Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION01102011 Mansfield Conservation Minutes January 10, 2011 Present: Colin Cauldweli, Chairman; Michele White, Vice Chairman; Paul Boyden; Joe Mulkern; Carole Matthew; Jack Smith; Derek House; Elizabeth Leidhold, Conservation and Environmental Planner. 11.tv1eetingOpened at 6:45 pm Eagle Scout Project - Jonathan Matthew Butler, Troop 51: Jonathan's project includes the Great Woods tralis, the historic 1821 Codding Cemetery at 75 Oak Street, and the Judy's Lane entrance sign. Jonathan, with a group of volunteers, wili be cutting and clearing brush on the Red Trail. The trail will be widened by 3 feet. AIi cuttings will be pushed to the sides of the trail. The Conservation sign at the beginning of the Red Trail needs to have wood preservative applied to the roof and the back of the sign needs to be painted. Sma Ii trees and brush will be removed from the Yeliow Trail 6 ft. behind the sign, making the Judy's Lane sign more visible. The brush/trees will be left on the sides of the trali. The Codding Cemetery will be restored; the stone wali will be cleared of vines and poison ivy. The pOison ivy will be sprayed with Ortho Brush-B-Gone. Jonathan told the board a large tree branch will also be removed from the cemetery. AIi brush and debris from the cemetery will be moved to the Mansfield Green composting area. Joe Mulkern made the motion to accept the proposal for the clearing of trails in Great Woods, the cemetery clean-up and the work on the sign. Michele White seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Jonathan's project was signed by Colin Cauldweli. I 2. Certificate of Compliance: Perry DiMascio, Perry & Feck LLC, Essex$treet (Autumn Park) #211-0776 Perry DiMascio was present. Elizabeth has been out to the site. The project is complete. A wildlife tunnel has been Instalied on Feck Road to aliow wildlife to travel between wetland and upland areas and the replication areas are in. An as built, dated November 16, 2010, as been submitted along with a ietter from Ralph Maloon of RIM Engineering Co., Inc. stating ali work has been completed under the Order of Conditions issued August 17, 2006. Mr. DiMascio told the board that the required plantings have been there for 3 years and are thriving. Paul Boyden asked if the road had been accepted by the town. Mr. DiMascio said the road will be submitted for acceptance at the May Town Meeting. He said there Is approximately 300 ft. of roadway in Norton and this will be submitted to Norton for town acceptance. During the approval process for the Autumn Park Subdivision, the board expressed an interest In accepting a gift of the "Common Areas" of land, approximately 14 acres of open space, for conservation purposes to complement the adjacent land presently owned by the Town of Mansfield. Mr. DiMascio has submitted a Quitclaim Deed for the land. Paul Boyden made the motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for the Essex Street, "Autumn Park" Subdivision, DEP #211-0776. Derek House seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Paul Boyden made the motion to accept the 14 acre parcel of open space land as proposed. Joe Mulkern seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. I 3. Notice of Intent: Stan Feck, Christian & Feck Development, Doi~n Estates, Ware Street, Map 32, Parcel 13. #211-0856 Mr. Feck requested a continuance to February 14, 2011. Derek House made the motion to continue the hearing for Dolan Estates, DEP #211-0856, to February 14, 2011. Joe Mulkern seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. 4. Notice of Intent: Stephen Mancini, Mansfield Realty LLC, Belknap White Alcco, 111 Plymouth Street, Map 44, Parcel802. #211-0862 Applicant has requested a continuance to February 14, 2011. Paul made the motion to continue the hearing for 111 Plymouth Street to February 14, 2011. Derek House seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Jack Smith arrived. I 5... Notice of Intent: Acorn Manufacturing Co., 457 School Street, Map 10, Parcel 28. #211'0863 Applicant has requested a continuance to February 14, 2011. Derek House made the motion to continue the hearing for Acorn Manufacturing, 457 School Street, to February 14, 2011. Jack Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. 6. Notice of Intent: Town of Mansfield Department of Public Works, Lee Azinheira, Albertini Water Treatment Facility, 1625 West Street, Map 2, Parcel 17 . #211-0861 Dave White, Project Engineer, Woodard & Curran, Kurt Gaffney, Town of Mansfield Water Department, Robert Chapel, Project Manager, Woodard & Curran and Chelsea Bierkan, Engineer, Woodard & Curran. The hearing was continued from the December 13, 2010 meeting for a Notice of Intent for upgrades to wells #2 and #4 for the Water Treatment Facility at the town's West Street Albertini Well Facility. In the December 13, 2010 memorandum from Rick Alves, Town Engineer, the following issues needed to be addressed by the applicant: Note the permeability testing and water table analysis was not performed prior to the drainage calculations - testing was performed on December 6, 2010. The assumed rate used in the calculations Is not acceptable; soil observations and Infiltration tests were performed on December1st. Soil logs and Infiltration rate calculations are attached as Appendix A. Pre- and post Development Peak Discharge Rates are Included In the December 23, 2010 letter from Woodard & Curran. The drainage area calculations do not match between pre - and post conditions; Dave White said the drainage areas have been revised and the revised pre-and post development watershed plans have been submitted as per Rick Alves memo. The wetland line shown on sheet C-lOO is a potential vernal pool; the applicant Is proposing to remove and dispose the existing fence and gate within this resource are and propose construction a greater distance than what already exist; Dave White said the area Is a potential vernal pool. The applicant will remove and replace the well and appurtenances further away from the resource area. The applicant is proposing hay bales/silt fence within 100 ft. of the resource area which is acceptable. The limits of work shown outside of the resource area also show hay bales/silt fence; this is not required and should be removed; Dave White said the erosion control barriers outside the 100 ft. resource area have been removed from the plans. Sheet C-201, the concrete headwall refers to an overflow detail, label which sheet; Dave White said the plans have been revised to incorporate the label. 2 The proposed 12" RCP with Rip-Rap does not have the proper cover; must be ductile Iron or Class V RC; the proposed 12" RCP has been changed to a ductile iron pipe and the plans llave been revIsed accordingly. No bends are ailowed in the drainage system, manholes must be provided at all bends and at intersecting drain pipe; the plans have been revised to provide a 24-lnch diameter access basin to grade at all bends and/or Intersections of the condensate and clear well overflow pipIng. Test pits must be provided on Site Pians, dated December 6, 2010; soil observations and Infiltration testlllg was performed 011 December 1 and 8 2010; locatIon of the test pits are showlI on the project plans. The logs for the pits are provided 011 Sheet C-503. The proposed septic system location and design must be approved through the Town of Mansfield Board of Health; the proposed septic system has been added to the plall set - Sheet C-401 and C-503. An applicatioll for a Sewerage Disposal Permit (Title 5) will be submItted to the Mallsfleld Board of Health prior to all Applicatioll for a Building Permit. Filter fabric is needed under the proposed pipe outlet protection (Rip-Rap); Dave White said this has been dOlle and is reflected on the project details. In the January 3, 2011 memorandum from Rick Alves, Interim Town Engineer, it was stated that the revised site plan and the Stormwater Management Report dated December 23, 2010 have been reviewed and the site plan drawings, revision drawings and the drainage caiculations satisfactorily address the remaining comments of the December 13, 2010 memorandum. As per a phone conversation with Rick Alves, Dave White was asked to submit a compilation of the drainage calculations. In the January 10, 2011 memorandum, the revised site plan dated December 3, 2010 and the revised Stormwater Management Report dated December 29, 2010 were reviewed and the Site Plan drawings, revision drawings and the drainage calculations satisfactorily address the remaining comments of the memorandum of January 3, 2011. Elizabeth's comments: . There are no comments from DEP . The facility will actually be moved approximately 30 ft. away from the potential vernal pool. . She would like the Construction Period Poilution Plan (CPPP) and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Pian added as Orders to the Order of Conditions. The construction sequence and Appendix E - Long Term Pollution and Prevention Plan (LPPP) - should be added to the conditions also. . She would i1ke it noted in the Order of Conditions the delineation has not been approved under this application. . Once installed, the double-staked hay bales and silt fence are to be Inspected by Elizabeth before any work begins. Michele White asked if areas where the manholes will be added are in resource areas. Dave White said all drainage structures are to be located to the rear of the new facility. Carole Matthew would like to see the potential vernal pool certified. The potential vernal pool is located behind Well #2. Paul Boyden asked when the septic system would be approved by the Board of Health. Dave White said Scott Leite, the BOH agent will review the application and plans. The application does not go before the board for approval. It is done administratively. The application was submitted December 29, 2010 to the BOH. Paul asked that the board be notified when the septic system is approved and is in the location on the plan presented tonight. Colin Cauidwell said if there are any further changes to the plan, the applicant will have to come back before the board. Carole Matthew made the motion to accept the plan for the Notice of Intent for 1625 West Street, Albertini Weil Water Treatment Facility, DEP #211-0861 and issue an Order of Conditions with the follOWing special conditions: the potential vernal pool is to be certified; the double-staked hay bales and silt fence are to be inspected by Elizabeth before any work begins; it is to be noted in the Orders that the wetland delineation was not approved under this filing; the location of the septic system is to be verified by the board once it is approved by Scott Leite, BOH Agent and if there are any changes to the plan, the applicant will need to come back to Conservation. Joe Mulkern seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. I 7. Certificate of Compliance: ChristoPher &MaureenDriscolI,12Plaotiogfield Road, MilP 3, Parcel 308. 1i211-0843 The Certificate of Compliance Is for an Order of Conditions Issued on February 8, 2010. The filing was for an attached 24'x24' garage with a room above and a 6' mudroom/breezeway. The driveway was reconstructed to ailow access into the 3 garage. All the work was done within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetland and an Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife. The Order of Conditions was issued on January 25, 2010. Christopher Driscoll, the homeowner, was present. Mr. Driscoll told the board 7 shrubs were pianted at the Jlmlt of work. The drywells and roof drains, one in the front and one in the back, are in. The hay bales and slit fence are still in place. The Board gave Mr. Driscoll permission to remove the erosion controls. Michele White made the motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance, DEP #211-0843, for 12 Plantingfield Road. Jack Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. I 8. Request for Determination of Applicability: Robert Glovino, tot 2 Bicentennial Court, Map 30, Parcel 115 The Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) was filed for the construction of a residential building with related grading, driveway and utilities. Siltation control is to be staked In place prior to any construction and Is to be maintained until all construction is complete and the lawn is stabilized. Raiph Maloon of RIM Engineering Co., Inc. was present. Mr. Maloon toid the board there is a wetland area across the street but it is 100 ft. from the closest lot corner. There is aiso a wetland area 80 ft. from the property line but there is an existing house between the wetland and lot 2. The proposed lot has recently been staked. Derek House said if the filing is approved he would like an as built with the finished grading heights. He also would like note on the deed there are conservation restrictions so the owner does not cut or clear to the lot line and so any future owners are aware of the conservation concerns. Mr. Maloon said he will add the conservation concerns to the as built for the foundation. He said people refer to this plan when considering any additions, etc. The board asked that the as built be submitted at the completion of the project. Elizabeth asked that a notation be added to the Determination stating the proposed siltation control area is the limit of work for this project and no other work is approved under this RDA. Elizabeth told the board the lot line in front of the house is approximately 75 ft. to the wetlands along the street. She said the back of the lot next door wraps around the back of the neighboring house. The town's GIS measures approximately 67 ft. from the lot line. She ran a tape and the wetlands appear closer in the back; approximately 45 ft. The project Is within jurisdiction but is a comfortable distance away from the resource areas. Paul Boyden suggested downspouts into drywells be added to the plan. He said the board has had a policy in the past for new housing construction to put the run-off from the roof into dry wells. Mr. Maloon said he would rather put a note on the plan regarding the dry wells because at this time he does not know the architecture of the house. He said he will note on the as built plan there are wetland issues on the lot. Elizabeth said he should submit a revised plan with the roof drains, the limit of work and the conservation concerns. The entire siltation line is the limit of work. Derek House made the motion to Issue a Negative 4 Determination on lot 2, Bicentennial Court, Map 30, Parcel 115, for construction of a residential building, pending a revised plan to include the following: conservation concerns and dry wells to be noted on the plan; proposed hay baie line will be at the limit of work; an as built is to be submitted when the work is complete. Jack Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. I 9. Notice of Intent: Brian & leeAnn Fallon, 20 Winslow Way,MapAl,ParceI446. #21h0864 The Notice of Intent (NOI) was filed for an addition, patio, and spa and grading within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands, an Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife and within an ACEC, the Canoe River. The home is part of the Winslow Estates sub-division built in 1997. 4 Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., representing Brian and LeeAnn Fallon. Michael Trowbridge told the board the applicant Is proposing an addition, patio and spa where an existing deck and stairs are located In the back of the house; the existing deck will become part of the addition. The work will be within a developed area and outside the 25 ft. no touch area. Silt fence will be installed from the edge of the pool area and extend around the back of the house to ensure no siltation enters the existing wetlands. Michael said grading will be minimal. He said he has filed with Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) and has received notification (letter dated January 7, 2011) that the project, as currently proposed, will not adversely affect the actual Resource Area Habitat of state-protected rare wildlife species. Therefore, the project meets the state-listed species performance standard for the issuance of an Order of Conditions. The letter also states the proposed project appears to be exempt from MA Endangered Species Act (MESA) review. Elizabeth's comments: There were no comments from DEP and there are no Issues with MEPA or MESA. She told the board there is a discrepancy between the current survey and what was proposed in 2004; the house is not in the right location. She said it was difficuit to verify the delineation because of all the snow; she could not see the ground cover. Michael Trowbridge said the wetlands have not been delineated. He said he found the original flags that corresponded with the pool plan from 2004. He said he re-flagged the numbers. She asked if the applicant was proposing to add material. Michael Trowbridge said no. She would like to see double-staked hay bales in addition to the silt fence proposed because the work is so close to the 25 ft. and the steep slope. The erosion controls should be Inspected by Elizabeth before any work starts. Elizabeth said a Certificate of Compliance has not been Issued for the original house; there should be one. Derek House asked if there were any deed or conservation restrictions on the property. Colin Cauldwell said he does not believe there are. Joe Mulkern suggested the board require the applicant to add plantings and signage to prevent any encroachment into the wetland setbacks. Carole Matthew said the letter from NHSEP is fine, the project meets performance standards of the MA state regulations but the project does not meet the standards of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law which is stricter and afford rare species more protection. Under 2.6 of the by-law is a legal presumption that land within 100 ft. of a rare species is significant; how does the applicant prove what he is doing does not adversely affect the state-protected rare wildlife species? She said according to 2.6 of the by-law, the only way to determine if the wetland area is not a significant habitat area is through a site visit by Natural Heritage. If they won't come out, the determination should be made by an independent consultant. Carole said the project does not meet the performance standard; we do not know what is out there, what is going to be affected or if the project can even be designed to not affect it. She said Section 2.6 is stronger than the letter from DEP; the project meets state requirements but does not meet the town's by-law. William Morrill, 14 Winslow Way, said he was concerned about water from the property. When the foundation is done, the water will be displaced. He said he is down hill from the Fallons. Colin Cauldwell said gutters and dry wells could be required so the run-off from the roof would be recharged. He said the groundwater would not be affected. Colin Cauldwell said the hearing should be continued so the applicant can meet the performance standards of 2.6 and a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation - Appendix A should also be submitted. Paul Boyden asked what is the limit and scope of work to be performed. He asked how much disturbance would result from the work, are there new footings, how much if any excavation will be done? Carole Matthew made the motion to continue the hearing for 20 Winslow Way, DEP #211-0864, so that the project will meet the performance standards of 2.6 of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law - the project does meet performance standards of the state regulations. The applicant needs to submit a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation - Appendix A, to be performed by a Wildlife Specialist. Joe Mulkern seconded the motion. 5 Paul Boyden amended the motion to require the applicant to submit the following: the limit and scope of the work to be performed, the amount of disturbance resulting from the project, the amount of excavation If any and Information on the footings - will there be any new footings? Carole Matthew seconded the amendment to the motion. Motion and amendment passed 7-0. Carole Matthew asked that the board be notified when the applicant has a consultant for the Wildlife Assessment. Michael Trowbridge said the question is will the project result in an adverse impact on the habitat area. The letter from the Division of Wildlife and Fisheries has determined the project as currently proposed wlli not adversely affect the rare wildlife species. Carole Matthew said the project only meets the performance standards of the state not 2.6 of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law. Michael said he wouid contact the state. 1.10. . RequestforDeterminatlonofApplicability: .. Otis$treet,Chrls Cox, Mal1sfieldMunlcipal Electric Department The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed by Chris Cox for the Mansfield Municipal Electric Department to Install concrete encased conduit and manholes In the public right-of-way on Otis Street between Pole #40 (Sweet's Pond) and Pole #12 (near Balcolm Street). The project area is mostly under the road surface. Chris Cox of the Electric Department was present. He told the board there Is a culvert in the area of this project. Rick Alves, Interim Town Engineer, will be submitting a Notice of Intent for the replacement of the culvert; the RDA does not include any work for the culvert. Chris Cox said the culvert will be replaced first at the time the conduit work is done. Elizabeth said the plan does not show any erosion controls and the wetlands have not been flagged; she said as the agent for the town she can flag the wetlands for the Electric Department to determine the appropriate areas for the erosion controls. Considering how close the work will be to Sweet's Pond and the culvert, she said these areas need to be handled with something more than the slit fence. Colin Cauldwell asked if the trenches would be opened and closed on the same day and if there would be any stockpiling of material on site. Chris Cox said the trenches will be closed the same day and there will be no stockpiling on site. Elizabeth will flag the wetlands and will determine the locations of the erosion controls. Chris Cox Is to send a letter for the file confirming the Mansfield Municipal Eiectric Department wlli work with Elizabeth to locate the wetlands and the appropriate location for the erosion controls. Paul Boyden made the motion to accept the RDA as presented and issue a Negative 3 Determination with the caveat that a letter be submitted regarding the wetland flagging and placement of the erosion controls. Jack Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. 11. Request for Determination of Applicability: High Street, Chris Cox, Mansfield Municipal Electric Department, Map 21, Parcel 137 . The Request for Determination of Applicability was flied by Chris Cox for the Mansfield Municipal Electric Department at the High Street storage yard for the trimming of trees and cutting back brush along the fence line between the storage yard (at parcel 21-137) and the Rumford River. The work Is necessary due to continual break-ins and theft of material from the fenced In storage yard. The trimming and cutting will need to be done on an annual basis to provide visibility to the storage yard. Chris Cox from the Municipal Electric Department was present. Chris Cox told the board the work is necessary because of continual break-Ins and theft of material from the storage yard. The Electric Department stores copper wiring and other equipment here. Because of the numerous break-ins In the past 1 y, years, the Police Department requested this area be cleaned out so when they do night patrols they can see the area. People are going in back along the fence line, cutting through the fence to access the yard. The fence line is on the easterly side on parcel 21-137. To clear a sight line from the street, 3 to 4 ft. of trees and brush wlli need to be removed. 6 The Electric Department had trimmed the trees and cut the brush in the summer/spring of 2010. The RDA was filed so the Electric Department can continue to trim the trees and cut brush on an annual basis to provide visibility to the storage yard. Elizabeth asked if the Electric Department had thought of adding lights and cameras to prevent the thefts. Chris Cox said the department has taken a lot of measures to secure the area; he did not want to elaborate. He said the area is very well lit at night for department employee to get In at night to get equipment, etc. for trouble calls. Elizabeth said this is one of the few areas where the Rumford River actually has a buffer zone; she said the buffer zone is not only for water cleanliness but also for temperature control for the fish habitat. She said town records show the area that was cleared is owned by Anthony Durbano (21-388 - 42 West Church Street). She asked if the Electric Department had permission to work in this area. Chris Cox said he does not believe a property owner was contacted about the trimming and cutting. He said he will check. Michele White said she did not think any trees needed to be removed but perhaps in the summer and spring of 2011 the brush can be cut low but not removed. She said any cuttings should probably be left in place and not removed from the site. Derek House said the work is still within the 2S ft. buffer. He said he would have a hard time issuing a permit for the project because the Electric Department does not own the property. Chris Cox should get the owner's permission before the board proceeds. carole Matthew said the board would need a letter stating the Electric Department will not encroach further in this area by expending the trimming and cutting. She said It does meet 2.2 of the by-law as an emergency project. Chris Cox said it is mainly the Japanese Bamboo that needs to be removed. Derek House asked about planting different species In this area to stabilize the bank; maybe wild raspberries or green briar. Jack Smith said the area should be maintained for security purposes. Colin cauldwell asked Chris Cox if the Electric Department has thought about moving the fence onto the paved area. Chris said the property line needs to be established before anything more is done. He will research and establish property ownership as soon as possible. The hearing will be continued. Derek House made the motion to continue the RDA for Mansfield Municipal Electric Department for the High Street storage yard to March 21, 2011 until such time the ownership of the property can be determined. Paul Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. 112. Request forDetermination of Applicability: ThomaS and Barbara Shapanus, 26 Marjac Way, Map42, Parcei 92. The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the installation of an in-ground pool in the back of the lot on the left, 10+ feet from the house and 4S+ ft. from the bottom of the slope of the retention pond. Barbara Shapanus, the homeowner, and David Masciarelii, Canton Pool and Spa, were present. Mrs. Shapanus said the house was purchased in 1991 with a drainage easement on the property. She said the retention basin was free of any vegetation, there was only gravel when she purchased the home. She said over the last 19 years the retention basin has become overgrown with wetiand vegetation. She said she does not think this area Is a naturally occurring wetiand. She believes that the existence of any wetland vegetation is due to hydroiogy created by the stormwater management system being in place for the past 19 years without any maintenance. Mrs. Shapanus told the board the in-ground pool will be located to the left of the property. She said the pool will be 20 ft. from the top of the slope and the slope Is about 2S ft. to the bottom where the vegetation begins. An existing above-ground pool is located much closer to the retention basin. Elizabeth's comments: Back in 1987 when the sub-division was built, they used existing wetlands as retention areas. She said the retention/detention area Is actually part of the original proposal and was planted with Reed canary Grass and other wetland 7 species. She said this vegetated wetiand system contributes to the Canoe River and is iocated within an ACEC. She said the slope is very steep. There is an intermittent stream on the property. There is an edge of the wetland area that has not flagged. She said she was unable to take measurements from the proposed pool location because there are no flags or stakes on the property. She asked if the proposed patio is new or an existing one. Mrs. Shapanus said it is an existing patio. Elizabeth asked for the dimensions of the pool and the pool apron. David Masciarelli said the pool measures 29 ft. wide at the shallow end and 18 ft. wide at the deep end. The pool is 3S ft. long. He said the apron will be 3 ft. David Masciarelli said he thought the wetland was a retention pond. He said you can work right up to a drainage easement. He told the board the wetland vegetation is due to the lack of maintenance by the town. David Masciarelli said the drainage easement takes up 45% of the property. Colin Cauldwell told Mr. Masciarelli this area was purposely vegetated which is not typical of a retention basin: normally they are not vegetated. He said the vegetation was called out on the original plan; he thought it might have been part of a replication area or serving a dual purpose of a retention basin and replication area. He said retention basins usually have an O&M plan associated with them that allows periodic cleaning without permission. An O&M plan has not been provided with the original filing. Elizabeth said she can take measurements from the limit of work to the wetland edge or Mrs. Shapanus can hire a wetland scientist to do a detailed pian. Colin Cauidwell said the problem is there is no way to tell where the resource areas are because the wetlands were never delineated and the structure was never staked out. Elizabeth said the board is asking for some identification in the field of the furthest extent of the work. She will go out and measure to the resource area of concern and then Mr. Masciarelli can draw up a detailed plan for the pool. Measurements should be taken from the foundation of the house, not the deck or the patio. Derek House asked that a proposed fence line be added to the plan. Erosion controls will be placed at the limit of work. Mr. Masciarelli told the board information on the filtration system for the pool is attached to the filing: there will be no need to backwash. The board decided the hearing should be continued to March 21, 2011. Joe Mulkern made the motion to continue to March 21, 2011. Derek House seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. 113. Notice of Intent: David Einis, Garrett Construction Co., Inc., 151 Stearns Avenue, lot 1. #211-0865 The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of a single-family house, part of which is within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. Wetiands were delineated in an ANRAD, DEP #211-0858, and approved November 15, 2010. The delineation was done by Walter Hewitson. David Einis, the property owner, was present. Mr. Einis told the board the house will be 69 ft. from the wetlands. The septic system will be in the front of the house. Slit fencing will be installed at the 50 ft. line. Mr. Einis said a revised plan has been submitted showing the house 81 ft. from the road. He told the board Stearns Avenue is a scenic road and the by-law states the house has to be 75 ft. from the road. The plan is dated December 22, 2010 with the revision dated January 4, 2011. 8 Elizabeth's comments: She said there were no comments from DEP. The septic system location has not been approved by the Board of Health. Mr. Einis told the board the plan will be submitted within the month. He said Scott Leite, the BOH agent, has asked that chambers be used Instead of trenches. Elizabeth asked if the lot passed percolation tests. Mr. Einis said yes - 2 minutes and 6 minutes per inch. She said if the septic location is changed, Mr. Einis would have to come back with revised plans. Elizabeth asked if the board is satisfied the abutters were properly notified? She said because the lot abuts a condominium complex, there was a question whether Mr. Elnis would have to notify all condo owners instead of notifying the condo association. She spoke with Christine Odiaga from DEP. Christine told Elizabeth hand delivery is an acceptable method of abutter notification. The notification for the condominium complex went to the Dartmouth Group of Bedford, MA. She suggested a fence be installed at the limit of work to act as a visible barrier to prevent lawn mowing, swing sets, sheds, etc. from migrating into the no activity area. Derek House asked about the certified and potential vernal pools on site. In the ANRAD filing it was stated it was unknown if either of the two isoiated wetlands (ILSF) possess the characteristics to qualify as vernal pools. It was suggested that one or both of the isoiated wetlands could be looked at in the spring for vernal pool species. There Is also a certified vernal pool across the street but any work would be allowed under 2.6 of the by-law, through an Order of Conditions, by the Commission, as long as the proposed work area is on the opposite side of the street from the pool or wetland area. The meeting went into recess so Elizabeth could check the GIS and maps for the vernal pools. Elizabeth told the board the potential vernai pool Is 215 ft. from the house location so the vernal pool will not Impact this filing. The project will not impact the certified vernal pool across the street. Carole Matthew would like to see a conservation restriction on the lot and signage. Mr. Elnis did not feel the restriction was necessary. Derek House made the motion to accept the Notice of Intent, DEP #211-0865, for 151 Stearns Avenue, Lot 1, for the construction of a single-family dwelling within the 100 ft. buffer zone and issue an Order of Conditions with the following special conditions: when construction is complete, signage, reading "Environmentally Sensitive Area - Do Not Disturb" is to be piaced on the SO ft. no disturb line, with a minimum of 3 signs to be placed on metal post and on 50 ft. centers; silt fencing is to be placed as shown on the plan dated December 22, 2010 and inspected by Elizabeth before any work starts; no activity is allowed within 50 ft. of wetlands; this includes sheds, patios, decks, pools, swing sets, etc. No mowing or alteration within the 50 ft. no activity area; an as built is required for the Certificate of Compliance to be issued. The as built must show areas of environmental concern - wetland location and the 50 ft. and 100 ft. buffer zones at the site. The 50 ft. line is the limit of all work; any changes to the septic or the house plans will require the applicant to come back to the board. Joe Mulkern seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0 114. Old and New Business Discussion of the 21-Day Waiver Form and the List of Requirements for Submitting Applications: List of Requirements for Submitting Applications: Elizabeth has a proposed list of requirements for submitting an application to Conservation. Costs associated with an application: state wetland fees, Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law fees, costs associated with placing an ad In the local paper (applicant is responsible for this cost), abutter notification fees (applicant is responsible for this cost). Elizabeth asked the board if they want to continue to require the notification by certified mail; this can be required under a policy. She said under state regulations, abutters must be notified 5 business days before the hearing. Green cards must be submitted at the public meeting or the project will not be heard. Elizabeth would like to change the wording "submitted at the public meeting" to "must be submitted prior to the meeting". The board did not want to change the policy of notifying abutters by certified mail and agreed the green cards should be submitted on the Friday before a meeting. All applications, as well as additional information such as revised plans, stormwater calculations, etc. must be received at least 5 business days prior to the meeting. 9 The application will not be heard If a DEP number has not been assigned; If applicable, Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program must be notified and the applicant must have received a reply before the hearing; applicants should be made aware It can take 30 days for Natural Heritage to respond; application must comply with Section 2.6 of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law regarding wildlife habitat evaluation. If applicable, all comments by the Town Engineer must be received two days prior to the meeting. If new construction, the septic system must be located on the plan and approved by the BOH before the applicant is heard. The application must be received no later than the Friday before the ad Is to be placed. Ads are placed on the following Wednesday and published the following Monday,S business days before the hearing. Applicant wlil be responsible for the cost of the ad - Sun Chronicle will contact the applicant between Wednesday and Friday of the week the ad is placed for payment. Paul Boyden made the motion to accept the list of requirements for submitting applications to ConselVation as proposed and updated by Elizabeth. Applicant must comply with the requirements of 2.6 of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law. Jack Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. Carole Matthew said in 5.2 of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law, the board has the legal authority to require any applicant to pay the costs and expenses of any expert or consultant to review and comments on the application. The board would choose the consultant. She said It needs to be noted this does not apply to 2.6. Under Section 2: Jurisdiction, 2.6 applies only If a resource area Is altered. She asked that additional wording be added to 5.2 of the by-law to clarify 5.2 and 2.6 of the by-law. Elizabeth said the board might want to revise the wording In Section 2.6 In regard to outside consultants. She said she had an Issue today where our consultant was contacted by an applicant. After reading 53g 5.2 of the by-law, she believes the by-law should note the consultant only answers to the Commission. Any correspondence with the applicant should be through the Commission. Paul Boyden made the motion to accept Carole Matthew's proposal that the wording "only projects that involve the alteration of a resource area shall be subject to this provision, not withstanding the requirement of 2.6 of the by-law" be added to 5.2 of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law. Jack Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed Carole Matthew made the motion to adopt the language for Hiring a Consultant In the General Rules and Regulations of the Town of Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law. Jack Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. Derek House made the motion to add to the Regulations for a Consultant. The wording should be "access by the applicant to any consultant retained by the Commission under the by-law Section 5, 5.2 shall only be through the ConselVation office. Questions, inquiries or comments shall be submitted to the ConselVation office in writing, uniess if at an on-site meeting, and then be provided to the consultant by the Commission. The Commission shall provide a copy of the consultant's response to the applicant. Carole Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. 21-Day Waiver Form: Applications must be heard within 21 days of the filing of a Notice of Intent and Request for Determination of Applicability and an Order of Conditions must be issued within 21 days of the close of the hearing. A Determination of Applicability must be issued within 21 days of the filing. Elizabeth wanted the following added to the waiver form to explain to the applicant the purpose of the waiver: "Due to necessary cuts in staffing, we are experiencing delays in review of projects on the public hearing agenda. Although we strive to comply with the state-mandated time frame, at times we find we cannot keep up with the work load. Therefore, we request that applicants be willing to waive the 21-day hearing period and be wliling to be placed on the next agenda if necessary". Paui Boyden made the motion to accept the 21-day waiver document. Michele White seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. 10 Joe Mulkern was concerned about the flagging of wetlands by Elizabeth; he said he could see Elizabeth doing the flagging is it is a hardship for the applicant but It is pool season and everyone will want the same help. Michele White said this is one of the fees to go before town meeting; a fee for Elizabeth to confirm the wetland lines. Discussion of Conservation Land: At the last town meeting, it was voted to put Conservation Restrictions on the Gilbert Street parcels and the South Main Street parcel. The restrictions have not been done for these parcels and the deeds have not been properly filed; none of the legal work has been done. Elizabeth said she has forwarded the paperwork to the new town council. Paul Boyden made the motion to approve the minutes of December 13, 2010. Jack Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0 with 1 abstention. The minutes of November 15, 2010 needed to be resigned. Elizabeth told the board there are Executive Minutes that need to be signed. She asked that the board review these minutes. The MACC annual Environmental Conference is scheduled for March 5, 2011 at Holy Cross. Elizabeth would like to attend the workshop - "Implications of Pending Stormwater Federal General Permits In Massachusetts: What ConComs Need to Know". She asked if anyone else would like to attend. Derek House made the motion to allow Elizabeth to attend the MACC spring conference. Jack Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. Paul Boyden and Jack Smith will be gone in February. Elizabeth asked that anyone unable to attend a meeting to let someone know - there could be quorum issues. When Elizabeth was given an additional 4 hours per week, she was asked to Implement more policies. One of the policies Is the hiring of outside consultants for industrial, commercial and sub-division projects as well as anything that requires a stormwater report. Large wetland delineations - Elizabeth suggested over 300 flags - would also need an outside consultant. Michele White suggested delineations over 50 flags. Elizabeth asked the board to think about this. 115. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn: Boyden/White Motion passed 7-0. NEXT MEmNG WILL BE FEBRUARY 14, 2011 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM 3 AjB. /) (1. , ./. c;,'d.~ ./!-6j J / tYtil) Colin Cauldwell, Chairman / ire Date 11