Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION10172011 Mansfield Conservation Minutes October 17, 2011 Present: Colin Cauldwell, Chairman; Michele White, Vice Chairman; Joseph Mulkern; Paul Boyden; Jack Smith; Carole Matthew; Derek House; Elizabeth Leidhold, Conservation and Environmental Planner. 11. Meeting cillledJo Qrder at 7:00 pm. 2. Order of Conditions #211-0866 Amendment: Mitchell Negus, 255 East Street, Map 32, Parcel 33 - Jordan Jackson Baseball Field footbridge. Paul Boyden recused himself. Mitch Negus was present. The original design approved at the March meeting called for a set of stairs on either end of the bridge. When the project was presented to the Selectmen, it was suggested a structural engineer design the bridge. Mitch consulted with an engineer and a plan was devised to build the bridge from the top of one bank to the other, avoiding the need for the stairs The amended design is for six (6) sonotube footings on either side and two rectangular pads to eliminate the need for stairs. Loam and grass seed will be placed on the eroded sections of the bank to prevent future erosion. Given the proposed changes to the plan, Mitch Negus has requested the Commission extend the excavation deadline to December 1st. Elizabeth said it is a substantially improved project then was originally presented. She said the original conditions will have to be met: footings are to be excavated by hand and the Bank in the area of the proposed bridge is to be restored with vegetation approved by the Conservation Commission. She recommended double-staked hay bales be installed between the excavation area and the stream. The erosion controls are to be Inspected before work begins. She said she recommends the board approve the amended project. Mr. House made the motion to grant approval of the amended Order of Conditions with the foliowing conditions: Double- staked hay bales and silt fence between the excavation and the stream; the Conservation Agent to be contacted to inspect erosion controls before work commences; Project construction is aliowed through December 1, 2011. Plan "Site Plans for Amended Project C1, G1, 51-51", dated June 26,2011 and stamped October 3,2011 as the Plan of Record. Additional Plan "Poliution Control Plan from original order, dated March 22, 2011. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0-1. 3. Request Jpr(;eftlDcate of Compliance: David Einls, (Robert and Margaret Morrison) 151 Stearns Avenue (now 155 Stearns Avenue), Map.-41, Parcel 23. DEP #211-0865. David Einis, Garrett Construction Co., Inc. was present. Mr. Einis asked that a complete Certificate of Compliance be issued for 151 Stearns Avenue; the Order of Conditions was issued January 12, 2011. Special Condition #2 requires that permanent signs, reading "Environmentaliy Sensitive Area, Do Not Disturb", on metal posts be instalied every 50 feet for a total of three (3) signs aiong the 50 foot no disturb line. An As built plan was submitted. The signage has been instalied. Ms. White made the motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 155 Stearns Avenue, DEP #211-0865. Pian "Home Construction 151 Stearns Avenue Mansfield, Massachusetts", dated December 22, 2010 and stamped and signed by John Culver Spink, Professional Engineer. Mr. House seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0-0. R:\Conservation\Minutes\2011\10172011 Minutes 12122011.doc 4. Request for Determination of Applicability: Walter Parker, Mansfield School Department, Jordan Jackson School, 255 East Street, Map 32, .Parcel 33. Paul Boyden recused himself. The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the removal of an existing light pole within the Jordan Jackson gravel parking lot and the installation of new footings. The new location of the pole is approximately 30 feet from the stream. Because there was no representative, the hearing was continued to November 14,2011. I 5. RequestfoJ'Deterl11illaHon of Applicability: . Joe and Liz Scibilia, 7 Shea Circle, Map 37, Parcei 286, lot 9. The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the installation of a 20'x40' in-ground pool within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands and an ACEC. Dave Hobiaca of Easton Pool and Spa and Liz Scibiia, the homeowner, were present. The location of the pool is just inside the 100 ft. buffer by 20-25 feet on existing lawn. The wetlands have been delineated. Elizabeth told the board there is a small ponded area on the property. The vegetation in this area is upiand/Beech. She asked RIM Engineering to verify this area is not jurisdictional. A letter from RIM Engineering states that on Wednesday, October 5, 2011, RIM Engineering went out to the site. Mr. Maloon states that the area of standing water appears to be an old test hole with non-hydric soils within or around the area. The vegetation is 95% upland species, 5% being Cinnamon Fern. The ponded area does not fall within jurisdiction under the regulations or the by-law. The wood piles on site are outside the perimeter of the lot on Conservation land. Mr. Maloon spoke with the homeowner and asked that the wood be removed from this area. Mrs. Scibilia told the board the piles have been removed from Conservation land. Elizabeth will confirm the piles have been removed when she inspects the erosion controls Ms. Matthew said Special Condition #17 of the original Order of Condition, DEP #211-0776, requires that each dwelling within the 100 foot buffer zone of bordering vegetated wetlands have a separate Notice of Intent. All structures must maintain a 100 foot distance from each vernal pool and 50 feet from any bordering vegetated wetlands. Mr. Maloon said all vernal pools are located across the street on the left side from the property; all work will be approximately 400 feet from the vernal pools. Ms. Matthew asked about the filtration system for the pool. Mr. Hobiaca said the system will require backwashing. She asked if Mr. Hobiaca has a designated backwash area. Mr. House said the applicant needs to make sure not to backwash into the wetlands. Mr. Hobiaca suggested a drywell be installed. Mr. House suggested the pool be equipped with a self- contained cartridge filtration system; the board would prefer this type of system. Ms. Matthew asked that Froglogs be installed in the pool. Mr. Boyden asked if there were any other buildings such as a cabana or shed proposed. Mr. Hobiaca said the homeowner might install a shed. The applicant was told she would be required to file a Notice of Intent for a shed if it is within 50 feet of bordering vegetated wetlands and not on existing lawn. Mr. House made the motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination for 7 Shea Circle for an in-ground pool with the following conditions: erosion controls are to be inspected by the Agent prior to the start of work; a cartridge filtration system is to be used for the pool; Froglogs are to be placed in the pool. Plan "Proposed In-Ground Pool Plan for lot 9 House No. 7 Shea Circle in Mansfield, MA, dated October 3, 2011. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0-0. 6. RequestforPeterrnina"tion of Applicability: Stephen Cunningham, Roy Road, lot 2, Map 41, Parcel 452. The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the construction of a single-family dwelling within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. Plan "Sewage Disposal System Roy Road Lot 2", September 13, 2011. R:\Consel'vation\Minutes\2011 \1 0 1720 11 Minutes 12122011.doc 2 The applicant has requested a continuance to November 14,2011. Mr. House made the motion to continue the RDA for Roy Road, Lot 2 to November 14, 2011. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0-0. I 7. Notice oflnt<:!I1f:2\IVilHarnand Jane Maher, 16 Serena Ailen Way, Map 39, Parcel 409. DEP #211-0875 The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of a garage and an addition within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands, an ACEC, the Canoe River and within an Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife. Plan "Proposed Addition for #16 Serena Ailen Way in Mansfieid, MA", dated September 29, 2011. Ralph Maloon of RIM Engineering Co., Inc. was present. The property is within an Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife. Mr. Maloon said Natural Heritage has been notified but he has not received a response. Mr. Maloon said the appilcant is proposing an addition to the rear of the house and a garage to the ieft of the house. There is an existing deck in the area of the proposed addition. Elizabeth said a building permit was issued in 1993 for the house. The house is within 41 feet to the wetlands. The bottom of the stairs on the existing deck measures approximately 25 feet from the wetland and 27 feet from the first post of the deck. Conservation was not notified when the permit for the house was appiied for. The wetlands are located behind the stonewail on the property. The deck was not part of the original house permit. The homeowner built the stonewail after the house was constructed. An above-ground pool was applied for In June 2005 and approved by the then agent but without the board's knowledge. On August 1, 2005, the homeowner asked to change the application for the above-ground pool to an in-ground pool. This permit did not receive Conservation approval. A concrete basketbail court and a shed were aiso added without a permit. Elizabeth told the board she did not review past Flag #15 (Flag is behind the shed). She asked that Flag #13 be moved to the stonewail. There were no comments from DEP. Elizabeth said the house, deck, pool, stonewail, concrete basketbail court and shed are within jurisdiction. She said GIS 2006 shows the pool being built but at that time there was no basketbail court. She asked If the board would like to go out to the property to see the yard. She asked if the Mahers were the original owners. The board asked that Mrs. Maher come to the November 14, 2011 meeting. Mr. Boyden made the motion to continue the hearing for 16 Serena Ailen Way to November 14, 2011. Mr. Mulkern seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0-0. 8. Notice of Intei1t;Stan Feck, Christian & Feck Development - Dolan Estates, Ware Street, Map 32, Parcel 13. DEP #211-0856 Mr. Smith recused himself. The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of a four lot cluster subdivision with related grading and utilities. Due to limited access, approximately 6,190 square feet of wetland fiiling and a stream crossing are proposed. Stan Feck, the applicant, Lenore White of Wetland Strategies, Inc., Brad Holmes of Environmental Consulting Restoration, LLC (ECR), Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering, Co., Inc., and Attorney Adam J. Brodski were present. R:\Conservation\Minutes\20 11 \1 0 1720 II Minutes 12122011.doc 3 Attorney Brodski told the board the Planning Board has closed its public hearing and voted to approve the specla[ permit for the Residential Corn pound. He said the Planning Board has not signed the decision. Brad Holmes said since the June meeting there have been revisions to the plans and additional information submitted. He said there will be four (4) sing[e-family house lots with associated grading, driveway and septic system. Access to the lots will be off Ware Street. The limited project involves filling of bordering vegetated wetlands with replication. There is an Intermittent stream that runs through the wetland areas. A bridge will span the stream. There will be no .alterations or impacts to the Inland bank. A detailed replication plan has been submitted. The purposed replication will be greater than a 1:1 ratio. Mr. Holmes told the board the majority of the development is outside the buffer zone and outside the resource areas on the lot. There will be some activities within the buffer zone and they have been included in the Notice of Intent. The applicant is proposing to manage the stormwater on site. A large retention pond at the back of the property will be used to handle the stormwater from the four lots and the driveways. Lenore White, Professional Wetland Scientist, of Wetland Strategies, Inc. was retained as a consultant for the Conservation Commission to review this project to determine whether or not it meets the performance standards of the Wetland Protection Act and the Mansfie[d Wetland Protection By-law. In June, Lenore White said she was concerned about the lack of details for the bridge crossing. She toid the board she has repeatedly asked the applicant for additional Information regarding the bridge. The applicant has not provided the actual structural engineered pians for the bridge. The applicant's reason for not providing this information is the cost. Lenore White said the board needs to know how the bridge will be constructed and what the impacts will be to the resource areas including shading. She said if the board were to approve the project tonight, the Order of Conditions should include a condition that the construction of the bridge will not be allowed to go forward until the board has reviewed and approved the plans. She said the board shouid also reserve the right to condition the bridge work. Attorney Brodski agreed it is appropriate for the board to have a special condition requiring the actual structural design for the bridge be submitted prior to the commencement of the construction of the bridge. He toid the board the actual footprint of the bridge is iocated on the plan as well as the details. If the design of the bridge changes the footprint, Attorney Brodski said the applicant would have to seek authorization for any change either through an administrative change or a formal amendment of the Order of Conditions. Attorney Brodski said there is a great cost associated with actually designing a bridge and feels it is reasonable for the applicant to put off that cost until such time as the permit is In place. He said this can be addressed as a special condition. The bridge would have to be certified by a structural engineer. Mr. Holmes said Sheet #5 shows the details and information regarding the construction of the bridge. Lenore White said a revised construction schedule, dated August 31, 2011, does not address the lot construction; it only addresses the construction of the roadway and to some degree the bridge. She suggested the construction scheduie be revised to incorporate the development of the iots. Lenore White said some of the work for the four lots is within jurisdiction. There are four wells proposed, one for each house, two of which are within the buffer zone. Lenore White said there are no details shown on the plan for the wells; there is no connection shown frorn the wells to the houses they will service. This should be a condition. Attorney Brodski said there are minor activities within the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction with respect to the lots and all these activities are incorporated into the Notice of Intent. All Information for any activities within the buffer zone complies in all respects to the local by-law. He said there is no reason not to condition the house lots; if any changes are made in the future, the applicant or property owner would have to come before the board for an amendment or modification of the Order of Conditions. He said this project can be adequately conditioned to meet the Wetland Protection Act of the By-law. In a letter dated October 6, 2011, Ra[ph Maloon addressed the remaining concerns of the Engineering Department: the proposed Forbays, which are part of the stormwater controi structures, have been moved out of the wetlands and there is a revised Operations and Maintenance Plan for the stormwater basins. R:\Conservation\Minutes\2011 \1 0 1720 11 Minutes 12122011.doc 4 Attorney Brodski said the project Is exempt from Stormwater requirements but said it has been designed in compliance with the stormwater regulations and requirements because Mr. Feck wanted to assure the abutters that the stormwater was being properly managed. Attorney Brodski said all this information was reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. The Planning Board has also reviewed and approved the stormwater management as part of its special permit. Mr. Cauldwell asked if the town or the homeowners would maintain the roadway and the stormwater management. Attorney Brodskl said the road will be a private way. He said the Planning Board required a special condition as part of the approval, that a Homeowners Association be responsible for the stormwater management as well as the roadway. Mr. Feck said the crushed stone berm, swales and Forbays are to be cleaned as needed but at least twice a year. The Homeowners Association would be responsible for this cleaning on a permanent basis. He said, as part of the special permit, the cleaning and maintenance of the stormwater management would be added to the property deed - the drainage area shall be cleaned twice a year by the Homeowners Association and reports for each cleaning are to be submitted to the Town Engineer. Mr. Cauldwell questioned why the project was exempt from stormwater management. Attorney Brodski said if there is an Order of Conditions Issued for a project it is presumed that the Order would also address the stormwater impacts. He said the project is also exempt under the state's regulations because there are only four house lots; developments with four lots or less are exempt. Ms. Matthew said she was concerned about the lack of information regarding the bridge; after the Order of Conditions is issued, what recourse would the board have if they do not approve the bridge design. Attorney Brodski said a special condition would be that prior to the construction, the applicant would present a final design, stamped by the structural bridge designer. The board would have to approve the design before the bridge construction could go forward. Mr. Feck said the cost to design the bridge would be $30,000. He told the board the subdivision has not received approval. He said every detail of the bridge is on the plan including the footings wall, the steel, asphalt and guardrails and if the footprint changes or there is any additional disturbance to the resource areas, he would have to come back before the board for approval of the changes. Ms. Matthew asked if they had filed with MEPA. Attorney Brodski said they have been through the MEPA process and as a result of this process, alternatives were considered to minimize the alterations. He told the board the project has been significantly reduced to below 5,000 square feet of wetland alteration and therefore MEPA review is not required. Mr. Cauldwell said there should be a wash station for the trucks entering and leaving the site. Mr. Feck said the stations are called out on the plan. Mr. House said the applicant would have to make sure the wash is not going Into the resource areas. Mr. Cauldwell asked about the existing culvert being siltated. He asked Mr. Feck if he was proposing to clean out the culvert and maintain the bank. Mr. Feck said he has offered to clean the culvert and add rip rap at each end of the bank but said he would need permission from the town to do any of the work. Attorney Brodski said Mr. Feck does not own the property the culvert is on and said the town would have to come before the Commission to obtain an Order for the work. Mr. Cauldwell said if the culvert is not cleaned and maintained and continues to silt up, it will not drain properiy, causing more flooding problems. Arthur O'Neill of 269 Ware Street said the abutters did not receive notification of the meeting tonight. Mr. O'Neill's comments and concerns: He said it was represented at the Planning Board meeting by the applicant that the project had received approval from Conservation. The Intermittent stream on the property runs twelve months of the year. He said this past spring the culvert came close to being overwhelmed by the heavy rains. He feels the culvert was not constructed property, maybe it was not installed deep enough; If the project should go forward, the cuivert should be replaced to allow for additional flow. The area is a major Wildlife Habitat. He is concerned about the width of the roadway. How would two fire trucks/emergency vehicles past on the roadway, especially in bad weather? Mr. Cauldwell told Mr. O'Neill this is not within Conservation jurisdiction. R:\Conservation\Minutes\20 11 \1 0 1720 11 Minutes 12122011.doc 5 In regard to the wells; at one end of the area you have a closed landfill and at the other end there is the now closed Compo Chemical. He said the Department of Public Health did a study in this area concerning a cancer cluster, especially among young children. He is very concerned about the ground water used in these houses based on these studies. Mr. Cauldwell told Mr. O'Neill this is not within ConselVation jurisdiction. Mr. O'Neill said he was concerned about the Planning Board's approval of this questionable project. He said a member of the Planning Board made the comment the project wouid be turning 24 acres of swamp land into a neighborhood. How can you admit it is a swamp but vote to approve the project? Water from the catch basins will not be diverted away from the street. Mr. Cauldwell said there are no catch basins, there are drainage swales and the Engineering Department would have to address this. The retention pond water tabie is so high, the pond will be a pond all its own. Mr. O'Neill said he was upset by a comment made by the applicant regarding the present water issues; [all the neighbors in this area have sump pumps anyway]. Mr. O'Neill asked should this problem be made worse for the profit of one small entity; he told the board this project would lessen the property values of the people that have lived there for years. De-watering: if the project is allowed, the water will go in everyone's basement. Mr. Cauldwell asked Mr. Maloon to address the drainage issues relative to the lack of catch basins and where the water that swales off the roadway and the house lots will go. Mr. Maloon said the retention area will be used to balance the total volume of fiow, not just peak flow. Mr. Cauldwell asked how the drainage will be directed into the retention area. Mr. Maloon said the water will go through the swale between Lots 2 and 3 and run back to the retention pond. Roof water from Lots 1 and 2 will run into the swale. Lot 4 roof water will be discharged into the ground. Water from the roadway will discharged into the crushed stone swaies. The Forbay and stone swales will prevent debris and silt from entering the wetland areas. Mr. Maloon said there is a neighbor to the right of the first portion of the roadway; in this area the road will be pitched to the left toward the stream. The roadway beyond the bridge crossing has a neighbor to the left; the roadway will be reversed to the right. This will prevent any run-off from the roadway from entering these properties. Mr. Maloon said water from this site will not go onto the neighboring properties. Attorney Brodski responded to Mr. O'Neill's wetland related comments. The resource areas were delineated In an ORAD; it was determined that the stream was an intermittent stream. There is in excess of 13 acres of uplands on the parcel. The site is not a swamp. With respect to the Wildlife Habitat, this project does not trigger any of the thresholds that would require a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation. However, Attorney Brodski said Mr. Holmes did a Simplified Wildlife Habitat Evaluation, using DEP's own methodology, and determined that in fact it is not a significant Wildlife Habitat. Mr. Cauldwell asked Mr. Maloon to address Mr. O'Neill's comments regarding the high water table. Mr. Maloon said the retention area is designed to stay wet; the bottom of the retention pond is six inches below the high ground water. He said this area would eventually become a wetland retention area. Lenore White said the pians show the roadway is sloped towards the wetlands so the run-off will go into the wetlands. She said if the retention pond is designed to be 6-inches below ground water, it will be wet. George Wallace of 233 Ware Street said he gets a lot of water on his property and he is concerned the nooding will increase. Will the Homeowners Association maintain the roadway and the stormwater system? Who will enforce this? He feels the applicant should have complied with the request to submit information regarding the bridge design; they were asked multiple times by Lenore White and the board. He said he agreed with Mr. O'Neill that the property is a swamp. Is the run- off going into the stream? Where does the stream flow to? Mr. Cauldwell said it nows to the river and then goes to the wells. Mr. Wallace said he is concerned about the ground water being contaminated by chemicals and pesticides from the roadway and the lawns. The contamination will eventually end up in the wells. Attorney Brodski said the Planning Board Director, who has enforcement responsibility, assured the neighbors he would strictly enforce the maintenance requirements of the special permit. R:\Conservation\Minutes\20 11\10 1720 II Minutes 12122011.doc 6 Mr. Maloon said a barrier, shown on Sheet #5, will be installed to make sure that the stream will not fiow onto the adjoining properties. The barrier will be two rows of siit sock with loam and plantlngs in between. The siit socks wiii degrade and the loamed area wiil vegetate, creating a berm. Mr. Cauldwell asked how the project would effect the existing ground water ievels. Will the neighbors have to pump more because the applicant is buiiding on this site? In order to balance the fiows, both peak and voiume, Mr. Maloon said Richard Alves, Town Engineer, required that a certain voiume of water be held on the land. Pre- and post-deveiopment, there is no more water going on or off the land. Rebuttal from Mr. O'Neill: regarding the wiidlife habitat - there are deer and other types of wiidlife on this site. Their habitat wiil be gone. There may be the same amount of water on the property but there Is less area for the water with four houses, four garages, four lawns and driveways, a road and a bridge. There will be fewer piaces to put the water; the water has to go someplace. Mr. O'Neill said he understands the applicant has some well-defined rights but the people already there have the right to retain the value of their property and not have the value lessen by this project. Regarding the concerns about contamination from the run-off, Mr. Cauldwell said the board can require that only organic pesticides be used. Mr. Cauldwell said the run-off from the roadway will certainly contain petrol chemicals and oiis. He said hopefully the water will be cleaned by the surrounding wetlands before reaching the stream. Ms. Matthew asked how the project, as proposed, will meet the requirements of no alterations. Attorney Brodski said the applicant will be replicating the wetlands that are lost in excess of the requirements. Mr. Feck said he is developing approximately six acres of the thirteen acre site. He told the board there is more dry land on this site then wet areas. He said the project is being designed In the dry areas of the site to minimize any impacts and the drainage is designed to have zero impact on the surrounding areas. Any water leaving the site or any water staying on site is exactly the same. He said the wetlands are being replicated 1.2 to 1. The rest of the land will be given as open space to NRT. Mr. Holmes said this site Is not within any mapped fiood plain but there are several resource areas on site; an intermittent stream, inland banks to the stream, bordering vegetated wetlands and an isolated vegetated wetland that were confirmed through the ANRAD process. He said the project before the board tonight is a limited crossing and the applicant is proposing alteration of bordering vegetated wetlands and a small portion of an isolated vegetated wetland that will be replicated at more than is proposed for altering. There will be no impacts to the stream or the bank; the impacts will be to bordering vegetated wetlands and a portion of an isolated wetland only Ms. Matthew asked Mr. Cauldwell if he Is on the board of NRT and if so, would this be is a connict of interest. Mr. Cauldwell said there is not a connict because he does not have a financial interest. Mr. House said he would like to make a motion to go Into Executive Session to discuss the connict of interest. Mr. Cauldwell said you can only go into Executive Session to discuss a iegal case or a personality issue. Mr. House asked if he could discuss the matter In the public hearing. Because Mr. Caldwell is a member of NRT and this is part of NRT's long range plan, Mr. Cauldwell might have a connict of Interest. Mr. Cauldwell said he had asked and received advice about the possibility of a confiict of interest and was told there is no conflict because he does not have a financial interest and has not been involved with any of the negotiations as far as the land is concerned. He said if the board feels that he shouid not participate in the final vote he will recuse himself. Ms. White said she did not see how this situation would be any different from any of the other subdivisions or residential clusters that have come before the board where the applicant wanted to deed the remaining open space to the Conservation Commission; why is this different? Mr. Boyden made the motion that the board vote individually whether to allow or not to allow Mr. Cauldwell to vote on the Dolan Estates Notice of Intent. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-2-1 A memorandum, dated October 17, 2011, from Richard Alves states he has reviewed the Dolan Estates Residential Cluster Subdivision Sheet 3 and Sheet 5 of 6, dated October 6, 2011; the only revision made since his previous memorandum of August 17, 2011 is the location of the 113 cubic foot Forebay, which is acceptable. R:\Conservation\Minutes\2011\IOI72011 Minutes 1212201l.doc 7 Mr. Cauldwell asked Lenore White if she had reviewed the Alternative Anaiysis. She said she did not review the Alternative Analysis because she did not think the document was part of the record. Lenore White told the board there is no other way onto the site. Mr. Cauldwell asked Mr. Feck if he had explored the possibility of purchasing one of the abutting properties to provide access to the site without the bridge crossing. Mr. Feck said he had inquired but was unable to purchase the property. Mr. House asked if the land to be given to NRT is contiguous with any other property owned by NRT. Leonard Flynn of 102 Jewell Street and a member of NRT said it Is contiguous with 25 acres of NRT iand on the corner of Branch and Ware Streets, land given to NRT by Mrs. York. He said the land Mr. Feck is donating to NRT is a beautiful piece of property. There are two ponds, a lot of wetlands and some upland. He said the property is within the aquifer and it is close enough to the wells that it would be considered recharge to the wells. Mr. Cauldwell asked for a motion to approve or deny the project. He said if the project is denied, it will be appealed to DEP and they will allow the project to go forward without input from this board. If the board approves the project, the neighbors will likely appeal the decision. He said the board could also vote to continue if the board feels they need additional information. Elizabeth went over some of the special conditions to be added to the Order of Conditions: o The silk sock installation needs to be inspected by the agent prior to the start of work. o Pre-construction meeting between the board and/or its agent, the approved wetland monitor and the site contractors before the work begins. o A copy of 401 Water Quality Cert. is to be submitted to the board once it has been issued by DEP. o Construction sequence is to be included as an Order as well as the Operation and Maintenance Plan and a Wildlife Habitat Protection Guidance Appendix A form. o The Wetland Replication Plan is to be attached to the Orders. o The proposed temporary construction entrance detail sheet is to be attached. o BRP WW 10/WW11 Major/Minor Project Certification Check list is to be attached. o A Wetland Monitor, pre-approved by the board, is to be hired. o The Wetland Monitor should provide weekly updates in writing to the board during construction regarding the status of the bridge construction and all other work under the board's jurisdiction. The Wetland Monitor will aiso report back to the board once the replication areas have been constructed and planted. Quarterly reports should be submitted for the next several growing seasons. o Bridge construction should take place during a dry period of the year. o Any work not shown on the plans that is within an area subject to regulation would require a new filing. o Prior to construction a detailed bridge design prepared by a professional structural engineer should be submitted to the board for their review and approval. The board reserves the right to require further review of the bridge, especially in regard to shading issues and to place further conditions on the project once the bridge design is submitted. o Letter from ECR dated May 9, 2011 is to be added as an Order. o Only organic lawn products are to be used at the site. o Letter from ECR dated August 8, 2011 is to be added as an appendix to the Order. o Conservation is to be notified when the work starts. o After the site has been inspected, post-construction, all remaining wetland fiags and erosion controls are to be removed from the site. It will be decided after a field inspection when the silk socks can be removed. The berm must be maintained. Mr. Mulkern said information regarding the Homeowners Association shouid be included in the deed. Lenore White said she was concerned about the discussion regarding the speciai conditions with the applicant. She said the public hearing had been closed and it is some what prejudicial. Mr. Cauldweli asked if the board was permitting the whole project, including the lots or are the iots going to be individually permitted. Lenore White said the filing Is for the roadway plus the individual house lot development. But, as she pointed out, the connections between the wells and the houses are not shown on the plan. She is concerned there are other activities that may be within jurisdiction that have not been included on the plan. If there is anything else, the activity can not go forward unless and until the board has had a chance to review it. R:\Conservation\Minutes\2011\10172011 Minutes 12122011.doc 8 Mr. Mulkern made the motion to accept the Notice of Intent for DEP #211-0856, plan dated October 6, 2011, with the special conditions noted by the agent. Ms. White seconded the motion. Mr. House amended the motion to include the following additional special conditions. . Five signs, reading "Environmentally Sensitive Area - Do Not Disturb", are to be place along the right-hand side of the road. Additional signs will be added as deemed necessary. . A sign, "No Salting of Roadway" is to be Installed at the bridge. No sait is to be used on the roadway near resource areas. . Construction and washing stations are to be iocated In upland areas only. Not within wetland areas. The Wetiand Monitor is to monitor these stations to ensure there is no discharge into the resource areas. . The Wetiand Monitor is required to be on site when the roadway and bridge are constructed. The Monitor shall be present during all wetland and bank restoration activities. The Monitor will be present when the wash stations are Installed and during any maintenance. Any additional work under jurisdiction will also require the Monitor be present. . Siltation controls are not to be removed until the Conservation Commission or its Agent have inspected the site. . The Conservation Commission is to have access to the site at all times. Ms. White asked if there was a designated area for snow storage; the snow should not be pushed into any of the resource areas on site. She said it should be in the Operation and Maintenance Plan. The area should be called out on the plan aiso. This will be added to the special conditions. Motion passed 4-2-1. Ms. Matthew stated her reasons for voting to deny the project: according to the consultant, should the board opt to deny the project without prejudice, the Order of Conditions should identify the lack of a plan for the bridge construction and details as a reason; and the consultant's concerns addressed in a letter dated October 14, 2011. Also, Ms. Matthew was concerned about the wash stations In the wetiands. Ms. Matthew said she does not feei the benefits outweigh the detriments and does not think the aiterations are being repaired. I 9. Notice of Intent: Thomas Johnson (Reit Management & Research LLC) 44 Cabot Boulevard, Map 44, Parcel 321. The Notice of Intent was filed for the initiation of an aquatic management program to control nuisance aquatic vegetation in a man-made pond. Maintenance practices will include a Hydro-raking project; aeration and prudent use of U5EPA/MADAR register aquatic herbicides. DEP #211-0869 The applicant has requested a continuance to December 19, 2011. Mr. Mulkern made the motion to continue the hearing to December 19, 2011. Ms. White seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0-1 1O.OtherBllsilless . Agent's Report: 6 Shea Circle, Map 37, Parcel 280 - DEP #211-0873: Mr. DiMascio was unable to find some of the shrubs referenced In the planting plan for the restoration. Some of the plants will not be available under next spring. Elizabeth said the board could require Mr. DiMascio to piant more White Pines now or wait until next spring to plant. Mr. Cauldwell said wait to see what has grown back naturally. Elizabeth said because this area Is very bare, she would like to see the area planted now. The 2010 Town Meeting warrant articles 39, 41 and 42 were recorded at the Registry of Deeds. R:\Conservation\Minutes\20 11 \1 0 172011 Minutes 12122011.doc 9 Thomas Walsh, Elm Street: Mr. Walsh would like to reschedule to November 14, 2011. Jay Zola would like an inspection of Lot 1, 3 Stanley Circle before he cuts the trees on the lot. Ms. Matthew said she would do a site visit. Outreach Announcements: The NRT Fair was held October 1, 2011. Even though the weather was bad, a lot of people came to the event. A student from the High School is doing his senior project with Conservation. Ms. White and Mr. Cauldwell walked Corporal Robert Francis Hardy Memorial Park with the student. He has started to do some light trail cleaning. Ms. White started to mark and update the trail map. Ms. White reminded the board that they had voted to purchase "No Hunting" and No Motorized Vehicles". Mr. Cauldwell said he has a price for the signs; they just need to be ordered. Mr. Mulkern wanted to know where people could get the information about hunting in Mansfield. Is it available on the web site? If not, it should be. Mr. Cauldwell said hunting is allowed only on land that was purchased with federal money. Ms. White said she is working with the GIS staff to create a map of the land where hunting is allowed in town. The map will show all of Conservation properties with the required set backs from the roads and houses. She said the deeds for the properties would need to be looked at to see if hunting is permitted. Mr. Cauldwell told the board he has another Eagle Scout looking for a project and asked the board for suggestions. Mr. Boyden said the Vickery land on South Main Street would be a good project; the signage needs to be installed on this property. Mr. Boyden said this land should be used for passive recreation only. Mr. Cauldwell said he has been approached by people and a Selectman about a community garden. He said he Is not sure it can be done; it might be restricted by the deeds. He suggested the land on Essex Street. Motion was made to adjourn (Boyden/Mulkern). Motion passed 7-0. Next Meeting will be November 14, 2011 at 7:00 pm. (?~a,.,~ Colin Cauldwell, Chairman /eI'rIIL Date' ( R:\Conservation\Minutes\2011\10172011 Minutes 12122011.doc 10