FINAL MINUTES FOR THE RAYNHAM CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING ON APRIL 20, 2006
The meeting of the Raynham Conservation Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
Staff present: Teresa Vickery, Verbatim Recorder, Erika Ueberbacher, Conservation Agent
Members Present: Mark Peterson, Chairman
Anne Avelino, Vice Chairman
Mary Ellen Rochette, Commissioner
Jim Ross, Recording Secretary
The meeting of the Raynham Conservation Commission was closed at 9:12 p.m.
Staff present: Teresa Vickery, Verbatim Recorder, Erika Ueberbacher, Conservation Agent
Members Present: Mark Peterson, Chairman
Anne Avelino, Vice Chairman
Mary Ellen Rochette, Commissioner
Jim Ross, Recording Secretary
David McRae, Commissioner
Informal Meeting
1. Discussion with Shelley Coelho regarding an opening on the Conservation Commission.
DISCUSSION:
Shelley Coelho sent in a letter of interest at the same time as Dave McRae, but had a scheduling conflict at the time of the last opening. Now, the scheduling should be fine. Shelly is an attorney in estate planning, Medicaid planning, and guardian work, and has had some experience in real estate. Introductions were made. Shelley’s interest in conservation stems from a love of being outdoors, an interest in community work, and estate law. She has lived in Raynham for three years.
DECISION:
Jim Ross is resigning the end of June, or earlier, and would be leaving with two years left. Shelley would not be held to it, but she could fill the remaining two years, and then sign up for another three years if she wanted. ConComm would like to recommend her appointment to fill any remaining of Jim’s tenure. ConComm would need to send the Selectmen a letter recommending Shelley for the appointment, then, the Selectmen would call her in, and decide. If they appoint her, then she gets appointed by the Town Clerk. Shelley stated that she would be able to start right away. It was suggested that in the Agent’s letter to the Selectmen that she give the Commission latitude on the start date of the
appointment.
VOTE TO:
Recommend her appointment to fill any remaining of Jim’s tenure.
MOTION MADE BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
MOTION SECONDED BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
VOTE:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
FOLLOW UP REQUEST BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
Erika Ueberbacher – Send letter to the Selectmen recommending Shelley’s appointment.
2. David McRae appointment letter to Selectmen, meeting announcement
DISCUSSION:
This is for if there is a Borden Colony Committee. There is a substantial interest in forming one, and certain people have already sent in their request; this letter was talked about; the Selectmen’s meeting was continued to 4/25/06.
3. MEPA meeting re: Route 44 oil spill, meeting announcement
DISCUSSION:
The notice was received by the ConComm members. There’s an open Notice of Intent. The site visit is scheduled for 4/21/06 at 9:00 a.m. The MEPA meeting is scheduled for next Friday, 4/28/06.
4. Waste Management letter and turtle report
DISCUSSION:
A letter was sent regarding this. What will happen is that the poison ivy will be covered with tarps per the wetland scientist. They would cover it, pull it off, cover it, pull it off; this helps to kill the poison ivy and it does not affect the turtles. The tarping off would need to happen for the next two to three months.
5. BioDiversity Day Plan
DISCUSSION:
This is scheduled for June 3. If any of the ConComm members have any ideas, let the Agent know.
6. Snow removal correspondence to the Planning Board Announcement
DISCUSSION:
Placed on Planning Board agenda for their April 27th meeting.
7. Approval/edit of minutes from 3/16/06
VOTE TO:
Approve edits of minutes from the 3/16/06 meeting.
MOTION MADE BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
MOTION SECONDED BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
VOTE:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
8. ByLaw Discussion
DISCUSSION:
Agent passed out drafts for comments on the May 18 meeting.
9. Extension Permits for Lincoln Woods
DISCUSSION:
There are to be no extension permits if there are existing enforcement problems, and there’s not. There are to be no extension permits if the hay bales and silt fence have not been refreshed, and they have been. There are no extension permits if there are any outstanding issues, and there are not. The Agent did a site visit on 4/17/06. The majority of work is not completed.
VOTE TO:
Extension permits to be issued to the following lots:
Lot 2 DEP # 269-614
Lot 4, DEP # 269-613
Lot 5, DEP # 269-616
Lots 6-8, DEP # 269-592
Lot 10, DEP # 269-607
Lot 13, DEP # 269-598
Lot 15, DEP # 269-599
Lot 16, DEP # 269-597
Lot 17, DEP # 269-603
Lot 18, DEP # 269-602
Lot 20, DEP # 269-608
MOTION MADE BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
MOTION SECONDED BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
VOTE:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
Returned to discussion on the following after the public hearings:
8. Bylaw Discussion
DISCUSSION:
There was some discussion on the draft Wetlands Protection ByLaw. The one ConComm has talked about is the one that was modified. Regulations are the next step in the process. It is almost complete.
Adding in no fees was discussed per a Commissioner; however, the Agent suggested charging $25.00 per filing to cover costs of copying, printing, and postage. A Commissioner stated that he was not opposed to fees, but just felt it was less likely to be passed with fees. One Commissioner felt that we should collect the clerical fees upfront. Some others thought it was a good suggestion, but to be prepared at the Town Meeting. The Agent also felt that there should be an enforcement fine of $100/day, and that vernal pools should be protected, regardless of whether there were surface waters attached to them. In the interest of discussion, and the timing of putting a bylaw on the Town Meeting:
- Storm water bylaw may be introduced at the
November Town Meeting
- Wetland Protection Bylaw may be introduced in November at Town Meeting
- Route 138 Zoning Bylaw changes may be introduced in November at Town Meeting
- A time limit was discussed, and the Wetland Bylaw should be introduced by 2008.
- Should this be brought up in a special Town Meeting? The Agent will check.
FOLLOW UP REQUEST BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
Erika Ueberbacher – Check to see if the Wetland Protection Bylaw should be introduced at a special Town Meeting.
Formal Meeting 6:40 p.m.
1. DEP # 269-0774
Continuance of a public hearing relative to the filing of a Notice of Intent for the expansion of an existing commercial building with wetland filling and replication at 20 Bellows Road. Assessors’ Map 14, Parcel 242-3, Town of Raynham. The Notice of Intent is being submitted by Arthur Pearlstein, R.N.R. Realty, LLC.
DISCUSSION:
The last time they were in, they were asked to provide for snow removal on the set of plans. The Planning Board has already approved the project. The Agent has the correspondence from John Schmid. The conditions are standard for replication / bioretention and reviewed by Tom Pozerski.
On the 4/12 plan, the cover page is a different date it says revised through 3/29/06. Need to vote on the latest plan date of 4/12/06.
The Agent’s cover page says 4/5/06, the Agent’s cover page says 4/5/06, the second page says 4/5/06, the third page says 4/12/06 (the only page revised), the fourth page has no revision date, and the fifth page has no revision date.
DECISION:
Issue an Order of Conditions for the revised plan dated 4/5/06 with an additional insert of page 3 issued and revised on 4/12/06. Initial on the cover page that there was a 4/12 revision. Remove a staple from page 3, week ending 3/29 plans. Restaple with the 4/5/06 set. Issue an order of conditions for the revised plan dated 4/5/06 with an additional insert of page.
VOTE TO:
The latest plan dated 4/5/06 with a revision page 3 date of 4/12/06.
MOTION MADE BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
MOTION SECONDED BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
VOTE:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
Dave McRae enters at 7:05 p.m. (after the above vote).
2. DEP # 269-0749
Opening of a public hearing relative to the filing of a Notice of Intent for the construction of a paved turn around and parking area on an existing gravel road (Rogers Way). The site is located at 977 North Main Street, Assessors' Map 5, Lot 70-2, Raynham, MA. The Notice of Intent is being submitted by Shawn Cairns.
DISCUSSION:
Atty. Manganiello, and Sr. Biologist, Donald Schall, of ENSR Corp., were here with plans to review and discuss three things: 1) the construction of a turnaround on Rogers Way, 2) the relocation of a gate and 3)the installation of utilities and 4) the construction of a single family home.
The turnaround will not be paved. The turnaround exists within the 100' buffer zone from Hewitt's pond, as well as, the 200’ riverfront zone. No work is being proposed within the outer riparian zone. It was noted that there will be, approximately, 1500 sq. feet of disturbance in the riverfront area due to the construction of the turnaround, and it will be 60' from the wetland line. The Agent stated that there needs to be confirmation of the amount of riverfront disturbance for both lots for anything already done, and for anything new. ConComm, also, would like to know about the 200' buffer, as well. Lastly, this needs to be compared to the percent of total riverfront area on the property (ConComm needs this number.)
There will be four public parking spaces, and they will not block the gate. When this goes through the planning board, the Agent will bring it up to them on how wide the spaces need to be, etc.
ConCom requested that hay bales be put around the area where the fence gate is being reinstalled, as it is right on the edge of the pond. A small horseshoe shape of hay bales is to be placed around the area of work.
The installation of utilities may go through jurisdictional areas. The waterline exists, but the connection does not. The NOI needs to be revised to indicate all the project changes that have occurred over time. Atty. Manganello said they would remove the connection from inside the riparian zone so it is not an issue, and it is out of ConComm's jurisdiction.
It was stated to add into the notes that Donald Schall, of ENSR, would provide the narrative on associated river front areas. Mr. Manganello and Mr. Schall did not get a chance to view the plans prior to the meeting.
Snow removal was, also, brought up in this meeting. The Highway Department will clean up the snow on Roger’s Way. No snow removal is to be pushed out of the proposed driveway into Roger’s way. There are a few things that need to be completed in regards to snow removal: 1) Make sure that the grading is in relation to the berm, and moving the turnaround is okay with Roger Stolte; forward these two topics, snow storage and snow removal, to Roger Stolte, 2) snow removal, and storage areas, should be labeled on the plan, but not in the resource areas (this should be some sort of condition), 3) also, need to condition what will be used for ice on this road.
A site visit should be made with a revised set of plans, so that the Commission understands the site, to investigate what has been done in the field, and to look at the turnaround area more closely. The applicant is to determine whether or not they can build the house, and keep within the jurisdictional 25' buffer zone.
Per Natural Heritage, based on a review of this project, the natural habitat of the State listed wildlife species will not be adversely affected.
The gate, materials, location, etc., needs to be reviewed by police, fire, and highway.
Amy Ball, a wetland scientist representing abutter, Karl Wells, needed a number of issues clarified. Their biggest issue was that the work will occur in the riverfront area, which was not acknowledged in the original NOI application, and no alternative analysis was submitted to the Commission. She stated that there was no identification of how much riverfront area was devoted to this project, and that it was the applicant who has the burden of proving to the ConComm whether or not they meet performance standards for working in a riverfront area. Ms. Ball cited four performance standards that needed to be upheld: 1) maintain a 100' wide vegetated buffer, 2) storm water needs to be managed to the DEP's storm water management standards, 3) the purpose of the turnaround needs to be for safety
reasons. There was some discussion on this third standard. The Agent stated that the reason for the turnaround was per the planning board; police and fire reviewed it, but didn't request it. The Agent further stated that there are two things that should be corrected; there needs to be a basic principle indication of a riverfront protection alteration on the NOI, and an alternatives analysis needs to be completed. Ms. Ball then went onto talk about storm water management. She stated that a subdivision of four or fewer lots is exempt from storm water management standards, and she requested that best management practices be used during construction, such as the use of hay bales and siltation barriers to prevent alteration of the resource areas.
Karl Wells, the abutter, then spoke and asked a few questions. He wanted to know if the plans that ConComm has were the same plans that the planning board has, and the answer was yes. He further asked about a review dated 8/6/05, a letter from the town consultant that mentioned zoning issues in regards to drainage analysis, and asked about the scope of the plan, and abut the land being donated to ConComm. Lastly, he brought up parking and snow removal again. There was some question as to why the parking needs to be in the sensitive areas.
It was explained by Atty. Manganiello that the position of the turnaround was recommended by the Planning Board, and that by putting it where it is right now eliminates people from coming into the driveway, and turning around. It was also explained that since it is a half circle turnaround it prevents people from going into the sensitive areas. Mr. Wells, also, would like to see a detailed snow removal plan, and the Commission agreed that a plan is required that says where the snow is going to go. Mr. Wells also voiced his concern about a snow blower being used as this land is flagged as wetland on both sides of this road. The Agent suggested that he make a recommendation of snow removal for the town by submitting a letter to the Highway Superintendent on what he would like to see.
Mr. Wells also asked for a copy of the letter presented to the Board from Natural Heritage. The Agent will make copies of the letters for him. He then asked for copies of the letter from the fire chief and police department regarding the turnaround. The Commission stated that he could have copies of anything that he wishes.
The Agent asked the Commission if they wanted to see any typical engineering details on the plan, such as a note of what the fence is going to be on the plan, or a fence detail, or a cross section detail of the turnaround/parking grade. The Commission asked to see a cross section detail of the parking area to be included in any drainage calculations. If any signage is approved, include on the plan that it's approved, and have the planning board respond to it. The ConComm would also like to see the limit of work labeled on the plan.
If needed, the Agent will invite the town planner to a meeting to answer any questions.
A site visit will be scheduled. The Agent had to research whether or not a site visit is governed by open meeting laws.
DECISION:
Atty. Manganiello will initial on the plan that the turnaround is not going to be paved.
Hay bales are to be put around the area where the fence gate is being reinstalled in a horseshoe shape.
Remove the waterline connection from inside the riparian zone.
There needs to be confirmation of the amount of riverfront disturbance for both lots for anything already done, and for anything new. ConComm also would like to know about the 200' buffer. Lastly, this needs to be compared to the percent of total riverfront area on the property (ConComm needs this number.)
The Highway Department will clean up the snow. The applicant is to determine whether or not they can build the house and keep within the jurisdictional 25' buffer zone.
There will be four public parking spaces, and they will not block the gate. When this goes through the planning board, bring it up to them on how wide the spaces need to be, etc.
The gate, materials, location, etc., needs to be opened by police, fire, and highway.
The Commission will require a detail on the plan regarding snow removal plan that states where the snow is going to go.
FOLLOW UP REQUEST BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
David McRae
Erika Ueberbacher - Request a letter from fire, highway, and police for comments on the turnaround.
Set up a site visit based on the new plans which are due Thursday prior to the meeting by 4:00 pm.
Investigate how the sewer connection is reviewed by Conservation.
Mr. Schall - do the lines, riverbank, and other that was missing from the plans; there needs to be confirmation of the amount of riverfront disturbance for both lots for anything already done, and for anything new. Let ConComm know abut the 200' buffer. Compare to the percent of total riverfront area on the property (ConComm needs this number.)
Shawn Cairns - determine whether or not they can build the house and keep within the jurisdictional 25' buffer zone
VOTE TO:
Continue this to 5/18/06 at 6:30 p.m.
MOTION MADE BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
David McRae
MOTION SECONDED BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
David McRae
VOTE:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
David McRae
Close Formal
DID ANYONE RECUSE THEMSELVES, OR LEAVE EARLY; IF SO, FOR WHAT NUMBER HEARING, AND AT WHAT TIME: Yes, Dave McRae on Site Visit #5 Benevides
TIME MEETING CLOSED: 9:12 p.m.
MOTION TO CLOSE BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
David McRae
OTHER NOT ON THE AGENDA:
1. VOTE TO:
The Agent is to send a letter from ConComm to the Planning Board signed by every member of ConComm stating that they want all Judith Nitsch projects forwarded to them, at the time, for any project that has storm water, wetland, or river protection act jurisdiction. Every Commission member is to stop by the Agent’s office on Friday/Monday to sign the letter. It will be put onto the 4/27 Planning Board meeting; anyone can attend with the Agent if they are able.
MOTION MADE BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
David McRae
MOTION SECONDED BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
David McRae
FOLLOW UP REQUEST BY:
Mark Peterson
Anne Avelino
Mary Ellen Rochette
Jim Ross
David McRae
Erika Ueberbacher – Type and send the above-mentioned letter.
2. 374 Orchard Street
Jim Ross had emailed the Agent about this a while ago. Jim Ross asked about the files and whether there was a condition in perpetuity for paving of a driveway. The first file was for replication. The second file was for the house and just showed an existing gravel driveway. Does ConComm have want to tell someone to rip up their drive and put in gravel? There was a COC on part of the plan, but no condition in perpetuity was listed in the partial CoC or in the OOC.
If a condition is put into perpetuity in the OOC, the drive can never be paved. The Agent responded that if the perpetuity conditions are not echoed in the COC, it doesn’t stick. Jim Ross is concerned about the failure to put things in perpetuity. The Agent responded that if we say “in perpetuity”, it needs to be in an OOC so that she can check through to see what ones are in perpetuity before issuing a CoC.
SITE VISITS:
1. 151 Hickory Drive is an RDA – Mark and Erika
2. Mill Street – Gonsalves, MAHW ANRAD – Jim Ross to go on; the ANRAD came in and they didn’t do the mean annual high water line, and they need it now.
3. Butler Warren Street West NOI (See plans) – the ANRAD has already been approved; no site visit is needed unless ConComm wants one; Anne Avelino and the Agent did one before; Mark Peterson is to take the plan and see if he likes the culverts.
4. Johnson Pond Dam – NOI (See plans) – there is no wetland line for it; Jim Ross will take a look at it.
5. Benevides Prospect Hill Road – revised plan acceptance – Dave McRae recused - He is out of compliance; he shrank his house, there are piles of dirt, there are no hay bales; a site visit is needed by anyone who can do it; after the initial site visit, need to check a date and time for May 4th, and confirm with him, then, for the record, that all of ConComm (except for Dave McRae) will be making a site visit to his property; Shelly Coelho can get involved in this as well.
6. 98 Diniz Drive – permit – these two sites (#6 and #7) are for pool permits; do these two together beginning of next week; Mark Peterson and the Agent to do.
7. 388 Center Street – follow up from last year – lot of extra gravel; Anne Avelino and the Agent to go on.
8. 399 South Main Street (Mr. Ferreira) – follow up from last year; Anne Avelino and the Agent to go on.
9. 333 Dean Street – follow up from last year – this one is all set.
10. 905 North Main Street – follow up from last year – put hockey rink up; the Agent to do.
11. 146 South Street West – follow up from last year – Anne Avelino, Mary Ellen Rochette, and the Agent to go on.
Numbers 8 – 12 were all the people that came that same night last year. The Agent is to send a follow up letter to all to say that we’re going to come out and do a follow up.
| 
