Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATIONminutes12142009 Conservation Meeting December 14, 2009 Present: Joe Mulkern, Chairmani Paul Boyden, Vice Chairmani Michele Whitei Carole Matthewi Jack Smithi Derek Housei Elizabeth Leidhold, Conservation and Environmental Planner. 11. Meeting called to order at 7:03 pm. I 2. Mass Highway - Southbound Ramp DEP #211-0836 Maryann Magner, Senior Environmental Planner and Heather Fuller, Senior Project Engineer, of Jacobs Engineering Group, were present. Also present were Lou Andrews, Howard Finke, Carl Hambrecht, Phil Finer, Airport Commission members and David Featherstone, Airport - Near Avionics and David Dinner, Airport Manager. Maryann Manger toid the board they have responded to the comments and concerns from DEP and Conservation. Responses were included in a ietter dated December 4, 2009. Maryann Manger toid the board a small area on site has been found for the riverfront mitigation. The mitigation will be a ratio of 1:1 - 5,700 sq. ft. The remaining mitigation will have to be off-site. Maryann was not able to say tonight that the applicant has a mitigation site that has been approved or at least had a positive response from the airport and DEP; she said they are still working with the Airport Commission, Mass Highway and DEP. The Highway division has spoken to Derek Standish at DEP Boston to discuss the location of the Riverfront Compensation Area. Lou Andrews told the board the Airport Commission did not post a meeting tonight so they can not discuss anything concerning the mitigation area. It will be discussed at the next meeting of the Airport Commission. An up-dated plan from Jacobs was submitted at 4:00 today. Elizabeth told the board she received an e-mail today about a meeting with Mass Highway Department Engineers, the Environmental Consultant, Airport Engineering, Mass DOT, the Division of Aeronautics and representatives of the Airport Commission to discuss the issues. She strongly recommends that the Conservation Commission along with a representative from DEP be involved in the meeting to speak for the wetland regulations. Someone needs to be present to discuss the mitigation problems. Elizabeth read a memorandum, dated December 10, 2009, from Rick Alves, Interim Town Engineer. The following comments by Rick need to be addressed by the applicant. 1. Testing, with estimated high groundwater and permeability results (24-hour notice for witnessing), is needed to verify that the bottom of BMP#l, 2 and 3 is minimum of 1 ft. above the estimated high groundwater; 2 ft. is preferred. Due to the inability to access the property from private owners, the town will accept the assumed permeability rate at this time in the drainage calculations. When the site is accessible, the actual rate must be verified and compared to the approved drainage calculations; if the rate is not acceptable, the drainage calculations must be revised and submitted to the Engineering Department for approval prior to any construction. Heather Fuller told the board BMP #1 and 3 are dry swales and are not used for infiltration and recharge. BMP #2 is being constructed 2 ft. above ground water. Elizabeth asked Heather to put this information in a letter. 1 2. The outlet devices in the drainage calculations for BMP #2 (Infiltration Basin) are not the same devices shown on the plans, Sheet #52 and have not been corrected. 3. The first page of the Notice of Intent has been stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer and is acceptable but a note should be provided stating that this stamp is for the review for Sheets 1 through 158. Elizabeth said these issues can be addressed in the special orders. Elizabeth told the board Mass Highway is exempt from the local by-law, but not by an official ruling but rather a legislative exemption, which DEP has chosen not to challenge. She said this project can be looked at as a 40B project; state regulations will apply. Derek Standish, DEP Boston, had suggested that the Order of Conditions should have a continuing conditon that the Riverfront Compensation Area be undisturbed in perpetuity. He has suggested, as part of the Special Conditions, that the mitigation area not be mowed, only selectively pruned to keep vegetation heights out of airspace and the area be bounded by permanent markers (e.g. little granite bounds, stakes, etc.) that will demarcate it as the Riverfront Mitigation Area. He also suggested that a maintenance plan for this area be submitted to Conservation. The Airport Commission is concerned the wording "in perpetuity" will mean no future work in this area will be acceptable, work that is necessary for the safety and security of the airport. If the airport agrees with these conditions, the phrase "in perpetuity" would not need to be a continuing condition. DEP would object if the airport did not agree with these two conditions because if the area was mowed, wildlife habitat functions would not be enhanced, the square footage would inevitably decrease and the area would eventually revert back to a mowed field. Elizabeth told Maryann Magner the board would require a Construction Sequencing Schedule be sub- mitted to the Conservation Commission. The schedule would be included as a special condition. A Construction Period Pollution/Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan is to be submitted for review and written approvai prior to the start of any work that will disturb any resource areas. Heather Fuller told her the plan would come from the contractor. Elizabeth said the project can not move forward until the board has this information, something they can approve. Maryann Magner said once the ramp is built, it will become part of the storm drainage system that the state maintains. The state does not develop specific operation maintenance plans for each individual area. She said the maintenance schedule is in the stormwater report. Elizabeth said this was fine once you get to the maintenance part, it may be sufficient, but the project will require the crossing of 3 perennial streams; Elizabeth feels it would be good to have on-site inspections and reports. Maryann Magner said the contractor for this project will be required to develop a specific erosion control plan. Colin Cauldwell asked if the contractor would come before the board. Maryann Magner said in the past she has had meetings with the agent; the contractor will be required to hire a sub-contractor to develop plans and have an Environmental Monitor who would report to the agent. They would typically meet on site and have informational meetings. Colin Cauldwell said this is not how the board typically handles projects. The board has always approved every siltation control, sub-catchment area, etc. and everything was presented prior to any work being done on any project. Paul Boyden said when private citizens come before the board and they are going to put in siltation/hay bales, it is incumbent upon them to get an engineer to sign off on the erosion control to insure it is installed properly. He said this is standard procedure; this (project) is a big monitoring job. Joe Mulkern said the board would prefer to have someone report back to the agent instead of having Elizabeth go out to the site to monitor. Maryann Magner said the highway division requires the contractor have an environmental monitor. She said "the monitor will do this job for you; he will report to you. You can require that you see the erosion control plan and approve it". Elizabeth told Maryann Magner that the file contains only drafts of the Wetland Mitigation Plan, the 2 Seeding-Restoration Mix- Straw Mulch plan and the Com posted Wood Chip Plan. She asked if there was a final version; the board will need a final version of these plans. All the plans must be attached as a Special Condition. Elizabeth: "Do you see our dilemma here? We are sort of signing a blank check here. We don't see the final version. It really does need to come back to the Commission when it is finalized". She said the mitigation plan should call for the wetland specialist to do weekly inspections and report to the engineer. This will be modified in the special conditions to have the wetland monitor submit reports to the Commission as well as the project engineer on a weekly basis. Plants in the mitigation area should show 75% of healthy foliage and 90% after 2 growing seasons. Elizabeth said the board needs to make sure the Airport is on board with this so when 2 growing seasons from now, Mass Highway is not on to the next project, leaving the airport with an unfinished mitigation. Elizabeth said generally when projects are proposed, the property owner carries the Order of Conditions. She said Mass Highway does not have to record the Order of Conditions/Special Conditions. She wants the Airport Commission to be made aware of this. Henry Barbaro, DOT, said Mass Highway is committed to finishing every aspect of this project. Elizabeth asked about the statement "cost shall be full compensation for retaining a Wetland Scientist". Heather Fuller said it was standard in contracts as a way to track the cost of each expense item in the contract. Elizabeth said "as future reference this paragraph really means nothing to us and I would prefer not to see this paragraph in here". Elizabeth asked if Maryann Magner has been in touch with the wildlife/fisheries person in regards to the recreating of the stream bed after the extension of the headwall on the un-named brook - is that person available to help? Maryann Magner said yes, during the construction period, a state wildlife specialist will be available. Maryann said this can be part of the Special Orders that the environmental monitor will consult with the wildlife/fisheries person. Elizabeth told Maryann Magner the Commission will need the names and numbers of the site contractor, the wetland scientist and any emergency contacts. These people are to be available at all times -24/7. The wetland monitor or whoever will be implementing the conditions will need to sign a form stating they have read and understand the orders. The wetland monitor will be responsible for the full compliance of these orders. Elizabeth said, along with the llx17 plans submitted, the board will need two (2) full size sets of the final plan, stamped by the engineer for the project. Joe Mulkern asked who would select the environmental monitor for the project. Maryann Magner said the contractor, based on certain qualifications, would hire the monitor but the monitor would have to be approved by the Conservation Commission. Paul Boyden asked if there were any changes in elevations, who would get the information. Maryann Magner said any changes would have to be submitted and approved before doing anything that effected the Wetland Protection Act - the applicant would have to come back to Conservation if the conditions are not going to be met. Paul Boyden asked if it was part of the contract that a final as built, a set of final drawings are gener- ated when the project is complete. Henry Barbaro said the project will be built according to the plans and the construction plans are the as built. He said there might be engineering notes, changes on the plan. He said they do not do classic as builts. Colin Cauldwell asked that a copy of the engineering notes and any plan changes be made available to the board in lieu of an as built. Elizabeth said this can be requested in the Special Conditions. 3 Colin Cauldwell asked, if Mass Highway projects are exempt from the local by-law, are they also ex- empt from the local stormwater management; does the board have any jurisdiction? Maryann Manger said the project would be done under state regulations only. Elizabeth cited 310 CMR 10.58 5: she said when you take away a resource area and restore it else- where, it has to stay restored, "prohibiting further alteration within the restoration or mitigation area, except as may be required to maintain the area in its restored or mitigated condition. Prior to request- ring the issuance of the Certificate of Compliance, the applicant shall demonstrate the restoration or mitigation has been successfully completed for at least two growing seasons". She said the board and DEP has to operate within the state regulations. Lou Andrews said the condition was that any mitigation or anything the applicant does, can not prevent the airport, in the future, from doing any- thing that is deemed necessary for the safety and security of the airport. So if these restrictions apply and it could effect what the airport can do in the future, then this could be a problem. Joe Mulkern asked if Lou understood if the airport volunteered the land for mitigation, then It should stay that way. Lou Andrews said this was not made clear at the initial presentation but was made clear in a letter the board wrote saying that they were willing to consider this but the mitigation can effect anything the airport can do regarding safety and security issues. He said "this was never a negotiable thing, that if a plan comes in and says you can never touch this area for any reason, then we have a problem". Henry Barbaro said he doesn't think this is a state law. Elizabeth said this is wording from Derek Standish at DEP and if the airport can live with it, then we may have an agreement. If the airport can't live with that wording, then the board has no options here. Henry Barbaro said he does not think there is a problem here, that a compromise had been struck as far as the wording "in perpetuity". He said, from Mass Highway's perspective, off-site mitigation will never happen if that means dealing with a property restriction to that land owner - who would agree with that unless the state bought the land by eminent domain. Colin Cauldwell: "You would have to mitigate the mitigation." Lou Andrews: "We would have to anyway. It is still within the Riverfront; no matter what we do there we would have to do mitigation." Carl Lambrecht, an Airport Commissioner, said if the airport wanted to do anything in this area, they would need to mitigate somewhere else, that they would still be bound by the same things if they had not used it for mitigation. He asked if the airport allows the mitigation would they be taking on additional encumbrances by providing the area versus what they have already. Lou Andrews said the Airport Commission should not be discussing the mitigation tonight. He told the board the next Airport Commission meeting is January 7, 2010 and he thought there should be a representative from DEP and DOT at the meeting. Mr. Finer: For 30 years the Airport Commission has wanted to do a culverting project for safety and environmental protection. Lou Andrews: "mitigation will not effect any culverting projects or other work deemed necessary. This all needs to go before the Airport Commission. We, the Commission, should not be having an open discussion on this". Paul Boyden said the mitigation has to come first. The culverting is an entirely different project. Colin made the motion to continue the hearing until January 11, 2010. Passed 7-0. Hearing ended at 7:55 pm. I 3. Notice of Intent: John & Donna Moran, 15 Sturbridge Drive - Map 41, Parcel 194. DEP #211-0838 I Hearing continued from the November 16, 2009 meeting. 4 The Notice of Intent was filed for the installation of an ISx36 in-ground pool with SOD-WOO sq. ft. of stamped concrete decking. The area is within an Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife and an ACEC, the Canoe River. A MESA review was submitted. Donna Moran, the homeowner, and Dave Hobaica, Easton Pool and Spa, were present. DEP has not commented on the application. Elizabeth asked why the scale of the revised plan is different from the original plan; revised plan is 1" = 30' - original plan is 1" = 40'. She will call Ralph Maloon. Elizabeth asked if the rocks at the edge of the lawn mark the property line; if it is the property line, the proposed work would be as close as 19 ft. from the pool apron to the edge of the wetlands. Mrs. Moran said this is not the property line. Elizabeth asked Mrs. Moran why, when the lot is so big, the pool can't be moved so it would be outside conservation jurisdiction; why not move the pool further from the wetlands. Dave Hobaica said if it was moved, there could be safety issues. Where the pool is presently proposed, Mrs. Moran can see the pool from the kitchen - if it was moved to the side, the pool would be out of sight from the house. Mrs. Moran said her kids use the yard as a play area and if the pool were to be moved, space would be taken away and she said there were also privacy issues. Dave Hobaica said the pool has to be 6 ft. from the property line to the water's edge. He said Mrs. Moran is ok with the pool being moved 6-7 ft. toward the property line. Elizabeth said the further the pool is from the resource areas the better Dave Hobaica told the board the pool will have a cartridge filtration system, requiring no back washing. He said the filtration system for the pool will be placed in the right-hand corner of the pool, placing it as far away from the resource areas as possible. Derek House asked if it would be necessary to require dry wells. No dry wells are needed. Derek House asked when the wetlands flags were put in. Dave Hobaica said the wetlands were re- flagged November IS' 2009. Elizabeth said a revised plan would have to be submitted. Carole Matthew asked which of the recommendation from NHES would be implemented. Option #1: elevate the pool apron or edge; the proposed concrete decking around the pool should not be flush with the pool apron/edge. The pool apron should be 3-4 inches higher than the concrete patio to prevent salamanders and other species from getting Into the pool. The entire concrete patio can also be elevated; the concrete patio should be 4-6 inches higher than the existing grade of the lawn. Option #2: an Interlock block wall or a smooth surface wall with no gaps be placed along the woods- side of the pool; the wall should be a minimum of 6-inches high. NHESP also recommends the use of a froglog; the froglog acts as an escape ramp for the salamanders, etc. Elizabeth said she would recommend option #2 with a froglog. Jack Smith asked about dewatering when excavation for the pool is done. Dave Hobaica said he would put hay bales in the far corner. Derek House said there were no elevations on the plan. Elizabeth asked for a revised plan with the following - add the 50 ft. line, add elevations, add the area of dewatering, concrete apron to be wider toward the house and the pool will be moved to the left 6-7 ft. toward the property line. Dave Hobaica will provide a cross-section of a froglog for the board to see. 5 Colin Cauldwell made the motion to continue to January 11, 2009. A revised plan will be submitted with all the revisions. Derek House seconded. Passed 7-0. Hearing ended at 8:14 pm. I 4. Request for Determination of Applicability: Lynette and Neal Boldrighini, 779 Ware Street. The Request for Determination of Applicability was flied for the repair of an existing septic system within 100 ft. of bordering vegetated wetlands and 200 ft. of a perennial stream. Neal Boldrighini, the homeowner, was present. The work has already been completed under an Emergency Certification, dated November 24, 2009, after an Enforcement Order, dated November 16, 2009, was issued by the Board of Health; the failed system was over-flowing on to the lawn and leaching into the wetlands. As per the Emergency Certification, silt fence toed in by double-staked hay bales was installed before any work was done. Colin Cauldwell made the motion to ratify the Emergency Order. Jack Smith seconded. Passed 7-0. Colin Cauldwell made the motion to accept the plan, dated November 19, 2009, for 779 Ware Street and to issue a Negative 3 Determination. Jack Smith seconded. Passed 7-0. Because of the resource areas on the property, Mr. Boldrighini was told that any work he chooses to do on the property will require a filing with conservation. Hearing ended at 8:15 pm. I 5. Request for Determination of Applicability: Craig and Jill Diforte, 21 Corbane Drive. The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for an addition of a 20'x20' family room to the back left-hand corner of the house on existing lawn. Proposed construction is 65 ft. away from a retention pond. Work to include the placement of nine (9) twelve-inch sona-tube footings, 48 inches deep. Jill Diforte, the homeowner, and Dave Miller, of Miller Construction, were present. Dave Miller told the board, because the soil conditions are not conducive to hand digging, he will use a mini excavator. It will be necessary to dig down to a 4 ft. depth; the area around the sona-tubes will be back-filled immediately and the Building Inspector will inspect the site the next day. Mr. Miller said the only disturbed area will be within the footprint of the addition. Derek House asked if it would be necessary to put siltation along the retention pond. Elizabeth said it was not necessary because the sona-tubes will be put in and the area back-filled in one day; she asked that she be notified when the sona-tubes are in place so she can inspect. 6 Colin Cauldwell made the motion to accept the plan for 21 Corbane Drive and to issue a Negative 3 Determination. Elizabeth is to be called for an inspection the day after the sona-tubes are placed. Derek House seconded. Passed 7 -0. JiiI Diforte asked if any further work she wants to do wiil require she go through the RDA process. Derek House told her she should let the Conservation Commission know if she plans anymore work. Hearing ended at 8:23 pm. I 6. Correspondence: A letter, dated December 9, 2009, from Norman Vickery, the executor of Elizabeth J. Vickery's estate, concerning the donation of land off South Main Street. Approximately 2.1 acres - Map 14, Lot 22) have been offered as a gift to the town. The parcel abuts conservation land and provides access to the Rumford River and Cobbler's Corner. The iand was part of a large commercial giadiola field; currently It represents the residual from the Newell Lane sub-division and abuts conservation land. The letter asked that town council prepare a deed for the transfer of the property. Paul Boyden thinks the town should assume the cost but Carole Matthew does not agree. Colin Cauldwell suggested Lenny Flynn be contacted to see what normally happens as far as the town paying for the deed preparation or contact town council as to how to proceed. Paul Boyden made the motion to accept the gift of land and go forward with the acquisition process and make sure proper deeding is done thru town council. A letter will be sent to the selectmen to let them know of the gift. Any expenses to be borne by the donator. Colin Cauldwell seconded. Passed 7-0. A letter, dated December 7, 2009, from Brandon Moss, office of the Mansfield Town Council, regarding 23 Lakeview Avenue: letter to Marc Antine, Mrs. Memory's attorney, for the submittal of a plan for the removal of the encroachment - patio and stairs are within the twenty-five (25 ft.) no disturb zone adjacent to Greenwood Lake - within fourteen (14) days. Hunting on conservation land: Residents concerned about hunting in Corporal Robert Francis Hardy Conservation Area, formerly Maple Street Park. Saturday, December 12th there were two incidences between hunters and residents. A letter was sent to the Selectmen from Dana Cunniff about one of the confrontations on Saturday at which time the police were called. It was suggested more signage for the area might be a good idea. Also the town's web site shouid have information as to which areas hunting is allowed. Colin Cauldwell thinks the board banned hunting in Maple Street Park and on other land owned by Conservation sometime in 1980. The board asked that previous minutes be looked at for information. Also, the board would like to check to see what conservation land was given as a gift or if money was used from the state to purchase the land; the town can not ban hunting on land purchased partially or totally with state funds. Deeds also should be looked at; the deed might have certain restrictions in regards to how the land could be use. A letter, dated December 9, 2009, from Ernesto M. Bondikov of the law firm of Vena & Riley, requesting access to review and inspect the pubiic records for Erin's Centre, located on Rte. 140. Colin Cauldwell suggested that Mr. Bondkov come into the office to look at the file. Copies wiil be made of any documents he is interested in. 7 Reports to the Selectmen from the Conservation Commission indicate the part-time agent is spending valuable time responding to unfounded complaints. Selectman George Dentino suggested if a violation is found, the violator should pay for work done by the town in the process of the investigation, but if the agent finds no violation, the person who called with the concern should pay for the agent's time spent investigating. Elizabeth asked Nick Riccio, the interim Town Manager, if this was a way to recoup the money. Nick said It can't be legally done. 900 Maple Street: Carole Matthew received a call from a resident concerned about work (a shed being built) being done at 900 Maple Street. Scott Barbato, Assistant Building Inspector, went out to look at the property. There is an existing shed and under a tarp what appears to be a shell for a shed. A building permit would not be necessary for the new shed because it is too small; anything less than 120 sq. ft. does not required a permit. Elizabeth asked if Mike Ahern should be called to investigate. Colin Cauldwell said he would take a look also. Because of past problems, Joe asked that the police department be called for an escort on to the property . I 7. Old Business: Colin Cauldwell made the motion to accept the minutes of April 13thand April 27'h, June 3'd and June 15th, July 20th and August 10th as written. Paul Boyden seconded. Passed 7-0. Minutes for November 10th and the 16th were not released; will be approved next meeting. I 8. Adjournment: Derek House made the motion to adjourn at 8:50 pm. Passed 7-0. NEXT MEETINGS WILL BE JANUARY 11- 2010 ------~ c: -'/ /Yl/Z~ Joe Mulke n, Chairman I-II-/C) Date 8