Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION 11192012 OW, RECEIVED 13 OFFICE 7F4.) Town of Mansfield 20x13 MAR 20 p b: S2 Conservation Minutes !f, a,J r c' November 19,2012 t S A ' j � Present: Colin Cauldwell, Vice Chairman; Michele White; Paul Boyden; Carole Matthew; Michael Healey; Elizabeth Leidhold,Conservation and Environmental Planner Meeting called to order at 7:00 pm. 1. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Christian&Feck Development Corp.,Stan Feck,110 Spring Street,Lot 2. DEP#211-0870 There was no representative present. Mr. Healey made the motion to continue the request for a Certificate of Compliance for 110 Spring Street, DEP #211- 0870,to December 17,2012. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 2. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Beth and John Thibault,235 South Main Street. DEP#211-0887 Elizabeth's comments: Only difference from the plan of record is that the stairs were moved and are now four feet closer to the resource area The work is still over 50 feet away from the wetland area and considered a minor change, with no alteration or impact to the protected resources. An as-built, dated September 27, 2012, and a letter were submitted by Christopher C. Charlton of Continental Land Survey. The letter states that all the work has been completed strictly in accordance with the Order.of Conditions with the exception of the stairs;the deck landing and steps were built at the west end of the deck to allow better access and egress as opposed to the approved location that would have been blocked by an existing basement entrance. Mr. Boyden made the motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance, with the minor change in the location of the deck landing and stairs from the original plan of record, for 235 South Main Street, DEP#211-0887. Ms. White seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Plan—"As Built Plan Located at 235 South Main Street Mansfield, MA, dated September 27,2012,Continental Land Survey. 3. Request for Certificate of Compliance: James Fuller,5 Shea Circle(formerly 5 Feck Way Autumn Park,Lot 10,Map 37,Parcel 287. DEP#211-0817 James Fuller,the homeowner,was present. An as-built plan, dated October 15, 2012,and a letter were submitted by RIM Engineering. All work has been completed and there is sufficient growth to the landscaping to prevent erosion towards the wetlands. A stone wall has been constructed and a row of Rhododendrons has been planted along the area where the existing construction comes closest to the 50-foot no touch area. Elizabeth's comments: A copy of the Conservation Restriction was recorded at the Registry of Deeds on April 15, 2011 and is attached to the request. The letter from RIM Engineering says the work has been completed but does not say the 1 work has been done in substantial compliance with the Order of Conditions for this site. She would like this verified by the engineer for the record. rTh Mr. Healey made the motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 5 Shea Circle(formerly 5 Feck Way), DEP#211-0817. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Plan — "As-Built Location Plan for House No. 5 Shea Circle in Mansfield,MA",dated October 15,2012 RIM Engineering Co., Inc. 4. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Perry DiMascio,Perry&Feck,LLC,6 Shea Circle(formerly 6 Feck Way) Autumn Park,Lot 3,Map 37,Parcel 280. DEP#211-0873 Perry DiMascio and Ralph Maloon were present. An as-built plan, dated October 15, 2012, was submitted with a letter from RIM Engineering stating all work has been completed and there is sufficient growth to the landscaping to prevent erosion towards the wetlands. The driveway has been sloped to shed surface water away from the wetland area. Three signs, "Environmentally Sensitive Area—Do Not Disturb", have been permanently installed. Fifteen 15) trees have been planted, creating a border between the constructed area and the wetland and vernal pool. Elizabeth's comments: An as built plan with a letter has been submitted. The letter from the engineer says that all work has been completed but does not say the work has been completed in substantial compliance with the Order of Conditions. She would like to know that the work has been completed in compliance with the Order. The three(3) "Environmental Sensitive Area — Do Not Disturb" signs have been permanently installed, fifteen (15) trees have been planted and the deed has been recorded which states that only organic lawn products may be used on the lawn. Ms. White made the motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 6 Shea Circle, DEP #211-0873. The permanent (\ "Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb"signs are to remain in place. Mr. Healey seconded the motion: Motion passed 5-0-0. Plan—"As-built Location Plan for House No. 6 Shea Circle", dated October 15, 2012, RIM Engineering Co., Inc. 5. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Kenneth and Jeanne Hagar,111 Williams Street. DEP#211-0732 Mr.and Mrs. Hagar were present. An Enforcement Order was issued October 30, 2012 because the homeowner had altered the wetland and "no touch" areas as depicted on the Plan of Record, dated October 4, 2012. The wetland areas are to be replanted with native wetland vegetation and the 25-ft."no touch"area replanted with additional upland plantings. Elizabeth's comments: The Commission may want to issue a Partial Certificate of Compliance until the restoration area has been completed in the spring of 2013 when the approved plantings are available. Mr. Healey made the motion to issue a Partial Certificate of Compliance for 111 Williams Street, DEP #211-0732. Restoration plantings, required under the Enforcement Order issued October 30, 2012, must be inspected by the Conservation Commission for compliance of 310 CMR 10.55(4)(6) and at least 75%re-established within two (2)growing seasons prior to the issuance of a full Certificate of Compliance. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 6. Notice of Intent: Kenneth and Jeanne Hagar,111 Williams Street,Map 10,Parcel 8. DEP#211-0894 The Notice of Intent was filed to expand a stone veranda at the back of the house from 6'x30'to 15'x30' and extend an existing wooden deck by 6 feet within 100 feet of bordering vegetated wetlands. 2 Mr.and Mrs.Hagar were present. ( '\ Elizabeth's comments: The proposed project is over 50 feet from the wetlands, on existing lawn, in an area already approved for an in-ground pool in the 2005 filing(DEP#211-0732.' Ms.White made the motion to issue an Order of Conditions for 111 Williams Street,DEP#211-0894,to expand an existing stone veranda and deck. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Plan— "Sketch of Proposed Deck", submitted with application and received October 19,2012. 7. Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation: Mark Perron,T&M Realty Corp.,335 Gilbert Street,Lot 3,Map 4,Parcels 14,15&137. DEP#211-0895 Mr.Scott Goddard of Goddard Consulting and the applicant, Mark Perron of T&M Realty Corporation,were present. The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family home. The nearest resource area is a bordering vegetated wetland (BVW) containing Certified Vernal Pool (CVP)#2937 to the north. In June of 2012, the wetland resource areas were delineated by Mr. Goddard. The wetland border was flagged using the criteria in the most recent edition of MA Wetland Protection Act and Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 as well as the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law. Hydric soil indicators, vegetational changes, hydrological indicators, and topography were all considered for delineation purposes. Flags B1-B3 and C1-C3 are the only flags needing confirmation. The flags delineate the edge of the BVW as well as the upper limit of the certified vernal pool. Flag#C1 was documented using MA DEP Data Sheets and the sheets are attached to the filing. Elizabeth's comments: Flags B1-B3 and Flags C1-C3 only'are approved under this ORAD. The MHW line for the vernal ,' pool was not confirmed as part of this application. A letter, dated July 25, 2012, from Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) regarding this site has been submitted with the application; the applicant has extensive limitations on the use of the property,marked as the limit of disturbance(LOD)on site Mr. Cauldwell asked if Natural Heritage required signage to delineate the area to be protected. He said the Commission can't require the signs because this is an ANRAD and asked if the applicant would be amenable to putting the signs along the wetland line. Mr. Goddard said Natural Heritage did not require the signage, but the applicant will voluntarily install the signage along the limit of disturbance on site. In the letter from the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, based on the information provided and the information contained in the data base, the NHESP finds that the project, as currently proposed, must be conditioned to avoid a prohibited "take" of Blanding's Turtle. Mr. Healey said the following conditions must be met:` "prior to the start of work,this letter and the plan,"Blanding's Turtle Construction Protection Plan",shall be recorded on Lots 1,2,and 3 and the adjacent land owned by Massapoag Realty Trust (Map 4, Parcel 23), in the Bristol Registry of Deeds, to become a record part of the chain of title for the properties. Proof of recordation shall be submitted to the NHESP within 30 days of this determination". Mr. Healey asked if the plan was properly recorded and asked about the adjacent land. Mr. Goddard said the plan was recorded and explained the land owned by Massapoag Realty Trust was permitted through Conservation for a tree farm but the project will not be done. He said the owner is aware that this land is subject to the same stipulation as Lots 1,2 and 3. Mr. Boyden asked if there are any regulations regarding the scale of submitted drawings. Elizabeth said in the guidance document put out by DEP, drawings submitted for review should be 1"=50' scale or less, but it is not mandatory. The plans for this project are 1"=60'. Mr. Boyden recommended that in the future,the scale should be 1"=30'or 1"=40'. 3 Mr. Healey made the motion to accept the ANRAD for 335 Gilbert Street, Lot 3, Map 4, Parcels 14, 15 & 137, DEP#211- 0895, and to issue an ORAD with the following notation that only Flags B1-B3 and Flags C1-C3 are approved under this ANRAD and the MHW line for vernal pools was not confirmed as part of this application;the applicant has agreed to place "Environmentally Sensitive Area- Do Not Disturb" signs to delineate the area of limit of disturbance (LOD) on site; the Commission is waiving the guideline of 1" =50' in this case because the plan submitted is scaled at 1" =60'. Ms.White seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Plan "Conservation Plan of Proposed Construction at Hse. No. 335 Gilbert Street, Lot 3",dated November 6,2012 and received November 16,2012. Mr.Goddard asked that the Commission authorize Elizabeth to sign the building permit for 335 Gilbert Street. Mr. Healey made the motion authorizing Elizabeth to sign the building application for 335 Gilbert Street contingent on the board evaluation of the ANRAD. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 8. Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation: Mark Perron,T&M Realty Corp.,375 Gilbert Street,Lot 1,Map 4,Parcels 25,26&136. Scott Goddard of Goddard Consulting and Mark Perron of T&M Realty Corporation were present. Mr. Goddard explained the nearest resource area is a bordering vegetated wetland (BVW)to the south and also BVW to the west containing a Certified Vernal Pool (CVP). In June of 2012 the wetland resource areas were delineated by Mr. Goddard. The wetland border was flagged using the criteria in the most recent edition of MA Wetland Protection Act and Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 as well as the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law. Hydric soil indicators, vegetational changes,hydrological indicators,and topography were all considered for delineation purposes. Flags A1-A20 and B1-B7,a total of twenty-eight flags,are the only flags needing confirmation. �. Mr.Goddard said the applicant is proposing to build a single-family house.The house will be on the right side of the lot to avoid the wetlands on the left side of the property. The septic system will be located in the rear of the property because this is the only area where suitable soils were found for the percolation test. The septic system will be more than 125 feet from a vernal pool located on the adjacent property. Elizabeth, Mr. Healey and Mr.Goddard reviewed the flags in the field on November 19, 2012,as shown on the latest plan. Flags A1-A20 and Flags B1-B7 are confirmed as accurate but Flag A19 is to be removed and Flags A18 to A20 connected; Elizabeth said the new plan does not reflect these changes and asked that this information regarding the changes be noted in the ORAD. Mr. Goddard said no other flags shown on the plan were reviewed at this time because they are not pertinent to this filing;these flags are over 200 feet from the proposed work area. There are no vernal pools in this area so only the 100- foot buffer and the LOD are shown on the plan. The flood zone was not confirmed as part of this application. The Commission asked that Mr.Goddard initial and date the plan;this plan will become the plan of record. Elizabeth asked for a copy of the deed. The applicant has agreed to place "Environmentally Sensitive Area—Do Not Disturb"signs along the limit of disturbance (LOD)on site. The July 25,2012 letter from the Division of Fisheries&Wildlife dated July 25,2012 was attached to the application. Mr. Healey made the motion that the ANRAD for 375 Gilbert Street, Lot 1, Map 4, Parcels 25,26& 136. DEP#211-0896, be accepted, an ORAD issued and the following be noted in the ORAD: Flag A19 is to be removed and Flags A18 to A20 4 are to be connected; Flags A1-A20 with the removal of A19 and Flags B1-B7 are confirmed as accurate;the flood zone and MHW line for vernal pools were not confirmed as part of this application; the applicant has agreed to place "Environmentally Sensitive Area — Do Not Disturb" signs to delineate the area of limit of disturbance (LOD) on site the Commission is waiving the guideline of 1" =50' in this case because the plan submitted is scaled at 1" =60'. Ms. White seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Plan "Conservation Plan of Proposed Construction at Hse. No 375 Gilbert Street, Lot 1",received November 20,2012. Mr.Goddard asked that Elizabeth be authorized to sign the building permit for 375 Gilbert Street. Mr. Healey made the motion that Elizabeth is authorized to sign the building application for 375 Gilbert Street, Lot 1, contingent on the board evaluation of the ANRAD. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 9. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Melissa Nasiff Almeida,4 Keli Lane. DEP#211-0578 Mark Almeida was present. On November 25, 1998, a partial Certificate of Compliance was issued for a single-family home at 4 Keli Lane, DEP#211- 0578,for everything except the final stabilization of the lawn area which was completed in the spring of 1999. Elizabeth said several changes have been made to the driveway location over the years,bringing the driveway closer to the wetland line. She recommends a Certificate of Compliance be issued. She told the Commission there is an outstanding Order of Conditions for an in-ground pool approved at the September 2012 meeting that will require an as built before a Certificate of Compliance can be issued: Mr. Healey made the motion to issue a Complete Certificate of Compliance for 4 Keli Lane, DEP#211-0578. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 10. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Deana DeSilva,3 Kybren Circle. DEP#211-0881 David Hobaica of Easton Pool and Spa was present. Elizabeth said the Frog-logs have been installed but the "Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb" signs have not been permanently installed;the signs were placed on wooden stakes. Mr. Hobaica said the signs have now been installed on metal posts but have not been placed in concrete. Mr.Cauldwell asked if the Certificate of Compliance could be issued contingent upon the signage being properly installed. Elizabeth said she would prefer the board not issue the Certificate of Compliance tonight and the hearing be continued until the signage has been permanently installed. Mr. Boyden made the motion to continue the hearing for 3 Kybren Circle to December 17, 2012. Mr.Healey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 11. Request for Determination of Applicability: Paul and Denise Mahoney,6 Winslow Way,Map 41,Parcel 36 and 38. The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed to allow clearing of vegetation within 100 feet of a stream. The application was filed May 31,2012. After the October meeting, at the request of the Commission, Elizabeth and Mr. Healey did a site inspection. She said there does not appear to be any activity and the homeowner may want to postpone the hearing to an unspecified time so they don't'have to re-advertise. The work proposed is within jurisdiction and she asked if the Commission wanted to 5 issue a positive determination, requiring the applicant to file a Notice of Intent or ask that they withdraw the application. She said the applicant can come back when they are ready to go forward with the application process but would have to re-advertise for public notification because of the length of time that has passed and the possibility that the project might change. Elizabeth suggested a certified letter be sent to Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney regarding their application, requesting they appear at the December 17,2012 hearing or withdraw the application without prejudice so the application can be taken off the agenda. Mr. Healey made the motion to send a certified letter to Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney of 6 Winslow Way regarding their proposal to clear vegetation within 100 feet of a stream,to inform them if they do not appear at the December 17, 2012 meeting,they will be removed from the agenda. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 12. Notice of Intent: Robin Devine,119 York Road,Map 2,Parcel 204.DEP#211-0893 The Notice of Intent was filed for the installation of an in-ground pool, apron, patio, 12'x18' pool house,retaining wall, fence,gates,raised fire pit area and related grading within the 100-foot buffer zone and the 200-foot outer riparian zone of the Wading River and the flood zone. David Hobaica,Easton Pool&Spa and Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering Co., Inc.were present. Elizabeth said a new plan,"Proposed In-Ground Pool Location Plan at HSE. No 119 York Road"dated September 24,2012 and revised November 13, 2012, was submitted today. She and the Commission were unable to review the plan. Ms. Matthew reminded Mr. Hobaica that plans are to be submitted seven days prior to the hearing. The Commission suggested the hearing be postponed until December 17,2012. Mr.Hobaica agreed to the postponement but asked that he be allowed to present the information the Commission requested at the October meeting. Ms. Matthew made the motion to continue the hearing for 119 York Road, DEP#211-0893,to December 17, 2012 and to allow the presentation by Mr. Hobaica. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Mr.Hobaica explained there were concerns about the location of the pool and an Alternative Analysis had not been done. He said the concerns of abutter Brenda Dingle,123 York Road,also needed to be addressed. Mr. Hobaica said,as per the Commission's request,the orientation of the pool has been changed so that it is parallel and closer to the house, instead of perpendicular. The original plan showed the pool within the 50-foot area;the pool will be 10 feet from the existing deck and has been removed completely from the 50-foot buffer zone. Mr.Hobaica said the new plan provides more detail on the elevations of the proposed retaining wall. Mr. Hobaica explained the proposed fire pit area and the majority of the retaining wall will be located twenty-three feet further away from the side property line and away from the highest elevations on the lot. He said the wall behind the pool house will not be removed. The pool house has been moved an additional five feet from the side property line. An.Alternatives Analysis was performed as required under the Rivers Protection Act. By definition, this analysis must show "that there is no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternative to the proposed project with less adverse impact on the protected interests". Mr. Hobaica said there is no alternative location for the pool. The front yard does not represent a practicable alternative as the Mansfield Zoning Regulations do not allow accessory structures in the front yard and the septic tank and leaching field are located here. Because of the required setbacks from the house and 6 side lot lines,there is not enough room to adequately fit even a substantially smaller pool on either side of the house. He said if the pool is placed on the rear right-hand side of the yard, where the batting cage is currently located,the limit of construction would actually be closer to the riverfront. Therefore,there is no practicable alternative. Mr. Hobaica said the existing batting cage will be removed completely from the 25-foot"no touch" zone. He told the Commission the new plan leaves a much larger undisturbed area between the 25-and the 50-foot areas. Elizabeth's comments: Mr. Healey identified and flagged the "Mean Annual High-Water Line" (MAHL) on site and the new 200-foot Outer Riparian Zone has been noted on the revised plan. She said the debris dumped in the 25-foot area has been removed and the batting cage will be removed and re-located out of the 25-foot area She asked how long the batting cage had been on the property. Ms. Devine said she thinks the cage has been there for approximately eight years. Elizabeth asked if the age and stability of the bank have been determined and if the elevation of the berm and the top of the wall are on the new plan. Ralph Maloon said the location of the bank of the river and the 100-and 200-ft. have been added to the new plan. He reminded the Commission this lot was there before the Rivers Act and the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law. Mr. Maloon said a high water mark analysis has been done and the property surveyed. Mr: Healey said the elevation of the berm between 119 York Road and 123 York Road and the top of the wall as well as the trees in this area were a concern of Ms. Dingle. She was concerned about the impact the project would have on her property because of the high grade of the berm. Ms. Dingle said if the project was allow as proposed,the root systems of the trees on the berm would be damaged and the trees might not survive and could cause an increase in the flooding on her property. Mr. Hobaica said the elevations of this area are more accurately shown on the revised plan. He said there will be no work done within a minimum of eight feet of the property line. The hearing will be continued to December 17,2012. Ms. Devine asked about trees on her property and in the neighborhood that need to be removed for safety reasons. Mr. Cauldwell said if the trees are not within 100 feet of a resource area, no permit is required to remove the trees. If a tree is within 100 feet or a right-of-way,she should contact Conservation or the Tree Warden. 13. Agent's Notes: Stan Feck, Christian & Feck Development Corp.arrived. He has requested a Certificate of Compliance for 110 Spring Street. Because a motion was made earlier in the meeting to continue the hearing until December 17,2012, Mr. Boyden made a motion to reconsider the continuance for the request for a Certificate of Compliance for Christian & Feck Development Corp.,DEP#211-0870.Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Mr. Boyden made the motion to rescind the continuance of DEP#211-0870 for the request for a Certificate of Compliance for 110 Spring Street. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. A new plan was submitted by Colonial Engineering and received November 19,2012. In a memorandum dated November 19, 2012,Richard C.Alves,Town Engineer states he had reviewed the as-built for 110 Spring Street, revised October 11, 2012, and prepared by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., and the Conservation as- built plot Plan of Land prepared by Colonial Engineering, Inc. dated October 11, 2012. The Engineering Division has received a draft copy of the Deed and it is acceptable when a signed copy is submitted. Based on the Memorandum from Michael Trowbridge dated October 11, 2012,a report for the Compensatory Storage by Colonial Engineering, Inca has not 7 been provided. The Conservation Plot Plan prepared by Colonial Engineering, Inc. only provides the amount of square feet which does not provide the volume calculation. The volume of the Compensatory Storage is required and verification �1, is needed that there is a direct connect to the flood zone. Compensatory storage area must be loamed and seeded. Approximately 7,246.7 square feet of Compensatory Storage was proposed; 8,256 square feet or 305.7 cubic feet have been provided. Elizabeth's comments: The Commission should get a memo from Mr.Alves saying that in his opinion,the project is built in compliance with the Plan of Record. Mr. Feck needs to address the signage issues-special conditions 2 and 3- three (3)signs(Environmentally Sensitive Area—Do Not Disturb) are to be permanently installed at the limit of clearing. She said some of the signs have already fallen down because they were not installed properly and can easily be removed. The Compensatory Storage Area is also to have permanent signs every fifty feet. The Compensatory Storage Area was to be loamed and seeded (Special Condition #4). The as built plan does not reflect this and is not stamped by Colonial Engineering. Elizabeth said the Quitclaim Deed has not been signed (Special Condition#9). Mr. Feck said the deed was recorded on October 19,2012. He will get a copy for the file. Mr. Healey made the motion to continue the Request for a Certificate of Compliance for 110 Spring Street, DEP #211 0870,to December 17, 2012. The signs are to be correctly installed in concrete and a signed copy of the Quitclaim Deed, with proof of recording and a signed as built,revised to show the loam and seeding of the Compensatory Storage Area are to be submitted along with a letter from Mr.Alves stating he has reviewed and approved the new information. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Dolan Estates bridge discussion. DEP Comments: The Department has reviewed the plans submitted for the bridge design required in accordance with Condition B.1.b of the Superseding Order of Conditions,issued by the Department on March 16, 2012,pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations at 310 CMR 10.00. The Department approves the detailed bridge design plans, consisting of 22 sheets, the first of which is titled "Dolan Estates, Mansfield, MA, Timber Vehicular Bridge Design", prepared by York Bridge Concepts,dated October,12,2012. Letter stamped by DEP October 30,2012 from Tena J. Davies, Bureau of Resource Protection. File # 211-0856, Superseding Order of Conditions, Approval of Bridge Design, Dolan Estates. Elizabeth read Special Condition#10 Prior to construction,a detailed bridge design prepared by a structural professional engineer will be submitted to the Commission for their review and approval. She said she received an e-mail from Dick Keller stating he has reviewed and approved the bridge design. A memorandum, dated November 19, 2012, from Richard C. Alves, Town Engineer, states he has reviewed the Dolan Estates Timber Vehicular Bridge Design prepared by York Bridge Concepts stamped November 13, 2012 and the calculations signature dated October 29, 2012. The Engineering Division finds that the Timber Vehicular Bridge Design and Calculations are acceptable and all the Engineering Department's comments have been addressed. Elizabeth told the Commission that Mr. Feck started the bridge construction over this past week-end without the wetland consultant present. She said during the construction, a portion of the bank caved in. Mr. Feck said nothing entered the stream when the bank collapsed. Mr. Feck explained he submitted plans before the October meeting and sent e-mails asking to be on the agenda to discuss the bridge design. Mr. Healey said the plans were stamped received on October 19,2012,after the October meeting. 8 Mr. Feck explained the construction of the bridge was started because the contractor was available and the bridge had to be done between November 15th and December 15th or a fine of$3000.00 per day would be levied. He said he assumed because DEP had approved the plan, it was all right to start the construction. Elizabeth told him the wetland monitor should have been on-site as per Special Conditions#3—wetland monitor is to be present during bridge construction and during all work within Conservation jurisdiction - and#4—the wetland monitor shall be present during all wetland and bank restoration activities. Mr. Feck said he left a message for Mr. Manganello on Friday that he was starting the bridge work. Mr. Manganello said he was unavailable until the following Monday. Elizabeth told Mr. Feck she would have been on-site if she had known the wetland monitor was not able to be present. Mr. Feck told the Commission the state approved the bridge and said they would notify the Conservation Commission. Elizabeth said, because Mansfield has a by-law, the state, in addition to their review and approval, requires that the Commission also review and approve the plan. Elizabeth read a memo from Mark Manganello of LEC, dated November 19, 2012—The temporary roadway extending from the bridge to its terminus has been graded and paved. At the site evaluation today we observed that the proposed bridge installation has begun. During installation of the piles on the Ware Street side,a subsurface void and removal of a stump caused a portion of the bank to slump.'The bank slumping was remedied by coving the damaged bank with rip-rap. The contractor will cover the rip-rap with a layer of loam to encourage vegetation. Mr. Cauldwell asked if the bridge design approved by the Commission has changed. Mr. Feck said the bridge is a better design then the original proposal which was steel, asphalt and concrete footings. The new plan is for a wooden bridge, with four pilings on each side of the bridge. Mr. Cauldwell asked if the wood for the bridge was treated with an environmentally sensitive product. Mr. Feck said the pilings have to be pressure-treated with CCA for durability but the rest of the wood for the bridge will be ACQ-treated. Mr. Boyden asked who would own and be responsible for the bridge. Mr. Feck said the state and the town are not involved with the bridge; everything beyond Ware Street is private and the bridge will be owned by the Homeowners Association. He said the Fire Department has also approved the bridge. Ms. White made the motion to approve the bridge design for Dolan Estates, Ware Street, DEP#211-0856, plan "Dolan Estates, Mansfield, MA,Timber Vehicular Bridge Design", prepared by York Bridge Concepts and dated October 12, 2012. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 14. New Business: Anthony Jodice, 153 Stearns Avenue, Builder's Lot 3, Map 41, Parcel 23: To discuss potential changes in the Request for Determination of Applicability(RDA)filed on March 10,2011 by Joan Powers. Mr. Jodice explained that Ms. Powers filed the RDA in March 2011 and received a Negative 3 Determination to build a 2,500 square-foot ranch house but did not purchase the property. He purchased the land in July 2012 and was going to use the same footprint approved in the 2011 filing. He said the land has been cleared and he would like to build a 2,000 square-foot,two-story house that will have less impact and be further away from the wetlands. Elizabeth explained if the Commission determines this is a minor change,they can vote to adopt the new plan as the Plan of Record. Mr. Jodice told the Commission he might have a buyer for the originally proposed ranch-style home but would like to keep both plans as viable options. He asked if the Commission would allow him to build the smaller home if the potential sale does not go through. He said he will know in three weeks if the buyer will be purchasing the house. 9 Mr.Caluldwell said the new plan is a less intrusive change and will not require a new filing. Mr. Boyden asked what changes would be made if the smaller house were to be built. Mr.Jodice said the top of concrete, septic and grading will all remain the same but the driveway will be further away from the resource areas and the impervious area would be smaller. Mr. Boyden said the original septic plan is for four bedrooms; Mr.Jodice might want to amend the septic plan to three bedrooms if the smaller home is built. Mr. Cauldwell said Mr.Jodice can go forward with the original house but if he is unable to sell the ranch-style house, he should contact the Commission to be put on the December agenda for approval of the amended RDA. He said if the smaller home is built,a plan that reflects all the changes should be submitted;an as built plan should be submitted when the project is finished. Ms.White said she would view the requested amendment to the RDA as an insignificant change. Paul Alves, 15 Marjac Way: The office received a call about a potential violation regarding clearing and altering of bordering vegetated wetlands. After conducting a brief inspection from an adjacent property, it was determined that work had been done within the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction under the state and local wetland protection by- law. Any clearing or removal of vegetation within 100 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland requires a permit from the Conservation Commission. Mr. Alves was told he should hire a wetland consultant to determine where the wetland line is and the extent of restoration needed. Mr. Healey told Mr. Alves the wetland line and any restoration is usually determined by wetland vegetation and soils. Because of the degree of alteration and the amount of vegetation removed,he said a soil auger would have to be used to map the edge of the wetland. Mr.Cauldwell asked when the house was built. Mr.Alves said it was built in 1998. Mr.Cauldwell said the house was built before the Mansfield Wetland By-law was established in 1999. Elizabeth said an Enforcement Order or a filing will be necessary to do the restoration. A list of wetland consultants will be sent to Mr. Alves. The Commission requested that he provide an update at the December 17, 2012 meeting. Ms. White said the wetland line and buffer would have to be determined before an Enforcement Order can be issued. Neil and Wendy Levine, 596 Maple Street: During an inspection of a neighboring property, it was noticed by the Conservation Department that there appeared to be clearing and grading activities occurring within areas of jurisdiction under the state and local wetland protection regulations. Elizabeth said the wooded area to the rear of the lot is within an area mapped as Estimated and Priority Habitat by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered_Species Program and would require a review by their department. Elizabeth said the house was built 21 years ago,before the by-law. The location of the wetlands needs to be determined. Mr. Levine asked about being in an Estimated and Priority Habitat. Mr. Cauldwell said it is an area where there is or the potential to have rare plants and/or rare or endangered species. There could also be recharge areas and aquifers. The Commission asked that the wetlands be flagged and a restoration plan be submitted along with a Request for Determination of Applicability for the December meeting. 10 Mr. Cauldwell explained to both Mr. Alves and Mr. Levine there are two levels of protection and jurisdiction: The state Wetland Protection Act and the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law which adds protection above the state requirements. He said the state does not require any setbacks but the By-law does. If a house was built before the By- law, there is no problem but a homeowner cannot further alter the lot without a Conservation filing. The Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law requires a 25-foot setback for new work for homes existing before 1999; if after 1999, a 50- foot setback is required. If a property is within a Natural Heritage area a setback of 100 feet for new construction is required. He told the homeowners if any work has occurred on these properties in the 25-foot no touch area,restoration would be needed. He asked Mr.Levine to flag the 25-foot setback from the wetlands and mark out the area that was cleared in terms of the wetland line. He said if all the work is 25 feet from the wetland, the Commission will require a filing of a Request for Determination of Applicability with a Negative Determination issued. If the work is within the 25-foot area, some restoration might be required. 15. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 pm(White/Matthew) Motion passed. Next meeting will be December 17,2012. ac_c_lagdi (i)/0 3/00//3 Colin Cauldwell,Vice Chairman Date 11