 |
Minutes of the Taunton Conservation Commission January 11, 2010
Present Chair Brian Marques, Vice Chair Neil Kelly, Commissioners Marla Isaac, Debra Botelio, Ernest Enos, Renwick Chapman, and Steven Turner.
Motion to table the minutes until the next meeting, MI, second DB, so voted.
Certificate of Compliance
- 193 Tremont Street, Burnham, (COC), SE73-2194 A field report was read stating this project was for the construction of a road and 17 manufactured homes at Rocky Knoll Estates. The order of conditions has expired and only a portion of this project was completed. The Applicant will be filing a new NOI for the remaining work. Paving is complete as is the detention basin and swales. Utilities have also been installed for all the lots and five of the manufactured homes have been installed. A sixth concrete slab has been poured and the manufactured home is on the slab but currently not installed. The detention basin and swales have been constructed according to the approved plan. A wooden retaining wall was constructed along the southwesterly end of the project at the limit of work in
order to grade the yards without encroaching on the 25 foot wetland protection zone. A portion of this wall, grading, portions of the first three units along the left side of the drive, as well as a driveway and shed were all constructed within the Inner Riparian Zone, and comprise an additional 4,600 square feet of alteration to the riverfront area. It is obvious that the developer did not follow the plan of record. More damage would be done if the Applicant were required to reconstruct the above lots per the approved plan. Moving forward, it is imperative that any further construction on this property be done according to the approved plan of record. All future lots will need to be staked out, and an additional 4, 600 square feet of undisturbed vegetation added to the lot within the inner riparian zone. It will be necessary to lose one of the proposed units on the right side of the roadway under the new plan. The project will still be
under 10% of the riverfront area, and under 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d)1.a., “If there is not a 100 foot wide area of undisturbed vegetation within the riverfront area, existing vegetative cover shall be preserved or extended to the maximum extent feasible to approximate a 100 foot wide corridor of natural vegetation.” MR recommends that the TCC issue a COC for this filing to ensure that the completion of the project under a new NOI follows the above recommendations. (NK arrived) Paul Patnaude and Attorney Gay were present representing the applicant. Motion to issue the COC, ST, second NK, after discussion, all were in favor of the motion. Discussion: BM point of clarification, the TCC is only approving the portion of the work completed, not the entire project, correct? Yes. RC asked if the Order of Conditions has expired? Atty. Gay said yes, it is beyond the time to extend it so the COC will only cover what has been done
because they cannot do anymore work out there. MR said there are different things to check off under a COC, for example 1. work complete, 2. work not complete, 3. not all work complete, etc. She would check off the appropriate wording according to this project. RC asked if the retaining wall was built and not part of the approval? PP yes, older gentleman who built it, didn’t know all of the rules and regulations and went ahead with it never checking with anyone and now to remove would cause too much disturbance. MR said the wall is along the limit but does not encroach. RC said it looks like its in the inner riparian. Paul said it’s 28 feet. RC pointed out flag 20 scales 23/24 feet, but never mind, its already been built. MR said that’s what she struggled with, she didn’t want to remove something already built because it could cause more damage. RC said our backs are against the wall because there
was an order of conditions but they built whatever they wanted. PP again stressed the gentleman did not know, he was focusing on staying away from the wetlands and not realizing about the inner riparian. He said maybe he thought it was ok, didn’t know. ST asked if the TCC would have approved the wall if they had followed the appropriate procedures as far as requesting it be built? RC said probably. BM said he’s hearing there would be more damage to take it out than to just leave it. ST said MR will be out there watching this site very closely. RC asked that the resource area be staked by PP, MR said its in the Order of Conditions. NK asked can we issue a COC conditionally? MR said its black and white, can’t be conditional but the TCC can make it stricter.
Public Meetings
- 397 Winthrop Street, Chedid, (RDA), DSE-968 A field report was read stating that this project is to landscape an existing gravel parking lot and to add a layer of stonedust to the front portion of the lot to accommodate ADA requirements. Portions of this lot are within the outer 100 feet of the Riparian Zone of the Three Mile River and the 100 foot buffer zone of a BVW. The flood plain elevation is 100.8 and all work will be outside of the flood plain. Landscaping is a minor activity and is not subject to regulation under M.G.L. c. 131 40 (310 CMR 10.02(2)(b)1.d. The adding of stonedust is considered equivalent to gravel in stormwater management calculations so theoretically will not increase the flow to the river. MR recommends that the hay bales remain in place until the stonedust has
settled to ensure that silt does not enter the wetlands or Three Mile River. The work on the lot will be 16 feet from the wetland at its closest point with hay bales set up at least 15 feet from the wetland edge. Work done will include excavating the landscape areas to plant shrubs and adding loam and mulch. This work as proposed should not negatively impact the resource areas. MR recommends that the TCC approve the work and issue a negative determination. Motion to issue a Negative Determination for this project, DB, second ST, so voted.
Continued Public Hearing
Motion for DB to step down, BM, second MI, so voted.
- Plot 568 Everett Street, Nadeau, (NOI), SE73-2406 Scott Faria and Mark Manganello were present representing the applicant. There was some discussion about the property. Apparently in recent weeks/days the city has been in contact with Mr. Nadeau regarding purchasing the property. He said he spoke with Cathal O’Brien and Tony Abreau and they were going to bring it to the City Council or proper channels to get it going. BM asked Mr. Nadeau if he was prepared to stand down and work with the city on this? Mr. Nadeau answered yes. Motion to continue to February 22, 2010, ST, second NK, so voted. Public Input: Councilor Sherry Costa Hanlon recommended that the City of Taunton should have been notified because if they were someone would have been here, the person who owns
the easement as well as the person granted the easement. BM said who would they notify? Faria said it’s just the City of Taunton. Councilor Costa Hanlon said they should be notified because they are granted a titled interest. There was some disagreement over this.
Motion for DB to return to the meeting, MI, second NK, so voted.
- 761 Joseph Warner Blvd., Rubenstein, (NOI), SE73-2419 Motion to continue to January 25, 2010, DB, second ST, so voted.
Public Hearings
- Tremont Street, Garfield, (NOI), SE73-2421 A field report was read stating that this project is to construct a single family home with septic system, driveway and utilities and to get a wetland delineation approved. Due to the snow cover, MR has been unable to determine the accuracy of the wetland delineation, there fore she requests that the TCC continue this filing to February 22, 2010. Motion to continue to February 22, 2010, ST, second MI, so voted.
- Tremont Street, Yvon Nadeau, (ANRAD), SE73-2420 A field report was read stating that a Peer Review of the ANRAD was performed by Brandon Faneuf of Ecosystem Solutions, Inc. and several recommendations were presented. MR recommends the following:
*That the TCC reserve the right to identify any other potential vernal pools that may occur on the property and to certify the potential vernal pools located;
*That the potential ILSF be depicted on the plan and determine whether it is jurisdictional under the By-Law;
*That all areas identified be depicted on the plan. This would include the potential ILSF, flags 325-335; and off-site flags 309-324;
*That the TCC approve the recommended changes to the plan mentioned on page 3, numbers 1 through 6;
*That the TCC approve the recommended changes to the Mean Annual High Water Line, numbers 1-16, on page 4 of the report;
*That the Applicant tie new flags to wooden or metal stakes in the open field as recommended on page 4;
*That a revised plan depicting all the recommendations be submitted to the TCC for the record
MR recommends that the TCC approve the wetland delineation as revised and
issue an ORAD to the Applicant. Motion to approve the flags, NK, second ST,
so voted. MR listed them as follows:
80-85 Add new flag 215, eliminate old 215
98ABC Tie in 214 & 216
Eliminate 99 & 100 Approve 309-335
97 & 98A Mean Annual High Water Flags 1-96
Tie 98C into 101
Connect 220-223
- 655 West Water Street, Moore/Old Colony Scrap, (ANRAD), SE73-2374 A field report was read stating that this project is for a wetland delineation approval. Due to the snow cover, MR has been unable to determine the accuracy of the wetland delineation, therefore MR requests that the TCC continue this filing to February 22, 2010. Motion to continue to February 22, 2010, DB, second NK, so voted.
- 655 West Water Street, Moore/Old Colony Scrap, (NOI), SE73-2418 This is for an after the fact approval of a proposed emergency access through BVW ordered by the Fire Department. Due to the snow cover, MR has been unable to determine the accuracy of the wetland delineation for the ANRAD, therefore MR requests that the TCC continue this filing to February 22, 2010. Motion to continue to February 22, 2010, DB, second MI, so voted.
Other Business
- FYI on the Conflict of Interest Test.
- Discussion on how the TCC votes. BM wasn’t looking for any problems just wanted to make everyone aware of how the voting is done regarding the by-laws. He also discussed the Wetlands Filing Fund and who controls it and how it is to be used. There was some discussion on this and the issue of laptops because of how much paper was wasted. TCC members were all included in this discussion.
- RC wanted to discuss the issue we had with 193 Tremont Street. MR said she understood but also you have to think if I make them take out the wall and the driveway, there will be more damage. RC said it should have been a violation. MR said yes if she had seen it in time. BM said that MR cannot be everywhere. RC said what’s worse than some of the violations is when you issue an Order of Conditions and the applicant does whatever they want. ST said he didn’t take it personally but here’s a person there’s been no previous issues, the TCC should give them a chance. MR said its hard not to have personal feelings. RC said maybe the TCC should have ordered the wall removed, we looked like push-overs tonight. BM said he somewhat agrees, but now
this applicant knows that they are on notice. RC said yes but if other applicants see this, they will do it too. ST said we should remember the applicant lost 4600 square feet too. RC said but they gave it up on their own if you remember. MR explained that Attorney Gay called MR with the problem, he said they found some infringement and wanted to make her aware of the problem. She said they did the pretty thing instead of the right thing. BM said well the loss of that 4600 square feet is a little trade off. RC-but no punishment because the erected homes are closer to the inner riparian. BM-in all fairness, the TCC can only violate what they see.
- Motion to approve $380.00 to be taken out of WFF to pay for the MACC Conference, ST, second RC, so voted.
- Fundamentals-courses during the year in Wakefield and on Cape Cod. Motion to also use funds to cover the cost of these, ST, second RC, so voted.
- RC-the TCC has no control over the agent. This was from his research he was to do and get back to the TCC about.
Motion to adjourn, ST, second MI, so voted. Meeting ended at 8:30p.m.
| |
