Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConservation Comm. 07/29/2024Town of Mansfield 6 Park Row, dlan*e1d,, Allassachusezts 02048 Conservation Commission OW,", RECEIVED IiIj FFjcE , ..�.,.. vn. 11..,,..r, ­ U11) -1. .r..l� ., ...., rvu. wiw ....I I.... — u, —1.. r....— miu .". Katelyn= Gonyer, 'Conservation and Environmental Planner Not Present: Mr. Robert Smith -MacDonald and Mr. Aaron Roth Guests: Mr. James J. DeVellis, DeVellis Zrein Inc., Mr. Kevin Boyden, Mr. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering, Mr. Paul Jodice, Jodice and Sons, Mr. James IV and Mrs. Stephanie Parker, Ms. Olivia Richards and Ms. Casey Bardier from VHB, Mr. Husam Karzoun, and Mr. Steve Hanson Minutes: Sharon Varricchione 1. Call the Meeting to Order: Mr. Michael Healey, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:10pm 2. Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) Kevin Boyden, 41 Lakeview Ave. (Map 004 Parce1043) to determine if the Installation and continued use of a Hydraulic jet thruster (Aqua Thruster) within the shallow waters of Greenwood Lake is a jurisdiction activity under the with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, General Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40 (as amended), and the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law. Mr. DeVellis introduced himself as a professional Civil Engineer from DeVellis Zrein who represented Mr. Kevin Boyden. He explained that Mr. Boyden filed an RDA due to the use of an Aqua Thruster from 41 Lakeview Ave pushing water towards Mr. Boydens property at 37 Lakeview Ave. The literature within the RDA described the Aqua Thruster as "the latest weapon against lake muck". He then said it unfortunately appears to have effects the aquatic life and, in his opinion, destroys the habitat within the shore area including spawning beds and vegetation along the waterfront bottom. He then read parts of a Division of Fisheries and Wildlife letter submitted to Ms. Gonyer and the Conservation Commission from Dr. Jason Stolarski, Aquatic Biologist drafted a letter to the Mansfield Commission, stated that in general "several species of freshwater fish use nearshore shallow habitats during multiple stages of their lives, most critically, near shore areas are important spawning and rearing habitats for sunfish, perch, chain pickerel, bass, and other species". Mr. DeVellis said that he's seen the area and what he believes to.be spawning beds and feels as though this jet has affected the shoreline area. He mentioned that this has been going on for a long-time and Mr. Boyden have been in front of this Commission. He said they were there to ask the Commission for a Determination regarding if the use of Hydraulic jet is applicable to the state and local bylaws. Mr. Gallagher asked if the DEP restricted these Aqua Thrusters. Ms. Gonyer stated that DEP has not commented and we don't have a circuit rider program anymore so there is no local rep and this would go to the wetland specialist in Boston DEP office. She also noted although they received a little more information In these last RDA application package, but there is still not enough information and we can't tell from the photos provided what they are depicting and where/when they were taken. She stated that she was wetland/soil scientist was not an expert in aquatic habitat and she recommended that they get a wildlife biologist, someone who would understand this a lot better and could give a more technical report on the matter. Ms. Gonyer reiterated that Mr. Boyden was asking the Commission to determine if the use of this jet is jurisdictional under the Land under Waterbodies regulations. She stated that she reviewed all the material and stated that she does not know where the photos were taken and when they were taken and she was not sure what Mr. Boyden was trying to show. She does agree with the NHESP letter that stated that if these jet as installed incorrectly and are directed at the land under the water, it may be a jurisdictional activity and could potentially cause adverse impacts. However, she noted that to her understanding, the Aqua Thruster at 41 Lakeview has been installed correctly per the manufacturer and is aerating the water and causing a current on the top surface of the water, not the Land under the Water nor the Inland Bank so, with the information provided by Mr. Boyden, she does not believe this activity is jurisdictional. She did not observe the current from the jet interacting with the land under water. She also mentioned that the Lake Association, which is out of Attleboro, recently recommends using the Aqua Thrusters to help add oxygen and to keep movement in the water since this lake has invasive species issues and eutrophication. The Association currently have an Order of Conditions to treat the lake annually with mechanical and chemical treatment due to its poor health and raising temperatures. She then said she felt they did not receive enough information to be able to determine that this jet is interacting with any of the surrounding resources areas. Mr. Gallagher inquired about Mr. DeVellis's background and Mr. DeVellis stated he was a civil engineer and did not have the expertise in this area. Mr. O'Hara stated that he agreed with Ms. Gonyer and that more official, studies with evidence should be done as there could be other reasons with the lake as to why maybe some of these things are happening. Mr. Healey stated that before the Aqua Thruster was ever installed, he witnessed the surface current that goes towards Mr. Boyden's house into the natural corner and that this littoral drift carries debris on the surface of the water and collects along in his shore area, along with his abutter on the other side , Mr. Boyden shared that he's been cleaning this debris out for 30 years. Mr. Healey then stated that they needed a professional to tell them if this device was causing the issues to the resource. He also mentioned that these machines are used all over the country to help lakes aerate. Mr. Boyden, 37 Lakeview Ave., stated that when the Aqua Thruster is on, there are no spawning beds and that the images and videos presented by Ms. Gonyer did not show how powerful the Thruster really is. Ms. Gonyer said that he has not given us any evidence of this. Mr. Boyden said that he has been in conversation with DEP . Ms. Gonyer advised him to get a wildlife biologist. Mr. Boyden said he wanted to wait to have the State weigh in and to take care of this as he's been waiting for over 5 years and he just needs the Commissions determination. Mr. Healey reminded Mr. Boyden that he needs scientific evidence by a qualified individual to support his case. Mr. DeVillis stated that they are at an impasse and asked for the Commission to vote. Motion: To issue a Negative Determination for reason # 1 for Kevin Boyden, resident at 37 Lakeview Ave, that the installation and continued use of a hydraulic jet thruster (Aqua Thruster) at 41 Lakeview Ave (Map 004 Parcel 04) within of Greenwood Lake is not a jurisdiction activity under the with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, General Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40 (as amended), and the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law, Chapter 220. Passes: 4:0 (Gallagher /O'Hara) 3. Notice of Intent (NOI) DEP SE 211-1013, (Continued from 06/10/24) James IV & Stephanie Parker, 10 Dane Street (Map 19, Parcel 191), for the construction of an addition to a single-family house within 100 feet of the Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW). Variance Request from Mansfield Wetlands Protection Bylaw, Chapter 220, for the construction of a portion of the addition within the 25-foot No Disturb Zone of the (BVW). Ms. Gonyer mentioned that this meeting was continued from the last June hearing and that the project proposes an addition that forces the homeowners to go towards an existing wetland due to the existing layout.: They talked about a variance which would allow a small part of the new structure to be built within the wetland 25 -foot No Disturb Zone. She spoke with Mr. Cygawnoski, Mr. Jodice and Mr. Holmes, a wetland scientist, about putting together a Knotweed management plan as the Knotweed continues to grow and it creeping towards the; wetlands. She is going to work with a Knotweed specialist, Brian Colleran, to develop a Municipal Knotweed Plan that can be used for the Town that would include integrated treatments and an outreach plan to work with residents as this plant is hard to deal with and dispose of. If we move forward with the variance, we would condition it similarly to a wetland mitigation where we would request three(3) growing seasons of observations, we would request a wetland scientist or landscape specialist like Mr. Holmes, someone who has knowledge of the Knotweed and how it spreads, who could submit annual updates throughout each of the seasons. She mentioned that it could be challenging to get rid of the Knotweed and that if the residents were willing the Town could witness the process in hopes to help to incorporate this process into the Pilot Municipal Knotweed Plan. She talked about including a split rail fence with stone to help with the separation of Knotweed and the property. She could work with the owner to determine the best location for the fence. Mr. Healey stated that this is there first variance in a 25 foot No Disturb (Touch) Zone and he thanked the applicants to be willing to work with the Town to try and fight the Knotweed invasion. Motion Variance: To issue a variance from strict compliance with Chapter 220, the Mansfield Wetlands Protection Bylaw within accordance with the provisions § 220-8 to allow for the construction of 387 square feet of a new addition within the 25-foot No Disturb Zone of a Bordering Vegetation Wetiand. The mitigation required for this variance will be the implementation of a three-year removal effort of a stand of the invasive Japanese Knotweed (as shown on revised site plan 07.19.24). This removal effort will be over seen by a wetland scientist. Wetland Scientist must notify to the Conservation Agent during any removal or treatment activities. Initial reporting is required when Knotweed is first removed and bi-annual report shall be submitted to the Commission/Agent for review in the spring and fall summarizing eradication methodology and status on a routine basis for three growing seasons. Motion: To issue an Order of Conditions to James IV & Stephanie Parker, 10 Dane Street (Map 19, Parcel 191) for the construction of an addition to a single-family house within 100 feet of the Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW) with the following conditions under the Wetland Protection Bylaw: 1. RECORD ORDER 2. PLAN OF RECORD 3, LIMIT OF WORK 4. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION -if the knotweed management is unsuccessful or becomes economically infeasible, the Applicant may return to the Commission to discuss an alternated mitigation activity or work with the Agent to develop a,wetiand/buffer strip planting plan S. STABILIZATION 6. ROOF RUNOFF 7. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE -before the work begins, a wetland scientist must reviewthe overall plan for Knotweed Removal and discuss onsite with Agent. 8. START WORK NOTIFICATION 9. _ PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING 10. DOC ON -SITE 11. WETLAND FLAGGING 12. COC WITH AS -BUILT 13.-REVISIONS TO BE REVIEWED 94GQN¢COVATON RESTRICTION 16. SIGNAGE FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 17. NO SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS 18. WETLAND MONITOR A wetland monitor, pre -approved by the Mansfield Conservation Commission, is to be hired at the applicant's expense. The wetland monitor is to be present during initial removal and treatment of Knotweed Area and must report to the Agent with any issues or concerns during the initial removal 19. WEEKLY UPDATES Wetland Monitor shall provide bi-annual updates in writing to the Conservation Commission during construction to update the Commission regarding the status of the construction within the Conservation Commission jurisdiction. 20. THREE (3) GROWING SEASONS Wetland Monitor shall report back to the Commission once the replication areas have been constructed and planted and quarterly for the next three growing seasons. 21. 75% REMOVAL RATE -The Knotweed Eradication shall be 75% (this may be flexible depending on how feasible and economically reasonable the removal rate is within the first three (3) 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 THREE (3) growing seasons have passed AND 75%survival rate has been achieved. 23. DUMPING OF LAWN CLIPPINGS IS PROHIBITED Passes: 4:0 (Hedlund /O'Hara) 4. Request for Certificate of Compliance (RCOC) DEP SE 211-0995, Steve Hansen,137 Old Elm St, for the construction of a Limited Crossing over an intermittent stream and the construction of two'(2) single-family homes within 100 feet of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland and 100 feet of the Inland Bank of an intermittent stream Mr. Gonyer met with Mr. Hanson several times, this were three (3) NOI filed associated with this project, for one new single-family dwelling, an existing house that was remodeled, and this filing for a new single-family house and the crossing over the intermittent stream,'. This is the final NOI seeking a COC. The Engineer submitted an As -Built Plan including the new house and the crossing. Ms. Gonyer stated that Mr. Hansen resolved some of the issues she had identified with him in 2023 and that the Commission did received the letter from Goddard saying there was 75% survival rate. She agreed that the replication area was thriving. Ms. Gonyer did still identify a few compliance issues that were still outstanding and that did not correlate with the Plan of Record. 1) A retaining wall showed on the plan was built lower than approval thus creating a steeper side slope. 2) mulch was used to stabilized the side slope (which the Commission does not allow) and the angle is becoming steeper, 3) there is lawn debris being tossed over the wall which is not allowed within the 25 feet of wetlands. She asked that the mulch area be removed and which will allow vegetation to grow, add some seed mix and reiterated not to throw lawn clippings over the wall. She noticed trees that were cut down. Mr. Karzoun, the homeowner stated that the trees were dead so they removed them and Ms. Gonyer stated that in the future that they would need to contact Conservation for approval to remove trees within 100 feet of wetlands. She mentioned that everything else was in compliance with the Plan of Record Mr. Hedlund asked why the wall was not four feet and Mr. Hanson said if you measure from the top of the wall it's 42 inches, half a foot shy of 4 feet. They spoke about the mulch in that area and Ms. Gonyer stated that they would need to see that area stabilized in order to issue the COC. Motion: To issue a Full Certificate of Compliance to Steve Hansen, 137 Old Elm St, for the construction of a Limited Crossing over an intermittent stream and the construction of one single-family home within 100 feet of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland and 100 feet of the Inland Bank of an intermittent stream with the condition that the slope at the retaining wall be stabilized with ground cover and the mulch at the front of the property be removed and allowed to be naturalized. To work with the Conservation Planner to assure that this occurs. Passes: 4:0 (Gallagher/Hedlund) 5. Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA)Eugene Caterina, Village at the Point,15 Reservoir St,. (Map 16 Parcel 15) to propose the removal of several mature trees surrounding residential units within 100 feet of the Norton Reservoir and/or 200 feet from a Perennial River. Ms. Gonyer explained that she met with the Village Association members and reviewed the comprehensive Tree Service proposal and that there was a substantial amount of tres that were identified to be removed. She visited the site and a lot of the trees were mature pines and older oaks. She shared images of where the trees would be removed. She mentioned the area of concern was the trees to be removed within the 25 foot but that they were within striking distance but recommended adding some plantings and trees. There are 33 trees being removed, the stumps will be kept and the succession will grow so overall, she was not concerned. Mr. Caterina from the Village Association spoke and agreed with Ms. Gonyer's summary. He also stated they were looking to cut down these trees as they are dangerous as they could fall down on housing, people and cars. He said there is new growth coming up. He mentioned the pine needles and debris fills up the water basins and tress have fallen on that pipe and now they have cracks which is another issue. Ms. Gonyer asked if any stumps would be cut below grade and he said only the ones close to the grass. Ms. Gonyer also stated that after the trees are cut there will be a healthy understory of growth which will be good for the environment. Mr. O'Hara mentioned that flooding problems could increase during rain storms since the trees are being cut down. Mr. Caterina agreed and was aware. He shared a photo with the commission to show previous flooding. Motion: To issue a Negative Determination for Reason #3, work will not adversely impact the resource area. Passes: 4:0 (Hedlund /O'Hara) 6. Request for Certificate of Compliance (RCOC) DEP SE 211-1000, Nancy Giovino, 3 Bicentennial Court for the construction of a single-family home within 100 feet of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 3 Bicentennial Court, Map 030, Parcel 116. Mr. Gonyer talked to Mr. Stan Feck from Christian & Feck Dev. Corp. and she told him he did not have to attend this hearing as there were no issues with this RCOC. This was permitted back in 2023 and Bradly Holmes, wetland scientist, did the wetland delineation. During her site visit, she observed that the erosion controls were still in place, the grounds were stabilized, a drywell was installed, and the signs were in. She has no issues and recommends a COC. Motion: To issue a Full Certificate of Compliance to Nancy Giovino at 3 Bicentennial Court for the construction of a single-family home within 100 feet of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 3 Bicentennial Court, Map 030, Parcel 116 under DEP SE 211-1000 Passes: 4:0 (Gallagher/O'Hara) 7. Notice of Intent (NOI), 211-1014, Kevin Dumas, Town of Mansfield, proposed bridge repairs to the West Street Bridge (Bridge No. M-03-008) and the Spring Street Bridge (Bridge No. M-03-010) within 100 feet of an Inland Bank, Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways and within the 200-foot Riverfront Area. Ms. Richards, the Structural Bridge Engineer and Ms. Bardierthe 'Environmental Scientist from VHB represented the Town of Mansfield and presented on the West Street and Spring Street Bridges which crossing over the Rumford River. Ms. Richards explained that only specific repairs to both of these older bridges (constructed in 1914) are being proposed at this time. the Town received a MassDOT Small Bridge Program Grant to fund the design and part of the construction and that the Town will receive additional funds to hopefully cover all of the repair construction. She mentioned the West St. Bridge is in poor condition due to the scour hole and deterioration of the abutment walls. She indicated that once those were repairs were complete, the rating should go up to a rating of "Fair". Mr. Healy asked if they knew why the scour hole occurred and Ms. Richards mentioned possibly from the flow from the dam upstream. He asked if there was a way to prevent this in the future and Ms. Richard said the concrete repairs should help. Ms. Gonyer stated that she spoke with Mr.Rick Alves, the Town Engineer, and they discussed conducting this project during dry conditions to avoid having to lower the pond or dewater the area. Ms. Richards agreed and said they are planning to do this next Summer during dry conditions and that the Bridge would be open during construction. Ms. Gonyer discussed how Mansfield has a large issue with Japanese h the SNEP network (which is apart of EPA for financing and funding env with Mr. Brian Collaran and that he is one of the few Knotweed Specia Conservation Department will be receiving a gift fund from the Tauntc creating a Municipal pilot program to try and tackle the problem. Ms. staying clear of the Knotweed during their construction. Mr. O'Hara a: hole and Ms. Richards said because of the stream aligned she wouldn' tweed and that they are working with nmental project) and she is working in the area. She mentioned that the liver Watershed Alliance and will be shards mentioned they should be d'if there was a risk of another scour Kpect it. Mr. Hedlund asked if this was a typical repair and the typical action you would take. Ms. Richards mentioned that she likes these old bridges as the quality of concrete was so good back then and therefore does not want to tear these down and rebuild them. By patching and repairing you will get the longevity of the bridge. Motion: To issue the Order of Conditions to Kevin Dumas, Town of Mansfield, for the proposed bridge repairs to the West Street Bridge (Bridge No. M-03-008) and the Spring Street Bridge (Bridge No. M-03-010) within 100 feet of an Inland Bank, Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways and within the 200-foot Riverfront Area with the following conditions under the local Wetlands Protection Bylaw: 1. RECORD ORDER 2. PLAN OF RECORD 3. LIMIT OF WORK 4. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION S. STABILIZATION 6 ROOF RUNOFF— 7. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 8. START WORK NOTIFICATION. 9. PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING 10. OOC ON -SITE 11. WETLAND FLAGGING 12. 000 WITH AS -BUILT. 13. REVISIONS TO BE REVIEWED 14. CONSERVATION RESTRICTION 1c cIGNAG❑ POR (X4 4FACIAl PRQIFCT 16CIGNAGC CHID RESIDENTIAL PRQj /'T. 17. NO SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS 18. WETLAND MONITOR 19. WEEKLY UPDATES DURING CONSTRUCTION 20 QUARTERLY V REPORTING POR. RFPLI 'ATION AREAS 01 75% SURVIVAL RATE (2 eF 3) GROWING SEASONS 22. POOL FILTRATION SYSTEM 23. STORMWATER O&M 24. DUMPING OF LAWN CLIPPINGS IS PROHIBITED SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Work shall take place during dry conditions. Agent to work with DPW to coordinate the management of the water level at the Fulton Pond Dam in order to ensure safest working conditions to minimize potential impacts: Passes:4:0 (O'Hara /Gallagher) 8. Administrative items: Correspondence: Conservation Updates: o "Renovation of Corporal Hardy Memorial Sign — HOOGS — Ms. Gonyer will be working with Mansfield resident volunteers including the former Fire Chief to renovate this sign. o Dock Policy — was not discussed as this policy should fall under Chapter 91 under DEP and is most likely non -jurisdictional to the Mansfield Conservation Commission. o Open Space & Recreation Committee (OSRC) Plan Updates from 7/8/24: Ms. Gonyer stated that the OSRC plan is almost ready for its final draft soon. SRPREDD is doing a great job and we have received over 1,000 surveys. She will inform the Commission when there is a draft for them to review. o June 2024 minutes for review and approval • Motion: To approve the June 2024 minutes. Passes:4:0 (Gallagher/O'Hara) o Next Meeting will be held on 8/26/24 at 6pm o Mr. Hedlund asked about the trail map signs status —Ms. Gonyer explained they just need NRT's approval on one of them and that we should be able to submit to the printer for a timeline. Once the signs are printed and installed. They will be working on website versions. 9. Adjournment: Motion: To close the meeting at 8:14pm. Passes:4:0 (Gallagher/Hedlund) Date