Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConservation Comm. 11/29/2021Town of Mansfield R`CEIVEQ Conservation ' I -_j ��,� OFFICE 29, 2021 NIN FE8-3 A 8:31 Present: Michael Healey, Chair; Dr. Aaron Roth, Vice Chair; Diane Simms; Jeffrey Paten; Sarah Joynes; Katelyn Gonyer, Environmental and Conservation Planner. r -r-i—f 71 1. Meeting opened at 6:07 pm 2. Request for Determination of Applicability: Town of Mansfield, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, 50 Plymouth Street, Map 10. Lot 21. Mr. Healey opened the hearing for the Town of Mansfield, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division for a playground and drainage improvements within the 200-foot Riverfront of Hodges Brook. Richard C. Alves, Jr., P.E., Town Engineer/Assistant DPW Director was present. Mr. Alves said Waterfield Design Group developed the plan for the project, located at 50 Plymouth Street, and the proposal is for improvements to the existing playground area just south of the existing tennis court. He noted the old playground has been demoed and currently consists of one big sand box. The plan shows the proposed improvements consisting of swings, a seesaw, sand play platform, tower climber, zip line and picnic tables. He noted there will be additional impervious material added to the area and said they are proposing two drainage infiltration systems. He said the existing detention basin is able to store the additional flow of a larger storm event without increasing the flow off site. Mr. Alves said the wetland resource area was taken from an ORAD dated October 20, 2009, done by Beals & Thomas, Inc. He said the total amount of work in the previously disturbed Riverfront Area, Outer Riparian Zone, is approximately 6,800 square feet. He said the location of the erosion controls are shown on the plan and the disposal of any material into the wetland, stream or any other resource area will not be permitted and all care shall be taken to prevent any adverse impacts to the resource area. Mr. Alves said the intent is to have the work performed by a private contractor hired and inspected by the town and said he is requesting a Negative Determination since the work is within a previously disturbed area and will not alter an area subject to protection under the Act. Ms. Gonyer mentioned there is a conservation area that surrounds this property and also a path that runs parallel to the brook and goes along the existing trail that raps around the entire field. Mr. Alves said the erosion control is set around the existing fence line so in some areas the fence will need to be removed, but will be restored. Dr. Roth said there is a lot of erosion from the existing driveway between the playground and the turf field and asked if the siltation goes to the existing catch basin. Mr. Alves said the siltation would go to the existing swale on the southside of the bituminous driveway that abuts the tree line, which has an emergency overflow towards Hodges Brook in the woods; he noted this is not part of this project but he will mention this to the Highway Division and will work with them. Dr. Roth asked what the substrate would be for the playground. Mr. Alves said the substrate would be a mixture of sand, mulch and rubberized material used for a running track. There were no comments from the audience or virtually. Dr. Roth made the motion to issue a Negative Determination for Reason #3 to the Town of Mansfield, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division at 50 Plymouth Street, Map 10, Lot 21, for the construction of a playground and drainage improvements within the 200-foot Riverfront of Hodges Brook. The proposed work as shown will not adversely impact the resource area. The following special conditions will apply: 1. Limit of work to be inspected by Agent prior to the start of work. 2. All disturbed areas are to be stabilized as soon as possible. 3. Agent is to be notified once project is completed and the areas are stabilized. Mr. Paten seconded the motion. Dr. Roth — in favor Ms. Simms— in favor Ms. Joynes — in favor Mr. Paten — in favor Mr. Healey — in favor Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 6:22 pm. 3. Request for Determination of Applicability: Town of Mansfield Department of Public Works, 450 Gilbert Street, Map 7, Parcel 117. Michael Ahern, Project Manager for the Town of Mansfield, Srivalli Sukuru, Project Manager, and Brad Mustain of Woodard & Curran, Inc., Lee Azinheira, Directorof Public Works, and Josh Reinke, Interim DPW Director were present. Mr. Healey opened the hearing forthe Town of Mansfield Department of Public Works, 450 Gilbert Street, for the proposed PFAS (Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) treatment facility and associated site features, within the 200-foot Riverfront Area of the Wading River. Mr. Ahern said the project proposed is being done to remove PFAS from the drinking water location at the Walsh Well because it has exceeded the threshold established by the state and federal governments; he noted the Walsh site is presently not being used. He said PFAS is a very stable, man-made chemical that has properties that allows them to repel both water and oil but PFAS do not readily break down in the environment and, as a result, there are very low levels in many areas of the environment; he said studies have indicated they can be a health risk. The PFAS treatment portion of the project is the same as what is currently being done at the Cate Springs Well located on Maple Street; he noted the Cate Spring project is progressing well and is scheduled to be completed in spring 2022. Mr. Ahern said there will be four large filter vessels filled with granulated activated carbon and these vessels will be housed in a pre- engineered metal building, which will accommodate an electric room and bathroom; he said with the addition of the bathroom, a septic system will also be added to the site. The Walsh Well improvement portion will be adding six additional gravel packed wells and the old vacuum well system will be abandoned. Mr. Ahern anticipates making a gravel roadway for construction access along the new wells and for potential future maintenance access. He said the filter vessels have been ordered and delivery is expected in June 2022. Mr. Ahern mentioned that Mr. Alves had questions that were addressed in a memo (dated November 22, 2021), which required information be added to the plan. Mr. Ahern said Woodard & Curran responded and he wanted to assure the Commission that items in the memo would be addressed to Mr. Alves' satisfaction prior to proceeding with the bidding, which will be in the next several weeks. Mr. Healey asked about the re -generation of the activated carbon and if it would be on or off site. Ms. Sukuru said a carbon company will remove the used carbon off site so nothing will be contained on the site. Ms. Sukuru discussed the process of removing the carbon and regenerating the activated carbon. She said the containment will be minimal and there will be no need for secondary containment; she noted the vessels will be on their own pads. She said she will provide the Commission with the standard operating procedures and supplemental information about removal procedures and the transportation off site of the carbon. There were no comments from the audience or virtually. Mr. Paten made the motion to issue a Negative Determination for Reason # 3 to the Town of Mansfield Department of Public Works, 450 Gilbert Street, Map 7, Parcel 117 for the proposed PFAS treatment facility and associated site features, within the 200-foot Riverfront Area of the Wading River, the proposed work as shown will not adversely impact the resource area, with the following special conditions: 1. Limit of work to be inspected by Agent prior to the start of work. 2. All disturbed areas are to be stabilized as soon as possible. 3. Agent is to be notified once the project is completed and the areas are stabilized. 4. All comments from Mr. Alves must be addressed satisfactorily prior to issuance of the Determination. Ms. Simms seconded the motion. Ms. Simms— in favor Ms. Joynes — in favor Mr. Paten — in favor Mr. Healey— in favor Dr. Roth — in favor Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 6:40 pm. 4. Notice of Intent: Kevin Dumas, 265 Fruit Street, Map 36, Lot 15. Mr. Healey opened the hearing for the Norton/Mansfield Rail Trail Extension, a project to extend the existing path with a 12-foot wide asphalt path and associated grading, landscaping and parking improvements under DEP SE 211-0991. Jonathan Niro, Beta Group, Inc., Environmental Scientist, Matthew Shute, Beta Group, Inc., Professional Engineer, and Lee Azinheira, Director of DPW, were present. C1 Mr. Shute said BETA Group is responsible for the design and permitting of the project for the rail trail extension the project would be funded by MassDOT Highway Division and the Federal Highway Administration. He said construction will start in the spring of 2023. Mr. Shute said most of the project is within the limits of the Town of Norton, with approximately one - quarter mile in Mansfield. The project will begin at the existing parking area on Fruit Street and this area will be reconstructed to add one or two parking spaces and re-route the path around the parking area. On the south side of Fruit Street, bordering the airport, the project will utilize the former railroad corridor then proceed south into Norton, continuing down across Route 123 and down just north of the Taunton City line. He said a new parking area is proposed on the south side of Fruit Street. The project will go over Route 495, using the existing bridge at North Washington Street, and then re-route back onto the former railroad corridor for the remainder of the project, down Plain Street in Norton. He said this is a 4.5-mile project from the end of the existing Mansfield trail to Crane Street in Norton. The goals of the project are to provide alternative transportation for cyclists, walkers, and rollerbladers and will complete a gap between the commuter rail and Myles Standish Park; he mentioned there are already plans for the Taunton River Trail, which ultimately will connect with this segment of the trail. He said there are year- round recreation opportunities and improved access to conservation properties and preservation land. Mr. Shute said the scope of the project will be to construct a 12-foot shared -use path, which will consist of hot mix asphalt. He said there will be new pavement markings and signs, parking areas and pedestrian crossing treatments, informational kiosks, interpretive signing and benches. On one side of the trail there is a 5-foot, level grass area to promote infiltration and also provide an equestrian area. For the record, Mr. Niro noted the green cards for the abutter mailing were submitted at the meeting. He said on the north side of Fruit Street there is an existing parking lot that is bordered by a large emergent wetland. He said if you cross Fruit Street going south along the existing right-of-way (ROW), both on the east and west sides, there is an extensive complex of wetlands and, as you approach the Mansfield/Norton town line, some of those wetlands do extend into the ROW; he noted these wetlands are fairly disturbed in the ROW. Mr. Niro said the project has been minimized but they were unable to avoid resource area impacts, so along with working in the buffer zone, the impacts that are involved in the construction of the trails and all the amenities total 4,300+/- square feet of impact with 1,200+/- square feet of temporary impacts, which are associated with installing erosion control at the edge of the wetlands, to create replication areas, and to extend the limit of work to accommodate grading. These types of impacts will be restored in place with a native wetland seed mix to fully stabilize. The rest of the impacts which are permanent, under 3,200 square feet, are impacts that are associated with the actual construction of the trail. Mr. Niro said the bulk of the impacts are associated with the area near the town line where the Bordering Vegetated Wetland actually extends into the existing ROW and these areas will be fully mitigated through wetland replication. These wetland replication areas, a total of 7,800 square, are designed at a 2.5:1 ratio and will meet all performance standards for BVW replication. These replication areas will be sited along the trail and will be over excavated and supplemented with compost of organic content and planted with a number of species, such as winter berry, red maple and pepper bush. Mr. Niro said the bulk of the wetland impacts are at the town line in the area where the degraded wetlands exist in the middle of the ROW. He said the wetlands through replication will be of a higher quality and will continue to provide flood control, and storm damage prevention and there will be a substantial increase in wildlife habitat and food sources. Ms. Gonyer said they have done a great job minimizing the impacts and making sure everything will be mitigated. She asked about the erosion control. Mr. Niro said the erosion control will be on the right-of- 4 way facing the fence side. Mr. Shute said there is approximately 200 feet of the airport perimeter fence that will need to be relocated on Fruit Street. He said there is a small amount of replication, not at the airport property line, but behind the chain link fence within the town layout. Ms. Gonyer said this is an area that is mowed and maintained and will continue to be maintained. She asked if there were any concerns about invasive species. Mr. Niro said there is a fair amount of glossy buckthorn and phragmites. He said due to the impacts, they looked at the entire project in Mansfield and Norton and they will be filing a pre -construction notification with the Army Corps and part of that is having an invasive species control plan in place. Mr. Niro said this is not a ratification plan but a plan that ensures that through construction of this trail all measures are taken to feasibly halt the spread of invasive species. He said this is included in the contract. Ms. Gonyer said the parcel on the north side of Fruit Street was previously cut as part of the airport VMP and still has an opened Order. She said we would have to make sure everything from the previous projects has been met before proposing additional impacts through a different project. There would have to be conditions regarding invasive species, but not necessarily eradication, but to look at the colonization of invasive species over 2-3 growing seasons with a survival rate of 75%. She asked about bringing in soils for the replication areas. Mr. Niro said the soils would be a mix of native soil with compost or, if needed, off site soils would be brought in and tested for invasive species plant matter; he said where possible, they do like to use on site material. Ms. Gonyer said she would like to expand the conditions for this project. Mr. Paten asked, when circumventing the existing parking lot on Fruit Street, if there would be a secondary crossing there. Mr. Shute said there is no crossing there but there will be a pedestrian curb crossing and a crosswalk on both sides of Fruit Street so you can get to the new parking lot on the south side along the airport side. Ms. Simms mentioned that cars go very fast through this area and asked if there would only be a crosswalk or if something more is going to be done to alert drivers to slow down in this area. Mr. Shute said there are other measures such as pedestrian florescent signs with a police strobe light on the bottom; however, he said MassDOT has conditions that would need to be met for the use of these signs. He said they did a speed study on Fruit Street as well as a traffic volume count, and with the combination of the two, and the addition of a high visibility painted crosswalk and florescent warning signs indicating pedestrian crossings, this is all that is warranted at this location at this time. He said it is possible in the future the town could supplement this with something on their own. Ms. Gonyer said she would talk with the Highway Department and the Planner to see if they have any ideas. Lee Azinheira, Director of Public Works, said solar beacons can be added if it is needed once the project is completed. There were no comments from the audience or virtually. Dr. Roth made the motion to issue an Order of Conditions to Kevin Dumas, 265 Fruit Street, Map 36, Lot 15, for the Norton/Mansfield Rail Trail Extension, a project to extend the existing path with a 12-foot wide asphalt path and associated grading, landscaping and parking improvements under DEP SE 211-0991, with the following special conditions under the by-law: 1. No work can be started until the Order of Conditions has been recorded with the Bristol County Registry of Deeds and the receipt of the Order is returned to the Commission filled in by the Registry. 5 2. All work must conform to the plan dated October 27, 2021, referenced as "the plan of record" in this Order. 3. All limits of work and erosion controls shall be installed prior to any construction, clearing, or excavation. The erosion controls shall consist of an 8 diameter biodegradable mulch -filled silt sock with wooden stakes every 10 feet on each side of the sock or equivalent (do not pierce silt sock with stakes). In addition to the silt sock, trenched -in silt fence may be required depending on the specific site conditions. See the Conservation Agent (Agent) for specific erosion control design standards. The Applicant shall notify the Agent when any such devices or measures are installed so that a site visit can be conducted prior to the commencement of work. 4. The Commission reserves the right to require additional mitigation or erosion control devices or measures if mitigation or erosion control devices are not adequately installed or maintained on site. S. The Applicant shall ensure that all demarcation (i.e. limits of work) and erosion control devices will remain in place and be maintained throughout the construction process and until all disturbed areas are stabilized. Stabilization shall be achieved once a complete vegetative cover is reached. Seeded areas shall be covered with a suitable protective cover to allow the seed to germinated and become established. All side slopes greater than 3:1(but less than 2:1) are to be covered with jute mesh and seeded. At no point shall erosion occur resulting in sediment entering the wetland areas. If erosion occurs, the Agent is to be contacted to review the extent of the erosion and determine follow-up actions. 6. A construction sequence is to be submitted to the Commission prior to the start of work. 7. The Conservation Commission or its Agent is to be notified of the starting date of the work prior to its commencement. 8. Prior to the commencement of work, a pre -construction meeting shall be held with the Agent, the Engineer, and/or Representative, and the General Contractor to review the Order of Conditions, scope of work and construction sequencing. 9. The Applicant shall be responsible to ensure that all contractors on site during the construction have received and reviewed the Order of Conditions and all "plans of record". 10. Wetland flagging must remain in place until the project has been completed and the Certificate of Compliance issued. 11. The Certificate of Compliance shall be requested in writing upon completion of the project. At the same time, the Applicant or any successor shall, upon completion of the project, submit an as -built plan and letter signed by a professional engineer, along with a letter from a Wetland Scientist/Wetland Scientist certifying that the work has been done in accordance with the approved plan. 12. Any modifications or revisions to the plan(s) referenced in this Order must be submitted to the Commission for review. For single family lots, this Order is for the structures shown on the plan of record only. Any additional structures including, but not limited to, decks, patios, sheds, pools, walkways and/or any hardscape features must be reviewed by the Commission. If, after their review, the Commission finds that the changes are not significant enough (minor modifications) to warrant an Amended Order or new Notice of Intent, then the revised plans shall be considered the new "plan of record". If the changes are significant enough to warrant an Amended Order or new Notice of Intent, then the Applicant is required to file accordingly. 13. A Wetland Monitor/Wetland Scientist, pre -approved by the Mansfield Conservation Commission, is to be hired atthe Applicant's expense. The Wetland Monitor/Wetland Scientist is to be present during construction and during all work within the Conservation Commission's 11 jurisdiction as stated in Section 4-Mitigation Measures of the Notice of Intent submission along with the Plans of Record. 14. The Wetland Monitor/Wetland Scientist shall provide weekly updates in writing (email to Agent is sufficient) during the proposed wetland filling and replication activities within Conservation Commission jurisdiction. 15. Once the replication areas have been constructed and planted, the Wetland Monitor/Wetland Scientist shall report back to the Commission quarterly for the next two growing seasons as detailed in MassDOT Project Specification. 16. The replication area plantings are to be constructed as noted in Section 4-Mitigation Measures of the Notice of Intent and the Plans of Record dated October 27, 2021. All replication areas shall be 75% successful after the first two growing seasons. If that is not the case then recommendations for additional plantings shall be proposed to the Mansfield Conservation Commission. A Full Certificate of Compliance cannot be issued until the two growing seasons have passed AND a 75% survival rate has been achieved. A summary of the replication areas health shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission with the request for a Certificate of Compliance. 17. All the terms and conditions set forth in the Stormwater Management Report for World War II Veterans Memorial Trail prepared by Beta Engineering submitted in October 2021 are to be included with this Order of Conditions. All on -going O&M Plan activities are to be recorded as noted. All reports and checklists are to be submitted to the Commission as noted. 18. All the terms and conditions set forth in section 4.5 Native Species Planting and Invasive Species Management of the NO1 submission and all construction notes stated in the Plans of Record for MassDOT Highway Division Rail Trail Extension, prepared by Beta Engineering and dated 10/27/2021 are to be included with this Order of Conditions. 19. All ten (10) comments identified in the letter from MASS DEP dated 11/22/2021 shall be addressed prior to the start of any work. Mr. Paten seconded the motion. Ms. Simms— in favor Ms. joynes —in favor Dr. Roth —in favor Mr. Paten — in favor Mr. Healey —in favor Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 7:18 pm. 5. Request for Certificate of Compliance: David and Rachel Hall, 33 Oak Leaf Drive, Map 15, Parcel 96. Mr. Healey opened the hearing for a request for a Certificate ofIliance c foh David and Rachel Hdel, 33 din and Oak Leaf Drive for the construction of an addition, grading p Vegetated Wetland under DEP SE 211-0987. This hearing was tabled until the representative is present. 6. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Paulette Rioux, 30 Saddle Ridge Road, Lot 3. 7 Mr. Healey opened the hearing for a request for a Certificate of Compliance for Paulette Rioux, 30 Saddle Ridge Road, Lot 3. The Order was issued for the construction of a single-family dwelling with associated appurtenances, within the 100-foot buffer zone of Bordering Vegetated Wetland and Natural Heritage Estimated and Priority Habitat under DEP SE 211-0937. Ms. Gonyer said this house is part of a five -lot subdivision and Lots 3, 4, and 5 were part of a Form A lot filing. She said there was minimal work within jurisdiction, with only a small portion of the septic system, grading, and water service within the 100-foot buffer. An as built plan along with a letter stating that the dwelling, roof drains and grading are in substantial compliance with the approved plan, with the exception the disturbed areas have been loamed but not seeded, was submitted There were no comments from the audience or virtually. Ms. Simms made the motion to continue the request for Certificate of Compliance for Paulette Rioux, 30 Saddle Ridge Road, Lot 3, for the construction of a single-family dwelling with associated appurtenances, within the 100-foot buffer zone of Bordering Vegetated Wetland and Natural Heritage Estimated and Priority Habitat under DEP SE 211-0937. Dr. Roth seconded the motion. Ms. Simms— in favor Ms.loynes— in favor Dr. Roth —in favor Mr. Healey — in favor Mr. Paten — in favor Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 7:47 pm. 7. Request to Extend ORAD- Christian & Feck Development, 177 Old Elm Street. Mr. Healey opened the hearing for 177 Old Elm Street, under DEP SE 211-0965, for the request to extend the GRAD for an additional 3 years, to June 15, 2024. James Pavlik, Outback Engineering, Inc. was present virtually. Ms. Gonyer said the ORAD was issued on July 18, 2017 but the Governor's Covid-19 State of Emergency orders have extended permits. She said this ended June 15, 2021 but the ORAD was still in effect during the State of Emergency and does not expire until October 23, 2021. They are requesting a 3-year extension on the ORAD, extending it to June 15, 2024. There were no comments from the audience or virtually. Mr. Paten made the motion to issue the request to extend the ORAD for 177 Old Elm Street for 3 years, to expire June 15, 2024. Ms. Joynes seconded the motion. Ms. Simms— in favor Ms. Joynes — in favor Dr. Roth — in favor Mr. Paten —in favor Mr. Healey —in favor Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 7:55 pm. 8. Request for Determination of Applicability: Jonathan and Elizabeth Carroll, 60 Bird Road, Map 39, Parcel 191. Mr. Healey opened the hearing for Jonathan and Elizabeth Carroll, 60 Bird Road, for an addition, a three (3) bay garage and a deck within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland and ACEC Area. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering, Inc. and homeowner Jonathan Carroll were present. Mr. Cygawnoski said there are two additions to the house, one a garage on the easterly side of the property and an addition to the rear of the house, which will be the closest to the BVW. He said the addition and the garage are being proposed to make the house handicap -accessible. He said at this time there is an existing above -ground pool behind the house and said once the proposed addition has been constructed, the plan is to replace the pool, which will be located directly behind the addition. Mr. Cygawnoski said there will be a foundation but no grading or filling will be necessary but a retaining wall might be required; he noted the lawn area is fairly level so there will be no clearing of trees. He said any materials will either be stockpiled at the front of the property or will be removed from the site the same day as excavation. If any materials are stockpiled in the yard, siltation controls will be placed around the pile to keep materials from entering Bird Road. Ms. Gonyer suggested plantings along the existing lawn area, such as low bush blue berry, to offset the pool location. Ms. Gonyer said everything will be done within the existing lawn area and no culling of vegetation will be done. She mentioned that Conservation has a policy about backwashing and draining a pool; she said this would be part of the Order of Conditions. Mr. Healey asked what kind of filter will be used. Mr. Carroll said it will be a diatomaceous earth (DE) filter. Mr. Healey said with DA and/or sand filters when you backwash, the particulates and chlorine in the water get into the resource areas. He said the Commission typically permits a cartridge filtration system. He said if you have to backwash, you would have to discharge someplace where the backwash won't flow into the resource area. Dr. Roth asked if there was a plan for the roof runoff and if there would be drywells; he noted this project would increase the impervious area a lot. Mr. Cygawnoski said dry wells should have been added to the plan and they will place shallow drywells to catch the roof runoff from the gutters on the garage. Dr. Roth said he is uncomfortable moving the pool within 34 feet of the wetland. Ms. Gonyer said this was her biggest concern also and asked if the pool could have been rotated or pulled closer to the house and the addition. Mr. Cygawnoski said if the building department says an above -ground pool does not have to be ten feet from the house they will pull the pool as close to the house as possible. Ms. Gonyer said we do not want to expand more use or activities closer to the resource area. Mr. Cygawnoski said the existing lawn area would extend to the back of the shed so there would be no reason to expand any of the lawn. Ms. Gonyer asked if there was a way, instead of the pool going where it is, to put it along the limit of the existing lawn area and plant 6-8 low bush blueberry to offset the location of the pool encroachment. Mr. Healey suggested moving the pool behind the garage to keep it away from the resource area. Mr. Cygawnoski said if the pool were to be put behind the garage it would be sitting on top of the septic system and would be where the slope begins. Ms. Gonyer said if plantings were put in the area behind the pool she would be more comfortable with the movement of the pool. Dr. Roth said he would love to see a native restoration added to this area for more of a buffer. Ms. Joynes asked what will be happening to the current footprint of the pool, will this area be re -seeded for a lawn or will there be a patio. Mr. Carroll said this will be a lawn area. Mr. Healey said they would have to talk with the town about how close the pool can be to the house. Ms. Gonyer said the conditions should include roof runoff, a pool O & M Plan, planting of a strip along the limit of lawn with 6-8 native shrubs and plantings and a new plan showing the plantings and roof runoff; she will work with Mr. Carroll regarding the shrubs, trees and plantings. There were no comments from the audience and virtually. Mr. Paten made the motion to issue a Negative Determination for Reason #3, to Jonathan and Elizabeth Carroll, 60 Bird Road, Map 39, Parcel 191 for an addition, a three -bay garage and a deck within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland and ACEC Area; the proposed work as shown will not adversely impact the resource area with the following conditions: 1. Limit of work to be inspected by Agent prior to the start of work. 2. All disturbed areas are to be stabilized as soon as possible. 3. Agent is to be notified once project is completed AND the areas are stabilized. 4. All roof runoff is to be directed to drywells or equivalent drainage components approved by the Commission. 5. Operation & Maintenance Plan for the pool. 6. Plant 6-8 native shrubs/plantings and two saplings along the back side of the lawn area OR along the limit of existing lawn area. The Agent will work with the homeowner for the plantings. 7. Submit a new plan showing the plantings and the drywells. Dr. Roth seconded the motion. Ms. Joynes — in favor Dr. Roth —in favor Ms. Simms— in favor Mr. Paten — in favor Mr. Healey — in favor Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 7:51 pm. 9. Notice of Intent: Shawn Carroll, 230 Plain Street Map 4, Parcel 75. Mr. Healey opened the hearing for Shawn Carroll, 230 Plain Street, for a proposed in -ground pool within 100 feet of Inland Bank of Greenwood Lake under DEP SE 211-0992. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering, Inc. and Shawn Carroll, CPR Pools, Inc. were present. 10 Mr. Cygawnoski said this is an existing single-family house lot and the entire back yard, with the exception of a few trees, is lawn area. He said the Applicant is proposing a 20'x3O' in -ground pool that will be 34.5 feet from the edge of Greenwood lake, surrounded by a paver patio. The entire depth of the pool is 42 inches and will be a salt water pool. He noted they are not planning any grading. A block retaining wall will be installed and the owner is planning to extend the wall over to the existing shed. Ms. Gonyer said there is an existing shed within the 25-foot area, which is pre-existing, non -conforming, and there is a lot of patio in between the pool and the existing deck. She wondered if the proposal could be re -designed because there is a lot of work on a small lot along the lake and maybe this could be developed in a way that everything could be condensed. She would also like to see a good amount of restoration along the bank's edge. Dr. Roth asked if the concrete wall is flush with the current grade or is there a barrier that keeps sheet runoff from entering the lake. Mr. Cygawnoski said it is a stone block wall and the top of the wall meets the grade and then there is a vertical drop to the lake. Ms. Joynes asked if the 25-foot No Touch Zone goes through where the existing shed is located and if the silt control is within the 25-foot also. Mr. Cygawnoski said if they are allowed to build the patio as designed this is where it will go; he noted it will be about three feet into the 25-foot area. She said there is an exemption under the By-law but that is for constraints. Ms. Joynes said the shed needs to come back out of the 25-foot No Touch Zone. Ms. Gonyer asked if the shed is on a foundation. Mr. Cygawnoski it is sitting on a concrete pad. Ms. Gonyer said they do not want to deny the pool but there seems to be a lot of proposed work and a lot of room for reduction; she said they could minimize the amount of patio between the deck and the pool and pull the wall line further towards the house. She said one of the conditions would be to pull the shed out of the 25-foot area. Ms. Gonyer asked where the door(s) for the shed are located. Mr. Cygawnoski said the only door is at the front of the shed, towards the house. Mr. Healey said there is a lot impervious cover very close to Greenwood Lake and it is a salt water pool. Ms. Gonyer said she does not like the idea of salt water near a fresh water pond. Mr. Carroll said if the Commission does not want the salt water system, they will switch to a cartridge filter. Mr. Healey said this is an extremely sensitive area under Conservation jurisdiction and there are ways that you could reconfigure the project without being so close to a resource area. Ms. Gonyer said they can redesign the patio area and move the shed outside of the 25-foot area. Mr. Healey said typically the no disturb zone is a natural setting that will attenuate contaminants and runoff but this area is just lawn so functionally it is not doing a lot as far as protection of the resource. Mr. Healey said he does not see this as being in the interest of the Wetland Protection Act and the resources as it is proposed now. Mr. Carroll suggested a smaller deck around the pool. Mr. Healey said it is not really the size of the deck that concerns him but where the water is going to go from the new impervious surface. Mr. Healey said salt water can have an adverse impact. He said his other concern, for the long term, is that the retaining walls on Greenwood Lake are starting to fail from ground water, and pressure behind the wall, and over time starts to over -top the walls. 11 Ms. Gonyer said there are ways to condition these projects to avoid the concerns of the Commission. She would like to see the proposed block patio minimized, the pool moved closer to the house if possible, even if you have to pull the wall line along the existing shed, not at the corner of the shed. She asked if the crushed stone access to the rear is existing. Mr. Cygawnoski said this is an existing driveway. She asked about the runoff from this driveway because infiltration is a big concern here. Ms. Gonyer asked if the existing patio coming off the deck is pavers. Mr. Cygawnoski said it is brick. Mr. Carroll asked it they could put crushed stone underneath the porch. Mr. Healey said this would increase the infiltration rate compared to blocks or pavement. Mr. Healey said they are not against people having pools in their yards but we need to look at the potential impacts to the resource areas. The Commission and Ms. Gonyer discussed the elevations of the property. Ms. Gonyer asked if they are going to drain or collect the water from the proposed block patio. Mr. Cygawnoski said if they are going to redesign this, could they put in a trench drain grate system between the blocks and a pipe to an infiltration trench to run along the western property line to keep the runoff away from the lake. Ms. Gonyer said they could remove the existing patio and make it a part of the newly proposed block patio, she noted there is an additional block patio by the house. Mr. Healey said there is already a brick walkway going down the hill next to the block patio so all these things keep increasing the runoff and more is being added. Dr. Roth said personally he would not consider this until everything is outside the 25-foot No Touch Zone, including the shed, and not until we look at the additional impervious areas. He said they are going to be making these changes to the property and he would like to know how the entire system is going to work. Dr. Roth said, as it stands now, he will not vote for this. Ms. Gonyer said she will work with Mr. Cygawnoski and suggested more stormwater components to slow down the water. She said there are other areas on the site that can be improved. She said if we are looking at this much development, there needs to be no structures in the 25-foot No Touch Zone. Mr. Carroll said by moving or removing the shed would there be a better chance of passing. Ms. Gonyer said the shed is a violation and it is not an allowable structure. Ms. Gonyer said they should move the shed, incorporate the existing patio into the proposed block patio, and have an O & M Plan for the pool. Mr. Cygawnoski asked that the hearing be continued. Mr. Carroll said he will go over everything with Mr. Dee. There were no comments from the audience or virtually. Mr. Paten made the motion to continue the hearing for Shawn Carroll, 230 Plain Street, Map 4, Parcel 75, for a proposed in -ground pool within 100 feet of Inland Bank of Greenwood Lake under DEP SE 211-0992 to December 29, 2021. Dr. Roth seconded the motion. Ms. joynes — in favor Dr. Roth — in favor 12 Ms. Simms- in favor Mr. Paten - in favor Mr. Healey- in favor Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 8:35 pm. 10. New Business: Letter regarding 177 Old Elm Street: Ms. Gonyer explained when a parcel of land is under forestry and the owner of the property is asking to transfer out of forestry to sell the parcel, the Town of Mansfield has first right refusal to purchase the property. 177 Old Elm Street is a parcel of land that was actively forested. She noted the ORAD for this property was just extended tonight. She said this parcel is very wet and is near conservation land. She would first like to speak with Shaun Burke, Director of Planning and Development, so she can give the Commission a better recommendation but she said she believes this would be worth purchasing. She said basically the Select Board is looking to the Open Space and Recreation Committee and the Conservation Commission as to whether this aligns with the Open Space Plan, the Master Plan and Strategic Plan. Reorganization of Board: This agenda item will be done at a later date. 11. Approval of Minutes: Motion to approve the July 26, 2021 (Simms/Joynes) Ms. Simms - in favor Dr. Roth -abstained Ms. Joynes - in favor Mr. Paten -abstained Mr. Healey - in favor Motion to approve the September 27, 2021 minutes (Simms/Joynes) Ms. Joynes - in favor Dr. Roth - in favor Ms. Simms - in favor Mr. Paten - abstained Mr. Healey -in favor 12. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 8:43 pm (Roth/Joynes). Motion passed 5-0-0. Next meeting will be January 31, 2022 in Meeting Room 3 A/B at 6:00 pm. Michael Healey, Chair 2 - 3- Z-'L Date 13