Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of conservation com 06/22/2005 r-- RECEIVED TOWN CL.tR~S OFF ICE 06 JUN - 6 AM II : 36 Mansfield Crossing Project Workshop Meeting June 22, 2005 MANSFIELD MASSACHUSETTS Present: Carole Matthew; Colin Cauldwell; Michele Grenier; Representing ESS: Ann McMenemy of Environmental Resources Management; David White, Jr. Group Manager, Land Development & Engineering, ESS; Jeffrey Heidelberg, Project Engineer, ESS; Louis Masiello, Director of Development, W/S Development; Mark Beaudry, Senior Project Manager, Meridian Associates, Inc.; Jeffrey Bridge, Senior AssociatelEcologist, Mason & Associates, Inc. For the review, Jeff Bridge did a wetland related review and Mark Beaudry did a stormwater engineering review. Ann-There have been ehauges in wetlaud impacts since the review-the Mass Electric Easement was not included in this review. This wiD be incorporated into the review. Louis Masiello suggested using the Recommendations part of the letter from Mason & Associates as a template. Jeff Bridge stated that the recommendations are based on the March 9tll plan and that there were updated plans submitted on May lOth. He also said that he is not r- requiring the applicant to do anything, he is only suggesting that the Commission require the applicant to consider these points. Mr. Masiello stated that the plan dated May 10tll is a response to the Planning Board recommendations. ESS wiD be meeting with the Planning Board on July 20, 2005. He also stated that the Zoning Board had acted in favor of 3 relief items: to reduce the total number of parking spaces on site from the zoning code to a ratio of 4 to 5; buildings to be set away from certain types of soils, soils that don't have an environmental value (ZBA and the Planning Board waived this section of the code); tile 50 ft. laudseaping set back. ThM applies to the entire property. Mass aeetrieal power lines bi-sed the site aud will cross a section of the 50 ft. buffer. Trees will be cleared in the 50 ft. buffer to dear a small area UDder the power line. ZBA has granted a special permit for this project. Mason & Associates recommends that the Commission consider the following: 1) Require the Applicant to update and expand as necessary the information in the Notice of Intent to include, at a minimum, a description of all regulated activities, resultant resource area alterations and the their effects on the environment. ~ Since much of the information has been supeneded and is outdated, Jeff feels the Notice of Intent needs to be updated with information to coincide with the revised plans and to provide additional information concerning wetland mitigation and the r various proposed enhancement measures to existing resource areas and previously disturbed buffer zone. He is not suggesting a new Notice of Intent be filed- maybe consolidate all information and changes from all the boards. He stated that impacts have increased with the May plans. There is little to DO infonRatioB .. the irrigation; how it is going to work, what impact it will have on the pond. More infOnRation is needed in regard to the improvements/enhancements they are proposing for the resource areas and the buffer zones. Ann and Mr. Masiello agree this should be done. 2) Require the Applicant to consider realignment of the proposed relocated overhead transmission line in an effort to avoid alteration ofBVW. Jeff proposed putting the new pole to the south of the existing pole to avoid aD alteration of wetland 1. According to MECO the existing double pole, super struettJre lias to stay in place and can't be relocated. The next pole has to continue in the same alignment-can't turn at an angle. The lines can't go over the develeplBeBt ... the pukiag let. Mass Electric was not receptive to putting the lines under ground because they are hard to maintain and repair. r Ann said that the additional wetland impact is the result of the reIoeatioB of Mass Electrical easement requirements. Also ESS has requested "limited projed" status for public utilities (10.53 (3) (d)) Ann spoke to DEP about the over-head eledrie easeJBeltt .. the "1iIIIited pnjed" and they said it is not possible to restore to the pre-existing conditions if it was forested because of Vegetation Management programs. Mr. Bridge said only relocation of utilities is allowed uder a "limited pnjed". This does not fall under a "limited projed". He is concerned about the restoration- surface vegetation and contours of the area because trees are being cut and they are converting from one cover type to another. Michele agreed that the utility line doesn't exist now and does not fall under "limited projed" status. Ann-When DEP reviewed this projed they did Dot offer auy comments about auy of the "limited projects". The impact to the wetland was 1,850 sq. ft., a little higher than when the projed was reviewed by Mason & Associates. The impact is now more than 2,300 sq. ft. r Jeff-If it is determined that these 3 wetland alteration areas associated with the r-- relocation of the MECO line are not of "limited project" status, then the project is weD over 5,000 sq. ft. 3.) Require the Applicant to provide written documentation from Mass Highway that site access from Route 140 does not represent a reasonable and currently available alternative means of access from a public way. Mass Highway has denied site access from Route 140 in numerous letters. Further information is needed. Jeff-For purposes of complyiDg with tIlis "limited project", further information is required to prove there is no reasonable alternative. 4) Require the- Applicant to consider the use of elevated bridge structures (e.g. pre-cast concrete open bottom arch culverts) in lieu of the currently proposed enclosed box and reinforced concrete pipe culverts and fill to cross intermittent streams A, B and C. Jeff feels that resource area impacts caD be further minimi7.ed if elevated structures were used to span intermittent streaMS A, Band C rather than the proposed use of culverts and fill. Ann-There has been recent changes in regulations relative t. stream crossings. .r- These changes have not been adopted by the Wetlands Protection Act (not for 3 years). This will mean more extensive review ofprojeets. Crossings will be larger, the impact greater (for this site, crossing areas of existing streams-the farm pond crossing with existing culvert, intermitteat streams A aad B-IJedI are degraded frHt past activities-not devoid of value, just reduced value). There is also an intermittent stream channel, dag to dnin wetland I (this is not the main outlet of wetland 1). This site also has a small culvert. Because these are not high value stream locations on the site, Ann does not feel the cost benefit aaaIysis aad .1Jer:ial faadi.B tIIat would be maintained would be appropriate to go to this level of design that would result in additiODaI wetland aad BVW impacts. At this time they have not redesigned to implement these requirements on this project. Carole wanted to know if ESS would consider using elevated bridge structures. Mr. Masiello said they have considered this but don't think it is the correct solution. They would be wiDing to show the Commission the added impact and why they feel it is not the solution. This would impact the fa... p8Bd enMISiag aad the intermittent stream crossings. CoHn feels the Commission would tike to see the impact the elevated bridge structures would have. r-- 5) Require the Applicant to evaluate the Wetland Replacement Areas and to modifY the ~ design as necessary to ensure the development of a successfully functioning wetland mitigation plan. Jeff: Wetland impacts total 4,494 sq. ft. with wetland replacement totaling 22,540 sq. ft.-a 4:1 ratio. Wetland Replacement Area 1 is located adjacent and downstream of Water Quatity Basin 1. Going to be alteriDg 446 If of replacement bank. The stream tIlat is being altered-what is the frequency of Bow? How often is the replacement bank for the alteratioa gei8g" Oew is .......,. water A.... ~ ... alae bank is coming out of the basin that only receives water intermittently? Ann: WiD look in to tile Oow of the streams. The bank DlitiptiOD is for aD of the bank impacts on the site. The applicant could have tried to create several replacements in other locations but wouldn't have got the value aDd felt by creating one mini- eco-system, this would add more value and function. Wetland Replacement Area 2, between basin 3 aud existing wetland-Michele aud Jeff noticed that there is a lot of compacted gravel. Jeff suggested that the gravel fill be removed aDd replaeedlbaddilled with suitable soil (orgaDie earboD) that will support the proposed wetland plantings. Ann agreed. r-- 6) Require the Applicant to consider further revisions to the stormwater management plan to avoid the discharge of runoff into the Pond and the resultant direct and indirect impacts to Wetlands I and 2. A review of the Stormwater Report Addendum notes that the water levels will rise approximately 1 inch in Wetland 1 and 0.5 in Wetland 2, essentially at the same levels as predevelopment conditions. At the present time, there are 2 out falls and no inlet into the poDd. There are 2 inlets proposed for the pond. Colin-What about tile qualitative impact of the untreated water? This is a change aud needs to be addressed. Jeff-Why can't the drainage continue to go into IBtenDitteat Stream B so we don't have the untreated stormwater going into the pond? David-We are modifying the Sell_I St. dninage-ean go back and introduce some type of treatment system to elean fllis water ~ Jeff recommends putting in another stonnwater deteatiea ..... _1iIIe .. aptun some of the water, treat the water, contain it and outlet it to the pond-therefore they wouldn't be using the pond for retention. They would not have to fill the wetlands r ~ to create a berm to hold the water in the basin. The water could be metered out to r- the pond to maintain the hydrology of the pond. Therefore, water doesn't increase; you save wetland impacts and avoid altering the pond because of stormwater runoff. The applicant claims that the alteration of LUWW is limited to the installation of an intake pipe for irrigation and will be less than 5,000 sq. ft. Jeff-at a minimum, the 5,000 sq. ft. thres'old 'as been exceeded and he feels the project, as proposed, wiD actually alter approximately 4 acres of LUWW and wiD exceed the performance standards for this resource area. Therefore, a wildlife habitat evaluation is necessary. Ann doesn't believe this is .. alteration because it doesn't have a negligible change or an adverse impact, as defined in t'e Wetlands Protection Act. Jeff disagrees; he feels it is .. alteratioa. He feels this is .. ........... iuae .... could affect the project. Carole feels it is au alteration. She feels the Commission probably wiD 'ave a problem with this. 7) Require the Applicant to provide additional information regarding proposed irrigation and its effects on the Pond. r- As proposed, .. intake pipe wiD be installed within the pond for tile purposes of witladrawing water for irrigation (so the project wiD not be drawing off the public water source for irrigation). This appears to represent an additional aetivity nsuIti8g ill ......... aItcntieII to LUWW-Iowering of the water level-for which the impacts have not been identified, described or evaluated in the Notice of Intent. Ann-It was in a conceptual stage when the Notice of lateat _u:IiW a year ago-did acknowledge the dired impact for when the pipe would be laid in the pond and the intake valve installed. Ann-We don't have the specitk answers for you, need to go baek iatenaaIIy to evaluate and put details and an advanced concept to a design. Lou described a Lifestyle Center-tlte site layout is IIIOre varied; stores are facing each other, not a street; tenants are more high end, specialty stores as opposed to general or discount stores; Architecture is more upgraded-dapboard, cultured stone, more glass; more heavily landscaped. Jeffwanted to bow why a well was aot put in for irrigation plU'pOSeS. David said that since the pond is replenis'ed with groundwater, that to put in a well would be r- r-- diverting water from the pond. They want to maintain the hydrology of the pond and the intermittent streams. Mark thought that maybe a cistern could be used to take the runoff from the roof for irrigation. Colin-Has the applicant thought of using drought-resistant plantings? Yes Ann-should they be looking for alternatives for irrigation? Michele feels all water conservation issues should be explored to minimize the impact on the pond and wetlands. Ann-We need to explore all alternatives for irrigation and address what has been proposed so far, with far more detail/elimination of the impacts to wetland. 8) Require the Applicant to prepare a wildlife habitat evaluation pursuant to 10.60 should alteration to LUWW exceed the 5,000 sq. ft. threshold. 9) Require the Applicant to re-consider the filing fee in response to those currently proposed activities resulting in the raising and lowering of the water level in the Pond. r-- This is an additional activity resulting in further alteration to LUWW, for which impacts have not been identified in the Notice of Intent riled May 2004. This wiD be included in the revised Notice of Intent. 10) Require the Applicant to consider a revised site plan of reduced scale to further avoid and minimize project-related wetland impacts to the extent practicable and to provide a 50 ft. "no disturb" zone as required by the Commission. This project does not fully comply with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or the Town of Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law. Jeff feels that the proposed development could be scaled down to be in compliance of the 50 ft. "no disturb" zone and to lessen the wetland impacts. Carole stated that the Commission wiD require that ESS follow Section 2.4 of the By-Law, holding them to the 50 ft. "no disturb" zone for new construction. This project primarily establishes a limit of work setback of 25 ft. Ann and Lou met with the former agent and he advised them that for a disturbed site which this project is, that a 50 ft. wouldn't be appropriate-gave them examples of commercial projects such as Erin's Centre where there was work up to the 25 ft. zone. Carole pointed out that we have been in court for years over Erin's Centre. ~ . , r- Colin said that the Commission has consistently held to the 50 ft. "no disturb" zone. "Our policy is our policy. People have been unable to build because of the 50 ft. and constructions unable to be occupied because of the setback. The Commission's position is to require a 50 ft. "no disturb" zone for new construction." Mr. Masiello said that the project has now been reduced from 450,000 sq. ft. to 395,000 sq. ft. They have eliminated the hotel from the plan. In its place they wiD relocate the existing farmhouse that is in front of the pond to the hotel site and it wiD then be donated to the Chamber of Commerce to be used as their headquarters. They have also eliminated the large anchor store (Kohl's) from the plan and have reconfigured the plan, the result of which wiD mean smaller, more high end specialty type stores, 20,000 sq. ft. or less. There have been increases in some of the buffering set backs to property lines. They have made changes to prevent encroachment in the 25 ft. zones. They have also pulled the developed portion of the property away from the wetland line. They have added upland stormwater basins that were not in the original design, to reduce the use of the existing on site pond as a detention feature, to a minimum level. 11) Require the Applicant to consider placing a Conservation RestrictionlEasement on the subject property to avoid subsequent alteration of resource areas and buffer zone. /- This would prevent further alteration of resource areas and to the remaining undeveloped areas. The applicant does not want a Conservation Restriction. Michele wants a Deed Restriction not a Conservation Restriction and Ann agreed. 12) Require the Applicant to provide additional information/detail regarding the proposed improvements/enhancements to resource areas and Buffer Zones. Ann is putting together an enhancement plan but is holding off because she is finalizing the landscaping plan with the Planning Board and wants to make sure there is no conflict with the enhancement and landscaping plans. 13) Require the Applicant to consider implementing a monitoring control plan for invasive plant species as part of the overall wetland mitigation program. Jeffwould like the Applicant to implement a monitoring control plan for invasive plant species such as purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. ~ Ann says there are invasive plant species on site. There is also invasive aquatic species in the pond. Since herbicides would be the primary recommendation to control the invasion, before Ann crafts an invasive species plan, she would like to r-- r r-- know how the Commission would react to that. Michele thinks excavation might also be something to think about. 14) Require the Applicant to fully demonstrate regulatory compliance, appurtenant to the Act and By-Law, in response to those project-related jurisdictional activities. Ann-This goes back to the 1st bullet and aU the stuff talked about in between. &~ (, Iz iv \--- . ~