Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of conservation com 03/14/2005 ~ Conservation Commission Meeting March 14, 2005 05 r<i~ Y I 7 P1"l 2: 4 3 ~~eU~~~~II~~~~~~~~I~~:~~~~a~~~:a~:~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fT S Conservation and Environmental Planner. ~ F C t'~' ! V. E.:l=l.':. '- J I 'k} {". r.r.l.>,.("'>_ n....1:'" .. . .'. t. i" r 1 C E I ~,;.,I1_.....It._....r...J..... . to dttl..n'..... John Sullivan, Michael Trowbridge and Mr. Gagne, an abutter, were present. John Sullivan, Town Engineer, is requesting that this project be considered an emergency project necessary for the protection of the health of Mr. & Mrs. Gagne's son. ,,-. An Emergency Certification for this work was issued by the Conservation Commission on November 17, 2004, which expired on December 17,2004. A Notice of Intent has been filed for work to be done in the spring. The existing driveway to the Otis Street Recreation Area is unpaved and during the spring, summer and fall, the heavy use during the Little League season has created a health hazard for the adjacent home-owner's son. The home owners are unable to use their property during these months due to the dust. The proposed work is the paving of an additional 185-foot length from the existing paved apron off Otis Street. The proposed paved surface will be 18 feet wide. The east side of the driveway will remain the same. On the west side, a 12" deep stone trench will be installed between the driveway and the wetland to provide for stormwater quality improvement. It will infiltrate the runoff from the proposed paving. The stone trench will be tapered from 3' to 6' for the first 50 feet and tapered from 6' to 8' for the remaining 135'. This will increase the distance from the wetland, as requested by the Commission in the Emergency Certification. Four removable plastic type speed bumps will be installed along the paved driveway to slow vehicles down. The proposed work is all within the 100-foot buffer of a wetland and no work is within a wetland area. ,,,-. An erosion control barrier, consisting of hay bales and silt fencing will be installed before construction begins. ,,-. DEP has no problem with the plans and Elizabeth feels it is an allowable project under section 2.2. The Mansfield Wetlands Protection By-law would not apply to this project. Paul would like to see the area secured at night. Mr. Gagne would like to erect a fence on the property line at a later date. He was told to file a Request for Determination of Applicability. Colin made the motion to approve the plans as per the state. Jack seconded. Passed (7-0). 3... .' 'file. Wayne Duffett, representing TEC Associates was present to discuss the original VMP, which expired on December 31,2004 and the 5-year renewal. ,,-. Proposed project- vegetation control along the rail line. The location of the work is CSX Transportation's right-of-way, southwest of County Street. Wayne inspects the right-of-way every year. White and blue plates and yellow and blue plates are used to determine where to spray-white-upland and unregulated, blue- within the buffer, 20ft. to center of the track and yellow-no spray-10ft set back. No work is proposed within wetland resource areas. Spraying is done on a yearly basis. No spraying is done when rain or wind is predicted. Herbicides to be used-Round-up mixed with Oust-3 to 1. Paul made the motion to give a Negative 5 determination citing 310 CMR 10.03 (6) (b) and 10.58 (6) (a) as the exemptions. Jerry seconded. Passed (7-0). 1.:..;...s.:..J.;.II:......I!'~.....r.:..~.. Ralph Maloon from RIM Engineering was present. Paul Boyden recused himself because of the applicant, Alexander Skene, and the hearing was turned over to Colin Cauldwell, Vice Chair. DEP has not issued a number for this project. ,~ Proposed project-to construct a roadway for a 6-lot subdivision and associated utilities. Grading from the proposed roadway falls within the 100-ft. buffer zone. ,r- Siltation control is in place 50 ft. from the wetland. Additional siltation control will be placed within 25 ft. of the wetland. Discussion of permanent fencing needed to mark the "no activity" zone. Construction will take place 80 ft. from the wetland. Planning Board wants old construction debris removed-some is within 25 ft of the wetland. Site will be revegetated-Ioaming and reseeding after removal of debris. All roof water will go into the ground, thru a leach field. Road runoff will go into a retention basin. Elizabeth met RIM surveyors at the site and flags RIM 13 and RIM 14 were moved as shown on the revised plans. Engineering has reviewed this project and the Stormwater Drainage Calculations are acceptable. Christine feels the roadway may impact some of the lots. Lots 4 and 5 may require a separate Notice of Intent. r- The Commission should be notified when hay bales and siltation fencing is in place. Christine made the motion to continue until a DEP number is issued, and a construction schedule and plans for clean-up of the entire property are submitted Jerry seconded. Passed (6-0 with 1 abstention). f &. '....._......:~..t_.VII......c........ John Parmentier, from Dunn McKenzie was present. Proposed project-complete gravel base, fine grading and paving Cobb Street to the cul-de-sac. Opened and continued until March 28th. Carole made the motion to continue without prejudice to the applicant until the March 28th meeting. Colin seconded. Passed (7-0). ,,-. r Sam Patel, the applicant; John Parmentier, from Dunn McKenzie; Attorney Donald Nagle; and Dr. Jerome Carr, a wetland specialist, were present. The applicant is requesting a variance or waiver of the by-law to allow one "limited project" crossing over an excavated ditch for the purpose of access to the hotel, two fillings of wetland bulges in a former gravel pit and a third small wetland filling in a partially altered wetland on the edge of an area that had been filled. The latest plans filed are dated January 18, 2005. The emergency access road required by the fire and police department off Wood Avenue is not on this plan. A significant portion of the proposed access way will be located within the 25 ft. "no activity zone. Elizabeth would Jike to see some changes made to the plans so they will be out of the 25 ft. "no activity" zone. They have not applied for all obtainabre permits, variances and approvals from the Planning Board and ZBA. Under Mass State Wetland Regulations, 10.05 (4) (e) and (f), we can't close on this until they have at least applied for all applicable permits (MGL Chapter 131, sub-section 40). r- Mr. Nagle disagreed and feels the Commission must issued and Order of Conditions within 21 days after the close of the hearing. If Con Com doesn't issue the Order because they haven't applied for all permits subject to the project, Mr. Nagle feels that decision is not supported by the legislation Elizabeth cited, that it is an incorrect interpretation of the law. Mr. Nagle feels if Con Com can't approve the project until the necessary permits have been applied for, then the hearing should be closed and the Commission should issue whatever they were going to issue and then the Applicant will appeal it. He feels that not approving the Order of Conditions is beyond the Commission authority and jurisdiction. Because of the wetlands on site, it has been hard to figure out what kind of project they can built on the property, so Mr. Nagle felt the most important permit was an Order of Conditions from Conservation before going to the other Boards. Colin questioned whether they understood Mass Wetland Protection Act and the Mansfield By-law because the design doesn't reflect knowledge of the local by- laws and asked why they can't put a "foot print" within the allowable space that the commission would accept. Also, he noted that they don't have a secondary access delineated on the plan. He feels the 25 ft. "no disturb" zone has not been respected and reminded Mr. Nagle it means no work or machinery in that area. r- ,-.-. Colin asked Mr. Nagle if they only wanted the Commission to rule on the filling of the wetland. Are you asking for guidance on one specific area or the project as a whole? Colin feels there are numerous areas where the project does not conform. Dr. Carr feels the project proposed will have a positive impact on the wetland areas. The wetlands to be filled consist of a gravel pit. The fillings will enhance the existing wetland community. He realizes the restaurant represents an encroachment but feels it is acceptable. He feels they can fight to keep the project as is, withdraw the Notice of Intent and submit other plans or submit revised plans that Con Com can approve. Colin says that a lot of the wetlands in this town are the result of gravel borough, abutting 495. When Rt. 140 was moved, the removal of gravel created the wetlands. He feels Dr. Carr has overstated the lack of habitat value in the area. r- Dr. Carr feels that the filling of ''finger-like'' projections (to allow for the parking lot) is allowable under state wetland regulations in section 10.55. Elizabeth does not feel the parking lot qualifies as an allowable project under the Mansfield by-law and that the fire road does not qualify as an "access" road in the "limited project" definition. DEP concurs. Christine feels it would be more constructive to go thru the 5 problem areas one at a time. Paul says the present plans have had 3 revisions and that the restaurant has been an issue from the start, a violation of the by-law that no one has tried to correct. Carole says that a "limited project" for a parking lot is not in the regulations and that the project is 22 ft. away from the wetland not 25 ft. Also a portion of the Hotel (south side) is in the 25 ft. Because there is not enough parking, the restaurant has been moved into the wetland. Jerry feels that maybe a different restaurant should be considered. John Parmentier says they were given specific building plans by Sam Patel's client for the restaurant. Sam Patel says they tried to move the building 50 so it would be out of the wetlands and his client declined. If ConCom decides it doesn't want to approve the encroachment, Mr. Nagle would Ijke them to consider what can be approved, because there is a lot more to this project than the restaurant. -- ,,-. Christine-can we go point by point thru the areas needing approval? She would approve the road over the stream for access as a "limited project". Elizabeth, Colin and Paul agree and will be part of the Order of Conditions when it is issued. The fire road is impacting the 25 ft. "no activity" zone. Elizabeth says it is not permittable because it violates the local by-law. DEP concurs. She feels this road is not an access road. John Sullivan-They may need a cul-de-sac-won't know until they have gone to the Planning Board. David Field-Wood Avenue will need to be improved to current subdivision standards in order to use the road as an entrance/exit as planned. This will significantly impact the wetlands. The restaurant also violates the local by-law. The fire access way for the hotel is also in the 25 ft zone, a violation of the by-law. Paul says the Commission has not approved any deviation to the 25 ft. set back. ~ Elizabeth says there is no description of "altered wetland" or "degraded wetland", that a wetland is a wetland. Carole agreed. Colin-If we allow this, everyone will be coming in claiming a "degraded wetland" and that they are going to enhance the value. Don Yonika, a member of the public asked to speak. Colin made a motion to allow him to speak. Marc seconded. Passed (7-0). Mr. Yonika, in 1983, was a member of a 7-member panel and helped write the regulations we are presently using. He also helped write 10.53. He states there is no provision in the local by-law to allow this project as it is- cited 2.4 and 2.5. Section 2.4 provides for no activity within 25 ft. of any resource area. The Commission can prohibit any work between 25 ft. to 50 ft. of a resource area. Section 2.5 does not permit buildings, parking lots or roadways. ~ It can't be considered a 10.53 project because the Planning Board hasn't acted. The applicant needs to apply to the Planning Board. There is no need for a 10.53 project to gain access because there is development potential off Chauncy Street and Wood Avenue. Colin agreed. r- Mr. Yonika says the applicant cannot meet the "limited project" definition as written under section 10.53 (3) (e) as access is available to the upland portions of the site with out having to fill or alter a resource area. Open space is a value under the by-law and needs to be preserved. Paved areas are not open space, just asphalt. The proposed work is within the "no disturb" zone and within the resource area. He also noted that under Section 2.3 of the By-law, the Commission can deny permission for any alteration of a resource area to protect wetland values. Mr. Yonika showed alterative plans, with the same restaurant, with parking, with access all outside every resource area under the By-laws. He also showed a diagram of the Stormceptor-model 450R-which will be used in this project. Mr. Yonika says the only applications they are approved for are small drainage areas, such as truck loading bays, electrical transformer stations- areas smaller than the meeting room. r- When put in a parking lot of this size, it will clog. The amount of run-off from a %" storm can't go thru a 4" pipe. Clogs can't be repaired because the system is under the parking lot. It doesn't meet 80% removal. Mr. Yonika pointed out that catch basin grates, length and slope of pipe and materials to be used are missing from the plans. Has no plan for overflow. Mr. Nagle, for the record, objected to the presentation because Mr. Yonika has no particular interest, no identified interest in this project. He is not a resident of Mansfield but of Lunenburg. Mr. Nagle questioned Mr. Yonika about who he represents, what his interest is, is he an engineer and was he compensated. He wanted to know what his qualifications are to be able to render such opinions and why he was allowed to speak. Paul: This is a public meeting and he can be heard as a member of the public. Nagle: Based on the fact he is not telling us what his background is - is he an engineer? - The Commission should disregard everything said in regards to engineering. Also "disregard all technical comments and opinions that he rendered here. He gave a presentation as if he were an expert witness but refuses to tell us what his background is. So with regards to any opinions he ,,-.. gave during this presentation, I will ask the Board to disregard it". - Paul: "So noted". Paul asked for comments from the Commission members. Colin feels the project is an incomplete presentation and a violation of local by- laws. Christine would probably consider the crossings but not the other wetland areas proposed to be filled. She feels the "finger-like projection should be denied (state and local by-laws) and the fire access road denied. She wants to see a detailed plan of Wood Avenue before ruling on it. ~ Jack Smith feels that until they submit plans to the other necessary boards, it is ludicrous to keep doing this. Mr. Nagle: "We request the Commission continue this hearing to give us an opportunity to consider what we've heard tonight" and to redress the problem areas. He asked to be continued to April 11 th. Colin made the motion to continue to April 11 th. Christine seconded. Passed (7-0) ...It' Briscoe Lang of Pare Engineering and Randy Miller of Miller Recycling were present. Proposed project: Construction of a water swale within the buffer zone of a bank resource area. Elizabeth would like to see the site flagged with plans showing all the resource areas and the proposed work as well as work that has already been done on the site. A portion of the property has been cleared within the buffer zone to wetlands. Received permission from Nick to clear. The Engineering department has reviewed the stormwater management forms and has no issues with the project. John Sullivan-additional impervious surface does not improve but does not make it worse. Christine wanted to know what will be going in and out of the loading docks-only cardboard and paper stock. ~ A new plan with the addition of flags, hay bales and siltation control is needed. ,-.-. Christine made the motion to accept plans of 2/18/05 with the addition of flags, hay bales and siltation fencing. Marc seconded. Passed (7-0). I 8. .QIher ........: John Sullivan and David Field-NYDES Phase II permit-Proposed Stormwater Management By-Law. The EPAlDEP issued the Town of Mansfield as-year NPDES Stormwater Phase II permit in 2003. As part of this permit, the Town is committed to several Best Management Practices for Stormwater, including "Construction" and "Post Construction" Site Runoff Control. As of March 10, 2003, it has been a requirement that owners and/or developers of construction sites that disturb one acre or more of land obtain their own NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges for Construction Activities, EPAlDEP would like cities and towns to also create or strengthen existing by-laws or regulations to control construction site runoff. The intent is to cover construction in the entire Town, not just those that fall under the Wetlands Protection Act. r- We are obligated to review any existing planning and zoning by-laws or regulations versus a model by-law created by the EPAlDEP; and to adopt changes that would regulate construction and post construction site runoff on the local level. As a result of passed meetings, the consensus was to have one general by-law that could then be referenced in the Conservation Commission Regulations, Planning Board Regulations or Zoning By-Laws. This general by-law would addresses both construction runoff and post-construction maintenance. This proposed by-law is based on a Massachusetts model by-law with imput from Conservation, DPWand Planning. The Town of Walpole has developed by-laws, based on this Massachusetts model which is to have general by-laws to cover Illicit Discharge and Stormwater Control during and after construction. The "after construction" control mainly requires an Operations and Maintenance Plan that is recorded. The details of the submittal package for a "Land Disturbance Permit" for stormwater control is separated out into "Conservation Commission Stormwater Management Regulations" rather than included in the by-law. "..- Similar to Walpole, we are proposing to have DPW responsible for the Illicit Discharge By-Law (Part A) and the Conservation Commission responsible for the Stormwater Management and Land Disturbance By-Law (Part B). The Conservation Commission only sees subdivision plans or site plans that fall r within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act. The Stormwater Management By-Law would let them see all projects resulting in disturbance of an acre or more of land. Projects falling under the Wetlands Protection Act would be exempt, so as not to create dual permits. The draft of the Stormwater Management By-Law calls for initial inspection of the erosion control measures by the Commission or its Agent; but thereafter requires inspection and monthly reports during construction by the permittee. A final report and certified as-build plan is also required. Colin made the motion to accept the minutes of February 28, 2005. Marc seconded. Passed (7-0). I,",~~", r- March 28, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. ~~~~d~t1J5 Date / r- /