Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION 05192014Town of Mansfield Conservation May 19, 2014 Present: Joseph Mulkern, Chairman; Michael Healey, Vice Chairman; Christopher Marcheselli; James Turnbull; Carole Matthew; Ryan Maxwell; Katelyn Merrill, Environmental Planner. 1. Meeting called to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Request for Determination of Applicability: Patricia Scarpellini, 1099 East Street, Map 43, Parcels 11 & 15. The Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) was filed for a proposed addition to an existing house, renovation and expansion of an existing garage for an in -law apartment. Michael Trowbridge of Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc. was present representing Patricia Scarpellini. Mr. Trowbridge explained the existing garage will be removed and a 22'x6' addition will be built on the same foundation but extended four feet. All work will be in a previously disturbed area, the existing paved driveway. He said on the right hand side of the house an 8'x16' covered porch is proposed on an existing grassed area, to the northwest of the garage. The proposed porch is approximately 42' from the wetland boundary, which is located at the bottom of the slope leading from a fenced lawn area to a ponded area. The footings will be dug by hand; machines will be used only when saw - cutting the pavement in front of the garage. The septic system will be upgraded and is approximately 90 feet from resource area. Mr. Trowbridge said brush and grass clippings on the right side of the property will be removed. Because there will be an increase in run -off from the proposed porch, Ms. Merrill asked that a stone trench be added around the perimeter of the covered porch for recharge. The proposed work area is generally flat. Any disturbed areas will be loamed and seeded. Ms. Merrill noted the site is located within NHESP Estimated and Priority Habitat but the project is exempt from NHESP review because it is an addition to a single- family dwelling. Ms. Merrill said there is a potential vernal pool listed in the area of the existing wetland system. Even though the site is within a sensitive area, Ms. Merrill said this is a reasonable project, within a very developed area; the greenhouses have been there since the 1920s and the house since the 1960s. Ms. Merrill said if the scope of work were to change, the project would require a little more oversight. She said siltation controls are not necessary because the work area is within the fenced lawn area. She recommends a Negative Determination for Reason #3 be issued with a special condition that the Agent is to be notified of the start and the completion of work. Mr. Mulkern asked if there was a filing for the pool and fence before this application. Mr. Trowbridge said the pool is an existing structure and the homeowner had replaced it in the same location in the past. He said the fence was installed approximately one or two years ago but is assumed to be exempt under the Mansfield By- law. Ms. Merrill said the existing fence can be included in this request along with the addition. Ms. Matthews stated that the fence was probably a good idea and limits access to the resource area. Ms. Matthew said this site does fall under the By -law and a new fence is not exempt. She said the plan is labeled "repair sewage disposal system" and asked if the additional work should be noted on the plan. Mr. Trowbridge said he will submit a revised plan, "Repair Sewage Disposal System /Conservation ". 1 Mr. Healey made the motion to issue a Negative Determination for Reason #3, work will not alter an Area Subject to Protection; a Notice of Intent is not required, for Patricia Scarpellini, 1099 East Street, Map 43, Parcel 11 & 15, for the construction of an addition, covered porch and upgraded septic system within 100 feet of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland with the special condition that the Agent be notified of the start and completion of the work. The recently installed fence is noted on the application /plan, "Repair Sewage Disposal System ", dated April 23, 2014, prepared by Michael A. Trowbridge, Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Mr. Trowbridge said an As -Built will be done for the Board of Health and the Building Inspector and he will submit the plan to Conservation. Revised title change — "Repair" Sewage Disposal /Conservation Plan, 1099 East Street, dated May 20, 2014. 3. Request for Determination of Applicability: Michael Sullivan, 45 Winter Street, Map 40, Parcel 82. The Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) was filed for the demolition of an existing pool, repair and replacement of a deck, and repair and side a 21'x12' rear room within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands. Homeowner Michael Sullivan was present. Ms. Merrill said this project is currently underway; Mr. Sullivan is in the process of removing an existing in- ground pool, approximately 60 feet from a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. She said the pool area is located within a previously developed lawn area and the area will be loamed and seeded once the pool has been filled in. Ms. Merrill was notified of the work being done and after contacting the Mr. Sullivan, she conducted a site visit. She requested that Mr. Sullivan stop all work and file an RDA and install siltation controls. She asked Mr. Sullivan to remove the concrete debris from the buffer zone. She said the wood deck is to be repaired and replaced as needed and the 21'x12' rear room is to be repaired and sided. Ms. Merrill recommended a Negative Determination for Reason #3 with the special condition that the silt fence is to remain in place until the completion of debris removal and the area has been stabilized. Ms. Matthew said that the wetland line should be noted on the plan sketch. Mr. Healey made the motion to issue a Negative Determination for Reason #3, work will not alter an Area Subject to Protection; a Notice of Intent is not required, to Michael Sullivan, 45 Winter Street, Map 40, Parcel 82, for the demolition of an existing pool, repair and replace a deck, and repair and side a 21'x12' rear room within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands, with the following special condition: the silt fence is to remain in place until the completion of debris removal and the area has been stabilized by vegetation. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Hearing ended at 7:15 pm. 4. Notice of Intent: Stephen and Roberta Converse, 1805 West Street, Map 2, Parcel 9.DEP SE #211 -0924. The Notice of Intent (NOI) was filed to remove an existing garage, construct a new garage with footings and repave the driveway within 100 feet of Greenwood Lake. Paula Thompson, Waterman Design Associates, Inc., was present. Ms. Thompson explained there is an existing single - family house with a two -car garage. The existing garage is in poor condition with no footings. The garage will be demolished, a 4 -foot frost wall constructed and the garage reconstructed within the same footprint. The back corner of the proposed garage will be located 32 feet from the edge of Greenwood Lake. The site plan shows an erosion barrier and two trees overhanging the existing garage, one Red Maple and one White Pine, which will be removed. The existing driveway will be repaved within the same footprint. Ms. Merrill said the garage definitely needs to be replaced and the Red Maple will have to be removed for the construction. There will be no impact when the erosion controls are installed. She said this was a well presented application. A stone trench will be installed to collect runoff. This project is not within NHESP habitat. Mr. Mulkern was concerned that during the demolition of the garage debris would migrate to the lake. Ms. Thompson said the area is well vegetated and the garage will be removed from the driveway side. Ms. Merrill said as part of the Order of Conditions, she should be notified when the demolition starts and if necessary, will be on site during the demolition. Mr. Marcheselli asked if the tree stumps would be flush cut. Ms. Merrill said yes, this is part of the special conditions. Mr. Healey made the motion to issue an Order of Conditions to Stephen and Roberta Converse, 1805 West Street, Map 2, Parcel 9, DEP SE #211 -0924, with the following special conditions: No work can be started the Order of Conditions has been recorded with the Bristol County Registry of Deeds and the receipt of the Order is returned to the Commission filled in by the Registry; all work must conform to the plans referenced this Order; all mitigation and erosion control devices and measures (hay bales, waddles, siltation fences, shall be installed, per plan, prior to any construction, clearing, or excavation. The applicant shall notify the Commission's agent when any such devices or measures are installed so that a site visit can be made prior to the commencement of work; the Commission reserves the right to require additional mitigation or erosion control devices or measures if mitigation or erosion control devices are not adequately installed or in the field; the applicant shall ensure that all erosion control devices or measures shall remain in place and maintained throughout the construction process and until all disturbed areas are stabilized. Stabilization be achieved by a variety of techniques including, but not limited to, sodding, seeding, or mulching. If is used, stabilization shall be considered achieved once a complete vegetative cover is reached. Seeded shall be covered with hay or other suitable protective cover to allow the seed time to take hold; all roof is to be directed in drywells or equivalent drainage components approved by the Commission. The or its agent shall review the locations of the drywells; the Conservation Commission or its agent is to be notified of the starting date of the work prior to its commencement; the applicant shall retain the Order of Conditions and all plans on site during the construction; these shall be made available to all contractors; wetland flagging must remain in place until the project has been completed and the Certificate of issued; the Certificate of Compliance shall be requested in writing upon completion of the project. At the same time, the applicant or any successor shall, upon completion of the project, submit an as -built plan and letter signed by a professional engineer, certifying that the work has been done in accordance with the approved plan; any modifications or revisions to the plan(s) referenced in this Order must be submitted to 3 Commission for review. If, after review, the Commission finds that the changes are not significant enough (minor modifications) to warrant an Amended Order or new Notice of Intent, then the revised plans shall be considered the new plan of record. If the changes are significant enough to warrant an Amended Order or new Notice of Intent, then the applicant is required to file accordingly; both trees to be removed shall be cut; all disturbed areas within limit of work are to be stabilized and seeded as soon as possible to prevent erosion issues. Mr. Marcheselli seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Plan "Existing Conditions" and "Site Plan ", dated April 25, 2014, prepared by Waterman Design Associates, Inc., USGS Locus Map, FIRM Insurance Rate Map, July 7, 2009 S. Notice of Intent: Robert Welch, Airport Manager— Mansfield Municipal Airport Commission, 265 Fruit Street, Map 34 & 36, Parcels 34 -115; 34 -415; 36 -11; 36 -148; 36 -15; 36 -16; 36 -150; 34 -130; and Rail Trail Right -of -Way. DEP SE #211 -0923 The Notice of Intent (NOI) was filed for tree cutting within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands, 200 - foot Riverfront Area, Back Bay Brook. Matt Caron, Gale Associates, Inc., the engineering firm for the Mansfield Municipal Airport, Stu Moncrieff with Gale Associates, Inc., Kassie Collins and Steve Riberty, with GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. the environmental sub consultant on the project and Carl Lambrecht, Vice President of the Mansfield Airport Commission were present. Mr. Caron said the airspace surrounding public use airports is governed by 14 CFR Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 — Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. He said the FAA requires through the grant assurances the towns and airport commissions will manage surrounding airspace in order to assure an appropriate level of safety at each airport, and to maintain eligibility for future funding. In 2010, the Airport completed an aeronautical survey which used detailed photogrammetry to determine the height of vegetation surrounding the airport and objects that are penetrating the airspace. In 2012, the Airport completed an Obstruction Plan outlining how the airport can begin to address some of these obstructions that are in the airspace. At that time, the Airport also updated the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP). In 2013, the Airport began seeking and acquiring aviation easements over neighboring properties for the purpose of removing obstructions that affect the airport's protective services. Mr. Caron said the Airport has been successful in negotiating with property owners for the rights and easements over their properties to clear vegetation obstructions. He said there are no man -made obstructions such as telephone poles, chimneys, etc. He noted that some areas planned for tree clearing contain wetlands. Mr. Healey asked Mr. Caron to explain, in detail, the FAA regulations that are required to be met, what is the entire objective of the VMP, and to explain certain site elevations shown on the plans. Mr. Healey asked if the FAA requires that nothing (vegetation) be above the noted elevation at a particular distance from the runway. Mr. Caron said they are trying to clear approach surfaces and some transition surface clearing will also take place. Mr. Healey noted that the plan appears to show that nothing can grow above an elevation 190' to 200' in height but since shrubs do not grow to that high, why do they need to be cut. Mr. Caron stated that a lot of the clearing will be field selected. Mr. Healey noted that the figures show the contours are in meters on the NGVD datum and the elevations for areas to be cleared is in feet. This all needs to be converted into the same unit. Mr. Riberty discussed the entire perimeter of the Airport, the different work areas and the resource areas associated with the cutting, (wetlands, buffer zones, streams, Back Bay Brook, 200 -foot Riverfront Area and the upland areas) what work will be done in each area and what wetlands are affected. The plan proposed El that the cutting will be located on seven parcels off the airport property and the Airport itself. There is a wetland on the south side of the public primary runway. Part of the cutting located on the Airport itself is shown on this plan and has been managed in the past by a previously approved VMP. He explained the access road right -of -way and the wetland adjacent to the bike path will also be affected. He said that the proposed clearing will be selective and determined in the field with the contractors, based on the FAA regulations and the proximity of the vegetation to the runway. Mr. Riberty discussed different methods used to clear sensitive wetland areas versus upland areas and pointed out the different impacts to and the clear methodology for each resource area. Mr. Riberty discussed the separate mandate from MASS Historic that there is to be no ground disturbance and to only cut in the winter months to minimize the impacts to the resource areas. Mr. Mulkern asked what the process is to obtain easements in residential areas. Mr. Caron said they meet with the property owners and offer compensation. Mr. Riberty stated that the Airport is paying for the right to basically maintain the airspace on that property in perpetuity. Ms. Merrill noted that she met in the field with the environmental scientist from GZA, the engineers from Gale Associates, Inc. and the Airport Staff. She pointed out that not all areas shown on the plan are within the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission, it is a general overview of the whole project but there are some areas that as proposed would have far more impact than others. She noted that the original plan showed a smaller wetland system along the bike path but when observed in the field, it appeared as if the wetland line had exceeded the flagged line. In response, the representatives have made changes to the original wetland delineations and calculations; the numbers are actually larger for the actual wetland impacts than what is stated in the application. Upon Ms. Merrill's request, the applicant updated the application and plan, which were submitted tonight. She said the revised plan and application have not been reviewed. Ms. Merrill noted her over all issues with the project. It was her understanding that the Airport needs to come into compliance with FAA regulations regarding safety; however, she does not feel the application is clear enough to understand the entire scope of the clearing project. She disagreed with the idea of selective trimming in the field without knowing exactly which trees will be cut or trimmed. There are a lot of trees that will be impacted and without knowing the exact scope of clearing, it could potentially result in unnecessary clearing. Ms. Merrill said there are a lot of references to previously submitted reports that are quite lengthy and complicated, especially when citing FAA regulations. Due to the complexity and scope of this project, Ms. Merrill recommended that a peer review consultant be hired to review the project. She feels the project needs the level of intense review which she cannot provide with her limited hours. Mr. Maxwell asked about the term "wetland rough mowing ". Mr. Riberty said because this area is so wet, the airport does not have the equipment to maintain this area. He explained that "wetland rough mowing" involves brush cutting, the removal of saplings that are approximately 20 feet in height and one inch thick and basic mowing. Ms. Matthew asked if the summary on page 21 of 80 is a good indicator of what the proposed mitigation is the eight areas that will be impacted by this project. Mr. Riberty said yes, it is the minimization standards. said they are changing the wetland from forest and shrubs back down to lower shrubs and thinning the forested areas with some of the areas changed from forested to a shrub layer to be maintained in Ms. Matthew said when trees are cut it changes the forested areas to a shrub layer and asked what agency over sees this change. Ms. Merrill said it is how the regulations are interpreted and this is why we to look into whether the way they classified the impacts is correct. Mr. Riberty said this falls under the 5 project for a VMP for airports. Ms. Merrill said the VMP references a 2013 plan which she has not had time review. She feels there will be hydrologic impacts if you remove the entire canopy. Ms. Merrill said Norton has issued an Order of Conditions for portions of this project but she has not been able to meet with the Norton Conservation Agent to review the Order. Mr. Turnbull said he does not feel it is necessary to clear cut the parcel. He said the plan is too vague; the activity is just called out as "clearing ". Mr. Riberty discussed the selective cutting, the size of the trees that will be removed and the equipment to be used. Mr. Mulkern said the Commission does not want the Airport to have to come back every five years to maintain the tree height. Mr. Riberty agreed the FAA does not want to fund this project, only to find that in two years there are violations again. He said the FAA would like to have five to ten years without having any issues regarding maintenance. Mr. Marcheselli asked about the logging equipment that would be needed for this project. Mr. Riberty said because of the mandate that there is to be no ground disturbance, it limits what equipment can be used. He discussed the types of equipment that would be used. Mr. Turnbull asked if the lumber would be removed. Mr. Riberty said some of the lumber will be removed but for the trees in wetlands areas, the drop and lop method will be used, hand felled and cut in place. He said the trees in the wetland areas will be left, more for habitat value. Mr. Aaron Gallagher, 30 Tracy Circle, said while the neighbors understand this work has to be done, and do not want to be unreasonable, as a group they have some concerns about the Notice of Intent that was filed. The main concern is the hydrology of the area. He said it states multiple times in the NOI that "the hydrology of the area will not be impacted by the removal of all these trees ". He disagreed with that statement; even though the overall hydrology of the water shed probably will not change that much, the hydrology of the immediate area will be altered. He noted that all the houses on Tracy Circle have sump pumps because the ground water is high at certain times of the year and he is concerned that by removing all the trees and the shrub layer, there will be an increase in the amount of water going into the ground. He said there are no calculations for pre- and post - hydrology in the application, information that a typical NOI would have. Mr. Gallagher said they dismiss the hydrology issue by saying they have done this type of activity in other places and it has not affected the areas adversely. He asked that the applicant explain the hydrology of this project, why the calculations were not included in the NOI and how they arrived at the conclusion that the removal of the trees and shrub layer will not affect the surrounding properties. Mr. Riberty said calculations are not generally included in a VMP. He said there might be some localized affect during the transition period while the shrub layer re- vegetates. Ms. Merrill said after reviewing the documents, she feels the hydrology would be an impact to the wetlands and while the idea of a transition period is noted, she does not know how this system is going to function if you remove the trees because there is not much of a shrub layer. She asked who would be responsible for the replacement of the shrub layer if it does not re- generate or does not survive. She explained that if the wetlands lose the hydric vegetation and soils along with hydrology, they do not qualify as wetlands anymore. Her concern is to make sure that these systems do rebound and they do become functioning systems again. Ms. Merrill said her recommendation for the peer review stands because it would not be just for the review of the application, it would be for oversight as well. Mr. Marcheselli reminded the neighbors from Tracy Circle that a lot of the areas to be cleared are upland areas which are outside the Commission's jurisdiction. Olivier Kozlowski of 22 Tracy Circle said he was concerned about the impact the removal of the trees and layer would have on the surrounding properties. Because some of the project involves the area by the entrance to the bike path, the removal of the trees would remove the buffer between the properties on N Circle and the bike path. Mr. Kozlowski said the article for the funding for this project was presented and passed at the 2014 Town Meeting with the caveat that there would be a mitigation plan submitted by the Airport to address the issue of a vegetated buffer for the bike path and the neighbors. Mr. Marcheselli agreed there should be a peer review because a lot of the larger trees to be removed are outside the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction and there are questions as to changes in the hydrology. Alex Rothchild, 11 Eugenia Drive, discussed the hydrologic difference between trees and shrubs and how it affects the overall hydrology and the wetlands. He said more discussion is needed for a project this size. Ms. Merrill explained a lot of the questions involve understanding the applicable FAA regulations that were cited in the application. She said there were previous updates to the VMP that she was unable to locate. She stated if something is cited in the plan, it needs to be provided to the Commissioners and whoever else requests the information. Mr. Healey made the motion to continue the hearing for the Notice of Intent for the Mansfield Municipal Airport Commission, 265 Fruit Street, Map 34 & 36, Parcels 34 -115; 34 -415; 36 -11; 36 -148; 36 -15; 36 -16; 36- 150; 34 -130; and Rail Trail Right -of -Way, DEP SE 211 -0923, due to the size, scope and complexity of the project and the limited hours of the Conservation staff and further motioned to hire an outside consultant to provide peer review of the Notice of Intent and any associated materials. The following is an approved scope of work to be conducted by a qualified consultant at the applicant's expense: The scope of work is to include a review, evaluation, critique and written report with recommendations concerning the proposed VMP. This scope of work will include the following: 1. Review the Notice of Intent, site plans, wetland delineations, and other supplemental documents included in the VMP (including previously submitted vegetation management plans for the property dating back to 2000) 2. Review the compliance of proposed VMP with Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (The Act) and the Town of Mansfield Wetlands Protection By -Law (By -Law). Scope will include basic review of applicable FAA Airport Design Standards, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) regulations (which set the standards for the proposed VMP). 3. Conduct a site inspection of the proposed areas to be managed within the resource areas and Conservation jurisdictional areas within the vicinity. 4. Prepare a report summarizing the scope of the project, whether the proposed VMP meets the standards set forth by the Act and By -Law, and recommendations on permitting decisions of the Commission. 5. Attend up to two conservation hearings to present the report and answer any questions from the Commission. 6. A consultant that has experience on the impacts in hydrology from forest clearing. Mr. Turnbull seconded the motions. Motions passed 6 -0 -0. Ms. Merrill said based on the scope of the work, the Requests for Proposal will be sent to three consultants, and once the proposals have been received, the Commission will review and approve the consultant at the next meeting. Mr. Caron asked if prior to any subsequent meeting, they could receive a copy of any questions. Ms. Merrill said she will prepare an outline of what the applicant, the Commission and neighbors are looking for. Mr. Mulkern said if anyone has questions they can contact Ms. Merrill. Ms. Merrill said it is up to the applicant to provide all the documents, materials and updates to anyone that requests them. Kassie Collins said she will provide the documents that are cited in the NO1. 7 7. Notice of Intent: Lawrence Gracer, 6 Sawmill Court, Map 37, Parcel 187. DEP SE #211 -0924 The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of an in- ground pool and concrete apron with proposed grading and fencing. Ms. Merrill said the applicant is in the process of re- designing the project after the re- delineation of the wetlands. Mr. Healey made the motion of continue the hearing for the Notice of Intent for 6 Sawmill Court, DEP SE 211 -924. Mr. Marcheselli seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. 8. Notice of Intent: Raj Moholtra, Terminus of Wood Avenue, Map 20, Lot 124. DEP SE #211 -0921 The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of one self- storage building with associated site improvements within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands and requires wetland filling and replication. James DeVellis of DeVellis Zrein, Inc. was present. Ms. Merrill gave a brief overview of the project which was presented at the April meeting. The filing was for a storage facility and there would be some wetland filling. At the April meeting the quality of the wetland and replication plan was discussed. The applicant planned to take three isolated pockets and join them hydraulically to make one functioning system. The entire replication plan and impacts were reviewed. Ms. Merrill said she has not reviewed the Stormwater Management issues with Richard Alves, Town Engineer, but said a lot of his comments were technological drawing details. One of the comments was the work being done in such close proximity of the 25 -foot No Touch Zone; portions of the building are within a couple of feet of the 25 -foot. Ms. Merrill said the construction of the micro pool within the replication area was discussed. The micro pool would drop the elevations down and provide some longer standing surface water. Mr. DeVellis summarized the scope of the work and the Stormwater Management. He said the project is currently going through Planning Department review and they are very receptive to the project. He walked the site with Richard Alves, Town Engineer, and Shaun Burke, Director of Planning and Development to discuss any changes they might want done. Mr. DeVellis said their requested changes are outside the jurisdiction of Conservation. Ms. Merrill said the Commission would need updated plans. She explained Mr. DeVellis is addressing her concerns as well as Mr. Alves' but she has not seen all the material yet. She said the Commission can close the hearing and issue the Order of Conditions and but she was unable to draft the Order of Conditions because she has not reviewed all the material. She feels all the Commission's concerns have been addressed or will be receiving materials that will address the concerns. Ms. Merrill said the hearing can be closed but there is no plan of reference so the issuance of the Order would have to wait until the new plans are received and have been approved by the Commission. She said if the hearing is closed, no new information or issues can be discussed. Mr. DeVellis said he will update the plans to address the Planning Board issues and will submit the revised plan to Conservation so both departments will reference the same plan. Mr. Healey made the motion to continues the hearing for Raj Moholtra, Terminus of Wood Avenue, Map 20, Lot 124, for a self- storage building and associated site improvements, DEP SE #211 -0921 to June 16, 2014. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. 9. Correspondence: 30. New Business: Memorandum from Richard C. Alves, Jr. Town Engineer /Assistant DPW Director. Assessors Map 23, Lot 119, West Street for the maintenance on the Duck Pond. Letter from TEC, dated May 9, 2014: Safe Routes to School Infrastructure Program, Jordan Jackson Elementary School Improvements. MassDot and the Town of Mansfield are proposing sidewalk improvements and safety measures to improve the sidewalks along East Street. Ms. Merrill will follow up to see if there is any of the work is jurisdictional. Reorganization of the Commission: 9:05 pm. Mr. Healey made the motion to discuss the reorganization of the Commission. Mr. Turnbull seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Ms. Matthew made the motion to nominate James Turnbull for Vice Chairman. Mr. Mulkern made the motion to nominate Michael Healey for Chairman. Mr. Marcheselli seconded the motions. Motions passed 6 -0 -0. 11, Old Business: Minutes: Mr. Mulkern made a motion to approve the February 24, 2014 minutes as written. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0-1 (Mr. Marcheselli abstained) The March 17, 2014 minutes were not approved for lack of a quorum. Administrated Review under the By -Law. Ms. Merrill explained the process of a proposed procedure called administrative review. This procedure is for the Department to keep track of activities that qualified as an exemption under the Bylaw. This will not change or amend any regulations or the Bylaw. This process will help residents understand and will clearly outline what activities do not require a formal filing in front of the Conservation Commission. Ms. Merrill explained the proposed procedures of Administrative Review and reviewed the various activities that would fall under the exemptions of the 2.2 of the Mansfield Protection Bylaw. Ms. Merrill explained the proposed Administrative Review checklist and instructions. The Commission agreed that the following proposed activities fall under the exemptions of the Bylaw such as single tree removal, installation of sheds on concrete blocks (no new structures greater than 200 square feet) over 50 feet away from a resource area, above - ground pools over 50 feet away from a resource 11 (no new associated decks or large scale grading with above - ground pools), replacement of existing structures in kind, new footings associated with existing structures replaced in kind over 50 feet away from a resource area. Ms. Merrill indicated if there were any questions regarding the qualification of a project for Administrative Review, than she would request that the applicant file a RDA. 12. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 10:03 pm. Mulkern /Turnbull. Motion passed. Next meeting will be June 16, 2014 at 7:00 pm. 4Yh,,' 5 %,,W 'Y t y 2i� "2_0' ex Joseph- Mu4kefn, Chairman Date 10