Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of conservation com 01/27/2003 ':' !"'\ , i:. II~'I'" ii' j' ,.,- Conservation Commission Meeting January 27, 2003 r''',,-, ,;1'1 ,,1 I r.l t '" [9 i.,)~) \,j '. - r),:!i ,):+', P~esent: Pau~ Boyden, Ch~ir; Carole ~atthew, Bob Bean, Diane Read~l t\ : Richard LeWIS, ConservatIOn and EnVIronmental Planner . ,- SETTS 11. Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Public Hearing Notice of Intent - 258 Branch Street - James Carabitses - DEP File #SE 211-678 The chair read the public hearing notice for the construction of an addition to an existing house, with grading and existing work within 100 feet of a wetland resource area. Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, explained the plan for an existing house and a proposed addition. The 25-foot no touch zone and existing tree line have been shown. The addition will be outside the no-touch zone, with a minimum amount of grading. Existing elevation is at 138, and top of existing foundation is at 139.5, so it will not be built up. The area is already grassed. A siltation fence from the rear to the front of the building is proposed, and there will be minimal disturbance. Mr. Lewis will inspect the location of the silt fence. ,.,- Board Comment Ms. Ready said the plan seems to conform to the regulations. Motion: To close the public hearing (Ready-Bean) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To approve the Order of Conditions for SE 211-678 (Ready-Matthew) All in favor. PASSES I 3. Discussion with Town Counsel Town Counsel Bob Mangiaratti told the commission he was here to discuss pending litigation and told the members they could go into executive session, but were not required to do so. Motion: To go into executive session (Matthew-Ready) All in favor. PASSES ,.,- 4. Public Hearing Notice of Intent - 50 Cabot Boulevard/200 Hampshire Boulevard - Mansfield Forbes LLC (DEP File #SE 211-677) The chair read the public hearing notice for the construction of an office building and parking with grading and associated work within 100 feet of a wetland resource area. [Because of excessive noise in the hallway, Mr. Boyden asked that the meeting room door be partially closed; it was held open slightly by a doorstop.] r' Bill Buckley, Bay Colony Group, explained the plan for a 150,000 square foot office facility on a 10.2-acre parcel, which is part of the former Motorola campus. There is a delineated wetland of about 22,000 square feet, along with some land under water, about 15,000 square feet. The site is relatively flat in this area and slopes toward the wetland. There is some flow toward the existing parking lot. Soil testing has been done and the soils have been found to be consistent with sandy gravel and relatively deep ground water where there is more silty material. The building is located on the eastern portion of the site. There will be a new access point from Cabot Boulevard; there are currently access drives on Hampshire and Cabot. The parking wraps around the site and will serve both 50 Cabot and 100 Hampshire. There is a recreation area around the existing pond area, which will be maintained for use by both facilities. ,.,- The stormwater management system will be through underground detention and leaching basins, one of which will also act as an infiltrator. Stormwater will be captured beneath the parking lot and will be treated in a multi-stage system, which will go to the existing drainage system. The roof drains and parking lot drains will go to a system east of the building, will be treated and detained and let out through an outfall into the existing drain. The Engineering Department has commented on this plan and asked the system be raised about six inches, which will be done. There is no outflow or outfall into the resource areas or pond area; all stormwater will be captured and treated through the system already described. For erosion control during construction, there will be a fence around the site, which will act as a limit of work for the contractor. One of the Planning Board's suggestions was the issue of snow being dumped into the pond area; they are proposing the construction of a guardrail around the edge of the parking lot. There is currently a trail system around the pond; they would like to construct an additional stone dust trail starting in the parking lot and going through the grass area. There are no sidewalks on Cabot or Hampshire, although the town has easements for sidewalk construction; however, the easement is within the wetland area. The proposed construction would alter about 393 square feet, which is currently a walkway area and is allowed under the local by-law. The pathway will be lit. ,.,- There is a landscaping plan shown, although most of the landscaping will not take place within the buffer zone. ~ There is currently a pump building on site, which powers the irrigation system for a portion of the industrial park; water is drawn from the pond to various sites in the park. The building and pumps will be moved approximately 40 feet. Board Comment Ms. Matthew asked if the parking meets the minimum requirements; Mr. Buckley said they have 75 spaces more than are required. Mr. Boyden asked about the runoff Mr. Buckley said everything currently heads toward the Ames site; he said there have been problems downstream in the park, and the Engineering Department had been concerned about peak flow. Mr. Buckley said there would be no additional peak flow runoff; the same amount or more will be recharged under this proposal. The stormwater system has infiltrators acting as underground detention basins to hold the water on site and let it out slowly. Ms. Matthew asked how equipment would get to the site. Mr. Buckley said a wall would be built to be sure the grading doesn't go into the 25-foot no disturb zone. Ms. Matthew said that sort of work is reviewed on a case-by-case basis and was concerned about the proximity to the wetland area. ,.,- Mr. Buckley said they would be removing approximately five trees over eight inches in diameter to build the path. Mr. Boyden asked if there would be trees planted between the parking lots; Mr. Buckley presented the landscaping plan, which shows crabapples and other ornamental trees. Ms. Matthew asked why the existing path wouldn't be used; Mr. Buckley said he was trying to stay out of the 25-foot setback. Ms. Matthew said she was concerned about encroachment. Mr. Buckley said that could be done with a different access to hook the existing path into the new path, and would result in minimal impact. Ms. Matthew said she was concerned about the proximity of the side parking lot to the wetland area and asked where spaces might be able to come out. Mr. Buckley said spaces farthest from the building would be the ones to come out if necessary. Mr. Bean asked if the building could be moved 10 feet so it would be outside the 25- foot buffer zone. Mr. Buckley said that was possible and would result in the loss of a few spaces. Steve Brooks, Mansfield Forbes LLC, said the loss of a few spaces wouldn't be a big deal, but office users want extra parking spaces in areas without public transportation, and is concerned that without four spaces per 1000, they could lose tenants. Mr. Buckley said a few spaces on the northeast and west sides could be removed to bring the building 10 feet to the northeast away from the buffer zone. r f"" Mr. Boyden asked about live parking; Mr. Buckley said there is a turnaround for pick up and drop off, but there are no spaces for live parking. There is a truck entrance at the loading dock area. Mr. Buckley said with the new location of the walkway, there would be an approximate eight-foot encroachment into the buffer zone of the pond. This area is already disturbed. Mr. Buckley said he would be going to the Planning Board next week and asked that the hearing not be closed until after that date. Motion: To continue the public hearing until February 10,2003 at 7:45 p.m. (Matthew-Ready) All in favor. PASSES 5. Public Hearing - Request for Determination of Applicability - 305 Forbes Boulevard (Ames) - National Development The chair read the public hearing notice for the determination of whether certain areas of the property are subject to the jurisdiction of the state wetlands act or the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-Law. Sherry Clancy, National Development, explained their plan to improve the truck loading area at the Ames building, which they have under contract. r Mr. Lewis explained Ames came before the commission in 1999 to modify the truck loading area and filed a Request for Determination, which was issued. The Determination indicated that the drainage ditch in question is not an area subject to protection under the act and stated the channel provided many of the benefits of a bvw, and siltation control would be installed. Ms. Clancy said the building is only serviced for loading purposes on one side of the building, but they would like to have docks on both sides in case the building is divided. There is a lot of the site that is undeveloped; all the roof drainage and some of the parking lot drainage goes into this ditch, which can back up and flood the parking area. They would like to relocate the ditch to allow another truck loading area adjacent to the building. The ditch would be reconstructed and a new detention area would be constructed, which Ms. Clancy said would improve the drainage situation. The existing ditch would be paved. Ms. Clancy said the detention basin would be sized for a larger storm than is currently provided for; the system currently surcharges very rapidly and goes into a brook off the site, which is outside the 200-foot buffer. Ms. Clancy said at some point, a building will be constructed on their land behind this site, which is not shown on this plan and which does not contain wetlands. r Ms. Ready asked if this work would keep the drainage ditch from affecting the brook; Ms. Clancy said it would prevent the backing up. Ms. Lewis said Ames has had to come to the commission several times for permission to clean out the drainage ditch. He said the ditch does not meet any current DEP standards. ~ r- Ms. Clancy said they would be happy to return to the commission as a courtesy when the design is finalized. Mr. Lewis said the ditch hasn't changed, and the determination issued just over three years ago was that this isn't ajurisdictional area. He said this ditch was typical of the original installation of systems in the industrial park, and improving the drainage situation would be a good thing. Mr. Boyden asked about runoff, specifically from the trucks. Ms. Clancy said they would have to go through site plan approval with the Planning Board and would have to design the system with the Town Engineer. Mr. Boyden said the commission should see the final plan. Ms. Clancy said she would be happy to do that, but she wanted to get the commission's support before she makes the investment. She said it was possible they would have to return to the commission anyway, depending on how close the outfall of the new basin ends up being to the wetland. Motion: To issue a Negative Determination and to allow the applicant to proceed with the relocation of the drainage ditch, and to ask the applicant to come back with a final plan for the drainage system showing the containment of any runoff (Bean-Matthew) All in favor. PASSES I 6. New Business 1. Comprehensive Permit Application - Route 140/106 ,.,- Mr. Boyden did not participate in this discussion. Mr. Lewis showed the commission a plan for the Chapter 40B Comprehensive Plan on Route 140/106, which will need an Order of Conditions. The applicant came to the commission about six months ago for a Request for Determination; the wetlands have been flagged. There will be two crossings. There is an intermittent stream near Route 106. There is a large fill area near Copeland Drive that the wetland consultant said may have been a staging area when Route 140 was constructed. The applicant would like to discuss the wetland near the building closest to Route 140/Chauncy Street, where there are 14 feet from one corner of the building and 19 feet from another comer of the building to the wetland area. The applicant had talked about trying to move the building somewhat at the last ZBA meeting, but when Mr. Lewis talked to them today, it wouldn't be changing much. One of the concerns raised at the ZBA meeting is that there is only 18 feet between parking aisles, which is not enough space to back out; 24-26 feet is preferable. There is a three-foot sidewalk shown; according to ADA there is a four-foot sidewalk required. By doing those changes, the building got closer to the wetland. Mr. Bean asked if the building had to have 24 units; Mr. Lewis said that is one of the issues under discussion at the ZBA. The ZBA can approve, approve with conditions, or deny the plan; if it were denied and appealed to Housing Court, the applicant could win because Mansfield is below its affordable housing requirement. Mr. Lewis said the applicant wants to know if the commission is comfortable with the building being 14 feet and 19 feet from the building. Mr. Bean said he is not and .~ wants the building to be 25 feet from the wetland area. Mr. Lewis said the applicant r r ,.,- , . would likely request a waiver from the 25 feet; the applicant is only bound to follow the state regulations, but can request waivers from the local by-laws. The ZBA has the ability to grant or deny any waiver requests. Consensus of the three members taking part in the discussion was to send the ZBA a letter asking that they require the applicant to respect the 25-foot setback; Mr. Lewis will relay this to the ZBA. Ms. Matthew said she had read about a new DEP guidelines, which Mr. Lewis said he hasn't yet received copies of He said the web site indicates commissions would be receiving mailings on these new regulations; he will call the Lakeville office. /7. Adjournment Motion: To adjourn at 9:45 p.m. (Bean-Matthew) All in favor. PASSES Date of Next Meeting: February 10, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. ~ ~....,..... J. L ~ \It \ ~-' Signature of Chair \) ~(!.-V " ~ \,,~,,""' V\.-e- ,(' Lj),-'tJP) Date of Approval