Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of conservation com 09/22/2003 r Conservation Commission Meeting September 22, 2""3 ' ,~,; I '(~ ", . Present: Paul Boyden, Chair; Carole Matthew, Jack 'Sinith,Chiis'':Fta~~ Dtanne Ready Richard Lewis, Conservation and Environmental Planner 11. Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. r .' I. . : : :,:';.~ t-~ -r T S 2. Request for Determination of Applicability - 305 Forbes Boulevard - National Development The chair read the public hearing notice for the construction of a new loading dock area and new storm water drainage improvements with grading and associated work within 100 feet of a wetland resource area. Sherry Clancy, National Development, explained she had been before the commission last January about the loading dock issues. She said she has already been before the Planning Board on this project and showed the commission a plan showing an existing paved road around the building and a drainage ditch running along the road. The drainage ditch will be moved, the truck court relocated, the ditch replaced and the drainage system replaced. Ms. Clancy said she filed this RDA for a small intermittent stream between the back of the property and Route 495; this area drains into that stream. There is some bank associated with that stream, and there will be some grading within 100 feet of the bank. r Theo Kindermans, Geller DeVellis, Inc., explained the stormwater basin reconflguration. The existing grade along the building will be lowered by four feet; there will be a trench drain with ductile iron pipe along the building, but there will not be enough cover for catch basins. A sedimentation bay will run to a detention basin, into a control structure, and then drain into the swale. The amount of runoff will not change, nor will the direction of the runoff. Eighty percent total suspended solids will be removed. Ms. Clancy said the project may be done in phases; she has a tenant who wants to go into part of the building and who won't need as many docks. Mr. Boyden asked how long the water will stay in the basins; Mr. Kindermans said it will be a detention system. The basin will provide pre-treatment of the runoff, whereas currently the water receives no pre-treatment. The roof runoff currently goes directly into the stream. Mr. Lewis noted the work within 100 feet of the wetland area is across an existing paved roadway from the wetland. Mr. Kindermans said there will be erosion control installed around the site, with approximately 100 feet to the bank. Mr. Boyden asked who is responsible for maintaining the wetland area; Ms. Clancy said she would be. Mr. Boyden said National Development owns the land on the other side of the wetland; Ms. Clancy said that site is r almost completely paved now. Conservation Commission Minutes Sept. 22, 2003 Page 1 of 9 Ms. Flass asked about a safety plan; Ms. Clancy said the tenant they are working with is in the pet supply business, so she didn't think there would be any hazardous materials. She said if a different tenant comes in, she would supply the commission with the specifications. l I Mr. Boyden asked where this water goes; Ms Clancy said it drains under Route 495 and onto Parente Farm. Mr. Lewis suggested a Negative Three Determination with the conditions that he is notified; the installation of siltation control be certified and inspected; a proposed spill plan be submitted. Motion: To issue a Negative Three Determination with the conditions that Mr. Lewis is notified prior to the start of work; the siltation control measures be certified and inspected by Mr. Lewis; a proposed spill plan be submitted (Flass-Ready) All in favor. PASSES I 3. Notice of Intent Public Hearing continued -1301 East Street - Peter Fontanini Construction of a single-family house with grading, excavation and associated work within 100 feet of a wetland resource area. Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, presented the changes to the plan. Mr. Lewis had requested a detail on the small section of the driveway that has eroded slightly. That detail and a note have been added showing a concrete cap and re-enforcing rod. The work will be done when the brook is dry. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Trowbridge both said they contacted Natural Heritage, and neither has received any return calls or communications. } [Mr. Smith arrived at this time.] Ms. Matthew asked if the time of year for construction should be made a condition and asked where the habitat is. Mr. Trowbridge said that was unknown. He said Natural Heritage felt the alteration of the wetland crossing would effect the habitat, and he said he would be willing to do the work after the breeding season. Mr. Lewis said with the corrected version of the by-law, the commission would have to decide whether to consider Section 2.6 in relation to this application, and whether that section would apply to the plan. He said there could be some question about whether the section should apply because this isn't in a subdivision; however, the second sentence of that section talks about additions to existing homes. He said he questioned whether this plan could be permitted if the commission applies 2.6 because there is work being done within 100 feet of the wetlands on the site. Mr. Trowbridge said this isn't a new subdivision, so that section of the by-law should not apply. Ms. Matthew said she has spoken with Jim Star, who wrote the by-law, and who told her the by-law applies to all construction. ) Conservation Commission Minutes Sept. 22, 2003 Page 2 of 9 r Mr. Boyden said this might be considered an illegal taking if the project cannot be built and there is no other remedy. He said the commission could be on shaky legal ground. Ms. Matthew said the commission wouldn't be preventing construction, it just couldn't be done within 100 feet. She said the Natural Heritage requirement for 100 feet is only around the habitat area, not the whole wetland. Mr. Lewis said he thought that did mean the whole wetland. Mr. Trowbridge said he would be willing redraw the plan to keep the driveway outside of the 100 feet. Mr. Boyden asked if that revised plan would be considered okay given the Natural Heritage letter; Ms. Matthew said she thought it would be. Ms. Flass asked how many trees would be lost under that plan. Mr. Trowbridge said the area would remain mostly the same. Mr. Lewis said he believes that the Natural Heritage [NHESP] designation of the area as being an Estimated Habitat area is based on reports and data supplied to NHESP, not on a site walk by a representative of Natural Heritage. Mr. Lewis said there are only a few people in the Natural Heritage office, so it is impossible for them to visit every site; therefore, the habitat areas have to be drawn very broadly He said he believes the by-law means no work can be done within 100 feet of any wetland within an estimated habitat area. Mr. Trowbridge noted the wetland maps are not as specific as they used to be. r Mr. Boyden said he thought a single family home could cause as much damage as a subdivision; he said he thought the intent was to cover either situation. He said he remembered discussing the 100-foot line being from the wetland line, otherwise there would be no starting point from which to measure the 100 feet. Ms. Matthew asked whether, if the bylaw were applied in it strictest sense, the applicant would still have options. Mr. Lewis said he would. Mr. Boyden said he thought the board would have to use 100 feet from the wetland line when considering this plan. Ms. Ready said she was concerned the letter talks about "the habitat" rather than "the estimated habitat." She said this could set a precedent that, after clarifying the wording with counsel, the commission may want to change. /""'" Board Comment Mr. Smith said the 100 feet should be measured from the edge of any wetland identified by the state as a habitat. Ms. Flass, Ms. Ready and Ms. Matthew agreed. Mr. Trowbridge asked if that meant nothing can happen within 100 feet of any wetland on the site and whether his earlier proposal to relocate the driveway would be acceptable. Mr. Lewis showed the commission the state survey of that part of town. He said he found a memo from him to Jim Star in 1999 regarding Section 2.1, Jurisdiction, where he said "estimated habitat areas" was taken out of that section. Ms. Ready said therefore, it sounds like the Natural Heritage letter references the specific habitat and the crossing in Conservation Commission Minutes Sept. 22, 2003 Page 3 of 9 particular. Mr. Lewis said the problem with that is knowing where the 100 feet should be measured from. He said in that case, an engineer would only be able to design the plan after a letter is received from Natural Heritage. 1 I Consensus of the commission was that Mr. Trowbridge's proposal to relocate the driveway would be acceptable. Mr. Lewis said the hearing could be closed pending a revised plan. The commission discussed amending the by-law to clarify the wording. Motion: To close the public hearing (Ready-Matthew) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To vote on this application tonight (Flass-Matthew) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Lewis will draft an Order of Conditions with condition about time of year, reference to the new plan, discussion of rationale. 4. Notice of Intent Public Hearing continued - Comer of Routes 106/140- Rosewood Realty Trust [Mr. Boyden excused himself at this time.] Motion: To appoint Ms. Flass Acting Chair (Smith-Ready) All in favor. PASSES Construction of a 42-unit apartment complex, with proposed wetland crossings and work within the 200-foot Riverfront Zone, and the construction of a sanitary sewer line. Both projects involve work within 100 feet of various wetland resource areas. .~ Motion: To continue the public hearing to October 6,2003 at 7:50 p.m. (Smith-Ready) All in favor. PASSES [Mr. Boyden returned at this time.] 5. Request for Determination of Applicability Public Hearing - East Street; and Notice of Intent - East Street DPW Gara e - Town of Mansfield Motion: To waive the reading of the public hearing notice for the installation of a new 12-inch water main within the paved surface of East Street, with limited areas of work within 100 feet of a wetland resource area; and the construction of a water treatment plant and associated facility, with grading and drainage work within 100 feet of a wetland resource area. (Smith-Flass) All in favor. PASSES Bob Chappelle, Woodard & Curran, explained the plans for the new water treatment plant for Dustin Well 7 and Prescott Wells 8 and 9. To get water from Dustin, a 12-inch main must be installed from the well, up East Street to the DPW garage. Mr. Lewis said this site is not in any estimated habitat area. Mr. Chappelle said there will be one brook crossing for the 12-inch main using either pipe jacking or directional '~ i Conservation Commission Minutes Sept. 22, 2003 Page 4 of 9 . . drilling so the culvert will not be cut; the main will go underneath the culvert for about r 100 feet. With this method, there will be no disturbance of the wetland. Mr. Chappelle said there is another area south of Shannon Lane where a siltation fence will be installed. This work will also be done under the paved areas. Mr. Lewis said the project has two sections; for the 12-inch main and for the building itself The work in East Street leads up to the treatment plant itself He suggested a Negative Three Determination with hay bales installed per the plan. Motion: To issue a Negative Three Determination on the 12-inch main installation on East Street, with the condition that Mr. Lewis be notified prior to the start of work and hay bales be installed per pages C-O 1 and C-03 of the plan dated June 2003. (Ready-Flass) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Chappelle explained the second part of the application, the Notice of Intent for the water treatment plant and associated facility on East Street. He showed the commission the wetland line and the 100-foot setback line. There is currently a row of storage bins along the 100-foot setback area, so that area has already been disturbed. Mr. Chappelle said catch basin 4 is approximately 50 feet from the edge of the wetland, and there is an area 25 feet to the wetland line. Mr. Lewis said there is some work near the proposed infiltration basin in an existing treed area. A portion of the basin is within 50 feet, but there is a provision in the by-law for drainage within 50 feet. /""'" Mr. Lewis said he visited the site, the flagging looks good and the wetland appears to be topographically defined. He said there is some windblown debris between the work line and wetland line that should be addressed in a condition. There is a chainlink fence shown on the plan, which Mr. Lewis said would prevent future problems. Mr. Chappelle said the drainage system has been designed to handle the whole site, including if and when the new DPW garage and public safety buildings are built. The drainage is designed to be an infiltration basin and was designed for the 100-year storm. Ms. Flass asked about the tank; Mr. Chappelle explained there are six filters to remove the iron and manganese. When those filters get filled, they are cleaned and the separated materials are stored in the tank. There is enough storage for all six filters and controls in the tank so if the level gets too high, an alarm will sound. Mr. Lewis asked if the area closest to the wetland line could be pulled in a bit to accommodate hay bales outside of the 25-foot buffer. Mr. Chappelle said he would look into that. Mr. Lewis said he has not received a file number from DEP. /""'" Ms. Flass said she was uncomfortable with the backwash tank not having an overflow. Mr. Chappelle said the tank will hold iron and manganese, which are already in the water supply. He said the filters will be backwashed ever 4-8 days, then emptied over 1-2 days. The tank will hold 150,000 gallons. Mr. Chappelle said they could arrange to have the alarm tested periodically, which could be added to the Operations and Maintenance Plan. Conservation Commission Minutes Sept. 22, 2003 Page 5 of 9 . . Mr. Lewis suggested continuing the hearing to the October 6 meeting, and if there are no comments from DEP, close the hearing and vote an order at that meeting. ~ Motion: To continue the public hearing to October 6, 2003 at 8:00 p.m. (Ready-Smith) All in favor PASSES 6. Discussion with Representatives and Consultants for the Improvements at the Mansfield Airport Lou Andrews and Howard Fiske, Airport Commission Paul Davis, wetland scientist Rick Diamant, HNTB Hattie Kim, HNTB Mr. Diamant explained the Airport Master Plan includes improving the runway safety areas, which are areas of stabilized turf, so if a plane goes off the end of the runway, it won't hit a pothole or other obstruction. The turf is too steep in some areas and needs to be graded. Mr. Diamant said they are proposing shifting the runway 70 feet and grading on both ends for the runway safety areas. Mr. Andrews said the shifting was intended to minimize impact on the wetlands. Mr. Diamant showed the wetland line in Norton from the endangered species atlas, which he said has yet to be confirmed. This proposal is only for land in Quadrant 4, on the Mansfield side. Alternatives analysis were done, taking into consideration the wetlands in both Mansfield and Norton. Mr. Diamant explained the existing runway would be shortened by 70 feet, leaving the existing pavement for those 70 feet, then grass up to the Back Bay Brook. He said the grade would be smoothed out toward the brook. The work will stay out of the wetland area at the brook, but will not remain entirely out of the 25-foot buffer zone because ofan attempt to minimize wetland impacts on Norton. There will be a one or two-foot change in the re-graded area, which will remain grassed. The pavement for the existing taxiway will be removed and relocated to be further from the wetland. .~ The stormwater management policy guidelines for 80 percent total suspended solids removal will be met, with enough storage for the two and ten-year storms, which should result in improvements in water quality. Mr. Lewis said he visited the site and said it is already significantly disturbed. Ms. Matthew asked about the portion that would be less than 25 feet from the wetland. Mr. Diamant explained there is a small portion that will be elevated less than one foot. Mr. Diamant explained the work to be done in Norton. There will be pavement added at that end of the runway, which will meet up with the existing taxiway, as well as a safety area. That will be primarily a grading project, and there will be some wetland impact on that end, approximately 3,100 square feet with a proposed 2-1 mitigation. ) Conservation Commission Minutes Sept. 22, 2003 Page 6 of9 r The work in Quadrant 4 would have involved work within the 25 foot buffer in two places, so the mad will be relocated, along with some hangars, to get outside of that buffer. The area will be graded, excavated and paved, with storm ceptors and deep sump catch basins installed. The goal of the work is to get all the planes off of the grass and onto paved surfaces. Mr. Andrews said they have made every effort to stay outside ofthe 25-foot setback, and would be filing a Notice of Intent soon. Ms. Flass said the commission would have to decide whether this falls under Section 2.2. or 2.5. Mr. Davis said he would make a case that the project will meet 2.5. I 7. Corresponden~e 1. Winslow land - Essex Street. Mr. Lewis said the commission has voted to continue with the acquisition of the King land, but the Winslows have notified the town that they are taking their land out of Chapter 61 A. He suggested a vote from the commission not to pursue the right of first refusal. Motion: Not to pursue the right of first refusal (Ready-Flass) Four in favor. FIass abstained. PASSES 2. Letter re: Karen's Way - East Street. Mr. Lewis explained the invasive species around the vernal pool were supposed to have been removed. He said the area around the pool is thick, and to do widespread clearing at this point wouldn't be useful. He said /""'" there are other areas where plantings could be added to help protect and stabilize the area. Motion: To accept the September 12, 2003 letter and not require the additional removal of invasive species on site (Flass-Ready) All in favor. PASSES 3. Memo from John Sullivan, Town Engineer re: Otis Street bridge repairs. Mr. Lewis explained there had been vandalism to the boards that create the ponding area. The pond was draining itself, and the DPW removed what remained of the boards. New boards and guideposts have been installed and the pond is beginning to refill itself. 4. Mr. Lewis reminded the commission of Special Town Meeting on September 30, 2003. Mr. Boyden said he had received a letter from Lou Andrews suggesting the King property be named after Leonard Flynn. He suggested a letter of support for that to the Board of Selectmen with a copy to Mr. Andrews. 5. Order of Conditions - Gourdin Estates - Mill Street. Mr. Lewis said finding D refers to the conditions under the local bylaw. Ms. Ready asked about part B under the local bylaw; Mr. Lewis said there is a section where the landscaping easement is within 100 feet of the vernal pool. Ms. Matthew asked whether condition C under the local bylaw means from the wetland line or from the buffer; Mr. Lewis said it is from the buffer. Ms. Matthew said she would rather see a vegetative buffer than a fence. Motion: To accept the amended Order of Conditions (Ready-Flass) All in favor. PASSES r-- Conservation Commission Minutes Sept. 22, 2003 Page 7 of 9 6. Order of Conditions - Nicole Village - W. Callahan. Mr. Lewis explained that the public hearing was closed prior to the correction of the bylaw and the receipt of the Natural Heritage letter. The consensus of the commission at the last meeting was to approve it under the state act, which Mr. Lewis has drafted. ~ Mr. Boyden said if the commission were to make a policy decision, it should vote on whether to accept or reject the Natural Heritage letter, received after the hearing was closed. Ms. Matthew said she had spoken with Pat Huckery of Natural Heritage before the hearing closed; Ms. Huckery's letter indicates that. Ms. Ready said the commission should consider the fact that the error in the local bylaw was brought to its attention. She said the letter from Natural Heritage should be reviewed because it was received within 21 days of the close of the hearing. Ms. Matthew said the applicant refused to continue the public hearing, which gives the commission time to accept other information. Mr. Lewis said that would apply in a situation where the hearing was open within 21 days of the receipt of the application, the applicant refuses to grant a continuance, and the commission only has 21 days to issue a letter rather than 30; if the letter comes in between the close of the hearing and day 30, the commission can consider it. Ms. Matthew said she had spoken with DEP and was told the letter wouldn't be part of the public hearing record, but the commission could discuss the letter during a regular meeting. Mr. Lewis said that was true, but it could not be used as part of the decision making process. He said once a public hearing is closed, the record is closed. Mr. Boyden said he had closed the hearing for the state part of the discussion, and did not i) specify the local by-law. Mr. Lewis said the hearing was closed for both because the applicant would not grant a continuance, but a consensus was only reached on the state. Ms. Flass read a letter from Kyla Bennett saying additional information could be accepted; Mr. Lewis said that references a case where the public hearing was still open. Ms. Ready said she thought the commission could make a decision without that letter. Mr. Lewis said the initial project showed a wetland crossing with a water main, which was not included in the plan referenced in the September 8 letter. Ms. Matthew said the 2002 letters indicate the same position as the September 8, 2003 letter. Mr. Lewis said the letter from Scott Goddard indicated an additional MESA review will be required, which will take about 14 months, after which Natural Heritage will issue a decision. Mr. Lewis asked if the consensus was to approve the application under the state act. Ms. Matthew said the by-law says if the commission receives inadequate information, it can deny the application. Mr. Boyden read the August 28, 2003 letter from Kyla Bennett. Mr. Lewis said that letter was received before the bylaw was corrected, so the version the commission and the applicant were working from was the incorrect language. '\ Conservation Commission Minutes Sept. 22, 2003 Page 8 of9 r- Mr. Lewis said the 2002 letters could be brought into the findings, since that information was already available to the commission. 0.."* ~W Ms. Matthew said the project could be denied under the state.-hylllW because according to the Natural Heritage letter, it would adversely affect the habitat. Mr. Lewis said under the state regulations, the buffer zone is not a resource area. He said the safest way would be to approve it under the state and deny it under the local bylaw, tying in the letters and referencing the uncertainty of the bylaw during previous meetings. 0... eX" ~ ...t..) Motion: To approve under the state hy=taw as drafted (Ready-Smith) Four in favor. Matthew opposed. PASSES Motion: To deny the application under the local by-law because: 1) the information in three letters from NHESP in response to an earlier Notice of Intent filing were discussed as part of the public record during the public hearing; 2) after the public hearing was closed, affirmation of the information in the 2002 letters was received in a letter dated September 8, 2003 from NHESP, as well as through a conversation between Carole Matthew, commission member, and Pat Huckery, ofNHESP; and, 3) Per Section 2.6 the by-law, the site has been identified by the state as a habitat area. (Ready-Flass) All in favor. PASSES I 8. Adjournment r- Motion: To adjourn at 11:15 p.m. (Smith-Flass) All in favor. PASSES Date of Next Meeting: October 6, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. [/17 / (),~ Da e of Approval r- Conservation Commission Minutes Sept. 22, 2003 Page 9 of 9 ') ') ~