|
|
Opinion by Jim Dombrowski There are some major discrepancies in the Town of Abington's Plan of Record showing Bordering Vegetated Wetlands for the parcel of Town owned land known as Griffin's Dairy. I take great issue with the fact that the Abington Conservation Commission accepted the applicants ANRAD plan and APPROVED the wetlands and resource delineation of 64 acres of land without the use of a qualified consultant to aid them. This coupled with the fact that everyone knew the fields were mowed and performing a delineation in the wintertime is the hardest time even for trained professionals to delineate herbaceous vegetation makes this process suspect. But yet the chairman of the Conservation Commission felt the flagging was accurate as he is noted in the minutes "flagging has changed very little" and the Commission closed the hearing without the abutters even having knowledge of what the DEP file number was. In fact neither did the commission as their minutes note, "motion to approve the delineation according to the plans presented...pending receipt of DEP #." That must mean the meeting will be officially closed when the DEP number is received. Required information needed for abutters to appeal was not even mentioned or in the Commission's possession. The issuance of the final order, known as an ORAD, isn't even worthy of noting in their minutes as being issued so that anyone might know when it was issued so that they might appeal the Commissions actions. Things only get better when it comes to the filing of a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA). ABREVIATED NOTICE of RESOURCE AREA DELINEATION ANRAD ISSUES Take the time to carefully review and compare the August 21, 2001 plan and the November 11, 2005 plan and you will see noticable differences. Please note that neither plan takes into consideration that this meadow was MOWED in the year 2000 and in 2004 which alters the ability to identify vegetation.  There are some VERY noticable changes between the 2001 and 2005 wetlands plans. After careful review of both plans these differences begin to stick out. The green colored area is the "alleged" Town of Abington wetlands boundary. The streams reflect a changing wetlands line where they seem to appear then disappear. At the end of Charles Street there is an area that was originally defined as Isolated Wetlands in 2001. This means that there is a pocket of wetlands that has NO connection to a resource area. The plan reflects NO connection. In 2005 the plan reflects that this same area has grown in size, still reflects NO connection to the resource area, but is now called bordering vegetated wetlands. That puts up a RED FLAG that something is going on as it clearly indicates that the wetlands are in a state of change. To be classified as "bordering" wetlands means they must have a connection to the resource area. There was and is a state of change with the vegetated wetlands on this parcel of land as they slowly begin to emerge from being mowed. The various elected and appointed officials of Abington had full knowledge that this parcel of land was being mowed.
1. August 21, 2001 plan was created for Charles Lanzetta of the Rockland Golf Course and donated to the Town of Abington. The Town did NOT create or approve this plan. 2. November 11, 2005 plan was authorized by the Town 's Procurement Officer and it was to update the August 21, 2001 plan that was donated. The nagging question will be "Why update? Why not make your own? It wasn't the Town's to begin with to update and the first one was NEVER approved. 3. Take carefull notice of the flagging series numbers and what type areas they represent. 4. Take carefull notice of the overall boundary line and watch it move and in cases disappear. 5. Take carefull note of the description of the streams as they get called ""ditches." 6. Take carefull note of when the botanist delineated the parcel of land. 7. Take carefull note that NFIP Floodplain Maps reflect the portion of land in Abington is classified as Zone "C". A floodplain is classified as a protected resource area. 8.Take carefull note that "photo" documentation exists reflecting a "10 year storm event" for the Abington portion of this parcel. /Documents/August 21, 2001 plan notes.JPG *Carefully note the botanist delineation date May 3-4, 2001 *Carefully look at the Notes for Flag Series C1-C24 ISOLATED AREA *Carefully note the Flag Series BB and the "ditch" classification as well as wetlands areas *Carefully note the size of the wetlands in the "C" series flagging *Carefully note there is NO delineation date *Carefully look at the Notes for Flag Series B1-B21 and BB20-BB23. This area once called "Isolated" has now become "BVW" or bordering vegetated wetlands but the line still shows that it is isolated and not connected *Carefully note the Flag Series BB now becomes AA and the "ditch" classification as well as wetlands areas change is size in fact wetlands disappear. *Carefully note the size of the wetlands in the "C" series flagging as increasing. February 7, 2007 WETLANDS REPORT GRIFFIN'S DAIRY
Sabatia, Inc. Robert M. Gray
Professional Wetlands Scientist/DEP Certified Soil Evaluator
".... Based upon the on-site review and a review of the Plan of Record (POR) dated November 11, 2005, it is the position of Sabatia, Inc. that the wetland resource areas as depicted on the POR under-represent the extent of wetlands particularly the bordering vegetated wetlands (310 CMR 10.55).
In each of the areas you marked.....the wetlands are under-represented...." The changes in these plans are caused by the ever changing wetlands line due to the area having been mowed the previous year. Without having an environmental report to review there is no way to determine what the botanist was seeing at that period of time. Using vegetation only in the areas that were not mowed would be the only conclusion that could be drawn for the boundary presented. The Abington Conservation Commission having full knowledge that this was an old dairy and that the fields were being mowed FAILED to protect the wetlands and listed resource areas as mentioned in the Wetlands Protection Act. Since there is no botanical report to serve as evidence for the Town and it was stated by Attorney Shawn Reilly of the Middle School Site Selection Committee that "There was no written report required for the ANRAD process." The entire delineation process that was undertaken by the School Department is suspect. It should be noted that under the Wetlands Protection Act that the conservation commission can require any document or information required to properly administer the Wetlands Protection Act. This includes requiring a report of the wetlands delineation performed by a botanist to support the position of the applicant with credible evidence that could be used in any challenge to this plan. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY RDA ISSUES Before the ink is even placed on the Order of Resource Area Delineation (ORAD) issued on February 1, 2006, an RDA is filed with the hearing held on January 31, 2006. Now let's keep in mind that there is a 10 business day appeals period for the abutters on the ORAD. The RDA was to dig 20 test pits within areas alleged to be no closer than 50 feet from any wetlands. The hearing was closed that same night. On the morning of February 9, 2006 the Middle School Site Selection Committee and their engineer would dig 20 test pits to observe the soils on the land known as Griffin's Dairy. The Determination of Applicability issued by the Conservation Commission would be issued sometime on February 9, 2006. Now keep in mind the Commission met on January 31, 2006 and that the February 14, 2006 meeting was canceled. So the question becomes "When did the Abington Conservation Commission hold a meeting to issue the Determination of Applicability?" Or did they? The document was dated February 9, 2006. Let's keep in mind again that the abutters have 10 business days to appeal any decision of the Conservation Commission but they will NEVER get the chance. The document hasn't even been sent to DEP and the work has already been performed. Had an abutter appealed the Conservation Commission's order to DEP or to Superior Court and had the areas been reviewed where the holes were dug it is highly probable that many of the areas they dug would be classified as wetlands. At that point the Town of Abington would be in violation of the Wetlands Protection Act.
|
|