Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION 08192013_201311191509Mansfield Conservation August 19, 2013 Minutes Present: Joseph Mulkern, Chairman; Michael Healey, Vice Chairman; Christopher Marcheselli; James Turnbull; Jack Smith; Carole Matthew; Katelyn Merrill, Conservation Planner 1. Meeting opened at 7:00 pm. 2. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Jon Cowell, 19 Mary Dee Lane. #211 -0884. The Order of Conditions was issued April 23, 2012 for the installation of an in- ground pool, patio, fence, pool mechanics area with related grading within the 100 ft. buffer zone. Because the homeowner and a representative were not present, the hearing was not opened. 3. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Nasiff Almeida, 4 Kell Lane. DEP #211 -0891. Mark Almeida, the homeowner, was present. The Order of Conditions was issued September 24, 2012 for the installation of an 18'x36' in- ground pool, apron, fence, pool equipment, and relocation of the play area and related grading within the 100 ft. buffer zone. The site is located in a priority and estimated habitat for state listed endangered species. An as built plan with a letter was received from RIM Engineering Co., Inc., stating the project was in reasonable compliance with the Order of Conditions with deviations within the 25 -foot no touch area. Ms. Merrill visited the site and said there are a number of variations from the approved plan: the limit of work was extended to the driveway on the north side of the house but she could not find any documentation in the file that said the limit of work was approved prior to the start of work; an existing retaining wall was extended around the northeast side of the pool; landscape and lawn areas have increased from what was proposed; a play area was to be relocated to the side of the house and outside of the 25 -foot no touch area but is now within the 25 -foot area; the four "Environmentally Sensitive Area — Do Not Disturb" signs were not installed where indicated on the approved plan; a portion of the pool apron is within the 25 -foot no touch area; a chain link fence surrounding the property is not shown on the plan. Ms. Matthew noted there have been two other projects before the Commission similar to this project where the applicant was required to remove any work done in the 25 -foot area. She said the play area should be removed as well as the fence not shown on the plan of record. Mr. Almeida said he planned to only have a fence was around the pool area but decided to fence in the entire back yard. He said all the work is inside the siltation fence. Ms. Merrill said the siltation fence was outside the 25- foot no touch zone but the chain link fence is well within the no touch area. She said the work area was expanded. Mr. Almeida said he was never told if there were changes to the plan, he would have to come back before the Commission. Because the plan of record does not match the as built plan, Ms. Merrill asked if the Commission would accept the changes and grant the request for a Certificate of Compliance or request an Amended Order be submitted to incorporate the as built plan showing the existing conditions as the plan of record. She said there are enough deviations from the plan that a plan modification cannot be done. Mr. Healey made a motion that a request for an Amended Order be submitted with a plan showing the correct elevations and the signs in the approved locations. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. 4. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Christopher Cox, New England Power, Co., Town of Mansfield Electrical Department, Bird Road, Map 39, Parcel 38, DEP #211 -0846 Continued from May 20, 2013. Christopher Cox was present. The Order of Conditions was issued in March 2010 to construct a new substation. Ms. Merrill said when Magdalena Lofstedt of CDM Smith reviewed the request in May 2013, she found there were some discrepancies in the landscaping and erosion controls. Ms. Merrill conducted a site walk with Mr. Cox on July 24, 2013; all the plantings have been replaced, the tire ruts, stack of hay bales and mound of soil have been removed. The re- seeding of certain areas has been done and the areas have started to germinate. The hay bales remain in place as per the Special Conditions. Mr. Cox has addressed all of Ms. Lofstedt's previous concerns, the conditions of the site are in accordance with the approved plan and Ms. Merrill recommends a Certificate of Compliance be issued. Mr. Healey made a motion that the request for the Certificate of Compliance for the Bird Road substation, DEP 4211 -0846, be granted based on the current site conditions. Mr. Marcheselli seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. 5. Request for Determination of Applicability: Eric DeShiro, 106 Lawndale Road, Map 40, Parcel 72. The Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) was filed to replace the parts of an existing deck that were starting to rot. Mr. DeShiro, the property owner, was present. He apologized for doing the work without a permit. He said because it was an existing deck and only the deck posts and decking were going to be replaced, he did not realize he needed a permit. Ms. Merrill said Mr. DeShiro was very cooperative and stopped work immediately. The work has mostly been completed and the only difference between the original deck and the repaired deck is an additional four feet has been added to the left side of the deck on the upland side, requiring additional footings. She said the deck is located on a previously developed lawn area. Ms. Merrill recommends a Negative 3 Determination be issued — the work will not alter an Area subject to protection. Mr. Healey made a motion to accept the RDA for 106 Lawndale Road and issue a Negative 3 Determination, given the distance of the work and the conditions between the work and the resource area being a lawn. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Hearing ended at 7:35 pm. 6. Request for Determination of Applicability: Louis S. Xifaras, 46 York Road, Map 2, Parcel 272. The Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) was filed to replace existing timber retaining walls with stone masonry walls. Mr. Xifaras, the property owner, was present. Ms. Merrill stated the work had already been started and the contractor and applicant were referred to the Conservation Department due to the proximity of a wetland in the backyard. She asked that the contractor cease all work and install erosion controls. He immediately placed silt fence around the entire work area and agreed to stop work until the proper permits were issued. Mr. Xifaras filed the RDA on the same day. Ms. Merrill said the work area is approximately 40 feet from the wetland resource area, with a tight limit of work already established. The retaining wall is located approximately 75 feet from the edge of the wetland. An additional retaining wall will be done on the other side of the house. All work is within a landscaped area but Ms. Merrill said the work area is larger due to the excavation necessary to do the work. She stated the applicant and contractor were cooperative. Ms. Merrill recommended a Negative 3 Determination — work is within the Buffer Zone but will not alter an Area subject to protection — be issued with a condition that existing erosion controls be maintained until all work has been completed. Mr. Xifaras said if he receives approval for the project, he hopes to complete all work by Friday, August 23`d Mr. Healey made a motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination for 46 York Road. The Agent is to be notified when the work is completed. Mr. Marcheselli seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. 7. Notice of Intent: Sam Patel, 272, 282, 292, 296 Chauncy Street (Corner of Route 106 and 140), Map 20, Lots 183, 184, 185 and 186. DEP #211 -0906 James DeVellis of DeVellis Zrein, Inc., the applicant's representative, was present. The project consists of the construction of one building that will contain retail and office space with associated site improvements such as parking and pedestrian access, landscaping, lighting, stormwater mitigation and underground utilities within 100 feet of bordering vegetated wetlands. The site is currently undeveloped with access frontage on Route 106 to the north. An existing office building exists to the east, an undeveloped lot to the south and Route 140 with restricted vehicular access is located to the west. The bordering vegetated wetlands have been flagged and surveyed along the southern limits of the property. No rivers or riverfront are associated with the site and the site is outside of any FEMA -FIRM 100 -year flood zones. Mr. DeVellis presented the site plan for the project. He stated that he had presented the project in a department head meeting earlier in the month. He took the comments and questions from the various department heads and submitted revised plans and a revision summary addressing all the issues of the staff. He said that this project is running concurrent with the Planning Board. He will be meeting with the Planning Board on August 215` Mr. DeVellis described the current state of the site. The 25 -foot buffer zone has been delineated by erosion controls and was approved by Elizabeth Leidhold, the former agent. The site has been cleared up to the erosion controls under a previous Order of Conditions issued for the site. He stated that the existing curb cuts will be abandoned. He described the layout plan; the proposed building and parking lot layout. Mr. Healey asked Mr. DeVellis what the loading area would be used for. Mr. DeVellis explained that it would be used for unloading 3 supplies and as a vehicle turn - around. Mr. DeVellis then described the drainage plan and the proposed stormwater system. Mr. DeVellis described the latest revisions regarding Conservation issues. He added a detail of the retaining walls and explained that they would be constructed from the upland side, away from the wetland. He stated that the walls would have to be design and stamped by a Professional Engineer. He added snow disposal areas to the site plan. Mr. Mulkern asked if all the snow from the parking lot would be pushed into these areas. Mr. DeVellis explained that the parking lot had sufficient storage space for snow and the designated areas would only be needed in a case of extreme snow accumulation. Mr. DeVellis stated that he had added a 4 -foot chain -link fence in the footprint of the erosion controls to the plan as requested by Ms. Merrill. Mr. Mulkern asked if salt alternatives would be used onsite. Mr. DeVellis stated that the majority of the snow runoff would run into the stormwater devices and be treated. Ms. Merrill agreed that a salt alternative could be used onsite. She stated that given the layout of the buildings and retaining walls, snow would not be able to be plowed into the wetland resource area. Mr. Mulkern asked how many units were in the building. Mr. DeVellis said the footprint totals 14,750 square feet; however there are no units proposed. It would be leased as two separate spaces. He said it was a one -story building. Mr. Healey asked if there was going to be a forced main sewer and if they were using silt socks for the catch basins. Mr. DeVellis said yes. Mr. Healey asked if there was an 0 &M plan. Ms. Merrill stated that it was included in the Notice of Intent. Mr. DeVellis stated that there were notes in the O &M plan requiring weekly monitoring of trash and debris cleanup in the parking lots. Mr. Healey asked if the Fire Department would have to access the back of the building. Mr. DeVellis explained that the Fire Department had no comments regarding access at the department head meeting thus there is no rear egresses proposed in the building. Mr. Marcheselli asked if the retaining walls would be build first. Mr. DeVellis stated that they would be constructed first along with the poured concrete foundation of the building. Ms. Merrill said an Order of Conditions (DEP #211 -0789) for a similar project was approved by the Commission in 2005 for two smaller buildings, a retail space and a restaurant, with a total footprint of 8,337 square feet. She said the biggest concern with the project was the accuracy of the existing wetland delineation from a 2003 ANRAD. The wetland line was re- staked in 2012 and reviewed by Elizabeth Leidhold, the former agent. Ms. Leidhold agreed with the wetland line, establishing the 25 -foot no -touch zone. The applicant has cleared the approved portion of the lot in accordance with the previous Notice of Intent. She said there will have to be a really tight protocol for construction because it is so close to the resource areas. There is a chain -link fence proposed, but she is not sure if it is supposed to be installed prior to or after construction. She said the fence has to be more permanent than a construction fence to make sure the 25 -foot is maintained throughout the construction process. Mr. Turnbull suggested jersey barriers. Mr. Marcheselli said he is not sure it is practical from a construction stand point to have a permanent fence during construction. He said the onus would be on the applicant not to enter the 25 -foot no -touch zone. Ms. Merrill said there is construction fencing along the line now. Mr. Marcheselli said the fence needs to be more substantial and suggested the fence posts be installed now and a temporary 4 -foot fence installed to protect the resource areas; once the construction is completed, the temporary fence can be removed and the permanent fence installed. Ms. Merrill suggested prior to any construction, the applicant and the contractor meet with her at the site to review the Order of Conditions. Mr. Marcheselli asked if the Town Engineer is all set with the Stormwater Management. Ms. Merrill said the applicant has submitted the required Stormwater Management Report and Richard Alves, Town Engineer, has reviewed the Stormwater Management Checklist and design. She said Mr. DeVellis has done a great job addressing all Mr. Alves' issues cited in a memorandum dated August 5, 2013, and everything is up to standard as set forth in the Stormwater Management Handbook. 0 Mr. Healey made a motion to accept the proposed retail and office building at 272, 282, 292, 296 Chauncy Street, corner of Route 106 and 140, DEP #211 -0906, plan "Site Development Plans Proposed Retail and Office Building', dated July 31, 2013, revised August 12, 2013, prepared by DeVellis Zrein, Inc., with the following Special Conditions: a pre- construction meeting with the representative, contractor and agent to identify and get an understanding of the environmentally sensitive areas on the property; a temporary 4 -foot chain -link fence is to be installed along the 25 -foot buffer zone to the wetland prior to the start of construction; a permanent fence should be installed once the project is completed to prevent work and /or activity within the 25' no -touch zone; permanent signage, "Environmentally Sensitive Area — Do Not Disturb ", is to be placed on 75 -foot centers along the length of the fence; existing siltation controls are to be maintained as needed during construction; an as built plan, stamped by a Professional Engineer with a letter attesting that the project has been completed in compliance with the proposed plan shall be included with the Request for a Certificate of Compliance; salt alternatives are to be used to maintain the property in the winter months; an O &M Plan submitted as part of the application should be included with the Order of Conditions. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 6- 0-0. Mr. Mulkern asked that after Mr. DeVellis has been before the Planning Department, if there are any changes to the plan, that Conservation be notified. Ms. Merrill said if there are any changes, the Commission will decide if the changes are just modifications or if an Amended Order will be necessary. Hearing ended at 8:07 pm. 8. Notice of Intent: Sean McGuire, McGuire Landscape Company, 493 West Street, Map 8, Parcel 20. DEP # 211 -0907 The Notice of Intent (NO[) was filed for the construction of an addition on the existing house and to prepare an area for landscaping within 100 feet of bordering vegetated wetlands and the 200 ft. Riverfront Area. Mr. Marcheselli recused himself from this hearing. Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering Co., Inc., and Sean McGuire, McGuire Landscaping Company, were present. Mr. Maloon said Mr. McGuire intends to live in the house and use the site for a landscaping business, storing landscaping materials. There is an annual stream on the left side of the property; the existing stream enters the property from the southeast at West Street and continues across the property into a wetland, which is used as a drainage system. Work will be within the 25 -foot no -touch zone. A 10'x10' deck was removed and there is currently 4 -foot drop from the existing door to the ground so the applicant would like to replace the deck in kind; it would be considered grandfathered in. A 20'x21' addition will be added to the house. The applicant is proposing a 40'x42 bulk materials storage area within 200 feet of the Riverfront buffer zone; half of this area is actually within the 100 -foot buffer zone of the bank of the stream. Mulch and loam will be stored on the lawn area and a fence will be placed on the downhill side of the property. In return, the applicant is proposing to remove the existing garden area and an existing shed will be moved to another location. There are stockpiles of concrete forms within the 25 -foot buffer and these will be removed. The gravel driveway will be returned to lawn. Mr. Maloon said the applicant is cleaning up the site and will create a new area to stockpile landscape material. Ms. Merrill went out to the site. She noted the concrete form storage area extends to the stream and the top of bank edge and is much more extensive than shown on the plan. Debris and brush cuttings have been placed within the 25 -foot buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. She said there is an I -beam and plywood that crosses over the annual stream. To the south side of this area there are brush cuttings and forms and junk and debris have been dumped along the river. All this will have to be removed because it is within the 25 -foot, within 100 feet of the bank and as well as several other resource areas. Ms. Merrill asked if the area where the driveway 5 extends to the shed would be reclaimed. Mr. McGuire said it would be lawn. He said trucks and trailers used for the landscaping business would be parked either in the garage or in the driveway. He told the board that he will store 100 yards of mulch and loam on site; the mulch and loam will only be stored seasonally for small residential jobs. He said he will remove the cut brush. Mr. McGuire said in the Purchase and Sales agreement, the present owner will be responsible for the removal of all the concrete forms from the property. Ms. Merrill said this is an opportunity to clean up the site. She recommends the I -beam be removed and when the brush pile has been removed, this area should be re- established because the ground cover will be completely void. Ms. Merrill said there are concerns about future usage on this site; will the area outlined on the plan be the only area for material stockpiling? Mr. McGuire said the proposed stockpile area is to the left of the existing driveway and because it is within the 200 -foot buffer of the stream, he will place a permanent fence on the downhill side to prevent future siltation of the wetlands and the brook. The brook is down gradient of this area. The pre- existing 10'x10' deck was in the 25 -foot no -touch zone and has been removed. Ms. Merrill said there are no alternative locations for the proposed deck and the deck will be built in the previously existing deck footprint. There is a wooden platform that has been placed over the dam with chairs, lattice and rough fencing. The platform is not actually located on the property at 493 West Street but has been used by the property owner. Ms. Merrill said there needs to be more of an outline of what will be stored on the site to make sure no hazardous chemicals or materials will be stored there. Mr. McGuire said he will store only mulch and loam. Ms. Merrill said since the topography is sloping directly down into the annual stream, she is not sure a wood fence would prevent siltation from entering the stream or wetland. Mr. McGuire said he would place a berm in this area instead of the fence. Mr. Mulkern suggested concrete blocking or jersey barriers on the inside of the stockpile barrier so equipment would not be hitting a wooden fence. Ms. Merrill said the proposed addition is located within a previously developed lawn area and asked if the large evergreen tree in this area would be removed. Mr. McGuire said the tree will have to be removed. Mr. Mulkern asked what zone the property was in. Mr. Maloon said it is in a Planned Business District and that Mr. McGuire has submitted an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Permit for a pre- existing, non - conforming business for a September 17, 2013 hearing. Ms. Matthew asked Ms. Merrill to explain the Alternatives Analysis. Ms. Merrill said she asked the engineer to submit the Alternatives Analysis for the riverfront disturbance but it only describes the project; it does not say there is or why there is no alternative location for the project. She said she would like to see a more detailed Alternatives Analysis that falls under the regulations of the Wetlands Protection Act. Mr. Healey stated the applicant checked the box on the N01 that the project is exempt from Stormwater Management because it is a single - family home but it is also a business. He told Mr. McGuire that as a business, the project would not be exempt. Ms. Merrill said as a business, the project would not meet Stormwater Standard; there would have to be a retention basin for pre- treatment for any type of siltation run -off. Mr. Healey said everything grades toward the resource areas. Mr. Maloon said he will contact Mr. Riccio for a definition. Ms. Merrill will look up what the actual definition is for a single - family dwelling is and how a situation like this has been historically handled. Mr. Maloon said it was a single - family home prior to zoning laws. Ms. Merrill will contact DEP to clarify if this project would fall under the single family dwelling exemption. Il Mr. Marcus Schurman of 489 West Street said he had hired his own consultant, Plainfield Environmental Consulting, and e- mailed the review of the project to Ms. Merrill. She gave a brief overview of the findings: the applicant's proposal is to place an addition on an existing house and prepare the area for landscaping — the consultant feels this is misleading because the applicant is proposing to operate a landscaping business and store bulk landscaping materials on the site; the applicant's plan for bulk material storage does not include any temporary Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) between the construction area and the wetlands to prevent silt from entering the resource areas; the Environmental Engineer /Consultant looked at the project as not exempt from Stormwater Management; asked if hydraulic equipment would be used; did not provide any values of coefficient run -off Stormwater Management Standards; the applicant did not explain how the wood fence would meet the 80% pollutant removal efficiency, the consultant recommended that an appropriately size retention basin with oil /water separation device be included in the design ; the Alternatives Analysis was inadequate, only stating the applicant's intentions for the property and not listing any alternatives or determining why they would be infeasible. The consultant wanted to know if the site could be rearranged to have less impact on the resource areas. The Commission would like to continue the hearing until all the issues have been addressed. Mr. Maloon asked if the forms could be removed. Ms. Merrill said an Enforcement Order would have to be issued to the property owner so the forms can be removed. Ms. Merrill stated that an Enforcement Order can be issued to the current owner requiring him to remove the forms immediately and would be independent of this filing. Mr. Healey made a motion to issue an Enforcement Order to the owner of the property at 493 West Street, Mansfield, MA, Map 8, Parcel 20, for the removal of all deleterious materials within the 100 -foot buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands and the 200 -foot Riverfront Area of a perennial stream, and that this project came to the attention of the Commission through a Notice of Intent, DEP #211 -0907 submitted by McGuire Landscaping Company.. Mr. Healey made a second motion to continue the Notice of Intent hearing for 493 West Street until it is determined whether the property is residential or commercial and needs a Stormwater Management Plan. Also an Alternative Analysis be prepared that meets the standards of the Wetland Protection Act. Mr. Turnbull seconded the motions. Motions passed 5 -0 -1. Mr. Marcheselli abstained. Ms. Merrill will contact DEP about the Stormwater Management and she asked Mr. Maloon expand the Alternatives Analysis. Hearing ended at 8:35 pm 9. Notice of Intent: Mark Sullivan, 110 Balcom Street, Map 3, Parcel 76. DEP #211 -0905 Mr. Smith recused himself. The applicant proposes to construct a 56'x27.5', three bedroom, single - family house with associated site work including a limited project driveway to access the upland buildable portions of the property. Jason Youngquist of Outback Engineering, Inc., representing the applicant, was present. Mr. Youngquist explained the original project was approved in December 2005 and this is a re- submittal of the same project. The driveway will cross the wetlands, requiring the filling of approximately 1,000 square feet of wetlands with a replication of 2,200 square feet. The proposed house is outside the 50 -foot no -touch zone. The 25 -, 50 -, and 100 -foot buffers are shown on the plan. Mr. Youngquist said the septic system is outside the 100 -foot buffer and will be located in the back of the property. The wetlands were flagged by Seth Dufort of Outback Engineering. 7 Ms. Merrill explained the Order of Conditions (DEP #211 -745) issued in 2005 was actually the result of an Enforcement Order issued to the owner, Jason Sisto, on May 5, 2005 for clearing 15 maple trees and vegetation within a bordering vegetated wetland. She said this was a very large violation; 9,000 square feet of area was destroyed when the maple trees were cut. The trees have not been removed from the site. The Notice of Intent (NOI) was filed in December 2005 for a single - family house along with a septic system and driveway and included the replication area from the Enforcement Order. Portions of the proposed driveway would require the filling of the wetland. A replication area was proposed to mitigate the driveway filling. Ms. Merrill said the work was never performed under this permit and the permit has since expired. She contacted Mr. Sisto about the replication and he said he would get back to her with all the planting information. When she walked the site, she did not see any new plantings but the area has re- established with Sweetpepper bush and Northern Arrowwood. She said there is no record of the plantings being done and the violation needs to be addressed. Ms. Merrill said the new NO1 is for a single - family house with a limited project driveway crossing similar to the 2005 plan. The driveway would require the filling of 1,086 sq. ft. of bordering vegetated wetlands with a restoration area of 2,200 sq. ft., a ratio of 2:1; the original project would have altered 524 sq. ft. with a replication area of 800 square feet. The area of upland to be converted to wetlands is upland pines. She said this is a tough site to develop. Ms. Merrill stated the project does qualify as a limited project and is exempt from certain standard of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By -law and the state regulations for a limited project. There is only one area for access to the back of the property and the upland area. It is the smallest tract they can go through without disturbing or having to fill anymore of the wetland area. The applicant cannot enter the property on the north side of the property because the small parcel in this area is not owned by the applicant. Ms. Merrill said the 2,200 square -foot replication area should be done and established, either before or during construction, as soon as possible, preferably in the spring. Ms. Merrill said a Deed Restriction was proposed and accepted with the original Order of Conditions and asked Mr. Youngquist if it would go with this application. Mr. Youngquist responded that it would have to be included in the new Order of Conditions. Ms. Merrill said she is not sure if the original Order of Conditions and the Deed Restriction were ever recorded. Mr. Mulkern asked how the restoration area went from 9,000 square feet to 1,000 square feet. Ms. Merrill said they are separate areas; under the new NOI they are filling 1,086 sq. ft. and mitigating 2,200 square feet. She said the approximate 9,400 square feet of impact from the violation in 2005 appears to be well established and the downed trees are providing habitat. She is not sure this area can be planted because there is new growth but said the area would have to be watched to make sure it is healthy. She said this is an opened violation. Mr. Marcheselli asked if the alternative is to go in and re- disturb the area. Ms. Merrill said if invasive plantings had colonized there, she would recommend the plants be removed, but because this area has basically been reclaimed with the same vegetation, she would suggest this area be left undisturbed. Ms. Matthew asked how the Enforcement Order should be addressed. Mr. Sisto told Ms. Merrill that the area had been planted and approved by Michele Grenier, the former agent, but there is no record in the file of any of the replication plantings being done. Ms. Merrill stated the owner was to provide documentation or invoices for the restoration plantings but she has not heard from him. For the record, Ms. Merrill will continue to correspond with the owner. She said the board can look at the new NO1 independently of the violation. She said the disturbed area under the 2005 Enforcement Order is not mentioned in the new NOI so the violation should be addressed separately. 0 Ms. Merrill said the new application meets the performance standards for replication of a limited project, they did the tightest limit of work they can and they have the smallest building envelope. She said she can work with the owner to figure out what actually transpired in 2005 and then the board can decide how to proceed with the restoration. She said the violation should be addressed at the same time as the work for the new project is done. Mr. Marcheselli said he does not want to re- disturb the wetland areas that have been re- established. Ms. Merrill said a Wetland Scientist should oversee the plantings for the limited project. Mr. Healey asked about the contours of the replication area. He said the center portion of the wetland is higher and he is concerned the surface hydrology will not support the wetland species that will be planted in this area. Ms. Merrill asked Mr. Youngquist if they are planning to remove the grade to the existing wetland elevation. Mr. Youngquist said the area will be graded but the top soil will be put back. She said the grade from wetland flag 28 coming up to the center point of the restoration area is not significant because the wetland is not a large area. She stated that this wetland is not topography driven so they would only have to remove a small portion of the grade to bring it down to the wetland grade; the board can request in the Certificate of Compliance that spot grades be done to make sure the post - development hydrology will support the new plantings. Mr. Healey said this is a good project for this site but he is not sure how the board should proceed. Ms. Merrill said the board should look at this application independently of the violation because the applicant is not the owner of the property. She said the board can request that she follow up with the owner on the previous violation to figure out what really transpired in 2005. She explained that the original Order of Conditions has expired but the Enforcement Order is open- ended; it does not expire. She said if the board feels this application can be conditioned, a motion should be made to issue an Order of Conditions with special conditions and a second motion made to have her follow up with the owner of the 2005 violation. She said there is a wetland monitor on staff, and maybe the owner and applicant can have the monitor go through the damaged area to make sure the area is a healthy, thriving environment and send a report. Ms. Merrill said the applicant should not be held up because of something that was done by the owner. She recommends that the application be approved with special conditions and replication. �Mr. Marcheselli asked if the property was within a Natural Heritage Area. Ms. Merrill said it is not located within Estimate or Priority Habitat. Mr. Turnbull made a motion to issue an Order of Conditions for 110 Balcom Street, DEP #211 -0905. Since the project qualifies as a limited project, the following Special Conditions will apply: 1) The 2,200 square foot replication area is to be planted prior to the completion of construction and monitored after planting, in the spring, and in the fall for two growing season by a wetland scientist. Reports with photographs should be submitted to the Commission. A wetland scientist should oversee the initial plantings. 2) "Environmentally Sensitive Area — Do Not Disturb" metal signs should be place along the 25' No -Touch Zone of the Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Signs shall be permanent (signs shall be driven with metal posts to a minimum depth of two (2) feet). Signs shall be posted at a visible height (minimum 4 -5 feet), especially during the vegetation growing seasons. 3) An As -Built Plan should be submitted along with a Request for a Certificate of Compliance and include the square footage of wetland filled and restored. 4) A pre- construction meeting should be held between the Agent, the Wetland Scientist, the Applicant, and the Contractor to review the terms and conditions of the Order prior to the start of work. 5) Erosion controls are to be placed as shown on the plan. Once the erosion controls are in place, the Agent is to be called to inspect prior to the start of work. Erosion controls are to remain in place and maintained until all work is complete and the area has been stabilized. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -1. Hearing ended at 9:00 pm. W 10. Correspondence: 11. New Business: Signage guidelines for office and website: The Town of Mansfield Wetlands Protection By -law allows the Commission to require permanent signs to be placed in the "No Disturb Zone" of a protected area. The criteria for the signs for homeowners is as follows: Signs shall be weatherproof (i.e. metal or plastic — cardboard is unacceptable; signs shall be permanent and on metal posts, not on trees, and be driven to a minimum depth of two feet; signs shall be posted at a visible height — a minimum of 4 -5 feet — especially during the vegetation growing seasons; signs shall read "Environmentally Sensitive Area, Do Not Disturb ". Ms. Merrill said this would be policy not a regulation. Ms. Merrill said in the General By -laws, the heading for Chapter 15 is wrong. It says [Conservation Commission Rules and Regulations Town of Mansfield Wetland Protection By -law]. She said when it was originally voted on at Town Meeting, the heading read [Town of Mansfield Wetland Protection By -law]. Mr. Healey made a motion that the heading for Chapter 15 that currently reads "Conservation Commission Rules and Regulations Town of Mansfield Wetland Protection By -law" should be changed to read "Town of Mansfield Wetland Protection By- law". Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Minutes of July 15, 2013. Ms. Matthew asked for a clarification in the hearing minutes for Stephen Cunningham, 6 Roy Road, page 3, paragraph 3. Minutes were not signed. Boilerplate Special Orders: There have been issues with Special Conditions that were proposed and discussed within a hearing that were not included in the motion to issue the Order of Conditions. Unless the Special Conditions are included in the motion, they cannot be included in the Order. Ms. Merrill is proposing to use a boiler plate Special Conditions list with conditions and language written to assist in making motions; more specialized conditions can be added to a motion if necessary. She asked that the Commission review the list and let her know if there are any additional Conditions, edits, or comments. MACC 2013 Fall Conference: Ms. Merrill plans to attend the conference for Invasive Plant Species. Commission members can also attend. Ms. Merrill told the board there is a parcel of land owned by the MBTA that the Town of Mansfield would like to acquire. It is located in West Mansfield in the northeast corner of the Great Woods, on the easterly side of the commuter rail line. The parcel is approximately 9.6 acres of land and is completely land locked. She said the MBTA is now in the process of surplusing the property. Ms. Merrill said she can write a letter of interest to the Selectmen recommending that the Conservation Commission pursue the acquisition of the land. It is an important parcel of land and is something the town has been looking at historically through the Open Space Plan. The Mansfield Natural Resources Trust is also interested in the land. Ms. Merrill said there is a lengthy process to go through before the land can be purchased. 12. Old Business: 6 Carol Road: Applicant proposes a Plan Modification to use pervious asphalt on existing paved driveway and proposed paver area. DEP #211 -0903 Stephen Gallant, the homeowner, was present. III] An Order of Conditions was issued on July 15, 2013 for proposed grading, fencing, paving of stone driveway area, loaming and seeding in Riverfront Area (previously disturbed area), within 200 feet of Hodges Brook and within the 100 -foot buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. The approved plan is for a paved, non - pervious driveway and installation of pavers adjacent to the driveway. Mr. Gallant is requesting a plan modification for the driveway and paver area to be converted to pervious asphalt. This plan modification will result in an increase of pervious surface. Ms. Merrill recommended that the plan modification be accepted. Mr. Marcheselli suggested Mr. Gallant find out the cost of changing from a non - pervious driveway to pervious asphalt because it can be expensive. He asked if Mr. Gallant would have to come back to the board if, because of the cost, he decided to stay with the original plan of a non - previous driveway and pavers. Ms. Merrill asked Mr. Gallant if he still plans to install the French drain across the bottom of the driveway. Mr. Gallant said yes. Ms. Merrill said she does not think it will be necessary for Mr. Gallant to come before the board if he decides to stay with the original plan. Mr. Turnbull told Mr. Gallant to make sure the sub -base under the asphalt drains well or he could have problems with freezing and thawing. Mr. Mulkern said the pervious asphalt would be a nice alternative for certain projects. Ms. Merrill will look into the cost. She said when the board imposes conditions on a project, they need to understand the potential financial burden they are putting on the applicant. Mr. Healey made a motion to accept the plan modification for 6 Carol Road. If the change from a paved, non - pervious driveway and pavers to pervious asphalt is not acceptable from a financial standpoint for Mr. Gallant and crushed stone is used which is already there, Mr. Gallant does not need to come back before the board. Mr. Marcheselli seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Erosion Control Inspections: East Street — Town of Mansfield — Inspected on July 17, 2013 - erosion controls were installed according to the approved plan. 6 Shea Circle — Inspected on July 22, 2013 — erosion controls were installed according to the approved plan. 13. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 9:25 pm. Mulkern /Marcheselli. Motion passed 6 -0. Next meeting will be September 16, 2013 at 7:00 pm. jeseph -Mtilk , Chairman (/1`Lc 10 - -Z H3 Date III