HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION 12132010
MANSFIELD CONSERVATION MINUTES
DECEMBER 13, 2010
Present: Colin Cauldwell, Chairman; Michele White, Vice Chairman; paui Boyden; Jack Smith; Carole Matthew;
Elizabeth Leidhold, Conservation and Environmental Planner.
11...6:00 pm . EXECUTIVE SESSION
Present: Colin Cauldwell, Chairman; Michele White, Vice Chairman; Paul Boyden; Carole Matthew; Elizabeth
Leidhold, Conservation and Environmental Planner,
Absent: Joe Mulkern; Derek House; Jack Smith.
MOTION: To enter into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing land acquisition of Map 14, Parcel 20 off
South Main Street and to return to Open Session at the conclusion. (Paul Boyden/Michele White).
ROLL CALL VOTE: Colin Cauldwell, aye; Michele White, Vice Chairman, aye; Paul Boyden, aye; Carole Matthew,
aye.
VOTE: 4-0 PASSES
MOTION: To adjourn Executive Session at 6:30 pm and resume open session. (Michele White/Carole Matthew),
ROLL CALL VOTE: Colin Cauldwell, Chairman, aye; Michele White, Vice Chairman, aye; Paul Boyden, aye; Carole
Matthew, aye.
VOTE: 4-0 PASSES
Jack Smith arrived.
I 2.6:30 Meeting with Mass Highway.
Paul Leofanti, J.H, Lynch and Sons, Inc, and Karro Frost, PWS of New England Environmental, Inc. were present.
Karro Frost is the Environmental Monitor for the project. She told the board she did a site inspection on December
2nd said the work has started on BMP2, the infiltration basin, Most of this work is outside the buffer and the
Riverfront area but a small portion of the basin at the eastern end is in the resource area.
Elizabeth asked about the Riverfront alteration (11,930 sq. ft, of impact), She asked if there were additional
impacts. Paul Leofanti said they have not gone beyond what was permitted as far as impacts, Eiizabeth
questioned the amount of alteration; if the amount of Riverfront impact is different from what has been accounted
for in the totals to date, the applicant needs to look for ways to mitigate the additional impacts.
Karro Frost told the board there is another area where there will be Riverfront impact, the area by the infiltration
basin; there is supposed to be a drainage line on the up-gradient side.
Colin Cauldwell asked Elizabeth if she wanted the Riverfront impacts re-calculated and submitted. Elizabeth thinks
it would be a good idea,
Rick Alves, Town Engineer, has done a site inspection, His concerns have been addressed in a November 24' 2010
memo regarding piping at the headwall, The pipe appears to be silted up. He said he has not had any response
from anyone; he has not heard from Heather Fuller of Jacob Engineering, He said the applicant is in violation of
the Order of Conditions.
Rick Alves said all this could have been avoided if the Water Table Analysis and Permeability had been performed
prior to any of the construction, This was one of the special conditions for the project,
Carole Matthew wanted to know what happens now; do they get told to stop work because they are in violation of
the Order.
Elizabeth spoke to DEP today; they said basically it is our permit and we need to enforce it. Gary Dixon of Mass
DOT told Elizabeth to send a letter to DOT stating the facts with the memo of November 24, 2010 from the
Engineering Department attached.
Elizabeth asked what is happening with the Army Corps of Engineering (ACOE) timeline for work in the stream -
was a waiver given? Paul Leofanti told the board the ACOE permit only allows work in the stream between July 1
and October 1. He said the stream work affects the 60-inch culvert that has yet to be built. He has asked for a
variance from Mass DOT, because they are the permit holder, to switch from a category 1 to category 2. He said
the waiver process started today and the process could take 2-3 months.
Paul Leofanti told the board they will be closing down the site for the winter probably this Friday. He said some
work would still be done - digging in the pond to finish up outside the 100 ft. zone, some drainage work and fill to
prepare the site for the winter. The houses will be demolished next week by a sub-contractor.
Michele White said the department has received some complaints about soil on Rte. 140 from the construction site.
She told Mr. Leofanti if the issue can't be addressed now, it should be done when work resumes in the spring. She
said the construction entrance needs to be maintained.
Elizabeth asked Paul Leofanti to address the coal clinker issue. The previous owner of the property had pushed his
burned barn down the slope towards the wetlands. This area has been cleared and cleaned of debris but material
remains near the bottom of the slope. This material was referred to as coal clinkers. Paul Leofanti has notified
Mass DOT. Gary Dixon has either taken samples or will be doing so, to be evaluated by the Environmental
Department at Mass DOT.
Karro Frost said coal clinkers are very common in Massachusetts. If they are left in place they are not considered
hazardous material but if you are going to remove them, you have to test them first to determine if they are
hazardous. Paul Leofanti said he would pass along any information he receives regarding the coal clinkers.
A letter will be sent to the engineering firm. Michele White asked that pictures Elizabeth has from the site be
attached to the letter. Elizabeth will work to get the project in compliance with the Order of Conditions regarding
the permeability test. Paul Leofanti said Mass DOT does intend to do the permeability test in BMB2.
I 3. Meeting opened at 7:00 pm.
14. Enforcements:
Norman Corliss, 309 South Main Street: FOllow-up to a compliant - Water withdrawal from stream to the rear of
309 South Main Street: Paul and Colin have looked at the site. The homeowner is pumping water from the
wetlands for irrigation purposes. The BVW is associated with the Rumford River. The wetland is in an Estimated
and Priority Habitat that is along the Wading River.
Colin Cauldwell told the board there is a walk way to a well point that is in a container in the wetlands. Piping
comes from the well point and goes approximately 200 ft. to a pump in the barn. The pump is connected to an
irrigation system.
Mr. Corliss told the board he installed the system in July 1997 for the purpose of irrigating his lawn. He said he put
a sign, reading "Private Water", in the front yard. He thought he had the right to draw the water because he owns
the land under the resource area.
2
Mr. Corliss said a Mansfield Water Department employee stopped to investigate because he knew Mr. Corliss did
not have a well permit. He told him he should not be using the water because the water is contaminated. The
employee told Mr. Corliss he was going to report him to the Board of Health.
Mr. Corliss called Scott Leite, the Health Agent on July 30, 1997. He said Mr. Leite told him the water was not
contaminated and he could use it for irrigation use only. Mr. Leite confirmed Mr. Corliss had the right to use the
water for this purpose as long as he owned the land underneath the water.
Mr. Corliss said he used the system from 1997 thru 2005. He tried to use the system again this past summer but
discovered the PVC pipe had cracked. He added piping to by-pass the crack.
Colin Cauldwell told Mr. Corliss he did his due diligence but he failed to call the town department that has
jurisdiction; the Conservation Department has jurisdiction over any activity within 100 ft. of a wetland.
Paul Boyden said the Board of Health is not the governing body to tell Mr. Corliss he has water rights. He said that
is a legal issue. The Board of Health can tell a person if the water is potable or usable but not if they have the
right to use it. Water rights are deeded. He told Mr. Corliss he should have come before the Commission because
he was working within the 100 ft. of bordering vegetated wetlands.
Elizabeth has called DEP and spoke to Christine Odiaga. She has provided DEP with information and pictures and
is waiting for information as to if it would be permitted under state law. Elizabeth asked if this is an activity the
board would allow; if not, Mr. Corliss needs to remove the system.
Michele White said if the board was to permit this type of activity, by removing the water and using it, even though
it is going back into the wetland system, it is still altering a wetland, a state regulated activity. She believes it
should require a permit if it is going to stay in use. Carole Matthew agreed with Michele. Depending on where Mr.
Corliss locates the well on his property, if he is within 100 ft. of the wetland area, he will have to file a Request for
Determination of Applicability. Colin Cauldwell told Mr. Corliss to call Elizabeth and the Board of Health for
guidance. The well would have to be placed 100 ft. from any septic systems. Mr. Corliss told the board he is on
sewer.
Jack Smith agreed but said if Mr. Corliss is not going to use the system, he should remove it and put in a well.
when he put the well in if he is within the 100 ft. buffer.
Elizabeth said the wetland line should be confirmed.
Paul Boyden made the motion that Mr. Corliss should remove the existing apparatus in the wetlands. Mr. Coriiss is
to call the Conservation Department when the system has been removed so Elizabeth can verify it has been
remove.
Carole Matthew seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
Walsh property off Elm Street - Robert Patnaude, Civil Engineer, representing Thomas Walsh, the landowner.
Conservation received a complaint regarding a pipe is discharging water and sediment from the Eim Street property
onto adjacent property owned by the Town of Mansfield, siltating bordering vegetated wetlands in the Riverfront
area. The site is also adjacent to a town well, approximately 300 yards from the pipe.
Colin Cauldwell said the file and the minutes were reviewed and there is nothing about a pipe; the pipe was never
permitted. The pipe was put in between 2006 and 2007.
Mr. Patnaude said Mr. Walsh is under a court order to correct the drainage on the property. He said the former
agent walked the property with Mr. Walsh and she allowed the discharge onto town property.
3
Colin Cauldwell said the file and minutes of the meeting have been reviewed there is no mention a pipe or a catch
basin in the Order of Conditions. The board did not vote to allow Mr. Walsh to discharge water from his property
ont6the town's property. He said it is unfortunate that the agent told Mr. Walsh that it was all right. It is clearly a
violation. He said, according to Mansfield's GIS, the pipe was installed between 2006 and 2007
Mr. Patnaude said the Mr. Walsh is under a court order to develop a system to facilitate the drainage. A piggy-
back system was created - a swale on top of a sub-drain to collect the water so the property does not have sheet
run-6ff from the beginning of the property to the end. Part of the court order had an agreed attachment, Iiening
the property. Mr. Patnaude said the land deed states westerly 600 ft. to the center of Wading River and from the
center of Wading River 950+ ft. Mr. Patnaude told the board the town took a piece of the property and the
property line was never defined or located.
Mr. Patnaude said he went over the drainage system with the agent at the time, Michele Grenier, and she walked
the property with Mr. Walsh and allowed the drainage onto town property. He does not believe the silt is coming
from the pipe. Colin Cauldwell said the siltation is recent. there is silt in the pipe, in the invert. The silt is 50 ft.
into the wetland. Elizabeth said there is a headwall at flag 59A - this is where the silt is.
Colin Cauldwell told Mr. Patnaude the town's GIS show Mr. Walsh is encroaching on town property. A surveyor
would have to determine the extent of the encroachment. He said the board understands that the former agent
who said the under draining would be alright but the board never permitted the pipe and catch basin. It is
definitely detracting from the values of the adjacent resource.
Mr. Patnaude said the silt is from the run-off that occurred when it was an abandoned gravel pit. Colin Cauldwell
said if the silt was old, it would be buried in leaf litter, twigs, etc. It is fairly obvious it is recent. The problem is
how to stop the silt from getting into the resource area. Colin suggested a detention basin might help. He said the
property needs to be surveyed to determine if it is on town property. No matter if Michele Grenier told Mr. Walsh it
was ok, the work is under the town by-law and it is within 25 ft. of a wetland with no permit. There should have
been a Notice of Intent filed; it is not a field change. He said Mr. Walsh would have to restore the area.
Carole Matthew asked Elizabeth if the silt should be removed and if so, how. Elizabeth said the silt needs to be
removed and she recommends it be removed by hand, not with machinery. The removed silt should be placed
upland of the wetland. Michele White said if it is within the wetland, it should require a restoration plan. The
board suggested a wetland scientist be hired to develop a restoration plan.
Mr. Patnaude suggested that an independent analysis be hired by Mr. Walsh to take samples to see If any silt is
coming out of the pipe. Colin Cauldwell said the board will hire a wetland consultant to monitor the site and make
recommendations. This will be at the owner's expense.
Paul Boyden suggested the perforated covers be pulled and samples be taken in this area. He said the covers
could be covered after the samples are taken.
Paul Boyden made the motion to continue the meeting to January 10, 2011. Elizabeth will put out requests for
proposals for a wetland monitor who will diagnose the problem, assess where the silt is coming from and propose a
solution to the problem.
Colin Cauldwell asked if this was acceptable to Mr. Walsh. Mr. Walsh said he will look at the proposals to decide if
it is reasonable.
Elizabeth told the board there isn't a Notice of Intent for the work; there is no permit for the project. Colin
Cauldwell asked if the work could be done under an Enforcement Order. Elizabeth said yes but one has to be
issued. Colin said the board will issue the Enforcement Order with the condition that an independent consultant be
hired to assess the situation, see where the silt is originating from and if it is recent or not.
4
Carole Matthew asked if the consultant says it is sheet flow, who cleans the silt out of the wetland. Colin: once
the consultant reports their findings, if it is determined to be from the Walsh property or not, the board will
determine who is responsible for the removal of the silt. He said it appears to be on town property. This area is
shoWn on the ANRAD to be presented tonight, 859 Elm Street, Stan Feck, Christian & Feck Development, DEP
#211-0859, and the area in question is town property.
Paul Boyden made the motion to issue an Enforcement Order for the Walsh property on Elm Street and hire a
consultant as stated by the Chairman. The hearing will be continued to January 10, 2011.
Jack Smith seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
5. Notice of Intent: Stan Feck, Christian & Feck Development, Dolan Estates, Ware Street, Map 32, Parcel 13.
#211-0856
Stan Feck, Christian & Feck Development, was present.
Mr. Feck asked for a continuance to January 10, 2011.
Carole Matthew made the motion to continue the hearing for Ware Street, Dolan Estates, to January 10. 2011.
Jack Smith seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
I 6. Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation: Stan Feck, 859 Elm Street. #211-0859
Stan Feck, the property owner, was present.
Elizabeth told the board a revised plan, dated December 8, 2010, has been submitted with modifications to the
delineation. She said flags 41-80, 48-78 and the certified vernal pool #4039 - flags 1B-17B - are the only flags
verified. The remaining flags have not been verified under the ANRAD. The Mean Annual High Water for Wading
River was not verified under this delineation.
Mr. Feck has been issued a Certificate of Compliance for the drainage system for the subdivision.
Michele White made the motion to issue an Order of Resource Area Delineation for Elm Street, DEP #211-0859,
plan revised December 8, 2010.
Paul Boyden seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
7. Notice of Intent: Stephen Mancini, Mansfield Realty, LLC, 111 Plymouth Street, Map 14, Parcel 802 - #211-
0862
Steve Mancini, Mansfield Realty LLC, Brian King of Crossman Engineering and Tanya Branski, a wetland biologist
from Wetland Resource Services, Inc. were present.
The Notice of Intent was filed for a new loading area along the building's northerly wall at grade with access
drive/proposed culvert/stormwater infiltration basin. The project will be at Belknap White Alcco. The hearing was
continued from the November 15, 2010 meeting.
Brian King asked if he could give a brief summary of the project. He told the board Hodges Brook is 100 ft. from
the property line. There will be 90 linear feet of impact to the bank of Hodges Brook - applicant must meet the
performance standards for Riverfront and Bank.
5
An Alternative Analysis for the proposed driveway location has been done; four locations were analyzed. At the
westerly access point, a stream crossing (the stream is a tributary of Hodges Brook) would be required. Mr. King
told the board the stream crossing would provide the best available location. Mr. King said the northerly access
area is not owned by the applicant. The owner has tried to obtain permission to install a new driveway but has
been unsuccessful. The easterly access area is an existing parking area for employees and visitorsj this area is not
conducive to having delivery trucks going in and out; it would create safety issues and is not recommended. At
the southerly access area, an existing intermittent stream runs parallel to the building, approximateiy 80 to 90 ft.
away. This area is entirely within the 100 ft. buffer and would require tree removal and significant grading within
the buffer to install the new driveway. The driveway in this location would create a greater impact than the
westerly access point.
Mr. King told the board the front end of the building is within the 200 ft. Riverfront of Hodges Brook. If this
location was used as a means to access the area, there would be more impact to the resource areas.
To cross the stream, the applicant has proposed a 3-sided bottomless culvert as well as stormwater management.
The culvert will be constructed with headwalls to minimize grading required for the driveway.
Revised plans and the response to comments made by Rick Alves, Town Engineer, were submitted today.
At the November IS, 2010 meeting the board asked that the applicant contact the owner of the building to the
north of Belknap White Alcco property to see if they would grant them permission to install a driveway in this area.
Mr. King said a certified letter was sent to the owner; the response was no, they would not allow them to use their
driveway to gain access to the Belknap White Alcco property.
If the southerly access area is used for both trucks and employeejvisitor parking, it could create a safety problem.
At the site plan review for department heads, the safety officer for the police department, Lance Larson agreed it
would be very unsafe for delivery trucks and employee vehicles to be in the same parking area. The town engineer
agreed.
Brian King said they have changed the size of the 3-sided open bottom box culvert from the original plan. The
culvert will be 10 ft. wide. The culvert meets DEP openness ratio, River and Stream Crossing ratios and is designed
for the 100 year storm. Another site improvement is an infiltration basin to handle run-off from the parking area (C
5 plan). The basin is sized for the 100 year storm and meets DEP Water Quality volume and recharge
requirements. A maintenance schedule for after construction has been provided. Brian King told the board there
will be no increase in water flow after the development.
Soil erosion control/sediment control maintenance plan for before and after construction has also been submitted.
A snow storage site is shown on the plan. Snow melt will flow into the infiltration basin.
Brian King reviewed Rick Alves, Town Engineer, memorandum of December 10, 2010 and Crossman Engineering
responses to the memorandum.
Brian King told the board the applicant is proposing restoration areas. These areas, 1-6, are shown on sheet C 5.
Tanya Branski, wetland biologist from Wetland Resource Services, Inc., summarized the revised site plan for the
project.
Bank (Section 10.54): the proposal is asking for alterations beyond the 50 linear ft., the normal threshold allowed.
Section 10.54 allows alterations beyond the 50 linear foot threshold if there is "no adverse effects on wildlife
habitat".
6
By proposing a 10 foot wide, 3-sided box culvert, the stream crossing is consistent with the Massachusetts River
and Stream Crossing Standards. The open bottomed box culvert results in a natural substrate remaining in the
stream channel. The natural bottom facilitates the continued use of the channel as a migratory corridor for
wildlife.
The average width of the channel is approximately 8 ft. and according to the River and Stream Crossing Standards,
a 1.2 to 1 ratio of the width of the box culvert is required. With the average width of 8 ft., a 9.6 ft open bottom
would be required. The proposed width for the culvert meets this ratio. The box culvert will not adversely effect
wildlife habitat.
Riveifront Area (Section 10.58): Hodges Brook is the perennial river located on the southwest side of Plymouth
Street. The 200 ft. Riveifront Area is bisected in its entirety by Plymouth Street, separating the project area from
the perennial river. Approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of alteration is proposed in the Riveifront Area. The applicant is
proposing to restore 12, 750 sq. ft. of impacted Riveifront Area. Plantings will include both tree and shrub species.
Red maples and red oak, 10 of each are being proposed, planting on 15 ft. centers and distributed throughout the
areas. Shrubs include arrow wood, sweet pepper bush, silky dogwood and swamp azalea, planted on 8 ft. centers,
distributed throughout the 6 restoration areas. All of these areas are located within areas that are currently lawn
and mowed. All the areas are located adjacent to the intermittent stream, within the Riveifront Area of Hodges
Brook and within the 100 ft. buffer.
With the use of the opened bottom box culvert and the restoration areas, the applicant feels it is improving the
habitat not only within the Riveifront Area but the buffer zone. The project is consistent with the peiformance
standards found in Section 10.58 of the act and this type of aiteration will not have an "adverse effect on the
wildlife habitat.
Michele White asked about restoration areas 5 & 6; they are located away from areas 3 & 4. Will they be
connected? Tanya Branski said the areas between 5 & 6 are currently vegetated; the areas proposed are only the
areas that are currently mowed and maintained.
Caroie Matthew asked if a Wildlife Evaluation (AppendiX A) has been done. The applicant has identified resource
area but not the characteristics of the habitat and how the habitat will not be adversely effected by the project.
Tanya Branski said they have not done a long term study on site to determine the wildlife. She asked if the board
would like a more detailed report on what is currently on site and what is utilizing the site. Carole said if the bank
is over 50 linear ft., the Riveifront over 5,000 sq. ft., and Land Under Water over 50 linear ft., Appendix A should
be used.
Elizabeth told the board the plans came in at 12:45 this afternoon and she has not had a chance to review the
plans. She read DEP comments: "the project does not appear to be a limited project because 2 accesses to the
upland already exist. Alternatives should be scrutinized closely since the southern access would appear to avoid or
minimize resource impacts. MA stream crossing gUidelines need to be consulted". She said Tanya mentioned a
resource area along 495 that are not shown on the plan - has it been flagged? Tanya said the resource area is not
under this application. Elizabeth said it would help to evaluate alternatives if all the resource areas are shown.
Elizabeth said the applicant must meet peiformance standard for riverfront, limited projects, bank and iand under
water.
As far as the safety of the parking lot, Colin Cauldwell rode around the industrial park and there are several parking
lots that involve integrated parking - precedence has been set in the industrial park.
Elizabeth said the applicant needs to have a comprehensive plan of all resource areas and why the project can't be
designed around these areas.
7
Carole Matthew said the applicant is asking the board to give the project "limited" project status, even though DEP
says the project is not a "limited" project. Brian King said DEP does not do a detailed review - that is what this
board does. Carole told him the board looks to DEP for guidance.
Elizabeth said the applicant will need to go through "limited" project provisions of the regulations and make the
argument the filing meets the requirements of a "limited" project because the board can't permit this project as it
stands.
Collh Cauldwell does not see a problem if the trucks and employee cars share the parking lot. He said
environmental issues are much more important then the driveway being shared by trucks and cars.
Carole Matthew asked if the restoration areas meet the Mass Inland Wetland Replication gUidelines/standards.
Tanya Branski said she believes the areas do but will inciude this in the additional information the board asked for
concerning the wildlife habitat.
Jack Smith made the motion to continue to January 10, 2011. The board has asked that Wildlife Studies Appendex
A be submitted, the applicant explore alternatives for the driveway and a more comprehensive plan, showing all
the resource areas be submitted.
Paul Boyden seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
8. Notice of Intent: 1625 West Street, Albertini Field Water Treatment Facility, Map 2, Parcel 17 - lee Azinheira,
Town of Mansfield Department of Public Works. #211-0861
David White of Woodard & Curran representing Mansfield Water Department; Bob Chapell of Woodard & Curran;
Kurt Gaffney Operations Manager of Mansfield Water Department.
The IJroposed project consists of the construction of a new 2.16 MGD water treatment plant, approximately 7,480
sq. ft., and 29,570 sq. ft. of paved driveway with associated grading and utilities that will treat water produced by
the lown's existing Albertini wells. The treatment plant will be located toward the West Street frontage, in the
middle of the parcel. The three existing wells, wells #2, 3 and 4, will be removed and replaced. A portion of the
proposed activities will be treated as a limited project under 310 CMR 10.53 (0). limited work consists of the
removal and replacement of the existing wells, installation of a new water main and subsurface valve pits, minor
grading, replacement of existing electric service to the wells, demolition of existing well and chemical feed buildings
and removal of functionally obsolete pavement.
The project is located on 4.2 acres of town-owned land. The present site conditions consist primarily of two
existing paved access drives, three existing wells and associated buildings and infrastructure. Unimproved portions
of the site are predominately woodlands. The site is sloping from the east, along West Street, west to an unnamed
pond located in the northwestern portion of the site. There is a number of natural upland depressions located
within the project site. Disturbance at the site is limited to apprOXimately 2.1 acres and is located at the east-
central portion of the site.
Two wetland resource areas in proximity to the proposed limits of work are bordering vegetated wetlands located
to the west of the existing well #4 and an isolated vegetated wetland (IVW) located to the west of existing well
#2. A portion of the project site contains the resource area Bordering land Subject to Flooding (BlSF) as depicted
on FEMA FIRM Zone AE, 100-year floodplain. The site is not located within a Priority Habitats of Rare Species or
Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) or within an
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).
Activities proposed at Well #4 adjacent to the BVW: The applicant is proposing to remove the existing Single-story
brick well house, fence, utilities and pavement and replace them with a new well and valve pit. The well and valve
8
pit will be enclosed with a new security fence. The area around the building will be graded and loamed and
seeded. New water and electrical lines will be instailed to the weil site.
Activities proposed at the south side of the weil site: the existing fence line and the area around the existing
building are within 6 - 6.5 ft. from the edge of the isolated vegetated wetland. The applicant is proposing to puil
ail of this back so the new fence line will be 45 ft. from the resource area. The existing building in this area will be
demOlished and some functionaily obsolete pavement from this area which encroaches in the buffer zone will be
removed. Additional pavement outside the buffer zone to the resource area will also be removed. The areas
disturbed by the building, fence and asphalt demolition will be loamed and seeded. The applicant is not proposing
the removal of any existing vegetation.
No new impervious areas are proposed in the buffer zonei the proposed project will result in a net reduction in the
impervious area within the 100 ft. buffer zone. He said the proposed improvements will result in an overail benefit
to the resource areas as the project reduces the scale of the current improvements and moves the new
improvements further from the resource area.
No activities are proposed within the bordering vegetated wetlands or the bordering land subject to flooding. A
portion of the work wiil result in the temporary alteration of areas located within the 100 ft. buffer zone of BVW -
2,3:30 sq. ft. wiil be altered - area will be improved or restored to preconstruction conditions. In the 25 ft. area,
618 sq. ft. wiil be temporarily altered by the removal of an existing fence. In the 100 ft. buffer zone to the isolated
vegetated wetland, 5,049 sq. ft. wiil be temporarily altered by the removal of the existing paved surfaces and
existing wellhouse building, removal and replacement of existing fence, construction of subgrade value pit and
minor grading.
Erosion controls, a barrier of straw bales/silt fencing, will be placed around the perimeter of the work area and will
serve as the limit of work for the project.
Elizabeth's comments:
There are no comments from DEP
Weil #2 will be moved 30-40 ft. away from the potential vernai pool.
Will a new road be cut into the location and will it be paved? Dave White said an existing access drive to Weil #2
brahches off to Well #3 back towards West Street - this drive will be extended to the rear of the new treatment
plant.
Where are the de-watering locations for the weils or is de-watering even necessary? Dave White said it will not be
required.
Run-off patterns will remain unaltered and no new stormwater discharges to wetlands or buffer zones are
proposed. Therefore the project is not subject to the stormwater standards on page 1-1 of the introduction but on
page 6 it is stated that the project is subject.
Is the project is considered redeveiopment? Dave White said it is a redevelopment project.
Elizabeth would like the Construction Period poilution Plan and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan added to
the Order of Conditions. The construction sequence and Appendix E - Long Term Poilution and Prevention Plan -
should be added to the conditions aiso.
She asked Dave White what will be done with the existing water, gas and electric i1nes. He said to the extend they
are Ihterfering with the proposed activity, they wiil be removedi otherwise they wiil be abandoned and remain in
place.
Elizabeth said she did not have time to review the entire delineation. She did review the ILSF and the area
adjacent to the pump house at Well #4i she has no problems with these flags. She would like it noted in the
Order of Conditions the delineation has not been approved under this application.
Once instailed, the double-staked hay bales and silt fence are to be inspected by Elizabeth before any work begins.
9
,
Elizabeth told the board Rick Alves has not had a chance to review the project. Dave White said he met with Rick
the Monday after Thanksgiving. Dave said he is aware of the comments addressed in the memo of December 13,
2010. He said the project still has to go thru a site plan review this Wednesday. He said he intends to address all
the comments in the town engineer's memo.
Carole Matthew asked about the potential vernal pool within the isolated wetland; is it functioning as a vernal pool?
Dave White said the vernal pool has not been looked at. Carole said the Notice of Intent is very good and nicely
presented. She believes the project meets 2.5 of the by-law.
Scott Freeksen of 63 Lakeview Avenue and a member of the Bungay Lake Association told the board the Albertini
Wells were originally designed for a certain pump rate and restricted by DEP. He asked if the pump rates would
still be met; what are the restricted amounts to be pumped out of the wells and what is the plan for the future?
He said the Association believes some of the pumping of these wells will have a negative impact on the lake level.
He said they do not know what studies have been done to show if there is an impact on the levels. Is there a plan
in place to judge the impact? Does Woodard & Curran have anything in place to monitor the lake level to see If the
additional pumping from these wells will have a negative impact on the lake? He would like it to be considered a
part of the application.
Bob Chapell discussed the withdrawal. He said Albertini Wells # 2, 3 and 4 along with Wells # 6 and 10 are all
located within a 10 mile river basin. DEP has set withdrawals from the basin as a whole and the town can not
exceed these levels. When #2, 3 and 4 are being pumped at a higher rate, less will be pumped from Wells # 6
and 10. All this information is available to the Bungay Lake Association and they are welcome to review the
information and Woodard & Curran will answer any questions they might have.
Paul Boyden made the motion to continue to January 10, 2011.
Jack Smith seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
19. Request for Determination of Applicability: Kenneth Wright, 28 MatthewLane, Map 35, Parcel193.
Kenneth Wright, the homeowner, was present.
An Emergency Certification was issued November 8, 2010 for septic failure within Riparian Zone to the Canoe River
and the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. Hay bales and silt fence were installed by the septic
installer after discussing the location with Elizabeth. Elizabeth asked that they be installed as close as possible to
the limit of work. She has not inspected the erosion controls but will inspect as soon as possible.
The work was completed November 19, 2010 and a Certificate of Compliance from the Board of Health was issued
on November 22, 2010. A septic as built was submitted, dated November 20, 2010.
Elizabeth noted activity in the back of the property; cutting trees in the resource area and the buffer zone to
resource areas. Mr. Wright told the board the trees were already down, he just cut them up.
Michele White made the motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination for 28 Matthew Lane, plan dated October 14,
2010.
Paul Boyden seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
110. > Notice of Intent: Acorn Manufacturing, 457 School Street. #21H863
Jim Pavlik, Outback Engineering and Eric DeLong from Acorn Manufacturing were present.
10
The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of a new building, with site preparation and stormwater
modification. The site is not within an ACEC or an Estimated Habitat.
The wetland line was delineated as part of a Notice of Intent for a previous addition in 2006. This project received
a Certificate of Compliance in 2007. The wetlands were delineated by leeAnn Bradley of Outback Engineering.
Elizabeth said she did not have time to review this project properly; she said she needs to go out with a soil auger
and take a close look at the wetland line. She said this project needs to be monitored carefully.
A memo dated December 9, 2010 from Rick Alves, Town Engineer, comments on his stormwater review.
Colin Cauldwell: Because of the restricted hours, the board can continue the hearing so Elizabeth can review the
project or have an independent consultant review the project.
Carole Matthew asked about the designated snow storage area; is it in the BVW? Jim Pavlik said the storage area
is outside the buffer area.
Michele White asked about the parking layout sheet: spots 1-11 are right up to the BVW line. Is there ay room to
adjust that so they can be 25 ft. from the line? Jim Pavlik said everything west of the building is not being altered
other than extending the utilities to the new building. The parking area will not change from its 2006 condition; it
will not increase, there will not be an increase in employees. Mr. Delong told the board he has purchased
equipment from a competitor going out of business and the new building will be used to store the equipment only.
The board told the applicant the delineation needs to be verified and Rick Alves' comments addressed. Elizabeth
suggested 3 proposals be sent out to get the wetlands delineation confirmed.
Paul Boyden made the motion to continue the hearing to January 10, 2011 with the understanding that a
consultant will be hired at the applicant's expense to verify the wetland line. The Town Engineer's comments need
to be addressed.
Carole Matthew seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-1. Jack Smith abstained.
111.. . Request for Certificate of Compliance: Catherine Memory, 23 Lakeview Avenue. #211-0780
Catherine Memory, the homeowner, was present.
Colin Cauldwell and Elizabeth looked at the site: they confirmed the plantings are in, the reduction of the patio is
complete and the pressure-treated material has been removed from the stairs and been replaced with composite
materials as per the plan.
Michele White made the motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 23 lakeview Avenue, DEP #211-0780.
Jack Smith seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
The Agreement for 23 lakeview Avenue was signed by all the board members.
112. ... Request for Certificilte of Compliance: . Perry Dimascio, Essex Street, Autumn Park Subdivision. #211-0776
A Notice of Intent was submitted in May 2010 to complete the remaining work for the Autumn Park Subdivision.
The original Order of Conditions, #211-776, had expired - remaining work included the installation of curbing,
sidewalks, bituminous asphalt, topcoat and landscaping. An Order of Conditions was issued for DEP #211-0850,
plan dated May 10, 2010.
11
The Certificate of Compliance is for the original Order of Conditions, #211-0776, issued August 17, 2006. Mr.
DiiV1ascio discovered this Order was still valid under the Permit Extension Act - any approved order in effect during
the "Tolling period", the period beginning August 15, 2001 thru August 15, 2010, is extended for a period of 2
years, in addition to the lawful term of the approval. The Order of Conditions for #211-0850 was never recorded.
Mr. DiMascio also submitted a Quitclaim Deed. During the approval process for the Autumn Park Subdivision, the
board had expressed an interest in accepting a gift of "Common Areas" for conservation purposes to complement
an adjacent parcel of land presently owned by the Town of Mansfield.
Carole Matthew asked Elizabeth to check if a conservation restriction was required for the subdivision.
Hearing for the Certificate of Compliance was continued to January 10, 2011; a representative was not present.
113.Qld Business
The board discussed the 21-day waiver form. Elizabeth would like the wording changed to state that under the
regulations, public hearings must be held within 21 days of the filing and that this is the right the applicant is
waiVing.
Colin Cauldwell said the board will be asking applicants to waive the 21-day right of hearing because the
department simply does not have the staff or the hours to keep up with the filings.
Michele White made the motion to finalize the 21-day waiver form for the Conservation Commission.
Paul Boyden seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
Approval of minutes of September 13th, October 18th and November 15, 2010: September and October minutes
were approved previously - they need to be signed.
Motion was made to approve the November 15, 2010 minutes as written.
Discussion of proposed changes to the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law: Colin suggested the proposed
changes be e-mailed to each board member for review. paui said the board can not do this under the new
meeting laws.
Colin suggested Eliizabeth review and make changes and/or additions to the regulations and then the board will
review.
Carole Matthew read the proposed changes to "Authority, Purpose and Effective Dates" under the general rules and
regulations.
Carole Matthew made the motion to accept Part 1 and 2 of the General Rules and Regulations to the Mansfield
Wetland Protection By-law, Part 1 - "Authority, Purposes and Effective Dates and Part 2 - "Jurisdiction, No Disturb
Zone and Definitions".
Carole Matthew seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
Colin Cauldwell told the board he would like to send his letter concerning staffing if there are no comments or
changes from the board. Colin will send the letter to the Town Manager, the Board of Selectmen and is possible,
the Finance Committee. He would like to also mention in the letter Elizabeth's inability to go to any continuing
education conferences or seminars.
Paul Boyden made the motion to authorize the chairman to send his letter regarding staffing issues.
12
Carole Matthew seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
Colin Cauldwell updated the board on the Judy's Lane bridge replacement. The old bridge has been removed. The
concrete person will be on site next week but Colin thinks it might be too cold to pour concrete at this time. Colin
said the site is very wet and he is concerned about trucks being in the area.
The board discussed the meeting schedule for 2011. The board decided to have one meeting per month to be held
the third Monday of each month. In case of a holiday, the meeting will be on the second Monday of that month.
Paul Boyden made the motion to adopt the tentative meeting schedule for 2011; the 3rd Monday of every month
except when a holiday falls on that Monday. In this case, the meeting will be on the 2nd Monday of the month.
Carole Matthew seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
Carole Matthew commented that the board can not approve any "limited" projects unless it meets DEP's definition
of a "limited" project.
Elizabeth asked if the board would consider starting the meeting at 6:00 pm instead of 7:00 pm. The board did
not want to change the 7:00 pm start time. If was suggested that Elizabeth come in later on Monday meeting
days to preserve some of her hours. She said she would prefer not to.
Colin Cauldwell asked that "Conservation Land" be put on each agenda so he can discuss things being done on
land owned by Conservation. He has met with Xia Jin, GIS manager for the town. She is trying to make trail maps
for all of the conservation land. She has offered to go out with Colin with a GPS to plot out the trails.
Coin Cauldwell told the board that additional signage is needed on conservation land regarding unauthorized
motorized vehicles. He will check on the signs.
113. Adjournment
Paul Boyden made the motion to adjourn.
Motion passed 5-0.
NEXT MEETING: JANUARY 10, 2011 AT 7:00 PM.
{1;J. aJ~Jil
Colin Cauldwell, Chairman
110/11
/ Date
13