HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION 02132012 Mansfield Conservation Minutes RECEIVED
•
February 13, 2012 J a 'z CLERKS OFFICE
Present: Joseph Mulkern, Chairman; Colin Cauldwell,Vice Chairman; MiciL l lit Carlellew;
Elizabeth Leidhold,Conservation and Environmental Planner.
1. Meeting opened at 6:45 pm. �
2. Discussion: Lou Andrews.
Mr. Andrews has put together three articles to be placed on the upcoming Town Meeting for four parcels of land
shown on the conservation map as open space. Mr. Andrews told the board the deeds for these parcels have
never been updated. The articles ask that control of these parcels be transferred from the Selectmen to the
Conservation Commission. The articles should be given to the Selectmen for approval.
Mr. Andrews said Article "A" concerns a parcel of land — 12.86 acres -on the northerly side of Branch Street as
shown on Assessors' Map 32, Parcel 7. The land will be used and maintained in perpetuity for conservation,
open space and passive recreation purposes and be administered, controlled and maintained by the
Commission.
The property was accepted by the town in lieu of taxes at the 2003 Annual Town Meeting.
Article "B" concerns two parcels of land on the northerly side of Smith Road as shown on Assessors'Map 9,
Parcel 1 and Map 10, Parcel 24, containing 8 acres and 13.5 respectively. The land will be used and
maintained in perpetuity for conservation, open space and passive recreation purposes and will be
administered, controlled and maintained by the Commission.
These two properties were taken for taxes in 2011 and 2006, respectively. The parcels abut conservation land
owned by the Natural Resources Trust of Mansfield and the Plymouth Street recreation fields.
Article"C"concerns a parcel of land— 12.7 acres—on the easterly side of Essex Street, Mansfield as shown on
Assessors' Map 37, Parcel 26.
The property was taken by the town for taxes in 1955. It abuts protected land owned by the Natural Resources
Trust and the.Town of Mansfield and is across.Essex Street from conservation land purchased by the town in
2001.
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to present to the annual Town Meeting articles "A", "B" and "C" to transfer
parcels 32-7, 37—26, 10-24 and 9-1 to the control of the Conservation Commission.
Ms. White seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0-0.
3. Notice of Intent: Mansfield Department of Public Works, Route 106, Eastman Street. DEP#211-0880
Richard Alves, Town Engineer, was present.
Mr. Alves told the board the Town of Mansfield in conjunction with the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation, Highway Division is proposing improvements to Eastman Street(Route 106) from approximately
1000 feet east of East Street, easterly to the Easton Town Line.
The purpose of the project is to rehabilitate the deteriorated roadway surface of Route 106 and make drainage
and geometric safety improvements. Route 106 will be milled and overlaid to provide a consistent roadway
surface. Work within the 100-foot buffer zone and/or Bank of an intermittent stream will include grading, paving,
sidewalk construction, installation of granite curbing, stormwater controls and the installation of sedimentation
controls. No new drainage outFalls are proposed by this project.
Along the western portions of the project, the work will be within a Natural Heritage Estimated and Priority
Habitat of state-listed protected species. The entire project is within an ACEC, the Canoe River Aquifer.
1
Mr. Alves said geometric improvements will be implemented along Route 106, particularly at the two major
intersections along the corridor, Autumn Lane and Sturbridge Drive and Wexford Drive and Monahan Lane.
At the Autumn Lane and Sturbridge Drive intersection, acceleration and deceleration lanes will be provided for
approximately 400 feet in both the eastbound and westbound directions of Route 106. Mr. Alves told the board
the northbound and southbound approaches will continue to operate as undelineated travel lanes. ' This
intersection will continue to operate as an unsignalized intersection with stop signs on the northbound and
southbound approaches.
At the Wexford Drive and Monahan Lane intersection, the existing acceleration and deceleration lanes on Route
106:will be lengthened to meet the design speed. The northbound and southbound approaches will continue to
operate as undelineated travel lanes. The intersection will continue to operate as an unsignalized intersection
with stop signs on the northbound and southbound approaches. Traffic signage and pavement markings will be
upgraded to meet the proposed design.
Mr. Alves said the construction period for this project will be approximately nine months. He said the project will
not permanently impact existing wetland resources; however the project will temporarily disturb a very small
area of bordering vegetated wetlands, approximately 128 square feet, and eight linear feet of Bank associated
with an intermittent stream will be temporarily disturbed to install erosion controls. The work in these areas is
necessary to clean out an existing closed drainage system that has been filled by sediment and repair the
outfall. The disturbed wetland area and the altered bank will be restored once the project is completed.
The addition of acceleration and deceleration lanes and new sidewalks will create a total of approximately 0.3
acres of new impervious surface over the 0.9 mile long project area All work will occur within the existing Town
of Mansfield layout line of the roadway. The Town of Mansfield will continue to own and maintain Eastman
Street.
Mr. Alves said there will be an increase of 13,000 square feet of impervious added to this project. He said some
existing drainage ditches will be widened and brought back to grade. This will allow more storage and infiltration
into the ground,so it will lessen the impact of the increase in run-off off site
Mr. Alves said the wetlands were delineated by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. and field verified by Mr. Alves
and Elizabeth.
The areas of concern are shown of Sheet 10 and 11 of the plan. Mr. Alves told the board the work is strictly for
maintenance purposes only.
Mr. Alves is currently working with Elizabeth to develop a "blanket" Notice of Intent for typical maintenance
within the town.
Elizabeth told the board the project is within an ACEC, the Canoe River Aquifer and a Natural Heritage Area
She said there is a letter from the Division of Fisheries &Wildlife dated January 17, 2011 stating the project will
not result in a prohibited"take"of state-listed rare species.
Since there will be an impact to the bordering vegetated wetlands, an Appendix A: Simplified Wildlife Habitat
Evaluation was prepared by Jeffrey Peterson,a Soil and Wetland Scientist with Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc It
was determined there are no important wildlife features within the limit of the proposed project.
Elizabeth told the board this is mostly a maintenance project with some milling of old pavement and replacement
with new.
Elizabeth asked Mr. Alves to address any stormwater impacts. He said there would be an increase in
impervious and the drainage ditches would be widened and brought back to grade, allowing for,an increase in
storage and infiltration:
Elizabeth said there will be some selective removal of vegetation to improve intersection sight distance.
Elizabeth asked if there was an Operations and Maintenance Plan (O&M) for cleaning out the catch basins. Mr.
Alves said an 0 & M plan has been prepared for the Town of Mansfield as part of the Phase 2 NPDES permit
2
for MS4 communities and will be implemented for this project area. The Department of Public Works will be
responsible for the maintenance of Route 106 after the construction is complete. Mr. Alves said a sub-
contractor will clean half the catch basins each year.
Ms. Matthew said a MESA review was conducted and a Wildlife Study was done. She said the project meets
the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law requirements.
Mr. Cauldwell asked if the catch basins would be replaced or just rehabilitated. Mr. Alves said the existing
basins would be inspected to determine the integrity of the structures. He said most of the structures are good.
The ones that are questionable will be removed or replaced.
Ms. White said it is an excellent project; the work needs to be done. She asked if the sidewalks will only be on
the north side of the road. Mr. Alves said the sidewalk will be on the southern side of the roadway from Mystic
Lane heading easterly to Monahan Lane. The sidewalk will increase the impervious area.
Ms. White asked if the increase in the number of catch basins would increase discharge to the outfall. Mr. Alves
said there will be an increase from seven catch basins to nineteen with the addition of thirteen new catch basins
and 2,793 linear feet of vegetated ditches and dry swales will be constructed or rehabilitated to convey
stormwater to closed drainage structures. He said the run-off from the roadway and water collected in the
proposed drainage ditches will not add additional discharge to the outflow areas.
Hay bales and silt fence are proposed and are to be inspected by the Agent prior to the start of work.
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to accept the plan as drawn, revised February 7, 2012, with hay bales and silt
fence to be inspected by the Agent before the projects starts.
Ms. Matthew seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0-0.
190 Mill Street
Attorney Edward Valanzola told the board he was recently retained by the people who are interested in
developing the former Chocolate Factory building. He said Mr. Mulkern is one of the people involved with this
project and he feels Mr. Mulkern should recuse himself. Because there will be only three voting members, there
will not be a quorum.
Forrest Emery of Phoenix Environmental Group, representing Mr. and Mrs. Watterson of 190 Mill Street said it is
his opinion that if you lack sufficient members, you can vote the Rule of Necessity to act.
Attorney Valanzola said he only wants to address the issue of Mr. Mulken recusing himself from this hearing.
He said it will be up to the applicant if he wants to proceed.
Mr. Cauldwell said the hearing can proceed with the three members, requiring a 3-0 vote or postpone the
hearing to the next meeting.
Attorney Valanzola said the hearing can be opened tonight and if the hearing needs to be continued to the next
meeting, one of the board members not present tonight can review the DVD of the meeting and participate at
the next meeting.
Forrest Emery said the applicant would go forward with tonight's meeting.
4. Notice of Intent: Richard and Deana DeSilva,3 Kybren Circle, Map 15, Parcel 278.
The Notice of Intent was filed for the installation of an in-ground pool, fence, patio and utilities within the 100 ft.
buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands.
David Hobiaca of Easton Pool&Spa and Deana DeSilva, the homeowner, were present.
Mr. Hobiaca told the board all work will be outside the 25 foot no touch zone. He said a cartridge filtration
system will be used, eliminating the need to backwash.
3
Elizabeth said the area is outside the 200 foot Riverfront of Hodges Brook. She said after her site inspection,
she asked that RIM Engineering re-hang or replace some of the original wetland flags and that flags 12-15 be
removed, flags 11-16 be connected which will still give the 25 ft. necessary and flag 5 be removed and flags 6-4
be connected. She asked that the limits of the pool and apron be staked. The pool apron will be flush with the
ground.
Because of the close proximity of the wetlands to the proposed pool and the area being very wet, Elizabeth
recommends hay bales and silt fence.
Elizabeth told the board a Determination of Applicability (DA) was issued in 2008. One of the conditions was
that signage — "Environmentally Sensitive Area — Do Not Disturb" — be placed every 25 feet along the 25 foot
line on permanent metal posts. Elizabeth said this was never done and the signage should be addressed in this
Order of Conditions. She suggested the metal posts be installed with cement footings so the posts cannot be
easily removed.
A revised plan will need to be submitted. The double-staked hay bales and silt fence will need to be inspected
prior to the start of work.
Ms. White asked about the patio. How much of increase in impervious area will there? Mr. Hobiaca said there
will be about 800 to 1000 square feet of pavers. He said the pavers would provide drainage.
There were no comments from DEP.
Mr. Hobiaca said there will be a chain-link or aluminum fence from the right side of the house along the 25 ft.
line to the existing deck on the left side of the property.
Ms. Matthew asked that Froglogs be installed in the pool.
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to accept the RIM Engineering plan dated January 23, 2012 and revised
February 9, 2012 for the proposed in-ground pool installation at 3 Kybren Circle with the following conditions: a
revised plan is to be submitted showing the changes to the wetland flag locations; double-staked hay bales with
silt fence at the limit of work to be inspected by the Agent prior to the start of work; Froglogs to be added to the
pool; five (5) permanent"Environmentally Sensitive Area — Do Not Disturb" signs are to be placed on the 25 ft.
line every 25 feet on metal posts with cement footings; this is to be noted on the revised plan. Final Plan
"Proposed In-Ground Pool at HSE. No 3 Kybren Circle in Mansfield, MA' dated January 23, 2012, and revised
February 21, 2012,RIM Engineering Co., Inc., stamped by Craig E. Cygawnoski, Land Surveyor.
Ms.White seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0-0.
5. Notice of Intent: Thomas Johnson (Reit Management& Research LLC) 44 Cabot Boulevard, Map 44,
Parcel 321.
Initiation of an aquatic management,program to control nuisance aquatic vegetation in a man-made pond.
Maintenance practices will include a Hydro-raking project; aeration and prudent use of USEPA/MADAR register
aquatic herbicides. DEP#211-0869.
Applicant asked that the hearing be continued to the March meeting.
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to continue the Notice of Intent for 44 Cabot Boulevard, DEP #211-0869 to
March 19, 2012.
Ms.White seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0-0.
6. After-the-Fact Notice of Intent:Jeffery Watterson, 190 Mill Street, Map 43, Parcel 83. DEP#211-0879
The Notice of Intent was filed for the removal of unpermitted structures within the buffer zone of bordering
vegetated wetlands and within an ACEC, the Canoe River.
Mr. Mulkern recused himself. Mr. Cauldwell took over the meeting.
4
Michael Morris of Norwood Engineering Co., Inc., Forrest Emery of Phoenix Environmental Group„ Sharon and
Jeffrey Watterson , the homeowners and Attorney Edward Valanzola.
Mr. Cauldwell said it would be helpful if Mr. Morris discussed the areas in violations and then the remediation
proposed to bring them out of violation.
Mr. Morris said the steel-framed Quonset hut has been removed, the storage area behind the building has been
removed and the screen has been taken down. The concrete pad to the east of the retaining wall in the back
corner of the lot is still in place at this time. The gravel ramp to the east of the property has not been removed.
Mr. Emery said the two areas of top soil and gravel and a row of plasma blocks are to be removed. The
landscaping in the front of the dwelling has been completed. A temporary tank garage located in the northerly
section of the lot is still in place.
DEP comment was"poor locus provided".
Elizabeth said on the original plan a swale was proposed between the Watterson and Mansour properties; the
swale was never constructed and was not shown on the as built plan for the Certificate of Compliance. The
Certificate of Compliance was issued on June 23, 2008.
In addition to what is proposed to be removed, the following are discrepancies between the original plan and
what was proposed;
1. There is a new concrete driveway with a severe slope that extends to the edge of the retaining wall
around the bordering vegetated wetland along the southern portion of the property. Elizabeth said the
run-off from the new driveway is going directly into the wetlands. She said there should be some kind of
vegetation in this area. The driveway on the original plan is shown on the northern portion of the
property.
2. Plantings around the retaining wall were proposed on the original plan and in the Order of Conditions
issued in 2005; this is also not on the plan.
3. The original plan called for loam and seed between the house and the retaining wall and around the
garage; now it is all gravel and hard packed soil or cement.
4. Grass was proposed in the front of the house. Elizabeth said when she last inspected the property this
area, except for a small amount of hydro-seed, was all gravel. Has this changed?
5. No storage area or ramp was proposed behind the garage.
6. None of the sheds on the property were shown on the original plan.
Elizabeth asked Mr. Morris to confirm that the building itself and all other work that has occurred on the property
is on the applicant's property. Mr. Morris said all work is on the applicant's property with the exception of the
gravel ramp which is on Conservation land. She said it appears that some of the town-owned land has been
cleared. She would like the board to consider putting some restoration plantings in this area.
Mr. Morris said the applicant is proposing an 18-inch deep, 3-foot wide infiltration trench between the stone wall
and the graveled area located on the south side of the house so the water will flow into the trench, preventing
the water from going directly into the wetland. The description of the trench is on Sheet 2 of 2 of the plans.
Mr. Emery told the board the applicant will remove the pavement and gravel around the retaining wall on the
southerly side of the property and replace it with an 18" deep filtration trench in addition to a trench in the
graveled area.
Mr. Emery asked what kind of plantings are to be used in the restoration areas. Mr. Cauldwell said Elizabeth
had talked about restoring some of the thinning and removal of vegetation that has happened on Conservation
land to the eastern part of the property. Elizabeth said the proposed plantings from the original filing were to be
placed along the retaining wall on the south side where the wetland is located.
Mr. Emery pointed out that a number of the impervious areas are currently allowed a residential property owner
under CMR 310 10.02 (2)(b)1(e). Minor activities are allowed such as the conversion of a lawn area to
residential structures such as sheds and decks without a filing. He said if you place a shed on a paved
driveway, you are not going to have additional impact because the shed is placed on a paved impervious
5
surface. Mr. Cauldwell said unfortunately the local by-law does not allow this and Mr. Watterson is still in
violation.
,T Mr. Emery said he was hoping these issues could be resolved tonight and a reasonable solution to the issue
with the impervious area be achieved to the satisfaction of the commission. He said Mr. Watterson is cognizant
that he has somewhat exceeded the scope of the original Order of Conditions that was issued in 2005; it was an
honest mistake. Mr. Emery said a Certificate of Compliance was issued and recorded; the Certificate of
Compliance should be considered in the findings of the Commission. He asked that the board take into
consideration as best they can within the Wetlands Protection Act regulations and the local by-law, the cost to
the applicants, the Wattersons.
Mr. Watterson said he will remove the smaller shed, located closest to the wetland area. He said the larger
shed is built on a pre-cast foundation and it would be difficult to remove. He is asking that the board allow this
shed to remain on the property.
Mr. Watterson said the swale was not constructed because there were questions about the run-off. Mr.
Watterson said a concrete retaining wall with arborvitaes was put in instead of the swale.
Mr. Cauldwell asked what Elizabeth would recommend for the remediation of this site to bring it into
conformance as much as possible with the original Order of Conditions.
Elizabeth said the intent of the original plan was to keep as much vegetation as possible around the activities.
She said the original plan from 2005 did not show a driveway to the back of the building. This area was
supposed to be loamed and seeded between the house and the retaining wall and around the garage with a
small driveway to the side.- She told the board, at the very least, it would be good to do something to mitigate
the existing driveway. If the board wants to leave the driveway in place, there should be some plantings at the
end of the driveway to prevent sheet flow. Mr. Cauldwell said there is a proposed 18" stone trench to prevent
sheet flow off the driveway surface. He said maybe some plantings to augment the trench could be done.
Elizabeth said the stone trench was not part of the original Order. She said she is not sure if placing a little
stone at the end of the driveway will be sufficient. She said the original filing called for plantings in this area and
she would encourage some kind of detention/vegetation at the end of the driveway to catch some of the flow not
only from the driveway but from the road.
Mr. Watterson said he would not be opposed to doing the plantings. He said he would remove the existing pile
of loam on the right hand side at the back of the house and do some plantings in this area. He said he is willing
to work with the Commission.
Attorney Edward Valanzola who represents the abutter to 190 Mill Street gave a brief history of the property. He
said these are not minor activities that have occurred on the property as stated by the Wattersons
representative. He told the board Mr. and Mrs. Watterson had been before the Zoning Board of Appeals and the
Building Inspector had issued a Cease & Desist Order because Mr. Watterson was operating a commercial
activity there.
Attorney Valanzola said the ZBA agreed there was an illegal commercial welding business at 190 Mill Street.
The building was supposed to be a garage or storage structure. The house is 1,100 square feet and the garage
is about 2,100 square feet. Mr. Watterson claims the garage is being use for a hobby. Attorney Valanzola said
the case is pending in Superior Court; it is an illegal commercial business. The ZBA ordered that the building be
removed and the Building Inspector told Mr. Watterson to stop all commercial activity. Attorney Valanzola said
this is not a minor infraction or a minor digress from the Order of Conditions; this is substantial. He asked that
the board enforce the original Order of Conditions as much as possible.
Attorney Valanzola introduced James Borrebach of OHI Engineering, Inc. Mr. Borrebach reviewed the 2005
Notice of Intent, the 2005 Order of Conditions, the 2008 Certificate of Compliance and the 2011 Notice of Intent.
Mr. Borrebach said there were no proposed grade elevations for the driveway and grassed areas shown on the
plan submitted with the 2005 Notice of Intent. He said since the elevations were not shown on the plan, it would
be assumed that the existing grades would be maintained. Mr. Borrebach said approximately 2,650 cubic yards
of fill or about 130 to 150 truck loads were brought onto the site as part of the construction of the garage. He
said the retaining wall is shown on the 2005 plan.
6
Mr. Borrebach said he was concerned about the surface run-off from the paved driveway that was not permitted
as well as the other gravel areas. The current Notice of.Intent claims an exemption from the Stormwater
requirements as an accessory to a single family residence. He said he believes the exemption does not apply
because of the commercial use of the garage. He said this property should be required to comply with the
Stormwater regulations and detailed Stormwater calculations should be prepared as part of the After-the-Fact
Notice of Intent process.
Mr. Borrebach told the board there are concerns regarding the infiltration trenches at the bottom of the paved
driveway as well as around the semi-circular stone wall. He said he is not sure how the stone walls were built
but infiltrating water to the top of the wall could wash through the wall and into the bordering vegetated wetland.
He said the wall is in close proximity to the wetland; in some areas is within six to seven feet of the retaining
wall.
Mr. Borrebach said the Notice of Intent plans show one spot elevation on town-owned conservation land near
the northeast corner of the garage that is approximately 2.3 feet higher than the exiting grade. The existing
grade has already been increased due to fill placed along the base of the retaining wall. Mr. Borrebach said that
at least two to three feet of fill has been brought in on town property along the entire length of the concrete
retaining wall in the rear of the property.
Mr. Borrebach said they compared the elevations on the two plans. The elevation in 2005 was about 85 or 86
and now they are showing an elevation of 88 or 89 on town-owned land. Mr. Borrebach said he recommends
the additional fill along the back of the retaining wall be removed when the gravel ramp is removed.
Mr. Borrebach said there are fourteen items found on the 2011 plan that were not included on the 2005 plan.
He said many of these items have already been discussed tonight. Some of the items that have not been
discussed:
1. Mr. Borrebach said a water well with a concrete pad has been installed near the semi-round retaining
wall; a portion of the concrete pad was installed within the 25 ft. no disturb zone. The well is not shown
on the original plan and does not appear to have been permitted by the Board of Health. Mr. Watterson
said there is a permit for the well.
2. The area between the single-family dwelling and the garage on the entire south side of the property is
currently either pavement or gravel. According to the 2005 plan, this area was supposed to be loamed
and seeded. Approximately 4,000 square feet of buffer zone has been altered in this area.
3. The larger of the two sheds on the northeast side of the property contains a waste-oil storage tank. The
garage also has a waste oil storage tank and waste oil burner
4. A utility pole and underground utilities servicing the garage are located within the buffer zone to the
wetland and are not shown on the 2005 plan.
Mr. Borrebach said he recommends the following:
1. Remove a portion of the asphalt driveway from the edge of the retaining wall to the southeast corner of
the house from the gate of the chain link fence located on the southerly property line; the chain link
fence and gates were not part of the original permit.
2. Provide an 18-foot wide gravel driveway along the northern portion of the lot from the existing asphalt
driveway to the overhead garage doors and re-landscape the area with loam and seed as per the 2005
plan.
3. The Notice of Intent should include detailed stormwater calculations.
4. Regarding the loam pile near the residence that Mr.Watterson said would be removed the plan shows
this area being landscaped with wood chips. The wood chips should be removed and this area should
be loamed and seeded. Mr. Borrebach said this would help make up for some of the additional gravel
areas around the garage.
5. If in fact the water supply well was not permitted, which the BOH records are indicating, it should be
removed.
Mr. Emery said with respect to the allegation of raising the trench grade on the town land east of the rear
property line, did the engineer perform any shallow soil test pits to document that the fill had been placed on the
Town of Mansfield property? Mr.Borrebach said he did not. He said the basis for his comment was for the
comparison of the 2005 plan to the current 2011 plan. He said he compared the existing grades prior to
construction as shown on the original engineering plan prepared by Norwood Engineering to the current grades
behind the wall. Since both plans were done by the same company, Mr. Borrebach said he assumed they used
7
the same datum. The grades are about two feet higher along the back end of the wall; the 2005 plan shows the
grade in this area to be 85-86. Mr. Borrebach said the grade is visible in photos taken of the site.
Attorney Valanzola said he and Mr. Borrebach actually inspected the site on February 9, 2012. He said the
grade is visible.
Mr. Emery said the garage is in a residential zone and the size of the building should not be an issue. Mr.
Cauldwell said it is not an issue with this board because it is a permitted building.
With respect to the use of the building, Mr. Emery said if you work with your hands you have tools, welders,
grinders, etc. He asked that the board be cognizant of this. Mr. Watterson is being punished for being self-
reliant. Mr. Cauldwell said these issues are not a concern of the board, the board is only concerned with the
wetland violations.
Attorney Valanzola said the Zoning Board of Appeals has found the property is being used illegally for a
commercial business.
Mr. Amos Robinson discussed the water supply well. He said there were several wells in this area when the
property was used as a duck farm by Mr. Watterson's father-in-law.
Mr. Emery said regarding the position that this application needs to meet the Stormwater regulations, this is a
single-family dwelling and the wetland regulations do not speak to limiting the size of an accessory structure on
residential property. Mr. Emery said it is a residential zone and a residential use of a garage. Mr. Watterson
realizes he has made some mistakes and he to trying to correct them. Attorney Valanzola said it is not an
accessory use, it is residential use; the ZBA has ruled the building is being used as a commercial business.
Ms. White asked about the existing metal garage that is shown on the October 2011 plan. She said there is a
note on this plan for the approximate location for roof recharge. Was this put in when the building was
constructed or is it proposed? Mr. Watterson said it was a construction requirement.
Ms. Matthew asked about the stormwater calculations that Mr. Borrebach recommended be included with the
Notice of Intent. Mr. Cauldwell said there is a local Stormwater by-law which is under the jurisdiction of the
board. He said the threshold is an acre of disturbance and he does not feel this application meets the threshold.
Elizabeth said at this time it has not been established by the court that the building was used for commercial
purposes. Attorney Valanzola said until it is overturned in court, it is considered a business.
Mr. Emery said perhaps the hearing should be continued until the court case is decided. Mr. Cauldwell said it is
not necessary to continue the hearing because the board is going to act on the information that is before them
tonight. Attorney Valanzola said the court case has nothing to do with what is before the board tonight.
Elizabeth said she would like to go over the memo from the engineering firm. Ms. Matthew said this information
should have been submitted before tonight's meeting. She said it is in the by-law that information or plans are
to be received seven days prior to a hearing.
Mr. Emery said if the board closes the hearing tonight, there is a possibility of a procedural appeal due to the
lack of a quorum. He said he would like to request the hearing be continued. Mr. Emery was reminded that the
issue of only three members able to vote on this hearing tonight had been discussed earlier in the meeting and
on behalf of the applicants he had asked that the hearing be allowed to proceed. Mr. Emery said he did not
have a sense of the abutters' attorney at that point in time.
Mr. Cauldwell called for a motion to close the hearing.
Ms. Matthew made the motion to close the public hearing for 190 Mill Street.
Ms. White seconded the motion.
Motion passed 3-0-1.
Ms. White made the motion to approve the plan for 190 Mill Street dated October 27, 2011 with the following
conditions: the concrete driveway to the right of the house is to be removed from the gate located on the
southerly property line back to the stone wall and the area is to be loamed and seeded; plantings are to be
8
added around the stone wall on the right side (south) of the property where the wetland is located in place of the
proposed infiltration trench; the gravel ramp and fill on town-owned land is to be removed, the original grades
restored and restoration plantings done in this area — a restoration plan is to be submitted to Conservation for
t approval;the smaller of the two sheds located in the northeastern corner of the property is to be removed; the
pile of top soil is to be removed and the area is to be loamed and seeded instead of the proposed wood chips;
four(4) signs, "Environmentally Sensitive Area—Do Not Disturb", are to be placed on the rear easterly property
line on 50 foot centers, on permanent metal posts with concrete footings.
Ms. Matthew seconded the motion.
Ms. Matthew said the recommendations of OHI Engineering, Inc. should be incorporated into the Order of
Conditions. She said she is not sure about item #4 Stormwater Regulations and item #3 (1) -the water supply
well. Elizabeth said she is not sure the board can required the stormwater calculations be submitted until it has
been established by the court that the building was being used as a business.
Ms. Matthew asked what will happen if it is decided by the court that the building is being used as a commercial
business; if it is a business, it would then require that the stormwater calculations be submitted. Mr. Cauldwell
said the applicant would have to come before the board with a Notice of Intent to remove the building because
the building is within 100 ft. of the buffer.
The motion was amended to include the OHI Engineering, Inc. Recommendations 1,2,3,5,6, and 7 are to be
incorporated into the Order of Conditions.
Motion passed 3-0-1.
7. New and Old Business
Agent's Notes
7 Shea Circle,Autumn Park,Liz Scibilia, David Hobiaca, Easton Pool&Spa.
Mrs. Scibilia wants to modify the approved plan dated 10/3/2011 to move the rear fence approximately 25 feet
from the previously approved location around the pool to the back property line. She told the board it will not be
necessary to remove any trees
Ms. Matthew was concerned that there are certified vernal pools on the property and she had asked that the
Autumn Park sub-division plans be pulled. Elizabeth said there are no certified vernal pools on or near 7 Shea
Circle; the vernal pools are located on the opposite side of the development.
Elizabeth said the fence would have to be 50 ft. from the edge of the wetland. She said the installation of the
fence would be considered new construction under the by-law and if they want to clear up to the fence, they
would need to come back to the board. The Order of Conditions for Autumn Park Estates does not allow further
development within 50 ft. of any bordering vegetated wetlands.
Elizabeth said as long as they are not removing vegetation, the fence can be installed as proposed. She said
this is a request for a field modification or a non-significant alteration.
Mr. Mulkern said the homeowner can not install gates in the fence that would allow access to the back of the
property beyond the fence. He said the lawn is not to be expanded and any other activities must be brought
before the board.
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to accept the field modification for 7 Shea Circle for the fence only with a note
for the file stating that the fence is the only activity allowed and the homeowner can not do any work within or
beyond the 50 ft."no touch"without filing with Conservation.
Ms. Matthew seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0-0.
Peter Smith, Mansfield Youth Baseball. He is requesting approval from the board to file for a permit for the
roof structures on fields 1, 2, 3 and 6. The roofs are being done for safety reasons; in the summer the roofs will
provide shade and prevent people from being hit by baseballs.
9
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to allow the construction of the dugout roofs on fields 1, 2, 3 and 6 as illustrated
on the plan.
Ms. White seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0-0.
Mr. Smith was asked if the proposed well was ever put in. He said the well was put in about six months ago.
Mr. Cauldwell asked that Mr. Smith submit a plan showing the location of the well and all other paperwork
pertaining to the well.
The well needs to be added to the Mansfield Youth Baseball contract.
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to sign the Mansfield Youth Baseball contract.
Ms. White seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0-0.
The board and Mr. Smith signed the contract. The contract needs to go to town council for approval.
Ms. White asked if the Conservation Commission has been given a key to the gate. She said when the gate is
locked, people can not access the conservation land. Mr. Smith will get a key for the Commission but asked
that the gate not be left opened during the off-season. Mr. Cauldwell said a sign should be posted on the gate
with information about the accessibility to the Conservation land. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Cauldwell to send him
the wording for the sign and he will have the sign done and installed.
Ratify Enforcement Order for Elm Street: Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to ratify the Enforcement Order for
the Walsh property on Elm Street.
Ms. White seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0-0.
Ratify Enforcement Order for Mansfield Municipal Airport: Ms. White made the motion to ratify the
Enforcement Order for the Mansfield Municipal Airport, allowing the airport work to be done.
Mr. Cauldwell seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0-0.
Hunting Web Page: Ms. White told the board that the hunting web page has been launched. She thanked Xia
Jin for her work on the maps and Sacha Zlatkova for putting the web page together.
A letter was written concerning the new hunting policy for Conservation land. The letter was signed by Mr.
Mulkern and will be sent to the Mansfield Fish &Game Association.
Ms. White told the board she will be going out with Jack Vultaggio to GPS the trails at Corporal Robert Francis
Hardy Conservation Land. An updated map will be done.
Ms. White said she did some research on the Open Meeting Law Compliant Procedure.
Mr. Cauldwell told the board he had a meeting with Selectman Olivier Kozlowski, a representative from the
YMCA and DPW about the proposed community garden on Essex Street. He said the water department will
add a 2"waterline to transfer water to the site. DPW will install and maintain a fence. Any work on site will have
to have the board's approval.
Elizabeth told the board there was a raw sewage spill on Copeland Avenue; a sewer pipe had backed up and
when the town tried to flush the pipe raw sewage was discharged into the wetlands; the wetlands flow into
Robinson Brook.
Suggestions to clean up the spill included having a backhoe scrape up the sewage and excavate the area or
spray the area with chlorine. Elizabeth asked that they wait before trying to remedy the situation. She said
EPA was very concerned because if it reaches Robinson Brook the level of concern would rise. Elizabeth told
the board an environmental consulting company should have been called. Over 40,000 gallons of raw sewage
was spilled.
Elizabeth asked Rick Alves to talk with EPA and find out what they recommend be done to clean up the spill.
10
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to approve to accept the minutes January10, 2011, March 20, 2011, the
September 19, 2011 minutes and the January 23, 2012 minutes.
Ms.White seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0-0.
8. Adjournment
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to adjourn.
Ms.White seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0-0.
Next meeting will be March 19, 2012 at 7:00 pm,
/1- / - 3� -4,2.(11-3
Joseph Mulker Date
11