HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATIONminutes03232009
CONSERVATION MEETING
MARCH 23, 2009
Present: Paul Boyden, Vice Chair; Carole Matthew; Derek House; Jack Smith;
Michele Grenier, Conservation and Environmental Planner.
I .1. Meeting called to order at 7:03 pm.
2. Notice of Intent: Planners Designers Architects, Inc.: 55 Cabot Boulevard -
#211-0826.
Richard Riccio of Field Engineering, Jeff Terrey and David Thibault of Tyco and
Kevin Quinn and Sal Barba of Dacon were present.
Notice of Intent was filed for construction of an approximately 915 sq. ft. building
addition with associated site modifications to an existing building within the 100
ft. buffer zone of bordering vegetated wetlands. The proposed construction will
require approximately 247 sq. ft. of wetland alteration to an existing "finger-like"
projection of wetland that has developed over the years since the construction of
the building. A portion of the addition will be built over an existing paved
walkway. The replication will be adjacent to the same wetland system. The
alteration will be replicated at a 3: 1 ratio. The addition will house equipment for
a testing facility. The land is disturbed, the result of prior construction.
The addition will house a 51 ft. long tank that can not be located inside the
existing building. There will also be an exhaust silencer for the exhaust system of
the internal equipment, to be placed on concrete footings. David Thibault of
Tyco told the Commission the addition is necessary because of the need to
minimize the distance from the test facility to these pieces of equipment.
A proposed planting scheme for the replication is listed on page D-l of the plan
dated 3/11/2009. Michele told the applicant 3 years of plant monitoring, with
reports submitted twice a year, are required to insure the health of the
replication.
Michele told the Commission the wetland flags are accurate. She approves of the
location for the replication. She also recommended the replication be done
before the construction so all available soils from the alteration can be used. She
recommends hay bales and silt fence be installed; she will inspect hay bales/silt
fence before the start of work. She said she would like to inspect the replication
area periodically during construction to ensure it is not damaged.
Carole Matthew reminded the applicant they are within the 25 ft. no disturb area.
Richard Riccio said they had looked at other locations for the addition but
wanted to keep the testing equipment in the back of the building because of
work needed on the inside of the building. They had looked at an area on the
side of the building but there is a more developed wetland in this area which
would have resulted in a larger area of alteration.
Derek House wanted the Commission to know he has worked with Richard
Riccio on other projects.
Carole Matthew told the applicants she does not have a problem with the project
but Mansfield's by-law does not allow work within the 25 ft. area. "As minimal as
this is, we don't have a waiver provision in our by-law that allows us to waiver
this project. We never adopted/drafted one. At this time we cannot approve this
project because it does not meet the criteria of our by-law. For regulatory
purposes, it maybe a swale but it is still a wetland." She referenced letters from
town council, dated December 4, 2002 and October 6, 2003 regarding the legal
interpretation of the Mansfield by-law.
Mr. Riccio told the board the replication area would be of a higher quality than
the existing wetland. The applicant would do some buffer zone mitigation,
enhancement areas.
Carole Matthew told the applicant this project does not meet the criteria for 2.2,
2.3 and 2.5 of Mansfield's by-law.
Paul Boyden wanted to know if the project would fall under a "limited" project.
Michele said no; "limited" projects are projects with 5000 ft. or more disturbance
with no other access. Mr. Riccio told the board there is a section of the Wetland
Protection Act that does allow the Commission to grant a wetland alteration less
than 500 sq. ft.
Jack Smith said he does not have a problem with this project but feels the
Commission needs to adopt an amendment to the by-law or to the regulations;
"we need to do something immediately. This is the second case like this." Paul
Boyden agreed but felt there should be a full board when discussing any
additions or amendments to the by-law.
Carole Matthew asked if any additions to the by-law would require a town
meeting vote. Michele said no because the change does not have to be to the
by-law, it can be put into the regulations.
Derek House commented that it appears the whole property was filled in before
construction of the building.
David Thibault told the board that a wetland sUNey was done 6 years ago and
did not indicate the area in question was a wetland but when it was looked at
recently, it was discovered that the finger-like projection had appeared. There is a
possibility the wetland is in fact part of a drainage system. He told the board it is
a time sensitive issue; most of the construction work is on the inside of the
building but the components on the outside of the building are very critical to
2
the testing process; the tank to be installed needs to tie into the equipment on
the inside of the building.
Michele told the Commission that under stormwater management under the
Wetland Protection Act, drainage is not considered a wetland-drainage swales
are not under the Wetland Protection Act. Drainage systems are not a protected
area. She said it unfortunate that the biologist hired by the applicant flagged this
area as a wetland if it could be a drainage swale.
Derek House asked at what point a drainage system becomes a wetland.
Michele told the Commission a drainage area is never a wetland under the
Wetland Protection Act and we do not address it under our by-law. As long as
the system is active, if it is working as drainage, whether it is a swale or detention
basin, these area are never considered wetlands, it is drainage structures only.
She said many detention basins have wetland species in them.
Paul Boyden suggested, with the applicant's permission, the hearing be tabled so
town council could be contacted to get his opinion and also to get a wording out
to allow the Commission, in cases like this, to use discretion to allow a project like
this to go forward, basically adding commercial projects.
David Thibault wanted to know how long this would take; he told the board
timing is critical.
Carole Matthew and Paul Boyden felt it would not be fair to the rest of the board
or to the town to make a decision about any changes to the by-law with out a
full board.
Michele asked if a site walk were to be performed and the wetland is found to be
a stormwater area, would the project then be approved. The applicant could
then refile.
Carole Matthew: "Didn't you say the biologist made a mistake, so are you saying
we are going to declassify this as a wetland. I would feel uncomfortable; are we
saying now it's not a wetland so come before us and we will approve the
projectT
Paul Boyden told the applicants they can withdraw without prejudice and redo
the application. He would also like the board to look into a provision that would
allow, in a situation like this, assuming that this area is truly a wetland area, get
some insertion into the by-law that allows some freedom for the board to make a
decision. He called for a motion.
Jack Smith made the motion to table the application for 55 Cabot Boulevard to
give the applicant time to decide what the next step should be.
Carole Matthew seconded.
Passed 4-0.
3
Hearing ended at 7:35 pm.
I 3. Old Business:
Michele said she had been out to Forbes Boulevard to inspect the hay bales for
the start of construction for Medline.
Paul Boyden asked that the motion for accepting the minutes of March 9, 2009
be tabled until the remaining members are present.
Derek seconded.
Passed 4-0.
I 4. Adjournment:
Jack Smith made the motion to adjourn at 7:45 pm.
Derek House seconded.
Passed 4-0.
Ie, fj!4 ,,/tIlJJ
Dat
4