Town of Raynham, MA - Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes 11/18/04

A request was received from the Transfer Station. Peter Richter, Waste Management, Massachusetts, appeared before the Raynham Conservation Commission. He wanted to address the recommendations made by Dr. Jahoda regarding the turtle habitat. Mr. Richter explained that they would like to mow the area and loosen up the soil thru tilling because the vegetation is very dense and it is difficult for the turtles to migrate through. He presented a plan depicting the location and nesting habitat areas. He stated that the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program requires that the area be maintained and thinned so that the vegetated cover is less than 50%.

Mr. Richter said that Dr. Jahoda recommended thinning the area by tilling it to loosen up the soil following the existing contours. He proposed performing the work in 20-foot wide strips, leaving the first 25 ft. untouched to allow the turtles to nest in those areas. Jim asked if this work would be required annually. Mr. Richter replied that he wasn’t sure but said it was a possibility. Mr. Richter proposed performing the work in mid April but no later than May 15^th because of the nesting season. He explained that the mowing and tilling would be done at the same time.

Mr. Richter also stated that the vegetative cover in the original habitat area is heavily vegetated and includes a thick cover of poison ivy. Erika suggested to Mr. Richer to contact Dr. Jahoda to see what herbicide he would recommend for the treatment of the poison ivy that will not affect the turtles or their eggs. A time frame for the application of the herbicide is also required. Bill said no herbicides should be put down after the 15^th of April because it takes 6 weeks for the chemicals to pass through the soil. Erika clarified that the herbicide must be specific for poison ivy and not other vegetation. After a brief discussion, the Commission agreed to accept review Dr. Jahoda’s recommendations on the choice of herbicide at a later date.

Mr. Richter proposed cutting the vegetative cover in the spring and immediately follow with the tilling. He stated that the Commission had previously recommended installing a chain link fence. He suggested putting in a mesh that was at least ½” in size so that the baby turtles could not pass through. He also proposed installing a silt fence following the fence line along the top of the slope. Mr. Richter stated that Dr. Jahoda also recommended placing moss piles down in the loose so because he thought the turtles might nest in those areas. The Commission agreed to allow the tilling and cutting as discussed. Judy suggested contacting the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program for their recommendations and Erika suggested contacting the United States Department of Agriculture because they deal with herbicides all of the time. Mr. Richer will speak with Dr. Jahoda and advise the Commission on his recommendations.

1. Ccontinued informal discussion with George R. Collins, P.E. of Collins Engineering Group, Braintree, regarding the Order of Conditions for DEP File No. SE 269-216, 81 Brookside Circle, Assessors’ Map 15, Lot 61-1, property owner: Michele Scaife, Trustee and Brookside Circle, Assessors’ Map 16, Lot 61E, property owner: Terry L. Denbesten. As no one was present to represent the applicant, the Bboard tabled the hearing informal discussion to the end of the evening.

2. Ccontinued informal discussion with Tom Pozerski of Hayward Boynton & Williams regarding work done by T & M Realty Trust that involved the installation of a culvert under the MBTA rail bed, along with other associated work, in an area located northwest of the intersection of Britton Street and King Philip Street and approximately 500-ft. north of the old stone railroad bridge that crosses over King Philip Street between Broadway (Route 138) and Prospect Hill Street.

Tom presented a revised plan to the Commission. He explained that the original ribbed corrugated concrete culvert had collapsed in the middle causing the water to back up into the farm field area causing flooding and creating a safety hazard. Tom said he believes his clients felt it was an emergency situation so they removed the old culvert and installed a new one. They have admitted they were wrong to do this work without a permit. Judy asked Tom if he had any documentation indicating that there was a culvert there as no one on the Commission had seen the culvert previously. Tom said he would give the Commission a written statement that he has seen the existing concrete culvert.

Tom stated that he has spoken with Raynham Highway Superintendent Roger Stolte. Tom stated that the Ttown’s detention basin located there on an adjacent property could handle additional water if need befrom the site. Bill reminded Tom that the area in the back is conservation land. Judy explained that water from private property cannot be drained onto protected open space. Judy explained to the Commission that they or legally onto thecannot grant a drainage easement. Tom suggested leaving the culvert in so it would not to create a safety hazard, permanently stabilizing the area, and plant sedimentation plantscreating a landscape plan to help address erosion control issues. Tom explained that prior to this work being done there was an existing swale but the swale sedimented up on the downstream side and caused it to backupthat had backed up. He said he didn’t believe there was any damage done to the wetland. Erika reminded Tom that he also has to work with the MBTA because they want the culvert removed. Erika asked Tom when he would have the drainage plan finished so he could return for another informal discussion. Tom replied that the bulk of the engineering was done but he would like to have Dr. Hewitson come out to the site and create a restoration proposal for that particular area. This informal discussion was continued to December 16, 2004 at the applicant’s request.

3. New iinformal discussion with Alex Molle of 6 Mohawk Drive, Raynham regarding a modification to an approved plan for Map 4 & 7, Plot 116, Lot #65. Mr. Alex Molle appeared before the Commission. He presented a revised plan to the Commission for review. Mr. Molle said that the modification he is requesting is very minor. He proposed changing the shape of the pool from rectangular to kidney shaped. He said that even though the new shaped pool would be 5-feet closer to the Buffer Zone, the distance would still be 80 feet. Erika advised the Commission that no modifications are allowed on a plan approved under a Determination of Applicability. She explained to Mr. Molle that he would have to re-file for this change. The Commission reviewed the plan and a brief discussion followed. Jim stated that the Commission did not see any problems with the revised plan as shown, but that Mr. Molle would have to re-file. The hearing was continued to December 168, 2004 at the applicant’s request.

4. The board Conservation Office received a call from Commissioner Bill Smith for a violation at 905 North Main Street which consisted of two fill piles in the wetland/buffer in the back of the house; the property owners are John and Karen McMasters. Erika and Judy made a site visit on November 18, 2004 and met with Mr. McMasters. Mr. McMasters agreed to pull back the stockpiled soils farther away from the resource area and would install hay bales. He will cease and desist from working on regrading his lawn until he and Erika discuss the different filings and the Wetland Protection Act. Mr. McMasters also agreed to have the wetlands re-flagged and prepare a proposed plan on what work he intends to do on his property. Erika recommended to the Commission that a follow-up letter be sent to Mr. McMasters to make sure he understands that the fill piles have to be moved as soon as possible. After a brief discussion, Jim asked for a motion to send a letter to Mr. McMasters to move the piles of fill by December 18, 2004. Bill motioned, Anne seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to send a letter to Mr. McMasters.

5. Erika reported to the Commission on the results of the NOI Appeal for the Superseding Order of Conditions for 88 Dean St. She said that all parties are at a stalemate at this time. Erika advised that the biggest issue to be resolved is whether or not the work done on the lawn counts as maintenance and whether or not it would count for the 10% threshold for work within the Riverfront Area. Chris Ross, Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Resource Protection, Division of Wetland and Waterways will present a synopsis of how the DEP plans to treat this concern so that Mr. Ashley, the representative for Mr. Andrews, , Wetlands Consulting, Inc., Lakeville, and the Raynham Conservation will know how to proceed. Erika stated that a report is expected from Chris Ross within the month. Jim asked Erika to let him know when the follow-up meeting is scheduled so that he can attend.

6. Jim Ross reported on his November 6, 2004 site visit to 1062 Broadway (Route 138), DEP File No. SE 269-245, Assessors’ Map 4, Lot #142: applicant David Trucchi. He stated that everything looked fine and the only issue he had was that the hay bales had not been removed once construction was completed. Jim recommended issuing a full Certificate of Compliance and to urge the applicant to remove the remnants of the hay bales. Bill motioned, Anne seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to issue a full Certificate of Compliance.

7. Jim discussed the proposed meeting calendar Erika had prepared. Erika advised that hearings are already being booked into the middle of January and requested that the Commissioners let her know if they have any conflicts. She also distributed copies of extra conditions that she has used in the past and asked the Commissioner’s opinion on whether or not they would be interested in using permanently for adding special conditions to projects.

1. Ccontinued Public Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the proposed construction to expand an existing electrical supply warehouse facility in an existing industrial within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands; the site is located at 33 Commercial Street, Assessors’ Map 14, Lots 50-1 and 50-2; the applicant is Brian Munro. This hearing has been continued to January 20, 2005 at the applicant’s request.

2. Ccontinued Public Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the proposed construction of 8,055 l.f. of roadway with utilities (municipal sewerage), drainage and associated site grading within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands. In addition, 4,690 s.f. of wetland filling is proposed with over 10,000 s.f. of wetland replication; the site is located at Off at South Street East, Assessors’ Map 17, Lots 130-18, 137-B, 138-1, 143-1 and 143-2; the applicant is Paul Bumila, Twin Towers Realty. This hearing was continued to December 16, 2004 at the applicant’s request.

3. Ccontinued Public Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the proposed plan to seed with Conservation Mix and re-establish 5,350 +/- s.f. of the 25’ No Touch Area within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands; the site is located at 189 Overlook Drive, Assessors’ Map 3, Lot 460 & 461; the applicant is Steve Parker. Mark Garrett, Garrett Group, Plymouth, represented Steve Parker.

Mr. Garrett explained that he had been requested to present a wetland line of existing conditions and a disturbed site delineation. Mr. Garrett advised stated that he had performed some soil work and presented a plan dated 11/9/04 to the Commission showing a preliminary line. He explained that the Commission had decided to have Jeff Bridge, Mason & Associates, Milford, work with him to finalize the line. He submitted a plan to the Commission depicting the existing limit of work and hay bale line and the historic wetland line that was created by himself and Jeff Bridge and stated that both he and Jeff are in agreement with the line. Mr. Garrett requested a continuation of the hearing because he would like to work on the impact analysis of the site. Mr. Garrett explained that both he and Jeff had acquired aerial of the site which bracketedphotographs of the site in order to determine if there was a portion of the disturbance that had occurred before Mr. Parker took ownership of the site. t He stated that the ownership date of Mr. Parker’s purchase of this particular site in 1997 and that in reviewing the aerial photographs, both he and Jeff Bridge are in agreement that substantial alteration took place on the site prior to Mr. Parker taking ownership.

Mr. Garrett explained that both he and Jeff Bridge are in agreement that Mr. Parker is not responsible for all of the alteration, but a fraction of it but and that it was too preliminary to say how much. Mr. Garrett said no planting would be taking place before the end of winter and wanted to take the next several weeks to finish the impact analysis so he could present a restoration plan. He then asked for a continuance. He wanted time to look at the impact analysis with Jeff and come up with a reasonable plan that would address both the needs of the environment and client and bring forth a revised plan. This hearing was continued to January 6, 2005 at the applicant’s request.

Jim asked Erika if she had any comments on her site visit. She replied that even though the flag line had been agreed upon, it was going to be a difficult design because of the research involved in determining what types of species were there in the past and then designing itthe restoration / replication to match the historical data. Jim asked if the Commission had to technically accept the line. Judy said it should be the consensus of the boardCommission that they agree with the line. Mr. Garrett said he would design the replication for both the buffer zone and replication transition specific to the needs to those particular species and that since Mr. Parker is only responsible for a percentage of what was wetland they would try to enhance what they are replicating. He said he is willing to work with the Commission. Erika advised that the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program would have to review the plan. The Commission advised Mr. Garrett to send the plan to NHESP first because of the time constraints. Erika invited Mr. Garrett to bring the plan into the office so she could review it before he sends it into the NHESP.

4. Ccontinued Public Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the construction of a single family dwelling with associated grading and utilities within the100-foot Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands and within the 200-foot Riverfront Area. The applicant proposes erosion control devices downgradient of the limit of work; the site is located at Finch Road, “Steeplechase Preserve”, Assessors’ Map 16, Lot 33-5, Subdivision Lot #5; the applicant is Quequechan Builders, Inc. This hearing was continued to December 2, 2004 at the applicant’s request.

5. Ccontinued Public Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the proposed construction of a 26 Lot residential subdivision with associated roadways, three detention basins, utilities, grading and a proposed replication area with a portion of the construction taking place within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands; the site is located off King Street, Assessors’ Map 12, Lots 245, 242-1 through 242-30; the applicant is Russell Grabau, Pembroke Country Club. This hearing was continued to December 16, 2004 at the applicant’s request.

6. Ccontinued Public Hearing for an Abbreviated Notice of Area Resource Delineation to confirm the boundaries of Bordering Vegetative Wetlands for Raynham Woods Commerce Center, Assessors’ Map 15, Lot(s) 176-2B, 3, 3G, 4, 4J, 4L; the applicant is Paramount Development Associates, Inc. Mr. Ken Conte of Beals & Thomas, Inc., Southborough, represented the applicant. Mr. Conte stated that several modifications have been made to the line as shown on the plans. He stated that minor modifications were made to the wetland areas behind Wal-Mart. A large wetland area located directly off Rte. 44 at the corner of Paramount Drive East and Rte. 44 was delineated on the south and a parcel of wetland was delineated and re-flagged behind Zatec and Preferred Freezer. Minor modifications were also made to the line on the property off of Hill Street where sewer construction is ongoing. Mr. Conte stated that Sam Haynes of ENSR identified an isolated vegetated wetland pocket just opposite the sewer line and performed isolated land subject to flooding calculations. He then had the calculations stamped by an Engineer stating that that area does not qualify as isolated land subject to

Judy asked Mr. Conte what the volume of the isolated wetland pocket was that the engineer verified. There was some confusion as to the location of the pond that was being discussed and possible discrepancy. A brief discussion followed. Judy asked if they had added the volume for a 1-year storm when the drainage calculations were done. She also did not see any information on what the seasonal high groundwater table was. as.

Mr. Conte said he didn’t know if that assumption was made during the calculations. Judy explained the process in determining how the seasonal high groundwater table is determined. Mr. Conte said that he didn’t have a calculation on the seasonal high groundwater. He said he didn’t know if there were any assumptions made. Erika said it hasn’t been reviewed yet. Judy explained that if there was a low spot and the seasonal highwater table with one-year storm event overtopped the basin, it would overflow that low spot and discharge into the wetlands and become an intermittent stream. Erika said it might be beneficial to send some of the comments to ENSR. Judy asked if an engineer could determine at what point the basin would overtop. Erika said that ENSR could review the new calculation summary.

Mr. Conte said he needed the date that the delineation has been accepted to present to the Planning Board and requested approval on everything else except for Lot 176-4J. Erika advised that the Commission could accept a portion of the line as accurate and then indicate that a portion of the line is inaccurate. Judy said if the Commission votes, it must be the consensus of the board then the Commission and that Erika could send a letter to the Planning Board. Jim asked Mr. Conte if he wanted the Commission to vote on all but one lot. Mr. Conte said he wanted to continue the hearing but wanted a vote for all of the other parcels excluding Lot 176-4J. Jim then asked the consensus of the board. Jim asked for a motion to accept the ANRAD line for Parcels 176-2B, 3, 3G, 4, 4L and excluding Lot 176-4J on plan dated November 16, 2004. Bill motioned, Anne seconded, unanimous vote by the Commission to accept the ANRAD line. Judy recommended sending correspondence to the Planning Board for administrative purposes. This hearing was continued to January 20, 2005 at the applicant’s request.

7. Ccontinued Public Hearing for an Abbreviated Notice of Area Resource Delineation for 20 Warren Street West, Assessors’ Map 14, Plot 110; the applicant is David Butler. Erika and Jim Ross made a site visit on Sunday, November 14^th. Erika stated that both she and Jim worked on re-numbering the flags. There was only one flag off but they found it in the field. Erika stated that because there was snow on the ground, the lawn could not be verified and they couldn’t validate whether there were soils information on the B Series. She said they felt comfortable with the line except for the B Series.

Mark Tisdale from Hayward Boynton and Williams, Taunton, represented the applicant. He stated that there were only minor changes made. A couple of numbers had to be relabeled, two flags needed numbers, and one flag was added. He stated that there was a question on an intermittent stream but that the stream was coincident with the B Series flags. Erika recommended another site visit to review the B Series line and that a determination would have to be made on whether or not soils are needed to verify an intermittent stream and the extent of the line. Erika said she was comfortable being at the site and having the intermittent stream re-labeled and didn’t think soils would be needed at this time. Jim recommended continuing the hearing to the next meeting on December 2, 2004. Erika suggested putting it first on the agenda. This hearing was continued to December 2, 2004.

8. New pPublic Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the proposed regrade fill on site on the east side of the parking lot within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands; the site is located at 1134 New State Highway, Assessors’ Map 15, Lots 152, 153 and153A; the applicant is Timothy Bruno, Miboden, LLC. Tom Pozerski, Hayward Boynton & Williams, Taunton, represented the applicant. Tom presented an overview of the project and. He discussed the existing sStormwater mManagement Ssystem located on the property. He proposed moving two fill piles in the future. He proposed a 25-foot no touch zone off of the wetland line, installing hay bales and a drainage swale sized 50% above the 100-year storm requirement. Tom stated that the existing stormwater system would continue to function at this time. He proposed placing the fill in and stabilizing the area. Tom offered to install a double row of double-staked hay bales if the Commission so required. Tom stated that the swale area at the bottom would be constructed first so it could also act as a temporary sediment trap. In the event of heavy rain, they could clean it out, loam it, seed it and mulch it. Tom said he didn’t want to see the piles remain during the winter and thought it was a good preventive measure.

Judy said she didn’t see how the fill could be stabilized before the winter. She suggested installing temporary erosion control measures around the pile. Judy said in order to create the swale, the wall would have to be built up and she didn’t believe it could be stabilized at this time of year. Jim said he would make a site visit. Judy suggested installing a double row of double-staked hay bales for now. Tom said if the pile eroded and moved into the main detention basin, it could discharge into the wetlands. Judy asked Tom to stake the swale in the field so that the Commissioners could see it on their site visit. This hearing was continued to December 2, 2004 at the applicant’s request.

9. A new pPublic Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the proposed construction of 16 condominium units with associated parking areas, walkways, drainage structures, utilities, grading and landscaping within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands and within the outer riparian zone to a perennial stream; the site is located at Gatsby Drive, Assessors’ Map 18, Lot(s) 45, 46C, 46D (Raynham), Lot 8B (Taunton); the applicant is Jean & Jeff Li and Thomas & Suzette Tanguay. Al

SSager, Outback Engineering, Inc., Middleboro, represented the applicants. The applicant is proposing to build a 16-unit condominium development. Mr. Sager said that they are maintaining the 25-foot no touch zone and 100-foot Buffer Zone from BVW from the pond and the BVW back of lot 200’. There will be associated parking in the front which is out of the BVW on Lots 4 & 5. There will be associated drainage within the 100-foot Buffer Zone. Mr. Sager said that a portion of Lot 4, which is the most restrictive lot, is partially within the 200’ outer riparian zone. He explained that there would be five units within the 100’ BZ and within the 200 ft. outer riparian zone, and 11 units within the 100’ BZ. The septic systems are designed and located out of the 100’ BZ. Mr. Sager said Judith Nitsch Engineering, John Schmidtt, has reviewed the plan and that there are no issues at this time. He has also received approval from the Planning Board but that approval is contingent upon Conservation Commission’s approval. Jim asked if there is anything marked in the field. Erika replied that the riverfront areas were staked.

Judy said the Alternative Analysis needs to be reviewed and that the 10% alteration is not a given. She explained to Mr. Sager that if the lots were recorded at the Registry of Deeds prior to August 1996, he could alter 10% of the square footage of the river front or 5,000 s.f. whichever is greater and that was the maximum amount that could be altered. Mr. Sager said he thought it was more than that. Jim asked Mr. Sager how much of Lot 4 is in the riverfront area. Mr. Sager replied 39, 326 s.f. Jim told him that the most he could alter is 10,000 s.f., and that the alteration had to be cut down to 5,000 s.f. Mr. Sager said he was always under the assumption that it was more and that the law was less restrictive if the lot was created prior to 1996. Judy explained to him that if the lot was created after the Rivers Act, it would be 10% alteration or 5,000 s.f. whichever is less. Mr. Sager said that the layout has changed but the intent was the same.

Judy explained to the Commission that the applicants are considering acquiring some adjacent property to have a higher percentage of green space. Mr. Sager explained that they would purchase the land contingent upon putting in more units. He also explained that under multi-family regulations they are required to have one acre of land to 7 more units or 4,000 s.f. per unit and that they need this additional area. Judy repeated that if the lots were in existence prior to August 1996, it would be 10% alteration or 5,000 s.f. whatever is greater or it does not meet the standards for work in the Riverfront Area and would require a new filing.

Jim asked if there were any options. He said that this particular building would be taking up 5300 s.f. more than what is allowed and that they would have to re-design. Mr. Sager said the only thing he could do would be to cut back on the lots or reconfigure. He stated that with the new multi-family zoning, a 100 ft. setback is required from the road. Mr. Sager asked the Commission if Lot #5 could be approved since there are no issues with that lot. Bill advised him that if the Commission approved Lot #5, they would have to deny the rest of the project on this NOI. Judy suggested to Mr. Sager that he contact the Zoning Board and request a waiver to move the building closer to the road. Mr. Sager said he is restricted but thought that was an option. This hearing was continued to January 20, 2005 at the applicant’s request.

10. A new pPublic Hearing for a Notice of Intent for the proposed construction of a single family house and associated utilities within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands; the site is located at Brook Street, Assessors’ Map 16, Parcel 7-10, Subdivision Lot #10; the applicant is William Griffith, Creative Homes, Inc. Commissioner Anne Avelino recused herself at 8:45 p.m. Chris Yarworth, Yarworth Engineering, Norton, represented the applicant. Mr. Yarworth presented the plan to the Commission. He said a swale has been constructed, the silt fence line has been staked out and a double row of hay bales and silt fence has been installed on the downhill side. On the uphill side a single row of silt fence and hay bales have been installed. He advised the Commission that both the foundation box and silt fence lines are staked. He is proposing to locate the septic system on the downside of the hill. Jim thanked Mr. Yarworth for maintaining the 25 feet limit of work and agreed to visit the site. This hearing was continued to December 2, 2004 at the applicant’s request.