HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATIONminutes06232008-20080715134043
./
Conservation Meeting
June 23, 2008
Present: Joe Mulkern, Chairman; Paul Boyden, Vice Chair; Linda Falk; Derek
House; Cindy Ostrowski; Jack Smith; Carole Matthew; Michele Grenier,
Conservation and Environmental Planner.
11. Meeting called to order at 7:00pm.
12. Certificate of Compliance: Raymond Hartnett, 190 Mill Street-#211-726.
Raymond Hartnett, the homeowner, and Jeff and Sharon Watterson, Mr. Hartnett's
daughter and son-in-law were present.
An Order of Conditions was issued for construction of a 30 ft. x 70 ft. garage, extension
of the driveway, retaining walls and finish grading and landscaping within the 100 ft.
buffer zone. There was an accidental alteration of 500 -600 sq. ft. of BVW, which has
been restored. In addition, 2 dry wells were to be installed. The Order of Conditions
was issued on June 27, 2005.
All work is according to the plan except only 1 large dry well was added to the front of
the building.
When Michele performed a site visit last week she asked the applicant to remove trucks
and equipment off the grassed area and replant the grass. Cindy and Michele
performed a site walk today, June 23, 2008, and everything has been removed and the
area has been hydro-seeded. Michele recommends a certificate of compliance be issued.
Cindy made the motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 190 Mill Street.
Jack seconded.
Passed 7-0.
Hearin ended at 7:05 m.
3. Certificate of Compliance: Toyota Boston R.egion .Facility, 440 fiorbes
Boulevard-# 211-0793.
Zachary Basinski, a representative for Toyota, was present.
The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of a 7,600 sq. ft. building expansion
and additional parking; the building is entirely out of the buffer and only a small portion
of the parking lot is within the 50 ft. wetland buffer zone. An as built as been
submitted, dated June 5, 2008, and has been approved by the engineering department.
The applicant followed the plan proposed and Michele recommends the certificate of
compliance be issued.
Cindy made the motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance, plan dated June 5, 2008,
for Toyota Boston Region Facility, 440 Forbes Boulevard, reference #211-0793.
Linda seconded.
Passed 7-0.
Hearin ended at 7:08 m.
4. . Notice of Intent: perryDiMasi(),5 Fec::kWay,Lot 10-#211-0817
Stan Feck, the applicant, and John Charitier, RIM Engineering, were present.
The Notice of Intent was filed for construction of a house with attached garage, deck,
driveway, utilities and related grading within the 100 ft. buffer zone of bordering
vegetated wetlands.
Because Lot 10 is located in an area where the Town of Mansfield owns land and in an
environmentally sensitive area, Cindy asked that signage be required along the 50 ft.
line on 50 ft. centers but on 25 ft. centers along the yard. Stan felt the 25 ft. was a
little invasive. Carole thought 50 ft. would be sufficient.
Joe and Cindy would like a deed restriction placed on this property.
Carole asked why a NOI was filed for Lot 10 as opposed to an RDA for Lot 9. John told
her Lot 10 falls closer to the wetlands and there will be more disturbance in the area of
the 100 ft. buffer zone. On Lot 9, the house is outside the 100 ft. buffer and just a
small portion of the house is within the buffer; the work is not impacting the lot.
Stan was asked about the rechargeable areas; he told the Commission the special
permit for the sub-division required each lot have a recharge area. They usually are
located in the front of the house because this is the area of most disturbance.
Occasionally a second smaller system is put in the back of the lot. Recharge areas are
not shown on the plan for Lots 9 & 10, only on the sub-division plans. Paul told Stan an
as built would have to be submitted showing the location of the recharge areas before a
certificate of compliance can be issued. Mr. Feck said when everything is submitted for
a final permit for occupancy, the plan would have to show all work done, including the
recharge areas.
Derek asked if Stan was planning to put signage in the common area. Mr. Feck said the
signage for this area was part of the original order.
Cindy made the motion to accept the plan as drawn, dated 6-2-2008, for 5 Feck Way,
Lot 10 (DEP #211-0817) with the following conditions: 1.) A Conservation Restriction
be placed on the deed; restrictions to include no motorized vehicles, no structures such
as additions, sheds, fences, pools, tree houses, swing sets, or temporary structure from
the 50 ft. no touch area to the wetland line; no trees, brush or vegetation can be
removed; tree pruning of a safety nature only will be allowed with the approval of the
Conservation agent; the DEP #211-0817 shall be referenced on the deed restriction; no
synthetic herbicides, pesticides, fungicides or fertilizers can be used, only organic
products. 2.) Siltation control to be certified by Michele before construction begins. The
siltation fence/hay bale line can be removed when the vegetation has been
reestablished and the Certificate of Compliance has been issued. 3.) Signage, on metal
posts reading "Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb" placed on metal posts
2
(not on trees), starting at the closest point to the house and then every 50 ft. along the
50 ft. no touch line. 4.) Recharge areas are to be installed according to Planning Board
specifications as outlined in the special permit for the sub-division.
Carole seconded.
Passed 7-0.
Hearin ended at 7:26 m
5. Request for Determination of Applicability: Perry DiMasio, 7 Feck Way, Lot
9.
Stan Feck, the developer, and John Chartier, RIM Engineering, were present.
The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the construction of a house
with related utilities and grading. A small portion of the house falls within the 100 ft.
buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. The lot is entirely outside the 50 ft. no touch
zone, yard included.
Michele recommends signage to read "Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb"
be placed every 75 ft. on metal posts. Siltation control is in place.
Cindy questioned the filing of the RDA instead of a NO!. John told her the RDA was filed
because the house is outside the 100 ft. buffer and the lawn is close to the 50 ft. line.
She questioned the lawn's proximity to the 50 ft. Stan told her the hay bale line is in
front of the 50 ft. line; the lawn will not go outside the hay bale line. Cindy said she
would prefer the applicant file a Notice of Intent. Carole: "This is just a request for
determination, once we give a Negative 3 Determination the applicant is gone." Joe:
"We will condition this lot." Michele agreed the Commission could put conditions on an
RDA filing. Cindy would still prefer a NOI be filed.
Stan Feck asked if he would be required to put signs in the woods on the 50 ft. line.
Derek suggested one sign be placed where lot 9 & 10 join common area B.
Cindy made the motion to accept the plan as drawn, dated 6-2-2008, for 7 Feck Way,
Lot 9 with the following conditions: 1.) A Conservation Restriction be placed on the
deed; restrictions to include no motorized vehicles, no structures such as additions,
sheds, fences, pools, tree houses, swing sets, or temporary structure from the 50 ft. no
touch area to the wetland line; no trees, brush or vegetation can be removed; tree
pruning of a safety nature only will be allowed with the approval of the conservation
agent; 2.) Siltation control to be inspected by Michele before construction begins. The
siltation fence/hay bale line can be removed when construction is finished and the
vegetation has been re-established. 3.) A sign, on a metal post reading "Environmentally
Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb" to be placed at the juncture of lots 9 & 10 in common
area B. 4.) Recharge areas are to be installed according to Planning Board specifications
as outlined in the special permit for the sub-division.
Linda seconded.
Passed 7-0
Hearing ended at 7:40 pm.
3
I 6. Notice of Intent: Elizabeth Vieira, 430 Fruit Street-#211-0818
Elizabeth Vieira and Mike Gaffney, Doherty Pool & Spa, were present.
The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of an in-ground pool within the 100
ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. This lot is bordered by wetlands on three
sides.
Michele, Linda, Derek and Cindy performed a site visit on June 1ih. The pool and patio
will be located outside the 25 ft. on existing lawn. Measurements are correct. The
filtration system will consist of a cartridge filter-no backwashing necessary. At the end
of the season, the filter will be removed, cleaned and re-installed.
The applicant had been issued an enforcement order in April 2006. A tree had been cut
and placed in the wetlands. Mrs. Vieira was asked to remove the tree and the gravel
from the driveway placed within an area of bordering vegetated wetlands. Michele also
asked that a professional wetland scientist delineate the wetlands. Elizabeth explained
they had cut the tree not realizing they needed permission from conservation.
Cindy asked if signage was one of the requirements when the enforcement order was
issued. If not, she would like to make this part of the Order of Conditions; requiring
signs every 50 ft. on the three sides bordering wetlands.
Derek said that the house was built in 2000 and should not have been cleared by the
builder all the way to the wetlands. The area has never been re-vegetated. Mrs. Vieira
told the Commission this was a spec house and nothing more has been cleared since
she purchased of the house. The only work done by the applicant has been the gravel
driveway.
Derek is concerned there is no buffer between the driveway and the wetlands. How do
we bring this property into compliance; there is no vegetated buffer. Should a silt
fence/hay bale line be installed to the gravel driveway to insure run-off from the
driveway does not flow into the resource area? He is concerned about the trucks parked
in the driveway. He is concerned diesel fuel/hydraulic fluid will leak into the wetlands-
there is run-off from the gravel driveway.
Carole: "We have had other cases of 25 ft. encroachment; we have made the property
owner re-vegetate." Paul agreed the area should be stabilized. There will be more
disturbance during construction of the pool. It will need to be corrected/stabilized after
construction.
Cindy asked Michele what she would recommend be planted to stop run-off from the
gravel driveway. She would like to see blueberry bushes planted. Joe thought the
wetlands should be delineated first and then the buffer re-established with the bushes.
Michele told him the wetlands have already been delineated as per the enforcement
order.
4
Derek would like the siltation/hay bales brought all the way to the gravel driveway. The
hay bale line on the left side of the property can be reduced. He would like the 25 ft.
buffer replanted and the gravel pulled out of the buffer.
Derek made the motion to accept the plan as drawn, dated June 9, 2008, for an in-
ground pool for 430 Fruit Street and to issue an Order of Conditions with the following
special conditions: silt barrier to extend all the way to the front of the house on the
right side to the graveled area-all hay bales on left side of the house are to be put on
the right side of the house; silt fence/hay bale line to be certified by Michele and be
maintained and remain in place until grass has been established; signage reading
"Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb" on 50 ft. centers, on metal posts (not
on trees) along the 25 ft. buffer line (on three sides of the property bordering
wetlands); when construction is complete, the 25 ft. no touch area is to be reestablished
with plantings approved by Michele; a Certificate of Compliance will not be issued until
the planting of the 25 ft. no touch area has been completed.
Cindy seconded.
Passed 7-0.
Hearin ended at 7:55 m.
7. Notice of Intent: Mark Blanchette, 701 North Main Street-#211-0820
John Chartier, of RIM Engineering represented the applicant.
An ANRAD (#211-0811) was filed in April 2008 and an ORAD was issued on April 15,
2008 for the delineation of the wetland line.
The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of a 56x28 duplex, stairs, driveway,
drywell, utilities and related grading within the 100 ft. buffer zone of bordering
vegetated wetlands. The proposed house is located outside the 50 ft. line. A drywell
will be installed in the front of the house to service that portion of the duplex and
recharge that portion of run-off into the ground. In the back of the duplex, the
discharge will be allowed to flow over land and into the wetlands.
Derek asked about the drainage ditch to the left of the property; it is not shown on the
plan. He was concerned about the area being so wet; this is a very low-lying area.
Michele told him the drainage ditch was not delineated on the plan as wetlands because
it is discharge from the road. Cindy and Paul feel the ditch should be noted on the plan.
Cindy called attention to the fact there is no backyard and wondered if the house could
be moved more to the front. She would like to see the driveway reconfigured; presently
there are 4 parking spaces in the front of the house in a parallel parking form. She
would like to continue the hearing until the drainage ditch has been added to the plan,
the driveway has been done differently and the house has been moved forward so there
is more green space instead of asphalt. This will give the property more of a yard. She
questioned if it is actually a viable lot.
Derek asked if the project has been before the Zoning Board. Michele said whether or
not it has been to the ZBA is not a conservation concern. Derek was concerned about
5
the left side deck of the duplex. It drops off into a ditch. Cindy and Derek both feel
there will be future wetland issues. A six-foot stockade fence was suggested for the 50
ft. line. Joe felt the area should have some kind of barrier but fencing would not be a
permanent solution-the fence could be gone in a year.
Paul thought plantings and signage although conservation has never imposed a fence on
an applicant to keep the 50 ft. integrity. The Commission thought plantings with a chain
link fence would provide a more permanent barrier.
Paul made the motion to accept the plan as drawn, dated June 9, 2008, and to issue an
Order of Conditions with the following special conditions: 1) a Conservation Restriction is
to be placed on the deed; restrictions to include no motorized vehicles, no structures
such as additions, sheds, fences, pools, tree houses, swing sets, or temporary structure
placed from the 50 ft. no touch area to the wetland line; the DEP #211-0820 be
referenced on the deed restriction; no trees, brush or vegetation can be removed; tree
pruning of a safety nature only will be allowed with the approval of the conservation
agent; no synthetic herbicides, pesticides, fungicides or fertilizers can be used, only
organic products. 2.) siltation control to be certified by Michele before construction
begins. The siltation fence/hay bale line is to be maintained and remain in place until the
Certificate of Compliance has been issued. 3.) A chain link fence,S ft. high, is to be
placed along the 50 ft. buffer of the no touch. 4.) Plantings approved by Michele (she
will research what types of plants are best suited for the area since the property is wet)
are to be placed along the fence. 5.) Signage reading "Environmentally Sensitive Area-
Do Not Disturb" is to be placed as follows: two signs to be placed on the corners of the
property on metal posts (not on trees) with two others placed equally apart across the
chain link fence. 6.) A new plan showing the drainage ditch to the left of the property
needs to be submitted.
Linda seconded.
Passed 5-2 with Derek and Cindy voting against.
Hearin ended at 8:20 m.
$. . EnforcementOrcler: Christopher & Kristen Lyle, 2.:30.WE!stStreet.
Christopher and Kristen Lyle, the homeowners were present.
Michele told the Commission the railroad had used the site for dumping years ago. The
homeowner is trying to clean up the property and when clearing brush, inadvertently
cleared in the 25 ft. area, including an area on a neighbor's property. Michele said the
homeowners have been very cooperative.
The homeowner has agreed to restore the area. Michele said there is still a lot of debris
to be cleaned out; the Lyles' still need to remove some brush and trees and level out the
property. RIM has submitted a planting scheme. The restored area will be planted with
red maple, blueberry bushes and cinnamon ferns and the area will be planted with grass
or allowed to grow back naturally.
6
Derek wanted to know if a Notice of Intent needed to be filed? Michele said the Notice
of Intent is not necessary but the site needs to be monitored for 2 years to ensure the
plantings thrive. Michele is to be called when the plantings are done.
Joe wanted to know when the work would be completed. Mr. Lyle said he would like to
get it done as soon as possible; work was stopped because of the enforcement order.
A neighbor, Mr. Vale, whose property was cleared, told the Commission he would like to
have the visual barrier back. He said this work has been going on for a very long time
and he would like to know when the work would be done.
Derek told the homeowner the best time to plant is between September and November.
Bya vote of 7-0, the Commission approved the plan. The debris is to be removed, area
cleared of brush and trees and planting to begin in September up to November 15th.
Michele will visit the site periodically. Michele will prepare a letter of approval outlining
what needs to be done.
Hearing ended at 8:38 pm
Paul thinks the letter, with a vote of confidence, should be addressed at the next
meetin at which time the Enforcement Order will be lifted.
9. Other Business:
Gilbert Street Lot 7 Conservation Restriction Order: Notice of Intent was filed November
27, 2006 for construction of a 14 ft. driveway to the upland at the rear of the site. At
the request of the Commission a portion of the land was to be put in a conservation
restriction. The Commission reviewed the CR before it went to the state for review.
The Commissioners signed the Restriction, accepting the Conservation Restriction as
written.
69 Charles Street-Michele, Joe and Paul performed a site walk; there has been no recent
alteration. Michele, Joe and Paul looked closely at the GIS maps for 2001 and 2006; the
land has stayed the same.
Cindy wondered why the site visit was not posted for everyone. She would like to look
at the property. Michele will go out with Cindy and-anyone else that would like to view
the property.
Mr. D'Ambra had been mowing the area prior to NRT purchasing the property and has
continued to mow. Joe and Paul told him to stop mowing. Paul suggested Mr. D'Ambra
have his property surveyed and maybe put up a fence.
Carole asked about 890 Maple Street. She wanted to know if Michele has visited the
site; Carole is concerned about the siltation control on site.
Pictures need to be taken of the new commissioners for badges; Michele will take
pictures next meeting.
7
Derek-Canoe River Campground-Michele sent a letter requesting the applicant to pull an
area where debris has been pushed into the wetlands back when the sewer work is
complete and replant the area. She asked that she be called when the sewer work is
done to make sure the area has been pulled back to where the Commission wanted.
Michele has started taking pictures of replication areas. She hopes to complete the work
in a couple of weeks.
Paul made the motion to approve the minutes of June 9, 2008.
Linda seconded.
Passed 7-0.
110. Adjournment
Adjourned at 8:50 pm.
Next meeti2WiII be July 14, 2008 at 7:00 pm
<:: ~ cJ~
Joseph Mulkern, Chairman
7-/"1- O}-
Date
8