MINUTES
PRESENT: Jim Ross, Chairman
Mark Peterson, Vice-Chairman
Mary Ellen Rochette
ABSENT: Anne Avelino
William Smith
Erika Ueberbacher, Conservation Agent
7:00 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS SESSION
1. Minutes from 8/4/05 Meeting. The minutes of the August 4, 2005 meeting was reviewed. Mary Ellen motioned, Mark seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to accept the minutes as written.
2. Minutes from 8/18/05 Meeting. The minutes of the August 18, 2005 meeting was reviewed. Mary Ellen motioned, Mark seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to accept the minutes with revisions as discussed.
3. Report from site visit on 8/23/05 to Olson’s Greenhouse. Erika and Anne visited the site and recommended not issuing any orders at this point. Erika stated that the plastic has been removed and there is was vegetation or erosion control problems. Mark agreed not to send an Enforcement Order but recommended that the area be stabilized if necessary as soon as possible and suggested a deadline. It was agreed to have a deadline of October 1st. Erika will speak with Mr. King and ask him to put down some seed if it is necessary at the site adjacent to Riverview Apartments. At the Chairman’s request, Erika will send a copy of the minutes to both parties involved.
4. Report from Complaint on 8/29/05, Signature of Enforcement Order. Erika advised the Commission that she had received a complaint regarding a potential enforcement issue on Map 1, Lot 19, 1958 Broadway. Vice Chairman Peterson recommended issuing an Enforcement Order to stop the piling of fill. Mark said that the pile engulfed the chain link fence and extended up 35 feet beyond and that the pile was within 35-feet of the existing storm drainage system that goes into the wetlands. There was a discussion on what was being done at the site with the piles and grinding of the material. Erika suggested issuing a Cease and Desist Order and would invite them to attend the meeting on September 15th at 7 p.m. A site visit would also be set up. Erika
recommended having them install silt fence and hay bales and suggested that if the stockpiled material could not be moved at this time the piles should be covered as a temporary means of preventing further erosion sedimentation. Mary Ellen motioned, Mark seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to issue an Enforcement Order.
5. Adoption of Notice of Intent Policy. Erika read the NOI Policy she had prepared. Mary Ellen motioned, Mark seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to accept the policy as written.
6. Announcement re: Opening on Commission term ending June, 2006. Erika advised the Commissioners that she has received the official resignation of Commissioner Bill Smith. She read the notice of vacancy she would like to post and publish and asked for the Commissions approval. Mary Ellen motioned, Mark seconded, unanimous vote for Erika to prepare, post and the notice of vacancy. Erika suggested that when letters of application are received, the Commission would review and send to the Board of Selectmen their recommendations for appointment.
7. Correspondence between Janet Ross and the Highway Department. Erika reviewed the information received from Janet Ross and the Highway Department regarding the culvert located on Janet Ross’s property. Erika advised the boardCommission that the town will not accept responsibility for maintaining the culvert located on the site. Mrs. Ross was asking for the Commission’s help because of the expense involved to and liability involved in maintaining the culvert. There was a brief discussion on who is responsible for maintaining the culvert. Chairman Ross said he did not feel that thisthat asking T&M to maintain the culvert was an unreasonable request. and that the only issue was the maintenance. He asked Erika to compose a response
letter to T&M reflecting Janet Ross’s comments to see if they could help out. address Ms. Ross’s comments.
8. Correspondence from Highway Department to Russell Grabeau. Erika asked John Schmid to discuss what was going on regarding a complaint letter dated August 27, 2005 from Roger Stolte which was sent to Russell Grabeau about dust. John Schmid stated that he discussed this with Roger and stated that soon after that letter, crushed stone was put down to improve the situation. Erika advised the Commission that this project needs to be tracked.
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PUBLIC BUSINESS
Chairman Ross discussed an article in the Boston Globe regarding the filling in of wetlands in LA and man’s interference with nature. He added that there have been floods of information coming in specifically citing that the filling of wetlands and work in the riverfront might have contributed to the problems in the Gulf States.
1. DEP File Number – not issued. Public Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the proposed construction of a 3’ wide by 2’ deep drainage swale to re-route upland drainage into an existing detention pond; the site is located at 110 Everett Drive, Assessors’ Map 13, Lot 44-13; the applicant is the Town of Raynham. John Schmid, Sr. Project Manager represented the Town of Raynham Highway Department. Erika explained that she, Anne and Mark had gone to the site. Mr. Schmid discussed the large wetland area located behind 110 Everett Drive. He stated that in 1999 there was a problem with this basin surcharging. The design engineer has increased the volume, rebuilt it and it has been running adequately since then. Mr. Schmid stated that in order
for this lot to be buildable a system had to be designed that could intercept the wetland area and divert it into the Everett Drive stormwater management. Erika recommended approving the project with conditions. She will email the Standard Conditions to Mr. Schmid for review. Erika stated that this hearing cannot be closed because a DEP File number has not been received. Mary Ellen asked how long the work would take. John Schmid replied about two weeks and that he would work closely with contractor to insure that there was no breakout. Jim asked about conditioning for timing of a storm event. Erika will add a condition for timing. This hearing was continued to September 15, 2005 at the applicant’s request.
2. DEP File Number # 269-0744. Public Hearing for an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation to confirm boundaries of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands for 558 South Main Street, Assessors’ Map 11, Parcel 220; the applicant is the Town of Raynham.
Erika advised that she did not have any concerns about this public hearing and stated that hearing was ready to close but could not be closed at the last meeting because a DEP File Number has not been received. Mary Ellen motioned, Mark seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to approve this ANRAD.
3. DEP File Number – not issued. Public Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the proposed re-development/restoration/expansion of the former Sullivan School and grounds to house the new Town Offices, including the construction of new parking infrastructure, landscape improvements, and resource area enhancement; the site is located at 558 Main Street, Assessors’ Map 11, Lot 220; the applicant is the Town of Raynham. Jeff Richards, Landscape Architect, Waterman Associations represented the Town of Raynham. He stated that a DEP File #269-747 has been assigned. Mr. Richards stated that according to what he understood in his scope of work, he was not required to look for another location. Chairman Ross said the regulations are pretty clear
on municipal projects which require an Alternatives Analysis. Mr. Richards stated that they tried to stay focused on this site. Mr. Richards discussed the three alternatives, an 80 parking space plan, a 49 parking space plan and a 70 parking space plan.
He explained that they have proposed the 70 space plan as the plan of record. He also noted that because some of the meeting rooms proposed for the alteration hold 60 people, it would not be practical to have less than 70 spaces. Mr. Richards explained that 9,160 square feet of impervious surface was within the 200-foot Riverfront Area. He explained that the grading design would cause the water to sheet away from the building. Mark asked if there was filter fabric under the pavers in order to filter out gas, oils, etc. Mary Ellen asked about the life span of pavers. For maintenance Mr. Richards said occasional sweeping would be required.
There was a discussion on the amount of impervious area proposed. Jim advised the Commissioners that there was approximately 1,200 s. f. more of impervious surface proposedis more than what there is there right now and that he was concerned with all disturbed areas. Jim said maybe if more of the work was done with pervious instead of impervious materials there would be less degradation to the riverfront. Jim stated that on municipal projects there needs to be an Alternatives Analysis. Mr. Richards stated that the 80 parking space plan would be significantly above the 10% alteration in the Riverfront Area. Jim asked what the square feet of impervious area was as that was the key question for the Commission and that number was missing. Mr. Richards presented a
listing of calculations to review. He noted that the existing imperiousimpervious area that is within the 200-foot Riverfront Area is 9,160 square feet. He explained that the total Riverfront Area from the mean annual high-water to the 200-foot setback was 102,356 square feet and that 10% of that which he is allowed to alter would be 10,235 square feet. He explained that they had deducted parking spaces until they brought the alteration close to the 10,235 square feet or 10% allowed. It was noted that this would amount to roughly 1,200 square feet more than what is currently there. Mr. Richards stated that they would be willing to consider porous pavement as part of the design solution. He explained that the plastic matrix forms a mesh that would keep the 3/16” pea stone in place. He explained that in terms of water, the design of the parking lot from the building out in all directions, the pavement surface is designed to sheet so
water starting in the building and flowing across the bituminous concrete, when it gets to this band will begin to infiltrate. Mary Ellen asked about the maintenance. Mr. Richards stated that maintenance should require only occasional sweeping.
Mr. Richards said the proposed impervious surface is 10,300 sq. ft. and thewhich is 65 square feet over the allowable 10% maximum riverfront area disturbance. 10,235 is the 10%. Our proposed impervious in the RA is 10,300 sq. ft. which is only 65 sq. ft. above that 10,300. Jim wanted to remind the Commissioners that 1200 sq. ft. is more of impervious surface than there is in the RA area right now The proposed impervious surface is will add a total of 1,140 square feet of additional impervious surface to the .site. Jim said he is not solely concerned with the impact of impervious but concerned as well with the impact of other disturbance in that area and that there are a lot of numbers that needs to be reviewed. He stated that as far as impervious, it is a little more than 10%
but it is still 200 sq. ft. more than what is currently paved within the RA right now.
Erika said they are proposing an additional 1,140 sq. ft. impervious. Mark asked about using pervious asphalt asphalt as an alternate to traditional pavement.and the fact that it doesn’t break down like the impervious type.
Mark suggested they look at pervious asphaltMr. Richards is not comfortable with the use of pervious asphalt in New England as the salts and sands used in winter clog the pores. Jim said if more work was done with pervious instead of impervious. Mr. Richards stated that they are finding that with the use of pervious pavement in New England it is good for the first couple of years, but with the sanding, the fines would get in. Erika said there that should they propose the use of any alternative materials, the Commission should bewould have to issue a condition for maintenance and clean up., possibly 4 times year.
Mr. Richards stated that Brian Waterman asked the Chairman about trade-offs as part of this plan. One area that is associated with Century Drive is proposed to be returned to a natural surface to include water gardens and plants.
Jim asked Mr. Richards if the water gardens were being referred to as mitigation. Mr. Richards replied no. He quoted from the Act regarding the Act as being very clear with work in the inner 100 feet and that if planted and over time would become part of the forested area.The plan indicates areas that are to be planted areas within the 100 foot zone that will eventually grow into forested native vegetation. Jim asked Mr. Richards to clarify page C4 because the area he referred to as restoration area was listed as mitigation and he wasn’t sure what area Mr. Richards was referring to. Mr. Richards will correct the labeling on the plan. Jim asked where the 1,420 square feet of restoration was located and Mr. Richards pointed to the driveway. Mr. Richards explained
that the asphalt would be removed and it would become lawn again and that between the building and sidewalk, the area currently paved, will return to planting as part of the landscaping. There was a discussion on the calculations and the amount of impervious areas at the site. Mr. Richards stated that his feeling is that the bottom line of what is being proposed is better than what is there now and within the authority of the Commission to approve.
Erika explained to the Commissioners that this is a very extensive project and offered encouraged the Commissioners to take the plans home to review before the next meeting. Mark asked about the rain gardens. Mr. Richards explained that rain gardens are little depressions where stormwater accumulates and candidate species can grow effectively. He explained that they would fine tune the plant selection so the plants would also be drought tolerant. He stated that Sheet C6 shows a detail. Mr. Richards stated that there would be irrigation only around the building itself. Mr. Richards stated that they would like to finish the project in a timely fashion and stated that Joe Bettencourt wants to start the project in October. Jim said he isn’t ready to give
his thumbs up or down and wants to do more research on this. Jim said we the proponents are looking to put the absolute amount of development that will be permitted on this tight site and said he wished wished that the wetlands and riverfront issuesit had been part of the Feasibility Study.
Jim explained that there are opponents to the project and that people in town are saying the town cannot do anymore. Jim said there will be an increase in the impervious surface RA in the riverfront area and area and more increase in disturbance with pavers. and Jim indicated that the Act requiresthat there is a definite need for the an Alternatives Analysis. Joe Bettencourt said they looked at the Feasibility Study and thought about some other possibilities. Erika stated to Mr. Bettencourt that the Alternatives Analysis is a narrative that comes into the boardCommission explaining the sites that were considered and why they would not work. Jim said that the Alternatives Analysis takes into consideration wetland impact, project purpose and costs. He
explained to Mr. Bettencourt that he needs to make a list of the sites reviewed and the reasons why they might not work for the town hall and how they ended up atup choosing the Sullivan School. Erika said that it’s just a matter of putting it down on paper and that the Analysis Alternative is required for any riverfront project when you file a NOI. Joe Bettencourt said historically everyone knows that the current e town offices are inadequate. It was built in 1957 and thought they could build up and that they had looked at that. It would not give the town hall enough square footage for their needs or the space the police/fire department need and decided against it because of cost. Mr. Bettencourt stated that the Board of Selectmen created a committee to study the Sullivan School to see if would meet the needs for the town hall. He stated that with the alterations at the Sullivan School there would be enough space to locate both the Town
Planner and the Building Department. Chairman Ross explained again to Mr. Bettencourt that an Alternatives Analysis is required and asked Mr. Bettencourt to write up a narrative and suggested that this hearing be continued to October 6th.
Mark said it was a good plan,plan; the technology was there and it meets alavailable to help to meet alll of the requirements of state, federal and local laws. He explained to Mr. Waterman that the Commission was doing its job and would be held accountable. He explained thatasked that at the rate this town was growing if the building would be large enough. Mark stated that the Commission wants towanted to make sure there is enough space for more than 10 years down the road. Jim stated that part of the Rivers Protection Act is date sensitive and assumed that the lot has been in existence for many years. Jim asked Mr. Waterman if he was sure that both lots have deeds that proceeded August, 1996 because if one lot or the other has not, or there is any disagreement or
ownership, there are slightly different rules on how to count the square footage. He explained that if the Commission approves it, it would be based on the square footage as given. Mr. Waterman said he believes the two deeds are fine but would verify and asked that this hearing be continued to September 15, 2005. Jim requested that the deeds be verified and copies received in prior to the meeting on the 15th. Jim said this project is developing into a more complicated one and that there is a lot of public interest in this project. This hearing was continued to September 15, 2005 at the applicant’s request. Erika advised Mr. Bettencourt that the narrative and any accompanying new information and deeds must be received at ConCom one week prior to the meeting date.
4. DEP File Number # 269-0707. Continued Public Hearing for Notice of Intent for the
proposed construction of a single family dwelling, sewer and water utilities, erosion control, fence and associated grading within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands; the site is located at Richmond Street/South, Main Street, Assessors’ Map 14, Lot 59; the applicant is Jeff Linthwaite, Southern New England Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventist. Erika discussed the history of this project. She stated that Tom Pozerski of Hayward, Boynton and Williams has incorporated a post and rail fence and permanent concrete bound markers on the plan. Mark Tisdale, of HBW represented the applicant. Abutter Roberta Andresen had some questions and concerns. Jim advised her that the Commission was working out the conditions and that this project was
held up a long time because Natural Heritage had some concerns about endangered species. Mr. Tisdale explained the plan and answered Mrs. Andresen’s concerns. He stated that hay bales would be installed to prevent erosion from going into the wetland. Erika advised her that a post and rail fence would also be installed and could only be replaced with something similar to it and would remain until the end of time and that both the fence and concrete bounds are part of the deed restriction. Jim said he had some concerns about wildlife and flooding and that they have added areas that would pick up some water and that there would be a double set of hay bales installed completely around the side.
Mr. Tisdale explained that the plants being proposed will be the types that absorb water. Mark asked if the area was sufficient for the amount of fill that would be brought in and suggested adding a condition in terms of construction regarding groundwater. A stilling basin was suggested. Ms. Andresen explained that she had taken pictures of the area as well as the endangered species and had sent them to Natural Heritage but she had mistakenly moved the turtle out of its habitat to take a better picture. Mary Ellen motioned, Mark seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to accept the plan with the 40 Conditions and #42 to stabilize the basin during construction. Erika stated that she had combined conditions for a single family home and replication
conditions. She advised that Condition #18 should be yes. She sent them 40 conditions for this incorporated some of the issues discussed at the last meeting. Jim explained to Mrs. Andresen that at the last meeting the Commission was getting ready to set conditions on the plan as presented. There was a long gap of time between hearings, held up because the Natural Heritage people are interested in endangered species, spent a lot of time in giving thoughts to the plan in order to provide protection to the species located there. Jim explained that we had listened to all of the concerns and have taken them into consideration.
Mrs. Andresen asked the Commission to clarify some of the wording that she did not understand. Mark Tisdale discussed the plan and answered Mrs. Andresen’s questions. He explained that because of the low water table, they have had to keep the house up to get it out of the water table. Mark explained that the post and rail fence cannot inhibit any wildlife movement and has to be up permanently. Natural Heritage required in writing the deed restriction. Mrs. Andresen asked what they would be doing during the building phase. Jim replied that there are double sets of hay bales completely around the site and that all work will be done within hay bale areas. Erika advised that the replication area is usually done first because you have to have 75% growth over a couple of
growing seasons or it could hold up the project another year. Stockpiling is not allowed. Mrs. Andresen asked what she should do if during the building phase she notices any problems. Erika informed her that she could call her and if the problem was out of ConCom’s jurisdiction Erika would recommend whom she should speak with.
Erika stated that she has invited Mrs. Andresen to come into the office and she will tell her what type of plantings she could plant which would help in soaking up the water and that the Commission cannot fix anything that is there right now, but cannot let it get worse. It was stated by another abutter that there is a pool full of ungodly amounts of frog eggs and salamanders where the proposed driveway is proposed and that the pool has been there for years. Erika stated that the turtle would have verified that it was an endangered species habitat and that the vernal pool was different. Jim explained there are certain types of frogs and salamanders that some do and some don’t require a vernal pool to survive. Jim asked Erika to explain the appeal rights and advised Ms.
Andresen that ConCom’s decisions can be appealed. Erika explained that you can appeal up to 10 days from date of issuance. Erika explained that if there is a vernal pool in a wetland ConCom can protect it in the sense that it still has a protectable 100 foot buffer. but that iIn the upland area, the Commission cannot afford any protection at this point does not have jurisdiction under the wetlands protection act and that only presently Natural Heritage can do that.protects upland vernal pools.
Erika mentioned that this might be a site that the town can accept and that another neighbor suggested giving their portion up. Jim explained that the Commission was trying to push throughwill be working on some bylaws to give them more enforcement authority. Mark said there should be a special condition about pumping the water out of there. They need to build a stilling basin so that there is no mistake about dumping it anyway. Mary Ellen motioned, Mark seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to approve plan with conditions.
5. DEP File Number # 269-0742. Public Hearing for an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation to confirm the boundaries of 1,300 +/- ft. of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands and 210 +/- ft. of bank of perennial stream; the site is located at 186 White Street, Assessors’ Map 8, Parcel 75; the applicant is Robert Fottler. Randy Gagnon, Outback Engineering represented the applicant. He discussed the plan that encompasses a 4-acre site which leads to Tracy Pond. Jim said that Tracy Pond goes under the lot into a culvert and that all wetland flags are along the shoreline of the pond. Jim said he went out today and the line was straight forward. He explained that there is a stream that goes under the road to a culvert which then goes into another small pond and
that he did not have any concerns at all with the wetland flags but wanted to verify their accuracyand that they all seem accurate. Jim stated his concern was the area between Flag 8-11 because of the tremendous amount of trash that had been dumped into the buffer and the area near Flag #11 where there was a large brush pile. Jim stated that the plan was straight forward and recommended that the Commission accept the resource areas on this plan. Mary Ellen motioned, Mark seconded, and unanimous vote by the Commission to approve two separate lines on plan dated September 1, 2005 as accurate, Flags #1-18 bank of Tracy Pond, #1-13 bank of the perennial stream and #13-30 as BVW.
6. DEP File Number # 269-0743. Public Hearing for an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation to confirm the boundaries of 133 +/- ft. of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands; the site is located at 43 Pine Tree Lane, Assessors’ Map 17, Parcel 130-4; the applicant is Eric and Sutton Fleming. Erika stated that she and Commissioner Anne Avelino visited the site. The project is for an in-the-ground pool and deck. She stated that she did not have any questions or concerns and recommended approving the flags. Erika stated that there was debris and yard waste which should be removed. Mary Ellen motioned, Mark seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to approve the BVW as accurate on plan dated July 29, 2005.
7. DEP File Number #269-0741. Public Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the proposed re-construction of a weir; the site is located at Hill Street, Assessors’ Map 15, Lot 176-4J; the applicant is Paramount Development. Erika explained a site visit was done by Jim, Mark, Anne Avelino, John Schmid and she. She stated that this project was being done by Paramount because the town requested it as it was a condition under the Schwan’s permit. John Bensley of Beals & Thomas represented the applicant. Mr. Bensley stated that the town had asked Paramount to fix the flooding in that area because of neighbors concerns. Mr. Bensley explained that the cranberry weir located on the site had failed. To repair this problem, he proposed installing a concrete
weir structure, with oak planks filling in the slots. He would also be providing an easement. He explained that the structure would be put back into the embankment so it wouldn’t wash out and wouldn’t allow water to run around it. He stated that the highway department would maintain the structure and that the only maintenance would be the oak boards. Jim asked about the bottom of structure and how much water it would hold. Mr. Bensley replied that it would be 1-1/2 times higher than the bottom wood is now and would be at the same elevation. Mark asked what they were going to do before the weir was built. Mr. Bensley replied that they would be installing sandbags around it and would be pumping. Mary Ellen asked how long construction would take. Mr. Bensley replied a couple of weeks. Erika recommended providing John Schmid with a copy of the conditions for his review. There could be a discussion and this
hearing could close at the next meeting. Mary Ellen motioned, Mark seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to accept plan dated August 1, 2005 with conditions. This hearing was continued to September 15, 2005 at the applicant’s request.
8. DEP File Number – Not Issues. Public Hearing for an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation to confirm the boundaries for 30 Robinson Street, Assessors’ Map 1, Lots 27 * 28; the applicant is Hansen Associates. This hearing was continued to September 15, 2005 at the applicant’s request.
9. DEP File Number # 269-0738. Public Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the proposed construction of a 5,000 s. f. commercial building associates parking area, utility connections, subsurface disposal 9septic) system, stormwater management facility and incidental site grading. The work associated with the storm water detention and a small portion of the proposed bituminous parking area will occur within the 100-foot Buffer zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands; the site is located at 1557 Cape Highway, Assessors’ Map 16, Lot 61C; the applicant is North Light Realty Trust. This public hearing was continued to September 15, 2005 at the applicant’s request.
Complaints/Site Visit:
1. United Service Station, 593 Broadway. Erika explained that she had received a complaint from John Schmid, Consultant for the Planning Board. She explained that there had been an increase in what was originally filed with ConCom. She also stated that there is a lot of trash on the site which should be removed. Mary Ellen motioned, Mark seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to follow up on the complaint.
2. ABC Recycling, Broadway. An Enforcement Order will be issued.
3. 731 King Philip Street. Erika received a complaint and will follow up.
Filings:
4. RDA, 77 Alexandra Drive. Erika explained that this project was for a deck addition. A COC has been issued but did not include any further building. She stated that this filing did not have any perpetual conditions. She will follow up.
5. NOI, Paramount Drive. Erika advised that an ANRAD has been approved and is current. Chairman Ross will perform a site inspection during the holiday weekend.
6. ANRAD, North Main Street. Erika explained that the site has both perennial and wetland issues. She suggested the Commissioners visit the site.
Mark motioned, Mary Ellen seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to adjourn meeting. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Guay,
Recording Secretary
| 
