The Raynham Channel
Welcome to Raynham Community Access & Media (RAYCAM), where we engage, learn, and create community access media. We are dedicated to providing a platform for all voices to be heard and shared. Join us in creating a vibrant and inclusive media community.
The Raynham Channel
Conservation Commission 4/16/2025
(Episode Description is AI generated and may be errors in accuracy)
A fascinating look inside the workings of local environmental governance as the Raynham Conservation Commission navigates three development projects in wetland-adjacent areas. The April meeting showcases how municipalities balance growth with environmental protection through careful permit review and collaborative problem-solving.
The meeting opens with a water service proposal for Oakland Street lots that would cross wetland areas. The commission prudently requires site verification before approval, highlighting their commitment to accurate resource area delineation. This careful approach continues as they swiftly approve a modest home addition near a small pond, demonstrating their ability to efficiently process straightforward applications.
The true highlight emerges during discussion of the proposed public safety facility on King Philip Street. Here, we witness the fascinating intersection of environmental science, regulatory interpretation, and practical governance. The commission raises thoughtful questions about isolated wetlands that fall into a regulatory gray area – protected under local bylaws but not state law. Rather than simply opposing the project, commission members work constructively with applicants to explore potential solutions, including wetland replication and naturalized stormwater features.
What makes this exchange particularly valuable is seeing environmental protection not as an obstacle but as an opportunity to create something better.
Want to see how local environmental decisions get made? This meeting provides a perfect window into the process that shapes our communities' environmental future. Follow along as dedicated volunteers and professionals find the delicate balance between necessary development and protecting our natural resources.
https://www.raynhaminfo.com/
Copyright RAYCAM INC. 2024
David here from when they're at all? No.
Speaker 2:I haven't.
Speaker 3:Well, you have a quarter minute evening.
Speaker 2:Everyone like to call the April 16th meeting of the Conservation Commission to order. Please be advised all these meetings are recorded bill. Would you read please?
Speaker 4:all public hearings and meetings heard by the Rainham Conservation Commission on Wednesday April 16, 2025 at 5.30 pm in the Rainham Veterans Memorial Town Hall, Donnell, Elberkin and Beaver 558 South Main Street, Rainham, Mass. And our relative filings and joint hearings and our meetings under Massachusetts General Law 131, subsection 40 as amended, and the Town Array and Wetland Protection By-law.
Speaker 2:All right evening. First one up is a Notice of Intent for Oakland Street, Map 17, Lot 61, DEP number 269, dash 1069.
Speaker 2:Proposed water service first up got this alright before you start. Um, in accordance with Massachusetts general law chapter 131, section 40 in the Rainham local bylaw, the Rainham conservation commission will hold a public hearing Wednesday, april 16th 2025 at 5 30 pm in the Donald L McKinnon meeting room in Rainham Veterans Memorial Town Hall at 5 58 South Main Street, rainham Mass. A notice of intent application filed by Michael Keith. The applicant proposed the destruction of two water services from Carlton Street to the rear of Oakland Street lots which will support two single-family homes. The property is owned by Michael Keith and is located at map 17, parcel 61, oakland Street.
Speaker 5:Random ass good evening, rebecca from silver engineering, on behalf of Michael Keith, the applicant. Just like the notification said, we are actually going to try to put in two water lines, two inch services from the end of Oakland Street down. What is?
Speaker 5:no-transcript right in here okay, so it's coming up the easement. Yes, okay, satisfied with the intent to do this connection. Call the street. They want an easement for themselves because Carlton is private and so is pine and everything else about down here. We have done recently done some perks to make sure that the two lots would actually be suitable, and they have in the front test bits. The flagging was done by Ken Thompson and numbered all over the place. How?
Speaker 2:many square feet of disturbance, do you think?
Speaker 5:480. The length of the water line is about 120 across this disturbance. The length of the disturbance the trench is about 120 across the wetlands there but four foot wide the general water on Oakland.
Speaker 5:You said there is no availability to tie into Oakland Street without exorbitant costs to upgrade because Sandy Hill, Oakland the the water size on Sandy Hill is too small to support these two lots. That's the short answer. So the last three lots that were done on the other side of Oakland brought services instead of Maine and so there's no more service availability. The line down on Sandy Hill can't support more spaghetti services.
Speaker 3:Where's going to be the future access to the lots?
Speaker 5:Off of Oakland Street Off of Oakland.
Speaker 3:Yes, where's GOING TO BE THE FUTURE ACCESS.
Speaker 5:TO THE LOTS OFF OF OAKLAND STREET OFF OF OAKLAND YES IT.
Speaker 3:HAS.
Speaker 5:BEEN RECENTLY PAVED AND ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE OTHER TWO LOTS. With THE WATER AND THE SUCCESSFUL PARKS, THESE ARE NOW WOULD-BE BUILDABLE LOTS.
Speaker 3:I THINK WE'LL REVIEW THE WALNUT'S LINE IF THE UTILITY WORK IS ALLOWED AND THE DISCOVERY IS LESS THAN 500 SQUARE FEET. If WE AGREE WITH THE LINE, then I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT.
Speaker 2:DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'll STAY FORWARD, we'll SET A DATE AND WE'LL REVIEW THE WALNUT'S LINE. Have any questions? Said they do the water? Yeah, anyone the audience have any comments?
Speaker 6:if you come up to the light, just give your name and address, please, joe Sullivan, I'm the owner of the property that she was describing across. I'm THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT SHE WAS DESCRIBING ACROSS THE STREET THAT I DEVELOPED THE THREE LOTS. I ACTUALLY DID THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ALL THE WAY DOWN THROUGH THE END OF SANDY HILL ROAD THERE, and ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M CURRENTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR IS I'M PAYING TAXES ON THAT ROADWAY RIGHT NOW. You SAID THAT THEY HAD EQU responsible for is I'm paying taxes on that roadway right now. You said that they had egress to that roadway. If I'm paying taxes and own it, how would they have an egress to that?
Speaker 3:so.
Speaker 6:So that is, that is not what is before this cause I understand, but that's part of what I want to talk about a little bit yeah, but that's not before the commission.
Speaker 3:What it's only before the commission is work off of Pine.
Speaker 6:Street.
Speaker 3:The disturbance through the wetlands.
Speaker 2:So they're coming from so that's not a conservation issue that's gonna be a planning building department issue.
Speaker 6:So the water line will be coming from their development above them and coming through the wetlands over to there. Are lots of that what their intent is.
Speaker 3:As I heard, it was a part of Oakland. I'm not sure who owns this. If you can point out for him where you are on Pine Street?
Speaker 5:This is where the water is going to come out.
Speaker 6:Yeah, and then the water line is going to come to that way. So THE WATER LINE IS GOING THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY, THROUGH THE CONSERVATION TO MEET THOSE LOTS. Is THAT THE INTENT? That's THE INTENT ALL.
Speaker 2:RIGHT, that's ALL I.
Speaker 6:HAVE THANK YOU.
Speaker 2:ANYONE ELSE.
Speaker 8:YES, okay, all RIGHT. That's ALL I HAVE. Thank YOU, okay, anyone ELSE? Eric TELDEN.
Speaker 2:I JUST MOVED.
Speaker 8:TO 3 CARLTON STREET, RINO. I'm JUST CURIOUS ABOUT ANY INCONVENIENCES THAT MAY COME TO MY PROPERTY, LIKE I SAID. I JUST MOVED THERE IN JANUARY SO I'm not sure with the information if it's going to cause any inconveniences for me and my family. As far as the water line, Can you show us where the property is? Okay?
Speaker 5:All these streets. All they have to do is end a call tree, which is a water line that's going to go down.
Speaker 8:Okay, so at the end of the circle Yep and through the closing. Oh, so, not directly, and even the most.
Speaker 7:Oh, thank you. Did that answer your question?
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 3:Okay, they did the Calton Street, they did the.
Speaker 7:That's okay.
Speaker 2:I can't remember at all, as long as I don't forget all right, I know you wanted to go out to see the site.
Speaker 5:If you can, let me know in advance.
Speaker 2:So yeah, that's why it's refreshed and ready for you yep so the Thank you. So the flags can be refreshed.
Speaker 5:Refreshed. I want to make sure that they're there.
Speaker 2:Oh, okay, yeah, they need to be there. Yes, they need to be there, exactly.
Speaker 5:So, I need to make sure the surveyor double-checks that they're all still there and labeled for you.
Speaker 4:Okay, thank you, do you want?
Speaker 2:to continue next available meeting, which means May 7th, and then we'll email back to what when people available to go motion.
Speaker 4:Motion to continue the notice of intent of Oakland Street map 17. What 61 db 269, 1069 proposed water services continue to the next meeting May 7th, so that we could go out and review the second motion.
Speaker 2:Second all in favor. Aye, opposed. Yes, thank you so much. Thank you will let you know and no worries, perfect, you make this quickly. Thank you ALL. Right. Next UP IS REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF ACCUPALITY FOR 709 SOUTH MAIN STREET. Opposed ADDITION. Okay, in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 131, section 40, and the Town of Rainham Local Bylaw, the Rainham Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday April 16, 2025, at 5.30 pm in the Donald L McKinney Meeting Room in the Rainham Veterans Memorial Town Hall at 558 South Main Street, rainham Mass. Of one. 709 South Main Street, random mass. The applicant applicant request to add a small addition to the existing house within the hundred foot buffer of bordering vegetated wetland resource area. The work is subject to jurisdiction under the Wetlands Protection Act and the town of random weapon bylaw. The property is owned by Catherine Byron, located located at 709 South Main Street, raina Mass and shown on Cessna's map 11 as parcel 168.
Speaker 4:It's a request for determination.
Speaker 7:It's an.
Speaker 1:RDA. I'm sorry, what it's an RDA?
Speaker 4:It's an RDA, so notice from 10 to 8.
Speaker 3:Is that okay, sorry.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I'm sorry what it's an RDA it's not a day.
Speaker 3:So well, it's the same notification and it's a typo.
Speaker 1:That doesn't change the actually makes it even more restrictive by doing that.
Speaker 1:So good evening Joshua board and on behalf of my client, catherine Bryant, with an office at 3 of 38 North Main Street in Cobb. After we're in front of you tonight for a small 12 by 14 addition off the back of Miss Bryant's house, it is within a hundred feet of a small koi pond that that is in the backyard. At its closest point it would be like sixty two and a half feet from that pond. There's not going to be any great change. I'm showing some erosion controls and it's a relatively simple filing.
Speaker 2:Is it an existing grass now.
Speaker 1:Yes, okay.
Speaker 4:Yeah, the whole backyard is open to that pond.
Speaker 1:How big is the addition? Twelve by fourteen and a half, with a small addition to the deck as well. Not very big.
Speaker 4:Okay, all right, deck as well, not very big.
Speaker 1:I mean it where it gets steep is further down, so I've tried to put that at the at its highest, highest point, where it's semi-flat.
Speaker 2:Okay, and is it all grass all the way down to the pond? Yes, okay, okay, I don't have any issues. Questions no, anyone in the audience have any questions on thisECT? Come ON UP, ma'am. How. Many. Own THE HOUSE I'M. Sorry, JUST STAY HERE. My NAME IS.
Speaker 9:KATHERINE BRYANT AND I OWN THE HOUSE AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THIS LITTLE POND THIS HAS BEEN DRIED FOR YEM IT'S.
Speaker 7:NOT.
Speaker 2:A LONG-TERM PROBLEM. It's NOT A LONG-TERM PROBLEM.
Speaker 9:IT'S NOT A LONG-TERM PROBLEM. It's NOT A LONG-TERM PROBLEM. It's NOT A LONG-TERM PROBLEM. It's NOT A LONG-TERM PROBLEM. It's NOT A.
Speaker 2:LONG-TERM PROBLEM. It's NOT A LONG-. Anyone ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? All RIGHT, I JUST NEED A MOTION NEGATIVE 3.
Speaker 4:YEP NEGATIVE 3. Yep MOTION TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE 3. Determination FOR REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION AT 709 SOUTH MAIN STREET. Proposed ADDITION.
Speaker 2:I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION BE MADE AND SECONDED motion to be made and seconded. All in favor, thank you. Thank you very much. Get the maps. Thank you, thank you.
Speaker 3:All right.
Speaker 2:Next up a request for determination of applicability for 2254 King Phillips Street proposed public safety facility.
Speaker 1:I just want to put on the record, just to be honest and transparent, my dad anyone in the audience have a issue with that?
Speaker 2:his father's on the fire department, so if anybody has an issue with that, let us know that time, no, okay good evening again representing rain on public safety project.
Speaker 10:I'm Chip I can't from Doran. What are your architects on? The project manager, john Perry from Langdon Associates our civil and landscape architects. When do a brief introduction and then knowledge on talk more about the property and our? I'm GOING TO DO A BRIEF INTRODUCTION AND THEN I'LL LET JOHN TALK MORE ABOUT THE PROPERTY AND OUR SITUATION OUT THERE. That WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS TODAY. Can YOU READ FOR US YEP, in ACCORDANCE WITH MASSACHUSETTS.
Speaker 2:GENERAL LAW, chapter 131, section 40 OF THE TOWN OF RAINHAM LOCAL BYLAWS. The RAINHAM CONSERVATION COMM local bylaws. The random conservation commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, april 16, 2025, 530 pm and the Donald L McKinnon meeting room in the random veterans Memorial Town Hall, 558 South Main Street, random mass, to consider the application by the town of random for requests for determination of the capability under the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act and the Random Conservation Bylaw for work proposed within isolated vegetated wetlands at the property located at 2254 King Phillip Street, raina, mass. 02767, assessors, map 11, parcel 256-0. 256-0. The property is owned by the town of Raynham and the proposed project is a public safety facility for the Raynham Police and Fire Departments.
Speaker 10:Zero Great. So, like I said, john will talk more about the site specific. Just as a quick overview, this project began back in 2021. We tabled it for a couple years but we came back on board this last fall. A QUICK OVERVIEW THIS PROJECT BEGAN BACK IN 2021. We TABLED IT FOR A COUPLE YEARS BUT WE CAME BACK ON BOARD THIS LAST FALL, late 2024. We STARTED WORKING AGAIN WITH THE TOWN AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS YOU KNOW ON KIND OF, you KNOW MAKING SURE. What WE WERE PLANNING FOR THIS PROJECT IS STILL THE NEEDS, the needs. The result is shown on the plan before you is just a site plan. It's just under 50,000 square feet facility, police and fire six, six pay apparatus, pay for the fire department and about a hundred hundred parking spaces between the two departments and public and the public. So you know it's a, it's a, it's a large site, but you know, with that, that's kind of what we're here to talk about today. So I'll let John talk more about the specifics of the site that we're dealing with.
Speaker 11:John Perry with Langen site civil engineer, working with Dorner Whittier on this, and there's a board here before you to show a site plan of the proposed public safety facility again at 2254 King Phillip Street, before YOU SHOW SITE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY AGAIN AT 2254 KING PHILIP STREET. This IS A ABOUT A 10-ACRE PARCEL OF LAND. It's DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE SENIOR CENTER. If YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH IT. It's CURRENTLY HAYFIELD FARMLAND. There ARE THREE ISOLATED WETLAND AREAS ON THE ON THE field farmland. There are three isolated wetland areas on the on the site highlighted in blue here. This wetland area a, b and C associated with the property. Those were delineated by Jacobs engineering, who was hired directly by ENGINEERING, who WAS HIRED DIRECTLY BY THE TOWN.
Speaker 11:The REPORT FROM JACOBS IS INCLUDED IN OUR RDA REQUEST. That APPEARS YOU ALL HAVE ON YOUR TABLE. There ARE NONE OF THE ISOLATED WETLANDS MEET THE CRITERIA FOR ISOLATED LAND SUBJECT OF FLOODING. There ARE NO VERNAL POOLS, no SPECIES. In FACT, there's NO WETLAND VE subject of flooding. There are no vernal pools, no species. In fact, there's no wetland vegetation within them. They're really just some wet areas within the field. They were delineated, you know, based on hydric soils and some staining water and staining on the soil.
Speaker 11:As Chip mentioned, we're proposing a new public safety facility with about 100 parking spaces. The total limit of work would be PROPOSING A NEW PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY WITH ABOUT 100 PARKING SPACES. The TOTAL LIMIT OF WORK WOULD BE ABOUT FOUR ACRES. We ARE PROPOSING TO ALTER ISOLATED WETLAND AREA B. As YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SITE PLAN. There, the PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING AND PORTION OF THE PARKING AREA WOULD BE WITHIN WETLAND AREA B and portion of the parking area would be within wetland area B. We are proposing stormwater improvements. You know where. We have an open field site now and we'll have proposed building in asphalt. We will have a robust stormwater management plan including surface basins, infilt infiltration basins to the extent possible, detention, probably with some wet pools, and or bioretention in rain gardens as well. We're trying to. We're still in the early stages of site design but we'll be using more naturalized stormwater planning to the extent feasible, sheet flow, natural drainage flow, that sort of thing. Planning to the extent feasible sheet flow, natural drainage flow, that sort of thing.
Speaker 11:The isolated wetlands are not subject to regulation under the Federal Clean Waters Act, the Mass Clean Waters Act or the Mass Petett's Wetlands Protection Act. Those regulations only regulate bordering vegetated wetlands. These don't have any sort of hydraulic connection so they're only isolated. There is a provision in the local bylaw that mentions jurisdiction with an honor seat of freshwater wetlands. Our RDA is essentially to confirm or inquire whether the bylaw intends to take jurisdiction over what over isolated wetlands, or if it intends to follow the Mass Well Protection Act and only take jurisdiction over ordering vegetative wetlands, and to discuss the project and see if there's any further. It would be any further review for this from this Commission, for this from this commission for this project.
Speaker 2:Okay that's it. That's it okay. Yes, all right. All right, I will stop. Then I have a question on your defining the wetlands. Can you tell me what the soil samples were that preclude this from being a jurisdictional wetlands if they're not hydraulically connected?
Speaker 11:Yes, so Jacobs did the delineation, but it wasn't the soil samples that precluded it from being a bordering vegetative wetland, it's really the lack of a hydraulic connection. So to be a bordering vegetated wetland it needs to have a hydraulic connection to a water body. So say, for example, one of these isolated areas hydraulically connected to Forges River, which is about 800 feet north of the property line, then it would be a bordering vegetated wetland that actually flows or discharges to another water body. These are just isolated standing pockets that don't go anywhere. They only fill up with water when it rains.
Speaker 2:Essentially, what was your soil modeling when you sampled them?
Speaker 11:Again, that was Jacobs that did that, so I'm not exactly sure of the report. The full report isn't here. They did note some hydric soils within that, so that was, I guess, the means of classifying what happened in the first place, so they're not here to defend their findings.
Speaker 11:They're not present here. Okay, they're not present here. They were classified as wetlands. They were classified as isolated wetlands based on and again in the report there are there are photographs of the soil samples and additional information on how they classified them. So there was some, you know. They did take borings, they did note hydric soils, which is how they defined the limit of the isolated wetlands. The soils, vegetation or hydrology only plays into if it's a wetland or not. It's not whether it's isolated or bordering.
Speaker 2:Well, yeah, and that's the part that I'm trying to determine is you know, the true way to define the wetland is by the soil samples, samples. So what I'm asking for is the you know, the data from your different soil samples. You took on the property.
Speaker 11:That's the information I'm looking for. Yep, yeah, there's a report that defines that. There were soil samples, you know, taken around the property to define the limits of TAKEN AROUND THE PROPERTY TO DEFINE THE LIMITS OF THE WETLAND SHOWN THAT DID EXHIBIT SIGNS OF HYDRIC SOILS THAT WOULD INDICATE WETLANDS ARE PRESENT IN THESE LOCATIONS.
Speaker 2:I SEE ONE PICTURE HERE, correct. Correct.
Speaker 11:So it's about 50,000 square feet, a little more than that. 53,000 square feet, the wetland pocket, and we'd be altering it by. You know, part of the building is going to be there, the parking. So we'd be essentially building part of the facility within that location.
Speaker 4:So you're going to have to fill Correct. How much filling are you proposing?
Speaker 11:We'd be filling essentially the entire wetlandET B 53,000 SQUARE FEET.
Speaker 4:DOES THAT HAVE TO BE REPLICATED.
Speaker 3:SO WHAT IT'S LIKE WHEN YOU HAVE THIS DESIGNATION OF ISOLATED WETLANDS, they're FOCUSING ON THE this designation of isolated wetlands, they're focusing on the vegetation component. But if it's isolated, just looking at the surface area alone, it would seem to me that you know hold at least quarter acre foot of water. If it's, if it holds quarter acre foot of water, then it jurisdiction. So they fill it and they have to provide an incremental of our storage of them to compensate for the the loss of us display storage yeah, it's noted in the in the report that that does not occur.
Speaker 11:That won't hold a quarter acre foot of water, so it's not. That would be the criteria if it was an isolated land, subject to flooding or not, which would be jurisdictional under the state regulations, and that's not the case. So I guess we just want to clarify. We're not. I don't think there's a dispute whether it's a wetland or not. It's clear that there is a wetland. It's isolated. It's CLEAR THAT THERE IS A WETLAND. It's ISOLATED PART OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATION. There IS NO JURISDICTION. There's A LITTLE BIT OF A QUESTION MARK ON OUR END WHETHER OR NOT THE LOCAL BYLAW WOULD TAKE.
Speaker 7:JURISDICTION OVER AN.
Speaker 3:ISOLATED WETLAND. I don't know your opinion on that. I've got to look at it some more.
Speaker 7:I would Over here.
Speaker 3:they show two different flags here, so we want to make sure that this is not channelized. In other words, if this continues this way, here, is there a possibility of connecting to another wetland? Obviously, this is unabuttoned property. You want to make sure that this is not connecting to another wetland system.
Speaker 11:Yeah, that was very specifically looked at by the wetland scientists and confirmed that it does not hydraulically connect to another wetland scientists and confirm that it does not connect to a hydraulically connecting the wetland series.
Speaker 4:I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to get something else. Is it possible?
Speaker 3:We're going to have to let the signage come in, right, if you cannot answer the questions that you have. Right. If HE CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, it WILL BEHOOVE THE COMMISSION TO HAVE THE WITNESS PERSON ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS. I.
Speaker 2:KIND OF THOUGHT HE WOULD BE HERE. I GUESS I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS FOR THE MODELING AND THE CHANNELIZATION THERE. I guess I can answer the questions for the modeling and the channelization there Because it did. You know your argument and I argument are kind of, yes, it's not state, federal, but our bylaw Kind of gets in the gray area. And you know we've had other projects similar to this where we've made people replicate. So the question is, you know, to major questions are do the soil support your opinion on? They're not hydraulically connected and you know he can defend the modeling. And the other question is you know the filling and the replication?
Speaker 2:So that's kind of where we're a little bit of a stalemate here.
Speaker 11:Let me ask another question, then. It doesn't seem that the commission has any particular issue with the filling of the isolated wetland, but you'd like us to explore replication, at least Correct, yes, okay.
Speaker 2:Yeah, like I said, the only technical question that I have is the connection with the groundwater and the soil samples. You know, a large project like this we always rely on, you know. Know the soil samples and usually the wetlands guys here to to you know, state his opinion and we go from there. I kind of assumed he would be here today.
Speaker 11:Here we're at Sure, yes. So I think we've answered a big question that we had, at least, was that the site plan before you is permittable. It's not a non-starter, it's an isolated where it's agree. It's if it, that's a nice little butland which were confident, is the site plan, is it's workable? Another thing we were looking at to you is that you know wetland area a and C that you see there as well. You know that's been maintained and managed as a hay field to. I guess we'll have to set this out further, but there's a potential to kind of let that grow out to. Maybe that would pop some wetland you know vegetation things like that and kind of bring some value to those pockets. Again too, we will be looking at stormwater measures that will likely include some wet holes, possibly some some wetland type plantings as well. So I think we may be doing some replication inherently with the project anyhow, just based on our stormwater, where our stormwater design.
Speaker 2:I know I have my personal opinion, but I do like stormwater management, the wet basins, because they inherently become a wet one, Right? So food for thought.
Speaker 11:Yeah, and they're nice looking too. I kind of like them as well.
Speaker 2:They look good, they're not just a hole in the ground with rock in it. Yep agreed. They add beauty In my agreed. They add beauty In my opinion. They add beauty to a site, Agreed I like that.
Speaker 3:Okay, okay.
Speaker 2:Anybody else on the board have any questions? No, anybody from the audience have any questions. All right, all right, with that said, I would recommend it. I would recommend that we move it to the next meeting and maybe we can get out your wetlands scientists here and we can go over some of these details. Go from there?
Speaker 11:sure, would it also make sense to. Would you be interested in having a site visit to you know, inspect some of these wetland pockets as well? Definitely, we work with me to set that up, or? Yeah, once you're set up now, just remember all volunteers all right, right, we'll try to make it work for everyone, yeah, okay okay.
Speaker 2:Would you be able to be available with all this by the May 7th meeting?
Speaker 11:I don't see why not.
Speaker 2:I mean yeah, for right now we'll say the 7th and if there's an issue we'll push it out to the 21st.
Speaker 11:Sure, yes, yes Okay.
Speaker 2:Okay, yep will push it out to the 21st. Yes, yes, okay. So you'd like to continue?
Speaker 4:yes, okay the RDA 2254, king Street, phillips Street. King Phillips Street okay, proposed public safety building until May 7th.
Speaker 1:I will second that motion.
Speaker 2:Motion to be made and seconded All in favor, aye Opposed. Unanimous. All right, thank you.
Speaker 10:Thank you One last question Is there anything, in addition to having them here, that you, any questions we can send to the wetland scientist in advance of their appearance, aside from the soils and what's in the report? Just?
Speaker 3:have them here to speak to it. I'll say you send it to most.
Speaker 2:Send it to you or send it to you. Okay, all right, thank you, thank you thank you good night. Thank you very much. Thank you Good night. Everybody's leaving. Is there more fun to be had? There's always more fun to be had. No, I'm just kidding. We don't have anything else. Nothing on the agenda.
Speaker 7:Have a good night, all right.
Speaker 2:Did everyone get a chance to read the minutes of April 2nd?
Speaker 4:Yes, Motion to accept Second.
Speaker 2:Motion to be made Seconded All in favor, aye, opposed, unanimous. I don't think we have any bills. I don'T THINK WE HAVE ANY BILLS, amy, do WE? I DON'T SEE ANYTHING. Okay, they're THERE? No CORRESPONDENTS, so WE HAVE A COUPLE SITE VISITS TO DO. Now. We'll SEND THE LOCKS AND E-MAILS TO EVERYBODY AND SEE WHO'S AVAILABLE AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE AWESOME.
Speaker 3:AND JUST and we'll go from there.
Speaker 7:Awesome remember, if you have a quarter, he's gonna be posted, okay we'll work around you, just for you, amy.
Speaker 2:All right, I did a few site visits over the past few days. A couple of them were for trees people wanted to take down. One was for the highway department. Oh yes, got an email through the National Park Service of a violation on South Main Street next to the anchor memorial there or work, is it?
Speaker 4:yeah, I went out there, I found nothing, so Nope, one guy is still working.
Speaker 2:All right, I see With that Any details on the violation it was somebody who was cutting trees in the wetlands and had a dirt bike track. Oh, that was a whole different thing. Yeah, it was a dirt bike track. It was. I felt it Okay.
Speaker 1:Motion to adjourn.