Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATIONminutes07142008-20081119190148 Conservation Meeting July 14, 2008 ~- Present: Joseph Mulkern, Chair; Paul Boyden, Vice Chair; Jack Smith; Carole Matthew; Derek House; Linda Falk; Cindy Ostrowski; Michele Grenier, Conservation and Environmental Planner. 1.1. Meeting called to order at 7:00pm. 1.2. Notice of Intent:. James&leanFlanagan,69KerryDrive. #211-0819 The Notice of Intent was filed for an addition to an existing home within 100 ft. of bordering vegetated wetlands. The project is within an ACEC, the Canoe River, and an Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife and Priority Habitat of Rare Species. The house was built in 1994 before the by-law. James and Jean Flanagan, the homeowners, were present. Michele told the Commission the addition would be to an existing home on lawn and asphalt and out of the 50 ft. She said that under the new Endangered Species Act Regulations, additions that do riot exceed 50% of the existing footprint are exempt from MESA. This addition is over 50% and although the project can be allowed, it requires a NOI and notification to Endangered Species. She said MESA would not have a problem with this project. Michele told the Commission the entire house and the proposed addition is in the 100 ft. She told the Commission the addition has been approved by the Board of Health. Board Comments: Carole sited the Mansfield by-law of 1999. She wanted to know how this project conforms to the by-law. Carole feels legally the Commission needs to require the applicant to prove there are no endangered species that will be adversely affected by the addition. Michele will call Natural Heritage to get a list of species in the area. She also told the Commission that the by-law allows for review on a case by case basis, according to Town Council. Paul said a rare species check should be done. Some members of the Commission felt the hearing should be continued until the rare species report is done. Mr. Flanagan told the Commission he is on a time constraint and asked if he could get approval for the project tonight but only allowed to receive the Order of Conditions based on the biologist's report. The Commission agreed to approve the project, with approval based on the rare species report. If it is found the area has endangered species, Mr. Flanagan would have to come back before the board. Paul asked if the house could be moved to conform to the by-law. Joe asked if the addition could be moved forward 4 ft. to bring it out of the 50 ft. Paul asked how many trees would need to be removed. Mr. Flanagan said they have planted 5 trees and 2 will have to be removed. They also will remove 2 bushes but will replant the bushes and will add additional trees for shade. Cindy read 2.4, 2.5 & 2.6 of the by-law: Not withstanding the provision of Sections 2.4, 2.5 and 2.7, no activity associated with the construction of new subdivisions [including roadways, drainage or utility systems or individual homes] or commercial/industrial projects, shall be performed within 100 ft. of any certified vernal pool or any wetland which is identified by the State as the habitat site of a state-listed species. She said she doesn't have a problem with this application. Her only concern is for future cases; "we are setting a precedent." Cindy would like signage; maybe 3 or 4 signs. Cindy made the motion to accept the plan for 69 Kerry Drive, dated 6/30/2008, with the following provisions: the applicant hire a biologist for a wildlife assessment to insure there are no endangered species that will be adversely affected by the addition (to include the ACEC and Natural Heritage habitats). If the report comes back negative, that there will be no negative impact to rare species, the applicant can go forward with the project. If the report comes back that there is an impact, the applicant will have to come back before the board. [by-law 2.6]; Signage (3 signs) along the 25 ft. no touch on 50 ft. centers, on metal posts, to read "Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb"-Michele will show the applicant where signage should be placed. Paul seconded. Passed 7-0. Derek amended the motion, adding a silt fence/hay bale line to be maintained and remain in place until construction is complete, grass has been re-established and the Certificate of Compliance has been issued. Paul seconded. Passed 7-0. 13. Old Business 701 North Main Street-#211-0820: This project was heard June 23, 2008. The potential buyer, Alan Brown would like to reduce the size of the house from 56x28 to 46x28 and re-position the house to align with the street. He would also like to change the parking to two separate entrances with a turn-around for each driveway. The original plan called for each side to have a deck. The decks would be removed and replaced with smaller landings/platforms (5 ft.-6ft.), to be constructed on the sides of the duplex. The turn-around for each driveway is outside the 100 ft. and the driveways themselves will be less pavement than was originally permitted. Michele told the Commission that the changes would not require a new NOI be filed; it will be considered an amendment to the original filing with the new plan attached to the old filing. All conditions would still need to be followed. She told the Commission the new plan is much better than the original plan. A plan was submitted July 14, 2008 with these changes. Wayside Estates: A preliminary draft was submitted with the NO! -a definitive plan needed to be submitted. Michele told the Commission the applicant has not followed our by-law. The applicant was asked to certify the vernal pools on this property; this has not been done. The applicant was told to submit a plan with the certified vernal pools and a stream added; this has not been done. A majority of the site is located within a Natural Heritage Area. Work would be done within the 50 ft. no disturbance area. Engineering concerns have not been addressed by the applicant. The ORAD-DEP #211-0720-was issued on May 24, 2005 (the ANRAD was filed on May 11, 2005) The Planning Board denied the preliminary plan on June 9, 2008. Michele will draft a letter for DEP outlining the problems with this submittal and why a hearing was not held. Lester Epstein, Maple Street, Map 40-Parcel 92: Mr. Epstein hired Mason & Associates to delineate the area in question. Mr. Epstein has agreed to restore the vernal pool. Conservation is waiting for a restoration plan. Carole wanted to know if the larger wetland/vernal pool in the back of the property had been delineated/certified. Michele told her when the restoration plan is submitted, acceptance will be predicated on the larger vernal pool being certified. Michele told the Commission the best time to reclaim a vernal pool is late fall, not in the spring. Paul would like this moved forward as quickly as possible. Patriots Way (Gourdin Estates, a cluster subdivision): Letter from Red Mill Realty, LLC, dated July 7, 2008, with the deed for the plot of land known as Common Open Space 3, has been submitted for the Commission to review. In accordance with Condition 7 of the Planning Board Special Permit this land has been deeded to the Mansfield Conservation Commission. The paperwork will be passed on to town council for review. Derek made the motion to accept the Planning Board condition (#7) for 296,211 sq. ft. of land for a deed that will be registered with Bristol County. Jack seconded. Passed 7-0. Elizabeth Vieria, Fruit Street-#211-0818: This house is part of the Donald Estates sub-division. The Vierias bought the home in June 2000. An Enforcement Order was issued in 2006 for illegally cutting a tree (the tree had fallen), building a retaining wall and spreading gravel within the 25 ft. no touch area. An Order of Conditions was issued for an in-ground pool on June 23, 2008. At the hearing the Commission questioned Mrs. Vieria about the encroachment of the 25 ft. buffer; how much of the area was disturbed, the amount of trees actually removed, why the gravel has not been removed? Michele believes the only tree cut was a tree that had fallen down; the Vierias cut up the tree but placed the pieces within the 25 ft. If more were cut, it was done by the builder before Mr. and Mrs. Vieria purchased the home. Michele does not feel the area needs to be stabilized any further. At this time, nothing is leaching into the wetlands. Carole feels the project is under the by-law. Michele said GIS shows the area was cleared before the Vierias purchased the home; the whole yard is within the 25 ft. Derek said the project was allowed because Mrs. Vieria agreed to re-establish the area. He feels it does not matter who cleared the area, it should not have happened and the area should be re-established. "If she agreed but is now saying she does not want to abide by the condition under which the project would be allowed, then she doesn't get the permit because that is how we issued the permit. She needs to stop construction on the project, come back to us with a new plan of action to be approved. But up until that if she doesn't accept the way we wrote it, then the permit is not valid. She can't do part of what she wants and not the part she doesn't want." Michele will return to the property to see what has been done but feels nothing more needs to be done. Cindy made the motion to accept the minutes of June 23, 2008 as written Paul seconded. Passed 7-0. /4. Adjournment Adjourned at 8:20 pm. Paul/Cindy. CjA /fA-- Joseph M ern, Chairman /0 · .,I.. · ,. Date