HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION11142011
MANSFIELD CONSERVATION
NOVEMBER 14, 2011
MINUTES
Present: Colin Cauldwell, Chairman; Michele White, Vice Chairman; Joe Mulkern; Paul Boyden; Jack
Smith; Carole Matthew; Derek House; Elizabeth Leidhold, Conservation and Environmental Planner.
11. Meeting called to order at 7:00 pm.
2. RequesLforDeterminationof AppliC(lbility: TownpfMansfield, Kingman Pond Dam O&M/Park
Bench Location, Map 26, Lot 89
Richard Alves, Town Engineer.
The Town of Mansfield is proposing to place a 6'x12' concrete pad for the placement of a park bench
within the flood zone as shown on Map #25002C00339F, dated July 7, 2009. The proposed slab
elevation will be set at existing grade, therefore, there is no filling within the flood zone and no
compensatory storage required. The work will be approximately 500 ft. from the intersection of
Spring and Union Streets and 550 ft. from the existing gravel access path.
Mr. Alves is also proposing an Operation and Maintenance plan for the dam because there is no
formal maintenance plan in place. His recommends the following to stay in compliance with current
dam safety regulations
1. Complete routine maintenance activities to control the growth of vegetation along the length
of the dam including mowing of grass along the embankment left and right of the spillway,
mowing of grass on the auxiliary spillway, and removal of vegetation from the primary
spillway scour apron. Maintenance activities should also work to prevent the development of
large wood vegetation within the wetland along the downstream toe of the auxiliary spillway.
2. Complete routine monitoring and inspection of the dam.
3. Monitor the upstream slope along the waterline to ensure that erosion does not begin to
develop along the slope or degrade the integrity of the slope protection.
4. Monitor scour in the downstream channel for any indication that the scour is encroaching
upon or impacting the stability of the dam or spillway scour apron.
Mr. Alves told the board grass mowing is crucial because there will be follow-up inspections; this is a
requirement in Phase I of the dam safety regulations. He wants the personnel doing the inspection
reports to see the Town of Mansfield is trying to maintain the dams. At the last inspection, he said
Kingman Pond Dam received a grade of satisfactory conditions because there was three feet of grass
and vegetation.
Mr. Boyden asked if trash barrels could be put in the area. Mr. Alves said that would be something
DPW would handle. Mr. Boyden asked about installing lighting on the dam. Mr. Alves said there are
no plans at this time to add lighting.
Mr. Alves said all work will be performed during the dry period. The disposal of any material into the
wetlands, streams or other water resource areas will not be permitted.
Elizabeth asked that she be called when the work begins and suggested the O&M plan be attached to
the Determination. She said a "blanket" Notice of Intent would be developed at a later date to allow
work on the dams, drainage system, and basins in town.
1
Ms. White made the motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination for Kingman Pond Dam 0 & M plan
and the park bench location. Plan "Proposed Park Bench Location/Operation & Maintenance Plan for
Kingman Pond, Town of Mansfield Engineering Department, 6 Park Row, Mansfield, MA 02048", dated
October 12, 2011 and stamped by Richard C. Alves, Jr., Professional Engineer.
Mr. Mulkern seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0-0.
I 3. Request for Determination of Applicability: Town of Mansfield, Crocker Street, Map 22.
Richard C. Alves, Town Engineer.
Mr. Alves said the work will be within the town right-of-way, northerly of the Intersection of Chauncy
and North Main Streets. The town is proposing to remove and replace existing pipe and drainage
structures due to continuous flooding at the intersection of Pratt and Crocker Streets. A portion of
the drainage basin will need to be regraded to its original condition for the system to function as
designed. All proper erosion and sedimentation controls, including silt fencing will be installed
upslope of all vegetative areas.
Mr. Alves told the board the flooding on Pratt Street is the result of a broken pipe causing the water
to flow downstream into the existing basin. The existing catch basin structures do not have sump
pumps so they are not functioning properly. He said 75% of the basins are in good shape but there
is an accumulation of silt.
Elizabeth said the structures should be better maintained. She said the RDA can not be extended so
the "blanket" Notice of Intent needs to be written this winter so maintenance can continue.
Mr. Boyden made the motion to go forward with the application concerning Crocker Street, as per
plan and issue a Negative 2 Determination. Plan "Proposed Drainage Improvements on Crocker
Street, Town of Mansfield Engineering Department, 6 Park Row, Mansfield, MA", dated October 12,
2011 and stamped by Richard C. Alves, Jr., Professional Engineer.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0-0.
4. Request for Determination of Applicability: Town of Mansfield, Park Bench Locations Fulton Pond,
Map 23, Lot 119.
Mr. Boyden recused himself.
Richard C. Alves, Town Engineer.
The Engineering Department is proposing to place two (2) 6'x12' concrete pads for the placement of
two park benches within the fiood zone, as shown on Maps #25005C0038F and #25005C0039F
effective date July 7, 2009. The proposed slab elevations will be set at existing grade; therefore,
there is no filling within the flood zone and no compensatory storage required.
Mr. Alves said one bench will be located on the existing berm, upstream on the tailwall. He said
erosion is a concern in this area; the area needs to be re-seeded to stabilize the bank
There is a written Operation and Maintenance Manual for the dam, prepared in July 2000 by Pare
Corporation. Mr. Alves recommends the following to stay in compliance with current day safety
regulations:
2
1. Remove debris from the spill way.
2. Remove woody vegetation smaller than 3-inches in diameter from the dam embankment and
the downstream area within 30 feet of the dam toe.
3. Maintain a healthy vegetative cover on the dam. Grass or other vegetation should be mowed
periodically and kept to a height of 3 to 12 inches. Grass should be re-established in bare
areas on the downstream embankment.
4. Perform regular monitoring and inspection of the dam, especially in areas with suspected
movement or seepage. Trap and remove any burrowing animals from the embankments.
5. Eroded areas at the abutments should be brought back to former grades and stabilized. Mr.
Alves said the sheathing is exposed in some areas.
6. Fill sinkhole on the down stream embankment. There are other sinkholes and areas of
erosion that need to be taken care of. This was mentioned in the Phase I inspection.
Mr. Alves will use the information in this O&M plan to prepare the "blanket" Notice of Intent to
maintain the dams and basins in town.
Mr. Alves told the board the trees on the dam should be removed.
Mr. Alves said all work will be performed during the dry season.
Ms. White made the motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination for two park benches locations on
Fulton Pond. Plan "Sketch of Proposed Park Bench Locations Fulton Pond, dated October 18, 2011
and stamped by Richard C. Alves, Jr., Professional Engineer.
Ms. Matthew seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-1.
5. ReqUest for Determination of Applicability: Town of Mansfield, Stearns Avenue, Map 41,Parcels
29 & 30.
Richard C. Alves, Town Engineer.
The Engineering Department is proposing to construct a drainage system to alleviate the continuous
flooding in front of house number 59 Stearns Avenue, approximately 800 ft. northerly of the
intersection of East Street and Stearns Avenue. The drainage system will also be placed within an
existing drainage easement at house number 65 Stearns Avenue; the easement was accepted at the
spring 2010 Town Meeting, Article 27. Mr. Alves said all the work will be within the Town right-of-
way.
The work will include the construction of a catch basin within the low point with a four foot sump
pump, a drain manhole with a flared end structure out the back.
Elizabeth flagged the wetlands in October and the flags were field located by Richard Alves.
Mr. Alves is proposing erosion and sedimentation controls, including silt fencing, within the areas of
concern outside the 50 ft. buffer zone upslope of all vegetative areas. Rip rap with a filter fabric will
be place at the flared end structure.
Elizabeth said the proposed work is quite a distance from the wetlands and she has no issues with the
project.
3
Ms. White made the motion to issue a Negative 2 Determination of Applicability for Stearns Avenue,
Map 41, Parcels 29 & 30. Plan "Proposed Drainage Improvements on Stearns Avenue, dated October
26, 2011 and stamped by Richard C. Alves, Jr., Professional Engineer.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0-0.
6. Request for Determination of Applicability: Mansfield School Department, Jordan Jackson School,
250 East Street, Map 32, Parcel 33.
Hearing was continued from the October 17, 2011 meeting.
Mr. Boyden recused himself.
Walter Parker, Facilities Director for the Mansfield School Department, was present.
Mr. Parker told the board the light pole from the middle of the parking lot at Jordan Jackson School
will be moved about ten feet in towards the stream. The pole will be approximately 35 feet from the
stream. He told the board the work includes digging a footing, pouring the concrete, installing a so no
tube and back filling. He said all work will be completed the same day.
Mr. Parker told the board the poles were originally put in too low and now all the clips and bolts are
rusting. He said most of the poles have had to be replaced because they are unsafe.
Hay bales are already in place. Elizabeth will inspect the erosion controls prior to the start of work.
This work is allowable under Section 2 of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law - Jurisdiction 2.2
1. Emergency projects necessary for the protection of the health or safety of the residents of the
Town of Mansfield.
Ms. White made the motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination for the Mansfield School Department
at Jordan Jackson School.
Mr. House seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-1.
7. Request for Determination of Applicability: Grove Building Realty Trust, Spring Street, Map 28,
Parcel 71, 149 & 165.
Michael Trowbridge of Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc. and James Lazzara, the property owner,
were present.
The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed to verify the proposed work is outside the
riparian zone and the 100 ft. buffer zone.
Mr. Trowbridge told the board the 55 and over residential building was approved by the Zoning Board
of Appeals and the Planning Board.
Mr. Trowbridge said the proposed work is outside of the 200 foot Riparian Line with the exception of
the extension of the sewer lateral to the existing building.
Siltation controls are proposed.
4
Mr. Trowbridge said there were questions regarding water that had pooled in the tailrace area. He
said the tailrace has long been abandoned and does not sustain wetland growth or water. Presently
there is water due to the above average amount of rain. The area was witnessed to not contain
water on November 10, 2010 by Richard Alves, the Town Engineer, when on site for test holes.
Hutchins-Trowbridge has been out to the site numerous times over a period of many years and water
has not remained in this area. A site inspection was done on November 7, 2011 and no water was
found in the tailrace, either flowing or ponding with the exception of a small puddle containing less
than 2 cubic feet of water.
Elizabeth said the Mean Annual High Water flags are all set; in the future these flags should be shown
on the plans. Because there will be under an acre of disturbance, she said the project does not fall
under the by-law for land disturbance.
Mr. Alves has reviewed the project for stormwater and drainage calculations. He recommended the
diameter of the manhole be increased to six feet to ensure the structure is structurally sound.
Even though the project is not entirely within Conservation jurisdiction, Elizabeth asked that copies of
the inspection reports as per the O&M plan be sent to the Commission and the Engineering
Department.
Because of the resource areas just past this site, Elizabeth asked that it be noted in the Determination
that all discharge is to occur toward the upland areas, not towards any resource areas.
Mr. Boyden asked if all departments were part of the site plan review. Mr. Trowbridge said the Police
Department asked that a stop sign be added to the entrance for vehicles exiting the site; the Police
Department wanted to ensure sight distance was adequate. The Fire Department asked that
plantings be removed from the circle so fire apparatus would not be obstructed. This area will be
loamed and seeded. The Electric Department asked that the fencing around the transformer be
removed and note for protective bollards and a riser pole be added.
Ms. White would like to see a snow storage area at the back of the parking area. The storage area
should not be located to the right side of the property because of the Riverfront Area. Mr.
Trowbridge said the applicant does not have a problem with designating these areas for snow
storage.
Ms. Matthew said she would like the memo from all town departments and the memorandum from
Michael Trowbridge to Building Inspector Nicholas Riccio to be attached to the Determination of
Applicability.
Ms. White made the motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination with the following conditions:
copies of the O&M inspection reports are to be sent to the Commission and Engineering Department;
the diameter of the manhole is to be increased to 6 feet to ensure the structure is structurally sound;
no pumping of discharge toward the resource areas; snow storage is to be designated on the plan to
the south side of the parking lot away from the wetlands; memo from all town departments and the
November 7, 2011 memorandum from Michael Trowbridge to the Building Inspector Nicholas Riccio
are to be attached to the Determination of Applicability. Plan "Spring Street Mill Apartments 68
Spring Street", dated February 28, 2011. stamped by Michael Trowbridge, Professional Land
Surveyor, Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., 200 Chauncy Street, Mansfield, MA; Memorandum
from Richard Alves, Jr., Town Engineer, dated November 14, 2011; Maintenance & Operation for
drainage system, dated November 4,2011.
Ms. Matthew seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0-0.
5
8, Request for Determination of Applicability: Mass D('!partment of Transportation - Highway Division
~ District 5, Thomas McGuire
Thomas McGuire, District Environmental Engineer from Mass DOT - District 5, Michael Clemens
Assistant Environmental Engineer and Roger Lemeux, Senior Designer in Product Development, were
present.
The proposed work involves pavement milling, resurfacing and related items to rehabilitate Route 1-
495 beginning at the Foxborough town line and running southerly to the Norton town line for
approximately 19,606 feet or 3,71 miles. In addition, the Route 1-495 ramps at Route 140, a section
of the northbound 1-495 on-ramp at South Main Street and the surface connector roadways between
Route 140 and South Main Street are included in this work. There is also a 620 foot section of West
Street and a 435 foot section of School Street that runs over and under Route 1-495. Mr. McGuire
said he has already received a Negative Determination for the work to be done in Norton.
Mr. McGuire told the board all work will be done within the existing State Highway Layout, mostly
within the shoulders of the roadway. No work is proposed within any wetland resource areas but
work will be done within the buffer zone at some locations. No wetlands will be adversely affected.
Hay bales and/or silt fence will be installed to prevent sediments or other materials from entering the
resource areas. Areas for the erosion controls will be designated after a site walk with the agent and
Mr. McGuire.
Mr. McGuire said an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) is not required for this proposed project
because no Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) thresholds will be approached by any of
the proposed work.
Ms. Matthew asked if the project meets the requirements of all the local By-laws. Mr. McGuire said as
a state highway division and because of the limited scope of the work, the project is not subject to
the local By-law or the Department of Environmental Protection's Stormwater Policy. He said it is
noted In the RDA the project is exempt from the riverfront requirements for maintenance of roads
under 310 CMR 10.58 (6)(a). Ms. Matthew asked that it be noted in the Determination that this
project is exempt from the state regulations and the local By-laws.
Mr. McGuire said the work will include selective clearing and thinning of trees and vegetation along
the edge of the road for sight distance improvements and visibility at sign locations. There will be
adjusting, rebuilding and cleaning existing drainage structures; the replacement of all existing catch
basin frames and grates with new hook locks; the rumble strips in the paved shoulders of the Route
1-495 mainline roadways will be milled and replaced; the existing concrete gores and island noses will
be removed and reconstructed with hot mix asphalt; the bridge joint and decks on the Route 1-495
mainline roadways will be repaired and/or reconstructed. Mr. McGuire said there will be no structural
bridge work or widening of the roadway. Damaged sections of guardrail will be repaired or replaced.
The shoulders of the roadways will be loamed and seeded or dense graded crushed stone will be
placed to stabilize these areas.
As part of the drainage system there is a series of sedimentation pools; these will be checked in the
field and cleaned out if necessary.
Mr. McGuire said they will be installing four (4) traffic data collection stations and two (2)
classification data collection stations on the Route 1-495 mainline roadways and applying pavement
markings and reflectorized pavement markers.
6
Elizabeth asked if any of the work will involve the southbound ramp area. Mr. McGuire said most of
the work in these areas, the southbound off-ramp and the northbound on-ramp along with the new
ramp from Route 140 to 495 southbound, has been done or will be done under the Notice of Intent.
He said a portion of the South Main Street ramp onto 495 northbound will be resurfaced. Sections of
West Street and School Street that are within the state highway layout will also be resurfaced.
Mr. McGuire said the ramp at Interstate 95 is not included in this filing.
Mr. Boyden asked that the Conservation Department be notified before the work begins. Mr. McGuire
said this can be part of the conditions.
Ms. White asked Mr. McGuire about the placement of loam and seeding or dense graded crushed
stone to stabilize the shoulders of the roadways. What dictates which areas are to be loamed and
seeded or where the crushed stone will be used? Mr. McGuire said when you have rutting at the side
of the road, these are the areas where dense graded crushed stone will be used so the areas can be
stabilized. He said if loam and seed were used in these areas it would wash out in a couple months.
Where there is no erosion from vehicles, the areas will be packed with loam and seeded.
Ms. White made the motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination for the RDA with the following
conditions: MassDOT and the Conservation Agent are to conduct an inspection for correct placement
of erosion controls; the Conservation COmmission is to be notified prior to any work being done; it
will be noted in the Determination that the activities proposed are exempt from 310 CMR 10.58, state
Riverfront Regulations and the Mansfield Wetland By-law. Plan "Mansfield, Route 1-495 - U.s.G.S.
Locus Map", dated October 24, 2011.
Motion passed 7-0-0.
I 9. Notice of Intent: Eugene and Marietta Courtney, 8 Shady Brook Lane, Map 33, Parcel 87.
The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of a 17'x14' mudroom, a 17' x17' deck with flower
boxes and steps and a second-floor addition over the existing garage within the 100 ft. buffer zone.
The lot is also in an ACEC, the Canoe River.
Mr. Maloon told the board the lot is within a residential compound and the entire lot is within the 100
foot buffer. The appiicant is proposing to put an addition on the back of the house on existing lawn.
A new deck will be built to the left of the addition. The closest point from the wetlands to the corner
of the deck steps is 47.7 feet.
Siltation control is to be staked in place prior to any construction and is to be maintained until all work
is completed, the area has been stabilized and a Certificate of Compliance has been issued.
Elizabeth's comments:
There is a buffer zone between the lawn and the wetland. The wetland was flagged on October 24,
2011.
DEP has commented that this is an After-the-Fact filing, but this is not the case. Ms. Matthew asked
if this should be corrected. Elizabeth said it probably can not be changed at this point. Ms Matthew
asked that the DEP comment be noted in the Order of Conditions.
Because the property slopes to the wetland beyond the fence, Elizabeth wants to be sure the
proposed erosion controls are sufficient for this area. She asked that the silt fence be toed-in.
7
Ms Matthew said the General Rules and Regulations of the Town of Mansfield Wetland Protection By-
law Section 5 Hearing Process When Other Mansfield Board Approvals are Needed - [though a
Conservation Public Hearing on the project may commence before other applicable Town
boards/commissions/departments have permitted the project, written proof of such
boards/commissions/departments approval of any project, according to the plans previously
submitted to the Conservation Commission as part of the Request for Determination of Applicability or
Notice of Intent, must be provided before any hearing is closed and a permit is issued. She asked
that a copy of the building application be attached to the Order of Conditions.
Ms White said the second floor addition over the garage will not change the footprint.
Mr. House said the erosion controls should be extended to the front corner of the garage to make
sure when the roof is removed from the garage no debris enters the wetlands.
Mr. Mulkern made the motion to accept the project and drawing for 8 Shady Brook Lane, Map 33,
Parcel 87 for a 17'x14' mudroom and other work stated on the plan, " Proposed House Addition to 8
Shady Brook Lane in Mansfield, MATT, dated October 26, 2011 and stamped by Ralph 1. Maloon,
Professional Engineer, 150 North Main Street, Mansfield, MA, with the following conditions: erosion
controls are to be extended to the front corner of the garage; Conservation agent is to inspect
erosion controls prior to the start of work; the building plan is to be submitted to the Conservation
Commission showing foundation detail; the DEP comment that this is an After-the-Fact Notice of
Intent is incorrect and should be noted in the Order of Conditions.
Ms. White seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-1-0.
110.. After-the-Fact Notice of Intent: Jeffery Watterson, 190 Mill Street, Map 43, Parcel 83.
The After-the-Fact Notice of Intent was filed for the removal of structures within the buffer zone of
bordering vegetated wetlands and within an ACEC, the Canoe River.
Mr. Boyden made the motion to continue the hearing to December 19, 2011.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0-0.
Mr. Cauldwell commented that the hearing was continued because a DEP number has not been
issued.
11. Request for Determination of Applicability: Stephen Cunningham, Roy Road, Lot 2, Map 41,
Parcel 452.
Hearing was continued from the October 17, 2011 meeting.
The Request for Determination was filed for the construction of a single-family dweiling within the
100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands and within an NHESP Estimated and Priority Habitat.
Michael Trowbridge was present as a representative of Mr. Cunningham.
Mr. Trowbridge told the board Lot 1 was part of a Residential Compound and has been sub-divided.
The filing is for Lot 2. He told the board that the remainder of land from these two parceis was
deeded to the town as part of the open space to protect the wetlands and the vernal pools that are
on site.
8
Mr. Trowbridge told the board the closest point and the erosion control line are 50 ft. from the
wetlands. The proposed house wiil be 78 ft. from the edge of the wetlands and the septic system
leaching field is at the 100 ft. buffer line.
Dry wells are proposed and are shown on the plan.
Because the site is within a Natural Heritage Area, Elizabeth asked Mr. Trowbridge to contact Natural
Heritage. A letter from Natural Heritage states the project wiil not adversely affect the actual
Resource Area Habitat of a state-protected rare wildlife species or result in a "take" of state-listed
rare species.
Elizabeth met on site with the flagger for the applicant and has re-located most of the flags. The
locations of the flags are shown on the plan as new 206, 207, 208 and 209.
Ms. Matthew said the project does not meet 2.6 of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law. By
design, a local By-law and the accompanying regulations must exceed the minimum requirements
established by the state and impose stricter laws. The By-law wiil also protect to a greater degree
additional resource areas beyond those recognized by the state. The Conservation Department must
approve or deny a project under both the state and the local regulations. Therefore, it is not
uncommon for a Conservation Commission to approve a project under the state regulations but deny
it under the local by-law. Ms. Matthew said every applicant in the town has always stayed away
from the 100 foot buffer zone. The Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law considers the 100 feet
around a certified vernal pool a resource area and there is a 25 ft. no touch zone around resource
areas. Because this property is within a Rare and Endangered Species Habitat and/or within 100 ft. of
a certified vernal pool, the applicant must stay away from the resource area 25 ft. no touch and the
100 ft. no touch zone around the pool, so no work can be done within 125 feet. Ms. Matthew said
the board can not apply this today but this is the way it should be applied in the future.
Ms. Matthew made the motion to deny the RDA (a Positive 5 Determination) for Lot 2 Roy Road
because while it does meet the state regulations, the project as designed does not meet the local by-
law, specifically 2.6 of the by-law.
Mr. Mulkern seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0-0.
12. Notice of Intent: Wiiliam and Jane Maher, 16 Serena Allen Way, Map 39, Parcel 409.
DEP #211-0875
The hearing was continued from the October 17, 2011 meeting.
Ralph Maloon of RIM Engineering Co., Inc. and Mrs. Maher, the homeowner, were present.
The Notice of Intent was flied 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.
Mr. Maloon said the applicant is proposing an addition to the rear of the house and a garage to the
left of the house. The existing deck will be removed for the construction of the addition. The
addition will have a full foundation while the garage wiil be on footings.
9
Ralph Maloon said the Notice of Intent information was sent to Natural Heritage. A letter from the
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, dated November 3, 2011, states that Natural Heritage has
determined that the project, as currently proposed, will not adversely affect the actual Resource Area
Habitat of state-protected rare wildlife species and that the project meets the state-listed species
performance standard for the issuance of an Order of Conditions. The Massachusetts Endangered
Species Act (MESA), based on the information that was provided and the information currently
contained in the data base, the NHESP has determined that the project, as currently proposed, will
not result in a prohibited "take" of state-listed rare species.
Page 2 of 8 of the Notice of Intent has been amended to include the new project as well as the work
done without permits; an in-ground pool, a concrete basketball court, shed and gazebO. All this work
is within jurisdiction.
DEP has no comments.
Mr. Cauldwell said this is a complicated filing because it is dealing with the proposed changes and
other alterations that have occurred within the buffer zone without permits.
Elizabeth said the house was built in 1993. The house is within 41 feet of the wetlahds. The existing
deck is 28 feet from the wetlands with the bottom of the deck stairs 25 ft. from the edge of the
wetlands. The deck was not part of the original house permit.
Elizabeth showed pictures from Google Earth for 2005, 2007 and 2011. The town's GIS from 2006
shows the in-ground swimming pool. There are also pictures showing the basketball court and the
shed, both within the 25 foot no touch zone, work that is cover under the Town of Mansfield's
Wetland Protection By-law. She suggested some mitigation plantings to compensate for the
alteration to the 25 ft. area.
A letter dated July 23, 2008 was sent by the former agent to residents in the Serena Allen Way area
as well as other areas that are in a Natural Heritage area. The letter was sent because Ms. Grenier
found many of the yards in these areas have been extended and work done without any filing with
Natural Heritage. In some instances, the former agent found the residents were throwing leaves and
grass clippings as well as other debris into the wetland areas. The letter was read by Elizabeth:
Dear Residents: This letter is to inform you that your house and property are located within an
Estimated and Priority Habitat established by Natural Heritage, which is under the Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife.
In the State on Massachusetts these areas are established when a threatened, endangered or rare
plant or animal is found living in the area. There is a very large area that encompasses Northwest
and Northeast Mansfield, in your area specifically from East Street up to the end of Bird Road
including Stearns Avenue, Serena Allen Way, Noreen Road, Nicole Road, pattys Road, Elyse Road,
Jean Road, Bird Road, Mary Dee Lane, Donald Allen Drive, Homefield Drive, etc. Within these areas it
is illegal to alter land, dump or build on without a permit from the local Conservation Commission and
permission from Natural Heritage. The expansion of lawns is not allowed nor is the dumping of
leaves or grass clippings.
There are several lawns that have been expanded including several trees cut down especially on Elyse
Road. These areas must be replanted and left in their natural state.
Mr. Maloon said he has a Board of Health septic plan from 1992 that appears to have gone before the
Conservation Commission. Siltation controls are noted on the plan.
10
The Assessor's Office lists the Mahers as the original owners of the house. Mr. Bbyden said the
Assessors Office shows only three permits were issued for this property - one in 1992 for the house,
a chimney in 1992 and an in-ground pool in 2005. He said he researched the deed-the property was
passed on February 17, 1993. He said none of the other work has been assessed by the Assessor's
Office. Mr. Boyden said the original permit for a pool was for an above-ground pObl.
Mrs. Maher told the board the in-ground pool permit went through the Conservation Department for
approval. Mrs. Maher said when she started the process of filing for the pool, she Was shown the
document that was signed by the former agent; she said it was for the in-ground pool. Elizabeth said
the document was for the above-ground pool. Mrs. Maher was shown all of the documents from the
Building Department file. Elizabeth told Mrs. Maher the former agent signed off on the above-ground
pool but not the in-ground pool.
Mr. Cauldwell asked Mrs. Maher if she had any records for the work done at the hom~. He said the
documents would have been recorded at the Registry of Deeds and removed once the project was
complete and a Certificate of Compliance issued. He told her the in-ground pbql is legal but she
needs to file an After-the-Fact Notice of Intent. He said if Mrs. Maher would agree to file the Notice
of Intent it would be a simple solution. He told Mrs. Maher that the board could brder her to do the
mitigation but would like to do so with her cooperation and have her comply voluntarily. Mrs. Maher
asked what the board would require and asked how it would change if she could find the document
the former agent signed. Mr. Cauldwell said there was never a hearing for the in-iwound pool or any
of the other work.
Mr. Cauldwell said the shed should have had a building permit. He said a wetland permit would also
have been necessary for the shed. He said the board is willing to work with Mrs. Maher to permit all
the work done on the property but said the board could also issue an Enforcement Order and possibly
go to court. He said the board does not want to do this.
Ms. Matthew said 2.6 of the By-law allows for grading work with additions to exiiting single-family
homes but said the board does not have proof that any of the work was approved; She feels some
mitigation should be done. She said the board has a legal right as a Commission under the State
Wetland Protection Act and the Conservation Act of 1958 to require at least some kind bf mitigation.
Ms. White suggested the board discuss the garage and addition and any potential mitigation the
board might want to see for the pool and the basketball court. Then the board can discuss the other
items that were never permitted. Mr. Mulkern felt the board should resolve the old issues first before
dealing with the new proposal.
Mr. Boyden said the board can give a vote of confidence for the proposed work, Clearing the garage
and addition only, and then address the other problems.
Elizabeth told the board the existing deck is approximately 27 feet from the stonewall which is the
flag line. The wetlands are located behind the stonewall. She asked how muchc:loser toward the
wetlands the new work would be? Mr. Maloon said the existing deck is 29.5 feet from the wetlands
and the proposed building is 26.4 feet to the edge of the wetlands. Mr. Cauldwell said if Elizabeth
disagrees with the wetland line, the line would need to be certified. Elizabeth said when she
measured from wetland flag #9 at the wall, it was 28 feet from the existing deck. She said all the
flags except for flag #12 should be at the stonewall.
Elizabeth asked if the new deck could be moved over to be more in line with the end of the proposed
garage. Mr. Cauldwell said it needs to be determined how Close the corner of the addition will be to
the wetland - it appears to be about 20 feet and can not be permitted.
11
Mr. Boyden said the deck needs to be looked at; was it built at the same time the house was built or
after?
Mr. Mulkern made a motion to continue the hearing to December 19, 2011 so the discrepancies can
be settled.
Ms. White asked about the dry wells in the back yard that are shown on the septic plan. Were they
ever installed? Mr. Maloon said they were never put in.
Mr. Boyden seconded the motion.
Ms. Matthew said the property is within a Rare Species Area. The Mansfield Wetland Protection By-
law adds more protection and is stricter then the state's regulations. The By-law has certain
exemptions to the Rare Species Areas, one of which is existing homes, but there Is also the 25 foot
no touch and regardless of the exemption, everyone in this town has to adhere to the 25 ft. no touch.
Elizabeth asked the board to discuss the basketball court, gazebo, the shed and stonewall. All of
these activities were not permitted; the shed appears to be in the wetlands.
Mrs. Maher said there was a permit for the deck but said she was not sure about permits for the
gazebo and the shed.
Mr. Cauldwell said the board would like to work with the applicant to mitigate the violations. He said
if the applicant is not willing to do this, the board will issue an Enforcement Order. He said the board
can not ignore the multiple violations of the Wetlands Protection Act that have occurred on the
property. The board and the applicant will have to come to an agreement as to how this is fixed.
Mr. House said the 25 foot no touch should be re-established and the shed should be moved out of
the 25 foot area. He said the basketball court should be removed.
Ms. Matthew said the shed should be removed and a buffer established that would be beneficial to
the rare species on site.
Mr. Smith said the shed should be pulled forward and plantings done in this area.
Mr. Boyden agreed the 25 foot area should be re-established. The plantings would be an asset to the
area. He said he would like the deck situation resolved before going forward with the new proposal.
Mrs. Maher said there was a permit filed for the deck; it was built when the house was constructed.
She said she was not sure about permits for the gazebo and the shed. She said some things appear
to be missing from the town's records. She said she would look for documents concerning any work
done on the property.
Mr. House told Mrs. Maher she should have a copy of the final building permit and a Certificate of
Compliance. There should be a separate permit for the deck and all other work proposed but not
done at the time the house was built.
Mr. Mulkern said the shed should be moved out of the 25 foot no touch zone. The basketball court
should not be removed but there should be some plantings.
12
Elizabeth said the shed should be moved; the shed could be easily moved. Mrs. Maher disagreed
about moving the shed.
Mrs. Maher asked where the board wanted the plantings. Mr. Cauldwell said the plantlngs should go
near the basketball court to promote infiltration into the ground of the run-off from the basketball
court.
Elizabeth said the Town of Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law requires that a 25 foot no touch zone
be maintained from the edge of the wetlands. The plantings would compensate the areas that have
been developed and slow down the run-off from the basketball court.
Ms. White said the plantings would re-establish any habitat lost when the basketball court, shed, and
gazebo were built. She asked that the shed be moved out of the 25 foot area and the concrete pad
removed. This space and the area around the back of the basketball court should be planted.
Mr. Cauldwell asked that the shed be removed. He asked Mrs. Maher about the filtration system for
the pool; is it a cartridge system? Does it require back washing? Mrs. Maher said she back washes.
Mr. Cauldwell asked if there is a designated area for the back washing; is it going Ihto the wetlands?
Is there a deck around the pool? Is it raised or flush with the pool? Mrs. Maher said there is a patio
and it is flush with the pool. He asked Mrs. Maher if she gets frogs and salamanders in the pool; she
told him she does. He said the board recommends a Froglog especially in a Rare Species Area so
animals do not drown in the pool. He said If the pool had been permitted, these are issues that
would have been conditioned.
Mr. Cauldwell said the board would like to see this settled and the board has outlinM what would be
required. The Notice of Intent is for the garage and addition but the activities that were never
permitted are included in the filing. By filing the Notice of Intent, an Order of Conditions wouid be
issued and all activities that have occurred on the property would be under the Order of Conditions.
If Mrs. Maher were to sell the house there could be issues. Mr. Cauldwell told her a good lawyer
would find all the illegal work and the house would be hard to sell. Mrs. Maher said she had been
misled by the people in the town.
Mr. Cauldwell suggested the hearing be continued to the December meeting so the corner of the
addition can be staked - this would be the closest point to the wetland - and the wetland line verified.
Because any work has to be outside the 25 ft. no touch area, Mrs. Maher will have to alter the
proposed structures.
Ms. Matthew told Mrs. Maher that Chapter 131 40@ of the state regulations gives the Conservation
Commission the legal authority to require whatever mitigation it feels necessary to correct any
resource area alterations. She said the board is not doing anything out of the realm of what the
board is supposed to be doing and what the board is here for.
Elizabeth told Mrs. Maher violations run with discovery.
Motion to continue to January 2012 passed 7-0-0.
113. Other Business
Elm Street Enforcement Issue: Thomas Walsh, the landowner, was present.
This is the lot that abuts Camden Lane, a subdivision Stan Feck owns.
13
The eastern portion of the lot was identified under an ANRAD - DEP #211-0859. the ORAD was
issued to Stan Feck on December 22, 2010; he plans to develop this portion of th~ lot in the future.
The wetlands and vernal pool #4039 were flagged.
In 2005, during an inspection on site, it was discovered that the wetlands and a vernal pool had been
filled in because a pipe was discharging into the wetlands. A drainage ditch had also been dug to
drain the area. An Enforcement Order was issued on December 6, 2005 and Mr. Walsh was required
to delineated the wetlands and submit a Notice of Intent for intended work within the 100 ft. buffer
of bordering vegetated wetlands, vernal pools, intermittent and perennial streams.
A Notice of Intent was filed in January 2006. An Order of Conditions for DEP #211'0750 was issued
in June 2006.
An Enforcement Order was issued in June 2010 because of ongoing alterations to the bordering
vegetated wetlands, activities that are in close proximity to public water supply wells. Mr. Walsh was
told to stop all work and submit a plan for the restoration of the bordering vegetated wetlands and
the removal of the subsurface drainage pipe that discharges into the wetlands. Mr. Walsh was told to
remove the material from the wetland by hand.
The board asked Mr. Walsh to contact an engineer because there are questions about the affect on
the water table because of these activities.
Mr. Walsh said he thought the board was going to put out a request for proposal to have water
samples taken. Ms. White said the board asked that water samples be taken beCaUse there were
questions as to where the silt was coming from. She said the engineer was to be hired at the
expense of the Mr. Walsh.
Elizabeth told the board Mr. Walsh has hired Brad Holmes of Environmentai Consulting and
Restoration, LLC. She will be meeting with Mr. Holmes on Monday November 21, 2011. She asked
the board what other things Mr. Holmes should concentrate on other than the remoVal of the silt.
Mr. Boyden asked who authorized the installation of the pipe. Mr. Walsh said whEin Mr. Morse, the
former owner, got the original earth removal permit, the court ordered that the land be graded to the
elevations shown on the plan of land submitted by RIM Engineering and that a swale be created to
facilitate drainage to prevent large volumes of water from sheeting across the entire property. Mr.
Walsh said he did not want the swale so a subsurface drain was installed to pick up the water. He
said this work was done at least 5 years ago.
Mr. Cauldwell said the work never came before the board or the Town Engineer. He said he has
reviewed the file and did not see anything about the drain. He said the drain goes off Mr. Walsh's
property and out falls onto town property. He said it is clear from aerials that Mr. Walsh has cleared
vegetation and has excavated for the pipe right to the edge of the swamp. This still is an illegal
discharge into the wetlands. Mr. Walsh needs to stop the activities, restore the areil, of alteration and
find a solution to the drainage problem. He said a retention/detention basin should be constructed to
process the water prior to it entering the bordering vegetated wetlands. An engineering plan for the
basin should be approved by the town engineer.
Mr. Mulkern said if the material needs to be removed by hand and trucked off site, how will the area
be accessed. Mr. Cauldwell said the material should be removed at low water.
Mr. Cauldwell said Mr. Walsh needs to submit a mitigation/restoration plan aloiig with a plan to
handle the sheet run-off so the area is not siltated. The property boundaries need to be established.
14
A plan approved by the Town Engineer needs to be submitted for all drains, inverts, elevations and
pipe sizing.
Mr. Walsh said the area has been stabilized and the vegetation has grown back.
Mr. Walsh and Elizabeth will meet at Town Hall on Monday, November 21, 2011 at 10:00 am for the
site visit. Mr. Cauldwell said he would try to be there for the site visit.
Agent's Report
The Beaumont Pond Wildlife Habitat Evaluation filing was given to the board to review. The Notice of
Intent was filed by the Foxborough Conservation Department.
National Grid subcontractors have put a lot of gravel material outside the 100 ft. The swamp mats
have been installed in the wetland and upland areas, over shrub wetland and trees have been
knocked down in the process. Elizabeth told National Grid they would have to file an amendment to
the original filing. National Grid does not want to file; they see this as an insignificant alteration to
the plan. Ellizabeth suggested they submit a restoration plan; this has not been done. Ms. White
said the proposed alteration was 3,700 square feet; 9,400 square feet have been altered.
Mr. Boyden made the motion to have National Grid come before the board to explain what was done
and how they will mitigate the alteration.
Mr. House seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0-0.
The Ware Street decision has been appealed.
Fees: The board needs to look at the fee schedule. The fees will be an amendment to the By-law.
The article submitted last year to change the fee schedule was withdrawn at Town Meeting.
Elizabeth said the board could remove the fees from the By-law at Town Meeting and make them a
part of the Rules and Regulations.
Mr. Cauldwell asked about the property out in West Mansfield on Bungay Lake. Is there any news?
There are no Outreach announcements.
New Business:
The board discussed the Vernal Pool Criteria & Buffer Zone Width Regulations.
Ms. Matthew made the motion to include the criteria for determining the boundary of a vernal pool
under Definitions of the Rules and Regulations.
Mr. House seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0-0.
Ms. White asked Elizabeth to add an item to the budget for signs for the Conservation parcels. The
money would be used to purchase boundary markers and "No Hunting" and "No Motorized Vehicles"
signs. Wood for the signs would also be purchased. Elizabeth said the money from Mansfield
Crossing can be used to purchase the signs and materials.
15
Ms. White also asked the board to approve the use of the Mansfield Crossing money to create a
maintenance kit to contain tools and materials needed to maintain the trails. The money will also be
used for Outreach materials.
Mr. House made the motion to reimburse $67.59 to Ms. White for expenses for a trail kit and to allot
an additional $100.00 for any further expenditures.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-1.
Maple Street Vernal Pool Restoration: The property owner called Elizabeth to let her know he would
be unable to come to a meeting to discuss the vernal pool restoration. The board will inspect the
vernal pool in the spring.
Mr. Cauldwell would like a full report of the Conservation Land money and how the money can be
used.
Reorganization:
Chairman Colin Cauldwell called for nominations for Chairman.
Vice Chairman Michele White nominated Joseph Mulkern for Chairman
Motion to approve Joseph Mulkern as Chairman.
White/Matthew. Motion passed 7-0-0.
Chairman Colin Cauldwell called for nominations for Vice Chairman.
Vice Chairman Michele White nominated Colin Cauldwell for Vice Chairman.
Motion to approve Colin Cauldwell as Vice Chairman
White/House. Motion passed 7-0-0.
114. Adjournment
Motion to adjourn. Boyden/White. Motion passed 7-0.
Next meeting will be December 19, 2011.
(@_ /? /iJ, ' kJ!efr
Colin Cauldwell, Chairman
/k'J:/2--
( Date
16