HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION_11182013_201312171003MANSFIELD CONSERVATION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 18, 2013
Present: Joseph Mulkern, Chairman; Michael Healey, Vice Chairman; Christopher Marcheselli; Jack Smith;
Carole Matthew; Ryan Maxwell; Katelyn Merrill, Conservation and Environmental Planner.
1. Meeting opened at 7:00 pm.
2. Discussion -Lou Andrews, NRT - presentation to Conservation Commission regarding "Needs
And Issues with Mansfield's Conservation Areas'.
Lou Andrews and Colin Cauldwell were present
Mr. Andrews said NRT has been inventorying all the major Conservation Land in town to address the issues
associated with these properties.
Mr. Andrews said in the Great Woods general trail maintenance needs to be done and signage purchased.
Mr. Andrews explained a lot of work has been done on the Streese property this year but the trails needs to be
maintained and the existing boardwalk repaired. He said there is a need for more boardwalks and hopefully, in the
spring, the repair on the existing boardwalk can be completed and two new boardwalks constructed as Eagle Scout
projects. The trails have been marked and the area was GPS'd. Mr. Andrews said here are encroachment issues on
this property; one of the neighbors has put up "No Trespassing" signs on what is believed to be town property. He
said the property needs to be surveyed and boundary markers installed and asked that the Conservation
he would work with Ms. Merrill to get the Town Treasurer to finalize and turn over the property to the
Conservation Commission.
Mr. Andrews said he would like to form an Open Space Committee with a member from the Conservation
Commission, Planning Board, a Recreation Commissioner, a member of NRT of Mansfield and include some at large
members. This committee would check and provide maintenance for the properties and look into grants that
could be used for these properties.
Mr. Andrews discussed the hunting issues on these properties; people do not know where hunting is or is not
allowed or when hunting season takes place. He said the hunting regulations needed to be posted on the
properties where hunting is allowed. Mr. Cauldwell explained that the Commission has jurisdiction over hunting
as long as the property was not acquired with state funding. He said hunting has been banned in the Corporal
Robert Francis Hardy Conservation Area but is allowed in the Great Woods, the Streese and Sweet properties
because they were acquired with state money or grants. Mr. Andrews said hunting signs need to be posted at the
Great Woods on the northern part at the entrance on Judy's Lane and on the Streese and Sweet properties.
Mr. Healey made a motion to set aside funds for the purchase of "Hunting" signs for the areas controlled by the
Conservation Commission, for a value not to exceed $500.00. Mr. Marcheselli seconded the motion. Motion passed
6 -0 -0.
Mr. Cauldwell discussed Fulton Pond which is under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. He said this
area has not been maintained; there are erosion issues at the edge of the parking lot and invasive species along the
edge of the pond. He said the parking lot needs to be paved to allow for better drainage, curbing installed, provide
a handicapped access along the dike south of the pond, install new signage and plant native species along the shore
for shade to promote better fishing. He suggested a retaining wall next to the parking lot, with a grade change to
Mr. Alves stated an existing chain link fence and a small portion of a concrete slab around the existing in- ground
pool on the abutting property is encroaching on this parcel. He said the work to remove the abutter's fence and
sawcut the concrete slab is included in this application; however, the work will be not be done by the Town.
Mr. Mulkern asked if the driveway could be pulled out of the 50 -foot No Disturb Zone. Mr. Alves said the driveway
was located in this area because there needs to be a turn-around for the driveway for safety factors to prevent
people from backing out on to Fruit Street.
Mr. Healey asked if there would be roof drains into drywells. Mr. Alves said the run -off will sheet flow into
vegetation. He said if the board wants drains and drywells installed, he will do a calculation and add a filtration
system to the plan.
Kathleen Chace of 459 Fruit Street was concerned the proposed project would cause additional flooding, resulting
in further water damage to the other houses in the, neighborhood. Mr. Alves discussed the property elevations and
said there would be no increase in flow to the abutters property because there will be a Swale on the right side of
the property and a stone retaining wall on the east side. All proposed flow goes toward the Intermittent Stream.
The run -off would be filter out before it gets to the wetland.
Mr. Maxwell asked if the driveway could be pushed more towards the street or the turn - around moved closer to
the street to keep it out of the 50 -foot No Touch Zone. Ms. Merrill does not see any increase or less of an impact to
this area if the driveway were relocated. Mr. Alves said moving the driveway closer to the street would make it
more difficult for the turning radius as well. Mr. Marcheselli agreed. Ms. Merrill said moving the driveway will not
change impervious surface or run -off, the way it is shown on the plan is the most feasible for turning around and
safety.
Mr. Healey made a motion to accept the Notice of Intent for Fruit Street, Map 36, Lot 161 -164 with the following
-.. -. _. ,. ___ �_ _.__._a ..,,.n a.,, n..ao,- ,.r r,.,,d;Hnnc hac haan recorded with the Bristol County
included in the Certificate of Compliance as an on -going condition. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed
6 -0 -0. "Site Plan of Map 36 Lots 161 -164 Fruit Street In Mansfield ", dated September 23, 2013, prepared by the
Town of Mansfield Engineering Department.
4. Request for Determination of Applicability: Town of Mansfield, Mill Street, Map 43, Lot 20.
The Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) was filed for drainage improvements and paving of Mill
Street south of 94 Mill Street near the auxiliary spillway of the Canoe River Campground Dam, within 100 feet of a
Bordering Vegetated Wetland of a Perennial Stream and Cabot Pond.
Richard C. Alves, Town Engineer /Assistant DPW Director, was present.
Mr. Alves explained DPW is proposing to pave the area that was disturbed by the construction of the Canoe River
Campground Dam, under an Order of Conditions, SE 211 -0824. Prior to the paving, a catch basin with a 4 -foot
sump will be installed at the low point within the road and piped to a deep sump catch basin with rip -rap, setting
the rim at a lower elevation, allowing particles to settle and utilizing head pressure for the water to sheet flow
towards the existing channel. This will eliminate flooding within the roadway, which is a safety concern and
prevent the pavement from deteriorating in the future.
Mr. Alves told the board the pond is currently being drained to provide the proposed slide gate that was never
installed during the construction of the dam.
Mr. Healey made a motion to accept the RDA for Mill Street, Map 43, Lot 29, located south of 94 Mill Street near the
Canoe River Campground Dam, involving the improvements to the surface water drainage and issue a Negative
Determination for Reason #3, work will not alter an Area Subject to Protection, therefore does not require the
filing of a Notice of intent, with a special condition that the siltation controls be inspected prior to the start of
----- <n_n °Prnnn.d DrainauP Improvement, Mill Street in
Ms. Merrill said the tree was located on the edge of the lawn, approximately 80 feet from the wetland; she verified
this after the tree was removed by tree experts. The applicant was asked to file for the tree work after the fact and
include a proposed shed in the filing. Because there was a miscommunication, Mr. Sera thought he could go ahead
with the installation of the shed as well and then file the RDA. Ms. Merrill was on site when the shed was installed.
She said no footings were dug so there was no disturbance but a portion of the lawn was removed and replaced
with permeable gravel. The shed was installed on blocks within the gravel area.
The property is within a Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Priority Habitat area, but is exempt
from Massachusetts Endanger Species Act review.
Ms. Merrill said the whole subdivision is within a NHESP Estimated and Priority Habitat and activities and
structures can tend to encroach and expand towards wetlands. The applicant is aware of this and Ms. Merrill has
spoken to the other homeowners in the area. She recommends a Negative Determination for Reason #3 be issued.
Mr. Healey made a motion to issue a Negative Determination, for Reason #3, work will not alter an Area Subject to
Protection, therefore does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, for 79 Patty's Road, Map 39, Parcel 25 for the
removal of a tree over - hanging the house and the installation of the shed that did not require any footings or
excavation. Mr. Marcheselli seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0.
Hearing ended at 8:05 pm.
7. Request for Determination of Applicability: John & Mary Gerlich,18 Clementine Drive, Map 38, Parcel
63.
The Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) was filed to replace an existing 12'x14' deck with a 14'x16'
Mr. Healey made a motion to approve the current conditions at 18 Clementine Drive, Map 38, Parcel 63 and issue a
Negative Determination for Reason #3, work will not alter an Area Subject to Protection, therefore does not
require the filing of a Notice of Intent, for the installation of a 14'x16' sumromn that will require five (5) additional
Sono- tubes, to be dug by hand. Current conditions include the lawn, shed and patio area. Agent will add hearing
notes and photographs of the current approved conditions of the site for the file. Ms. Matthew seconded the
motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0.
Hearing ended at 8:10 pm.
B. After - the -Fact Notice of Intent: Paul Donovan, 17 Goose Lane, Map 40, Parcel 246. DEP SE 211 -0911
The Notice of Intent was filed for re- grading of a lawn area within the 100 ft. Buffer of Bordering Vegetated
Wetlands of a Perennial Stream, ACEC, Natural Heritage Estimated and Priority Habitats, ACEC and Riverfront
Area.
Hearing was continued from October 2013.
Homeowner Paul Donovan and Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering Co., Inc., were present.
Ms. Merrill said this is an After- the -Fact Notice of Intent for the re- grading that has already occurred and the
restoration within the wetland. Mr. Donovan was issued an Enforcement Order on September 23, 2013 for re-
graded portions of the rear lawn area adjacent to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands and a Perennial Stream, and
within ACEC and NHESP Estimate Habitat. Mr. Donovan stopped work immediately and re- installed the silt fence
and contacted Mr. Maloon to have the property surveyed. Mr. Donovan was asked to file an After- the -Fact Notice
of Intent with a restoration plan. The area between the two silt fences is wetland but no work was done in this
measures if mitigation or erosion control devices are not adequately installed or maintained in the field; 5) The
applicant shall ensure that all erosion control devices or measures shall remain in place and be maintained
throughout the construction process and until all disturbed areas are stabilized. Stabilization can be achieved by a
variety of techniques including, but not limited to, sodding, seeding, or mulching. If seeding is used, stabilization
shall be considered achieved once a complete vegetative cover is reached. Seeded areas shall be covered with hay
or other suitable protective cover to allow the seed time to take hold; 6) The Conservation Commission or its agent
is to be notified of the starting date of the work prior to its commencement; 7) The applicant shall retain the Order
of Conditions and all plans on site during the construction; these shall be made available to all contractors; 8)
Wetland flagging must remain in place until the project has been completed and the Certificate of Compliance
issued; 9) The Certificate of Compliance shall be requested in writing upon completion of the project. At the same
time, the applicant or any successor shall, upon completion of the project, submit a letter signed by a professional
engineer, certifying that the work has been done in accordance with the approved plan; 10) Any modifications or
revisions to the plan(s) referenced in this Order must be submitted to the Commission for review. If, after review,
the Commission finds that the changes are not significant enough (minor modifications) to warrant an Amended
Order or new Notice of Intent, then the revised plans shall be considered the new plan of record. If the changes are
significant enough to warrant an Amended Order or new Notice of intent, then the applicant is required to file
accordingly; 11) Two (2) permanent metal or plastic signs are to be placed along the wetland line (not on trees) to
read "Environmentally Sensitive Area -Do Not Disturb ". Signs shall be no less than 5 feet height and approximately
12" x 18" in size; 12) No synthetic fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides or fungicides can be used; only organic products
may be used; 13) Replication area plantings shall be increased from two (2) to ten (10) plants. Wetland plantings
species may vary. The replication area plantings shall be 75% successful after the first two growing seasons. If
that is not the case then recommendations for additional plantings shall be proposed to the Mansfield
Conservation Commission; 14) Restoration Area shall not be altered in the future and shallln remain in a nat
17 Goose Lae in tural
Ms. Merrill said Mr. and Mrs. Verrochi now understand that anything done on this property that requires any type
of alteration to the ground would have to be under review of the Conservation Department.
Ms. Merrill asked the dimensions of the shed. Mr. Verrochi said the shed will be approximately 8'x10'. Ms. Merrill
asked that an As -Built for the shed be submitted with the request for a Certificate of Compliance. A Special
Condition to the Order should include that any other work on the property would have to be reviewed by the
Department.
Ms. Verrochi asked if the Dogwood tree next to the deck could be removed. Ms. Merrill said the tree can be
removed but it should be flush cut to the ground, leaving the roots in place, to prevent further disturbance to this
area.
Robert Freerken of 51 Lakeview Avenue said a lot of trees have been removed around the lake and this tree is in
the Buffer Zone. Ms. Merrill said if it was a native tree that was there prior to development of the lot, then it should
be preserved but this is a small ornamental tree with a shallow root system and is not intricate to the health of the
wetland.
Catherine Memory of 23 Lakeview Avenue said she was concerned by all the work that has been done on this
property without a filing. She said the people on Lakeview Avenue are aware of Conservation requirements. She
noted that by not following the correct procedures, Mr. and Mrs. Verrochi not only denied the Commission and
Agent the right to enforce their responsibilities but they also denied the abutters the opportunity to know what
was happening before it happened. Ms. Merrill agreed but after looking at the property and the list of activities
conducted, she feels there was no additional increase in impacts to the resource area. Ms. Merrill said the work
was general maintenance, repairs and changes to the landscaping with not much of an increase in imperious
surface on the lot. Ms. Memory asked to have the location of the shed verified and if the existing trailer would be
removed. Ms. Merrill said the plan submitted shows the shed in the area of the existing trailer. If the Commission
chooses to issue an Order of Conditions, the plan submitted with the NOI would be the Plan of Record and the shed
cannot be any larger than 8'x10 nor can it be in a different location; any size or location changes would be a
the plan(s) referenced in this Order must be submitted to the Commission for review. If, after review, the
Commission finds that the changes are not significant enough (minor modifications) to warrant an Amended Order
or new Notice of Intent, then the revised plans shall be considered the new plan of record. If the changes are
significant enough to warrant an Amended Order or new Notice of Intent, then the applicant is required to file
accordingly; 9) In the future, any work or activities on the property that may impact or alter the adjacent resource
areas within the 100 -foot Buffer Zone are to be reviewed by the Conservation Commission; 10) Applicant is
permitted to remove one dogwood tree adjacent to deck; must be flush cut. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6 -0 -0.
10. New Business
11. Old Business:
Notice of Intent: Sean McGuire, McGuire Landscape Company, 493 West Street, Map 8, Parcel 20. DEP SE
211 -0907.
Mr. Marcheselli and Mr. Maxwell left the meeting at this time.
Mr. Healey made a motion to accept the withdrawal of the Notice of Intent for Sean McGuire of Mc
Guire Landscaping Company for 493 West Street, Map 8 Parcel 20, DEP SE 211 -0907. Ms. Matthew seconded the
motion. Motion passed 4 -0 -2. Mr. Marcheselli and Mr. Maxwell abstained.
Review of 2013 Regulation Revisions- Conservation Commission to review proposed revisions to Regulations of
the Town of Mansfield Protection Bylaw.
Ms. Merrill started the discussion of the proposed revision to the Regulations (see attached). She stated that she
counsel how to clarify this section. Mr. Healey stated that this is an emergency situation and should only allow for
a system that services the existing structure (dwelling) only. The Commission continued the discussion as to
whether an applicant can upgrade and increase the service of the system under an emergency project. Mr.
Maxwell discussed the possibility of increasing the capacity of a new system installed under an emergency. Mr.
Healey discussed the factor of an emergency being a public health threat. He stated that an applicant has the right
to apply for the proper permit under the By -law to expand a system, but not as an Emergency project. Mr.
Marcheselli said that an applicant should be able install a larger system during an emergency situation if they are
already disturbing the site and buffer zone area. He believes it is practical for the applicant to have the right to
prepare for expansion of a septic system at the time of an emergency. Mr. Healey disagreed. He stated there is a
process for an emergency situation to replace the system in kind if the applicant needs relief from the By -law to
remediate a failed system immediately. If the applicant, at that time, decides that it would be wiser to design and
install a larger system for future expansion, then the project no longer qualifies as an emergency project and
would be subjected to the By -law. Ms. Merrill agreed. Mr. Mulkern questioned the amount of increase in size of
tanks and leaching fields with septic system expansion. Mr. Marclreselli discussed the footprint of new alternative
treatment systems may be the same size as existing system, however it may service more rooms in a dwelling. He
asked whether an applicant would be able to install a system like that considering it is the same footprint as the
existing failed system. Ms. Merrill stated that if an applicant wants to upgrade their system under an emergency
project, it would have to retain the same footprint as the existing failed system. The Commission continued the
discussion on this matter. Mr. Maxwell described an expanded system that would service more bedrooms and that
would occupy the same footprint. He questioned whether the proposed revisions to the regulations would allow
for that considering it would be "rebuilt larger than is necessary to adequately service the needs of the existing
structure" which is not allow under the emergency exemption. Ms. Merrill stated that she believes the regulations
mean that the footprint may not be rebuild larger, however the capacity may increase. She stated that an
emergency project does not exempt an application from Conservation Commission review; it just exempts them
Ms. Merrill asked the Commission if they would prefer to continue the discussion on the regulations at a special
meeting that would be held separate from a regularly schedule public hearing. The Commission could hold an
extra public meeting and discuss the regulation solely. Town Counsel could be present at the special meeting to
review their concerns. Mr. Marcheselli stated he would like to work on other regulation changes regarding the
clarification of new development versus re- development. Mr. Healey stated that he wanted to pursue more
clarifications to the regulations to help residents plan their projects.
Mr. Marcheselli shared a concern for previous discussions of the regulation revision that had taken place by a sub-
committee of the Conservation Commission regarding the review of the regulations. He believed that the public
should be able to sit in on these types of meetings with Town Counsel. Ms. Merrill clarify, that the previous meeting
of a sub - committee was not valid since the sub - committee was not created through the proper procedure. Mr.
Marcheselli stated that he would like to hear what Town Counsel has to say regarding their questions about the
regulation revision. Mr. Mulkern suggested that they forward their comments and questions to Counsel directly.
Ms. Merrill stated that there was not to be any discussion or deliberation via e-mail between Commissioners, this
would violate the Open Meeting Law. The Commission agreed. Mr. Marcheselli said he would like more time to
review the revision to the regulation further. Mr. Mulkern stressed that it is important to get comments to Counsel
prior to the next meeting. Ms. Merrill suggested that the Commission hold a special meeting to review just the
regulation revisions. Mr. Mulkern agreed.
Ms. Matthew returned to the regulation revisions and commented the burden of proof (on page 8 of 17) is on the
applicant to prove that a certified Vernal Pool is not significant. She believes that the word "vernal pool' should be
omitted considering vernal pools are certified by the State and there should not be a separate, additional process
were an Applicant can try to disprove their certification. If a Vernal Pool has been certified then the field
observations have been made and documented. An Applicant cannot challenge certified proof of vernal pool
..v...r1- -..v........ +..+tl... ..: t.. AA- RA- .....:11...........1
wetland scientist certification program. A professional wetland scientist or PWS is an accredited certification
issued by a private society. Mr. Healey sited a description of a professional scientist in 310 CMR 10.06(1)(b) that
should be referenced in the regulations.
Mr. Healey (page 16 of 17) noted a grammatical error within the text. Ms. Merrill agreed and will have Town
Counsel fix it. He also noted that (page 17 of 17) "All computations, calculations, maps and/or plans shall be
signed and stamped by a registered, professional engineer or land surveyor. "All plans shall also be stamped by a
professional land surveyor to attest to the accuracy of the existing site conditions and property lines' should be
edited to clarify that certain calculations and computations should only be stamped by a registered professional
engineer, not a land surveyor. A land surveyor can verified lot line and topography, yet an engineer should be
stamping proposed grading and storm water calculations. Ms. Merrill stated that the regulations should be
clarified to allow for certain plans that do not require engineering calculations that are associated with a Request
for Determination of Applicability (RDA), be allowed to be submitted without an engineer stamp. Mr. Healey
agreed and stated that the description of a plan required with a RDA should be clarified and separated out from
the plan requirement s for a Notice of Intent (NO1).
Ms. Merrill asked the Commission if they would like to hold a special public meeting to review the revisions to the
regulations. She encouraged the Commission to submit their comments to her as soon as possible. She told the
Commission she would propose some dates and see when they could meet.
Minutes of October 21, 2013: Mr. Marcheselli made a motion to approve the minutes of October 21, 2013 as
written. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 -0 -2; Mr. Mulkern and Mr. Smith abstained.
12. Adjournment: