Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION 03192012CONSERVATION MINUTES MARCH 19, 2012 Present: Joseph Mulkern, Chairman; Colin Cauldwell, Vice Chairman; Michele White; Paul Boyden; Carole Matthew; Jack Smith; Elizabeth Leidhold, Conservation and Environmental Planner. Meeting opened at 7:00 pm Mr. Boyden recused himself. Mitchell Negus was present. As an Eagle Scout project, Mitchell built a footbridge from the Jordan Jackson field to the East Street JV fields, He told the board he finished the bridge at the end of December. Mitchell recently put the straw and grass seed in. A structural engineer has submitted a signed affidavit that all required approvals and material affidavits have been submitted and that the bridge was built to specifications with all applicable codes. The affidavit was signed by Richard A. Campbell Professional Structural Engineer. The affidavit will be attached to the Certificate of Compliance. Richard Alves, Town Engineer has looked at the project and feels the erosion controls are not serving any purpose at this point. The area is stable. Elizabeth said this is a great project. She said the erosion controls can be removed as soon as the vegetation comes in. Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance for DEP #211 -0866 for the bridge over the intermittent stream in the front of Jordan Jackson School. The siltation controls can be removed once the vegetation has grown in. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Mitchell asked if he should remove the silt fence but leave the hay bales in place and let them rot naturally. He said he does not want to compromise the stability of the bank by removing the hay bales. Mr. Cauldwell told him to remove the silt fence after the area is stabilized and let the hay bales to rot naturally. Mr. Boyden recused himself. The Notice of Intent was filed for the removal and replacement of the existing synthetic turf sport field and repair and resurfacing of the running track. A portion of this work is within the 100 ft. buffer zone. The project includes the relocation of a section of fencing and installation of a small section of ADA walk and installation of a small area drain sa project alternates. Walter Parker, Director of Buildings and Grounds and John Amato of JJA Sports LLC were present. Mr. Amato said JJA Sports LLC was retained by the Town of Mansfield School Department as a consultant to provide sports facility planning, design and permitting services in conjunction with the Mansfield High School 1 Synthetic Turf Replacement and Track Resurfacing project. The project site is the stadium field located north of Mansfield High School. Mr. Amato told the board the proposed project includes the repair and resurfacing of the existing synthetic running track for a total area of approximately 54,400 square feet and the removal and replacement of the existing outdated synthetic turf sports field with a similar system for a total area of approximately 85,000 square feet. The majority of the turf replacement and track resurfacing work is outside the limits of the 100 foot buffer zone. During the removal of the synthetic turf carpet, the stone base may be altered and will require fine grading. Minor components of the project include the relocation of a section of chain link fencing and an ADA walkway. The fence is located too close to the main straight of the south edge of the track and to the grandstand; moving the fence will improve safety. Siltation controls will be put on the inside of the fence. The ADA walk way is located at the southwest end of the track. All of the minor components of the work are significantly outside the limits of the buffer zone. Mr. Amato said at this time, there are no plans to add a drainage component in this area but might do so at a later date. Mr. Amato told the board that he received an e-mail from Richard Alves, Town Engineer. Mr. Alves reviewed the project and in a Memorandum dated March 19, 2012, he states the drawing and drainage calculation prepared by JJA Sports, LLC satisfactorily addresses any concerns. The checklist for Stormwater report, page 3 states that the post development run -off flows do not exceed pre - development run -off flows. Mr. Amato said there is a full report of the calculations included with the Notice of Intent filing. He said the only surface change is the 280 square feet of concrete surface for the ADA access. Mr. Parker told the board when it rains the dirt from this area ends up on the track so this will be an improvement to this area. Elizabeth was concerned about the excess rubber substrate. She said the substrate seems to be all over the outside of the track. Because there is a stream close by, she wanted to know how they planned to keep the substrate from migrating Into the stream. Mr, Parker said they use a sweeper to groom the field and it appears as if the substrate is being dumped off the field instead of in the dumpster. Mr. Parker said he would make sure the substrate is cleaned up and properly disposed of. Elizabeth recommended that the removal and the disposal of the substrate material be added as a condition to the Orders. Mr. Smith asked if the field had failed. Mr. Amato said the surfaces have reached the end of their useful life which is about ten (10) years. Mr. Parker said the track and field have been breaking down for the last five (5) years. He has had to re -glue the seams and re- surface the worn out spots. He said last year the referees at a soccer game were not going to allow the teams to play on the field because of field conditions. He said they probably will not allow the teams to use the field this year if the proposed work is not done. Mr. Amato said the fiber and seams break down on the field. He said the newer fibers are of better quality than ten (10) years ago and you get a longer and better life out of the fields now. Mr. Cauldwell asked if the infiltration of the field will be similar to the Plymouth Street fields. Mr. Amato said there are no retention basins or drains along the edge of the field. He said the vertical drainage through the synthetic turf surface and its subsurface crushed stone base provides filtering prior to run -off entering the sub - drainage system. The run -off is discharged into the wetland system to the north of the property, Ms. White asked what the life span of the new material is compared to what was used ten (10) years ago. Mr. Amato said the quality of the materials has improved. He said there is still an 8 -year warranty but 10 -12 years is a good serviceable life. Mr. Amato said the project is scheduled for spring and summer of 2012 construction to avoid scheduling impacts to the high school sport program. The work depends upon funding approval by the town. Mr. Cauldweli made the motion to accept the plan as drawn for the renovation of the track and field at 250 East Street with the following conditions: the memorandum from Richard Alves, Town Engineer, dated March 19, 2012 is to be attached to the Order of Conditions; erosion controls are to be inspected by the Conservation Agent prior to the start of work; the existing rubber substrate which has been disposed of outside the field is to be removed and properly disposed of and the area re- inspected by the Conservation Agent; a system or border is to be put in place to prevent the material from migrating off the track; excess material collected during future maintenance activities is to be placed into a dumpster and not disposed of on the grounds. Plan "Mansfield High School Synthetic Turf Field Replacement and Track Resurfacing ", dated January 24, 2012, revised February 24, 2012, stamped by John J. Amato, Professional Engineer. Sheets CO -1 - C4 -1. Ms. White seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -1. The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of a driveway within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands and the 100 ft. Riparian zone of the Rumford River and a second driveway within the 200 ft. Riparian zone of the Rumford River. John Cotter of Russell Wheatley Co. was present. The property owners, Kate Gover and Don Benson were also present. Mr. Cotter told the board he was asked by Mr. Benson and Ms. Gover to investigate the property at 43 High Street. They have purchased the property and want to put in two (2) driveways for the house they will be converting to a duplex. The project is located on the north side of High Street, Mr. Cotter said originally there was going to be one entrance into the property with a small parking area but this seemed to impact the 100 ft. riparian zone more than was acceptable. Because of the way the building sits on the property, it made more sense to put in separate driveways on either side of the building. Mr. Cotter said a siltation fence, as shown on the plan, will run along about 10 ft. off the property line up to about midpoint of the lot and then cross over to within midpoint of the existing building. Mr. Cotter told the board High Street lies within the 100 year flood zone (Flood Zone A). The driveways were designed to increase the amount of volume from the 100 year storm. There is a small bank that runs from the edge of High Street up to the house. Mr. Cotter said the driveways will be 10 feet wide and 43 feet long and have been kept flat and into the surface rather than running on top of the surface. Mr. Cotter told the board the owners would like to pave the driveways. The project as presented is the least invasive for the site. DEP Comments: This is not a buffer zone only project when it is in a Riverfront area. Mr. Cotter called DEP. He said on the application he had checked a box saying the project was in a buffer zone only. Because the project is also in a Riverfront and a riparian zone he should not have checked the box. It was simply a clerical error and has been corrected. It does not appear to be exempt from the Stormwater regulations as it is a redevelopment of commercial property, Mr. Cotter said it is actually a residential home not a commercial property as DEP thought and does not require stormwater management. The Alternatives Analysis should discuss the acreage of Riverfront area impacts under different scenarios. West of the building also appears to be in the 100 year flood zone. Mr. Cotter said DEP wanted to see the percentage of the areas that would be altered. The flood elevation is 157 and does impact the front of the lot along the road and a small area in the back of the lot. He said the building is completely out of the flood zone. Mr. Cotter said because the driveways are slightly depressed, you are not losing any of the 100 year flood capacity in this area; there would actually be a slight net gain of the 100 year flood capacity. Mr. Cotter said the alternative analysis was reviewed. He said due to the site and location of the existing building, it was decided that the two driveways, as shown, would be the less invasive design on the site than a single access to the site with a small parking area. Elizabeth said she thought it would be better if there was one driveway outside the inner riparian zone in between the existing house and the church rather than proposing a driveway 41 feet away from the top of bank. She said if you are working within the 100 year flood zone, whether it is redevelopment or not, you still need to provide some kind of mitigation or compensation in the way of additional plantings, etc. She said the board has allowed projects in the past in the inner riparian zone but not driveways. When allowing the work in this area, the board has always asked for some mitigation to off -set. Mr. Mulkern asked if this is an allowed two- family. Mr. Cotter said not at this time but they are going through the process with the Zoning Board of Appeals and will be on the ZBA May agenda. Mr. Mulkern asked if it was possible to move the driveway closer so it mimics the one on the right. Mr. Cotter said there is a utility pole on the street where the left driveway is to be located but said the driveway could be moved. Ms. Matthew asked if there was a copy of the Alternative Analysis. Mr. Cotter said it is in the narrative of the Notice of Intent. Ms. Matthew said she has issues with the driveway being 41 ft. to the top of the bank and especially with the fact that the driveways will be paved. Mr. Smith wanted to know if the left driveway could be curved in more. Mr. Boyden said there is a study by the Town of Mansfield to correct the flood plain levels in this area. He suggested Mr. Cotter get in touch with the town engineer. He said the numbers look very high on this plan. Mr. Boyden said he agreed with Mr. Smith that the left driveway should be moved closer to the house. Mr. Cauldwell asked if there is an existing driveway. He said if the proposed driveway on the left could be moved in closer to the house it would be beneficial; the proposed driveway needs to be moved away from the inner riparian zone. Mr. Cotter said parking is on the street. Mr. Cauldwell suggested a two -car lot in front of the house with walkways to each of the units. Mr. Mulkern suggested stone driveways be done instead of pavement. Mr. Cotter said he thought, because of the area, that the board would prefer crushed stone driveways instead of pavement. He said the owners would prefer pavement but would do as the board requested. Mr. Cauldwell asked if the driveways should be non - impervious or impervious. The board asked that non - impervious material be used, such as crushed stone with bricks or pavers at the end of the driveways to keep the stone from migrating into the street. Mr. Cauldwell said the left driveway should be pulled over toward the house and a new plan submitted. Ms. White said if the board is going to require a new plan with the left driveway moved over to the right toward the house, she would like to see what was originally planned for the site, one driveway with a parking area. Mr. Cotter said the original driveway was going to be on the left side of the building. She would like to see both options for the left driveway on either side of the utility pole. Mr. Cotter asked if he could use the existing entrance off High Street but slide the driveway over toward the building or does the board want the driveway to go on the opposite side of the utility pole. Ms. Matthew asked Elizabeth to address the mitigation issue. Elizabeth said when the board has allowed work in the inner riparian zone in the past they have required plantings along the bank. Mr. Mulkern said plantings cannot be put in this area because the land is owned by someone else. Elizabeth suggested plantings be put along the driveway. Mr. Cotter asked what the board would like to see in this area. Elizabeth said woody shrubs but nothing herbaceous. She asked Mr. Cotter to call her to discuss the plantings. Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to continue the hearing for 43 High Street to the April 23, 2012 meeting. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Claudia Rys, a member of the church, told the board the church is at 47 High Street and the address for the house is 43 High Street. She said the church purchased the house fifty years ago when it was a two- family home. She said the church used the house for Sunday School and as offices. 4. Notice of'InfenE Jon Cowell, 19 Mary Dee Lane. Map 39, _Parcel 97. The Notice of Intent was filed for the installation of an in- ground pool, patio, fence and a pool mechanics area with related grading within the 100 ft. buffer zone and within an ACEC. Notice of Intent was amended to include a 14'x21'addition and a 22'x2'x10' deck not permitted when built. Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering requested a continuance to the next meeting. He has filed with NHESP but has not received a response. A DEP number has not been issued. Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to continue the hearing for 19 Mary Dee Lane to April 23, 2012. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. 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 and aeration and prudent use of USEPA /MADAR register aquatic herbicides. Michael Lennon, Aquatic Control Technology, Inc. was present. Mr. Lennon told the board Aquatic Control Technology was contacted by Reit Management last year. The pond is approximately one -third of an acre and used for irrigation purposes for 44 Cabot Boulevard, 100 Hampshire Street, 20 Cabot Boulevard and 575 West Street. Mr. Lennon said they were contacted initially because of red staining due to the iron content in the water. A Notice of Intent was submitted in May 2011 on behalf of Reit Management & Research, LLC. The proposed remediation of the pond includes the removal of the floating sedge mat and the installation of an aeration system to oxidize the iron that is in a soluble form in the water so it is in an insoluble form so it can precipitate out of the water or if can be filtered out. When Mr. Lennon surveyed the pond there was almost no oxygen in the pond; there was less than one milligram per liter of oxygen below the sedge mat. He said where the water is anoxic, the iron in the water remains soluble. In this condition when the water is put through the irrigation system and used on the adjacent lawns, the ferrous iron becomes ferric iron, causing the sidewalks and light and sign posts to be stained red. Mr. Lennon said the purpose of the proposed management program is to restore the pond so it can be used for its original intended purpose. The proposed hydro- raking will not impact the natural capacity of the resource areas associated with the pond. The restoration will improve the conditions of the pond so the ferric iron is not released therefore improving the water quality. The removal of the sedge will restore the storage capacity and improve the overall quality of the water in the pond so that it can continue to be used for irrigation. Mr. Lennon said there were some concerns from DEP regarding the disturbance of the bordering vegetated wetlands and wanted surface and bottom elevations of the pond. Mr. Lennon said there will be no disturbance of the bordering vegetated wetlands or any of the shore line with the exception of some disturbance to the 5 pond's bank when the hydro -rake is loaded into the pond and unloaded from the pond; this activity is confined to two designated access locations on the south side of the pond. There will also be some temporary disturbance when de- watering the raked material on the adjacent lawn. All materials will be allowed to "de- water" on the lawn so all water goes back into the pond. All that would remain would be the floating sedge mat and whatever bio -mass is associated with it. The floating sedge mat and bio mass would be disposed of on site outside the 100 ft. buffer zone as shown on the plan. Mr. Lennon said the limit of work is the shore line of the pond. No work is proposed outside the pond. Mr. Lennon said it is hoped that by removing the sedge mat and aerating the pond there will no longer be issues with the water. He said there would be follow -up maintenance with algaecides and herbicides to maintain any gains made by the removal of the sedge mat. Elizabeth said one of the comments from DEP was that the project plan should show the delineation of bordering vegetated wetlands, Inland Bank and the marsh system. She said this has been done. DEP also said bordering vegetated wetland alteration by hydro- raking does not qualify as a limited project under 10.53(4), The proposed alterations of the resource areas are not specified. Elizabeth made copies of 10.53(4) for the board members. She also made copies of the species that are in the pond as listed in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands in region 1. She highlighted what the indicator status of the species is. She said the species in the pond are considered an obligate wetland species. She said it is a common marsh plant and not considered an invasive species. This is something that is happening to the wetland system as part of the natural process of what it is turning into which is a marsh. Elizabeth asked when the pond was last used for irrigation. Mr. Lennon said last September 2011. She asked if any reports have been generated to provide information regarding the well and the pond. Mr. Johnson said he would get the information if it is available, He said there are twenty -three zones running at different times per day, thirteen hours per day. He said the pump starts at 1:00 am every day. He said the sprinkler company estimates approximately 23,000 gallons are used per day. He said it is a simple irrigation system; the pond was built and a well put in for the purpose of irrigation. The water from the roof drains and rain water from the parking lots also helps recharge the pond. Elizabeth said she was told 10,000 gallons were used per day; the amount Mr. Johnson said is drawn from the pond is a significant increase. She asked why they did not tie into the town's system. She said there is a water ban in town. Elizabeth asked how much recharge is going into the pond. Mr. Johnson said the well pump runs twenty -four hours per day and the well feeds the pond. She asked how much water is pulled from the well. Mr. Johnson said he did not know; he would have to calculate the size of the pump and how long it runs. Mr. Mulkern asked if there was a well permit. Mr. Johnson said he is not sure there is a permit for the well or even if one was needed. Mr. Mulkern said if you are using well water there is no water ban. Mr. Boyden asked the depth of the well. Mr. Johnson said it was replace a couple of years ago and it is about 300+ feet. Elizabeth told the board there is quite an eco- system in the pond with very few if any invasive species. She said Brooke Monroe mentioned seeing purple loosestrife; Elizabeth said she did not see this invasive species in the pond. She said her concern is that if you withdraw that much water over the summer, how long does it take before that resource area is negatively impacted? Mr. Smith asked if the pond was lined. Mr. Johnson said the pond is clayed lined. Elizabeth said she used a soil auger and could not find a clay liner. Mr. Johnson said he was unable to find any information about the pond. The only reference to the pond was a comment made by staff on site that the pond was lined. Mr. Smith said he worked on this project and is positive it had a clay liner. He said the well was built to feed the pond. Mr. Cauldwell asked if they stop using the pond for irrigation and they stop recharging with the well, would the pond dry up or would it just have less water. Mr. Johnson said the pond holds water over the winter months and the water from the roof, which is 170,000 square feet, and the parking lot would still recharge the pond. Mr. Johnson said there are no other sources except the well, the roof drains and the water off the parking lot for the pond. Elizabeth said the board needs more information on what is going in and going out of the pond. Mr. Boyden asked what the advantages of cleaning the pond are. Mr. Lennon said the intent is only to eliminate the red stain. Elizabeth said the narrative of the Notice of Intent states the presence of the sedge is most likely linked to human activities such as irrigation and maintenance of the lawn and removal of vegetation. Mr. Lennon said to qualify as a limited project where it is an indigenous species rather than a non - indigenous species, where there is milfoil, it automatically qualifies as a limited project. If the pond or water body is strongly linked to human activities such as irrigation, the removal of vegetation indigenous or otherwise can be considered under the Wetland Protection Act. Mr. Cauldwell said this is clearly designed as an irrigation system. It could have been a historical wetland system in the past but it is not there anymore. He does not have any issues with the project to oxygenate the pond and pull back the sedge mat to allow more oxygenation but does have issues with the use of chemicals, He would not allow the use of chemicals under this filing, He would ask that they come back with a new Notice of Intent if they find it necessary to use chemicals. He said the use of chemicals in a wetland system creates problems for the wetland species and humans. Mr. Lennon agreed the use of chemicals would require a new Notice of Intent. He said the chemical treatment will only be used if the nuisance vegetation or algae develops in the pond after the hydro- raking has been completed. The chemicals would be used only in the event that the sedge mat begins to grow again. Mr. Lennon said the bottom of the pond will not be disturbed. He told the board he did some sediment probing and can say with some confidence that there is a clay liner. Ms. White asked how long Reit Management has been at the property. Mr. Johnson said they purchased the property in 2003, Ms. White asked if they have used the pond for the purpose of irrigation the entire time. Mr. Johnson said yes but no maintenance has been done. Mr. Lennon said in the original Notice of Intent, Reit Management had expressed an interest in removing excess vegetation, namely bittersweet, around the pond's shoreline to open up some of the park edges, Given the concern for the bordering vegetated wetland and the concerns of the board and DEP, Mr. Lennon said Reit Management has said, besides the removal of a few fallen trees, there will be no disturbance or removal of vegetation. Mr. Mulkern asked about the filing of a new Notice of Intent if Reit Management or the next management company decides the use of aquatic herbicides and algaecides is needed. How will this be enforced? Elizabeth said the Order travels with the land not with the company. Mr. Lennon said before you are allowed to put anything in the water you have to have a site specific License to Apply Chemicals from DEP. This cannot be issued unless you have an existing Order of Conditions that cites specifically what you are putting in and the amount you are using in the water. Ms. White said the board could require an Operation and Management Plan. Mr. Cauldwell asked when the hydro- raking will be done. Mr. Lennon said the raking work will be done during the summer or early fall. He said this is the time when the sedge mat is floating. 7 Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to accept the plan for 44 Cabot Boulevard to remove the sedge mat and to aerate the detention pond with the following conditions: the siltation controls are to be inspected by the agent prior to the start of work; hay bales are to be curled around the sides of the resource areas; an O & M plan is to be developed and submitted to the Conservation Commission to maintain the pond — the use of chemicals cannot be addressed in the O &M Plan; no chemicals are to be used without filing a new Notice of Intent; no removal of vegetation within the bordering vegetated wetlands other than fallen trees; information regarding the well is to be submitted to the Conservation Commission including the date of installation and how many gallons per day is recharging the pond — the current proposed withdrawal amount is 23, 000 gallons per day. Plan "Wetland Location Plan of Land in Mansfield, MA 44 Cabot Boulevard, June 4, 2002, revised January 19, 2012, Bay Colony Group, Inc. Ms. White seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. 6. Old and New Business: Bird Road, Sub - station - DEP #211 -0846. The Mansfield Electric Department would like to remove trees in the 25 -50 foot buffer at the new East Mansfield sub - station. Chris Cox was present. Elizabeth told the board this would be a field modification. Mr, Cox told the board they are proposing to remove trees within the 50 ft. buffer. He said these are trees that are tall enough or could be tall enough in a few years that if they fell, they could damage the sub - station equipment. A total of twelve trees will be taken down. The closest tree is 33 feet from the wetland at flag W -9 and there are a couple of trees at the 50 ft. line where the hay bale line is. The trees that were determined to be a hazard to the proposed structures at the sub- station have been marked. Mr. Cox said they hope to have the sub - station built and energized by this summer. Elizabeth said she does not have an issue with the removal of the trees provided they are not grubbed. She said they are far enough away from the vernal pool on site. She asked if the trees would remain on the ground or be removed off the site. Mr. Cauldwell said he would like them removed. A rubber tire device could be or the trees could be hand cut. He also suggested they could be boomed out. Ms. Matthew said the site looks great. She said she did not have a problem with the trees being removed but asked about an oak tree that is growing closest to the vernal pool. Because the tree is leaning over the vernal pool, she feels it is providing shade for the vernal pool and if it is cut it will alter the temperature of the water. Mr. Cauldwell suggested that Elizabeth and Ms. Matthew look at the tree and determine if it should be cut or not. Mr. Cox said he would meet Elizabeth would on the site for clarification in the field regarding the oak tree. Ms. White asked if this is going to be an on -going problem with the trees getting to a certain height along the back portion of the site. Mr. Cox said there will be a time in the future when more trees will need to come down. Mr. Boyden asked what criteria the Electric Department uses to determine when the trees need to be removed. Mr. Cox said trees seventy feet within energized structures need to be taken down. Ms. Matthew said there should it should be in writing that it is certified by the board that this is an emergency and that only the designated trees are cut. Mr. Cauldwell asked Mr. Cox to make sure the tree company does the work in the most efficient way. He suggested that Elizabeth be on site when the trees are cut to make sure they are not causing more damage. He feels booming the trees out will be the best way to remove them. Elizabeth asked if the trees are to be left on the ground or removed. The board asked that they be removed and that a boom be used. Mr. Cox said they might not be able to use a boom on all the trees but will use the boom where possible. Mr. Boyden asked Mr. Cox if this was the last request. Mr. Cox said they have not constructed any of the outflow to the rip rap or the one pipe that has to go under the perimeter wall to the outflow, work that is within the 100 foot buffer. He said if any other issues arise, he will let Elizabeth know and if necessary, come back to the board. Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to allow the removal of the marked trees with the exception of the oak tree that will be discussed in the field for clarification, that the removal be done in the most efficient and the least damaging way possible and that it is certified by the board that it is an emergency and no other trees will be taken except the ones that have been designated by Elizabeth and Mr. Cox. Nick DeMassi, Troop 51: He told the board he is planning to do repairs to a bridge on NRT land on the corner of Ware and Branch Streets across from the York parcel as an Eagle Scout project. Nick would like to make this area more navigable and user friendly. Presently there are no trail markers and Nick will use the current map of the property to mark all the trails. He said the bridge on the property is old and unstable. He told the board the footings are good but most of the horizontal boards on the bridge need to be replaced. There is a rope that runs the length of the bridge, probably intended as a hand rail. Nick will add a safer hand rail. Ms. White asked Nick if he plans to expand or widen the bridge. Nick said there appears to be room to the left of the bridge and it would be a benefit to widen the bridge. He said he will be replacing all the boards so if in some places it needs to be widen, he will do so. Mr. Caldwell said the existing bridge is about 24 inches wide and said if possible it should be widened to 32 inches. Nick will use pressure- treated lumber for the bridge. Nick will be filing a Request for Determination of Applicability for the April agenda for the bridge repair. He asked if he could start any work not necessary under the RDA. Mr. Cauldwell told him he can mark the trails or any other work that is outside the wetland areas. Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to accept the request to mark the trails Ms. White seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Community Garden: 2012 Healthy Futures Community Garden. Kimberly Cohen, Senior Director of Health and Wellness, and Caitlin Hurley, Youth and Family Wellness Director, from the Hockomock YMCA were present. Kimberly told the board the YMCA has been involve with a community garden project in Foxborough for the last couple of years. She said the Foxborough Conservation Department provided the land and the YMCA provided the staff for the garden. She told the board the YMCA is about youth development, healthy living and social responsibility. The Hockomock Healthy Futures Program is a grant funded initiative. Some of the businesses involved are Covidien and Stop & Shop. The goal is to increase physical activity and improve nutrition. Community partners include hospitals, school districts and community agencies. The Healthy Futures Community Garden (HFCG) CSA program will provide opportunities for busy families to make healthy, convenient choices, resulting in sustainable change. These families will purchase a CSA share for the growing season and a garden coordinator /farmer will accommodate schedules for pick up at the garden or at the YMCA. Twenty families can register for the CSA plots. The HFCG will also feature community plots. The families that purchase a CSA share or a community plot will have the opportunity to join the garden coordinator in educational activities. The HFCG will provide educational, hands -on opportunities for community groups, schools and YMCA program participants to increase physical activity, volunteerism, and improved nutritional awareness. Programs may include weekly workshops open to the community, taste tests, garden curriculums, garden camps and a volunteer program for cub - scouts, garden club, senior centers and school groups. A Grow a Row program will also be developed in which local businesses and supporters of the YMCA can sponsor a row to grow produce for the Fresh Food Collaborative or donate to the program to help pay for staff and labor. The Community Garden will help families and individuals in the community with financial hardship that would otherwise not have access to fresh produce. The YMCA will form a partnership with the Mansfield local food pantry to be the recipient of the vegetables. CSA members can choose to donate a portion of their produce to the Fresh Food Collaborative as well. Kimberly told the board the vegetables and fruits are organically grown. Olivier Kozlowski told the board a meeting was held with organizations and local businesses. He said Flint Farms has volunteered the equipment needed to till the land as well as some greenhouse space. Kimberly told the board the YMCA will provide insurance, payroll benefits and pay the water bill. She said the YMCA will provide storages units so that tools will be available on site for the participants and will rent port -a- potties if needed. Kimberly said they are asking for the town to provide water access to the site as well as expanding the parking lot. Kimberly provided a sample contract along with a picture /diagram of what the garden plots would look like. Mr. Cauldwell said he met with the Water Department. He said there are already laterals and a hydrant on site. There will be a gravel parking lot. Elizabeth flagged the wetlands and Richard Alves captured them on GIS. He has produces a detailed plan of the wetlands. Ms. White said the YMCA should file a Request for Determination of Applicability because there are wetlands on the property and because the parking area will be modified and some drainage might be needed. Other work includes staking out the grid and turning over the soil. Mr. Kozlowski said the Selectmen have discussed the project. It will be on the agenda before the next Selectmen's meeting. Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to go forward with the partnership with the YMCA on the Essex Street property. Ms. White seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Ms. White made the motion to move forward with the layout of the community garden per the plan by the Mansfield Engineering Department, dated March 7, 2012, to have the area staked out and to allow the volunteers to till the area before the RDA is submitted in April. Mr. Cauldwell seconded the motion. 10 Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Town meeting By -Law Amendment Article 36: There are two articles filed on behalf of the Commission regarding 2.6 of the by -law. Does the Commission feel the article submitted by Town Councel adequately addresses the wildlife consultant portion of 2.6 of the By -law? Ms. White made the motion to not support the amendment as presented by Town Councel to address the wildlife consultant portion of 2.6. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Ms. White made the motion to support the Wetland Protection By -law amendment as presented by the Mansfield Conservation Commission. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Article 35: Filing Fees Explanation: Removing the Filing Fee Schedule from the Wetland Protection By -law will allow the Conservation Commission to modify the existing Filing Fee Schedule with additional Town fees by Conservation Commission majority vote, to be modified and amended as needed at the discretion of the Commission and with the approval of the Selectmen. State Department of Environmental Protection fees are not subject to modification by the Town Conservation Commission. Ms. White explained that this would take the filing fees out of the by -law and put them in as a regulation allowing the Commission to vote on them with the approval of the Selectmen. Ms. White made the motion to support Article #35, Filing Fees, as submitted by the Conservation Commission, Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Articles 37, 38 and 39: Article 37: To authorize the transfer to the Conservation Commission the parcel of land in the northerly side of Smith Road, Map 9, Parcel 1 and Map 10, Parcel 24, 8.0 acres and 13.5 acres respectively for conservation, open space and passive recreation purposes in perpetuity. The properties were taken for taxes in 2011 and 2006, respectively. The parcels abut conservation land owned by NRT and the Plymouth Street recreation fields. Article 38: To authorize the transfer to the Conservation Commission the parcel of land in the easterly side of Essex Street, Map 37, Parcel 26 with 12.7 acres for conservation, open space and passive recreation purposes in perpetuity. The properties were taken by the town for taxes in 1955. It is the Canoe River aquifer and has streams that flow into the Canoe River. The parcel abuts protected land owned by the NRT and the Town of Mansfield. It is across Essex Street from conservation land purchased by the town in 2001. The purpose of the transfer is to help insure protection of the Canoe River sole source aquifer. Article 39: To see if the town will vote to accept a deed in lieu of foreclosure for the property owned by Allen Brown dba /VAS Land Corp. The property is located off South Main Street, Map 14, Lot 20, The land is to be used and maintained in perpetuity for conservation, open space and passive recreation purposes. The town is owed 16 years of back taxes totaling $3,771.19. The owner is willing to deed the property to the town for conservation purposes in lieu of paying the back taxes. Acquisition of this parcel will give the town access to other town conservation property and a possible second entrance to the Great Woods and Taylor's Hill Conservation Area. Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to support Articles 37, 38 and 39. 11 Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Article 40: to see if the town will vote to appeal, abolish or delete from the General Laws of the Town of Mansfield, Chapter 15, Conservation Commission Rules and Regulations: Town of Mansfield Wetland Protection By -law, in its entirety or take any action in relation thereto. If adopted, this article would repeal the existing Town of Mansfield Wetland Protection By -law and revert the policies for wetland protection to the Massachusetts General Statutes. There is a Citizen's Petition by Michael Trowbridge and 18 others. Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to oppose the repeal of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By -law, Article 40. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Rolling Fields proposed open space: Michael Feck, Christian and Feck Dev. Corp., would like the Commission's support to give the open space and the associated 40 foot access easement within Rolling Fields Village to the NRT; they feel NRT would be excellent custodians for this area and would have the means to maintain paths and signage as they deem necessary. Mr. Feck asked that a letter to the Planning Board state that the Conservation Commission supports the proposed Open Space within the Rolling Fields Village plan to create a nature pathway as proposed on the attached letter dated March 8, 2012 to be held in perpetuity as an unpaved open space access easement. There is approximately 20 acres of open field. There is a certified venal pool with bordering vegetated wetlands and riparian zone. Mr. Feck said this is a proposed cluster sub - division. He told the Commission if a conventional sub - division were being done this land would be used for a roadway. Mr. Mulkern asked if this land could ever be built on. Mr. Cauldweli said if the land is given to NRT, which is a private land trust, it can never be built on or used for anything else. Elizabeth told Mr. Feck that the land is within a Natural Heritage Area and he should file the necessary paperwork. Mr. Mulkern asked Mr. Feck why Lots 1 -6 were included in the donated land. Mr. Feck said the majority of the lots are between a quarter acre and one -half acre and you have to have a certain percentage of open space that is counted toward the footage of the lots. Mr, Mulkern said, because of the size of the lots, he is concerned the owners might assume some of the land donated to NRT belongs to them. Mr. Andrews of NRT said the boundaries of NRT land are marked and signage can be added. Mr. Cauidwell made the motion to support the open space donation to NRT for the Rolling Fields cluster sub- division as shown on the RIM Engineering plan dated July 28, 2011. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Agent's Notes: Gilbert Street ANRAD appeal: There will be a meeting with DEP at the site on Monday, March 26, 2012 at 10:45 am. Elizabeth told the Commission they are appealing the location of four flags that Michele Grenier and she put across the cart path on the property. She said the entire cart path is within the 25 foot zone; under the By- law, they cannot work within the 25 foot zone. Richard Alves, Town Engineer - West Street project: The DPW is proposing improvements to West Street. The project area consists of West Street from State Layout at Route 140 westerly to State Layout of Interstate 495 for approximately 4790 feet. The project was initiated because the existing town -owned roadway has deteriorated and needs improvements. The intent of the project is preventive maintenance by mill and overlay 12 the surface of West Street and provide a consistent roadway surface. All work being proposed will be within the limits of the existing roadway surface, This is considered a limited project under 310 CMR 10.53 (3) (f). Erosion controls will be installed and inspected prior to the start of work. Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to accept the West Street proposal. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Revised buffer zone plantings proposed for Elm Street, Lot 80: Brad Holmes of Environmental Consulting & Restoration, LLC does not feel the sediment should be removed from the bordering vegetated wetland area. Elizabeth said she will meet Mr. Holmes on site but no date has been set, Elizabeth said the proposed native shrubs species are Facultative to Facultative + plant species which will accommodate drier conditions. Maple Street, Map 40, Parcel 92 site visit to view the restored certified vernal pool. The site visit is planned for Tuesday, March 27th at 9:30 am. 7. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn. Cauldwell /White. Passed Next meeting will be May 21, 2012 Joseph Mulkern, Chairman 13 Date / -Q2 j- - '20/3