Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsevation Comm. 01/29/2024Town of Mansfield G Park Row, iWansfield, Massacbusells 02048 Conservation CommittWEiVEO EP,KS OFFICE Smith -MacDonald and Ms. Katelyn Gonyer, Conservation and Enviro e�}} � er Not Present: Mr. Jeffrey Paten, Mr. Aaron Gallagher and Mr. RyaA Q ' „'� 6 Guests: Mr. Peter Bemis, Engineering Design Consultants, Inc., Nis. a Ui ��� B, r. Brad Holmes, Environmental Consulting & Restoration, Ms. Srivalli Sukuru, Project Manager, Woodard & Curran, Ms. Leyna Tobey, PE, Engineer, Woodard & Curran and Mr. Joshua Millonig, Landscape Architect, Weston & Weston, Ms. Rhianna Sommers, Project Environmental Scientist both from Weston & Weston, Mr. Mike Ahern, Mr. Shawn Mullins, Mansfield resident Minutes: Sharon Varricchione 1. Call the Meeting to Order: Mr. Michael Healey, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:06pm. 2. Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA): Amego Inc., 720 Ware Street, (Map 35 Parcel 90) Title V upgrade and addition to single family dwelling within 100 feet of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Mr. Bemis from Engineering Design Consultants, Inc. stated that he was here on behalf of Amego, Inc. He stated there is a wetland at the north end of the property and an existing dwelling at 720 Ware Street and they would like to put an addition onto the existing building which would be in the buffer zone. No work would take place in a resource area. There would be a 12" compost sock in the buffer zone extending up the western side of the lot. A soil absorption system would be installed outside the buffer zone. There is a septic tank and pump chamber which is in the buffer zone on the east side of the building. This is a FAST system which will be improving the water quality charged to this leaching area which is taking up most of the front yard. Ms. Gonyer stated that there is a gentle slope at the back of the lot and the transitional area to the wetland is not very distinct and there is definitely an area that gets wet near the resource area. There is some fill and no redoximorphic features. It's a bare area right up to the wetland with leaves and she suggested to add some plantings for mitigation. She then asked why the septic tank and pump chamber were going on the west side. Mr. Bemis said it was due to the amount of fill that needed to be placed over it. The front yard would be a problem as the tank and chamber would be too deep below the grade. He also had no issues with adding plantings per Ms. Gonyer's suggestion. Mr. Healey asked about any stock piles of any excavated soils and Mr. Bemis mentioned that they may use it as fill or it would be hauled away. Motion: To issue the negative Determination for Reason #3 (work proposed will not impact the resource area) to Amego Inc., 720 Ware Street (Map 35 Parcel 90) Title V upgrade and addition to single-family dwelling within 100 feet of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland with the following Special conditions: • Erosion controls to be inspected before work starts • Erosion control to be mulch not straw, min. 8 inch • All disturbed areas to be stabilized as soon as possible • Develop planting plan with assistance from Agent to be included as the plan of record. Planting to be in the spring following the completion of construction. Agent to inspect after initial planting • Submit an As -Built to Commission within 6 months of Building Permit Sign -off (Final Review) • Notify Agent when project is complete and all disturbed areas are stabilized • Discontinue dumping leaf and yard debris within 25 feet of the edge of the wetland Passes:4:0 (Hedlund/ MacDonald) 6:17pm Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA): MASSDOT/Town of Mansfield/VHB- Proposing roadway reconstruction along School Street from Spring Street to West Street with portions of work with the 100-foot buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland and 100-foot buffer of inland bank. VHB Consultant, Ms. Wang stated that the RDA applicant is proposing a roadway reconstruction with accommodations on School Street to improve traffic operations. Portions of the project site are in a 100 ft buffer zone and 25 ft nod isturb zone under the wetland's bylaw. Erosion and Sedimentation Control program is proposed to help prevent short- and long-term impact to those areas. She spoke about the existing conditions including a deteriorated one side sidewalk with no designed accommodations for bicyclists and what environmental recourses were not present. She then stated that there are two wetland areas near the site, a culverted intermittent stream located West of School Street/South of Intersection of School Street/Spring Street and another wetland located west of School Street near 71 School Street. The project work would include work in 100 ft buffer zone and 25 ft NDZ including full depth pavement, installation of bicycle lanes, new curbing, sidewalks, ADA compliant ramps and crosswalks and drainage system improvement. There will be erosion and sediment control barriers along the limit of work, inlet protection, catch basin protection and cleaning and dust control. The work meets the minor activity definition of 310 CMR 10.02(2)(b) 2p and work is exempted from the bylaw regulations per Chapter 220-2 B (2) as the work involved reconstruction of an existing public way and drainage system without substantial enlargement. Ms. Gonyer flagged the wetland three years ago in 2019 and recently reviewed that area again and said there is a very determinable swale in that area in School Street. She mentioned they worked with the four houses in that area and is hoping that that area gets cleaned up as it's all invasive species and she's assuming there will be some restrictive follow up. She then mentioned that the other jurisdictional area has a small house in back with a very limited yard. She then discussed how this is a 75% design plan and one of her conditions would be to have the 100% design plan prior to the start of work and that it needs to be approved by our Town Engineer, Mr. Alves. She suggested to hold the Determination until they have the 100% design plans. Mr. Healey asked about the existing concrete box culvert under School/Spring Street and knows there has been flooding historically. He asked if this structure is undersized or is there blockage from invasive species. Ms. Gonyer stated there is a lot Asiatic Bittersweet growing around the outlet. She will discuss this with Mr. Alves and get back to him. Mr. MacDonald questioned why they were being asked to sign off on the 75% plan before the Town Engineer signs off on the 100% plan. Ms. Gonyer said she noticed the same thing today after her discussion with the Town Engineer. Ms. Gonyer asked Ms. Wang to find out what else the plan would entail to make it 100% and Ms. Wang agreed to get back to her. Ms. Gonyer suggested to continue this to the next meeting so they could understand the full project and to also get Mr. Alves approval so they could then issue the determination. Mr. Hedlund stated that it looked like they were increasing the pervious area significantly to that brook so they do need to see those calculations. Ms. Gonyer agreed and said they should see those in the 100% plan. Ms. Gonyer asked for a timeline and Ms. Wang did not have one. Mr. Hedlund inquired about the drainage and will it have capacity if that pervious area is increased. Ms. Gonyer said they would need to know that information in the 100% plan and suggested to continue this to the next meeting being held on February 26, at 7:30pm. Motion: To issue a continuation to our next meeting concerning MASSDOT/Town of Mansfield/VHB- Proposing roadway reconstruction along School Street from Spring Street to West Street with portions of work with the 100- foot buffer zone Bordering Vegetated Wetland and 100-foot buffer of inland bank. Passes: 4:0 (MacDonald/Hedlund) 6:42pm_ 4. Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA): Town of Mansfield, Mansfield High School, 245 East St (Map 32 Parcel 33) proposes the renovation and resurfacing of an existing rubber surface running track and synthetic turf athletic field with additional improvements within the 100-foot buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Mr. Joshua Millonig, introduced himself as the landscape Architect and Ms. Rhianna Sommers, Project Environmental Scientist both from Weston & Weston (who came virtually) representing the School for the project. He said the original track and field were installed in 2000-2001, had been resurfaced a few times and is now in need of a full renovation. The track and field does extend into the resource areas and showed the 25 foot no disturb area, the 55-foot buffer and the 100 foot. He explained that part of the renovation was to remove the chain fence circling the track along with the rubberized surface track and the turf and then to replace with a new running surface, a synthetic turf field and that the drainage would remain the same. They are going to move the replacement fence near the access road towards the end slightly and since it's close to a wetland they would replace that open area with their conservation seed plant mix and three red maple trees. They are proposing to move the access road slightly to make it a better entrance into the track. On the other side of this entrance they will be replacing part of the extended track with a synthetic turf lawn carpet with crushed stone drainage layer underneath it. This will help with water infiltration. The rest of the track is outside of the 100-foot buffer zone and the project includes replacing the track and field and improving accessibility. He reviewed the overall reduction of impervious surface . He stated that the current drainage is crushed stone where the water would lead to your drainage pipes and discharges into the headwall. He reviewed the overall reduction of impervious surface. Mr. Millonig stated that they will temporarily cut and cap the existing drainage system during construction and will reconnect the system when the work is completed. There is no increased flow to the wetland. Mr. Healey asked Mr. Millonig what they would do during construction when the drainage system is capped and if had a large storm event. Mr. Millonig stated that all of the dewatering and stormwater discharge during construction will be fed to the western portion of the field to infiltrate, outside of the 100-foot buffer zone. Mr. Healey asked if there is an impermeable liner in their drainage under the crushed stone below the elevation of the perforated pipes and Mr. Millonig confirmed that there was not a restricting layer and that the water will infiltrate naturally through the subgrade as much as possible. Anything that exceeds the infiltration rate will then be drained off into the wetlands, as it does now. They will be adding filter fabric, and a trench drain between the track and the athletic field leading to a series of catch basins with deep sumps providing additional treatment of the overflow around the perimeter. He then offered that these trenches can be opened for cleaning in order to keep them functioning. Mr. Hedlund asked about the gravel catch under the synthetic turf field. Mr. Millonig showed the detail of the drainage and explained they have a 12-inch drainage layer, topped with a 1-inch leveling course layer with a shock attenuation pad layer underneath for player safety, the carpet turf is 2 inches in infill and the flat grains are along the bottom. Mr. MacDonald asked what would be done with West end of the property gravel detention basin. Mr. Millonig stated that they will be renovating that basin to make it deeper and wider as there is a lot of ponding water back there. Resident, Mr. Shawn Mullins, 12 Partridge Lane, stated that many schools including the NFL are going back to grass due to athlete injury and the chemicals that are being released by the synthetic grass. He said there was an instance in New Hampshire where they mandated that the synthetic grass be non PFA, however when the shipment was tested in 2002, they test results showed the presence of PFA. Mr. Healey asked what was in the specific chemical compound of concern with this synthetic turf and what is their testing regime. Mr. Millonig stated that they do require PFAS testing and that they are meeting the testing standards of the 6 Mass DEP PFAS chemicals. He then stated that there are thousands of PFAS chemical formulations so they are following the Mass DEP's regulation for PFAS. They are requiring that the manufacturer test a sample from a swatch of the actual turf to be installed. Mr. Healey asked if they should be concerned of anything else like semi volatiles and heavy metals and Mr. Millonig stated that they do have industry standard testing for other chemicals that the manufacturer must meet before installation. Ms. Gonyer stated the project being reviewed is to maintain a portion existing synthetic turf field within our jurisdiction and, if the Commission wishes to investigate the use of these fields in the future and finds that there is an overall detriment to the environment, then the best course of action would be to amend the regulations to ban synthetic turf fields. Mr. Healey stated that, as of now, we have not had any reason to believe the wetlands are being impacted by the field. He then confirmed with Mr. Millonig that artificial turf as proposed meets the industry standards right now. Mr. MacDonald asked if the turf materials have changed since the late 2010's or 2020. Mr. Millonig stated that the product that they were using has been around for while but the formulation has changed in the past few years in order to minimize PFAS. Mr. MacDonald stated other Towns and Cities have had issues with water quality after their turf fields had been installed. Mr. Healey suggested a continuance to the next meeting so they could review additional materials regarding the synthetic turf materials. Mr. Millonig will reach out to the manufacturer for their testing results and provide the Commission with their specifications for what they require. Motion: To issue a continuation to the February 26, meeting. Passes: 4:0 (Hedlund/MacDonald) 7:22pm 5. Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD): Stan Feck, 719 Elm Street (Map 7 Parcel 5): Approval of wetland delineation of Bordering Vegetated Wetland and an Isolated Vegetated Wetland (Bylaw) on an undeveloped portion of a parcel of occupied by a single-family dwelling. Mr. Holmes spoke regarding the filed 719 Elm Street ANRAD from Mr. Feck. There is a single-family dwelling that abuts the property to the East of the site towards Elm Street. The property is a good size lot and extends to the west. It looks to be an old gravel mining operation that was significantly dug down too deep and hit ground water. There is a wetland system and a drainage easement within the Northwest portion of the site. There's a Bordering vegetated wetland and Isolated Vegetated Wetland on the property. The larger Isolated Vegetated Wetland also qualifies as an Isolated Land subject to flooding under the State Regulations. Mr. Holmes stated there are no proposed activities for this area we are just looking at the wetland area. Ms. Gonyer shared the excavated areas and pointed where they dug down too far. She agreed with the onsite flags and walked all of them. She did not believe there wan any vernal type of pool situations and agreed with the flags as shown. There were no questions from the Commission, online or in the audience. Motion: To issue the Order of Resource Area Delineation to Stan Feck at 719 Elm Street (Map 7 Parcel 5) for the approval of wetland delineation of Bordering Vegetated Wetland and an Isolated Vegetated Wetland (Bylaw) on an undeveloped portion of a parcel of occupied by a single-family dwelling as shown on "the Conservation Plan of land, 719 Elm St by RIM Engineering dated 10-04-23 Passes: 4:0 (Hedlund/Roth) 7:29pm 6. Notice of Intent (NOI): Town of Mansfield/Woodard & Curran, 500B East Street (Map 31 Parcel 37) for the construction of a new Town -owned PFAS treatment building (3,552 sf), 18-foot wide access drive, stormwater control measures with additional site improvements within the -100-footbuffer toa Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Ms. Sukuru introduced herself as the Project Manager from Woodard & Curran, Ms. Tobey introduced herself as the Engineer from Woodard and Curran and Mr. Ahern introduced himself at the Project Manager for the Town of Mansfield. Ms. Sukuru talked about what PFAS was and then spoke the project and how Dustin -Prescott WTP treats raw water from three wells Dustin #7, Prescott #8 and Prescott #9. There is no backup power at wells. The existing WTP utilizes Greensand filtration and chemical addition and the finished water is stored in Foolish Hill Reservoir. PFAS was discovered in water a couple of years ago about 4 ppt EPA level (still below 20 ppt MA MCL) and the PFAS treatment system and Mansfield had been proactive and replacement wells were necessary to meet the Town's water quality and quantity demands. They have already completed two of these facilities which have been working well, Kates Springs has been operational since a couple of years ago and Walsh Wells has been active since October, 2023. This project is to install the PFAS treatment building. In addition to this PFAS treatment building, the project proposes to replace valves at Prescott #8 and Prescott #9 as well as major electrical upgrade to all three (which is outside of jurisdiction). Ms. Tobey then spoke about the environmental considerations of the project. She mentioned that they do not qualify for an ENF under MEPA and that the entire site is within Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and qualifies as a critical area per the MA Stormwater Handbook. They will be working within the 100-foot wetland buffer zone. The work does not extend into any wetlands or vernal pools. They are proposing to disturb 1,535 SF within 25' wetland buffer. There are no hydrologic impacts on the site. She showed where the new building would be located, they are proposing an access drive on the west side, the roof will be high on the west side and low on the east so storm water to be treated will flow to the back side of the building along with the flow that comes from the access drive. She discussed that they used conservative infiltration rates for the basin design and that the water running off of the access drive will be going through a pea gravel diaphragm and sediment forebay pretreatment which meets the critical area standards from the stormwater handbook. She then discussed new upgrades including new wells at Prescott #8 and Prescott #9, a new well pump for Dustin Well #7, electrical upgrades with new generators and noted that the Town has already completed upgrades to bring primary power and fiber optics to the site. Ms. Gonyer said the land has some recent regrowth from disturbance but that they would want some sort of non- invasive plantings to make sure the invasive species don't spread. She did not see any issues with the building construction as proposed. She noted that Mr. Alves, Town Engineer, will review the final Stormwater Management Plan and plans before the Order is issued. Mr. Hedlund asked if any clearing was needed for the wells. Mr. Ahern stated that a couple of trees were already taken down as a part of the path which would be a walking path and that, nothing else was needed. Motion: To issue the Order of Conditions Town of Mansfield/Woodard & Curran, 500E East Street (Map 31 Parce137) for the construction of a new Town -owned PFAS treatment building (3,552 sf), 18-foot wide access drive, stormwater control measures with additional site improvements within the 100- foot buffer to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland with the following special conditions (see additional conditions detail sheet) 1. RECORD ORDER 2. PLAN OF RECORD 3. EROSION CONTROL 4. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION 5. STABILIZATION 6. ROOF RUNOFF 7. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 8. START DATE NOTIFICATION 9. PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING 10, ORDER ONSITE 11. FLAGGING 12. CERTICATE OF COMPLIANCE 13. CHANGE IN PLANS 15. SIGNAGE INDUSTRIAL (TO BE DETERMINED BY AGENT) 17. NO SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER 23.0&M 24. No dumping lawn clipping in 25 Foot Additional Special Condition: Applicant to coordinate with the Conservation Agent for the removal and control of invasive species, primarily Japanese Knotweed Passes: 4:0 (Roth/MacDonald) 7:55pm Notice of Intent (NOI)- Stan Feck, 283 Gilbert Street (Map 4 Parcel 23) for the construction of an access drive to an upland portion of an undeveloped lot. The crossing proposes the filling of 1,534 sf of BVW along with 2,395 sf of wetland replication as mitigation Mr. Holmes described the subject property with frontage on the east side with a series of wetlands bordering vegetated wetlands. They are proposing an access driveway from Gilbert Street to access the upland portion of the site, it's a low impact design of a 22-foot gravel driveway. They have also confirmed vernal pool areas with Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program. Ms. Gonyer confirmed that there was a previous Order of Conditions issued for this property where it showed two wetlands near the access road with the 100-foot buffer into the access drive location. There is a transitional wetland area with high groundwater and that Natural Heritage confirmed the locations of the. Certified Vernal Pools. She then stated the proposed compensation area was in a good location and will not entail clearing an excessive amount of vegetation and that it is close to the area of wetland to fill. Under the previous Order, the driveway was cleared several years ago but the project stopped. The Department never received any additional plans to do anything more than the access drive at this site. She believes Mr. Stan Feck is the commercial owner and she does not know what the access is for. Mr. Holmes stated that they would use river rock for the crossing and it would allow water to pass through. He then mentioned that they can't begin to market the sale of the property until they have a permit from the Conservation Commission to get access to the rear upland portion of the lot. Mr. Roth asked why they were doing the compensation so close to the roadway, in case the driveway needs to be widened in the future and the compensation area will just get disturbed again. His concern is down the line if there's heavier traffic would a heavier road be needed. Ms. Gonyer said she could walk the site with Mr. Holmes to see if any adjustments could made to the location of the compensation area. She pointed out that Is an existing Conservation Restriction on the northern portion of this lot so she didn't believe that they could expand the access any further north. Mr. Holmes pointed out that the proposed access drive is decently size for any type of traffic. He also agreed to modify the configuration of the replication area to follow along the edge of the existing wetland. Mr. Roth said he would be willing to go review the site with Ms. Gonyer to determine this area in the field. Resident Mr. Dan Dvorkin from 281 Gilbert Street stated that he was concerned with all the rain and snow they were having and he said there's flooding between his driveway and the access road from runoff from his yard his and then flows across his driveway into the wetlands. He then asked if there were any guarantees of this gravel access road won't cause more water to flow towards his house. Ms. Gonyer stated that, under the Wetland Protection Act, stormwater runoff cannot drain onto nor increase flow of surface water onto someone else's property. She stated that it is a good thing that they are proposing a gravel drive as it will provide infiltration. Mr. Holmes stated that he would have his design Engineer take a look at that area and maybe there could be a grave swale in between the drivewayssince they don't want exacerbate any flooding issues on Mr. Dvorkin's property especially if it is flooding now. Mr. Dvorkin spoke about the future of the access drive and would it be eventually be paved or elevated . Ms. Gonyer stated that they don't have any jurisdiction where the access drive meets Gilbert Street as there are no wetlands and that they can review what is in jurisdiction. She stated that what Mr. Holmes is offering could potentially elevated current flooding issues. Mr. Dvorkin confirmed that if the property owner asked for a paved access road would they need to come before Conservation and Ms. Gonyer confirmed, yes and that he would be notified as an abutter. She noted that the previous OOC approved the installation of paved 12-foot access drive to a single-family house and a tree farm in the upland area. Resident Mr. Jim Burke, 279 Gilbert Street, stated that the Dvorkins were his neighbors and his property abuts 283 Gilbert Street. He asked about when the false vernal pools were detected by NHESP and when that occurred. Ms. Gonyer believes the CVPs that were certified wrongfully were submitted in the 1990's and, in 2022, Natura I Heritage opened the investigation since it was found that the person that certified the pools in the 1990s submitted false data and NHESP was looking into every pool certified by this person. NHESP conducted a site visit and verified the location of the true vernal pools along with determining which certified vernal pool were false and not present at the site. Motion: to issue an Order of Conditions to Stan Feck, 283 Gilbert Street (Map 4 Parcel 23) for the construction of an access drive to an upland portion of an undeveloped lot. The crossing proposes the filling of 1,534 sf of BVW along with 2,395 sf of wetland replication as mitigation with the following special conditions (see additional conditions detail sheet) 1. RECORD ORDER 2. PLAN OF RECORD 3. EROSION CONTROL 4. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION 5. STABILIZATION 6. ROOF RUNOFF 7. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 8. START DATE NOTIFICATION 9. PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING 10. ORDER ONSITE 11. FLAGGING 12. CERTICATE OF COMPLIANCE 13. CHANGE IN PLANS 15. SIGNAGE INDUSTRIAL (TO BE DETERMINED BY AGENT) 17. NO SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER 18. WETLAND MONITOR 19 WETLAND REPORTS 20. ANNUAL REPORT FOR THREE GROWING SEASONS 21. 75% SURVIVAL RATE 24. No dumping lawn clipping in 25-Foot Final condition to meet with the Conservation agent and to see if replication can be moved further from proposed road. Passes: 3:0:1 (Roth/Hedlund) rob abstain 8:27pm 8. New Business: Eagle Scout-Aidan Coleman: Ms. Gonyer stated this has been moved to the February 261h, meeting. 9. Old Business: Approval of Minutes: 11.27.2023 Motion: To adopt the meeting minutes 11.27.2023 Passes:4:0 (Roth/Hedlund) 8:31pm Ms. Gonyer welcomed Ms. Varricchione and let the Conservation Committee know that things have already improved greatly with all the assistance from Ms. Varricchione. Ms. Gonyer feels that all the administrative projects that she has wanted to do in the past were not completed due to lack of assistance and that they are now attainable with Ms. Varricchione's level of administrative expertise. She mentioned that over the next few months she and Ms. Varricchione will be reviewing and updating a lot of the Department's policies and procedures for the Commissions review. Ms. Gonyer mentioned how excited she was about the future of the department. She will reach out to the other members, to make sure that they have a quorum for the February 26 meeting at 7:30pm. 10. Adjournment: Motion: To adjourn the meeting at 8:34pm. Passes:4:0 (MacDonald/Roth) u / jam - 2 o- 2 �y Date