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 09/09/2025
(Episode Description is AI generated and may be errors in accuracy)
A property owner's accidental wetland filling sparks a fascinating debate on environmental restoration ethics during this Conservation Commission meeting. When the commission discovers a homeowner has inadvertently filled protected wetlands on their King Street property, they face a crucial decision: should the owner restore the original wetland by removing the fill, or create a compensatory wetland elsewhere on the property?
The commission's thoughtful deliberation reveals the complex considerations behind wetland protection decisions. They examine whether allowing the filled area to remain might unfairly benefit the property owner by pushing back wetland boundaries, potentially expanding usable land near their pool. When presented with a plan to create replacement wetlands across an existing wetland and within the riverfront area, commissioners voice concerns about the potential removal of mature trees and further environmental disruption.
"We're not rewarding somebody for filling wetlands," one commissioner states firmly, highlighting the ethical foundation of their decision-making process. This principle guides them toward requiring restoration of the original site rather than off-site mitigation, despite the additional challenges this might present for the property owner.
The meeting offers rare insight into how local conservation commissions balance environmental protection with property rights and pragmatic solutions. We witness the critical role these volunteer boards play in safeguarding wetland resources - not just enforcing regulations, but ensuring genuine ecological restoration that preserves vital ecosystem functions.
For anyone interested in environmental governance, property development near sensitive areas, or the practicalities of wetland restoration, this episode demonstrates how communities navigate the sometimes competing demands of development and conservation at the local level.
https://www.raynhaminfo.com/
Copyright RAYCAM INC. 2025
Good evening. I'd like to call the September 3rd meeting of the Conservation Commission to order. Please be advised. All these meetings are recorded.
Speaker 2:Bill All public hearings and meetings heard by the Rainham Conservation Commission on Wednesday, september 3rd 2025 at 5.38 pm. 3rd 2025 at 538 pm. In the random Veterans Memorial Town Hall, don meeting room, 558 South Main Street. Rain and mass relative to filings and joint hearings and or meetings under Massachusetts general law 131, section 40, as amended in the town of rain and wetland protection by law okay, before we AND THE TOWN OF RAYNA WENT LAND PROTECTION BYLAW OKAY, before WE START WITH OUR FIRST REGISTERED INFORMATION, THE HEARING FOR ZERO WILMA STREET HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE DEGREE DATE, TO THE 17TH.
Speaker 1:So ANYBODY HERE FOR THAT, IT HAS BEEN CONTINUED BY THE APPLICANT AND ANYBODY HERE FOR THAT, IT HAS BEEN CONTINUED BY THE APPLICANT. And IF ANYONE IS HERE FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING, THAT HAS ALSO BEEN CANCELLED. Okay, FIRST UP IS REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EMPLICABILITY FOR MBTA-KEO KEOHLIS COMMUNITY SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MASSACH NBTA Keolis Community Service.
Speaker 2:In accordance with Massachusetts General Law, chapter 131, section 40 in the Town of Raynham Local Bylaws. The Raynham Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, september 3rd at 5.30 pm in the Dunwell-McKenney Meeting Room, raynham Veterans Memorial Town Hall, located at 558 SouthOUTH BAY STREET, ranus. On A REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY FILED BY THE KEOLAS COMMUTER SERVICES, the APPLICANT SEEKS TO CONFIRM OF MAPS AND APPROVAL OF VEGETATION MANAGEMENT WORKNED BY MBTA. Copies OF THE APPLICATION AND PLANS WILL BE VIEWED AT THE RCC OFFICE DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS IN THE TOWN HALL. You MAY ALSO CONTACT RCC BY CALLING 508-5-824-2706. All RIGHT, sir, go AHEAD.
Speaker 3:HELLO EVERYONE. My NAME IS MATT DONAMON, from BENISH, here TO All. Right, sir, go ahead. Hello everyone, my name is Matt Donovan, from Benesh, here to represent Keolis for this RDA to confirm the accuracy of the maps used for vegetation management along the right-of-way. We bring this submission to your commission every five years, required by CMR 11.
Speaker 3:I was required to get these determinations before getting an approval for the vegetation management plan from Mass Department of Agricultural Resources. The mass we provide you with are mainly made for the chemical portion of the plan, but will often dictate where mechanical methods will be used due to chemical restrictions. Each year in your town, the the entire town is either blue or yellow, so there will never be any brush program. It'll only be the roadbed chemical program because of the resource areas. The roadbed program consists of an on-track vehicle truck that applies the herbicide mixture from behind it, about 18 inches above the ground, spraying the solution directly down up to 12 feet from the center line of the track on each side, and that's what the chemical application is limited to for the entire town. We are seeking a positive to a determination to confirm the maps, as well as a negative determination for the work included in the vegetation management plan. There's any other questions I'd be happy to answer this is similar to what we've done before.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's the annual basically maintenance of their tracks. Anybody?
Speaker 5:have any questions. Do you spray that from the actual track?
Speaker 4:Yes.
Speaker 5:It's like on the train and it just goes and it just sprays from behind.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's a big high-rail tanker truck with the mixture in the back of the tank and it has nozzles on the backside of the truck about 18 inches above the ground and it sprays the solution directly down. Do you know how?
Speaker 5:far the spray goes. Twelveles on the back side of the truck, about 18 inches of the ground, and spray solution directly down. And how do you know how far the spray goes? 12 feet from the center line of track when he said and those areas all fenced in like that is, sprays, or is it all open to like public like to go through there?
Speaker 3:I mean, is it like?
Speaker 5:toxic to things, or is it? Yeah, yeah, it is, but it's TOXIC TO THINGS, or IS IT?
Speaker 3:YEAH, yeah, it IS, but IT'S SPRAYED DIRECTLY DOWN ONTO THE BALLIST OF THE TRACK.
Speaker 5:AND SO WHEN YOU SPRAY IT, DOES IT DRY QUICKLY, YEAH I.
Speaker 3:GUESS ABSORBED VERY QUICKLY. So THERE'S A SENSITIVARY MATERIAL LIST THAT FOR THE HERBICIDES THAT ARE USED SPECIFICALLY MADE FOR materialist, that for the herbicides that are used specifically made for rights of ways, and there's been research for for what, what products can be used as a mixture. So so there's all kinds of studies with absorption rate and where it spreads to. But yeah, there's no, there wouldn't be a concern for that, and that's why the this setbacks that we use are in accordance with the restrictions of CMR 1100 form, which, which protect the resource areas, private wells, water supply areas and everything like that yeah, if it gets into the water supply, that's like that's a different story.
Speaker 3:But I'm just thinking like people like, yeah, no, so the applicators are certified by the state of Massachusetts, and then there there's an environmental monitor accompanying them with this, so that they will always turn it off in its spring.
Speaker 1:You have the track and then you have X amount of feeding each side of it. That's already rocked. Yeah, so it's not going beyond the outside of the rock.
Speaker 5:Oh yeah.
Speaker 1:Anything that would grow over the track, let's say a branch or something, would have to be done manually.
Speaker 3:Correct.
Speaker 1:Anybody in the audience have any questions? No, all right. Would you like to close the hearing? Yes, all right. Motion to close the hearing ANY.
Speaker 3:QUESTIONS.
Speaker 1:NO, all RIGHT. Do I HAVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING? Yes, all RIGHT. Motion TO CLOSE THE HEARING.
Speaker 2:MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY MBA, ta, tls, community SERVICES.
Speaker 4:SECOND.
Speaker 1:BEFORE WE VOTE DOES THIS HAVE A DEP NUMBER?
Speaker 3:NO, it's second. No, it's an RDA all right motion made seconded.
Speaker 8:All in favor aye motion to issue motion to issue request for determination of applicability MBTA Keolis commuter services. Positive to a and negative, negative, three second.
Speaker 1:And I oppose the amendments.
Speaker 4:Thank you, sir, thanks everyone, good night, good night. Safe travel back. Thank you.
Speaker 1:All right. Next up is continued notice for 10 for Zero Paramount Drive, map 15, lot 176-3G. Ddp number 2691070, proposed commercial building Evening.
Speaker 9:Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Speaker 1:All right, just to refresh the board's memory. Good EVENING. Thank YOU, mr CHAIRMAN. All RIGHT, just TO REFRESH THE BOARD'S MEMORY. Last TIME WE WERE HERE THERE WAS SOME BACK AND FORTH ON THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY AND THE ENTIRE PARAMONTH DRIVE, stormwater management for the property and the entire paramount drive. The applicant has correct me if I'm wrong maintained that the planning board's engineer and planning board have ENGINEER AND PLANNING BOARD HAVE SAID THAT THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT IS NOT NEEDED BECAUSE OF FULL BUILDUP HAS ALREADY BEEN CALCULATED FOR THE ENTIRE PARAMON DRIVE. So WITH THAT SAID I DID SOME RESEARCH, the LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND NOBODY CONCEIVED TO FIND THE PAPERWORK FOR THE BUILDOUT FOR PARAMON DRIVE, the ORIGINAL PAPERWORK THEY BELIEVE MAYBE ONE ENGINEER HAS IT. Paramount drive, the original paperwork they believe maybe one engineer has it. They're not 100% sure.
Speaker 1:So what has happened with this particular project is it was it was the calculations were based on word of mouth. That's been. The CALCULATIONS WERE BASED ON WORD OF MOUTH. That's BEEN HANDED DOWN OVER THE YEARS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, that THE CALCULATIONS HAVE ALL BEEN FILLED OUT AND CALCULATED PRIOR TO THIS. So I GUESS IT'S GOING TO COME DOWN TO WHETHER YOU'RE IN. So I guess it's going to come down to whether you're in agreement with the planning board that the calculations have all been done, or we're not in agreement with the planning board that somewhere along the line the calculations need to be done or found.
Speaker 9:Mr Chairman, may I chime in? Yes, absolutely. I just want to make the commission so stormwater management. You did an excellent job of surmising all that. Surmising all that. It's stormwater management standards, what everybody's familiar with, what needs to be complied with. There are tens.
Speaker 9:One standard existed before the stormwater management policy ever came out in the state and that was for rain control. Essentially, don't flood the guy downstream you. That's what it's been for my, sorry to admit, almost 40 year career and you can. We were never able to, you know you would. All calculations were done, so you didn't flood the guy out downstream of you. Now, during my career, stormwater management policy comes out and they add all these other standards. Downstream OF YOU. Now, during MY CAREER, storm WATER MANAGEMENT POLICY COMES OUT AND THEY ADD ALL THESE OTHER STANDARDS EROSION CONTROL, recharge REQUIREMENTS, storm WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND OTHERS. I CAN GO THROUGH EVERY ONE IF YOU'D LIKE. But SO 9 OUT OF THE 10. But so nine out of the ten standards are essentially new requirements. Now, a lot of the old designs did most of that erosion control and whatnot, before stormwater management policy came out. But our design takes care of nine out of the ten. We comply with this design. So stormwater management.
Speaker 9:You stated we didn't do stormwater management. You stated we don't didn't do stormwater management. We did. We did nine out of the ten standards we comply with. The only one we don't is the rate, the flooding downstream, the rate control, which is standard number two, and that's where that's always been done the same way. There's nothing new to that. You do a model that models the pre-development condition. You do a model that models the post-development condition and you make sure the post-development has a less rate of runoff than the pre-development condition. That's how it's always been done. So I just want you to know the stormwater management standards did come in. We discussed this, the new things, and I agree there are. There are nine out of ten that are new.
Speaker 1:Back when the park was developed, it was called flood control.
Speaker 9:Exactly. Now the new terminology is stormwater management, rightfully so.
Speaker 1:It incorporates the other items.
Speaker 9:That's exactly right. And all of those nine. That's all laid out again in the stormwater management RIGHTFULLY SO TO COMPARISE THE OTHER ITEMS. That's EXACTLY RIGHT AND ALL OF THOSE NINE. That's ALL LAID OUT AGAIN.
Speaker 1:IN THE STORMWANDER REPORT. I WILL SAY, with THE APPLICATION AND EVERYTHING WE MADE THEM DO, with THE RECHARGE AND EVERYTHING ELSE, they've MADE A VERY GOOD FAITH EFFORT IN ACHIEVING ALL THE CRITERIA EXCEPT FOR THE ONE ITEM WE'RE MISSING IS NUMBER TWO. That's RIGHT. Which YOU KNOW I. Had A LONG CONVERSATION YESTERDAY WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD, AND HE'S UNDER THE SAME INCEPTION THAT EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE OVER THE YEARS.
Speaker 2:THE PERIMONT DRIVE IS PRETTY WELL FINISHED.
Speaker 1:OUT.
Speaker 9:IT'S EITHER.
Speaker 2:THIS.
Speaker 1:ONE OR ONE MORE. That's LEFT.
Speaker 9:THIS IS.
Speaker 2:IT HAVE WE RUN INTO THIS BEFORE WITH.
Speaker 8:OTHER PEOPLE DO.
Speaker 2:WE HAVE.
Speaker 8:A RECORD OF FILINGS.
Speaker 1:FROM ALL THE OTHER PEO. Do we have a record of filings from other? No, not that we could track down that we've come across and I've got to say my 20 years I've been here. This is the first this has ever happened that we can't come across the paperwork. No, I was asking about other filings. Final, yeah, other filings, like the air I'm on a paramount drive the hotel, what we just did so in those filings?
Speaker 8:what did we make them as far as storm?
Speaker 1:I can't guarantee it's a file in of me, but I believe they met all the recharges and everything else.
Speaker 8:So what I would say is go back, look at those, be sure on it and then make sure his filing does the same as those, and then I'm okay with going forward. But I am not going to do that until I know that.
Speaker 1:So if we have filings from other properties on Paramount that we can look at and compare, then I'm trying to think of one, and I don't even know if it's a Paramount Drive address, to be honest with you. Then, I'm TRYING TO THINK OF ONE, and I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT'S A PARAMOUNT DRIVE ADDRESS. To BE HONEST WITH YOU, it WOULD BE THE HOTEL AT THE CORNER.
Speaker 2:IS THAT CALMERS WAY? It's CALMERS, BUT IT'S STILL PART OF THE SAME CORNER. It SHOULD BE PART OF IT. Yeah, IT'S NOT.
Speaker 9:JUST PARAMOUNT DRIVE. It's THAT random woods.
Speaker 2:as far as I understand it, the meeting that I had two weeks ago on a pre-plan meeting was another hotel on Columbus Drive. Okay, so there's precedent here.
Speaker 8:Yeah, so that's what I'm saying is we should understand the precedent, and if he's meeting what everybody else met, then I'm more comfortable moving forward. Without that, I DON'T THINK.
Speaker 5:AND CAN YOU REMIND ME OF WHAT NUMBER TWO IS?
Speaker 9:NUMBER TWO IS RATE CONTROL.
Speaker 5:RATE CONTROL.
Speaker 9:SO RATE CONTROL RATE OF RUNOFF OFF OF THE SITE. So WHAT.
Speaker 3:YOU DO, is YOU?
Speaker 9:MODEL PRE-DEVELOPMENT. The WOODED IN THIS C SITE WAS WOODED BEFORE THEY DID THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT BUT THEY MODELLED IT AND THEN THEY MODEL POST DEVELOPMENT WITH FULL BUILDUP, and THEN THEY PUT THEIR CONTROLS IN TO MAKE SURE THAT THE POST DEVELOPMENT RATE OF RUNOFF.
Speaker 5:IS LESS THAN THE PRE'S. No LIKE AMOUNT OF RATE OR THE TYPE OF RATE LIKE IT, just HAS TO BE LESS IT'S.
Speaker 9:ALL GOING TO BE DETERMINED BY WHAT THE YOU CAN IMAGINE LIKE. If YOU MODEL THE HALF-ACRE SITE, you WOULD GET A LITTLE BIT OF RUNOFF RELATIVE TO IF YOU MODEL THE right. So there's no actual number that you try to go for. You look at your model pre-development, model post development. That's what you compare that.
Speaker 5:That's what the standard says I think that's important because it'll run off and it absolutely is important.
Speaker 9:It's the most see. That's why that was the original one. That was the one that everybody had to comply with before stormwater management came out. Stormwater management is a great idea it, but it's kind of like fine-tunes that that's still the most important aspect of stormwater management it leads to a lot of other issues.
Speaker 5:So yeah, yeah and.
Speaker 9:But now, with the new other standards, you have to clean that water to a certain degree, you have to recharge certain amount into the groundwater, you have to have all these of erosion, you have to have an operation and maintenance plan. Blah, blah, blah. Those are the things that we didn't do back in the early 90s, late 80s, early 90s, before some storm so how old is this paramount drive?
Speaker 5:what did it start?
Speaker 9:that's an excellent question, I want to say early 90s, but I could be wrong.
Speaker 5:I know Walmart was built. I would think that they'd be able to find paperwork in the early 90s we had hoped they can't.
Speaker 8:That's the point.
Speaker 9:They've looked they can't find it, Mr McRae. I spoke to Mr McRae yesterday. I really appreciate his efforts looking into it, but he found the same thing I did, I think.
Speaker 1:I didn't do research for other properties. We tried to find the original paperwork and, like I said, we can't find it. I'm not sure who has it. So it was passed down over the years as word of mouth that the calculations had already been done. So IT WAS PASSED DOWN OVER THE YEARS AS WORD OF MOUTH THAT THE CALCULATIONS HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE FOR COMPLETE BUILD OUT OF THE PROJECT WITH THAT SAID. The PLANNING BOARD ALSO TOLD ME ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO TO HELP ENHANCE THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO FLOODING ISSUES ON PARAMONT DRIVE AND RAIN AND WOODS BECAUSE THERE'S LIKE THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT POINTS OF DISCHARGE BUT THEY ALL GO INTO THE RIVER DOWN IN DEAN AND HILL STREET. So WE DID THE CULVET THERE A FEW YEARS AGO TO MAKE IT LARGER, just FOR THAT FACT TO CULMINATE. More.
Speaker 1:RUNOFF THAN WHAT THE ORIGINAL CALCULATIONS WERE APPROVED FOR.
Speaker 9:I'M WONDERING. If SOMEBODY DID MAYBE THERE'S SOME CALCULATIONS IN ASSOCIATION WITH THAT PROJECT. One WOULD. Think THAT IT. Should HAVE BEEN. No, no, no, no.
Speaker 1:I DON'T KNOW one would. One would think that it should have been another thing.
Speaker 9:I can state is I mentioned, thank you. You may or may not recall that at the last meeting I stated I've been asked to look at another project, 675 paramount drive, which is a medical office building directly across the street from Toyota. Yeah, I'm very familiar with that project. That was there was this committee, the Planning Board and this Commission issued permits for a second building on that lot just behind the existing building in to, I believe, 2020, and it's it's interesting is, if you look at that original building, there's no detention base and no infiltration base. Nothing. There's nothing, and that's because of this situation. The. What I'm more familiar with is the second building that got designed because I've been asked to redesign it in that has. That's that it appears that what they asked for, the, for the submittal for that as well, and nobody seems to have that either, but it from what I can at all, everything that I look at, from my experience of what I'm looking at it.
Speaker 9:They did exactly what we're doing here. They took care of recharge, they took care of cleaning the water before it gets discharged, but WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE? They TOOK CARE OF RECHARGE. They TOOK CARE OF CLEANING THE WATER BEFORE IT GETS DISCHARGED, but THERE'S NO BASIN THERE'S NO INFILTRATION. Basin IT'S NOT IT'S. They DID NOT TAKE CARE OF RATE IN THAT PLAN, so THAT WAS AS RECENTLY AS 2020. And I'M JUST THINKING THROUGH.
Speaker 1:MY HEAD HERE. I and I'm just thinking through my head here I can't think of another property on Paramount Drive that has retention bases.
Speaker 9:Yeah, if you drive it. I've looked through how many of them have collection systems.
Speaker 1:I know the ones I've been involved in the last few years.
Speaker 8:Typically in the last few years, you're talking about one that's older. I don't think that one does.
Speaker 1:You know a lot of them about one that's older, I don't think that you know a lot of it. Pretty much it has why they have. It has catch base.
Speaker 9:No, there's no right. It's collecting it but it's discharging it to the whatever system was constructed for. Now, one of the one of the things I think, what the original theory? So it's a loop road. As you know, it's a U-shaped road. In the middle of the loop is a large wetland system. It's massive and it has an incredible capacity to hold water. So I believe that's when you mentioned that they redid the culvert.
Speaker 3:That's what it is. That's what when you mentioned that they redid the culvert.
Speaker 9:That's what it is. It's one of the discharge points, for that massive weapon system is acting as a huge detention system.
Speaker 1:AREA, and WE PREFER THREE OF THEM. Drains OUT TO THE HILL STREET EAST.
Speaker 9:STREET CULVET. I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. That's MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL.
Speaker 2:THERE ARE ONLY.
Speaker 1:TWO OF THEM LEFT. Yeah, I WAS TOLD THERE WAS ONLY ONE OR TWO LEFT.
Speaker 9:YEAH, this IS THE ONLY ONE ON THE INTERIOR OF THE RING. So IF YOU LOOK AT OUR PLANS, our plans to back with that that a lot it did. That's where our wetlands are, that we're protecting and that's the edge of that massive wetland system that's detained, that's detaining or retaining a lot of infiltrating, whatever it's doing, a combination of everything okay, um, I mean OKAY, I MEAN.
Speaker 1:MY PERSONAL OPINION ON THIS ONE IS I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS DONE HIS DUE DILIGENCE IN GETTING THE RESEARCH DONE. I WOULD BE INCLINED TO GO IN FAVOR OF IT, but IT'S UP TO THE BOARD. I'm JUST ONE PERSON HERE, that's JUST MY.
Speaker 8:OPINION. You LOOKED AT THE APPLICATIONS. Other APPLICATIONS.
Speaker 1:I HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH OTHER APPLICATIONS FOR OTHER PROPERTIES. No, that's A WHOLE LOT OF TIME, it IS. But.
Speaker 6:IF YOU.
Speaker 8:DO TWO OR THREE. It's NOT ADDRESSING LIKE I SAID THAT'S.
Speaker 1:JUST MY OPINION. Whatever THE BOARD WANTS TO DO, I SHOULD SAY IT'S REALLY UP TO YOU, what YOU. Want TO DO? Do YOU WANT TO HAVE US DO MORE RESEARCH?
Speaker 9:I'D ACTUALLY ASK THE COMMISSION IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER LETTING ME KNOW, I MEAN IF IT'S GOING TO GET SHOT DOWN. This IS A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR PROPERTY THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ONLY PURCHASED THE LAND BASED. On KNOWING THIS FACT, YOU CAN'T FOLD SOMETHING.
Speaker 8:UNLESS IT'S.
Speaker 9:CLOSED.
Speaker 5:NO, I UNDERST TOO. If WE DO-IF THERE'S TWO MORE LOTS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DEVELOPED AND WE GO AHEAD WITH THIS, are WE SET IN PRECEDENT FOR THE?
Speaker 8:OTHER TWO LOTS RIGHT. That's WHY I'M.
Speaker 9:CONCERNED. It's AN EXCELLENT CONCERN, BUT THE PRECEDENT HAS ALREADY BEEN SET. It's ALREADY BEEN DONE. There's A there's a.
Speaker 8:There's a. We don't know that. There's a. You are telling us that and that's why I want yeah well not only me don't like the Planning Board.
Speaker 7:The planning board, the chairman of the Planning Board, and they don't have rights over the weapons and wells, they do.
Speaker 8:This is instituting the federal wetland, so no understood they've been.
Speaker 9:We got fully reviewed in the stormwater for stormwater management guidelines. Thousands of dollars paid to the review engineer through the planning board process. We've already gone through that.
Speaker 1:That's not there. The reviewing engineer. The paperwork is here. I think it was item 41 or 44, something like that. He was in agreement that the calculations had been done. I THINK IT WAS ITEM 41 OR 44, something LIKE THAT. He WAS IN AGREEMENT THAT THE CALCULATIONS HAD BEEN DONE FOR THE PROJECT, for THE WHOLE COMPLEX. Who DID YOU READ? I CAN'T REMEMBER.
Speaker 9:You KNOW AND I WISH I COULD REMEMBER BUT I DON'T.
Speaker 1:It WAS ONE OF THE BIG FIRMS you know and I wish I could remember, but I don't. It was one of the big firms. Yeah, regular company, I'm not sure was GPI that.
Speaker 9:I think that's right. I think that's who it was, yeah okay.
Speaker 1:So once again, I guess, the balls of your court on what you'd like to do. Close the hearing with more research.
Speaker 9:I'd actually well, I've already tried to get whatever I can and that there seems to be nothing out there. There's the inability to access whatever is out there. I don't know where to go from here. I don't know if continuing this for two weeks if we're gonna find anything and you probably had some of the same stone walls that I did, I do, I do, I know I'm sorry.
Speaker 1:I know you're in a hurry to get it done, but I think it would be. I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BEST INTEREST OF ALL PARTIES TO GIVE US TWO WEEKS, okay, I?
Speaker 9:DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT IF YOU CAN GET SOMETHING THAT I WASN'T ABLE TO COME UP WITH.
Speaker 2:I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THAT DONE. We CAN LOOK AT THE FINAL WEEKS. That CAN REQUIRE A PROJECT.
Speaker 9:I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. We'll TRY TO FIND THE LAST CO.
Speaker 1:I'm happy to do that. We'll try to find the last couple of filings that came across for the area.
Speaker 8:A few examples, what we required of them, and then we've set precedent.
Speaker 1:That takes time for us to do.
Speaker 9:Understood.
Speaker 1:We're all volunteers. That's why I appreciate what you did yesterday. I did three hours on my part-time today. Appreciate what you did yesterday.
Speaker 9:No, I very much appreciate it. So yeah, I mean I may. You may want to go down that 675 paramount drive road. Maybe there's something there. I'd be happy to walk with you if you want to meet, and we can go to several properties that I've done the same thing looking for you know, well we didn't.
Speaker 1:We just see if there's other detentions on the property. We CAN SEE IF THERE'S OTHER DETENTIONS ON THE PROPERTY, we CAN SEE WHETHER THE OPERATION ALLOWED. That IN THE OTHER BUILDINGS YES, we'll LOOK AT THE LAST COUPLE, the HOTEL. I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN THAT IT WAS JUST BUILT OUT.
Speaker 9:OKAY, the PLANNING BOARD, just SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO.
Speaker 1:EXT extra work 675 the planning board had nothing for 675.
Speaker 9:They have already tried to get that. I have had luck in the past going to Steve and Treska who used to do some a lot of the reviews for the planning board. I don't know if he did him, for these is he was commission Thomas, he, I believe he was and I'm not OF THE REVIEWS FOR THE. Planning.
Speaker 5:BOARD? I DON'T KNOW IF.
Speaker 9:HE DID THEM FOR THIS COMMISSION? Is HE WITH BILL AND THOMAS? I BELIEVE HE WAS, AND I'M NOT SURE IF. He's STILL THERE IF HE'S MOVED AROUND BECAUSE.
Speaker 1:THAT WAS ONE OF THE NAMES. I THINK THAT WAS THROWN OUT. Yeah, HE USED TO DO A LOT OF THE REVIEWS.
Speaker 9:AND HE'S HAD. He's send me copies of plans that he's had. So I think his files may have things that we don't necessarily have in town here and I can try that too. I can try going down that road.
Speaker 1:If you know him more than McCall.
Speaker 9:I'll ask him for a favor That'll help out.
Speaker 1:Anything will help out.
Speaker 9:I will definitely try to do that Okay. Now, he's much younger than me, so he wasn't here for the original one, he wasn't here for the original design, but he may have like 675.
Speaker 1:Okay, yeah, all right. So we're agreed to two weeks.
Speaker 9:Yeah, that sounds good. Thank you very much Again. I just want to thank you for your reference.
Speaker 1:No, I'm trying to do my due diligence and make everybody happy.
Speaker 9:Appreciate it.
Speaker 2:All right motion. Motion to continue. Notice of intent 0. Paramount Drive Map 15, 176, 3g D, b269, 1070, 2917. Second Second 917, right, yeah, okay 917.
Speaker 9:RIGHT YEAH.
Speaker 1:OKAY, thank YOU.
Speaker 9:MOST INVADE.
Speaker 1:SECOND.
Speaker 4:ALL IN FAVOR.
Speaker 9:AYE AND MRS MCCRAE, if YOU DO WANT ME TO MEET YOU FOR A SIGHT WALK, I'd BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
Speaker 1:THANK YOU ALL, right.
Speaker 4:THANK YOU, thank YOU, thank YOU.
Speaker 1:THANK YOU LIKE. I SAID NEXT UP WOULD BE WILBUS STREET, but THAT HAS BEEN CANCELLED. Next UP IS NOTICE ROOM 10, 329 KING STREET, wetlands MITIGATION. We HAVE DEP NUM number 269 1077.
Speaker 2:We did oh, oh, I'm sorry, yeah, yeah, motion to continue. Motion to continue. Notice of intent zero. Wilbur Street map one, lot 97 a DEP 269, 1073 to 917.
Speaker 4:I will second that Thank you, my turn to read yep it's on the other one about this.
Speaker 8:Confirm it you like talking yeah.
Speaker 1:Thank you, yep oh okay, six that you're doing six, okay, yeah, just remind me when to get to that point anyone that get to that point?
Speaker 10:yes, I appreciate that. Don't walk away from the book.
Speaker 4:I was thinking I was just gonna hang out, okay, all right. Originally published at the Taunton Gazette comm as of August 17th 2025, free 29 King Street. Legal know this. Notice of a public hearing by the Rainham Conservation Commission, rainham, massachusetts, in coordinates the Massachusetts general laws, chapter 1, freddie 1, section 40 in the town of Rainham, local bylaw. The Rainham Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday September 4th 2025 at 530 pm in the Donald McKinnon meeting room in the rain him veterans, more a town hall, but the itself main street. Rainy a mass. On those of intent application filed by Mara current. The application is seeking approval for wetland restoration. The properties owned by my Korean is located at map 11, lot 101, free 29 King Street. And then this is one one five, seven, seven, nine two seven TDG as of 8 17 2025 good evening, rebecca from silver engineering.
Speaker 10:This came to me a little while ago now so I appreciate the patience of the Commission to get this. This CAME TO ME A LITTLE WHILE AGO NOW SO I APPRECIATE THE PATIENCE OF THE COMMISSION TO GET THIS TO YOU. To ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF THE ENFORCEMENT ORDER THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE OWNER AND APPLICANT AS HE ININVERTENTLY FILLED SOME WETLANDS THAT HE WASN'T AWARE OF. So WHAT WE DID IS WE HAD KEN THOMPSON GO OUT AND HE FLAGGED THE WET is we had Ken Thompson go out and he flagged the wetlands and he flagged a few series of wetlands. He flagged here on the east side, he flagged here on the west side and then he flagged or demarked the area that he determined was filled. So this is the area of the wetland that was filled, that he determined was filled. So this is the area that's filled. This is the area that can be determined could be a suitable location area.
Speaker 10:To get to that area we have to temporarily impact the wetlands and to dance and formats to get to the other side. Meanwhile, the EP issued comments and requested additional information due to the fact that this is in the riverfront area and whether or not it behooves us to put it on this side, given that we would be in the 200-foot riverfront area. Also, the amount of impact was questioned and some more mitigation and documentation would need to be submitted if we were going this route. Question Submitted if we were going this route, but unfortunately wasn't given this. So when they made the comment, the plan wasn't provided because they didn't have this.
Speaker 1:That you should have gotten in your package.
Speaker 10:We have it. So a close-up of the wetland area and of the wetland area, and so this would be the replication mitigation. The intermittent stream that is called out in the report that DEP also commented on is somewhere in this direction. I asked Ken to clarify for me on the overall. I haven't got his response yet. So there's contours in here that show that this collects in conveys, that this actually collects in conveys down in this direction. I know coming in because they fill the wetlands wasn't part of the package, but they have committed to whatever we agree is appropriate to fix this okay yeah, my first one is what's the maximum?
Speaker 10:well, I thousand without and why are you?
Speaker 10:closing to move the film that they put in when the Commission talked to the Iraq back at that meeting it was suggested that he leaves the fill and find a more suitable location. I don't want to say it's your idea, but I believe, if I go back at the time, not knowing the full details, that that was a suitable scenario. So when I called out back to the office, knowing that some of these comments came back, we thought maybe we should suggest another scenario rather than this one. Instead of replicating across the wetlands into the riverfront, why don't we try to take a sliver all along here, remove what was done and on the east side of the wetland area not crossing the wetlands remove the fill to a certain amount and then we don't have to worry about the riverfront, we don't have to worry about crossing it. We. I don't like the idea.
Speaker 8:The other part is if you remove the fill area from the area to do additional application If they were moving down to the refuge area, meaning if they restore it to the original condition, then you don't have to do more.
Speaker 10:Exactly understood. And again we tried this just to see.
Speaker 1:I guess my biggest question on the reputation area. What is it now? Are we going to have to take down large trees to accomplish?
Speaker 10:this. Ken would be on site to point out where, and even the owner asked what do I have to do? And Ken would be there on site. I don't know, I haven't actually walked this area, but he would obviously leave the trees bound and crushed around everything and plant a point.
Speaker 1:See, that's one of the biggest things we've had in the past with areas that people want to replicate. This we're destroying.
Speaker 10:We're destroying, you know, good forested land and taking down big trees to accomplish it, which is kind of well, in um defense of this idea, ken went and picked this location, so I'm assuming he picked a more viable location it's like I said, I don't know I don't have any answers to that one.
Speaker 1:I haven't been else to see where it is, which you know. Um in the other, the other issue I have a little bit is normally when we do replication, we we ask for two to one. We asked for two to one and they were only gaining 77 more square feet, which is not a lot compared to the damage that was done.
Speaker 8:My biggest issue with the existing fill area is that it's going to benefit the pool Like they went through a process. It's going to push the wetlands lines back in that area and they will not have to come before the commission, both possibly doing the art of this process. Well, possibly, this process is basically us giving an approval to fill more than what's allowed by allowing them to do almost one-to-one replication in a different spot.
Speaker 1:That's because personally as a wetland area will use, and also the 25 foot buffer right, so that's it. I'll get pushed that six hours a hundred is, you know, another couple hundred people, though, I understand and it just seems to me how much those, or I should say how far did they have to dig down to find what was the soils?
Speaker 6:mr, the size of the state. This second, I'm sorry, can we just double the size of this paper?
Speaker 5:I'm sorry. Couldn't we just double the size of that If you did it two to one of the proposed area?
Speaker 1:Well, I mean, if you did the proposed area, if you made it two to one here should be great, you'd be getting more of the wetlands. But I guess the biggest question is how much you know good way do you want to steal to, to accomplish the fact when in wills argument is, if we just dig out the fill that was put there in the first place and restore it, we're or where we should have been originally. We're not rewarding somebody for making you know filling wetlands what is it in this area right now?
Speaker 5:do you know? In the first, the wetland, the field area. Field area that's probably grass just around the field.
Speaker 1:Um, I think it's still just. It's just, yeah, it just fulfilled. I don't think it was up a moment to see it because we told it stopped, true, I should hope it's not.
Speaker 8:And, to your point, that area of education. Yeah, so you say you're removing soils in the riverfront area which I can now do a restoration on. So it would be better in the long run, because it's the most valuable environmental if it's just brought up. In the long run it's the most valuable environmental if it's just brought up in one state is the replication area state it's?
Speaker 10:not in the flagged or anything or um just according on the wetland part itself, and at this point I probably would have to return question, because if you don't like this location, then you can try this location or both.
Speaker 1:There's a whole bunch of stuff right there, that's not being looked at. And um second, sorry, I've lost my train of thought that would be representing what would be here. They're not individual trees, that's just what we're looking for. So this is the plan that shows the individual trees. I mean, I'm tired of moving that way. So, yeah, that's what I was going to ask as well. I just think there's too many questions in DEPs even.
Speaker 10:At the time we had that suggestion, I don't think we realized how close we were to the riverfront.
Speaker 1:We had too many moving parts and the river's not even denoted on the plan.
Speaker 8:The big thing on the right, oh, up here the intermittent stream that DEP says yeah, no, I know it's not there, it's right in here.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's what I was saying.
Speaker 10:You can flag it as an intermittent stream. You just put flags and say, oh, it's right here. I'm like, okay, that doesn't help me, I could probably just restore it. Okay, that's my idea. I think that's good. This is fine. I think we can do something like that in the future. But that fill area is too big, yeah, and it's too beneficial to the problem In the future. But that will stay for the storm, with benefit. Sure, the future With the state, it would benefit the whole country. Thank you, sir. I think there's a comment on here that suggests that this is a little bit elevated to the rest of it, so it's probably why Ken picked it.
Speaker 1:So, yeah, it is deceiving, but we can talk about the rest of it. Great, Anybody in the audience have any questions? Come on up, sir. We all went across the street. Could you come up, sir? Name and address, please. Atomic Reef at 15th Street. Reef at 15th Street. I'm just. What is he? What's his intent? In the office? He cleared a lot, Okay, I'm sorry. Sorry, just for procedural. You just have to go through me.
Speaker 11:Yeah, what is his intent? Because he did it all on his own.
Speaker 1:We'd ask him what he's doing saying about business so from what I had in my first, he was just trying to extend one, extend the lawn. That was that was the answer. I got a road in he was he cleaned up. Not allowing, that was that was the answer. I got a road in he was he cleaned up. All out burning stuff every single day, yeah, so I'm just really confused on, like I said, that's the, that's the reasoning I got okay. Um, I love that.
Speaker 1:I can't say it so in this meeting here is that he has to replace everything that he stuck up. Is that what this is about? Well, what we're we're doing now is we're trying. The engineer has given us an option to mitigate what was done. We're trying to hash through that and decide what's the best course of action. So, but he can't build anything correct at this point. We're not talking about anything being built, we're talking about storing the land.
Speaker 1:And you were saying something about maybe cutting some more down and redoing it, or what were you saying? Well, that was the question of the area that was going to be mitigated. Is it more forested area? Is it? What is it more forest in the area, is it? You know what is it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, in my. My comment was we've had this come of the past and I don't want to see mature trees chopped down to, to, you know, mitigate wetlands, because we're being counterproductive on that. There are a lot of trees cut down for sure, so that's where you know, that's where that is. Everything right now is just proposed.
Speaker 10:Okay, the trees that were cut from the return.
Speaker 1:Yeah what he's referring to are all in here, yeah, okay and what's um is this, this is this, right there, yes, and this, when, uh, the upsets are, is that they come over this way, in this plan, this way? Really be going back behind this lie yet no, I mean his lot is denoted there. Yeah yeah, the area of replication is down below that one okay, right, so nothing's gonna happen to this area where your hand is now would be proposed mitigation area.
Speaker 1:Okay, that to me. That's on top. Yeah, that's, that's the part we're trying to figure out. I think the riddle will be right around here, right? Yeah, I'm not sure where those two ribs. There's a little stream that there's a little stream, that so the other thing yeah, and reestablishing, that'll be some part of the mitigation.
Speaker 9:You kind of gonna decide where, where we're going to do it and then work up mitigation okay, so the plan is that you're going to have to get rid of the fill and replant is that work.
Speaker 1:That's what we're working through right now that's what this whole process is about okay how to fix it.
Speaker 11:How's the?
Speaker 1:best way to fix it. Basically, I just want to make sure that you can't put anything back up, build anything that's. That's not what we have. All right, all right, excellent all right, thank you thank you, anyone else evening?
Speaker 6:I live on 351 King Street. I have bought this land.
Speaker 10:I was told by Mr Curran that he was required to cut all his still his property, still this problem. But all right, warning her that this was what he remembered he was going to do, okay, but he didn't realize it was a proposed thing and that would change her mind. So perhaps he said to her yes, I'll be doing work back here which I can see he was probably suggesting he would be doing work back here at the time.
Speaker 6:Okay, and he can't say that yet because we haven't decided that's what we're going to do. I was just wondering, of course, course I want to know how it's going to.
Speaker 1:Secondly, I mean other than the proposed work being, you know, below your property, um, you know the, the degrading, and everything runs from your property down into the wooded area. So there would be no, um, there would be no, you know, water running back onto your property.
Speaker 6:Let's say all right, and I have another question. I had my line surveyed a long time ago and I had a stake, which I guess is required. It's touched over to the side, but anybody was talking about then when we were pumping it up can't correct what it was. There any left? Um, I mean, I don't go into you know all these stuff, yeah.
Speaker 1:Pre-fishing and scapes. I mean no one's allowed to touch surveillance scapes. It's a lot. The scape is, you know, on its side All right, um, that's something we can bring up with the engineer and stuff when we go through the process.
Speaker 6:I don't know. You know who did it or what it?
Speaker 10:was. Do you have them know which one it was, the front or the back? The back Back left or right, then in the street which house the back left or the back right, the right? She has a bomb there. It was a safety switch.
Speaker 1:Okay the right okay so let it just what it out, okay, okay, all right, she's gonna check it, okay, all right, thank you. All right, thank you anyone else, all right, um so what's the board's recommendation?
Speaker 2:move this, this forward, go with the plan or come up with plan B. I said my feelings. I think we should have them recover whatever we filled Six thousand, yeah, and I think that should be required no, I definitely agree, so I believe the deal with the board here is to we're going to restore the filled area.
Speaker 1:Yep, you had some trees.
Speaker 10:Are we noting how many we feel is appropriate that we add to the plan I?
Speaker 1:mean, I don't. I don't want to. He took huge.
Speaker 10:Probably quite a few. I'm looking at an area and you can tell it's a green tree. I'm looking at the area and you can tell it there. So can we decide on a number, maybe a 25 touch that are? I don't want to come back to discuss that yeah.
Speaker 8:I can request Ken to, as he's been out there, tell me if the species is dominant.
Speaker 1:Maybe he'll use a match. Let me just. I'm a second here. The lower mitigation plantings were size four to six.
Speaker 10:Quantity ten red maple probably going to redo all of this in this area okay, so if you want to pick another number or quantity of red, maple, yellow, birch, silky dogwood whatever we're doing, right, nice. We could say we could replant the 25, be two of every one being started.
Speaker 8:Well, it's likely an upland area, so we want to make sure that the species is correct for the upland. So what I would say is ask Kent what would be appropriate.
Speaker 10:In this 25-foot area you can agree on the appropriate species to count in that upland area, based on Kent's recommendation.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and he'll space them out and the other thing I'm going to ask for is some type of permanent bonds with markings. No work, no work beyond this point.
Speaker 8:Something can't be removed all right, we have yeah, it's a typical All right.
Speaker 1:So with that said a couple weeks.
Speaker 10:Do you need to? Yeah?
Speaker 8:Next one the one after. Okay, thank you, which one? What's the date? It's a push-in, oh.
Speaker 10:October 1st. Yeah, I feel like it's a good idea, but we're we're gonna go with it. October 1. Thank you, the other, the other.
Speaker 1:All right motion to continue to.
Speaker 8:Know second that motion no, no, you have to make, you have to make it, he's not allowed to motion to continue to notice some intent free 29 king street.
Speaker 4:Uh, what land citation um motion to continue that till october 1st second, second, in all favor, both remaining seconded all in favor, aye, aye, opposed thank you.
Speaker 1:Thank you, can I stay yep you got any others, all right, you are a local street, right right. Next up is abbreviated notice of resource area delineation for 699 Locust Street, dep 269-1076.
Speaker 8:in accordance with Massachusetts general law chapter Chapter 131, Section 40 in the Town of Raynham Local By-law, the Raynham Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, September 3, 2025, at 5.30 pm in the Donald L McKinnon Meeting Room in the Raynham Veterans Memorial Town Hall at 558 South Main Street, Raynham, Massachusetts. I THINK HE'S CALLED, I DON'T KNOW. Appreviated NOTICE OF RESOURCE AREA DELINEATION. Application FILED BY PAUL BOMILLA BOMILLA. Bomilla BOMILLA. The APCOON IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR BORDERING. Vegetated WETLAND DELINEATION THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A PROPERTY THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR THEM. The OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A PROPERTY THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR THEM. The OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A PROPERTY THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR THEM. The OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A PROPERTY THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR.
Speaker 10:GOOD EVENING REBECCA SILVER ENGINEERING. We're HERE FOR AN ABRAMIATED NOTICE OF RESOURCE AREAS, AND WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS THE FLAG RESOURCE DOWN. The WAY IN THE MIDDLE OF. The LOT TOWARD THE BACK, where WE HAVE KEN WHO FLAGGED IT AND HE FLAGGED IT BACK IN FEBRUARY. During HIS FLAGGING, he ALSO LOCATED and we flag it back in February. During this flagging, we also located this isolated land. Subject flooding, which we have calculations that demonstrate. This is non-jurisdictional.
Speaker 1:We're here to see if we have the commission review the line and proof before we decide what we can and cannot do not do it.
Speaker 10:Right now there's a house that makes me feel better. We did it in February, so then he saw it, and then he went back out in March, march Good.
Speaker 8:Good.
Speaker 1:All right, so this is going to require a site visit to walk through up and see Termination. All right, do we have access to that property? We'll read that, if I don't mind, okay.
Speaker 8:All right, this one we'll do. Yeah, okay, how dense are you? In a way, I'm change of the chair Used to be there it's going to be a hike, so everyone.
Speaker 1:All right, so we'll get you some dates when we get a couple of people out there to work. All right, so, um, a motion to continue with the site. Walk, uh, motion to continue um all right maybe put that in the budget. Yeah, good luck. Two weeks in yeah, two weeks, yeah, okay, sound good okay.
Speaker 2:Motion to continue. Abbrevibreviated notice of resource area delineation 699, local street 232-690-76. To the extent of a site visit continue to 970. Motion to be made Second. Motion to be made Seconded. All in favor, aye Opposed.
Speaker 1:Announce Thank you All right, thank you, we'll contact you when we get a date. Thank you All in favor. Aye Opposed Announce.
Speaker 5:Thank you.
Speaker 1:Alright, thank you. We'll contact you when we get a date. Thank you for taking me out of order, no problem. Next up is a notice of intent for 61 maple street, dp 269, 1074, posed in ground pool. Thank you. I'd like the original copy so we can view from there.
Speaker 2:Thank you, okay, in accordance with Massachusetts General Law, chapter 131, section 40, and the Town of Rain by the law, the Rain Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, september 3rd 2025 at 5.30 pm in the Donaldson Center Meeting Room in the Rainy Veterans Memorial Town Hall Located at 558 South Main Street, rain and Mass. On the notice of intent filed by Kevin Orlando, the applicant proposes to construct a pool and fence in the location of 61 Maple Street. Constructed pool and fence in the location of 61 Maple Street, assessors map 4188, lot B-15. The property is owned by Kevin Orlando. It copies the application and plans to be viewed by the RCC office during normal business hours.
Speaker 1:All right, go ahead, sir. Good evening Rick Goodrell with United Consultants here this evening. Rcc office to the normal business hours. Good evening Rick good roll with United consultants here this evening with Kevin Orlando, owner of the property at 61 Maple Street.
Speaker 1:As mentioned, the applicant is proposing to construct an in-ground swimming pool in the rear yard.
Speaker 1:The pool will be located just to the right of the existing pavilion and to the rear of the existing house.
Speaker 1:Also, as part of the proposal, we're looking at relocating the existing shed from where I've colored it green to this location here outside of the 25 foot buffer zone. We are proposing also to construct the fence which I've colored up here in purple to encapsulate the area where the pool is to comply with the building regulations, building code regulations. Additionally, we've proposed, as highlighted here in yellow, the erosion control line to encapsulate the proposed work area, that the that erosion control line would be a double row of hay bales and then additionally, as we highlighted here in pink, we propose PDW boundary markers which I believe comply with your standard as far as height, depth, size and materials. So that's a an overview of what we're proposing. All the work will be taking place within the buffer zone. The wetlands were delineated by russ waldron from aes, our environmental consultant. All the work area access will come in off the existing driveway to get to the full location and that's really a again, as I said, an overview of the project. You have to answer any questions that Commission may have.
Speaker 8:Thank you, where is the hundred foot Buffalo?
Speaker 1:my first question is so one was established for children. What's the plan for that area now? After the ships moved out of there? The area where the chef would be removed from could be revegetated, provide a conservation of wildlife mix in that area. The commission would be so inclined it's kind of back to where we were with our enforcement order there that the shed that shouldn't have been established on day one, it should have been at the 25 foot low touch. So yeah, I'd be happy with that, but with some type of you know be vegetative level of expense, whatever that may have with to note on the boundary market that there's to be no work or activity beyond that boundary line. And the other is the pool. Do you know? Is it a backwash type or is it a cartridge? So we actually have no Six on the plan. It'll be a cartridge filter. It'll be a cartridge, okay, no backwash allowed, okay, perfect. I'm sorry, I didn't see that, no problem.
Speaker 1:Why don't we have some it'll be a conference, okay, yeah, anybody in the audience?
Speaker 4:all right uh to close the area.
Speaker 1:Okay, motion to close. On December 10, 61 on April Street, db 269, 1074, 1074. Opposed any round. I second that Motion to be made. Seconded. All in favor. Aye, opposed Any enlist. Do you want to make a motion to issue? Thank you, do you want to make a?
Speaker 8:motion to issue a notice of intent for 62 Maple Street, 61 Maple Street, dep. Number two six nine one zero seven four 1 0 7 4.
Speaker 1:With everything that's on the plans plus, yeah, but Receiving the, it's one year with wildlife.
Speaker 8:Okay so, moving the shed and reestablishing if there's anything under the shed, no, the whole one area, because that should have been no touch on day, one touch okay, yep, all right, motion to have the day second.
Speaker 1:Thank you very much. Get on the block this process. We always have experience permitting in many other towns. Yes, always interested coming to a new town. Amy was fantastic, the very patient, loving, so I just wanted to thank her. Unfortunately she's not here, but she was great.
Speaker 8:She would have gotten a sign-in sheet. We'll tell her to watch the video.
Speaker 1:Thank you. She'll notify you by email or whatever when she's done with paperwork.
Speaker 4:Perfect thank you very much. Take care good night.
Speaker 1:All right, all right. Next up is Notice of Attempt for 840 Broadway, edp 269-1075, parking lot improvements.
Speaker 11:Hi, good evening. I'm Bill Adams, I'm the applicant and I have Michelle Greiner as the wetlands botanist and scientist with me. We're proposing the-.
Speaker 1:I'm sorry. Sorry, one second here. I'm trying to get my pen work and we have to read it because this is one of those in attention. Give me one second here. Yep, do we have? You have the mailings in the? Okay, there WE GO. I'm SORRY.
Speaker 8:THANK YOU. You got the eyes to that one all righty.
Speaker 4:This was published on August 25th. This is for 840 Broadway in Rainham. Legal notice of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts whose me town of Rainham conservation mission. Notice of public hearing. As provided in the Mass General Law chapter 141 section for the Rainham Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on the application of wja property management LLC for a notice of intent located at 840 Broadway here in Rainham, mass properties owned by BCAC properties LLC and is shown as a parcel 23 AOI on the Rainham assessors map for the hearing will be held on Wednesday September 4th 2025 here at 530 pm at the Rainham town hall located 538 South Main Street, rainham, mass, 0277. The O&I and plan may be view that the RCC officer in its normal business hours. The Rainham town hall. The RCC office may be contacted by calling 508 242 706. All interested persons are encouraged to attend a public hearing meeting. Town of Rainham Conservation Commission, ad number one one five eight one zero five nine taunton as of August 25th 2025. 25.
Speaker 1:NO BECAUSE. You CAN'T COUNT MONDAY WHAT MONDAY DO. You HAVE FIVE DAYS. Five DAYS. You CAN'T COUNT TODAY. You CAN COUNT TODAY ONE, two.
Speaker 11:THREE, four, five, five, 4, 5, 6. Okay, yep, okay, I'm sorry All right, go ahead sir.
Speaker 11:Okay, good evening. The property that we're talking about is 840 Broadway. It was the former restaurant La Casa Mia, which has now moved next door, and the Rainham Veterinary has moved from 900 Broadway into this property and we're proposing some parking lot improvements at the rear of the property. It is outside of the wetland area. There's no intrusion into the wetlands and for the last 40 years that's been a parking lot and there hasn't isn't really wasn't any drainage in the back. So we're proposing to put in a border of infiltration of stone 36 inches wide, two feet deep, to handle the runoff on the asphalt from the ass, from the rainwater and extend some parking spaces in the back. There's a very light gray line that shows you the existing limit of the asphalt and we're extending it from there a little further back so 840 is the original restaurant yes you're not going to make any dog paths, I'm sorry, any dog paths for the animals.
Speaker 11:I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE.
Speaker 5:ANY DOG PATHS I'M SORRY ANY DOG PATHS FOR THE ANIMALS TO WALK.
Speaker 11:DOG PATHS.
Speaker 5:YEAH, like SEE IN THE BACK, here YOU HAVE BRABBLE. Yeah, is SHE PROPOSING ANY AREAS FOR THE DOGS TO WALK OR THE ANIMALS TO WALK?
Speaker 11:BEYOND THAT, I MEAN THERE'S GRASS TO THE LEFT AND TO THE RIGHT OH, okay. Is grass to the left and to the right? Oh, okay. So they could be, but most of the time people are walking their dogs out front.
Speaker 5:Yeah, because you have to enter into the front.
Speaker 11:There's a little corner that goes around to the right and that's where I've seen people out there. I don't know what her plan is for that. She basically she moved from one area because she didn't have enough parking and she's moving to the area with the same amount of parking. So we're trying to increase it by adding those very back parking spaces and we're also making an improvement because previously the water, the storm water, was just running down the black dock into the river. That ended up. So we're putting this infiltration area the entire length of the back of the property and around the corner, which will absorb that water and allow it slowly to penetrate into the ground. It will also give us some filtration.
Speaker 5:You just added like a whole second row of parking. Right, you added that whole second row of parking. Yes, yeah, that's okay.
Speaker 1:Okay, we're gonna we're getting the contour contradicting each other here one room, one of the others.
Speaker 11:This parking is parking there now in the back, and we're just going to add another row behind it yeah, I think that right now the actual goes halfway through that back row. That's existing. Yes, not big enough for yeah, I've been back there.
Speaker 5:I agree, I'm trying to remember you know it looks different because when she, when they change to La Casa Mia, so when you go back, currently it's the one against the back that you see in the picture, and then the first set of spaces, and then that's it, so he's just looks like you're extending it and adding that second row, right. So, and then a little bit to travel around.
Speaker 11:And half that row is already there. Yeah, but it's not big enough for parking type things.
Speaker 5:Yep, so it gives it flow, because there was no way to turn around back there. It's like you go into your space and that's it so we're?
Speaker 1:we're extending the parking lot by how many feet from what's existing there?
Speaker 11:Um, I didn't know what I got in there over there. Thank you.
Speaker 5:All right, don't it on there. I think we're here. See how much is existing there. That's how it is, oh 2,600?. Yeah 2,600. 2,675 square feet. Do you see the pink line? Do you see the pink line? That pink line is the existing. That's existing yep.
Speaker 2:Yep. So can I tell you, just turn it there.
Speaker 7:It is yes, that's all disturbed area. It is yes, that's all there is.
Speaker 1:This is the same, it's just not working. In your drawing here you show off-property continuation of that drainage swale. How's that going?
Speaker 11:to be accomplished.
Speaker 1:I'm sorry. Oh, you own that 826 Broadway 2?. I own this property going in between the two.
Speaker 11:Yeah, and I'm deeming that to run Okay. Some of the others theyeming that to run, Okay. Some of the others. They've been using that forever and I own the property behind it and I'm buying their old building.
Speaker 5:Oh, what are you going to do with that? That's a good, that's like down the other end.
Speaker 11:Yeah, that will help them. And it also helps the restaurant. Yeah, because the restaurant is, the parking spaces are cut. That WILL HELP THEM. It ALSO HELPS THE RESTAURANT. Yeah, because THE RESTAURANT IS, the PARKING SPACES ARE CUT OFF BY MY ENTRANCE WAY, so I'M GOING TO DEED THAT TO THEM AND THEY'LL HAVE IT. They'll BE ABLE TO USE IT JOINTLY.
Speaker 1:ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? And ARE YOU PUTTING ANY TYPE OF FABRIC BEFORE THE STONE? And are you putting any type of fabric?
Speaker 11:before the stone, or I can put fabric in. I could put it under the like a fresh one foot area, in case we ever had to take it off to clean it and put it back. If I could just speak.
Speaker 6:Go up to the microphone. That area is very flat, very flat. It rarely gets any rain on it.
Speaker 5:It doesn't really run much because it's a very flat area.
Speaker 11:Yeah, and there's no change in elevation at all For these parking places.
Speaker 6:There's no change in elevation at all For these parking places. There's no change in elevation at all. All right.
Speaker 5:Any more questions? No, I'm just wondering Is the stone area that you're looking at here? Is that it right here in the top corner? Is this the same as the stone? The picture on the top is the erosion control. Where do you have it?
Speaker 11:on the top. The picture on the bottom is the description of it.
Speaker 5:Oh the right, it's a description of it infiltration.
Speaker 8:Just wondering if we should have him do a little section where it's right up against the well.
Speaker 5:So that's the brown that you have going around here. On the outside of that brown is the sockets. Yep, I was confusing it because it had the same coloring.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, that would be more or lessING YEAH, yeah, that WOULD BE, yeah, yeah, that WOULD BE. That WOULDN'T BE OUT OF ME.
Speaker 9:YEAH, yeah, right UP AGAINST IT, yeah.
Speaker 6:YEAH.
Speaker 1:SO Well, I don't think it's the double back.
Speaker 10:It's the height of the silk sock compared to Well, the silk sock and the sock are the same Because the silk sock is higher, the ease of it, the ease of it, the sopress is higher.
Speaker 7:It's easier, it's easier, it's easier. It's more of a, it's more of a.
Speaker 6:It's more of a. It's more of a, it's more of a it's more of a To his point.
Speaker 1:you're going to be digging right up along the edge of the wetlands so it's hard for an excavator to get in there and dig without getting some type of spoil over the silt sock. So if you had the, the hay bale, the height of the hay bale, 10 feet beyond each side of the, the wetland line, there, it would give an added protection of any spoil going into the wetlands right okay am I stating that right, all right. Anything else. Anything else you'd like to add? No, that's it.
Speaker 1:All right. Would you like to close the hearing? Yes, please, All right. Motion to close the hearing. Motion to close.
Speaker 4:Notice of intent 8, florida, Broadway, ubp 269 1075, parking lot inclusion Board to name. Second, second, second. All in favor, aye, aye, opposed.
Speaker 6:Unanimous.
Speaker 1:On the order of decision.
Speaker 2:It would be negative 3 plus B. Added motion to approve notice of intent for 840 Broadway.
Speaker 8:Dp 269 1075 parking lot improvements contingent on the use of hay bales within 10 feet of the area where the wetland line and the construction is within two feet.
Speaker 1:I will second that Motion is made and seconded All in favor, aye, opposed Unanimous.
Speaker 11:Can I ask you one question? Sure, unanimous. Can I ask one question? Sure, so you're talking about the hay bale sock and then a sotation fence behind it with the sock sitting on it? No, just the hay bale. Oh, hay bales, just hay bales, and only in that, only where they're close together. Okay, all right, I understand Excellent. Thank you very much, all right good night.
Speaker 1:I can't. What will says throwing them right under the bus. All right. Next up is we received on Thursday the emergency certification for the old colony bridge on South Street, the. They finished the taunton side of it and have come over to the Radom side. So they're working under the bridge and doing concrete work to do temporary repair to the bridge, to get it back open and then eventually down the road. The whole bridge will be replaced. It BACK OPEN AND THEN EVENTUALLY DOWN THE ROAD. The WHOLE BRIDGE WILL BE REPLACED. So WE HAVE AN EMERGENCY CERTIFICATION WE NEED TO SIGN OFF ON. So I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
Speaker 2:A MOTION TO APPROVE THE EMERGENCY CERTIFICATION FOR SOUTH SPRING RIGHT. I'll SECOND THAT MOTION BANNED. Second motion to approve the emergency certification for.
Speaker 4:South Street.
Speaker 1:Second that second, all favor. Aye, I'm sorry, last on the agenda. So we had a. We had scheduled for this meeting the 254 King Phillip Street, the proposed public safety building. If you recall, the last time we were here we were supposed to do a site visit last last week.
Speaker 1:I did that site visit with town administrator, police chief, fire chief, building inspector and if you recall back we first all started this the Commission. The commission was under the thought that the wetlands were all connected and Will and I went down there one day and we found the water coming off the wetland area, disappearing under the ground and popping up down by the river. So with Will's knowledge of farming we kind of figured that there was some type of piping that went to in there. So we were going out there with a back call this week and DPW was down there with shovels a couple days ahead to figure out where to dig and sure enough they came across the piping that connected. The two wetlands on the east side of the proposal are now considered wetlands, not areas subject to flooding, because they're hydraulically connected.
Speaker 8:Isolated. Isolated sorry.
Speaker 1:Now they are hydraulically connected to the river. So, with that said, I received a letter from the bodies to be requesting that we rescind the request for determination without prejudice. So if I could have a vote to do that, what it means is they're not going to go forward with developing that possible.
Speaker 2:Motion to rescind the request for determination for 2254 King Street, king Phillip, king, phillip Street.
Speaker 1:With all the public safety.
Speaker 4:I will second that Motion to be made. Seconded All in favor. Aye, Opposed Meaningless. I will second that motion made seconded.
Speaker 6:All in favor aye opposed yes, yes, no, no, I mean just the vote being taken that way without prejudice.
Speaker 1:Yeah, all right. Did everybody get a chance to review the meeting minutes of August 6th?
Speaker 6:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Motion to accept. Second Motion to be made. Second All in favor. Aye, opposed, any opposed. Have we done any bills? Oh, we don't need those. Oh, thank you. All right, can I go to the signage too, please? Thank you For correspondence. If everybody could check their calendars so we can do that site walk for Locust Street and we'll just email back and forth when we can get to it.
Speaker 4:Okay, thank you.
Speaker 2:Okay. Motion to adjourn. No, okay, I did two cycles One on 814 on 10 Maple Street for an in-ground pool. That was sufficient and they were fine. On 815, 85 Christina Path, we did a site visit there for a pool as well, and that was fine. We also did the site visit there for a pool as well, and that was fine. We also did a site visit to Wilbur Street, but I'll let Bill talk about that. And we did a pre-construction meeting on 813th or Connors Way for the new hotel, but I didn't see any wetlands.
Speaker 8:We'll hold off the discussion on what was the event. Yeah, we should, so they're not here. Yeah, we should stop right away. And that was continued. I received an anonymous wetland violation complaint.
Speaker 1:concerning the old dog track, I reached out to Azu and we need to work with that and see what's going on in that lane. I haven't heard back from Azu in this one. All right, now I'll make a motion.
Speaker 4:Motion to adjourn.
Speaker 1:Second Second all in favor, aye Opposed, so moved.