HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of conservation com 01/26/2004
I ,- ..
(
Conservation Commission Meeting
January 26, 2004
Present: Paul Boyden, Chair; Carole Matthew, Jack Smith, Chris Flass, Diane Ready,
Jerry St. Hilaire
Richard Lewis, Conservation and Environmental Planner
~I r)
'\'.';'''';
! '~fT('
- , , -J
11. MM........,...... at 7:3Sp..tlL
2. Request for Detel'llliutioD of AppJieability - CIariI & KatIIy B..... 43 BI'OWIl
Aveaae; 7:48 p.DL
The chair read the public hearing notice for the proposed repair and replacement of an
existing failed septic system, with proposed grading and associated work within 100 feet
of a wetland resource area.
Paul Carey, Carey Engineering Associates, represented the owner. He indicated that the
existing system is failed and is under an Order from the Board of Health to repair and
replace it with a new system that meets Title 5 requirements. It is a 2-bedroom house,
and there will be a pump chamber with a mounded system. The system will have an
alarm system attached to the house in the case of a failure of the pump. Due to the nature
of the mounded system many of the large trees in the front yard will have to be removed.
Mr. Lewis said he has visited the site and he indicated that the proposed haybales shown
r on the plan should provide for the necessary protection of the lake area. The site does not
have a lot of pitch towards the lake so erosion due to slope should not be a concern. No
other concerns were expressed.
Motion [Flass/Smith] to close the hearing; Voted 5-0-0 [Ready not present]
Motion [Flass/Smith] to issue a Negative 3 Determination with the conditions that the
haybales be in place as shown and the project engineer notify the office when the bales
are properly installed; Voted 5-0-0.
13. CorrespoadeBee
r
a. Request from School Street Corp. for an Extension to the Order to restore the
wetland area that was impacted by the placement of fill on an existing storage
pile. The request is made due to the weather, and the combination of snow and
temperatures resulting in frozen ground. [D. Ready arrives] Motion
[MatthewsIFlass] to issue an extension to the end of April to complete this work;
Voted 4-0-1 [Smith abstains].
b. DEP Extensions to the Order for the Great Waves Joint Venture project.
c. Letter came in from Natural Heritage regarding the Fontanini project on East
Street. They indicated that work should stay out of any wetland area or vernal
pool.
Conservation Commission Minutes Jan. 26, 2004 Page 1 of 5
.'"
(' 4. Notice of Intent Hearing. Fairf"reld Green at Mansfield, LLP -Fairfield Green
complex, 792 & 840 West Street
D. Lewis indicated that David Field and John Sullivan, from the Engineering Department
are here per the request of the Commission made at the last meeting. David Field,
Assistant Town Engineer, reviewed his letter of January 16,2004. He indicated that the
project engineers has presented revised plans and supporting information that
demonstrated compliance with the DEP Stormwater Regulations and the Town of
Mansfield stormwater regulations. He said that there were a few outstanding issues
relative to the sewering of the project, but all of the drainage and stormwater issues are
settled.
Sterling Wall, Daylor Consulting, indicated that at the last Conservation hearing there
were the outstanding issues of stormwater and the Limited Project and access issues.
Relative to drainage, he said that the last memo from the Engineering Dept, and the
remarks made tonight by David Field, close this issue. He said that the project will
recharge groundwater and provide for base flows to re-charge the wetlands; in addition,
an Operations and Maintenance [0 & M] Plan will provide for long-term protection of
the wetlands. Relative to the access and limited project issue, he mentioned the memo
from the Zoning Board of Appeals to the Conservation Commission on the development
of the current plan to access the site. He briefly reviewed the two proposed crossings,
and stated that the crossing are located where there has been historic wetland alteration
r due to the agricultural work on the site. The wetland compensation provided will be
greater than a I: I ratio. And he said that much of the proposed work within the 25-foot
buffer area would consist of restoration and re-vegetation of previously disturbed areas.
D. Ready asks if a 50-foot buffer from the edge of the intermittent stream is maintained.
S. Wall answers that one area of the proposed parking area will be 45-feet away from the
stream, but otherwise 50-feet is proposed.
In response to a question from the chair, D. Field reviewed the changes to the plans to
bring about compliance with the state and local regulations. He indicates that the
removal of the TSS and the water quality issues were addressed. Check dams were
installed in different locations in the drainage swales to help with these issues. He also
stated that the project has demonstrated compliance with the town's subdivision
regulations requirements relative to water volumes as well as water quality.
C. Matthew asks S. Wall if the applicant would consider constructing the wetland
replication areas prior to other portions of the project. He indicated that the plan is to
place some necessary fill on the site, then work back from the edge of the wetlands with
the restoration and replication work. This would allow for a longer time frame for the
new vegetation to take hold and help stabilize the site and protect all of the resource
areas. He said that reports and plans would be submitted on the restoration and
replication work to document quality and quantity of vegetative growth issues.
r
Conservation Commission Minutes Jan. 26, 2004 Page 2 of 5
..fJo
C. Flass reviewed her memo of Jan. 26th. Based on the memo and verbal statements from
(' the Town Engineering Dept., she states that she is satisfied with the drainage and
stormwater issues. Relative to the limited project and access issues, she says she is okay
with the minimal impact question, but wonders about the alternatives question. She also
asks about the protection of the wetlands that are closest to the parking and sidewalk
areas. And she also wonders about the 25 vs. 50-foot buffer zone protection. S. Wall
responds that the original access point from Wet St. to Old West St. was not an ideal
location, and the additional properties allow for a much safer access point that has been
reviewed by the other public safety departments in town. He said that a fence would be
located in several areas to help keep people out of any adjacent wetland. Regarding the
25 vs. 50-foot discussion, he states that the area of the parking lot that is within the 50-
foot buffer to the intermittent stream is an area where the topsoil has been stripped off
and vegetation disturbed. He said the plantings near Hodges Brook would help protect
and enhance the area.
D. Ready asks about the maintenance of the site and the potential for grass clippings, etc
to find their way into the wetland. And further, what about snow storage and the use of
salt and chemicals. S. Wall states that a management company will provide for oversight
of these issues. The 0 & M plan states that no chemicals will be used for winter
conditions.
('
S. Wall presents a revised plan dated January 19,2004. Steve Bernstein, Daylor
Consulting, highlights the changes from the older plans to the 1/19/04 plan being
inclusion of the check dams and the snow removal areas. The Engineering Dept. says
that they have not seen the 1/19/04 plan. S. Bernstein says he cannot detail what other
changes are shown on this new plan.
Leonard Flynn, resident, says that since a new plan has been presented he would like an
opportunity to have this plan reviewed. Paul Boyden, chairman, says that since the
Commission has not reviewed this plan, the applicant could withdraw it and stick with
the 1/15/04 plan that the Engineering Dept. has reviewed and approved. He notes that
any changes to the fmal approved plans may trigger a new application to the
Commission. Debbie Horwitz, attorney for the applicant withdraws the plans and states
that the plan January 15,2004, will be considered the final plan submitted to the
Commission. L. Flynn expresses his concern that no one seems to know what is shown
on the 1/19/04 plan, and he asks that the minutes reflect the events surrounding the
submission and subsequent withdrawal of this plan.
L. Flynn asks why the detention basin nearest the NRT land could not be moved to
elsewhere on the site or placed in a subsurface infiltration area so as to provide for greater
buffering to the NRT land. S. Wall answers that because the proposed basin is in the
lowest part of this portion of the site, and since there are limited upland areas on the
northern end of the site, this necessitates the location of the proposed basin.
r
L. Flynn states that there are still flooding problems downstream of the project site at the
playfields off of Plymouth St. and at the School St. crossing of Hodges Brook, and he
Conservation Commission Minutes Jan. 26, 2004 Page 3 of 5
..
says that this project will aggravate these conditions. And he is also concerned with the
r discharge from the proposed detention basins onto the NRT land. S. Wall states that the
discharge points from Detention Basin # 1 are directed towards the wetland associated
with Hodges Brook and not directly onto the NR T land. P. Boyden asks about the
proposed drainage system handling 100-year storm event. The applicant says that has
been considered in the design of the system. D. Fields states that the peak rate and
volume run-off requirements per the sub-division regulations for different year storm
events have been incorporated.
Linda DiCorpo, West St. asks about flooding on West Street and how system will impact
that issue. D. Horwitz says that any flooding on West St. is outside the scope of the
project and conditions will not change. D. Fields briefly explains the stormwater and
drainage systems. John Sullivan, Town Engineer, mentions that soil testing was
performed throughout the site, and especially in the area where the sub-surface infiltrator
will be located.
In response to a question from a resident about the infiltrator system and its location, S.
Wall states it will be placed under a proposed parking area and a green space area. The
system will incorporate water quality treatment.
J. Sullivan notes that since the applicant has not spoken about phasing of the project, the
stormwater system will have to be functioning very early on in the construction phase so
that stormwater is managed properly.
r
Resident Keith Bibby asks about the infiltration capacity of Detention Basin # 1 relative
to maintenance of the basin and potential impacts to the NRT land. The project engineers
state that the 0 & M plan, submitted as part of the original filing, addresses issues such as
cleaning out of the catch basins, maintenance of the bottoms of the basin, removal of
trash and debris, pavement sweeping, etc. All of this work, they indicated will help
protect the integrity of the stormwater system over a long-term period.
L. Flynn stated that some subdivisions in town [Windemere, Plantingfield Drive and
Green Acres] are examples of where the stormwater system did not function as designed.
He feels that downstream areas need additional protection. And he states that having one
of the parking areas within a flood zone is not proper.
A general discussion took place on the relationship of 40B projects to local wetland by-
laws. The Applicant indicates that they have asked for waivers from the local by-laws in
the original application to the ZBA. L. Flynn states that any waiver requests must be
justified relative to financial hardship.
It is again mentioned to the applicant by the Commission that if any new plans are
submitted to the Commission, they will be reviewed to determine if a new hearing is
necessary .
r
Conservation Commission Minutes Jan. 26, 2004 Page 4 of 5
...
Motion (Flass/St.Hilaire] to close the hearing; Voted 6-0-0. The discussion on a
r proposed Order of Conditions will take place on Monday, March 8, 2004.
I S. Correspondence I Other Business Cootinued
r
d. Report from ENSR regarding the wetland restoration work at the Compo site on
Branch Street. D. Lewis indicates that the report says that the areas are coming
along very well as far as plant growth and diversity. A couple of maple trees will
have to be replaced, but the shrub and ground cover is coming in well.
e. D. Lewis shows the Commission the proposed preliminary plan for a subdivision
on Gilbert Street on the land that was reviewed a while back and where the vernal
pools are found. The form A lots shown on the plan do not appear to be buildable
due to the proximity to the wetland. The site is within an Estimated Habitat area.
D. Lewis will contact Michele Grenier concerning completing the certification of
the vernal pools.
f. D. Lewis discussed the request by Karl Clemmey to remove surplus material at
the Erin's Center site. The consensus of the Commission was that a more
complete plan and a formal request for review as part of a modification to the
Order for Erin's Center will have to be made. A letter will go out the Mr.
Clemmey.
g. The next meeting is February 9, with a new hearing for a residential condo
complex on the DeGirolamo property on East Street.
h. The Commission discussed the draft memo to the ZBA on the density issue at the
Fairfield project. D, Lewis will prepare a new draft and distribute it to the
Commissioners for review.
I 6. Adjournment
Moti To adjourn at 10:250 p.m. (Smith-Ready
) All in favor. PASSES
J~l-ll 0'1
Date f Approval
r
Conservation Commission Minutes Jan. 26, 2004 Page 5 of 5