 |
Minutes of the Conservation Commission March 9, 2009
Present at the meeting: Chair Brian Marques, Vice Chair Steven Turner, Commissioners Ernest Enos, Richard Newhall, Neil Kelly, Marla Isaac, and Renwick Chapman. The meeting began at 7:00 p.m.
Motion to approve the minutes of the meeting on February 23, 2009, ST, second RN, so voted.
Certificate of Compliance
1. 4 Meadow Street, Boucher, (COC), SE73-2296 A field report was read stating that this project was to replace lawn with a gravel area to the rear of the house, to pave around the house and garage, and to replace existing gravel adjacent to the wetland with topsoil and seed mix. The Applicant completed the project in significant compliance to the Order of Conditions issued on 10/27/07. MR visited the site today and found the area to be in stable-all grass is growing well adjacent to the wetland. All other work is completed and there is no indication of siltation to the wetland. MR recommends that the applicant remove
the silt fence by cutting it at ground level, remove all stakes, and remove the haybales without disturbing the new growth. MR recommends that the TCC issue a COC for this project. Motion to approve the COC for this project, NK, second RN, so voted.
Motion for NK to step down, ST, second RN, so voted.
(NK out)
2. 99 Forest Hill Drive, Quinn, (COC), SE73-1292 A field report was read stating that MR inspected this property today in order to determine completion, including site stability. The project was to add a 20’ x 24’ addition to an existing home. The work was done in significant compliance to the Order of Conditions issued by the TCC on 4/29/99. There is no indication of sedimentation into the wetlands and all lawn areas are stabilized. MR recommends that the TCC issue a COC for this project. Motion to approve a COC for this project, RC, second MI, so voted.
Motion for NK to return to the meeting, ST, second RN, so voted.
(NK back)
Public Hearings
1. East Water Street Ext., Braga, (NOI), SE73-2371 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 SE 73-2015 on 2/14/05 and received a COC on 10/25/06. The proposed work falls within the riparian zone of the Taunton River. It is not in Priority or Estimated Habitat for Rare and Endangered Species. The City of Taunton is requiring the Applicant to pave this
additional area in order for the road to be considered “improved access” for two proposed abutting the River. 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 roadway is approximately 172 feet from the mean annual high water of the river. An alternatives analysis states that there are no other alternatives to be considered that would produce less adverse effect. If the road was not widened at all, this would negate the future development of the proposed lots. An additional 2,493 sf of impervious area will be added with the additional width of the road. The total alteration of this riverfront area, including previous work, is approximately 4,021 sf. According to MGL 10.58 (4)3(d)1, “…the issuing authority may allow the alteration of up to 5000 square feet or 10% of the riverfront area within the
lot, whichever is greater…provided that” “At a minimum, a 100 foot wide area of undisturbed vegetation is provided (MGL 10.58(4)2(D)1(a). If the TCC approves the plan and issues an Order of Conditions, MR recommends that the attached Special Conditions be included. Paul Patnaude was present for the applicant. BM asked where this was located? At the end of East Water Street. The proposed lots are on the river side(right side). There is one existing home there now. RC is still not convinced that even if the road is paved, that the lots can be built upon. He will not vote in favor, he would vote in favor if a justification with regulations and a filing was done and all shown to him, but is not so he will vote against this. Paul Patnaude said the rules do protect the riverfront from segmenting the lots. BM said he does not want to discuss anything further than what is in front of the board tonight. RC
asked if it was just one lot that comprised the 2 lots they are proposing? PP said no. RC asked when the road was approved to 11 feet wide, was it approved for the lot to the east, and was this land not part of the land that the roadway is on? PP said yes. RC asked if this was a paper road? PP said no. RN said that on the planning board side there is a paper road, and they were told if they built any more out there then they had to pave 20 feet of it. RC the total pavement width is 40 feet wide, with 20 feet of pavement. The right of way has always been 40 feet. RC doesn’t think you can still create new lots here now. PP said that is not true, if you were talking before the WPA, then you only concentrate on the land you own, if it was after the WPA, then you have to do alternative analysis further, expand it. They can’t put the house any further away from the river than it would already be. PP said the
WPA is odd, it’s whatever the worst case is, 10% of the lot area as it exists is allowed. BM asked is the road already there and you just want to pave it? PP said yes and put in water and sewer services. RC sees no reason to go for an Order of Conditions until they are prepared to show something that is to be built there. RN asked what the planning board said? PP said they approved it. RN just wanted to see if this was one of the lots that was required to come in to see the planning board due to issues like being landlocked, etc. RC said when they come back in he plans to have brushed up on the WPA and if he’s wrong he will apologize then, but will vote against this tonight. Motion to approve, issue a standard order of conditions with the following special conditions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 19, 25, 26, and 27, ST, second NK, MI and RC opposed. Vote taken, motion carries 4-2.
Violations
1. 70 Weir Street. RN wants the money we are entitled to. He feels is money is owed, then no permits should have been issued till it was paid. The city could certainly use this money, and if the money is not collected, he would like an attachment put on the property. ST thinks we should continue this and have Will Flanagan present to discuss this at the next meeting. MR said the court date is 3/20/09 and the fines total $39,750.00. ST asked, didn’t the TCC say if the fence was put up, we would deduct that from the fines? Yes it was said at the last meeting. RN feels Will should be here to discuss
this with the TCC. ST said well we obviously can’t see him before the court date. Perhaps have a letter sent to Will to be brought to court about the fines owed. Motion to have a letter sent to Will stating that the TCC wants the money collected on this property, MI, second ST, so voted. BM questioned why we needed a motion, the fines are already in place and have been written out. RN said the TCC went the extra mile on this and the fines should be paid in full. Motion to continue this to March 23, 2009 and have Will Flanagan present at that meeting, RN, second MI, so voted.
(ST left the meeting)
2. Workshops- MACC. Commissioners told to get information to MR is they would like to attend any workshops.
(RC out)
3. Morey’s Bridge. Mayor is bringing MR and Rich Ferreira from TEMA to the meeting on Morey’s Bridge. BM’s question is if the mayor is not a member of the TCC and not a conservation agent, how can he speak on conservation issues. He has been in contact with the Mass Office of Dispute Resolution. He also said Rick Ferreira had said he would keep BM in the loop on this and has not. RN said the city should not have even issued a building permit for this project, the owner owes the city, state, and contractors money. MR said that is correct but the state is making the owner do the work now. RN
said we should not let him until all the fees are collected. BM said this is under an enforcement order from the state, it has to get done, and MR is under obligation to sign the permit. RN said the dam is probably safer now than it ever has been and the TCC keeps putting themselves in the middle of this. We will be held responsible for anything done out there. BM said no, we are indemnified by the state, the state is in control of this. RN said the TCC gets nothing, no correspondence, nothing. We should have been kept in the loop since day one. BM said the only people who have been getting information on this are who? The mayor, the city solicitor, and the TEMA director. RN feels Kevin Scanlon should be included in receiving this information too. BM said these department heads should be sending it to the TCC, he will send an email to the mayor and Rick Ferreira requesting that they send along any information to the TCC
regarding this issue. MR said Rick Ferreira has been keeping her informed. BM said he will keep the TCC posted as he hears things. MR has nothing new except what she’s received from DEP. RN said Chris Ross and DEP are the ones who approved the plan on the dam. BM said the TCC did their job, they can go to this meeting and then be done with this.
4. 147 Winthrop Street. RN said that this supposedly went to court and supposedly the fines are in place. He asked for a report on this, it has not been sent to the TCC yet. RN said there was no one from the TCC there. MR said she was there. MR wanted to remind the TCC that this court date was for the contempt charge, not for the fines. The fines were first for Mr. Camara, and now go to Mr. Freire.
(RC back)
5. Oil Spill, at Cottage Street and West Britannia Streets. Plow truck leaked, now with rain it is going into the catch basins. MR said the catch basins have been cleaned. RN asked if this man was paid by the DPW? Yes. MR said Tony Abreau and the DPW are aware of what happened. RN said if he didn’t notify the DPW about the leak, he should be held responsible for that, its his duty as a driver to report things like this. Those cleanups for things like this are not cheap. The company that owns the truck should be held responsible. He wants to know if it was reported to the DPW. He wants to
see a copy of the report. Motion to have a letter sent to the DPW, find out if the leak was reported and if so, a copy of the report sent to the TCC, and if the company is owed money, we should hold them responsible for the cost of the cleanup, RN, No Second, motion fails. MR said the total spilled was 5 gallons. The vac was brought in and all the oil from the catch basins. RN said the TCC is opening a can of worms if they don’t go after those responsible for this.
6. Boyden Sanctuary. Cleanup up of the area, cleanup of the restrooms. The TCC should have all the groups that use the buildings here and find out who is responsible for what. Those groups would be TRWA, Friends of Boyden and Marilyn Greene from Parks and Recreation. Have MR invite those groups/people here to be present at the next meeting.
7. Motion to go back and discuss the oil spill again, RN, second RC, so voted. RC doesn’t think it is the TCC’s responsibility to tell the DPW to collect money from a plow driver. He said we don’t have the jurisdiction over it, it is up to them to police their own drivers. RN said it is the responsibility of the owner of the truck to report it. A report should be filled out when something like this happens, an incident report. BM said maybe the TCC can get a letter from the DPW explaining what happens in a situation like this. RN is concerned that someone who holds a license like this is not
following procedure. Send a letter that the TCC wants to be aware and apprised of any fines etc. due to this incident. Motion to send a letter from the TCC to the DPW that the TCC is aware of the spill at Cottage & West Britannia Streets and wants to know if there are any fines being levied or pending against the drivers/employers/contractors responsible, and correspondences to be sent to the TCC updating them on the cleanup of the site, EE, second RC, so voted.
Motion to adjourn, NK, second RN, so voted. Meeting ended at 8:10 p.m.
| |
