 |
Taunton Conservation Commission Minutes of July 13, 2009
Present: Vice Chair Neil Kelly, Steven Turner, Marla Isaac, Robert Newhall, and Renwick Chapman. Absent: Chair Brian Marques. Meeting began at 7:00p.m.
Motion to approve the minutes of June 22, 2009, ST, second MI, so voted.
Public Meetings:
1. 179 Dexter Farms Road, Braga, (RDA), DSE-953 A field report was read stating that this property is located at the end of Dexter Farms Road, at the northeast end of the cul-de-sac. The wetlands are off-property along the south property line and run west to east. A shed is located behind the house and is out of jurisdiction. The applicant proposes to construct a 32’ x 24’ garage on the north side of the house. This area is currently paved as a driveway. The project will be 88 feet from the wetland with the house and lawn between the project and the wetlands. MR recommends that a silt fence be
installed from the bulkhead to the shed and be used as the limit of work. The project as presented should not create a negative impact on the wetlands or the overall watershed. MR recommends that the TCC approve this project and issue a negative determination. The applicant was present for this hearing. He was ok with the silt fence. Motion for a negative determination for this project, ST, second RN, so voted.
Extensions:
1. 55 Joshua Lane, Marshall, (EXT), SE73-2198 A field report was read stating that the applicant is requesting a three-year Extension for the above project. Because of the economy, he has not begun construction at this time. The Order of Conditions was issued on 7/31/06. MR recommends that the TCC approve the request and issue a three-year extension. Applicant Andrew Marshall was present. Motion to approve a three year extension ST, second NK, so voted.
2. Waltham/Knapp Streets, Marshall, (EXT), SE73-2041 A field report was read stating that the applicant has requested a three year extension for this project. The TCC issued an Order of Conditions on 9-11-06. The original applicant was Alfred Borges. The new Applicant, Andrew Marshall, states that it has not been economically feasible to start this project. MR recommends that the TCC grant the request for a three year extension to the applicant. Discussion over RN not sure if the TCC can issue a three year extension if the property changes hands, according to MACC. ST and NK understood the conditions to
follow the new owner. RN says they may have to re-file. RN stated it is because the order of conditions is on the original owner, now we have a new owner and the order of conditions is registered to the old owner and the old owner could have done things and now the new owner will be responsible for them. Marshall said he came into the TCC office and told them about the property changing hands. RN said the TCC needs to see in writing that it changed hands to cover both the new owner and the TCC. MR said she can make sure she gets copies of that and put it in the file. NK said he is ok, because MR is aware of what is going on and will make sure copies of this get into the file. MR told Mr. Marshall to come into the TCC office with copies of the change of deed, paperwork, and any other documents to be placed in the file. Mr. Marshall said he will and also mentioned it will be changing hands to AAAA as the new owner, it’s a
cooperation that he is partners in. That was why Mr. Marshall went into the TCC office in the first place, to let them know this property was changed over to him. Motion to approve the three year extension and have Mr. Marshall go into the TCC office with all the proper documents, ST, second MI, RN opposed, motion carries.
(RC arrived)
Public Hearings:
1. Kimberly Road, COT-DPW, (NOI), SE73-2400 A field report was read stating that this project is located at Kimberly Road at numbers 15, 20, 32, and 44. The project area is a low point with three catch basins providing drainage and then discharging to a nearby BVW via a 12” corrugated metal pipe. The current outfall pipe extends approximately 130 feet into the BVW and is under three feet of water. Because this outfall is buried, the drainage system does not function properly and as a result, flooding of the roadway and private properties occurs, even during minor storm events. The roadway also has deteriorated. The edge of the wetland was determined by MR during a field visit with Joe Federico, BETA Group, and Jackie Lawrence, DPW. This project is to correct the flooding situation and provide pretreatment of stormwater prior to discharge into the resource area. The project will consist of replacing the three existing catch basins with new deep-sump catch basins with
oil-water hoods, replacing the three existing 12” CMP with 12” corrugated plastic pipe (CPP) and ductile iron (DI) pipe, and install a rip-rap lined stilling basin at the discharge end of the new drain pipe to the resource area. The drain pipes will be elevated 1.5 feet, which will allow stormwater discharge to reach daylight at a significantly shorter distance into the wetland. The project as presented will provide much needed drainage improvement to the area and will improve water quality of the stormwater discharge to the BVW, with less impact to the BVW. MR recommends that the TCC approve this project and issue an Order of Conditions to include the attached Special Conditions. Representative from BETA Group was present. It was requested that a revised plan be submitted showing/stating that the city will maintain this. RC said to put it in the order of conditions. ST said specify how many times and when to clean. He
would like to see it checked in the Spring every year and cleaned in the Spring every other year. RC said it seems like a small area, but the representative said that they saw no signs of scowering (?) there. RN asked the representative if he was out there during the last heavy rain storm? He said he was. RC asked why this was an emergency? MR said the existing catch basin sunk. The Representative said he received a call from the DPW stating that they needed a plan for the next day. RC said it probably wasn’t a legitimate emergency. Motion to approve this and issue an order of conditions with special conditions 1-7, 19, 25-27 and 28- put on the plan that it will need to be checked yearly in the Spring, and cleaned in the Spring every other year (put O&M on the plan to inspect basins) RC, second EE, so voted.
Violations:
1. 26 Shore Drive. Violation alleged that the owner was adding fill and a berm along common access point, added decks, altered water’s edge by adding sand along the shore, all without filing with the TCC. Owner Robert DeCosta was present. NK asked if he did add fill? He said yes. NK asked if he did add the deck? The owner said yes. And NK asked if the owner added fill at the area where deck was put? Yes. The owner said a new dock was taken down when he got the letter but a dock has always been at this area. RN said it would be wise to have a program for all of those residents who live along the
lake. This way they would be knowledgeable about living along this area. He said these people are not educated on this and it isn’t their fault. Someone needs to get something going on this. ST asked where he put the berm? MR said he was trying to get it in there to help stop the water from eroding his property. NK asked what the berm was made of? Cement blocks divided the grass from the beach sand to stop erosion. When they bought the property, most of the yard was eroded from the water. NK does not want him to undo what he has done, just to have MR work with him on a better way to go about it. RN said maybe jersey barriers? But then it would stop access to the water. RC said so put he put this here to keep the water in the roadway and eventually into the lake? The owner said no the city actually did that. RC said it sounds like the city did a repair and its working. RN said this owner had
water in 2005 but not now. Motion to remove the violation, and no structural work done without coming before the TCC first, ST, second RC, so voted. Owner asked about a fence on his property to keep is dogs in, was advised to come speak with MR. Also about the dock in the common area, come in and speak with MR.
2. #401 at 1601 Bay Street. Violation alleged that the owner was constructing patio and stairs; clearing and seeding, placing fencing at the water’s edge. Stephen and Angela Santos, the owners, were present. ST said he walked out to all of these violations at 1601 Bay Street. He said the geese are out there and these people are just trying to protect their land. ST said this is a large area and its not right at the water’s edge. It was suggested perhaps they could do a natural barrier, not the fence. Fences are blinding to the water fowl, they can’t see it and they could get hurt by it.
Shrubbery put there will stop them, they can’t get through it. Watson’s Pond did a natural barrier with shrubbery and they haven’t had problems with the geese. MR said this should not be at the owner’s expense, but at the condo association’s because it is a common area. RC asked what were the concerns with the canoes? They should only be at the boat launch instead of areas where each condo owner is cutting to get to the lake. As part of the condo association, they stated when they came before TCC that there would be one boat launch and they were supposed to use just this one. RN said he thought the TCC approved that there be one boat launch area with storage for the condo owners’ canoes. Ownership has changed, the tenancy isn’t at the amount given as enough to start the association, so these folk are suffering right now. The have no association, new owners and nowhere to go for these
issues. The patios were started by original contractor and finished by the owners. ST asked if they bought with the patios started? Owner said yes. They thought they were ok because the patios are within a 100 feet of the wetland, approximately 75 feet. RC asked if he had is correct that the owners hired a contractor to finish the work in the back and they thought because they were within the haybales they were fine? Yes. ST asked if the patios were in the plans from the original owner? MR said not the patios. RN said the association was supposed to take responsibility after and do things like the patios and the launce, but now we are hearing the association was never begun in the first place. Motion to remove the violation, have the owners take down the fence, send a letter to Mr. Mello requesting that this condo association get started, ST, second MI, so voted. RC advised the owner to remove the fence but leave all as is
for the time being. Then get with the owner, get a plan together, something for the TCC to see what has been done out there. RC told them to enjoy what they have out there and hopefully when the plan comes in, all will be ok to leave as is, we will see. He also advised them to not do anymore construction right now. Mr. Santos asked what to do regarding the kayaks and canoes? RC said leave them where they are for now, they are not doing any harm where they are.
3. #505 at 1601 Bay Street. Violation alleged that they cleared land beyond the hay bale/siltation line and at the edge of the lake. Jane and Jeff Souza, homeowners, were present. They said this area was not cleared by them, it was already cleared when they moved in. They can bring their canoe back up if the TCC would like them to. They were told the could leave the canoe where it is for now. Motion to remove the violation, ST, second RN, so voted.
4. #404 at 1601 Bay Street. Alleged violation constructing stairs and clearing within 100 feet of Sabbatia Lake without a permit. Alex Papadourakis, homeowner, was present. He removed the stairs when he got the letter. There is no violation now. Motion to remove the violation, ST, second RN, so voted.
5. 52 Danforth Street. Alleged violation draining pool water into a stream that enters a wetland area. Present were Mary Corriveau, the homeowner and her son-in-law, Shawn Tyler. Tyler said as far as draining, they were told it was not a brook but a little runoff. MR said it looked like they were emptying water from the hose into the brook, it looked like it came from the pool and she thought it may have had chemicals in it. He said he had unhooked the hose to use it for something else and forgot to reattached it and it started self feeding. It was done in error. RN said his only concern was that they always
tell people to use cartridge filters, this stops them from having to discharge. MR said her only concern was that if it is aimed towards the stream it will eventually get into the wetlands. But if like the owner had stated, it is normally directed into their garden, then it won’t go to the wetlands, it will end up in the ground. RC asked how far the wetlands system was? More than 100 feet. RC said then it is not in our jurisdiction. Motion to remove the violation, ST, second EE, so voted.
Other Business
1. Request from the Jr. ROTC to practice in the field at Boyden from 3-5. MR checked and it is not in use. It will be about 12 people. RN said let them know to stay out of the high grass, turtles are nesting now. Motion to approve the request with the condition that they stay out of the high grass due to he turtle nesting, ST, second RN, so voted.
2. Request from the Friends of the Animal Shelter. Use Boyden on August 3, 2009 from 9-4. MI said to make sure they are told to clean up after themselves. RN was concerned with the restroom use during this time. Motion to approve the request, stipulation that they must clean up after the animals, and send a letter to Marilyn Green at Park and Recreation regarding the restroom use at Boyden, ST, second RN, so voted.
3. Letter from the Assistant City Solicitor and the Oak Street timeline. It was stated in the letter that this has become a brown field. RN wants to know date and time that this came about. RC and MR said the TCC does not have jurisdiction over certain things going on regarding this property, but RN said they do have jurisdiction over the fence and other work done out there. DEP is still ok with what has been going on out there, the site is currently in Phase I of the cleanup. RN said this was allowed to linger for too long. RC said the list of chemicals, many say they are non-detectable. RN asked what are they
hiding out there. MR said they are doing the monitoring right now, no report yet. She stated she passed out the timeline so the TCC members could have time to look it over and be ready for July 27, 2009 when all those invited will be here. It was not to be read and discussed tonight because no one is prepared to talk about it. MR said sometimes you work in tandem but some authorities have more power. We may see that with this site. Juanita Gallagher spoke, saying she was told by the AG to file a 21J, and was told the city was liable because they let it sit for so long like this. It has mitigated by itself because it was left alone for so long. RC said what jurisdiction does the TCC have to discuss this besides wasting everyone’s time. RN said the TCC has an order of conditions, ST said we will find that out at the meeting. RC said as far as the hay bale issue, they don’t even need to put those up until they do
the actual physical work. RN asked about the big book, it did tell us about reports, etc. ST asked if the Assistant City Solicitor will be present at this meeting? MR said she can ask. Motion to ask Will Flanagan to be present on 7/27/09, ST, second RN, so voted.
4. Computer update? MR has no update. Motion to have MR get an update from Kevin on this, ST, second RN, so voted.
5. Signature paper on land grant passed around.
6. Update on the court case regarding 147 Winthrop Street. MR will ask Will Flanagan to be present at the next meeting. Issues with contractors, one bowed out, one only monitors, one still waiting for bid from. Decided at a meeting held with the lawyer, BM, MR, Mr. Friere, and Will Flanagan, to give until Friday for a timeline to be sent in. RN said this decision was made? Yes to give until Friday 7-10-09. MR thinks that Will Flanagan feels if they press this, the work will never get done. MR does not agree with this. RN is upset that Will acted without the approval of the TCC. Motion to have a letter
sent to the judge, certified mail, to request that he act on the original judgment made in January, to get this thing moving along, they would like letter sent by 7-17-09, RN, second ST, so voted.
Motion to adjourn, ST, second MI, so voted. Meeting ended at 9:13 p.m.
2f7468656d654d616e616765722e786d6c0ccc4d0ac3201040e17da17790d93763bb284562b2cbaebbf600439c1a41c7a0d29fdbd7e5e38337cedf14d59b4b0d592c9c070d8a65cd2e88b7f07c2ca71ba
| |
