Conservation Commission 09/17/2025

(Episode Description is AI generated and may be errors in accuracy)

A quiet storm sat at the top of the agenda: could we rely on a 2007 stormwater master plan when DEP’s regional files no longer hold the case record? We walked through what remained—an older notice of intent that documented how the Random Woods Commerce Center controlled peak discharge for 2-, 10-, and 100-year storms—and weighed it against today’s unchanged Standard 2 requirements. With the policy logic intact and local documentation in hand, we closed and issued for Zero Paramount Drive, acknowledging the reality that sometimes governance depends on process integrity when the perfect paper trail is gone.

The night took a more granular turn at Wilbur Street, where a single-family project meets a complex wetland edge. The proposal included a long driveway between an isolated wetland and a larger system, a culvert for connectivity, and a plan to fill wetlands for future agricultural use. We drew a firm line: agricultural exemptions don’t apply before an actual operation exists, and limited project provisions can’t be stretched to allow fill that changes grades. The fix is straightforward and fair—revise the filing to remove the farm-related fill, treat any future farm work as a separate application, and replace the small pipe with an open-bottom crossing to preserve flow, function, and resilience. To ground the redesign, we’ll have the applicant stake the driveway and crossing so our next site walk tests the plan against where the water truly moves. An abutter’s photos of seasonal flooding helped sharpen that picture.

We also cleaned up our own process. A recent approval at 840 Broadway missed responding to DEP’s stormwater comments before the vote; we’re formally requesting additional information and will reopen the file within the statutory window to keep the record right. And we paused an ORAD extension for Pine Street to verify exact dates under the Permit Extension Act before taking action. It’s the unglamorous core of public service: get the facts, correct the misses, and keep the path clear for both applicants and the environment.

Subscribe for steady, practical breakdowns of land use, conservation, and stormwater decisions. If this helped you understand how these calls are made, share it with a neighbor and leave a review—what topic should we unpack next?

Transcript

Meeting Called to Order

SPEAKER_07 0:02

Evening everyone. Like to call the September seventeenth meeting of the Conservation Commission to order. Please readvise all these meetings are recorded. Riley, would you please read us?

SPEAKER_04 0:20

All righty. This is the right paper, right? Yeah. Making sure. Alright. Oh no. No. You can read the handship. Gotcha. Talk. All public hearings and meetings heard by the Rhanium Conservation Commission on Wednesday, September 17th. Excuse me. 2025 at 530 p.m. In the Rhanium Veterans Memorial Town Hall, Donald L. McKinnon Meeting Room, 558 South Main Street. Rainham Mass are related to filings and joint hearings and or meetings under the Mass General Law Chapter 13140 as amended in the Town of Ranium Wetland Protection by Law.

SPEAKER_07 0:54

All right, thank you. First up is continued notice of attempt, Zero Paramount Drive, Map 15, lot 176-3G, DEP number 2691070. Evening.

Paramount Drive Stormwater Precedent

SPEAKER_01 1:12

Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bob Forrest from Xena Consulting Engineers. And you may recall the last time we were on a on a um a hunt to try to find uh whatever we could for for filings in front of this commission that were similar to what I um have been stating over the last several months on how it was the overall master plan for the Random Woods Commerce Center handled the rate the rate of runoff, and then subsequent to that you had to handle all of the other standards in the in the stormwater management um standard. So to start that off, I went to uh I figured the best place to find it would be to go to DEP. I requested fire view at DEP, and they just got back to me yesterday and said they have no files from Random on Carmer Drive or Paramount Drive. So it could have been the DEP number. I gave them the D. I I went back 10 years uh and gave them every file number.

SPEAKER_08 2:24

Uh their own file numbers, and they don't have they lost everything when they consolidated their record keeping in the Northeast Street when they lost the South East region office. So basically everything's gone. Yeah, so they don't have it.

DEP Records Missing and Master Plan

SPEAKER_01 2:41

So then I went to I I mentioned that I was gonna um give a call to Steve Ventreska, um, who used to do he works for niche engineering, and he used to do um reviews in town uh for Plane Board and Com. And he I explained the whole situation, and he said he recalled that that was exactly the situation on uh the random woods development, um, but and he was going to look for for um files in his office, and he had limited files, uh, found a blurb from one of his reviews saying that niche engineering understands the paramount drive development was developed and constructed under a drainage master plan. Um and and then he said that that this possibly turned he directed me towards the possibility of a uh paramount drive drainage study that Citech did in 2007, but I don't think anybody was able to find that. So again, we get back to um to Mr. McRae's excellent efforts again, and he found a couple of files. I don't know where in the attic in the basement somewhere. And uh we won't tell Amy. Um one of them was um for development across the street from Rainbows, so that that really wasn't relevant to us. And then we I think we struck it rich. And this is um the on April 10th, they submitted this uh uh notice of intent on April 10th, 2007. It's for um the property local that's now it's now its current address is 670 Paramount Drive, and that's again that's at the intersection of Paramount Drive and Route 44, and it's across diagonally across the street from Route 44 Toyota. And they they their summary and their um explanation of how they met the standards is almost exactly what I submitted. And um I I believe you have a copy of it. Um Amy was nice enough to help me out with this um yesterday when I came to the uh CONCOM office. But essentially, the in the executive summary it says the stormwater management system master plan for Random Woods Commerce Center has already addressed the issue of controlling peak runoff rates, therefore, mitigating measures implemented with the construction of the manufacturing office space, which is what that what was developed there, need only address water quality issues for stormwater. The master drainage plan for the site was designed to be consistent with DEP stormwater management policy. And it goes down into a discussion of DEP, uh the DEP stormwater management standards, just like what I submitted. And under standard two, um they state the stormwater management designed and constructed for Random Woods Commerce Center and approved under order of conditions number SE 269-64. Um will control post-development peak runoff rates for the two, 100-year 24-hour design storm events so as not to exceed existing conditions slash pre-development peak discharge rates. So um that's essentially exactly what uh our design does and what what we stated in the uh stormwater uh management report, although I have to admit they are better writers than I am and use better grammar. I think it's clearer how they stated it. So um hopefully um that is at least one example of how. Oh, and I did take a look at aerial photographs of the area, and there are no detention basins on that on that development. There are a few water quality, little water quality basins like we have on our project. Ours are actually much bigger than which are the ones out there.

SPEAKER_07 6:41

Right. So with that said, um the other one he was talking about, they all what I read the other day, they all reference GDP number 26964, which was 2000 uh, I'm sorry, 2007, which was the eight the ones I found. So it's gonna come down to what the board decides on. Trying to think of that's where the word is. We have past history with these findings that the stormwater management for the entire complex has been met under conservation vote back in 2007 with this DEP number attached to it. I don't want to speak for Azou, but um I understand his point of view too, um, that even though it was made in 2007, it doesn't meet today's standards. Um so it's gonna come down to the board's opinion whether this paper accomplishes what the applicant has been saying or their opinion on it.

SPEAKER_01 8:23

May I interrupt you? I'd just like to ask guys it what doesn't what was different in 2007 with regard to peak runoff rate, that only peak runoff rate, than it is now. There's no difference.

Commission Deliberation on Standards

SPEAKER_12 8:38

Well, what I've stated stated is that I don't have that it's all useful. Oh, you don't have that. I don't have that evidence on that. That's all I said. Right. And that's why I cannot verify, and I can't I can't state that I verified something that I didn't verify.

SPEAKER_01 8:54

Understood, and I I agree with that. I agree with your stance on that, but I just want the commission to know there's no difference with regard to peak runoff rate design and stuff.

SPEAKER_07 9:04

We just don't have the statement the numbers to verify. Yeah, I can't.

SPEAKER_12 9:11

I mean, the the there's no documentation that I found, and I say about two or three meetings ago, that's up to the commission. I mean, I can manufacture evidence. Uh, and I know Nietzsche is saying, and everybody else says, but I cannot have an opinion on what somebody else says. I have no problem in the commission approving it. I'm just not gonna write a letter because I say that I I've better I've better not gonna do that.

SPEAKER_07 9:48

And with that said, also, we we have to keep in mind that even though the planning board engineer agreed with this, we're two separate entities. We do not have to agree with the planning board.

SPEAKER_11 10:04

So it boils down to, and like I said, this has never happened in the 20 years I've been here that I can remember, but board start as precedent and approved before for other development in this uh build out, so that's why I wanted to solve it right in point.

SPEAKER_04 10:32

And you know, I think this is what it was working for and done before, so I would agree with this you know statements and most part this definitely uh makes me feel a little bit more comfortable now that I have something, you know, to see through.

SPEAKER_03 10:55

Um where does your numbers stand in as far as these numbers go? Like at the negative two or ten negative those are just design storm events.

SPEAKER_01 11:07

Yes. So what they do is when you're looking at rate, when you're comparing pre-development, post-development rates of runoff, which is what the original design did for random woods. Yep, those are three design storm events that you have to compare. Two the two-year storm is the smallest of the design storms that you need to look at, and the hundred is the largest. So that's what uh the stormwater management standards that's come up with, and that's what you ever everybody's pretty much done for years even before there was stormwater management standards. Those are just design storm events.

SPEAKER_03 11:40

I'm just thinking, like they've now completed the whole pitcher, this is the last area to go in. It probably has the most impact for the wire because everything's forced.

SPEAKER_01 11:49

What they did, what they under what I understand they did in this uh in this um filing from the early 2000s or whenever that happened to be that original design, is they took a look at the wooded area. They took a look at the runoff in the pre-development condition, which I don't I assume that was woods. It may have been a farm. I don't know. I wasn't, I didn't look at that property before they developed it. Um, so you you get numbers for the two, ten, and hundred-year design storms. When you model it and put it in the computer program, it spits out numbers for rate of runoff off the entire site. Then they then they maximize the development. Look at the maximum amount of impervious area they could put on the site for a post-development condition before it's done. So they're anticipating that they're looking at wetlands and they're figuring pretty much everything else is going to be roughly impervious area. And then they they model that those in the post-development condition for the two, ten, and one hundred year design storm. And you have to have a less amount, a lower rate, equal to or lower in the two in all of those design storm events.

SPEAKER_03 13:06

Okay, and all of this goes into that basin that we were talking about earlier.

SPEAKER_01 13:09

It's a it's a yeah, it's a wetland system in the middle of the uh property, in the middle of that bushoe-shaped roadway that that is Paramount Drive.

SPEAKER_07 13:20

So most everything on Paramount Drive flows into the area behind preferred freezer. I've been out there, there's a large swamp area out there, which then goes into a stream which flows under Hill Street and which flows into the Taunton River like a half mile down.

SPEAKER_12 13:55

Well, the red foot is different.

SPEAKER_01 14:01

That that's an excellent point. And but I'd like to say it also changed it in both the pre-development, in the pre-development as well. So the pre-development numbers go up and the post-development numbers go up. So it typically it's a good point, but it's uh it typically is good. If it's gonna work for the hundred, it's probably gonna work for uh storm slightly larger than the old hundred-year storm, but it's probably like 7.65 inches now, where it was like 7.2 inches in the past.

SPEAKER_11 14:34

Yeah, correct.

SPEAKER_07 14:42

Anybody of your hands have anything? Comments?

SPEAKER_01 14:46

No, they're just gonna be happy to see me go.

SPEAKER_07 14:51

Well, in your court, uh whatever you want to do.

SPEAKER_01 14:54

So, yeah, we've had asked the commission if they consider closing the meeting initially. It's order of conditions for the project. Okay.

SPEAKER_08 15:07

Motion to close the meeting for continued notice of intent zero Paramount Drive, map 15 lot 176-36, DEP number 2691070, proposed commercial circuit.

SPEAKER_04 15:26

Second.

SPEAKER_07 15:27

Motion made seconded. All in favor? Aye, opposed, no. Um to issue.

SPEAKER_08 15:42

Second, yeah. Motion to issue, continued notice of intent for zero Paramount Drive, map 15, block 176-36, DEP number 269-1070, proposed commercial building.

SPEAKER_04 15:59

I will second that.

SPEAKER_07 16:00

Motion made the second. All in favor? I aye. Oppose news.

SPEAKER_01 16:07

Thank you very much, everybody. Thanks for your patience.

Locust Street ARAD Continued

SPEAKER_07 16:09

Thank you. Next up is um continue abbreviated notice of area of resource delineation for six ninety-nine Locust Street, uh EP two six nine ten seventy-six. The applicant has requested we continue to ten one.

SPEAKER_04 17:02

Motion to continue to uh October 1st. Um continue to brief a notice of resource area, unit nation 699 Mokush Street, DEP number 269 um 1076. We can uh table that to October 1st. I'll make the motion.

SPEAKER_07 17:21

Second. Remain seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. Oh, I'm sorry. Is anybody here for that one? No.

SPEAKER_05 17:37

Yeah, I'm here to hear everything.

SPEAKER_07 17:39

Okay.

Accessibility Concern in Hearing Room

SPEAKER_05 17:39

But no one's using the mics. I'd like to hear. Hold up. Especially the person speaking here.

SPEAKER_07 17:45

The mics are all on, sir.

SPEAKER_05 17:48

Okay. What about the ADA? Does that have anything to do with it?

SPEAKER_07 17:52

The what?

SPEAKER_05 17:53

American with disabilities is at loud enough for me to hear.

SPEAKER_07 18:00

I'm I'm sorry, sir. Well, I'll try I will try to speak louder for you.

SPEAKER_05 18:04

Yeah, could you move the microphones closer?

SPEAKER_07 18:09

They're not for the room.

SPEAKER_05 18:10

They're just what are we hearing you through?

SPEAKER_07 18:14

Just my voice.

SPEAKER_05 18:15

That's it?

SPEAKER_07 18:16

That's it.

SPEAKER_05 18:19

All right, come down. I'm sorry, that yeah, because everyone sitting back and you know, you're gonna look and talk at the same time so you can be heard.

SPEAKER_07 18:31

I I apologize, I will make it a point, okay, sir?

SPEAKER_05 18:35

Okay, thank you.

Wilbur Street Single-Family Proposal

SPEAKER_07 18:36

All righty. All right, uh next up is continued notice for 10 for 0 Wilbur Street, map 1, lot 97-A, DEP 269-1073, proposed single family dwelling. Welcome back, sir. Good evening.

SPEAKER_02 19:02

Shane Oaks with Independence Engineering and Venomborough, how are you guys tonight?

SPEAKER_04 19:06

Good, how are you?

unknown 19:08

Great.

SPEAKER_07 19:09

Actually, sir, can I ask you just to turn the podium just a little bit sideways so we're kind of speaking this way? Perfect.

unknown 19:20

Okay.

SPEAKER_07 19:22

And then just kind of turn that whole po the wooden podium sideways like that? Like this? Yeah, perfect. Okay. Uh does that help, sir?

SPEAKER_05 19:33

Yeah, that's right. Thank you very much. Okay.

SPEAKER_02 19:37

Alright, I think so. Again, Shane Oaks with Independence Engineering out of Middleboro. Um here again, representing uh the Bui family who is proposing a single family dwelling at Zero Wilver Street. Uh so last time the commission had a couple of comments for us. They went out. I know a few of you went out and did a little sidewalk to look at Brad's flagging, um, the existing conditions and stuff like that. So, what these plans, very minimal revisions to the plans, there's two uh revisions on these plans. The first of which is we added a small cover to the low spot uh of the driveway, a 12-inch RCP that will uh maintain hydraulic connectivity between the wetland systems. Um, the second uh addition to the plans are the boundary markers for the 25-foot buffer every 30 feet, and we added a detail to the plan set as well for that. Um with the with the uh the culvert, uh the actual pipe, there's just a couple of head walls, it's just a few feet high. Um the other item was there was some concern about what the farming entailed. So if the commission's okay, I'd just like to read a quick email from the applicant, Amy Bui. Uh thanks again for the update from the commission. In response to your question, yes. I currently sell eggs and flowers from my backyard set up at my current home. Sales are informal at this stage, and I haven't set up a formal business account yet. Additionally, we plan to register the new property under Chapter 61B for recreational and open space use, which we hope will further support the agricultural and conservation friendly nature of the project. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. So uh that's the intent of the Wee family with these uh quote unquote farming areas. So uh those were the additions, revisions. Um so if the commission has any questions, I am happy to answer them.

SPEAKER_12 21:40

Um I will suggest that if uh uh that of uh that of uh information that just went up that uh goodness of uh words for pools and just submit it.

SPEAKER_07 21:54

Yeah, you you'll submit that letter to the commission. I did.

SPEAKER_02 21:58

Oh yeah, I emailed it. Oh, okay to Amy. Yeah, with the plans.

SPEAKER_07 22:38

So Phil and Will went and I went a couple days later.

SPEAKER_08 23:12

The other thing is regulatory research. So you would have to do replication for that.

SPEAKER_02 23:37

Yeah, we have a proposed area here to the uh west of the existing house that replicates at a two to one ratio. And obviously, um we would ask that that be part of the order if this is happens to be approved that a replication be plan be provided to the commission prior to construction or issuance of a building permit.

SPEAKER_10 24:03

Can you show me on the map where you're gonna do the replication? Sure.

SPEAKER_02 24:06

It's basically from here, here's the proposed house. It's every all the wetlands to the west of here. So we don't see it all on this view because of the scale. We do see it on this larger view. So it's basically about a line from here all the way to the end of the wetlands, so that will all be continuous wetland wetlands now at the end of the day.

SPEAKER_07 24:42

And um in your presentation, you didn't uh did you see DEP's comments about the um the limited project and the wetlands filling?

SPEAKER_02 24:56

Sure, we feel it's an exempt use because of the farming nature of it.

SPEAKER_07 25:00

It's not exempt.

SPEAKER_02 25:02

What is it?

SPEAKER_07 25:03

And and that's that's kind of the catch-22 here. They're not a farm yet. Right.

SPEAKER_02 25:10

So when they establish a 61A, the no. Okay. Yeah, we weren't aware of that, that's for sure.

SPEAKER_08 25:27

So there is DEP guidance on it, you can read that.

SPEAKER_02 25:30

Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 25:31

That's where I got my information, was there and then going back to the rules.

SPEAKER_02 25:36

Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 25:37

But it's not exempt.

unknown 25:39

Okay.

SPEAKER_08 25:40

So it is a fill.

SPEAKER_02 25:42

Okay.

SPEAKER_08 25:43

And it does require replication.

SPEAKER_02 25:46

Which we're providing. Well, we said we're providing it, and it's stated in a notice of intent. So I understand it's not exempt, but we are addressing that, is my I guess my bigger point.

SPEAKER_07 26:07

And I know you're replicating and but in my opinion, until they become a farm, there's no need for filling the wetlands. So what happens if six months from now they decide, you know what, it's not a good idea?

Agriculture Exemption Challenge

SPEAKER_02 26:27

So we're fine. I spoke with Amy about this. We're fine, um segment, like in the order of conditions saying that uh wetland fill would be provided for the driveway crossing, step one, and that can be shown in the mitigation plan. Um, and then step two would be the mitigation when the actual when this actual area is fenced off, and there's they're proposing to do farm, whatever uh agricultural at that time. So that can be broken up. That's fine. This is a a family, a foreign family that's spent all their money on the party. They just want to build a house, so I'm sure they're fine waiting to do step two at the end of the day. They just want to move here.

SPEAKER_09 27:10

So I'd like to see another notice at the time instead of having it too.

SPEAKER_02 27:18

Well, how long is a notice valid for? Three. Three years. Three years ago. It'll be they'll I'm sure they'll be done everything in three years. They're hoping they were hoping to build before this winter their house. I would just say if we get close to that three years and it expires, of course, we would resubmit at that time.

SPEAKER_08 27:40

So we also received a comment from the EP that the filing was for a limited project. Yeah. With the fill you are proposing is not exempt.

unknown 27:54

Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 27:55

It can't be a limited project.

SPEAKER_02 28:00

Okay. That's a comment? I've never I haven't heard that one before. They do have their comment letter here.

SPEAKER_12 28:13

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 28:13

Did you read the comments on the I did originally, yeah. So they're saying there's no change in existing topography or existing soil or surface water level, basically. There can't be. Right. Right.

SPEAKER_08 28:37

Under a limited approval.

SPEAKER_02 28:38

Okay.

SPEAKER_12 28:41

Yeah, it says right. Yeah, the limited project provision cited for the woodland field in the proposal petroleum may not be able to be applied as proposed. As this limited project requires that there shall occur no change in the existing topography or the existing soil and surface of water levels of the area. Yeah. So basically, we need to uh revise the application and delete and remove uh of uh the reference needed help for the well I think well don't we need the limited project?

SPEAKER_02 29:22

Well, you know, usually we'll apply for limited project access upland area like we are in this case. So if you take that limited project away now, you're losing that village.

SPEAKER_12 29:33

Yeah, but it's changing it's saying that there were no what I'm yeah, I understand. May not be able to stop. You need to rev rev revise the application to uh uh uh uh uh limited the reference to agricultural, not basically what it's like.

Limited Project vs Wetland Fill

SPEAKER_02 29:56

So I think there needs to be a separate filing. Right. Yeah, that's fine.

SPEAKER_12 30:01

So you need so you need to remove the claim to agriculture. Sure.

SPEAKER_02 30:06

And just and that'll have to be a separate application. I mean that what they'll end up doing is they'll still utilize the area that's not wetland, or they will, you know, that will be their proposal. Right. So just have to work around that wetland area.

SPEAKER_12 30:18

So change the application to remove to remove the proposed filling, more than that whole idea of filling this here. Yeah. Because you're claiming agricultural, it doesn't the DPC doesn't fly.

SPEAKER_02 30:34

And I'll follow up with them because I've had a situation similar to this, but that's fine. I understand where the commission's coming from.

SPEAKER_12 30:42

So then then it'll be it'll be a little better application.

SPEAKER_02 30:46

Then when you actually get to the point where you're filing for agricultural, then I'm sure at this point they'll just I'm gonna literally take that fill area off, revise that single sheet of the NOI, and send it back to you guys and to DP. So it'll still have the same DP and it'll just be a modified design. Right, just to revise something on the and then after they have their house, they can tell me they need that area, and that'll be a separate application. That's fine. Right. So that's that's uh that's fine. Yeah, yeah. I'll explain that to them.

unknown 31:24

I have one question.

SPEAKER_02 31:25

Sure.

SPEAKER_03 31:25

The um on the left hand side, well to me it's left on this side? Yes. Um that's proposed wetland replication area? Correct. It's not wetland frontland range.

SPEAKER_02 31:36

Correct.

SPEAKER_03 31:37

Why wouldn't you flip the plan and then leave the wetlands alone?

SPEAKER_02 31:41

Put the plan. So the only upland area is here within the blue. So this is the only place. Put the wetland where? Over here?

SPEAKER_03 31:52

To where you proposed to put it.

SPEAKER_02 31:54

So when you replicate wetlands, they become the new wetlands.

SPEAKER_03 31:57

No, you wouldn't need to if you use that land on this side versus the land on this side.

SPEAKER_02 32:02

Sure.

SPEAKER_03 32:03

I'm just saying, like then you wouldn't even touch the wetlands at all.

SPEAKER_02 32:06

Yeah, I don't think it's quite enough area, but that could be subsequent, they could just have to limit it to like this, a little square, and see what they can get out there as well. Yeah. I appreciate it. It's a good idea, but I think I did discuss that before, but yes. Yeah, yeah. No, I know what you're saying. Thank you.

SPEAKER_11 32:41

This is where uh speaker.

SPEAKER_10 32:50

Well, when we were did the site visit, it was clearly evidence of a lot of uh runoff, uh evidence of uh prior stream activity way up toward the front of this, and he's got this causeway or whatever he's going to do to divert some of the water. He's got it further down the road.

SPEAKER_02 33:12

That's the low point of the site.

SPEAKER_10 33:15

Huh. No, it is that's up here.

SPEAKER_02 33:19

We walk so no, I've been out there multiple times. That's a low spot. It's an isolated weapon right here in the start angle. So that's probably what he was saying, and then right across the roof, we're squeezing that driveway in between this actual isolated weapon area and the contiguous weapon.

SPEAKER_08 33:41

The last sheet has the topography from the survey, so the thing that I noticed when I was up is that this area in here is basically the confluence of all the different flows that come from the whole site. Right. That's the same thing.

SPEAKER_02 34:00

I think it comes from the northern portion of the site and the abuttering properties.

SPEAKER_08 34:05

There's a flow coming this way as well. So there's a flow coming this way, there's a flow coming from over here. They're all ending up here and then flowing up that way.

Drainage Risks and Culvert Design

SPEAKER_02 34:15

Okay. Yeah, that's not what the topography showed us, but depending on the conditions.

SPEAKER_08 34:24

And yes, it is the low spot here.

SPEAKER_02 34:27

Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 34:28

But there's no outlet from that low spot.

SPEAKER_02 34:30

Right, that's why we're gonna put that culvert in.

SPEAKER_08 34:33

When that comes up, it actually flows out that way.

SPEAKER_02 34:43

The culvert just keeps the wetland connection in what it does.

SPEAKER_08 34:54

The erosion that I saw when I was that like I mean, we we sized it based on the catchment area.

SPEAKER_02 35:05

So I mean, if the commission wants the additional design, definitely we would like to know that now. Um but we did do an analysis of the catchment area. We didn't do a drainage study, obviously. Um, but we did an analysis of the drainage uh of the catchment area itself.

SPEAKER_12 35:46

Well the application needs to be updated. The plan needs to be updated, and you're not gonna be able to act on it tonight.

SPEAKER_07 35:52

So what's the driveway gonna be made of?

SPEAKER_02 35:59

Uh pavement. It's made by burn. Yeah.

SPEAKER_07 36:11

And uh when you're plowing this half-mile driveway, how are you going to where are you going to put all the tunnel in the wetlands?

SPEAKER_02 36:26

Well, they'll have to keep it out of the wetlands so we can show uh sort of storage area on that.

SPEAKER_11 36:46

All right, this is a shoe one.

SPEAKER_07 36:52

All right. Anybody else in the board have any questions this time?

SPEAKER_02 36:56

So is there anything the commission would like us to do additionally from a drainage perspective? I mean, this is a single family house, but if you want us to increase the culvert just to increase it, that's fine. I didn't want to make a blood big culvert and increase the wetland fill. Like that's what that, you know, that's what that would lead to. We can make it as big as the commission would like. Um, but when we sized it, it came out to 12 inches, and then we were like, do we go to 18 inches? And I'm like, no, why do we need another 30 feet of wetland fill?

SPEAKER_12 37:25

No, but uh but instead of the uh instead of the uh you know 12 feet, you can do two of them so that the elevision still stays the same.

SPEAKER_02 37:34

I can do as many as you guys want. I'm just telling you, that's what the calculations said. That hydraulic connection.

Open-Bottom Culvert and Staking Plan

SPEAKER_07 37:41

So yeah, but if it's plugs up, from our point of view, going out there and looking at everything, times we're out there, that area along the driveway, it has the potential to hold a lot of water. You know, like we just got done talking about the 10-year, the 50-year, hundred-year storm. Yep. That area where this house is going has the potential to hold a significant amount of water.

SPEAKER_02 38:13

The surrounding wetlands do, yeah.

SPEAKER_07 38:16

It all comes down this way along the edge of the driveway. There's no getting around that.

SPEAKER_02 38:23

No, and there's no other way to get into the project. That's the problem. That's what I'm saying. And this this is the point we're trying to say to you is we have two or three pipes, whatever a zoo suggests here, there's that connection, and the flow paths still exist on either side of the driveway. So I'm letting you guys know whatever you want that pipe to be, just let me know, and we'll do it. Then what would you like there instead of a pipe?

SPEAKER_09 38:55

Open bottom.

SPEAKER_07 38:56

Open bottom. That way there's nothing there's nothing to plug it.

unknown 39:01

Yeah.

SPEAKER_07 39:03

True.

SPEAKER_08 39:06

Especially in its bottom where it's deep and it's significant high. You don't want to know where this is gonna cause bottom.

SPEAKER_02 39:15

No, I'm just okay. So open bottom culvert in place of the pipe. Size? I don't want to create more fill, so there and show them on the top of it.

SPEAKER_08 39:31

Because we didn't have flags for where the driveway was.

SPEAKER_07 39:36

No, we're doing I mean we're assuming that it's in the existing filled road area that's there. Right.

SPEAKER_08 39:42

And that ends at the deepest location for that weapon. That is not considered. That is ending at the most valuable spot.

SPEAKER_12 39:56

Okay, therefore closing control. Now that you've gone out there, they're gonna make changes to the plant.

SPEAKER_08 40:05

I would suggest that they avoid that area. Which area? Just on the shore. That deep section that is basically at the end of that existing here, high up here? No. Or here.

SPEAKER_00 40:20

Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 40:20

Yeah. There's that deep, deep holding area that is there now, and that is a very big concern.

SPEAKER_02 40:30

So that's where the culvert is gonna be going, correct?

SPEAKER_08 40:33

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 40:34

So how would we avoid that area to get up here? I don't know. So that's physically impossible, right? Build a bridge? Well, that's not financially feasible, I'm pretty sure. Again, we're trying to build a single family house, guys. I'm not trying to argue, but this is just it's a limited project minus this fill for the agricultural that adheres to all the limited project requirements. So oh, in the driveway, yeah, but that's part of the limited project. That's why it's a limited project. If I didn't need fill, I would just be here with a regular NOI.

SPEAKER_12 41:12

What I will suggest of uh is while they're making changes, you guys have been out here, ask them to stake out the driveway so that you can see exactly where the driveway will be.

SPEAKER_07 41:28

And then you can have a better picture. That's a that's a good, excellent idea. Stake out the driveway and stake out where the proposed culvert will go.

SPEAKER_12 41:43

Because then that then then you can actually verify that uh where the cindy culvert is gonna go, this way it's gonna go.

SPEAKER_07 41:55

That's a good idea. All right, anybody got anything else to know? All right. Anyone in the audience have uh comments, concerns? Mr.

Abutter Concerns and Photos

SPEAKER_06 42:08

Berry? Uh Brian Berry 141 Wilbur Street. I have pictures here that I blew up that you pretty much show is what you you the committee's been speaking of. If you want to have them uh sure. I've got them all labeled in the back. Usually taken February 24. And then the back of them explains north-south, the the culprit, the proposed covet area. Uh those are the ones I just had blown up. These are other ones that I have that kind of it's self-explanatory. It shows you walking into the driveway, and this is not, this is just a great storm, you know, from a couple of times a year. It's usually like this all in the spring plus the fall. And uh, these are all other pictures I took at the same time. Those are the only ten I blew up. If you want to check those out, it might help out with uh.

SPEAKER_07 43:16

Okay, anyone else? Anyone else have any comments? Questions? No?

SPEAKER_06 43:22

Well, other than that, my cons. I was wondering when you you know, when this is dug, uh there's a lot of deep trenching that's gonna have to be done when the utilities or water sewer get put in there. It's gonna have to be pretty deep. Where does all that fill go? They have to take it out and then bring it back in, or do they just throw it to the side uh to force the water other spots?

SPEAKER_07 43:46

And until if the driveway is just say 15 feet wide, that's gonna be their limited work. Is it within that 15 feet?

SPEAKER_12 43:57

So because if the driver's gonna be 15 feet wide, they need more route or more building 15 feet wide with the driveway. You're not gonna be there to that 15 feet?

SPEAKER_06 44:08

The trench is gonna probably be seven feet deep, maybe deeper.

SPEAKER_02 44:12

There's a limit of disturbance line on the plan. That's how everything is calculated.

SPEAKER_06 44:17

And uh it was mentioned at the first meeting where they would probably fill four to five feet in the proposed area. Where does all that uh tapered fill go? Is that allowed to go to the buffer zone area? Because there's not a lot of room in there. If they fill tap, excuse me, with four or five feet. No, everything has to stay out of the buffer zone.

SPEAKER_12 44:41

If it stays out of the buffer zone, they're not gonna be there. Not probably that would be misconnect on the I'm sorry, because the areas the jurisdictions are the consumer.

SPEAKER_07 44:53

Yes. So there's no way they're gonna stay on the back. They're not out of the buffer zone, but they're out of the 25 foot no touch.

SPEAKER_06 44:59

Well, that's what I meant. With the film. That's what I meant.

SPEAKER_07 45:02

Except for the driveway area.

SPEAKER_06 45:03

So if you look at the location of all the flags as you folks did when you were out there, I don't see where you can get 25 feet from the flags with all the film that's gonna go in there in order to build it up in order to dig down. That's just a question. I uh and I, you know, the trench coming in, and uh that's pretty much it, I guess. Thank you.

SPEAKER_07 45:46

Okay. Um time frame on being able to revise the application.

SPEAKER_02 45:56

A couple of days so whenever the commission can get out there will dictate our timing. We can stake it out immediately. And the revisions will be. Well, I'm gonna wait to make through the revisions to like I would just like to be out there with permission in case there's other suggestions so that I can change things.

SPEAKER_07 46:15

Okay. Alright, uh let us know when you have it. Let us know when you have it staked out. Yeah. And uh we'll go from there.

SPEAKER_02 46:22

Okay.

SPEAKER_07 46:26

All right. Um shouldn't it continue? Yeah.

SPEAKER_12 46:32

Um that's October 1. Right? Yeah. So October 5. Okay. All right.

SPEAKER_07 46:47

We'll shoot for October 1.

SPEAKER_12 46:48

Thank you.

Next Steps and Continuance to Oct 1

SPEAKER_10 46:52

Uh motion to continue notice of intent of 0 World Street, map 1, lot 97-A, DEP 269-1073, proposed single family dwelling uh to October 1st.

SPEAKER_04 47:06

I will second that.

SPEAKER_07 47:09

Motion made seconded. All in favor, aye, opposed, unanimous. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. It's going to be continued to October 1st. Okay. Thank you. Uh excuse me, I'm sorry. Oh, you can keep we'll keep the other, the large ones. You can bring those back. All right. Thanks. Thank you. Uh informal. We have an extension request for order of resource area delineation 905, 904 Pine Street, DP 269 1031. Um I assume you're gonna have to explain this one because I know it is an extension, um, but are all the dates.

Pine Street ORAD Extension Tangle

SPEAKER_12 48:22

Well, so I will suggest that we should, because I haven't really looked at the dates carefully. Uh so basically, for the pulling period to be applicable, the expiring or expired permit has to be valid during that pulling period. Okay, so he kind of goes up and down, up and down. It's more of a written to be confusion. So what I need to do, what I need to do, because you you are not open, get it to act. Once you've already received the application, as long as it's valid when you receive the application, you can extend it. But if it's not valid at the time you receive the application, you cannot extend it. So what we need to do is let's assume that it was gonna expire um June this year. Okay? And then the Permanent Extension Act says one-year extension till let's say um June of 2026. Because it's valid June 2025, you can extend it. But if it's outside of that tolling period, let's assume, for example, that it expired uh December of last year, and the tolling period is this June, the next June, you cannot extend it. Not if it's by.

SPEAKER_07 50:05

Yeah, and that's and that's the way this is written. I think that's the issue that's happening here, that it already expired before they asked for the extension.

SPEAKER_12 50:18

Right, and it and I don't think it uh it you force within the bullying period. So I need to look at the language of the legislation.

SPEAKER_07 50:27

All right, I I agree with you. So um table that and we'll just table that the applicant couldn't be here tonight. He said if we have an issue, just table it and he'll come in next meeting and um defend it.

SPEAKER_00 50:47

So should they have any applications on extension?

SPEAKER_12 50:50

Yeah, no, extension is just a letter question. Yeah, that's no formative request on extension. Just a letter.

SPEAKER_10 50:57

But we don't know what those dates are.

SPEAKER_12 50:59

No, that's what I got to look up.

SPEAKER_07 51:03

So can I have a motion to table this till October 1st?

SPEAKER_04 51:07

Uh motion to table extension requests for order of resource area delineation nine oh four Pine Street, DP uh DP 269 um zero three one.

SPEAKER_07 51:21

Motion made second, all in favor. Aye. Aye. Oppose the answer.

SPEAKER_09 51:29

That's essentially a continuation to Gent 1. Yep.

SPEAKER_12 51:33

Yeah. What are you just saying there, the change? Oh no, that's not something different.

SPEAKER_07 51:40

Oh, okay. No, just high paperwork. All right, um that's the first thing. Yeah. Did everyone get a chance to review the minutes of last meeting?

SPEAKER_04 51:52

Motion to accept the minutes from September 3rd.

SPEAKER_07 51:55

Second. All in favor. Aye, opposed, unanimous. Um, Amy Bills.

SPEAKER_12 52:41

Um yeah, you probably can have uh they can advertise it, yeah. They don't have a jiggle tension. So didn't Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean I don't really see I don't know the best way to do it. Yeah, I I don't know if you really have to evidence in a particular session. That's why I'm looking for your wisdom. That's a problem. That's all I'm gonna scratch out here. So no so anyway, you all know what issues are on the 840 Broadway, right?

Correcting 840 Broadway Oversight

SPEAKER_07 53:37

So so I'm informal here. Um I goofed last week when we issued 840 Broadway. Yeah, I missed one of Azus notes from DEP had questions on um stormwater management. I missed the note. So subsequently we approved it, but we shouldn't because they didn't include the DEP uh comments. So now the question is what's the best way to fix it?

SPEAKER_12 54:18

So what I would have actually what I would the easiest fix right now is to uh vote and send a letter to the applicant to file a to send you a letter a letter question and you will reopen the file to probably act on it. Otherwise you can can demand it.

SPEAKER_04 54:38

I would I would agree with Azure.

SPEAKER_12 54:41

Yeah. Because you still have the 21 days, right? All you did was close it, yeah. Yeah, you can uh uh change, you have the right to change it. Yeah, but it hasn't been released. Right, no, so you have the and 21 days hasn't come and gone. So so make a motion to uh uh as the applicant, because you can't just reopen it to buy the benefit of the applicant. Yeah, so uh in order to address the information that was overlooked, and if they don't, then the commission will reopen it on its own and vote to deny it.

SPEAKER_00 55:24

Alright.

SPEAKER_12 55:26

So then you're giving them another chance.

SPEAKER_07 55:29

Can I have that as a motion to draft a letter? What do we have? Yes, um DEP number two six nine ten seventy-five. Uh 840 Broadway.

SPEAKER_08 55:56

Motion to issue a letter to 840 Broadway, DEP number 269-1075, to ask for further information to be able to respond to a DEP comment that was received prior to us voting for to be issued.

SPEAKER_04 56:14

I will second that motion.

SPEAKER_07 56:17

Motion being seconded. All in favor? Aye.

SPEAKER_12 56:19

Aye, opposed, unanimous. Okay, so you mean I'm gonna send you a letter to send to the to the applicant.

SPEAKER_07 56:27

All right, and as soon as the applicant from Wilbur Street um figure already have that. Yeah, we'll we'll set up a site visit times. All right. And if more than three of us go, we'll have to advertise.

SPEAKER_08 56:42

I think it would be a good idea for more people to do that.

SPEAKER_12 56:45

Yeah, I think so. And uh it just it doesn't it just needs to be posted here. Yeah, it just needs to be posted here, yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_07 56:53

Not advertised. Well, posted, I should say, advertised. Yeah, you don't want to advertise with the wrong word. You don't want it to look about it in the main. No, advertise was the wrong word. All right, uh anybody else have anything? No. Motion? Motion to adjourn? Second. Made and second at all in favor? Aye, opposed, unanimous. Thank you, everyone. Thank you.