Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of conservation com 06/09/2003 ~ 1", l ~ r Conservation Commission Meeting June 9, 2003 ,,' Present: Paul Boyden, Chair; Christine Flass, Jack Smith, Carole MattheW Richard Lewis, Conservation and Environmental Planner ".~ \ !'-~ ~) \ 2.: 3h The chair read the public hearing notice for the construction of a garage addition with work within 100 feet of a wetland resource area. Mr. Gannon explained the wetlands had been flagged and he would like to add a 26 x 26 garage on the side of the house. The back of the house drops off to the woods toward the Hatheway Patterson site. There is one area with 3-4 inches of water in the winter and spring. The addition will have a four-foot frost wall and will not be near the wetland area. Mr. Gannon said there is currently lawn where the siltation fence will be placed; there is a swale between his and his neighbor's house. Ms. Matthew asked the age of the house; Mr. Gannon said it is 18 years old. r- Mr. Boyden noted there are no elevations shown on the plan; Mr. Lewis said behind the house is flat for 18-20 feet, then it drops off 5-6 feet to a primary plateau, which stretches out 6-8 feet, then drops off about 2 feet to the wetland area. The area behind the house is all lawn up to the 6-8 foot drop. Mr. Lewis said the silt fence should be installed at the first break, which would provide adequate coverage and protection for the wetland area. Mr. Boyden said he wants all future plans submitted to the commission to show the elevations of the site. Mr. Lewis said he would ask for spot elevations. He said he has visited the site and feels comfortable with the plans as submitted. Mr. Lewis suggested a condition requiring the silt fence be placed at the top of the first break in grade, or a few feet back from that. He said the silt fence should be enough because the yard is very flat. He suggested if the board is comfortable, it could approve the plan as submitted but send the engineer a letter telling him spot elevations are necessary on all plans. Motion: To close the public hearing (Flass-Smith) All in favor. PASSES r-- Motion: To issue a Negative 3 Determination with the condition the silt fence be set back no less than three feet from the top of the first break in grade, and that Mr. Lewis be notified when the fence is installed; and to require the engineer to submit a revised plan showing spot elevations (e.g.: silt fence, wetland line) to Mr. Lewis before work begins (Flass-Smith) All in favor. PASSES 1 T r The chair opened the public hearing notice for the construction of a single-family house with grading, excavation and associated work within 100 feet of a wetland resource area. The chair read a request from the applicant to continue the public hearing Motion: To continue the public hearing to July 14,2003 (Smith-Flass) All in favor. PASSES The chair opened the public hearing notice for the regarding of existing play fields and the construction of a new field layout, with work within 100 feet of a wetland resource area. Patrick McCarty, Rizzo Associates, explained the field renovation project. He said in the spring of 200 1, Mike Ahern requested a plan for the relocation of the stream along the south side of the fields. Mr. Ahem received permission from the commission to relocated 450 feet of the stream. Mr. Ahem requested a new field layout, and the current proposal is to regrade the fields to get rid of the stockpile and to get better drainage on the fields. The plan for this land includes two baseball fields, one softball field, and overlaid on those will be three soccer fields. ( Walter Parker, School Department, explained the bleachers being stored on this site will be distributed to fields around town. He said he would like to begin the work as soon as possible. Board Comment Ms. Matthew asked about the wetland; Mr. McCarty said there is a drainage swale at elevation 138 on the western end, and goes down to 133.5 closer to Ware Street. Mr. McCarty said the proposed grades will meet the existing grades at the hay bale line. Ms. Flass asked what would happen between the field and the hay bales. Mr. McCarty explained the dashed line is the edge of the proposed soccer field, so the grading will spread the loam out and slope to where the existing slope drops off. The grades will meet before the hay bales; they will not go into the swale are. Ms. Flass said she was concerned about how to keep children and balls out of the wetland, since there doesn't seem to be any buffer between the wetland and the field. r-- Mr. McCarty said he tried to maximize the amount of area where he complies with the 25-foot no disturb zone, but he said work to create a park is allowed within the 25 foot zone. He said the stream will be protected during construction, and the hay bales will be left in place until it is stabilized. Mr. Parker said the area would be seeded; Mr. Boyden suggested part of it could be hydroseeded. Mr. Parker said the fields would have to mature at least two years before they can be used. r T r Mr. Lewis said there are existing fields to the top of the slope, so this is a pre-existing condition. Mr. Boyden asked about drainage in the field; Mr. Parker said there would not be any underground drainage. Mr. Smith suggested an organic fertilizer; Mr. Parker said he has been leaning toward using that. Mr. Boyden asked if a silt fence would be needed; Mr. Lewis said the site is so flat, hay bales should be sufficient. He said if a serious rainstorm occurred before stabilization, there would only be about a 1 % pitch. Mr. Parker said he wouldn't be storing materials on site, because the existing loam pile will be used for this project. Mr. McCarty said there are a couple of thousand yards of material in the stockpile. Mr. Flass said part of the swale is steep and she was concerned about erosion. Mr. Smith said once the site is stabilized and maintained, it should be fine. Mr. Parker said that area is already stabilized. Mr. Lewis suggested a condition requiring the use of organic pesticides. Mr. Parker said there is a well on site, and he plans to install an irrigation system. Mr. Lewis said he has received a file number, SE 211-684, with no comments from the state. r Public Comment Mr. McCarty said the same pitch would be kept across the fields. He explained the area with an existing low point will pitch away and take the water away. One of the abutters said she collects trash from the swale, and if it becomes steeper, she won't be able to get in there. Mr. Parker explained the elevation of the swale will not change. Mr. McCarty explained the elevations at Ware Street change about five feet across the field. He said the same relative pitch across the fields will be kept after the work. An abutter asked if the existing berm with trees would be coming down; Mr. Parker said the berm would not be removed. He said he would clean up the berm with filter fabric and mulch, and remove the dead trees. Mr. Boyden suggested using hydroseed; Mr. Smith suggested organic hydroseed. Mr. Parker said if he has the money, he would consider hydro seeding the entire field. Motion: To close the public hearing (Matthew-Flass) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Lewis will draft an order at the next meeting, including a condition about the use of organic fertilizer. r r T r- Certificate of Compliance - 207 Willow Street - Mr. Lewis said the lot is in good shape and recommended a full certificate be issued MotioR: To issue a full certificate of compliance (Smith-Flass) All in favor. PASSES Order of Conditions - Cedar Heights - Francis Avenue 40B Project. Mr. Lewis explained the commission has two options; to deny under the state act and approve under the local bylaw, or to deny under both laws. He explained the project fails to demonstrate compliance with standard 3, infiltration, of the state Storm water Guidelines, and as of the closing of the hearing, testing had not been completed to determine groundwater elevation. The perc tests were done today with Mr. Field. Mr. Lewis said he had originally thought the commission should go with the second option, to deny under both bylaws. He said because this is a 40B project and full engineered plans are not required during the permitting process, compliance isn't demonstrated until late in the project. He also drafted an option to approve under the state bylaw with the following conditions: revised plans, compliance with the storm water policies, the commission reserves right to have additional storm water and drainage information reviewed by the town engineer. r- Ms. Matthew asked if the storm water management plan should have been submitted with the Notice of Intent. Mr. Lewis said it was, but in reviewing that, the town engineer highlighted some deficiencies. Ms. Matthew asked if that had been brought out during the public hearing. Mr. Lewis said it probably hadn't been covered thoroughly. He said the project will have to ultimately comply with the storm water standards. Mr. Boyden said the commission could vote these plans as preliminary plans, and then vote on them a second time as definitive plans. Mr. Lewis said significant information would still have to be submitted, and the commission retains the right to review and to issue a modified order of conditions based on the final plans. Ms. Matthew asked what would happen if the applicant didn't comply. Mr. Lewis said there is a condition requiring a new notice of intent and/or issuing a modified order of conditions. Mr. Lewis said his first approval option recognizes the application doesn't comply as submitted, but it must when it is finalized. Mr. Boyden said the preliminary plan in front of the commission does not meet the bylaw, but it could if the Zoning Board of Appeals requires the project to be smaller. Mr. Lewis said if the plan is denied under the state, the applicant will appeal to DEP, and any subsequent filing will go through DEP. He said if the commission denies it under the state based on lack of conformance with DEP storm water guidelines, DEP probably doesn't have a firm policy and would, when it gets revised plans demonstrating conformance, likely approve the plan. If the plan is approved under the state, Mr. Lewis recommended a condition addressing the lack of compliance with the storm water regulations and the commission should reserve the right to issue a modified r- , T r- order of conditions based on the revised plans. which would be the definitive plans. He said if the plan is denied under the local bylaw, the appeal is to superior court. Ms. Flass suggested adding that no work be allowed within 25 feet of the wetland area. Mr. Lewis said denying it under the state doesn't get the commission much, and would just send it to DEP. With a denial under the local bylaw, the ZBA could either uphold the commission's position and require the building to be kept out of the wetland area. or could agree with the applicant that a waiver from the local bylaw is appropriate. Ms. Flass said the language in option A might help the ZBA make its decision. Mr. Lewis said he was concerned about consistency, after the Branch Street 40B application was approved. Mr. Boyden said the commission's bylaw is not being met with the Francis Avenue application, and said in this case the commission might be better off retaining control instead of handing it over to the state. Mr. Lewis said if the application is denied under the local bylaw and the ZBA agrees, that could result in either a denial of the application by the ZBA or very stringent conditions, which could also be appealed. Ms. Matthew was concerned the applicant could still do work if the plan is denied under the local bylaw. Mr. Lewis said those conditions apply only to the state bylaw, not the local bylaw. He said nothing dealing with the state would come into play until the applicant is approved under the local bylaw. r- Ms. Flass said if the application is approved under the local bylaw, Chapter 40B requires the state bylaws be adhered to. Mr. Boyden asked if the state would enforce the storm water OUlnagement requirements if the application were denied under the local bylaw; Mr. Lewis said it would. Mr. Lewis said sending this to DEP on appeal for the storm water issues won't amount to much, because the plan will eventually have to comply. Motion: To deny under the local bylaw and to approve (as outlined in "Option A" as drafted) under the state bylaw with the conditions and the addition that the commission reserves the right to issue a modified order based on the revised final plans (Smith-Flass) All in favor. PASSES Ms. Matthew said she had received a letter from Kyla Bennett, who found a black rat snake, which is endangered, on land offMassapoag Estates. They are normally only found in the Ct. River Valley, but several have been found in this area. She also found a four-toed salamander. Ms. Bennett recommended letting the area conservation commissions and landowners know about the snake. She said there have now been five endangered species identified in the area. r r T r Ms. Matthew asked about Gilbert Street; Mr. Lewis said Michelle Grenier had been on site twice, but the spring has been so cold and wet, it was too early for vegetation to come out. Mr. Lewis will call her. Ms. Matthew asked about the replication area and trees in Eastfield; Mr. Lewis said there had been a question about the trees, and he has received a letter. Ms. Matthew asked about Mr. Maugham on Bird Road; Mr. Lewis said he would check into that. Ms. Matthew asked about the yellow police tape on Maple Street; Mr. Lewis said a catch basin had backed up. Ms. Matthew asked about Karen's Way, which had an uncertified vernal pool, and the applicant was going to deed the commission some land around the pool. Mr. Lewis said he has visited the site and the subdivision is still under construction; Mr. Hansen has submitted the certification materials to Natural Heritage. Mr. Lewis said developers usually wait to deed the open space until the lots are deeded. Ms. Matthew asked about the new replication policy and the intermittent stream policy; Mr. Lewis said he has that and will mail it out. r Ms. Matthew asked about the augur. Mr. Boyden said he has looked at two different types, and he will see Mr. Sullivan about which would be best. Ms. Matthew asked about the status board for the office; Mr. Boyden said he would get together with Mr. Lewis on that. Ms. Matthew asked about the bylaw clarifications; Mr. Boyden suggested that be dealt with at the August meeting. Mr. Lewis said policy changes could be done by the commission, but major overhauls would have to go through Town Meeting. Ms. Matthew said she has observed her neighbors dumping grass clippings on the comer of Maple and Homefield. She suggested a sign saying "No Dumping." Mr. Lewis said he would send letters and perhaps following up with a sign. rlJ4/u) Date of Approval r- r T