Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of conservation com 04/28/2003 r Conservation Commission Meeting April 28, 2003 '.,.. (J'~ Present: Paul Boyden, Chair; Christine Flass, Diane Ready, Jack Smith, Carol<(_:,~ Matthew Bob Bean rq ;--, , __J '_.. Richard Lewis, Conservation and Environmental Planner -i VI 11. Meeting caned to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Public Hearing - Request for Determination of Applicability - County Street Bridge over the Rumford River - John SuUivan, Town Engineer The chair read the public hearing notice for the repair of the stone abutments and steel supports of the bridge, with work taking place adjacent to the river and the associated wetland resource areas. Mr. Sullivan explained the bridge is a composite concrete steel bridge, which is different than most, and is in need of repair. The steel is rusting away and the stone facing must be replaced. The depth between the bottom of the bridge and the channel is only a few feet, which will make the repair process difficult. r Mr. Sullivan said the work would involve cleaning and painting the steel. To minimize the dust, the cleaning will be done by hand rather than sandblasting. The area will be enclosed during the work, and a trap will be used so none of the debris falls into the river. He said there might be lead paint on the bridge. The other work will involve repairing some of the stone in the abutments. Mr. Sullivan said he hopes to do this work in August so there will be a minimal amount of water in the river. He said he planned to create a sandbag coffer darn to hold the water back, then pump the water from that area, run it through a filter and let it drain back into the river. That will be specified in the contract bid documents. He said the work would take a few months. Finally, there is a small area on the side of the bridge where the concrete will have to be repaired. Mr. Bean asked if the steel is structurally sound; Mr. Sullivan said it is. Mr. Boyden asked about the paint; Mr. Sullivan said they are recommending an epoxy type mastic paint, to be applied in two layers. This is a typical paint used on structural steel. Mr. Sullivan said he was requesting a negative determina~ion of applicability since the work is in the buffer zone but the area will not be altered. Public Comment There was no public comment. r ""',) c,) en ~ .-=~ en ;--.;) :-] T'! r Board Comment Mr. Boyden asked if the bridge would have to be closed; Mr. Sullivan said the bridge is sound so closure would not be necessary, although there might be times when the road is narrowed to one lane. Mr. Lewis said a negative determination would be consistent with the commission's decision on other bridges. He suggested some conditions, such as the coffer dam, the discharge of the water, and notification prior to the start of work. Mr. Sullivan suggested he could submit a dewatering plan and said he would add it to the specs. He said there is a I6-foot sewer easement, which would be a good location for a sedimentation basin. Motion: To issue a Negative Three Determination with the work to be done per the plan and with above conditions (Bean-Smith) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Bean-Smith) All in favor. PASSES 3. Public Hearing continued - Notice of Intent - Bay Brook Village LLC - 134 and 140 Branch Street - DEP File #211-679 The chair read the public hearing notice for the construction of a 24-lot residential subdivision with roadway, drainage and utilities, and seven homes with grading and associated work within 100 feet of a wetland resource area. r David Oberlander, BDO Engineering, explained the revisions to the plan regarding final grading, signage around the buffer area and a note to protect the trees. He has added a "Conservation Restriction" on Lots 7,9 and 11 to prohibit tree removal, as well as signs along the 50-foot buffer area to read "Protected Area, No Dumping." Ms. Matthew said the restriction was intended to prevent the yards from encroaching into the wetland. Ms. Flass said she like the revised plan better than the original one. Public Comment There was no public comment. Board Comment Ms. Flass asked where the hay bales will be; Mr. Oberlander said they will be about 75 feet from the wetland at the closest point, which will be the limit of work for Lots 7,9 and 11. Mr. Lewis said copies of the stormwater drainage report were sent to the Engineering Department; that department's comments have been satisfied. Mr. Oberlander said he would include the engineers' comments on the plans. Mr. Lewis has prepared a draft order of conditions. r Motion: To close the public hearing (Bean-Smith) All in favor. PASSES [Ms. Ready arrived at this time.] r Motion: To reopen the public hearing (Smith-Matthew) All in favor. PASSES Ms. Ready asked about the revisions to the swale; Mr. Oberlander explained it had been pivoted and the grading has been shown. The swale is large enough to contain the volume necessary, and was made a little larger to allow vehicle access. The work is all outside the 25-foot buffer zone. Motion: To close the public hearing (Ready-Flass) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Lewis said he would add a condition specifying the language for the signs would be worked out with his office. He said the order would reference the revised plan, which shows the placement of the signs on the 50-foot buffer. Mr. Lewis said this is the first 40B project the commission has seen; finding #3 says the plan has been filed with ZBA but the hearing has not yet started, so complete plans are not available. The plans as submitted today satisfy the commission's requirements, but if any changes are made during the ZBA process, they will have to return for a modification. Motion: To accept the proposed order of conditions for SE 211-679 with the above conditions (Flass-Smith) All in favor. PASSES r 4. Public Hearing - Notice of Intent - Cedar Heights LLC - Francis Avenue, Assessor's Map 30, Parcel 77 The chair noted that this is a continuation of the public hearing notice for the construction of a residential apartment complex, with proposed filling of a portion of an isolated wetland area, with compensation provided, with grading and other activity proposed within 100 feet of a wetland resource area. Ed Peschi, Cubellis-Saivetz Associates, presented the board with a handout explaining the original and revised designs, along with a sketch plan following Mr. Ball's field visit with Mr. Lewis. Mr. Peschi said the revised plan shows building 3 shifted and mostly out of the wetland area, leaving about 3,000 square feet of alteration. The revised plan shows the building about 15 feet away from the wetland line in order to provide a reasonable construction setback. The revised wetland plan shows a different replication area than originally planned; there are a number oflarge maples and new wetland flags, which Mr. Ball worked out on Friday. Mr. Peschi said the final concept sheet of the revised plans came as a result of Mr. Lewis' and Mr. Ball's discussion about flipping the footprint of building 3. He explained that while that would move the encroachment, there would still have to be alteration to provide an access drive to the garages, which would be remotely located. He said that was not a favorable alternative because of possible safety issues. r r- Mr. Boyden asked about a curb cut on Francis Avenue; Mr. Peschi said that would be possible, but said he didn't know if the applicants would want to incur that expense. He said there is a buffer there now that they wouldn't want to lose. Mr. Turner said if the building were flipped, the access would face away from every other building and would not be well lit. Mr. Peschi said there are units above the garages, so eliminating the garages would result in six fewer units and the whole layout of the building would change. r Ms. Matthew said Mr. Ball had told the board that the area he originally located the replication area was perfect, but now that has changed. Mr. Ball explained the whole area north of the channel would have compatible soils. Following a visit to the site with Mr. Lewis, he identified resource area boundaries. He said when the wetland boundaries were originally delineated, he wasn't considering replication because he didn't know what the project would be. After the recent site walk, he decided it would be better to locate the replication in an area that wouldn't alter the area around the culvert, which could alter the surface hydrology. By locating the replication in the new area, there will be a better connection between wetland A and B, so the replication area will have better hydrology. He said the soils in this area and in the original replication area are almost the same. The revised replication area has a lot of younger vegetation, and he flagged the area in a way to save larger trees. Mr. Ball said water is the determining factor for the location of the replication area, rather than the soils, which are upland soils. Mr. Peschi said there is a soils map in the Notice of Intent. Mr. Ball said the replacement area would be graded to a foot below the ultimately elevation, which would be the stream bed elevation. Mr. Ball said he went into the proposed wetland alteration area and flagged 30 mature high bush blueberries for replanting. He and Mr. Lewis spent some time in the wetland to be sure it doesn't serve as a vernal pool habitat. Ms. Flass asked whether wetland A or B was a better wetland wildlife habitat; Mr. Ball said he thought wetland B was a better habitat. Ms. Flass asked where the nutrient loading was coming from in wetland A; Mr. Ball said he didn't know, but said algae can be found in other types of wetlands. Ms. Ready asked about the recycle center shown on the plan; Mr. Peschi said that had originally ,been placed in the easement, but the town engineer wanted it relocated. He said it was moved to the side, so it is accessible but not in the middle of the public area. Ms. Ready said she was uncomfortable with its location so close to the wetland area. Mr. Peschi said he would look into that. Mr. Ball said this sketch plan is not complete, and said until he knows the commission is comfortable with the amount and location of replication, he will not design a complete plan. r r Mr. Lewis said Mr. Ball's summary of their site walk was accurate. Regarding the relocation of the replication area, he said the success of the replication area will depend on the quality of work. He said he thought building 3 could be flipped and redesigned so. the road doesn't have to come around the back to access the garages. He said the commission's goal is to keep the structures out of the wetland as much as possible, and he thought that could be done for this project. He said flipping could impact the ditch, which was manmade and would be easier to replicate. Mr. Lewis said the ZBA public hearing will open tomorrow. Mr. Boyden said the applicants would be required to provide adequate lighting. Mr. Bean suggested looking at redesigning the building. Mr. Turner said he didn't think he could redesign the building and still comply with the building code, but said he would look at it. Mr. Peschi said there would be different construction costs with a redesigned building. Mr. Turner said they have looked at a variety of configurations, and the plan as presented results in the most community-style development. He said they are trying to do a quality project that will work both for them and the town. Ms. Flass said she isn't comfortable with construction and replication so close to the wetlands. r Mr. Boyden asked about the area that is 15.5 feet from the wetland and asked ifthe building could be moved back 10 feet, closer to wetland B. Mr. Lewis said the plan doesn't show the grading that would be necessary around that building; Mr. Boyden said there could be a trade-off. Mr. Peschi said if the building line were right up against the setback line, the building would be in the easement. Mr. Peschi said he had thought with the right replication, they would be able to meet the town's regulations. He said they filed for this size project because that was the number that will make the project economically feasible. Mr. Bean suggested the other two buildings could be made larger; Mr. Turner said that would run into building code issues. He suggested adding a condition to the order of conditions warranting the wetland replication area. Mr. Turner said they would be willing to do a 1 ~- or 2- to 1 replication, or to connect the wetlands. Mr. Peschi said the town engineer had asked if they would consider running the utilities up Connors Ave, which they looked at and are evaluating a small trench corridor with gas, water, cable, electric and sewer within the easement. He said the sewer would be gravity, with no lift station necessary. Ms. Flass asked about the parking requirements; Mr. Turner said they have eight spaces more than required. Mr. Bean asked if the applicants had considered moving the recreation building to the area where building 3 is shown and lengthening the buildings; Mr. Turner said they had considered those items on a plan showing lIS units. r "..- Ms. Matthew asked if the size of building 3 could be reduced; Mr. Turner said it could not, in order to meet their economic feasibility criteria. Ms. Ready said she was uncomfortable with filling if there is any way to avoid it. Mr. Ball said ideally, filling would be avoided, but for economic reasons, it probably cannot be avoided. Therefore, the filling should be minimized, which this plan shows, along with mitigation allowed under the state act. Mr. Ball said his company is typically on the other side of this process, and he always tries to be objective. He said he felt he could work with this project when it was submitted, and that this plan meets the performance standards under the state act. Mr. Turner said they tried to address the commission's concerns from the last meeting with the revised plan. He said the original plan showed 37 feet off wetland B and 24 feet off wetland A, which was in keeping with the spirit of the town's regulations. Ms. Ready asked if the wetland would function better if it were larger; Mr. Ball said when he flagged the area, he did his best not to disturb large trees. He said he thought a 1-1 replication was adequate in this area. The reduced alteration area is 2,933 square feet, and the replication area would be at least that large. He said he wouldn't want a strong connection to the culvert because it may drain the wetland area. Mr. Boyden asked if moving the building would make the replication easier; Mr. Ball said it would not make any difference in a project of this size. "..- Mr. Turner said the recycling center would be relocated so it would not abut the wetland. Mr. Peschi read Mr. Sullivan's comments regarding the utilities being brought to the site through the easement. He said he understood sewer and water lines must have a lO-foot separation and they will look into the feasibility of this. Mr. Bean asked if 40B allows for more leniency. Mr. Boyden said it does. Mr. Bean asked whether the town's wetland by-laws are relaxed in the case of 40B applications. Mr. Lewis said they can be relaxed, but he said he didn't think the commission can approve this right now because it doesn't adhere to the local wetland by-law. Absent a decision by the ZBA to waive certain portions of the local wetland by-law, the commission cannot rule. He suggested a long-term continuation until the ZBA has ruled on the waiver requests. "..- Mr. Peschi said the commission has the right to waive its own by-law. Mr. Lewis said that is not the case. Mr. Peschi said the ZBA will want the commission's opinion on this plan, and said he would like to represent to the ZBA that they are in general agreement with some remaining layout issues. He suggested closing the hearing and voting at some point in the future. Mr. Boyden suggested a joint meeting with the ZBA. Mr. Lewis explained that could still happen during the public hearing process, as well as a memo from the commission. He said the ZBA would have someone look r at the pro-forma application to be sure it says reconfiguration of building 3 would not be economically feasible. He recommended the commission send the ZBA a memo saying there should be no wetland filling at all, and asking them to work toward that. Mr. Peschi said he would like some credit for the work they had done after the last meeting. Mr. Lewis said he believed progress has been made and this plan is better than the original one. Mr. Turner said in the last 40B project he did, the Conservation Commission made its decision prior to the ZBA public hearing. Mr. Boyden asked the commissioners their main concerns, other than the by-law issues. Mr. Bean said he was concerned about the filling. Ms. Flass agreed, and was also concerned about the buffer. Ms. Matthew, Mr. Smith and Mr. Boyden all said they agreed with Mr. Lewis. Mr. Bean said he commended the applicants for their efforts in revising the plan. Mr. Lewis said he would write a memo to the ZBA. Mr. Peschi said he thought the commission was within its right to condition its approval contingent on the ZBA's approval. Mr. Boyden said he would like to have town counsel review that issue. Mr. Peschi said he would field locate the wetland flags so they have something more definitive to discuss at the next meeting. Mr. Ball said he was hoping to come away from this meeting knowing if he should begin work on a plan. The commission recommended he wait on plan design. r Mr. Pcschi asked how he should characterize their discussions to the ZBA; Ms. Matthew asked that he not characterize them at al~ and that they would send the ZBA a memo. Mr. Turner said he thought the board could act prior to the ZBA decision, and he would like to know where he is going. Ms. Flass said she liked the idea of a joint meeting with ZBA. Mr. Lewis said the best way to get the message across would be with a memo, which will say it is the opinion of the commission that this plan doesn't meet the requirements of the local by-law and urging the ZBA to work with the applicant to revise the plan to eliminate, if possible, the wetland alteration. The original plan had 5,000 feet and this is an improvement. Mr. Boyden said the question for town counsel is whether 40B can supercede the local by-law. Mr. Lewis said the state wetland by-law cannot be superceded, but that 40B can supercede the local bylaw after die ZBA decision. Motion: To continue the public hearing to May 12, 2003, last item on the agenda. (Ready-Smith) All in favor. PASSES r .. . 5. Public Hearing - Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation - John Walsh, Jr. - School Street/Route 140 and 495 - SE 211-681 The chair read the public hearing notice for the review and determination of wetland boundaries as shown on the submitted site plans. Mr. Lewis explained he has received a letter from Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering, requesting a continuance to May 12,2003. Mr. Lewis explained he had walked this site twice. There were a few areas where the flags were down, which were put back. Some flagging was changed, and the main issue was a couple of areas that will need additional survey work and flagging. Motion: To continue to May 12, 2003 at 8:05 p.m. (Bean-Smith) All in favor. PASSES r I 7. Correspondence 1. Request for Certificate of Compliance - SE 211-409 and 480, Lot 10 Tara Estates (11 Sadie's Way). Two certificates were issued in 1995 but never recorded. Motion: To reissue the certificate (Flass-Smith) All in favor. PASSES 2. Mr. Lewis said Mr. Clemmey had called the office last Friday regarding equipment accessing the bike path off Cobb Street. Mr. Lewis did an inspection and spoke with P A Landers, who said they would not use that access. There is also some material being stored on Mr. Clemmey's land, which will be removed. Mr. Clemmey asked the commission to send P A Landers a letter asking them not to drive heavy equipment over the culvert. Mr. Lewis said he would send a report to the Town Manager and the Selectmen. r Mr. Clemmey asked about the Plymouth Street Notice of Intent; Mr. Lewis said it has not been submitted yet. · Mr. Clemmey asked if the commission would give him a date to come back on South Walnut Street. Mr. Lewis said town counsel had requested he send a memo detailing the back-up data the commission wants to see. He said he was preparing that list for Mr. Mangiaratti. Minutes of April 14, March 3, February 10, January 27, and January 13. Ms. Flass asked that the first paragraph of the January 13 minutes be amended to note that Mr. D' Agostino stressed the land would be used for passive open space. Motion: To approve the minutes of January 13 as amended, January 27, February 10, March 3, April 14 (Smith-Flass) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Clemmey asked the commission to draft the deed for the land donation on West Street. r at 10:15 p.m. (Bean-Smith) All in favor. PASSES eeti : May 12, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. }; !< ~ /0. t)3 lr U/11H 1JIt}/rJ,.JMi'JVl5 Date d'f Approval