 |
Minutes of the Taunton Conservation Commission December 15, 2008
Motion to table the minutes of 12/1/08 until the next meeting on 1/12/08, BM, second RN, so voted.
Motion to go out of order to hear #1 under New Public Hearings, RN, second BM, so voted.
New Public Hearings
1. Interstate 495S, Town of Norton- Water Dept., (NOI), SE73-2367 A field report was read stating that this project is to construct a portion of a new municipal water line that will provide water from the Taunton River Desalination Project pipeline in Raynham to the Town of Norton. This proposed 13,000 foot water supply line will be located in Taunton within the right-of-way (ROW) layouts of Interstate 495, Bay Street, and North Boundary Road. The wetland resource areas were delineated by Green Seal Environmental, and Sebatia, Inc., approved by the TCC, and issued an ORAD on 1/10/06. Work will be located within portions of
the 25-foot WPZ, BLSF, 200-foot Riverfront Area (Snake River), 100-foot buffer zone to BVW, and ILSF. The project area is not within the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species estimated habitat or priority habitat and there are no certified or potential vernal pools within the corridor. The project does fall within the Canoe River Aquifer ACEC. The work proposed will include excavation of a 6-foot deep and 6-foot wide trench, pipe laying, backfilling, cleanup and restoration of the site. Temporary access will be via an abandoned railway bed in the Town of Raynham and Washington Street. There will be no access from 495 or through jurisdictional wetlands. Temporary impacts include: approximately 4,146 lf (3,700 lf project estimate) within the 25-foot WPZ of BVW and ILSF; approximately 100 lf will occur within BLSF, and approximately 160 lf (153 lf project estimate) will occur within Riverfront. All disturbed areas will be restored to
original grade, seeded with the appropriate mix, and if any shrubs or saplings are removed, they will be replaced in-kind or with native species if invasive. The Applicant has requested an exemption from the 25-foot minimum WPZ. The Interstate was completed in 1975 in the area where work is proposed. This is prior to the creation of the Taunton conservation Ordinance. As such, the Commission can grant an exemption, or grandfather the area, provided the Applicant demonstrates, through a preponderance of evidence that the WPZ would represent a hardship. Within the body of the Narrative, the Applicant shows that it would indeed be a hardship if the line were located outside the WPZ (see pages 10-12, 4.0 to 4.3). AREAS OF CONCERN: On sheet 112: Add siltation barrier along fence from flags ILSF 4-18, 4019, and 4-20; on sheet 113: extend siltation barrier to beyond flag BVW 3-17. FROM CITY ENGINEER: How will construction zones be
accessed and how will shut-off valves be accessed in the future? Will there be permanent access roads? Work is on steep banks in some locations. How will construction proceed? The line crosses drainage pipes in several locations. Please show detail of how work will be accomplished. Dewatering may be necessary in many locations. Where will basins be located? The concerns have been discussed with the Applicant’s representative and a copy of this field report will be emailed so that discussion may continue on Monday with resolution of these concerns. If all areas of concern are addressed to the satisfaction of the TCC and the City Engineer, then MR recommends that the TCC approve the plan and issue an Order of Conditions to include the attached Special Conditions. RN said ANRAD runs out 1/10/09, they should have asked for an extension first, 30 days prior to it running out. MR said it is still current. BM asked when
work would start? When construction season begins. Present were Alissa Jacobs, Shawn Hale, and Jeff Hanson, for the applicant. Ms. Jacobs understood that they could just re-confirm the lines through the NOI process. RN said they should have asked for a continuance/extension first. Mr. Hanson said the work will not start until construction season starts. BM said they need to start work before the ANRAD expires. RC believes the NOI is critical and once they have an Order of Conditions, that will override the expiration of the ANRAD. BM feels the TCC should move forward on this, not make them request an extension. ST needs a motion in order to move forward with this. Motion to hear this hearing tonight and that the ANRAD is not an issue, BM, second NK, 1 opposed, 5 in favor, motion carries. ST open it up and go over areas of concern. Question #1 sheet 112, submit a revised plan with those changes made. They
are also extending the siltation barriers as requested. RC was concerned with the accuracy of the plan, some points on the line say 25 ft., some say 32ft. Mr. Hanson can check on this, he has a program he uses and just plugged it in, did not check afterward, thought they were correct. RC sheet 105, line between BVW 1029 and BVW 1030, perpendicular to that it is closer to 31 or 30 ft., Mr. Hanson said they are doing 25 ft, but this program did it from the wrong line, so it is showing up wrong. RC BVW/WPZ line buffer line radial to that no intersecting. #2: How will the construction zones be accessed and the shut off valves as well? There will be two points of access, the RR right of way and BJ’s parking lot. There are shut off valves every 2000 ft, and they are accessed by the highway. When they get to the Snake river, the line goes up and over then back down again. RC considerable amount of clearing within the limits of
the tree line, if they go 10ft more, making 30ft or 40ft, they will stay away from the tree line all together. Mr. Hanson said the 25ft minimum off the road is what MASS Highway wants. RC asked how serious the clearing was, he wants to know how much/many? Mr. Hanson said it is pretty clear once they hit Taunton, the heavier woods is in Raynham, but they will give TCC a tally for the trees. MR said they are bound to file under our bylaw, when they applied the ANRAD was still in affect and the lines are still viable. RN concerned because MR has not been out and the flags could have disappeared , they could not be there and no one will know. ST could put in the order to replace any flags that are missing. They can still be re-hung if missing. RC said flags are bound for 3 years, after 3 years things can change in excess either wet or dry and then you would need to go out and check and re-flag. Motion to approve the wetland line as
shown on the plan with the stipulation that MR walk the line and any missing flags are replaced, and make sure they coincide with the flags on the plan, NK, second RC, 1 opposed, 5 in favor, motion carries. Ms. Jacobs said the plan is not proposing any impact to the wetland, it is a limited project. Jordan’s did have issue when something similar occurred, but they did propose impact to the wetlands. RC can do the motion because the ANRAD is in affect and the NOI was filed while still in affect, so legally they don’t have to request a continuance/extension. There was a question on the dewatering basins. They will be behind excavator, cross the highway under the bridge at Bay Street to a catch basin on the north side, then will go into there, they think it is in Taunton, will check where. There is no mapped habitat on the south side, but is on the north side. Asked why it is labeled a draft, Ms. Jacobs labels it a draft until it
is submitted to EPA. RC said he is not prepared to vote tonight until MR walks the line, and the woods within the buffer zone are checked regarding moving the pipe further away from the tree line. He wants them to stay closer to the highway, less habitat affects, less clearing, and easier access because it is closer to the highway. MASS Highway would like 25ft, but check with them. Motion to have MR walk the line where the pipeline is proposed to go, see if it can be moved 15ft out, RC, second MI, so voted. Motion to have the City Engineer send a letter to MASS Highway (Tom Maguire) about moving the pipeline, RN, second MI, so voted.
Motion to revert back to the regular order of business, RN, second BM, so voted.
Certificate of Compliance
1. 97 Ingell Street, Mandile, (COC), SE73-2377 A field report was read stating that this project was to excavate and dispose of a limited volume of nickel impacted soils in a small area behind the building and within 25 feet of a BVW. MR re-inspected the site on 12/9/08. The area has been loamed and seeded with winter rye. Haybale/siltation fence is still installed. The area does not have any growth at this time. MR spoke with Sage Environmental and was told that all contaminated soils have been removed. The TCC may choose to grant the COC at this time or continue until the spring to ensure re-vegetation of
the work area. Motion to continue to 5/4/09, BM, second NK, so voted. THIS MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN. Representatives Rick Mandile and Hugh Mason spoke. The material was removed, then it was seeded. BM it was seeded, then the TCC would see them in May, that would give it enough time to grow. Mr. Mason doesn’t want to wait, doesn’t want anything to impede a sale of this property. RN if he had a buyer right now, TCC has a letter that would go out to the bank, it explains the issue and says the COC would be issued once the grass grows in. RC asked if it was the area near the garage door? Told yes. RC said what it they put down crushed stone instead, 2 or 3 inches, this will stabilize it, then have MR go out and check it. Motion to vote to withdraw the previous motion to continue, RC, second MI, so voted. Motion to have the area where work done and area disturbed, to have 2-3 inches of crushed stone put
down, have MR go out and inspect to make sure it is stable, and once inspected, issue the COC, RC, second MI, so voted.
(NK out)
2. 254 Rama Street, Rodgers, (COC), SE73-1705 A field report was read stating that this project was to add a 23’ x 24’ addition consisting of a two car garage and master bedroom over the garage. All work was completed in significant compliance to the Order of Conditions issued by the TCC on 11/6/02. All areas are stabilized and there is no indication of impacts to the adjacent wetlands. MR recommends that the TCC issue a COC for this project. Motion to approve, BM, second EE, so voted. Under discussion, RN asked if any haybales were left, MR said removed and all stable.
3. 230 Ice House road, Wezowicz, (COC), SE73-1530 A field report was read stating that this project was to build a breezeway and attached garage. All work has been completed in significant compliance to the Order of Conditions issued by the TCC on 5/2/01. All areas are stable and there is no indication of any impacts to the wetlands. MR recommends that the TCC issue a COC for this project. Motion to approve, BM, second RC, so voted.
Extension
1. Lot #51 North Walker Street, Mello Investment Trust, (EXT), SE73-2147 A field report was read stating that the Applicant has requested an extension for an additional three years. This land is currently used for agricultural purposes (haying). No construction work has started on this land. There have been no changes to the wetland line. MR recommends that the TCC issue an extension of three years to the Order of Conditions. RC asked why 3 years vs 2 years? Carlos Mello present. The Applicant said due to the state of the economy, he isn’t sure they would be ready to build right away, perhaps the
end of 2009. RN asked if it was agricultural land? MR said no, it has been hayed, but not actually agricultural land. Motion to approve a three year extension, BM, second RC, so voted.
(NK back)
(RC out)
Other Business
1. 91 Hart Street, Glick, (NOI), SE73-2340 Representative Jon Glick was present. ST will not go further on this until the residents concerns are addressed. They never were and there is water still on the residents property, and on the street. Meet with them, address their problems. Mr. Glick said he spoke with Mr. Replenski, offered to put French drains around his house, but then when it was at City Council, Mr. Replenski went against the new construction. Mr. Glick said he was surprised because he had just talked to Mr. Replenski that afternoon and thought they had worked everything out. RN said he did not
blame Mr. Replenski, he had nothing in writing proving his issues would be fixed. NK said didn’t the applicant want to withdraw but the TCC said no? Mr. Glick said he told his engineer to suspend, they misunderstood and put the letter in to withdraw instead, but the TCC didn’t accept it anyway. BM is satisfied it is not Mr. Glick’s intention to withdraw. But the water issue has been going on for a long time, he doesn’t want it to continue to go on and on, he wants it taken care of. He has seen it come off Mr. Glick’s property and onto the street and other residents properties, what are we going to do going forward from here. ST wants this taken care of once and for all. MR could meet with Mr. Glick, Mr. Replenski, Mr. Dutra and any other abutters, and have a session here with 3 other TCC members too. They could meet so that some of these things can be solved, and put down in writing. Mr. Glick said
in terms of Mr. Dutra he is not sure what to do, doesn’t think Mr. Dutra’s issues are from his property and Mr. Dutra refuses to speak with him anyway. RN said all he knows is a letter came into TCC to withdraw, Attorney Gay told the City Council that TCC ok’d it, RN said he did not even know it was on the agenda tonight, and is upset abutters were not notified, and the hearing was not continued so it is assumed by this that the withdrawal is accepted without prejudice, even without a vote. MR said they told her to put it on for tonight at the last meeting. ST is ok with the mistake on saying withdraw the project, he wants to forget it and move on to fixing the issues. NK feels a lot can be resolved before the next meeting by having a meeting with the abutters to appease them. Mr. Glick said he spent lots of money on this and has complied with many things, all aspects of zoning, reducing water by this project, so he is happy to put it
in writing, happy to make the neighbors happy. RN said the letter was accepted, he wants to make sure it doesn’t disappear from the file, it was withdrawn, the attorney is not here but should be. BM said the Superior Court accepted the appeal, they will hear it. He is just impressed Mr. Glick is here, most owners never come in. He asks what are we going to do to rectify the situation out there. MR said there will be difficulty getting this going again without re-filing regarding DEP, just wanted to let him know this. BM said it’s in Superior Court right now so there is nothing the TCC can do. Vote on suspending proceedings on this until the Superior Court decision comes through. ST said we can still hear it with owner and abutters. ST wants MR to schedule a meeting with Mr. Glick, TCC members, and abutters before a meeting, hold it at 6:00 p.m., on the night of a TCC meeting. Motion to have MR set up a meeting
with abutters, owner, TCC members, MR, at 6:00 p.m. before the next TCC meeting on 1/12/08, NK, second BM, 1 opposed, 4 in favor, motion carries.
(RC back)
2. RE: Calendar. RN wants MR to put the conditions on the back of the calendar, they may have to be re-done, we’ve added more.
3. Press Release. Press Release to newspaper about the TCC not raising fees this year.
4. 70 Weir Street. Motion to have the Building Department see about having the building taken down, use the fees from the filing fees fund, and put an attachment on the property, also re-start fines from 10/24/08 on, RN, second MI, so voted.
5. Passed out letter re: conference.
Motion to adjourn, BM, second NK, so voted. Meeting ended at 9:15 p.m.
| |
