 |
Minutes of the Taunton Conservation Commission
Meeting of February 9, 2009
Present Chairman Brian Marques, Vice Chairman Neil Kelly, Renwick Chapman, Marla Isaac, Ernest Enos, and Robert Newhall. Commissioner Steven Turner was absent.
Motion to approve the minutes from the meetings on January 12, 2009 and January 26, 2009, RN, second EE, so voted. RC voted present on the minutes from 1/12/09.
Public Meetings
1. 145 Juniper Lane, Olney, (RDA), DSE-940 A field report was read stating that the applicant is proposing to construct a 12’ x 18’ sunroom on a new platform deck with sonotube footings with a 6’ x 6’ landing and stairs to grade. All work to be done by hand. This structure will be on the northeast corner of the existing house and will be approximately 80 feet from the bordering vegetated wetland to the southwest of the property. The project as presented will not negatively impact the resource area. MR does recommend that the Applicant erect a siltation barrier at the limit of work and call the
office prior to commencing work so that MR can inspect the barrier. MR recommends that the TCC approve this project and issue a Negative Determination. Motion to issue a negative determination for this project, RC, second MI, so voted. They told the homeowner to check with MR on what exactly a silt fence is.
(RN stepped down)
2. 70 Fiddler’s Way, Rosonina, (RDA), DSE-941 A field report was read stating that the applicant is proposing a septic system repair, consisting of a 1500 gallon septic tank, 1000 gallon pump chamber, and 480 sf leaching field. The 1500 gallon tank will be located approximately 75 feet from the wetland and the leaching field will be 62 feet from the wetland. The wetlands were delineated by Walter Hewitson on 12/19/08 and follow the toe of the slope along the eastern portion of the property. MR is in agreement with the placement of the flags and requests that the TCC approve the line as follows: as shown on the plan,
flags #6 - #19 with flag #20 for reference purposes only. As presented, this project should not negatively impact the wetlands. The plan depicts a siltation barrier at least 50 feet from the wetland from road to house. MR recommends that the TCC approve this project and issue a Negative Determination. Change 200 ft to 100ft in the field report. Brad Fitzgerald representing the applicant. The existing septic system is on the left side of the driveway. Motion to issue a negative determination for this project, RC, second MI, so voted.
(RN back in)
3. 39 Harold Street, Estate of Nicolai DeSena, (RDA), DSE-942 A field report was read stating that this project is for a septic system repair with associated grading within the 100 foot buffer of a BVW. The wetland, located off property to the southwest, was flagged by Walter Hewitson on 12/19/08. MR is in agreement with the placement of the flags and requests that the TCC approve the line as follows: as shown on the plan, flags #1 - #7 for reference purposes only. The closest disturbance to the wetland will be 64 feet. The work will be along the porch and carport. As presented, this project should not
negatively impact the wetlands. The plan depicts a siltation barrier approximately 60 feet from the wetland. MR recommends that the TCC approve this project and issue a negative determination. Motion to approve the flags as read in the field report, RN, second MI, so voted. Motion to issue a negative determination with the conditions that any chemicals be removed from the shed and stored at least 25 feet away from the wetlands, RC, second NK, so voted. RN asked if the shed was very old? Brad Fitzgerald said yes, it hasn’t been opened and he was afraid to open it. RN said if anything is stored in it, such as gas, put it in plastic containers to protect the wetlands from any spills. Then it was decided to add the condition to the motion to remove any chemicals. RC asked if it was in place prior to the act? Brad said yes. RC said then it is out of the TCC jurisdiction. RN asked if the system failed?
Brad said yes. RC said the shed is out of our jurisdiction because it is prior to the act. RN said he was just concerned with what is in the shed because it is in the 25 foot no touch. He felt is shouldn’t be a big deal to find out whats in the shed or take it down. MR asked if Brad could talk to the current owners about these concerns. Brad said yes and asked if the TCC could perhaps put in the motion that any gas or oil stored in the shed had to be moved at least 25 feet away. Was included in the motion.
4. East Water Street Extension, Braga, (RDA), DSE-943 A field report was read stating that the proposed project is to pave an additional 11 feet of roadway within the layout of East Water Street. The area to be paved is currently gravel and the total width of the road after paving will be 20 feet. The roadway was previously approved under DEP file number SE73-2015 on 2/14/05 and received a COC on 10/25/06. The proposed work falls within the outer riparian zone of the Taunton River. It is not in Priority or Estimated Habitat for Rare and Endangered Species. The closest work to the river will be at 180 feet, the
area is currently graveled, and a siltation barrier is depicted on the plan at 167 feet and is the limit of work. The proposed roadway as presented should not negatively impact the resource area. MR recommends that the TCC approve the plan and issue a negative determination. Motion to approve and issue a negative determination EE, second NK, under discussion: Paul Patneaude was present representing the owner. RN asked if this was here before? Yes they paved the first part then, now they want to pave the rest of it. RC asked about this work, almost all of it is in the resource area, which concerns him. Paul said they want to do 2 sewer connections and 1 water connection and put them in now before they pave it. RC said this should be a positive determination and they should be required to file an NOI. Paul said they would typically be required to do an alternative analysis on the site but there is no room here to do
anything else. RN said there is no way to tie in, no other area to work in. He feels the applicant is in a tight spot, they have no where to go. TCC originally wanted gravel only when this came up, but when it went to the Planning Board they said pave it. They cannot do any more building unless it is paved so it is a “real road”. RC asked why pave it now? He feels that they may not get approval for future development so why not wait. RN said because they can’t open it up after 5 years and do the work, they would need to do the connections before they pave. Paul said that is correct. RC is not satisfied he has enough information to approve this, and they may have to say no to future development anyway. RC said why build road if not going to be able to do any developing. Paul said they would finish the road later after development is approved. They just felt is was better to get one thing
finished before starting another. RC said he had a real problem approving this if the TCC originally wanted gravel, but it is now paved, and new or future development may not be approved anyway. Paul said the 11 feet would not be done if the houses are denied. RC feels work within the resource area is not right or appropriate, now there is no inner or outer riparian zone. The motion to issue a negative determination was voted on, in favor: 0, opposed: RC, MI, RN, EE, and NK. Motion does not carry. Motion to issue a positive determination for this project, RC, second MI, so voted.
Continued Public Hearings
1. 147 Winthrop Street, Freire, (NOI), SE73-2336 A field report was previously read on this project. Attorney William Rounds was present representing Mr. Freire. Attorney Rounds discussed the litigation that is or was currently going on with Mr. Camara. Mr. Camara was supposed to take care of this, he left the country before he could be held to it and now once again Mr. Freire is accountable. BM when Mr. Freire bought this property, he inherited all these problems. Attorney Rounds asked that the TCC let the litigation play out, Mr. Freire does not have the money to do this, it will probably cost $30,000. He
doesn’t think there is anything the TCC can do right now either. They will have to wait it out and see what happens in court. BM said Attorney Rounds has been the most up front attorney so far in dealing with this site. BM feels what will probably happen is Mr. Freire will have to pay to have this cleared up and then go after Mr. Camara himself to recoup the money. NK feels we should follow the attorney’s advice and see how the litigation pans out. Attorney Rounds said he could not agree more with getting this taken care of. RN said he has been upset all along that this property was sold to someone with all these issues, it is not fair. It is not right that Mr. Camara go out of the country with all this going on. Again it is like they’ve all said before, Buyer Beware, but still feels it isn’t fair for it all to fall on Mr. Freire. Maybe they should deny the NOI for now without prejudice and wait for the
courts to work this out. Attorney Rounds said they do want to eventually take care of the fence, once this is all cleared up. NK asked what difference it would make if they leave the NOI open? RN is no sure what position it could put the TCC in if left open. BM could not find a law that says they cannot hear an NOI on a property with a violation on it. Motion to deny the NOI without prejudice, wait the court litigation out and the applicant can come back and re-file, RN, second MI, RC opposed, motion carries 4-1. A letter was read from neighbor Juanita Gallagher. Motion to accept Ms. Gallagher’s letter and make it part of the record, RC, second RN, so voted. Under discussion, RN said you cannot hear an NOI if there is a violation on the property, that is why he brought that up. BM could not find it in the books. RN doesn’t want to waste Mr. Freire’s time if it isn’t necessary right now.
Attorney Rounds doesn’t see any harm if they continued it or denied without prejudice. RN said it could backfire on either party. RC asked can we in fact vote to not accept an Order of Conditions? BM said the TCC gave him permission to file the NOI. MR said yes, to correct the fence. RC asked what the violation was? Is it with the fence? The issue was explained to RC. Attorney Rounds said his client has done nothing with the fence, it is still incomplete.
Amendments
1. 427 Winthrop Street, ST. Germain, (Amend), SE73-2359 A field report was read stating that the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Order of Conditions issued on 10/22/08. The changes include: 1. the septic system needs to be relocated due to ledge and poor soil conditions and will now be partially within the buffer zone, 2. the garage will now be located where the septic system was originally proposed, 3. the garage will be increased from 40x60 to 40x72, 4. the rear property line has been corrected and now lies further north, 5. the house will now be located outside the 100-foot buffer zone, 6. a boulder retaining wall
has been added at the top of the slope, and 7. there will be an increase in impervious area from 13,850 sf to 15,950 sf, an increase of 15%. In spite of the increase in impervious area, this project should not negatively impact the resource areas. The driveway and parking area will be recycled asphalt, a somewhat pervious material. The buildings have roof drains into drywells. The wetland protection zone is maintained except for the limited crossing previously approved. MR recommends that the TCC approve the changes and issue an Amended Order of Conditions to reflect the same special conditions as originally required. Motion to approve the amendment, RC, second EE, so voted. Under discussion: NK asked if relocating based on perk tests done before? No did an NOI, then perk tests and found out it was lousy so they had to move it. The property line was inaccurate in its location originally, has been surveyed and moved back and this
helped because it moved the house out of the buffer zone. The septic is closer but the buildings are further away. RN the proposed garage slab is move further away too.
Other Business
1. Copy of Press Release.
2. Letter about Brook St. Extension. Area was sanded and salted, it cannot be because of the wetlands. The city does not use just sand, they have a sand/salt mix they use on all the roads. Motion to send a letter to the DPW to check with the TCC on areas that are restricted from the salt/sand mix so they are aware before they go out sanding and these areas will only be sanded, no salt, RN, second EE, so voted.
3. Areas with buildup along waterways. Motion to have the railroad trestle at Arlington and Dean Streets checked for buildup under the railroad bridge, and check Silvia’s Pond on Hart Street also, buildup there too, RN, second EE, so voted.
4. 70 Weir Street. Motion to get legal opinion if it is ok, then the TCC can move forward with putting an attachment on the deed, RN, second MI, so voted.
5. When is the court date on 147 Winthrop St? Court date is February 20, 2009.
(RC stepped down)
6. Dam Discussion. Talked about removal of the red building at Morey’s Dam. What work would need to be done to do this. Motion to send a letter to Jefferson Partners that if they move forward taking down this building, a letter is sent to the TCC stating that are not held liable for anything, RN, no second on this motion. MR said they won’t write a letter stating that. BM will send an email asking for a letter to not hold the TCC liable, if he gets an answer he will make it part of the record.
(RC back in)
Motion to adjourn, NK, second RC, so voted. Meeting ended at 8:25 p.m.
| |
