HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION 07162012Conservation Minutes
July 16, 2012
Present: Joseph Mulkern, Chairman; Colin Cauldwell, Vice Chairman; Paul Boyden; Jack Smith; Carole
Matthew; Michele White; Michael Healey; Elizabeth Leidhold, Conservation and Environmental Planner.
1. Meeting called to order at 6:45 pm.
Mr. Cauldwell, Vice Chairman, opened the meeting at 6:45 pm.
Proposed amendments to the By -law Regulations. Ratify Regulations 1- 14.
Mr. Cauldwell called for a motion to ratify Regulations 1 -14 that were discussed and voted on at previous
meetings. The Regulations were discussed with Town Counsel and a legal ad was published in the July 9,
2012 edition of the Sun Chronicle.
Mr. Boyden made the motion to approve Regulations 1 -14 as previously discussed. Ms. Matthew seconded
the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0.
6. Rare Species Habitat, Paragraph four: Ms. Matthew read the following into the record: [Lands within 100
feet of this resource area are likely to be significant to the protection and maintenance of the By -law wetland
values. In accordance with the By -law's fundamental purpose, no project may have a significant adverse
impact either project specific or cumulative, therefore there is 100 foot undisturbed buffer zone as required
by Section 2.6 of the By -law, The burden of proof is on the applicant to show how the project as designed
will meet the performance standard of no significant effect. The Commission has determined that a physical
site evaluation is needed to determine if the project as designed will meet the performance standards of the
By -law. NHESP may perform such a site evaluation, or the applicant may demonstrate through a wildlife
study performed by a qualified consultant approved by the Commission that the wetland area is not a
significant habitat area as set forth in Section 2.6 of the By -law. The Commission may hire a peer review
consultant at the applicant's expense to review the wildlife study or other information submitted by the
applicant,
Ms. Matthew told the Commission she and Elizabeth drafted a cover letter and evaluation form for the
wildlife consultant to speed the process along and save the applicant money. It basically outlines what the
Commission wants included in the study. Ms. Matthew said the following could be included in the above
paragraph: [The Commission has drafted a cover letter and the forms are available at the Conservation
Department].
Mr. Mulkern arrived.
Mr. Boyden made the motion to accept paragraph four of #6 Rare Species Habitat as read by Ms. Matthew.
Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -1.
4. Plan Requirements: Ms. Matthew read the following into the record: Amend (c) to read "the following
boundaries of By -law Resource Areas must be shown on the plans when applicable ". #4. Any vernal pool;
(a) Presumption of Vernal Pool Habitat: If an applicant proposes a project containing a potential vernal pool
as indicated on the most recent NHESP maps or if a vernal pool is found on site in preparation for the
hearing, the Commission shall presume the possible existence of a vernal pool unless a preponderance of
credible evidence has been presented by the applicant at a public hearing demonstrating that the resource
11
area would not qualify as a vernal pool according to the requirements of the certification process as
described in the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act. Many indicators of vernal pool habitat are seasonal.
The Commission may require an application that may impact a seasonal wetland or vernal pool to contain
information collected during or recorded during seasonal periods. Any informal evaluation should be
performed by an individual meeting qualifications under the wildlife habitat section at CMR of the
Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act.
Mr. Healey made the motion to accept the Plan Requirements as read by Ms. Matthew. Ms. White seconded
the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0.
Plan Requirements: #9. Lands within 100 feet of any vernal pool: (a) the boundary of a vernal pool shall
be 100 feet from the mean annual boundary. The mean annual boundary of such a depression is the
highest observed water surface elevation. When this actual line is not clearly visible, other factors such as
stained leaves may be used.
Ms. Matthew made the motion to accept the boundary of a vernal pool under Plan Requirements of the
Regulations. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0.
2. Jurisdiction: The Resource Areas Subject to Protection Under the By -law: Add the following: (k) The
100 foot buffer to a Certified Vernal Pool and /or the Habitat of a State - Listed Species is in itself a resource
area protected under the By -law and therein has a 25 -foot buffer from its 100 -foot boundary. Town Counsel
Comment: the current Regulations appear to define the buffer zone as a resource area.
Mr. Mulkern made the motion to add (k) to 2. Jurisdiction: The Resource Areas Subject to Protection Under
the By -law as read by Ms. Matthew. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0.
2. Request for Determination of Applicability: _ Steve Carlevale, 254 Elm Street, Map 13, Parcel 90.
The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the Installation of an above - ground pool on
existing lawn within the 100 foot buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands.
Steve Carlevale, the homeowner, was present.
Mr. Carlevale told the board the twenty-four foot round pool will be located on the right side of the house on
existing lawn and will be approximately 40 feet from the house.
Elizabeth said she had a hard time determining the proposed location of the pool. She said she would like to
meet with Mr. Carlevale to take measurements from the back door of the house to the location of the pool to
make sure it is 25 feet from the wetlands. She does not have any issues with the project as long as the pool
is 25 feet from the wetlands.
Ms. Matthew asked about the filtration system for the pool. Mr. Carlevale said it will be a cartridge filter,
requiring no backwash necessary.
Mr. Boyden asked that the correct address be put on the second page of the application.
The board asked Mr. Carlevale to stake out the location of the pool. Elizabeth will then take measurements
to insure the pool is out of the 25 foot no touch area.
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination for Steve Carlevale, 254 Elm Street, for
an above - ground pool. The pool is to be staked out to establish the pool location and Elizabeth is to be
E
called to verify the pool location relative to the wetlands. Ms. White seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-
0-0.
Plan "Mansfield GIS viewer, 254 Elm Street, Above - ground pool location ", July 17, 2012.
3, Request for Determination of Applicability: Thomas and Mary Dwyer, 6 Tanya Drive, Map 40, Parcel 141.
The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the demolition of an existing wood deck at the
rear of house and the construction of a new deck.
Mr. Dwyer, the homeowner, was present. He told the board the new deck will be in the same location but
will be larger than the original deck by four feet toward the back of the property and ten feet toward the
street. The deck will be made of Azek material, and environmentally sensitive material. The existing
footings, supports and joists will be used but an additional seven footings will be added to support the larger
deck. The footings will be dug by hand. The deck will be approximately 68 to 69 feet from the wetlands in
the rear left side of the property.
Mr. Cauldwell said the area is fairly flat and erosion controls will not be necessary.
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to accept the plan as drawn for Thomas and Mary Dwyer, 6 Tanya Drive, for
the construction of a deck within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. Mr. Healey seconded
the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Plan "Parcel Map with distances, 6 Tanya Drive ", dated June 25, 2012,
4. Request for Determination of Applicability: Mansfield Conservation Commission, Red Trail in Great
Woods Conservation Area. Map 15, Parcel 64.
The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed by the Mansfield Conservation Commission, to place
a boardwalk through bordering vegetated wetlands on the Red Trail in The Great Woods Conservation Area.
Mr. Cauldwell explained it is a historical trail that has been used for over three hundred years but said the
trail has always had problems where the trail goes across a small stream. He said there has always been a
depression in this area but over the last 10 to 15 years, ATVs and motor bikes have extended the depressed
area on the trail, making it almost impossible to walk on the trail.
Mr. Cauldwell said ACQ environmentally sensitive lumber will be used to prevent chemicals from leaching
into the wetlands. He said the boardwalk will be elevated and will be 32 inches wide, approximately 220' to
250' long, the distance to the next trail or the extent of the depressed area, whichever is greater. The
wetlands on both sides of the walkway will not be impacted by the construction.
Mr. Cauldwell explained the boardwalk could have been placed beside the actual trail but this would have
resulted in a greater impact to the vegetation in this area.
Mr. Cauldwell explained the area is wet eight months of the year so the work will be done in the fall when
the wetlands are dry. He said this is a big project that will open up The Great Woods to more convenient
foot traffic.
Elizabeth said there is a lot of damage to this trail, especially to the vegetation.
Mr. Cauldwell told the board NRT has secured funding for the project. He said he could use help from the
board members.
3
Mr. Cauldwell said the site is about one -half mile from the Oak Street parking area but because there is a
historical stonewall on the site, he said the materials can be trucked in by the farm road only as far as the
field then motorized transport or man -power will be necessary to get the materials to the actual
construction site. Mr. Cauldwell said the work will be done in phases so large amounts of materials are not
on site at any one time.
Mr. Healey asked if the improvements in the area will only encourage more ATVs and dirt bikes to use the
trail. Mr. Cauldwell said because of the wheel base on the ATVs, the boardwalk will be inaccessible. He said
it would be impossible to keep the dirt bikes out of the area.
Ms. White made the motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination for the boardwalk on the Red Trail in The
Great Woods Conservation Area. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -1. Plans "Mansfield
GIS of Red Trail Great Woods boardwalk project ", dated June 19, 2012, and "Proposed boardwalk cross
section detail sheets ".
5. Notice of Intent; David Oberlander, 29 Mill Street, Map 35, Parcel 26. DEP. #211 -0888.
The Notice of Intent was filed for the demolition of an existing single family home and the construction of a
new home, driveway and associated site work within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands, an
ACEC, the Canoe River Aquifer, and Estimated Habitat and Priority Habitat of Rare Species.
David Oberlander of BDO Engineering was present.
Mr. Oberlander told the board the new home will be further back from the road and the wetland area than
the existing house; the right front corner of the new house would be at the back left corner of the existing
house. The driveway would be on the left side of the house and would have a side entry with a turnaround.
There were no comments from DEP.
Elizabeth, Mr. Cauldwell and Mr. Healey reviewed the wetland delineation. Wetland flags 4 -11 were revised
in the field. Some of the grading and the driveway and turnaround area are within 25 feet of the bordering
vegetated wetlands. Mr. Oberlander said by encroaching on the 25 -foot no touch, a mature ash tree by the
driveway entrance will be saved. The proposed house with a back deck and the rest of the driveway are
within the 50 -foot buffer.
The site is within a NHESP Estimated and Priority Habitat but not within a flood zone. Elizabeth asked Mr.
Oberlander if he had submitted the application to Natural Heritage for review. Mr. Oberlander said he had
filed with Natural Heritage and has received a letter (July 2, 2012, NHESP Tracking No. 12- 31088) from
Natural Heritage stating that the project as proposed will not adversely affect the Resource Area Habitat of
state - protected rare wildlife species and meets the state - listed species performance standard for the
issuance of an Order of Conditions and that the project as currently proposed appears to be exempt from
MESA review.
Mr, Oberlander told the board that currently parking is on the street. He said the street right -of -way
straddles the property line. To move the entrance to the driveway away from the property line and remove
some of the steepness of the proposed driveway, he has moved the entrance down on the left side of the
house. A turnaround in the driveway is plan for safety, to prevent the need to back out onto Mill Street. Mr.
Oberlander said some of the grading and the driveway and the turnaround will be within the 25 -foot no
touch area but by encroaching on the 25 -foot no touch, a mature Ash tree by the driveway entrance will be
saved. He said the driveway could be push more toward the house but the tree would be destroyed; he
M
would like to keep the tree because he feels it is an asset to the lot. The driveway will be bituminous
concrete.
The proposed house with a back deck and the rest of the driveway are within the 50 -foot buffer. He told the
board that the existing house is only twenty feet from the wetlands. He said there are three sheds on the
property, one shed is completely in the wetlands and one is within the 25 -foot buffer zone; both sheds will
be removed. The third shed behind the proposed house will remain on site. He told the board that there is
a lot of debris in the wetlands that should be removed; the removal the sheds and debris would be a benefit
to the wetlands.
Mr. Boyden said if this project is considered a new build, the project would be under the 50 -foot regulation,
not the 25 -foot regulation. Mr. Oberlander said this is an existing house. Mr. Boyden explained that the
new house would be considered new construction because it is not on the same footprint as the existing
house. Mr. Oberlander said the new house will be 26 feet from the wetland area and feels the project will
make a bad situation better.
Mr. Mulkern said it would be different if Mr. Oberlander was putting an addition on the existing house but
he is tearing down the existing house to construct a new house. He told Mr. Oberlander if the building
permit is issued for new construction, the board would have to permit the project under the 50 -foot
guidelines for new construction. If the building permit is for a renovation to an existing house or one wall of
the existing house if incorporated into the new build, it would be under the 25 -foot guidelines.
Mr. Oberlander said the Building Department is fine with the project. He said he does have to go before the
Zoning Board of Appeals because of the front yard setback but the setback will be greater than what is
already there. He said Mr. Riccio, Inspector of Buildings and Zoning Enforcement Officer, said the ZBA
application should be for a Finding. Mr. Oberlander said a Finding is for an existing situation; additions or
alteration of a former non - conforming use. Ms. Matthew said if it is considered new construction and is in a
Rare Species Habitat Area, there is a 100 foot buffer.
Mr. Cauldwell said three or four years ago at Town Meeting, the by -law was amended so the board could
allow work within the 25 -foot area if it was a net benefit to the resource area. He said he sees this project
as a benefit.
Elizabeth told the board that in other towns if one wall of an existing structure it Incorporated into the new
structure it is considered existing.
Mr. Cauldwell said the driveway fill has been placed up to the edge of the wetland and asked if a retaining
wall could be placed in this area to eliminate the fill, to lessen the impact of the driveway on the resource
area. He agreed the debris in the wetlands should be removed. He also suggested some infiltration for the
back run -off from the roof. Mr. Oberlander said drywells are noted on the plan. Mr. Cauldwell would also
like to see a fence installed at the 25 -foot line.
Mr. Healey said he understands the need for a turnaround to get back on to Mill Street but asked if there is
enough room to minimize the encroachment of the 25 -foot buffer for the turnaround, to have it placed south
of the deck stairs. This would place the turnaround further from the street then proposed. The two -car
garage will be underneath the house so someone could pull into the garage, back up and back in beside the
stairs.
Because Mill Street slopes to the south toward the Canoe River Campgrounds, Mr. Healey said he was
concerned the surface run -off from the street, along with the stormwater run -off from the driveway, would
5
cause Flooding. Mr. Oberlander suggested installing a stone trench along the entire down slope side to
infiltrate all run -off from the roadway and driveway to prevent flooding.
Ms. Matthew said #5 of the General Rules and Regulations requires that when a project before the
Conservation Commission has to go before other town boards /commissions /departments for permitting,
written proof of such approvals, according to the plans previously submitted to the Conservation
Commission, must be provided before a hearing is closed and a permit is issued.
Mr. Boyden said this is a precedent setting situation because this is a new build. Mr. Oberlander explained
this is not a new lot; it existed before any wetland regulations were in place. He asked if by keeping the
existing home and calling the new house an addition, the project would be approved by the board. What
happens if he files with ZBA for a Finding and the board finds it is an existing situation?
Mr. Cauldwell said state regulations will allow this project. He said the board needs to determine if the
project would be allowed under the Mansfield Wetland Protection By -law. He feels the by -law does allow
this kind of project because it allows the encroachment within the 25 -foot no touch under certain
circumstances that in the board's view, improves the conditions and values of the wetlands of the site.
Ms. Matthew said she disagrees this project is an improvement.
Mr. Boyden said this board has been imposing the 50 -foot for new construction for ten years. Mr.
Oberlander said if the 50- foot no touch is imposed on this project it would mean nothing can be done on
this lot.
Mr. Muikern said the board needs to decide if the project is new construction or considered old construction
and if the project will be a benefit to the wetlands. He said the board needs to check with Mr. Riccio to see
if he would consider the project new or old construction.
Mr. Cauldwell suggested the board get an opinion from Town Council whether or not the board has the right
to approve this project.
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to continue the hearing for 29 Mill Street until August 20, 2012; Mr.
Oberiander was asked to show revisions to the plan such as a retaining wall or the removal of the driveway
from the 25 -foot no touch. The board asked that a plan be send to Town Council for his opinion as to
whether this project qualifies as new or existing construction as it pertains to the Mansfield Wetland
Protection By -law. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0.
6. Certificate of Compliance: Venkataraman Chandrasekaran and Anuradha Kondepudy, Camelot Estates,
Williams Street and Tremont Street. (42 -24)
Camelot Estates off Tremont Street, 23 King Arthur Way. This is mainly a house - keeping measure. Memo,
dated September 28, 2988, from Richard Lewis, former Conservation Agent; this file and the project
superseded by DEQE file SE 211 -138 and the Mansfield Conservation Commission has issued a Certificate of
Compliance for this project. The Commission met on October 3, 1988 and issued a Certificate of
Compliance.
The Certificate of Compliance was not issued because there was not a representative present.
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to continue the hearing to August 20, 2012.
7. 'Request for Determination of Applicability: Paul and Denise Mahoney, 6 Winslow Way Map 41, Parcel 36
and 38.
N
The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the removal of overgrown brush, replant with
bushes and flowers and the installation of an above - ground pool within a resource area.
Elizabeth's comments: Mr. Healey and Elizabeth met with applicant and explained that the vegetated stream
is jurisdictional. The applicants need to delineate the wetland, show the distances to the bordering
vegetated wetlands and show all proposed work including the proposed pool. Will there be a deck or shed?
The applicants were e- mailed a list of consultants from which to choose for their project — have not received
anything new. Depending on the scope of the project it might be best if they submitted a Notice of Intent.
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to continue the hearing for 6 Winslow Way to August 20, 2012. No second.
Motion passed 6 -0 -0.
8. Notice of Intent: Kevin Mulkern, 71 Balcom Street, Map 6, Parcel 127. DEP #211 -0889.
The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of a 30'x32' detached single -story garage on a slab within
the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands.
Mr. Mulkern and Kerri Jewkes, the homeowners, were present.
Elizabeth's comments: new plans, dated June 13, 2012, were received showing the wetland flags; Elizabeth
and Mr. Healey reviewed and agreed with the location of the flags. The proposed garage is outside the 25-
foot no touch area. The silt fence is to be replaced with wattles.
Mr. Healey asked if there would be a driveway to the new garage. Mr. Mulkern said there will be no access
to the garage other than the lawn. He told the aboard the garage will be for storage only. If at a later date
Mr. Mulkern decides to install a driveway to the garage, he must come back before the board.
Elizabeth is to inspect the erosion controls prior to the start of work.
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to accept the plan, dated June 13, 2012, as drawn for the garage at 71
Balcom Street with the following conditions: Elizabeth is to be called to inspect the erosion controls before
the work starts and the silt fence is to be replaced by wattles. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion
passed 6 -0 -0.
9. Notice of Intent: Louis Masiello, W/S Development Associates, 280 School Street, Map 12, Parcel 14, 17
& 18. DEP #211 -0885
The Notice of Intent was filed for the addition of an unpaved walkway and two wooden footbridges within
the 100 -foot buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands.
Mr. Louis Masiello of W/S Development Associates LLC was present.
Mr. Masiello discussed the proposed enhancement areas. The board has asked that a plan from the original
development of the shopping center be submitted with an overlay of the proposed enhancement areas. This
has been done. Sheet C -100.
Mr. Masiello said the walkway is approximately 2,255 square feet long and five feet wide for a total of 11,
200+ square feet of impact. The total enhancement area, 37,000 square feet, is proposed in three different
sections around the banks of the pond. Mr. Masiello summarized the total enhancement areas:
approximately 22,000 square feet of the 37,000 square feet of planting area is within previously approved
enhancement areas, essentially renovating a previously approved enhancement area with 15,000 square feet
of new plantings; of the 11,200+ square feet of walkway, 7,000 square feet is inside one of the previously
7
approved enhancement areas. Mr. Masiello told the board that the proposed enhancements are plantings
whereas the enhancements for the original plan were for the removal of invasive species, cease mowing
areas and a swale.
Elizabeth said the original plan showed the whole back of the pond as wetland and buffer enhancement. Mr.
Masiello said there is a wetland enhancement area — D2 and a buffer zone enhancement area — D1. He said
the walkway is primarily within the buffer zone enhancement area. D2 is the vegetated swale that carries
water from School Street and north of the property along the eastern edge of the pond and enters the same
wetland system the pond drains into. The easterly bank of the swale is between the edge of the hatching
and the roadway.
Elizabeth asked if the areas designated as cease mowing on the original plan will continue to be designated
as such. Mr. Masiello said there will be excavation in these areas to put in the trail but there will be no
additional mowing.
The board asked that soil samples be taken to determine the permeability of the underlying soils located
under the proposed walkway. Mr. Masiello said Woodard & Curran did auger samples along the perimeter
bank of the pond as shown on SL -100. Woodard & Curran found that the underlying soils will not prohibit
infiltration of stormwater which will seep through the proposed walkway.
Mr. Masiello told the board there will be an Operation & Maintenance Plan for the plantings as well as one
for the maintenance of the walking path. The on -going maintenance for the walking path will ensure the
pathway remains functional for the long -term. Maintenance will include removal of weeds within the
pathway, removal of trash and debris, pruning of shrubs /trees to keep the pathway open, selective mowing
or weeding vegetated areas along the pathway. Weeds and invasive species will be removed by hand
except where weeds become too large to be managed through hand - pulling; these areas will be targeted by
application of an environmentally sensitive herbicide.
Monitoring of water quality: Mr. Masiello said the monitoring was in the original Order of Conditions and
does not have anything to do with this new project but the reports have not been submitted recently. He
said he has contacted Ann McMenemy of ERM who worked on the original project and did the field reports.
She will do the samplings within the next two weeks. She told Mr. Masiello the samplings can only be done
when the area has been dry for forty-eight hours. He told the board the analysis will take an additional two
weeks so the report will be sent within a month.
Mr. Masiello said bench, trash receptacle and informational signage locations are shown on plan "Mansfield
Crossing — Proposed Pond Nature Walk — Site Amenities Plan, dated July 7, 2012. Mr. Masiello told the
board the wording for the signs has not been determined. Mr. Healey asked that the receptacles be placed
closer to the benches.
Mr. Masiello told the board the work on the footbridges and trail will be done in sequences so that any
excavated areas can be stabilized each day of work; plantings in enhancement areas and bench installations
will be done in conjunction with the walkway construction. Only small construction equipment such as
bobcats and pick -up trucks will be used.
Mr. Boyden asked if the retention pond is functioning as well as it was designed for. He said they need to be
maintained. Mr. Masiello said he would check on the retention pond.
Elizabeth asked for copies of the stormwater reports. Mr. Masiello said he would send them out to her.
A
Elizabeth asked Mr. Masiello to provide construction methodology — what equipment is to be used, where is
the material going to go, etc., and a construction schedule — how the area will be accessed, when work will
be done.
Erosion controls will be placed at the bridge /walkway supports, ten feet on either side of the support
structures. Elizabeth will inspect all erosion controls prior to the start of work. She will determine if
additional erosion controls, either double- staked hay bales or straw wattles, are needed or if the silt fence is
adequate.
Conservation is to be notified when work starts. The work is expected to take about 2 -4 weeks.
Spoils from the excavation will be used to create the proposed berms.
The two wooden footbridges will be constructed of Alkaline Copper Quat (ACQ) lumber instead of traditional
pressure- treated lumber.
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to accept the plan as drawn and presented for the nature walkway and
footbridges at 280 School Street with the following conditions: an O & M plan be submitted for the plantings
and one for the construction and maintenance of the walkway; erosion controls are to be inspected prior to
the start of work; Elizabeth will determine if additional erosion controls are necessary, either double- staked
hay bales or wattles. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0.
Plan "Pond Nature Walkway, 280 School Street, Mansfield, MA, Sheet C- 100 ", Woodard & Curran, revised
July 9, 2012.
Additional final approved plans and other documents: Woodard & Curran letter dated April 20, 2012,
addressing stormwater impact and stamped by Jeffery C. Stearns, P.E.; Revised Sheet C -100 with added
alteration table, revised date July 7, 2012, to include the Wetland & Buffer Zone Enhancement Areas;
Operations and Maintenance Plan defining pruning, grass control, etc.; Soil borings information conducted by
Woodard & Curran, Inc., dated June 28 and July 5, 2012; Sheet SL -100, Soil Field Figure, dated July 2012;
W/S Development Associates, LLC plan for Mansfield Crossing — Proposed Pond Nature Walk — East Bridge
detail sheet, dated May 15, 2012; Enhancement Plantings for BVW Buffer Zone and Operation and
Maintenance Plan, dated May 2012.
10. iOld and New Business:
Agents Notes:
Sign land transfer documents so they can be signed by the Selectmen.
I -495 Oil spill update — Elizabeth received a proposed planting plan from MassDOT; 24 trees will be planted
on the MassDot side of the oil spill. Elizabeth will send a copy of the proposal to the owner at 305 Forbes
Boulevard.
Update on 36 Dean Street Enforcement Order: The ED was issued June 19, 2012 to stop the cutting of
vegetation and placement of about six or seven yards of gravel along the shoreline of Fulton Pond. Activities
appeared to have been conducted on town - owned -land without permits.
Elizabeth and Mr. Healey met with the property owner last week. She asked the Commission if the area
should be left as is or if they want the property owner to revegetate the area and remove the gravel from
the shoreline. The Commission asked that the owner submit a planting plan and remove the fill. A second
EO was issued on July 30, 2012 to allow the homeowner to begin the work.
2
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to ratify the July 30, 2012 Enforcement Order for 36 Dean Street. Ms. White
seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0.
Mr. Cauldwell asked about the surplus land from the 495 ramp that was to be turned over to Conservation.
He also asked that the McDonald's sign in this area be removed.
New Conservation fees: The Commission will review the new fee schedule. They will also discuss the
ANRAD fee at the August 20th meeting. If the board approves the new fees, the fee schedule will be sent to
the Selectmen for review and approval.
Mr. Cauldwell made the motion to go into Executive Session to discuss the appeal for Gilbert Street, Lot 4, to
allocated up to $6,000.00 for legal services for the appeal and decide on a date to meet with the consultant
and Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Goddard to walk the site, either Monday, July 23rd or Tuesday, July 24th afternoon
and return to Open Session for the sole purpose to adjourn.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Joseph Mukern, Chairman, aye; Colin Cauldwell, Vice Chairman, aye; Paul Boyden, aye;
Carole Matthew, aye; Michele White, aye; Michael Healey, aye.
VOTE: 6 -0 -0 PASSES
11. Adjournment;
NO TIME FOR ADJOURNMENT OR MOTION.
NEXT MEETING WILL BE AUGUST 20, 2012
Q-v / - 2b- - aO/
Joseph Mulkern, Chairman
10
Date