Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION 02252013 Mansfield Conservation DECEIVED (Th Minutes 1'3 r:f W3 OFFICE February 25,2013li3 MAR I q p 2: II 1 Present: Joseph Mulkern,Chairman,Cohn Cauldwell,Vice Chairman;Michael ealey;I�mes Turnbull, Christopher Marcheselli. << �,,, t1STTS 1. Meeting called to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation: Robert Vann, Bismarck Real Estate Partners,Inc., 229 and 243 School Street,Map 11,Lots 3 and 5. DEP#211-0897 Lenore White of Wetland Strategies, Inc. (WSI) and Jeff Peterson of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB), were present. Wetland Strategies, Inc.was retained as the peer review agent for this project. Ms. White told the Commission she reviewed the plans and the ANRAD application. The flagged wetland lines were reviewed at a site visit performed on February 4, 2013. She said there are four different areas of bordering vegetated wetlands, marked as Wetlands, 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the plan, that had been identified on the two parcels. Ms. White also reviewed a series of Bank flags that identified the banks of two intermittent streams which enter onto the property,and she agrees with the top of bank flags as noted in the field. In general,she found that the wetland line was a little more conservative than is appropriate. When she looked at the line, and what was up gradient from the line, she observed a number of wetland plants; red maple, sweet pepper bush, highbush blueberry and cinnamon ferns were found throughout the bordering vegetated wetland areas. The line was conservative because there was wetland vegetation up gradient from that line. In most instances,there was a difference of eight to ten feet. She does not concur with the flagged line. Ms: White said the applicant reviewed the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) data for the property and correctly identified that there are no areas of rare or endangered species on the site However, there are a number of potential vernal pools on the property and the applicant has identified two potential vernal pools and their boundaries. Ms. White said when she reviewed the GIS data, she found there are three potential pools. She recommended that the applicant locate and survey the limits of the third potential vernal pool on the site She said, although none of the pools have been certified,they are protected by the town's wetland By-laws. Ms. White told the Commission these minor discrepancies need to be identified before she can confirm the wetland line. Mr. Peterson agreed there are areas beyond the limit of delineation where hydro vegetation is present, sweet pepper bush and red maple, but found the boundary is gradual In some areas, he said it might appear to be a conservative delineation, but, in order to prevent omitting areas that are regulated under SVPW, he said they looked at the hydrology, primarily soils. He said he used the guidelines from "Field Indicators,of Hydric Soils for New England"and the Army Corps of Engineers revised methods to delineate the resource areas. 1 Mr. Peterson said there are always valid differences of opinions on wetland edges, but there is not a big rTh discrepancy between the line delineated by VHB, Inc. and Wetland Strategies, Inca Rather than have the Commission make a decision tonight, he would like to set a time and date to meet in the field with Ms. White to review the delineation. Mr. Peterson said the concerns that affect the applicant are not the wetland edge; the real issue is what the Commission will establish as the "no disturb" zone along the front of the property, the only areas the applicant wants to develop. He said there is no interest in developing the rear of the property where the potential vernal pools are located and where there is some contiguous upland habitat. He told the Commission if a 50-foot"no touch" is required, it would take the existing houses and lawns, the only part of the property that has been previously developed. He said the site is not very deep and the value is in the frontage of the property. He explained the wetland line along the front is not straight and if you require a 50-foot radius,the driveway and the house would be within the 50-foot zone but if a 25-foot "no touch" were to be established,the driveway would have to be abandoned and replanted. Ms. White cautioned the Commission against making a decision tonight and then trying to change it, because once the decision is made, it is good for three years. If it had to be changed, it could be challenged legally. Ms. White explained she was unable to examine the soils because the area was frozen. She said there are other indicators of wetland hydrology that are indicative of long term hydrology, including leaf staining and water lines along the roots. She said it was these indicators that suggested the line needed to be brought up a little. Ms.White said the ANRAD was file to confirm the wetland line. She said the Commission does not know what the proposed project will be and is under no obligation to decide what buffer zone will be allowed because it is contingent upon what work is proposed. When a Notice of Intent is filed,that would be a more appropriate time to decide what the buffer zone would be She said if the applicant wants to amend the ANRAD to eliminate the resource areas at the back of the property,they do not have to be reviewed. She said there is no dispute with the wetlands in the front of the property. Mr. Healey said he agreed with Ms. White, he observed stained leaves and exposed roots and the ground water surface extended a fair distance beyond where the flags were located. He said the board could make a better, informed decision if they knew what was planned for the property. The board would want to be more conservative if they did not know what the project would be Mr. Peterson said the applicant is looking at a commercial development, mainly auto tire sales, a business that would not generate a lot of traffic. Mr. Peterson said there would be zoning requirements and stormwater management would need to be submitted. Mr. Cauldwell said he does not think it would be appropriate to establish the "no touch" zone tonight. Mr. Peterson said he thought, under the local By-law and the state,the"no touch" zone was established as part of the ANRAD filing. Mr. Cauldwell made a motion to continue the hearing for the ANRAD for 229 and 243 School Street, pending a meeting between the applicant and Lenore White of Wetland Strategies, Inc., to come to an agreement on the 2 boundary line in the field and report back to the Commission at the March 18, 2013 meeting. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 7:30 pm. 3. After-the-Fact Request for Determination of Applicability: Anthony Pace,1180 East Street, Map 42, Parcel 21. The After-the-Fact Determination of Applicability was filed for the construction of a deck, stairs and a landing to a second floor addition above the existing garage within the 100-foot buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. A restoration planting plan has been submitted to address clearing of vegetation within the 100-foot buffer to a wetland area which borders a tributary to the Canoe River. This work will be done under an Enforcement Order issued January 8, 2013. Mr. Pace,the homeowner,was present. Mr. Pace extended an existing deck and added stairs to an area above the garage within the 50-foot "no disturb" zone,without a building permit or a filing with Conservation. The Commission suggested Mr. Pace make an appointment with Elizabeth to discuss the type and location of the plants for the restoration area. Mr. Cauldwell made a motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination for 1180 East Street, Map 42, Parcel 21 with the following conditions: Siltation controls are to be inspected by the agent prior to the start of work; the planting plan is to be approved by the agent prior to the start of the restoration work; restoration plantings are to be inspected for compliance with state replication guidelines after two (2)growing seasons. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 7:40 pm. 4. Request for Determination of Applicability: Pro-Tech Energy Solutions, LLC,777 West Street, Map 44, Parcel 301. The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the construction of a carport structure mounted with a photovoltaic solar panel,on the existing parking lot. Cohn Chernowetz and Paul Shust of Pro-Tech Energy Solutions, LLC,were present. Mr. Chernowetz explained they are planning to construct a total of six (6) carport structures and the foundations will be installed within the envelope of the existing asphalt parking areas. There will be no increase in the impervious area and the disturbed areas will be restored to the original condition with the exception of the 3 footings. Only one of the carport structures encroaches on the 100-foot buffer to bordering vegetated wetlands along the southwest and west property lines. Mr.Chernowetz said spread footings,.4 ft. deep x 4 ft.wide x 9 ft. long,will be used instead of round pier footings and a machine will be used to dig the footings. Erosion controls will be installed to minimize any soil run-off into the wetlands during the construction process. Mr. Healey read into the record a memorandum, dated February 25, 2013, from Richard C. Alves,Town Engineer: The Engineering Department has reviewed the Site Plan, Photovoltaic System sheet C-100, Covidien (777 West Street), revision dated 2/8/2013, prepared by Whitman. The following comments are as follows: It appears there will be no increase in impervious material and therefore will be no increase in runoff. A letter stamped by a professional engineer stating this is still required. A letter, dated February 13, 2013, states that Whitman has reviewed the site design for the installation of a photovoltaic system regarding storm runoff. A majority of the photovoltaic panels will be mounted over existing impervious pavement. The photovoltaic panels will be mounted on column-supported carports that will not require the modification of the existing drainage patterns. As such, Whitman believes that the installation of the solar carports will have negligible effect on the existing storm water runoff qualities and characteristics of the site. The letter was stamped by John W. Colagrande, Professional Engineer. Mr. Healey said the work outside the buffer zone has already begun. Because the work will be done on a paved surface, Mr. Healey said the applicant has already installed silt socks around the catch basins and the drainage swale. He found the site to be very clean and well kept. Mr. Marcheselli also visited the site. Mr.Chernowetz said there will be no stockpiling of soils on site;the soil is removed off-site daily. Mr. Cauldwell made a motion to issue a Negative 2 Determination for 777 West Street with siltation controls placed around the catch basins and drainage swale;siltation controls are to remain in place for the duration of the project. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Plan — 223.44kW (DC) Photovoltaic System - Covidien 777 West Street Sheets 1-23 of 24, prepared by Whitman, revision 4—February 8,2013. Hearing ended at 7:45pm. 5. Request for a Certificate of Compliance:Joseph Coppola,AMB Properties,33 Suffolk Road. DEP#211-252. Mr.Coppola,Vice President of Prologis,and Hilde Karpawich, Kelly Engineering Group,Inc.,were present. Mr. Coppola explained the property was purchased by AMB Property LP, now called Prologis, in 1997. He is in the process of selling the building and is requesting a Certificate of Compliance for an Order of Conditions, issued to Hamilton Realty Company on June 6, 1988. The work on the property in 1988 involved the abandonment of the existing septic system and the construction of a 4-inch force main within the 100-foot buffer of a drainage ditch. 4 A site walk was performed by Kelly Engineering Group, Inc., on January 7,2012. Hilde Karpawich said all the work has been completed in substantial compliance with the Order of Conditions and associated plans. She said the drainage ditch was stabilized and is currently well vegetated. Mr. Healey read the memorandum dated February 25, 2013 from Richard C.Alves,Town Engineer into the record: The Engineering Division has reviewed the letter dated February 7, 2013, prepared by Kelly Engineering Group, Inc., regarding a request for a Certificate of Compliance on SE #211-252 — It appears that the proposed work on the property in 1988 has been completed in substantial compliance with the Order of Conditions. Mr. Cauldwell made a motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 33 Suffolk Road, DEP #211-252, Plan — "Sewer Connection Plan of Land in Mansfield, MA", dated March 10, 1988, by Norwood Engineering Co-. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 6. Request for a Certificate of Compliance:Joseph Coppola,AMB Properties,50 Hamden Road.DEP#211-274. Mr. Coppola,Vice President of Prologis, and Hilde Karpawich, Kelly Engineering Group, Inc.,were present. Mr. Coppola is requesting a Certificate of Compliance for the work outlined in the Order of Conditions issued to Hamilton Realty Company on November 30, 1988,for 50 Hampden Road. Mr. Coppola said the proposed work on the property in 1988 involved the addition of a 105,000± square foot warehouse to an existing building with associated parking, utilities, and stormwater system. The work occurred within the 100-foot buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands (BVW) and involved the filling of 800 square feet of the BVW. He said when AMB Property LP (now called 'Prologis) purchased the property in 1997, they were unaware that the Certificate of Compliance had never been issued for the work described in the Notice of Intent. Mr. Healey read into the record a memorandum, dated February 25, 2013,from Richard C.Alves,Town Engineer: The Engineering Division has reviewed the letter dated February 7, 2013 prepared by Kelly Engineering Group, Inc. regarding a request for a Certificate of Compliance on SE #211-274— It appears that the proposed work on the property in 1988 has been stabilized and completed in substantial compliance with the Order of Conditions. Ms. Karpawich said the areas of disturbance have been stabilized and all the work has been completed in substantial compliance with the Order of Conditions and associated plans. She said the replication area has been left in its natural state. Mr. Healey made a motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 50 Hampden Road, AMB Property LP (now called Prologis), DEP#211-274, Plan "Site Plan of Lots 722 & 724, The Interstate 95 Industrial Center at 495", dated October 7, 1988, by Norwood Engineering Co., Inc. Mr. Cauldwell seconded the motion. Motion passed 5- 0-0. 7. Request for Determination of Applicability:Neil Levine,596 Maple Street,Map 39,Parcel 197. 5 The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed to repair an area of lawn within 100 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland. The property is within a Natural Heritage Area and the Canoe River watershed area. Mr. Levine explained the lawn was damaged when some of the trees on the property fell during the hurricane last year. He said the wetlands were flagged and an engineering plan has been submitted, showing the 25- and 100- foot wetland boundaries and the existing and finish grades. Siltation controls are also shown on the plan and will be installed prior to the start of work. Mr. Levine said approximately 200 cubic yards of fill will be added to level the yard. Mr. Cauldwell told Mr. Levine the siltation controls do not have to be as extensive as shown on the plan. They should be placed on each side of the limit of disturbance, approximately 15-20 feet on each side. He said once the siltation controls are in place, Elizabeth should be called to inspect. He suggested silt socks be used instead of the hay bales/silt fence. The silt socks are to remain in place until the disturbed areas are stabilized. Mr. Cauldwell made a motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination for 596 Maple Street, to repair the lawn area within 100 feet of bordering vegetated wetlands with the following condition: The Conservation Agent is to inspect erosion controls prior to the start of work and are to remain in place until work is completed and the area stabilized. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. "Plan of Existing Conditions at House No. 596 Maple Street", dated December 12, 2012 and revised February 14,2013-RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Hearing ended at 8:00 pm. 8. Agent's Notes: Paul Alves, 15 Marjac Way: Mr. Alves told the Commission he cleared or removed vegetation and added a stone wall within the wetland resource areas. Mr. Alves said Walter Hewitson flagged the wetlands based on hydrology and a restoration plan has been submitted showing the areas of disturbance, wetland flags and the plantings; three Eastern White Pine, eleven Low Bush Blueberry, thirty-seven Virginia Creeper and fifteen Bearberry will be planted in the buffer area and four Pinkshell Azelea plants will be planted where the wetlands were altered. Mr. Alves said he will place stone edging at the 25-foot line as a permanent marker between the lawn and the buffer. He will plant in the spring. Mr.Alves said the stone wall in the wetland has been moved four feet out of the wetland area. Mr. Cauldwell made a motion to accept the restoration plan for 15 Marjac Way, with the following conditions: Elizabeth is to be called once the plantings are in for inspection and the plantings are to be inspected for two (2) growing seasons. Plan, "Wetland Replication Plan" by Romanelli Associates, Inc., New Bedford, MA, dated February 16,2013. 9. New Business: 6 Damage on the Codding Farm property: Received a call from a concerned resident about damage at the Codding Farm. After visiting,the property, Mr. Cauldwell told the Commission the damage is minimal and can be fixed. He said someone removed some of the stones from the foundation and the stone walls, probably while metal detecting. He said an outhouse and another stone wall around the perimeter of the house were discovered when a scout project was done on the property. Mr. Cauldwell said he has another Boy Scout interested in doing work in The Great Woods Conservation Area. He will keep the Commission updated. 10. Old Business: Mr. and Mrs.George Wallace of 233 Ware Street and Arthur O'Neill of 269 Ware Street were present to discuss the non-compliance of the Order of Conditions issued for Dolan Estates Mr. Wallace said the Superseding Order of Conditions issued for Dolan Estates clearly states that the Order of Conditions can be revoked for failure to comply with all conditions. He said a detailed bridge design, prepared by a structural professional engineer, was to be submitted to the Commission for their review and approval, prior to the construction of the bridge, but Mr. Feck started the bridge before this was done. Mrs. Wallace asked what the purpose of the Order of Conditions is and what the consequences are when a builder does part of the work before they have approval. Mr. Cauldwell said the Order of Conditions sets the parameters under which the applicant can operate. Because the project was appealed, he said it is a split jurisdiction with DEP controlling the bridge construction. He said when an applicant starts a job without approval, it is at his own risk. Mr. Cauldwell said the bridge was designed in accordance with what the Commission thought was applicable for the project and was installed properly. The Commission approved the bridge design after-the-fact. Mrs.Wallace said when a builder does not get the required approval,there should be a fine. Mr. Wallace said five signs, "Environmentally Sensitive Area, Do Not Disturb", were to be placed along the right- hand side,of the road. An additional sign, "No Salting of Roadway", was to be installed at the bridge. Mr.Wallace said these signs have not been installed. Mr.Cauldwell said,typically,the signs are put in at the end of the project and a Certificate of Compliance would not be issued until the signs have been installed. Only six acres of the parcel are to be developed, the remaining thirteen acres will be donated to Natural Resources Trust(NRT). Mr. Wallace said Mr. Boyden did not vote on the Dolan Estates project because a portion of the donated land abuts school property. Mr.Wallace asked why Mr.Cauldwell did not recused himself because the land was to be donated to the NRT. He wanted to know who gave him permission to vote on this project. 7 Mr. Cauldwell said he received a letter from the Ethics Commission about a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Cauldwell said, according to the person in Boston he spoke to by telephone, it was not a conflict of interest, in their opinion. He said he disclosed his membership in the NRT at a public meeting and that he had no financial interest in the project. He said he would get a copy of the letter he received from the Ethics Commission along with the name of the person he spoke with for Mr. Wallace. Mr. and Mrs. Wallace said they feel it was a conflict of interest and asked why Mr. Boyden recused himself. Mr: Mulkern said Mr. Boyden is paid by the school department. After the blizzard, Mrs. Wallace said Mr. Feck dumped snow from another site onto the Ware Street property. She said she took pictures of at least ten trucks unloading snow. Mr. Cauldwell said this is the first time the Commission has heard about the snow. Arthur O'Neill of 269 Ware Street wanted to know if the land donation has to go before Town Meeting for approval. Mr. Cauldwell said no because it is a private deal and the land is not being donated to the Town of Mansfield. Mr. O'Neill asked, if the state changed the Order of Conditions and the land were to stay with the builder, can the land be used in the future? Mr. Cauldwell said under the conditions issued by the Commission, the land cannot be used Mr. O'Neill said it does not make sense to remove this land from the tax rolls. Mr. O'Neill said Elizabeth and Shaun Burke knew about the snow dumped on the property because the Mr. and Mrs. Wallace called to report ten loads of salted snow were being dumped by the river. He asked if there was a fine structure in place. Mr. Cauldwell said it is $100.00 per day for violations but does not know if the fine is applicable to this situation, he would have to have a legal opinion. Regarding the bridge, Mr. O'Neill said Mr. Feck told the Building Inspector he shut the job down. Mr. O'Neill said this is untrue; he shut it down, not the contractor. Michael Feck arrived. He said the snow was dumped outside the Commission's jurisdiction, outside all buffer zones. He said it was un-treated snow from the parking lot at 12 Pratt Street. Mr. Mulkern asked why the snow was dumped on the Ware Street property. Michael Feck explained the parking lot needed to be cleared and they needed an emergency place to put the snow. He said his father called Mark Cook at the DPW to see if there was any place to put the snow. Mr. Cook said no, so the snow was trucked to the Ware Street property. Michael Feck said the bridge design was submitted to the state and was approved through the Superseding Order of Conditions. He said there was an issue with the Order of Conditions as to the requirement that the Commission review and approve the bridge design prior to the construction of the bridge. He said, because the bridge was approved through the Superseding Order of Conditions, his father thought the state had control over the bridge. Michael Feck said bridge had to be installed before the weather changed. Mr. Mulkern said the issue is that the bridge design was not approved by the Commission until after the bridge was built and the work was done on a Sunday. Michael Feck said the work was stopped on Sunday but it took five days to build the bridge. 8 Michael Feck said they have tried to work with the neighbors many times since the project began. He said when the engineering stakes were put in, someone pulled them all out. He said sub-contractors were being harassed when entering and existing the site and even followed to their offices. He said when a lot was sold to another builder, his sub-contractors were followed off the site,and at some point,almost run off the road. Mr.Wallace said he has fought this project from the beginning because of water problems and dumping the snow on the property did not help: Mr. Cauldwell said there is some confusion about jurisdictional issues. The state has superseding orders and they have jurisdiction over the bridge but it was written into the Order of Conditions issued by the Commission that the bridge design was to be reviewed and approved before any work was done. Mr. Cauldwell asked that, in the future, when there are problems, the neighbors call the agent or come back before the board to discuss any issues. He said this is a very sensitive project and the applicant needs to let the Commission know what is being done on the property. Mr. Mulkern said Mr. Feck was asked several times to submit the bridge design to the Commission for approval;this was not done until after the bridge was done. Mr. Healey asked about forming a sub-committee to review the Rules and Regulations before meeting with Town Counsel. He volunteered to be on the committee and, because of all the work she did on the document, he suggested Ms. Matthew also be a part of the committee to review the information. The information will be forwarded to the other members of the Commission. Mr. Cauldwell said if four or more members of the Commission want to be on the committee or meet with Town Counsel, a meeting notice will have to be posted each time they meet. Town Counsel will not be available to meet with the Commission until the end of March and the meetings will probably be held during the day. Mr. Marcheselli said he would like to be included in the discussions. 11. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 9:00 pm: Cauldwell/Healey—passed. Next meeting will be April 22, 2013 at 7:00 pm. 3 -/cf-— /3 Joseph Mukern,Chairman Date 9 •