HomeMy WebLinkAboutConservation Minutes 5/30/1989MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES,---z, N0111 ? ig�
MONDAY, MAY 30, 1989 -- PAGE 1 r
Members Present: Chairman Ouellette, Commissioners Cauldwell, O'Neill, Owens,
Smith
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.m.
REQUEST FOR AMENDED ORDER OF CONDITIONS, SE211 -134
Mansfield Manor Estates, Fruit Street
Ralph Maloon and Mr. Pasqualino described the proposal to amend the
detention area for Mansfield Manor Estates; the project Caused the loss of
4800 sq. ft. of wetlands which must be replicated on the site; impervious
surfaces must be compensated for as well. The proposal calls for lowering an
area adjacent to the brook by one foot (lots 91 10, 11, and 12). Calculations
have been performed for the 10, 25, and 100 year storms. Original calculations
were via the rational method; new calculations were based on SCS. The items
requested in the last letter from the Commission have been addressed, with the
exception of the planting schedule. Groundwater is reportedly at the same level
as the Rack Ray Brook. [James Owens arrived at this point.] Excavation
proposed: 99,600 cubic feet for storage for the 100 -year storm. Approximately
3600 yards of earth being taken out. Original compensation called for 7500 sq.
feet. New proposal constitutes approximately 30,000 square feet of compensation
area.
If nothing were done: A large wetland (50 -60 acres) adjacent to Fruit St.
new water created from pavements, driveways, etc. from subdivision would raise
the level of water about 1t2 inch. Dick Lewis: None of the water coming from
the outfalls will be captured by this compensation area. Ralph: Detention
areas were attempted, but the peak flow from the subdivision gets to the brook
in 25 minutes, as opposed to the peat: flow of the brook (one and a half hours).
Some of the lots potentially impacted have already been sold, and Mr. Pasqualino
maintains that agreements are in place for the others.
Dicta Lewis, on behalf of abutters: What will the back yards loot: like?
Construction sequence has been submitted, as have cross - sections; Dick is
thinking more about where machinery is going in and out, etc. Red maple and
blueberries will be planted, because they are currently all over the area.
Comm. O'Neill: Will the buildable land on the lots in question be less?
Chairman Ouellette: Appropriate town authorities can take action with regard to
this issue. Dick requested stakes /flags on the lots so the landowners will be
able to tell what will be happening where.
Comm. Owens asked what arrangements had been made with new property owners
(lots 9, 10, 11, 12). Comm. O'Neill would like something in writing from those
owners. No homes on 9 and 10; homes on 11 and 12. He would also litre to see
the new figures on the amount of buildable land. In response to a question from
Comm. Cauldwell, Ralph maintained that the new area would provide same amount of
water going into the ground. Will it raise or lower the water table? Ralph
doesn't see it doing either. Compensation for flood storage and wetland
combined.
t•1ANSFIELD CONSERVATIONd a1Mt•1ISSION h1INUTES
MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MAY 39, 1989 -- PAGE 2
Tony DeLutis, 200 Fruit St. Does this mean his cellar isn't needed for
flood storage? He was told that his situation will probably not be affected.
Brian Copley, owner of lot 12. If swamp area is raised by 1/2 inch, what
effect does that have? Is it enough to justify affecting his back yard? How
much will back up and spread out, and how much will go downstream in the
reservoir. One -half inch seems insignificant; is it really necessary? Chairman
Ouellette indicated that the Wetlands Protection Act requires that the flows be
balanced. (Comm. Rhoads arrived.] The developer has a responsibility not to
increase the flows off the site. Mr. Copley wants to know why his lot is being
taken for compensation. He was shown the area which was originally supposed to
have been dug out, and the new proposed compensation as well. He did not know
about the proposed plans when he purchased the property. Chairman Ouellette
explained that about 20 feet slopes down into the shelf, which is going to be
widened by 40 feet. The shelf is designed to be 3 -6 inches above groundwater,
which would sustain certain species. Conservation Comm. jurisdiction will be
extended further into his back yard, because of the extension of the 40 feet.
19 Danielle Lane (lot 1), Dave Longendorffer ( ?). Test holes were dug in
early May 1989. He expressed concerns about future development; it was
explained that each project must be considered by itself; this compensation is
only for Mansfield Manor Estates.
Florence Poholek, lot 13. What's the difference between wetland and
detention area? On the original order of conditions, a dotted line shows "edge
of wetlands " - -her deed etc. shows no detention area. Would he be required to
take out the trees, strip the area, etc. even though she has not been made aware
of that fact before she bought the house? A number of the comm. are concerned
about the land rights issue. This commission, according to Mr. Rhoads, would be
looking for the applicant for proof regarding the right to compensate in the way
being proposed.
Robert Hirsch, lot S. Does the act require minimization of the increase,
or no increase? Comm. Rhoads explained that there must be a balancing of rate
Of flow (cfs), balancing of volume. The rate cannot increase. Also, this is
not an exact science. This applicant has determined volume of storage, and
provided that storage. If the volume is available, the rate cannot increase.
Mr. Hirsch asked whether it makes more sense to put this project downstream
instead of lots 9 -12? Comm. Rhoads indicated that putting it in the lowest
point makes sense, but it can't be in existing wetlands either. Ralph: Once you
go to the rear lots, the 1000 year storm will already flood that area. The
recreational path will be wiped out, according to Mr. Pasqualino. (Currently
goes down lot 13, and up to South Main and Branch Street.) Comm. Rhoads
suggested asking the town engineer to research whether there are any easements
regarding the path. If it has been in use for 10 years, there are potential
adverse possession issues involved. Will there be a bond to ensure the
completion of the project? The Commission has the authority to require such.
Dave Lamborgini, lot 11: Describe the "table /shelf ". Will it be
wet /mushy? Ralph: it would tend to be mushy; spring - pools on surface.
MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MAY 30, 1984 -- PAGE 3
August - wouldn't get your feet wet walking across it. Rye grass, blueberry,
red maple is vegetation that Ralph proposes. Depending on the condition of the
lot (11) after this project, it may violate the carefully worded agreement the
lot owner had with Pasco Construction, which raises another land rights issue.
Planting schedule: Comm. Rhoads requested. Volume talcs. - pp. 36-37, a
glitch where someone crunched the wrong number. No statement has been made with
regard to wildlife habitat disturbance of existing bank. The applicant stated
he has no problem with weekly inspections by the commission's agent. Is
the Dept. of Waterways going to have an interest in this work? A letter from
them saying whether there is need for a permit should be submitted.
Dick: requested a plan showing the house locations and the 100 -ft. buffer
zone, so people know Crow their yards are affected. Info was mailed to DEQE
today, so they have had no opportunity to comment as yet. Dick will contact
them. Comm. Owens reiterated that the issue of property rights must be
addressed by the applicant. Comm. unanimously agreed that the issues must be
resolved before any decision is made. Comm. O'Neill wants buildable area re-
calculated given the impact of the proposed project. Lot 9 is under purchase
and sale; lot 10 is in deed conveyance.
Mr. Hirsch: Land rights issues are addressed how? Mr. Maloon feels a
Planning Board review will be necessary. He isn't sure a public hearing will be
held, though. Advised to contact Planning and Devt. director. Information must
be provided by the applicant indicating that landowners have agreed to the work.
Mrs. Poholek: Requested some type of 3- dimensional drawing to aid in
visualization. Mr. Naloon will provide cross sections showing what it looks
like and what it will look like.
Will the water table be raised, even for a brief period? Ralph doesn't
think so. Chairman Ouellette asked Ralph to address this question at the next
hearing. Comm. Rhoads asked Ralph to provide basement elevations with regard to
the 100 -year flood, for the homes in question. Christine Copley, lot 1' - -is
there anything in the plan to minimize the stress of the activity vis -a -vis
times of day, etc.?
Mrs. Poholek: who will do the work, if this is passed. That is up to the
applicant, as long as he meets the performance standards. Species type and
density will have to be specified in planting schedule.
The commission 'requested permission from the owners of lots 11, 12, and 13;
and lot 8 to conduct on -site review. Permission was granted to the Conservation
Commission. Permission is requested for lot 10; Pasco will secure permission
for lots 9 and 10. Site will be walked on Sat., June 3 at 8:30 a.m.
NOTION: To continue to site walk and then to 6-19 -89 at 7:45 p.m.
(O'Neill - Rhoads; all in favor) VOTED
MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MAY 30, 1989 -- PAGE 4
WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT HEARING CONTINUATION- -SE211 -305
O'Brien €e Meeks - -55 Lancashire Dr. (Forest Park)
Lot 25 - Westerly corner of driveway looked closer in field than on the
plan. No real problems, according to Dick. Lot 9: Mike T. trying to show
realistic back yards. Comm. Rhoads suggested limited clearing to within 50 feet
of the foundation, to be included in the orders.
NOTION: To close the hearing with the provision mentioned by Comm. Rhoads.
(Owens - O'Neill; all in favor) VOTED
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: SE211 -243.
Nearly everything has been done; side slopes have been loaned and seeded,
although seed hasn't had a chance to take yet. Clean up work around flared end
sections still needs to be done, but this is minor. He has a closing before the
next meeting. Dick says wort, is about 95% complete.
MOTION: To issue a Certificate on SE211 -243, and direct the Agent to hold
the certificate until he is sati=sfied that the work is complete.
(Owens - O'Neill; all in favor) VOTED
ORDER OF CONDITIONS, SE211 -302:
LOT 16, SE211 -302 (Benoit). Construction of forms had begun, although no
Order of Conditions has been issued. Dick advised Mr. Benoit to stop work on
the site. Did; also read his proposed Girders to the Commission. Comm. Rhoads
added an additional order providing additional control over the project.
Include an amended Order of SE211 -264 showing changes in compensation on lot 17.
Project is dependent upon an approved Board of Health plan.
NOTION: To issue the Order for
by the Commission.
(Rhoads - O'Neill; all
MOTION: To issue an amended or,
replication on lot 17.
(O'Neill - Rhoads; all
SE211 -302 as written by Did: and as amended
in favor; Smith, Cauldwell abst.) VOTED
ler for SE211 -264 incorporating the changed
in favor; Smith, Cauldwell abst.) VOTED
LIONS' CLUB -- Chairman Ouellette has spoken to them; a notice has been filed.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m..
Approved by: Md� � Date to town clerk: it-d,0-P<