetland line for this one. It's a separate column that they checked off.
Jim Ross: And, you folks can see, and I would recommend that we approve it. I think it is, and you can -- to remind you folks that the red dotted line, there, if I recall, is the 60-foot, but an actual 60-foot, sort of, buffer line from the wetland line which will be --
Mark Peterson: 60-feet from the hundred foot?
Jim Ross: Correct. Which is really going to be, sort of, where the permanent, you know, no stockpiling any closer than 60-feet.
Michael Quatromoni: We'll put in some markers.
Anne Avelino: Oh, the cement markers?
Michael Quatromoni: Yes.
Mark Peterson: Can you explain the storm water collection area? I think that this is what we -- could this be the concrete block (Inaudible.)
Michael Quatromoni: They're there.
Mark Peterson: Yeah.
Michael Quatromoni: Yes, they're, actually, survey locations (Inaudible.).
Mark Peterson: (Inaudible.) there's that low spot down on there.
Michael Quatromoni: Right, that was the one closest to the --
(Inaudible.)
Mark Peterson: Is that still on top of the asphalt, because I know the driveway that used to go out there, right?
Michael Quatromoni: It's pretty much a gravel soil. It's still asphalt. (Inaudible.)
Mark Peterson: There's asphalt down below? How is that draining, now? (Inaudible.)
Michael Quatromoni: (Inaudible.) It's like having a siltration fence, you know. What we've done is we've left some space in between the blocks, so that it (Inaudible.). We've, actually, put some crushed stone in front of there, as well, just as some additional filtration.
Jim Ross: My problems with the mud were no where near the wetlands. They were in other parts. Erika, let me just read to my fellow commissioners, here, that some of the conditions, that, and we had talked about these when we were out in the field that we would see in there is: 1) All work must conform to the plan referenced on Page 1 of the Determination of Applicability, 2) Members of the Con Comm, or agents. shall have the right to enter and inspect the property to determine and evaluate compliance with Determination of Applicability, 3) All materials stockpiled within the 0- to 60-foot buffer zone from the
resource area should be removed, so, can you just, kind of, point to those places, just a small amount --
Anne Avelino: So, they're going to be pushed back?
Jim Ross: Right. Just that and a little corner near 138.
Anne Avelino: Okay.
Jim Ross: 4) There shall be no additional stockpiling of materials within that 60-foot buffer zone in perpetuity, 5) There should be no disturbance, underlining no, of any wetland areas past the hay bales except to reseed with conservation grass mix, or to remove stockpiled materials per condition number three. Any additional erosion, prevention, and sedimentation protection measures not necessary during construction by the Con Comm, or its agent, will be implemented by at the discretion of the Commission, or its agent. Any deviations, whatsoever, from the final proof plans of the Determination of Applicability will require
the filing of a new request for Determination of Applicability, and, then, finally, 6) The wetland delineation is shown on, you know, we will acknowledge by saying the wetland delineation is shown on the plan referenced on page one has been verified as accurate if, in fact, we so vote. So, those are kind of a list of issues that we had talked about on that day out in the field.
Anne Avelino: Sounds like you've got it covered.
Jim Ross: Well, I think so. People have been very helpful and responsive to the issues that were raised.
Mark Peterson: The only one question I have, and it's kind of unrelated, but it's on the plan is, and, I think that Chris clarified that down at the bottom of the (Inaudible.) there was a lot of the sand and stuff that, probably, is the sand and whatnot that goes from the parking lot, and everything that washes down the street, and it goes into the stream which goes into the wetland, and I didn't know if anybody -- if that has any, you know, effect on anything, or if any of that -- the sand kind of just hits the bottom
-- if anybody can comment on it, if it has any ill effects on (Inaudible.).
Jim Ross: If I recall, what I, mostly, saw near the cover was, mostly, gravel on the bed of the
--
Mark Peterson: Yeah, I mean it was a (Inaudible.) sandy whatever mix. And, I know it's from the driveway and whatnot, and I'm just asking a question, I'm not asking you for special whatever -- if anybody has any comment (Inaudible.), if any of that washing down there -- what effect that has on anything inside the wetland (Inaudible.), or whatnot. Because it is such a large area --
Michael Quatromoni: Right. It's right in through this stretch, right in here.
(Inaudible.)
Michael Quatromoni: Yeah, that's pretty much where it's concentrated, right there. It doesn't appear as though it's impeding any of the flow within the channel, that's for sure. It's not -- this isn't obstructive at all, and it doesn't appear as though it extends (Inaudible.) certainly defined (Inaudible.) drainage channel running through here -- those were delineated as wetlands. It doesn't appear as though it's hurting anything at this time. There isn't a lot of -- there isn't -- actually, I didn't see any vegetation on the bottom of that channel even further down.
(Inaudible.)
Jim Ross: It doesn't, I may be wrong; it doesn't seem to be much flow. When I was down there, it seemed, actually, that it's not unless there's an event going on that there's -- it holds some level of water there even when it's not moving along through there, so I think --
Mark Peterson: It's not being carried out very far --
Jim Ross: No.
Mark Peterson: (Inaudible.)
Anne Avelino: So, you're looking for a motion to accept the line?
Jim Ross: You mean this is a two part?
Erika: A two part, yeah, I think you should.
Anne Avelino: Yeah, so.
Jim Ross: Okay, so the line -- so you're making a motion to change the line on the plan dated, what's that? (Inaudible.) The most recent revision? 11/10?
Erika: Yeah.
Anne Avelino: Yeah.
Mark Peterson: Yes.
Jim Ross: And, is there a second?
Anne Avelino: I motion to accept the plan.
Mark Peterson: I second it.
Jim Ross: Okay. Any further discussion on the motion to accept the wetland line? All in favor? Aye.
Mark Peterson: Aye.
Anne Avelino: Aye.
Jim Ross: That's unanimous.
Erika: Issue a negative three with conditions.
(Inaudible.)
Jim Ross: This would, again, be a negative -- we're going to issue for the request a negative three with conditions, and I'm going to suggest that if we vote in favor that we include, and we may have some other ones, but we actually include that list that I read --
Anne Avelino: That you read, yeah.
Jim Ross: -- out loud as to be part of the conditions of the project.
Erika: It's definitely not standard, I mean, these are very specific to this project.
Mark Peterson: It's a custom project, so.
Jim Ross: A custom project.
Anne Avelino: That's good. I like that. It's a custom project. Okay.
Erika: Any thoughts on --
Jim Ross: Well, first, let's get (Inaudible.) any motion for --
Anne Avelino: A motion --
Jim Ross: -- for number three with conditions.
Anne Avelino: The number three, yeah, number three with conditions.
Mark Peterson: With the specific --
Anne Avelino: The conditions that were read earlier plus --
Mark Peterson: Is there a set of standard conditions with the custom conditions (Inaudible.)?
Erika: No, it was custom conditions for this one.
Mark Peterson: Okay.
Erika: Are there any additional custom conditions, such as, would you like anything hand dug out from your stream area?
Mark Peterson: No, I mean, I was just concerned how much was getting in there, and I had one good look at it, and I wanted, you know, I looked at the other things, and it just was while we're here I just wanted, you know, it's a huge parking lot and when we get bad weather a lot of that gets sent down there. I don't know if that's part of the maintenance, cleaning out the ones up further? I just was asking. I don't know.
Chris Carney: Usually, what happens is when the parking lot gets sanded -- the snow, we push the snow, the snow sucks up the sand, and we have a rim around the whole outside. In the springtime, we come along and take care of the sand. We have (Inaudible.) Mike's company do a sand test, and we dispose of it, usually, at Crapo Hill. You know, that's usually how we dispose of the sand.
Anne Avelino: So, now do you salt that area, do you sweep it after, or?
Chris Carney: No, we, usually, just, basically, use, basically, sand, you know. It's more gritty for the people to grab on the hill.
Erika: Is it possible to just not stockpile any of the snow right in that specific area, would that be helpful?
Chris Carney: On the corner? Towards the entrance?
Erika: Yeah.
Michael Quatromoni: Well, I think it's probably coming through.
Jim Ross: Yeah, how many catch basins --
(Inaudible.)
Jim Ross: Are there drains all over the parking lot that are connected in now?
Chris Carney: Some we don't even know where they end up. It's just that old.
Jim Ross: We can tell you where some of them end up.
Chris Carney: Yeah, they end up at the bottom.
Mark Peterson: At the low point. Well, that's the lowest point, there, so, pretty much (Inaudible.).
Anne Avelino: Do you have any other conditions, Jim?
Jim Ross: No, again, they've been pretty responsive to things out there, so, I think in terms of that (Inaudible.).
Mark Peterson: I mean, I, short of, you know, (Inaudible.) the areas don't need to be inspected, but an operation like this on the edge of the Hockamock Swamp, and, you know, to make sure that this is maintained as conditioned, you know, I know you said something about we should be able to access it for the ANRAD, so that's the only thing, I mean, I don't see (Inaudible.)
Anne Avelino: Right, right. (Inaudible.) access, one of the conditions, the custom conditions.
Erika: This is something, too, where, typically, like, Mass Highway comes back in every few years and does another request, just to make sure they can keep doing what they're doing, and it might behoove them to just revisit the same thing every three years because, then, they can just be allowed to do the same thing forever.
Anne Avelino: With the conditions we read, I'm satisfied because I think that --
Jim Ross: Chris, you had --
Chris Carney: Yeah, after we get the loam back out of there, probably around July or August, why don’t you come back done then we’ll just look at the area again, and we'll adjust the line, at that point. We can adjust the line.
Mark Peterson: (Inaudible.)
Jim Ross: No, sounds like we can do it anytime we want. They're agreeing to that.
Chris Carney: Yeah, you can do it anytime you want.
Mark Peterson: So long as it's stated openly.
Erika: Yeah.
Jim Ross: Those drains, I know you said you don't even know where some of them go, but are there, you know, can you make some kind of, is there --
Chris Carney: (Inaudible.) they all gotta go down into that area, just because --
Jim Ross: They all come down into that particular area, there. Okay.
Chris Carney: (Inaudible.) this whole area here, there's several catch basins right up through (Inaudible.).
Jim Ross: Well, I'm just wondering if, and maybe other people were saying, and I just wasn't catching it, but if there's any attention could be paid, now that we're into the plowing season, to see if maybe some of the stockpiles of snow even could just be moved, to just to have the plowers cognizant of trying to keep them a little bit away, and, maybe, when we have our --
Chris Carney: We try to keep them (Inaudible.)
Jim Ross: So that they're not blocking them. Okay.
Mark Peterson: Doesn’t it all get put up closer to Sunoco?
Chris Carney: If you look at the birm of the dog track where we put the lights in, and the walkways --
Jim Ross: Yeah.
Chris Carney: We put that in because of the water from the parking lot got picked up, it used to go in the drain over by the office, and if somebody was parked there, the water couldn't handle it, if you had a tire on top of the drain; it used to flood the offices out. So, we put it (Inaudible.), you know. We're almost like; we wanted engineers to figure it out, just because we kept getting flooded out. And, then, we’re, like, after ten years, put the island in. We kind of rediverted the water. We had big problems.
Jim Ross: Is there anyone else here who has any questions or comments about this project?
Mark Peterson: Can I just -- I think you might have said it, but what is the permanent marker to be constructed of?
Jim Ross: On the red line? On the sixty-foot line?
Michael Quatromoni: Well, I was thinking concrete blocks. You know, as a good visual barrier, so that you can definitely see the line between each one. So, those would be positioned. (Inaudible.)
Mark Peterson: Don't drive away with this.
Erika: So, should we put that as an extra condition, then, permanent boundary at the 60-foot line shall consist of concrete blocks?
Chris Carney: (Inaudible.) It's actually easier for us; it's almost like a siltration for us. It works for us.
Mark Peterson: It's something that's not going to be, mistakenly, taken away by an excavator (Inaudible.).
(Inaudible.)
Mark Peterson: All right. I think if we --
Anne Avelino: You've been accommodating, and we appreciate it.
Mark Peterson: If you could just say what they're going to be, and something that's going to work for the operation --
Erika: Well, then, that way, they're also allowed to put them in, so, yeah.
Mark Peterson: -- and we all know what we're looking for. What is it? That's all.
Jim Ross: The motion has been made and seconded. All in favor? Aye.
Anne Avelino: Aye.
Mark Peterson: Aye.
Erika: Now, there's four copies of these because we had two advocates, so, it seems like a lot that's why I have the little clippy. You can sign these.
Jim Ross: Figure out what I'm signing.
Mark Peterson: These are your plans.
Erika: Yes, those are our plans, yes.
VOTE TO: Accept the line on the plan dated 11/10, and issue a negative three with conditions, as well as, put in an extra condition that the permanent boundary at the 60-foot line shall consist of concrete blocks.
MOTION MADE BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
MOTION SECONDED BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE
VOTE:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE - recused
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1) All work must conform to the plan referenced on Page 1 of the Determination of Applicability.
2) Members of the Con Comm, or agents, shall have the right to enter and inspect the property to determine and evaluate compliance with Determination of Applicability.
3) All materials stockpiled within the 0 to 60-foot buffer zone from the resource area should be removed.
4) There shall be no additional stockpiling of materials within that 60-foot buffer zone in perpetuity.
5) There should be no disturbance, underlining no, of any wetland areas past the hay bales except to reseed with conservation grass mix, or to remove stockpiled materials per condition number three. Any additional erosion, prevention, and sedimentation protection measures not necessary during construction by the Con Comm, or its agent, will be implemented by, at the discretion of the Commission, or its agent. Any deviations, whatsoever, from the final proof plans of the Determination of Applicability will require the filing of a new request for Determination of Applicability.
6) The wetland delineation is shown on the plan referenced on page one.
EXTRA CONDITION:
1) The permanent boundary at the 60-foot line shall consist of concrete blocks.
4. DEP # 269-0766
Opening of a public hearing relative to the filing of a Notice of Intent for the proposed alteration to underground water meter/valve manhole and the installation of new water utility shed with associated utility installation and site grading within the 100 foot buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetlands. Additional work outside of the 100 foot buffer zone is after the fact review of a storm water management system and associated appurtenances to the wastewater treatment facility including a lime silo, and the proposed the construction of a canopied truck loading area Assessors Map 1, Lot 15, 1950 Broadway, Raynham. The Notice of Intent is being submitted by Broadway Realty Trust.
DISCUSSION:
Jim Ross: Please let the minutes show, too, that David has recused himself from this hearing, as well.
Michael Quatromoni: And, I'd also like to submit -- I don't think you received this from the DEP, it's the DEP File Number for the --.
Erika: Oh, I got it on email. Yeah, no, I didn't, thank you, yeah.
Erika: That’s everything. Here’s our plans. They're kind of cumbersome, it might be easier to follow his -- This was the special permission one.
Mark Peterson: I know.
Erika: Do you want a copy of the plans down there, or do you want to follow along?
Anne Avelino: I'll follow up there.
Erika: Do you want a copy, Jim?
Jim Ross: No, I can see.
Anne Avelino: I have a good visual, a 40-foot scale.
Erika: I worked on my fear of heights on this one.
(Inaudible.)
Erika: I think I did pretty well, yeah, I was pretty proud.
Michael Quatromoni: This drawing is just an enlargement of the plan that was submitted as drawing three (Inaudible.).
Jim Ross: So we can see it.
Michael Quatromoni: Right, well, it's the same exact thing. In the beginning of November -- this is Bob Kelley of Broadway Realty -- Bob came in to discuss a possible modification to an existing order of conditions that had been issued in October, I mean August, for trenching and utility installation associated with the waste facility, and, at that time, the plans were, as part of the modification request were reviewed, and this is, actually, the plan that was discussed. And, it was compared against the plan that was submitted as part of the original notice of intent, and it was observed that there was a considerable amount of detail on
these plans that didn't appear on the notice of intent plans back in August. So, all of this work was, essentially, outside the 100-foot buffer zone, so, the plan that was submitted, essentially, gave good detail of the work within the buffer zone that provided, basically, just the building envelope for all of this work here. And, you can see that the building envelope was quite large, and there's a building underneath it, so, it included other areas. This load out was originally intended to be over in that location there, I believe. So, it was a pretty liberal footprint, and it included all the grassed areas along there and on the sides which was, originally, paved, as well as, the work in the existing parking lot there. So, what you see there was within that original notice of intent, and the utility work was the forced main sewer that, eventually, goes up to Route 138, and it runs down along the edge of the wetland. This is the delineated
wetland line here.
Erika: Could you talk about that? Who delineated it?
Michael Quatromoni: Right. That was, actually, done by Mason Associates, and it was done for another notice of intent. It was done for some drainage improvements work, improvement work that was done right within this area associated with the dog kennels. So, there was an existing order of conditions issued for the approved -- that wetlands line delineated by Mason and, then, that same approved line was carried over for the notice of intent down at the bottom.
Mark Peterson: And, it's still a good date (Inaudible.) I remember when we did the approval for the kennel stuff --
Michael Quatromoni: Right. They were both done in 2004.
Erika: Yes.
Mark Peterson: 2004, right.
Jim Ross: Great.
Michael Quatromoni: So, that's, essentially, the line, this is the 100-foot buffer zone here, and the modifications that were proposed, essentially, was an alteration to an existing water meter vault that's right here. There's a water line that comes into the site, there's an underground vault back there, and what we'd like to do is alter that so, it's just, essentially, the pipe going through the vault, and it would get filled in to (Inaudible.), and then, construct an above ground utility pole for the water meters and valves in this location. So, we're actually moving it farther out, away from the wetlands. Now, it's going to be
just about the 100-foot buffer zone line. So, that work is included in this notice of intent that was submitted, as is other work that's quite a bit outside the buffer zone, which is this area right here, and that's the covered truck load out area, the bio-solids, essentially, (Inaudible.) this filter process that you saw on the site tour, this filter process of the bio-solids.
Jim Ross: Yeah, we had a pretty interesting tour of the facilities.
Michael Quatromoni: And they'll get -- they'll either get loaded directly into a truck at that point and moved offsite, or they'll be loaded out with a small front-end loader and stored within this covered area just pending transfer into a truck and moved offsite. So, right now, this entire area is paved, although (Inaudible.) that block wall with a covered canopy on it, it is not a fully enclosed building as a canopy area, and those are the two pieces of work that are included (Inaudible.).
Mark Peterson: (Inaudible.) already paved in here or has this already been, this corner back here –
Michael Quatromoni: Actually, this -- all the site work is done. The building is nearing completion. The building itself has a water line (Inaudible.)
Mark Peterson: The water meter is still -- Michael Quatromoni: But, that work hasn't been done (Inaudible.) do some minor trenching work yet to expose that, and, then, this is going to be an above grade structure right here. But, all of the other work, all the utility work is done out to 138, all of the appurtenances to the treatment facility are all in place, and the work is now taking place on the inside of the building, completing all of the plumbing and the work on that. So, the work that was included in the
2004 notice of intent is complete, and this additional work done is part of the notice --
Jim Ross: Would you point out the lime silo and the other thing, so that Mark knows what an appurtenance looks like?
Mark Peterson: Just in case I ever (Inaudible.).
Jim Ross: Just in case he ever wants one.
Mark Peterson: (Inaudible.)
Jim Ross: If he gets one for Christmas we want him to know what it is.
Michael Quatromoni: -- a number of above ground tanks and these are receiving tanks on this side.
Mark Peterson: And, they're above ground? Michael Quatromoni: And, they're above ground silo-type tanks, and this is the lime silo --
Jim Ross: You can go inside it if you're lucky. It's really neat.
Erika: It's neat.
Mark Peterson: You guys got the tour?
Jim Ross: (Inaudible.) interesting tour. Michael Quatromoni: And, the lime is, actually, in a granular form in the silo, and there's mechanical equipment on the lower portion of the silo and the lime is on the top part. This project had been completely reviewed as part of the site plan approval process with the town, and, obviously, received a building permit through the building department, and received sign-off from all the different departments, including conservation at that time, for the building and
site work that's out in this area.
Erika: In other words, all the permits that they needed were --
Anne Avelino: Board of Health and everything, yeah.
Erika: -- up to date, and all the sign-offs that they needed were up to date except for this covered area and stuff are the new additions, but, like he said he's kind of filling in the blanks because we didn't have the same operating plans --
Anne Avelino: Right.
Erika: -- but, the office had signed off on this.
Anne Avelino: Okay.
Michael Quatromoni: And, as part of those reviews, they hired Judith Nitsch to review all of the different aspects of the project, and one of them included the drainage system, and we've included correspondence and the notice of intent concerning their review. And, they agreed that the drainage system that was proposed complied with the DEP storm water management policy. And, there were drainage calculations included with the notice of intent that were done by Hayward-Boynton & Williams, and they also wrote an erosion control plan, as well as, an operation and maintenance plan for the retention basin and the other drainage
structures, and parking lot maintenance, and those types of things, so, those were in there. We took it one step further, so that we could make sure that we looked at all the different rainfall events. Drainage calculations that were done by Hayward-Boynton & Williams looked at one particular storm, and we went and looked at the 2-, 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year storms for runoff from the property, just so that we could demonstrate that the plan conformed with all of the DEP's nine performance standards under the storm water management (Inaudible.).
Jim Ross: So, is all that water going over to Mark's little stream in the front near 138 or does that all drain a little further back?
(Inaudible.)
Michael Quatromoni: So, we've looked at the peak runoff. And, there's certainly mitigation, as I mentioned before this project started, the entire parking lot was paved, but, now, we've got sort of a landscaped areas around some of the (Inaudible.) and the retention basin provides additional reduction to peak flows that'll discharge into the existing drainage system. So, we've gone through each of the criteria, the DEP's nine criteria, and the notice of intent, and I think we're able to show (Inaudible.).
Anne Avelino: It looks like a thorough plan. Thoughts, Jim?
Jim Ross: Well, I think the, you know, the stuff that we're being asked to concentrate most on is relatively minor stuff that's --
Anne Avelino: Right.
Jim Ross: -- in here at this particular time. I think that it's a, you know, the plan seems well thought out. It makes a lot more sense, me having been out and really looked through the, you know, the whole thing there. I do understand that there's one -- still waiting on Natural Heritage, is there a --
Mark Peterson: Storm water form on ANRAD?
Erika: Yes, actually, do you want to see the ANRAD because it was a pretty nice -- he included a lot of extra stuff that --
Mark Peterson: Yeah, let me take a look at it. (Inaudible.)
Michael Quatromoni: I sent a request to Natural Heritage on (Inaudible.), and it included the notice of intent, and I also included --
Jim Ross: And, they have 30 days, correct? Michael Quatromoni: They give themselves 30 days. They're pretty inflexible; they take the full 30 days.
Jim Ross: Yeah.
Michael Quatromoni: And, in the letter that I had sent to them, I had also included copies of other reviews that had been done on the same property, and --
Jim Ross: Which all came back (Inaudible.) Michael Quatromoni: Positive, no detrimental impact. And, the other reviews that were done, well, the most important one was, that there was one done for the notice of intent that was submitted for the treatment facility last year, and, so, that's specific to Broadway Realty. There's another done for the notice of intent for the drainage improvements for Massasoit that was also last year. And, then, the third one was for a proposed transfer station, and, we were required to submit to them for the transfer
station project as part of this site assignment process. So, they received two notices of intent plus a very detailed site assignment application, as well as the E and F that we filed for the transfer station, and all of that work is within several hundred feet of one another, and it's all contiguous to the same wetland area. And, all three reviews came back with determinations of there being no negative impact.
Jim Ross: You see, the technical issue that we have (Inaudible.) having an outstanding -- so, I'm just trying to -- what I'd at least like to do today -- because we should really have for our files is your 17th letter from Natural Heritage on this one, and the next time we meet is the 6th of -- the 5th of January. Your letter, if you have not heard back from them, then, we assume that there's no problem. So, you should have heard back by that particular date -- this would not be, you know, unless the letter comes back and says that there is a problem, then, that would be, you know, that would clear up that particular outstanding issue. I, personally, can't think of any other outstanding issues on this particular --
Erika: Mike, I don't know if you know the answer to this, I just wrote a little note to Jim, do you know if there are any review funds still left for John Schmid floating around to do a final analysis of this project? I mean, he did look at the plans for me, recently. Because the planning board, I know, takes consultant reviews, and, typically, we piggyback on that. And, because what I thought would be good for the record is to have his final okay for Cons Comm because I could probably have him do that next week. I didn't know if you knew that off hand, I mean, he came in and he had no problem coming in.
Michael Quatromoni: (Inaudible.) planning board approval process and I don't know if there was a lump sum applied or whether or not it was in periodic payments.
Erika: But, so, but you didn't give any money back from them yet, right? They still have it, then, we should be all set. Because what I could do for this is, and we do, like I said, we piggyback right on it. We don't charge extra. If he already has consulting money available, he could have a final review letter that approves this, as well. And, then, we would have it, but I'd also cc it to the Planning Board, Board of Health, whoever else you went through, so, you'd have that. He's pretty quick about that.
Michael Quatromoni: And, we haven’t changed anything in terms of --
Erika: Right.
Michael Quatromoni: -- storm water management, aside from what he’s reviewed, and is copied on and –
Erika: Right. Correct. Right. So, that might be a good thing, too.
Jim Ross: Do you want to check?
Erika: Yeah.
Jim Ross: Are there any issues with the covered truck area, at all? I know that we were out looking in that area. That's -- the planning board is fine with that?
Michael Quatromoni: That was actually shown at that location from the plans that were approved I think.
Jim Ross: By the Planning Board, okay.
Michael Quatromoni: That was that set of six drawings.
Jim Ross: Right.
Michael Quatromoni: So, those were -- that was the final location for that, and, actually, this was shown as being altered, as well, so, that was including the Planning Board's approval package.
Erika: I know you said this on our site visit, but, just for the record, could you explain, also, the area where everything is stored outside, that doesn't have any requirements that it has to be in a building structure, as long as it was covered in terms of the elements?
Bob Kelley: Are you talking about the covered (Inaudible.) storage area?
Erika: Yes, just so that --
Bob Kelley: The requirement to store that material on-site is it has to be covered (Inaudible.) has to be covered.
Jim Ross: But it's just a roofed area, open on the sides.
Bob Kelley: Right, to keep the rain off it, yes.
Michael Quatromoni: And, the material is, essentially, in its final state, at that point. There's no additional curing or treatment that has to take place. That's the final end product. It’s just pending shipment to offsite use, so.
Jim Ross: Mark, could you, any other questions that you would have on this?
Mark Peterson: (Inaudible.) It says in the post development discharge and the pre-development discharge it says that, and it has checked, without storm water controls, but, what does that, what do they mean by that? This particular part, when you have the retention basin is part of the storm water controls, therefore, additional above and beyond? And, when they have this box checked, it's just kind of a form question, that maybe you could, if you want to look at it? Why do you have that checked as without if you already had it? Do they mean in addition to what you already had, the storm water controls?
(Inaudible.) Doesn't exceed the pre-development rights. I was just wondering why they said that. (Inaudible.) Do they mean above and beyond (Inaudible.) Am I reading it wrong?
Michael Quatromoni: In this particular case, this project could have conformed with the (Inaudible.) policy.
Mark Peterson: (Inaudible.)
Michael Quatromoni: And the reason being, the entire parking lot was paved for an extended period of time. So, by the fact that we've incorporated almost 20,000 square feet of impervious area, the rate of runoff would be substantially less, okay, so, we could have done this project without that control.
Mark Peterson: Okay. I was just wondering why you had the control (Inaudible.) if you didn't need the control.
Michael Quatromoni: That's a little something extra, I guess.
Mark Peterson: Thank you. I think --
Jim Ross: We would -- encouraging it to be -- that would be, yeah, but I want to make sure that's the only outstanding issue, so that we can -- let me just -- any other things people can think of here?
Anne Avelino: Not with me.
Mark Peterson: No. I think everything that I had, and beyond, has been answered.
Jim Ross: Okay. Questions, concerns from anyone in the audience?
Audience: I have two questions (Inaudible.).
Jim Ross: Yes.
Audience: About the off-loading area, is there any type of -- if there should be a rupture in the pipes of the trucks off-loading, is there any type of containment so it doesn't enter into the storm water drainage systems?
Bob Kelley: Yeah, where the trucks are off-loading, excuse me, there's a containment swale, so, if the trucks -- if the pipes do leak when they break the hoses, or the pipes do leak, the containment swale flows down into a drain that's outside and brings it back into the building for treatment.
Audience: Brings it back into the building for treatment?
Bob Kelley: Yeah, everything that they would spill (Inaudible.) --
Audience: So, it wouldn't end up in the storm water system?
Bob Kelley: No, no, it's been designed so it has to drain back into, you can’t see it on this here, but there's a floor drain, or an outside drain, which brings it back into the facility for treatment.
Audience: And, my second question is, you're talking about your storm water around the kennels, and the new catch basins that you put in, where do they drain to?
Michael Quatromoni: They drain over -- it doesn't show in this plan because that's the enlargement. That system discharges over into what used to be the railroad bed.
Audience: Okay.
Michael Quatromoni: Right at that location there.
Erika: Are you differentiating between this proposal and the other section of that --
Audience: -- the whole area where you're talking about storm drains, you never mentioned where they flowed to. I didn't know if they flowed toward the north, I mean, yeah, to the north, to the site Mark was talking about, or --
Michael Quatromoni: That would be to the west. And, then, that runs into the (Inaudible.) railroad. It's essentially (Inaudible.) at this point, and that flows to the north. So, it doesn't actually get into that same storm water network that we talked about on the (Inaudible.).
Audience: -- it flows the other direction towards the perennial stream?
Michael Quatromoni: Right, exactly, it flows to the west to the perennial stream and then (Inaudible.).
Audience: Okay.
Jim Ross: Any other questions?
Audience: (Inaudible.)
Jim Ross: I think we've just -- at this point, it sounds like it's just that very simple waiting for Natural Heritage that you've satisfied the rest of our concerns and gone through that, that extra annoying hoop of, you know, bringing us back into -- we'd like to check out the history and make sure that we have the same plans that everybody else has been looking at, and you've satisfied that very well. So, if it's all right with you folks I'm just going to recommend that we continue to put it on right near the beginning of --
Erika: We could put it right on number one right at 7:30 p.m. on January 5th.
Jim Ross: -- on January 5th. And, then, as long as we either have heard in a positive way from Natural Heritage, or have not heard from them at all, then, we will be able to act very quickly.
Erika: And, if we hear from Natural Heritage and they require conditions, I would have pre-prepared the conditions for the 5th.
Jim Ross: So, we can take care of that, then, right?
Erika: Right.
DECISION: Continued to the January 5th meeting at 7:30 p.m. Con Comm would like a copy of the 17th letter from Natural Heritage. If Natural Heritage says they require conditions, Erika will pre-prepare the conditions for the January 5th meeting. Con Comm would like Mike Schmid to submit a final review letter, and Erika will cc the letter to the Planning Board and the BOH.
FOLLOW UP ACTION BY:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE - recused
ERIKA - Pre-pare the conditions for the January 5th meeting if Natural Heritage requests conditions. Have Mike Schmid submit a final review letter, and cc the letter to the Planning Board and the Board of Health.
DID ANYONE RECUSE THEMSELVES OR LEAVE EARLY? IF SO, FOR WHAT NUMBER HEARING AND AT WHAT TIME:
ANNE AVELINO
JIM ROSS
MARK PETERSON
MARYELLEN ROCHETTE
DAVID MCRAE - recused from hearings #3 and 4 under the Formal Session
ANYTHING ADDITIONAL THAT DID NOT MAKE THE AGENDA:
1. TOPIC: Pipeline conditions draft and packet of information to review for January 5 is given to everyone.
DISCUSSION: This is pertinent information for Britton Street because the lawyer is coming in on January 5. David mentions that he will need to recuse himself from this topic because he has indirectly gotten paid by them. The issue is if Con Comm had voted to remove the pipe. Erika had all the minutes reviewed that mentioned Britton Street, and there was never a formal vote to have the pipe removed.
| 
