Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of conservation com 08/28/2006 r- RECEIVED .., i "'" t r" '. , 1 r. I--.V<:, O"''"/C'" " "., ;, !'.,' t r if'" Conservation Commission Meetingo, .- August 28, 2006 b OCT 24 PM /2: 23 Present: Colin Cauldwell, Chair; Paul Boyden, Vice Chair; Jac~jb.f~~l1~ 0 Ostrowski; Carole Matthew; Jerry St. Hilaire; Ben Monachino; MTc:~~~rntYJ~,TTS Conservation and Environmental Planner. Jack made the motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 631 East Street, DeGirolamo-Bismark Realty Trust on the original Order of Conditions, dated September 24, 1990. Jerry seconded. Passed 7-0. Michele told the Commission the work is completed on Unit A201 and the buyer will be closing on September 4, 2006. She feels there should have been a Notice of Intent filed for each conddminium that r would have come under Conservation's jurisdiction. Ben wanted to know what will happen if you issue a partial Certificate for each unit; will the original conditions be met. Michele said you issue partials for each unit then a full Certificate for the entire project will be issued. The full Certificate will cover all the partials. She said this is the first unit asking for the Certificate of Compliance. There are a lot of units already sold. She is not sure if all the sold units are out of our jurisdiction. She will look at the file. Paul would like a letter written to the construction company stating we are issuing a partial for only this unit, A201, and they need to get a final Certificate of Compliance for the entire project before any partials for individual units will be issued. Michele will bring the files for this project to the next meeting. Cindy made the motion to issue a partial Certificate of Compliance for Unit A201, formerly known as Village Landing, LLC, Bismark Realty Trust & Peter DeGirolamo & Sons, now know as Heron Crest Condominiums. Jerry seconded. Passed 7-0. r T..- r- The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of an addition on an existing house and septic repair within 100 ft. of Greenwood Lake. Michael Trowbridge was present. Michael explained the existing cesspool is failing. Mrs. Memory might have to move out of the house if it is not repaired. 2 trenches are proposed in the front of the house, keeping it as far away from the lake as possible. The trenches are 50 ft. from Greenwood Lake. This is a pump design and has been approved by the Board of Health. The existing house is very small on a lot of 6,000 sq. ft. An addition, lOxl5 is proposed along with a triangular shaped section (approximately 5x5). The addition is out of the 25 ft. no touch area. This is a flat site, very little grading will be necessary for the addition and there will not be a full foundation. Michael proposed siltation control from the comer of the house to the fence, going around the area where the pump for the septic system is and around the tank. Michele performed a site walk on 8-17-06. She has no problems with the project. All the work is outside the 25 ft. no touch area of Greenwood Lake (from the high water mark of the lake). She recommends an Order of Conditions be issued. r Michael said he is aware the Commission has been requesting roof drains for additions but he is asking that the Commission consider not requiring the roof drains for this project because it will be impossible to put the roof drains out there and still stay 25 ft. from the septic system. A neighbor of Mrs. Memory, Karen Chambers-Hughes wanted to know if the construction would have any impact on their right-of-way to the lake. Michael said where the septic system is going there is an existing paved right-of-way that ends in the front of the property and though they are going to be digging up the right-of- way, they will be re-grading and repaving it. The addition is not in the right-of-way. Cindy made the motion to accept the plan, dated August 28, 2006, as drawn for 23 Lakeview Avenue and to issue an Order of Conditions with the haybales to be certified. Ben seconded. Passed 7-0. Continued from 8-14-2006. Ryan Bianchetto, from Allen & Major Associates, Inc. was present. r 2 of 10 ,"-'" There was a discrepancy between the wetland line and the wetland line adjacent to the stone gabion wall on the actual site. Wetland flags 24-28 were banking away from the stonewall. Michele and Ryan walked the site on 8-18-2006 and found the stonewall was incorrect on the existing plan. The Wetland flags were also incorrect on the plan. New plans, dated 8-22-2006, have been submitted with the stone gabion wall and the flags correctly shown. Jerry made the motion to accept the revised ANRAD plans for 9-11 Hampshire Street, dated 8-22-2006, and to issue an Order of Resource Area Delineation. Paul seconded. Passed 7-0. At the August 14th meeting, Cindy had mentioned that grass clippings had been dumped into the wetlands. She wanted to know it the clippings have been removed. Michele had sent a letter along with a phone call (left a message) to the owners of the property and she will check again in a week to make sure the wetlands have been cleared. Ryan said the clippings have not been removed. He had talked to Alicia and has also talked to the client through phone calls and e-mails. They are aware of it and are going to talk to the landscapers. r Continued to 9/11/2006. Ralph Maloon of RIM Engineering, Stanley Feck and Perry DiMascio, the applicants were present. Lot 17, 18 Clementine Drive-At the July 10,2006, the applicants were asked to locate the stream on the property and revise the plan to include the stream. Ralph noted on the plan the stream (seasonal) is not presently flowing. Colin said it was flowing in July. All construction is out of the 50 ft. no touch area but a comer of the house is near the wetlands. Carole wanted to know if the applicant could insure there will be no disturbance to the wetlands because of machinery. Stan Feck assured her it will not be necessary to put machinery in that area and Ralph said they are not digging a deep hole and they will only be going 4 ft. down. Paul asked what the perc rate is. Ralph said it is 5 or 6 mins per inch. Drywells will be able to handle the roof water. - I 3 of 10 Michele had no comments; all work is out of the 50 ft. no touch. r Carole would like signage on the 50 ft. and would like to impose conditions on the lot so no more building can occur-restricting additions and sheds and other work such as removal of trees, pools etc. Cindy agreed with Carole about the need for signage on the 50 ft. no touch line and restricting any further work on the property. Perry DiMascio does not feel the signage is necessary; you already have 50 ft. no touch in the by-law. Michele told Carole the Commission needs to put a Conservation Restriction on the deed. Colin noted that Conservation Restrictions are very hard to enforce, have legal implications and questioned who would enforce. Ben asked what a Conservation Restriction is. Michele explained the applicant crafts the restriction with the input from the Commission such as no cutting trees, no motorized vehicles, no additions including sheds, pools, etc. r Jerry is in favor of the restriction. He said when someone buys a property, they don't know if there are any restrictions on the property against further building and the use of the land. The Conservation Restriction makes this information more readily available. Paul and Carole agree the Conservation Restriction is needed. Michele thinks the site should have signage. Colin doesn't feel signs are necessary since the by-law already has a 50 ft. restriction. If they do any work within the 50 ft. buffer, they will be in violation. He questioned how a Conservation Restriction on the deed would prevent this. Perry DiMascio asked if the Conservation Restriction is really necessary, it is already covered by the town by-law. Cindy made the motion to accept the plan for 18 Clementine Drive (Lot 17) as drawn, dated April 28, 2006 with the following conditions: A Conservation Restriction on the deed; restrictions to include no motorized vehicles. no structures such as additions, sheds, fences, pools are allowed beyond the 50 ft. no touch; no trees or vegetation can be removed. Tree pruning of a safety nature only will be allowed with the approval of the Conservation Agent; signage will be placed on the 50 ft. no touch line, on 50 ft. centers on metal posts (not on trees) to read "Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb". Jerry seconded. Passed 6-0. Jack abstained. r 4 of 10 - r This hearing was continued from July 10, 2006. At that hearing, the applicant was asked to hire a professional wetland scientist to perform a Habitat Assessment for both 18 and 18 Clementine Drive to determine the presence/absence and extent of potential upland and/or wetland habitats for rare wildlife species and to identify any potential impacts to rare species from the proposed development. The site consists of two adjacent lots: Lot 16 A to the north and Lot 17 to the south, approximately 3.4 acres. There is an intermittent stream running through both properties that the Commission asked to have located and put on the plan. The site is within an area of an Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife and Priority Habitat of Rare Species. A letter dated June 2, 2006 from the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) indicating, "the proposed project will not result in a "take" of state-listed species." No vernal pools were identified within the site. Ralph Maloon, of RIM Engineering, Stanley Feck and Perry DiMascio, the applicants, were present. Ralph told the Commission the stream had been located and the revised plans, dated August 14, 2006, reflected this. r Ralph said he tried to get the house and septic out of the 50 ft. no touch but it can't be done and still have a viable project. The back of the house is 32 ft. from the wetlands. Ralph mentioned a letter sent to Engineers and Consultants. In the letter, it states 50 ft. for new construction and 25 ft no touch zones for previously altered areas. Even though there is no house on this lot, it is still a disturbed lot, with the spoils from when the subdivision was originally built in the 1980's. Michele wanted the Commission to know that a Notice of Intent was filed for 19 Clementine Drive on 12-5-1988 and an Order of Conditions was issued on 2-13-1989. A Notice of Intent was filed for 18 Clementine Drive on 10-26-1988 and an Order of Conditions was issued on 11-14-1988. Paul: "That was before our by-law". Ben: "When someone says previously disturbed land, I would take that as some kind of construction, a house, not someone putting a pile of dirt on it". Carole agreed. Michele said she has no comments except for the HYLAecological report. She reminded the Commission they were sent out only to find potential upland and/or wetland habitats. .- Cindy: "According to the HYLAecological report there is the potential for breeding habitats. The presence or absence of rare salamanders can only be determined between mid-April and late May. 5 of 10 '11 ,.. r Stan Feck asked the Commission to take into consideration that this was an existing lot before the new by-law and if the project is denied, this lot could actually become a taking. "If you enforce the 50 ft. no touch, you are taking this lot away. Michele told the Commission DEP does not look at takings. They do not recognize protecting wetlands as a taking. Paul and Ben want to get an opinion from Bob Mangiaratti, Town Council. Colin reminded the applicants that going to court usually is not successful for the applicant. Ralph: "DEP is dealing with state court. If you are going to fight a taking, you go to Federal Court. There your argument is based on the Bill of Rights. Carole: "Are we legally applying the by-law for the town's sake?" Colin: "If we enforce the 50 ft. we have to make sure that we are certain that the 18 ft. is going to significantly benefit the wetland and values that our by-law and state laws protect. Perry DiMascio: "They will be asking for mathematical data." Paul: "We have consistently applied 25 ft. where previous construction has occurred, 50 ft. for new construction. r Perry DiMascio: "Mathematically, are you protecting the wetlands more or less by applying these rules"? Paul: "We need to get the town council involved. Colin agreed. Perry DiMascio: "We have paper work, case studies, we would like to present to the town council so we can present the applicant's side. Colin feels in an existing subdivision it should be 25 ft. In a new subdivision, where the applicant can plan around existing problems, it should be 50 ft. Michele: "Are we still applying the by-law if we make it 25 ft. because we have the discretion?" Carole asked the percentage of wetlands on the property? Ralph said it is 65,311 sq. ft. of wetland/20,474 sq. ft. of upland. Colin: "We need to find out what exactly we are getting ourselves into legally if we deny this project. Lot was disturbed as part of the construction of the subdivision. This does provide it a degree of disturbance." He feels if the members of the board could go out and view the site, they would get a different perspective. When he looked at both lots, he ,~ 6 of 10 r thought Lot 17, 18 Clementine Drive was the lot in dispute not Lot 16A, 19 Clementine Drive. Ben wanted to know if it was possible to provide information on the long-term adverse impacts. Jerry referred back to 2.4 of the by-law. The Commission reserves the right to prohibit, or significantly condition, through the issuance of an Order of Conditions, work between 25-50 feet away from any resource area. In determining whether to prohibit or condition work within this area, the Commission will take into account factors including, but not limited to, the slope of the adjacent areas, the existing and proposed drainage patterns, the type of the proposed adjacent land use and its potential for creating long-term impacts on the resource areas and the wetland values. Perry DiMascio said with the history of this lot, these criterions have not been taken into consideration. It has just been 25-50 ft. "The by-law was not written 25/50. It should have been written 25/50 if that's what was intended. It should have read new construction should be 50 ft. if that was what the intent was. Historically, this criterion has not been adhered to. Ben: "I feel it is at our discretion." r Colin feels the Commission needs to look at the lots and town council needs to be consulted as far as the taking and/or precedence setting. Paul made the motion to continue the hearing, pending request for information from Bob Mangiaratti, Town Council, regarding the taking and/or precedence setting for Lot 16A, 19 Clementine Drive. Cindy seconded. Passed 6-0. Jack abstained. Carole inquired about the status of the. following properties. H. Barry MacLean, 13 Oakleaf Drive-Enforcement Order was issued July 19,2005- cleared a wooded area within the 100 ft. buffer-replanting a bordering vegetated wetland. At the November 14th meeting, Mr. MacLean was asked by the Commission to hire a wetland scientist to delineate the wetlands and to submit a planting scheme to Conservation for the restoration of the 25 ft. no alter zone. Mr. MacLean was told to plant in the spring of 2006. Michele will check on the restoration. 18 & 19 Jennifer Drive, Vasilios Boutas-applicant was required to put signage along the 50 ft. buffer line every 100 ft. on steel posts to read "Environmentally Sensitive No Disturb Area. The town was to receive the deed to 30.2 acres. Michele told the .~ 7 of 10 Commission construction on the 2 houses has not started. She will check on the 30.2 acres. r Shaun Kelly, 20 Carol Road-Enforcement Order issued April 25, 2006-equipment and debris placed within 25 ft. no touch zone ofBVW, path trampled down by 4- wheelers/trucks through BVW and across the river, trail made through the wetlands. At the May 15th meeting, Mr. Kelly was told to hire a professional wetland scientist to delineate and flag the wetlands, remove all equipment out of the wetlands, remove a pump and all electric concerning the pump from the river and allow pathways to re- vegetate and no more unauthorized activity such as motorized vehicles be allowed on the land. He was also required to put up signs along the entire property line, on 50 ft. centers, on metal posts to read Environmentally Sensitive Area-No Disturb Area. All work was to be completed on or before September 1, 2006. Herbert A. Prew, 10 Longwood Circle-Enforcement Order issued June 5, 2006-wetland vegetation had been excavated and pushed back into BVW. At least 200 sq. ft. had been altered and the ground severely scraped. At the June 26th meeting, Mr. Prew said he was clearing up maple trees that had blown over during the winter. He said he leveled out the area with a backhoe. He was required to hire a professional wetland scientist to delineate the wetland line, submit a replication plan and file with Conservation. He was also required to put signage on the wetland line, on 50 ft. centers, on posts, to read "Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb". Michael Atwill, 95 York Road-Enforcement Order issued January 31, 2006-Mr. Atwill r cleared 79 trees within the 100 ft. buffer to BVW and Blake's Pond, altering 8,000 sq. ft. of wetland. The trees were cut on land owned by the City of Attleboro. At the March 27th meeting, the Commission voted to require Mr. Atwill to have the land surveyed and to install a split rail fence or one of Mr. Atwill's choosing, along the property line abutting the Attleboro land-the bottom of the fence must be a minimum of 6 to 8 inches above the ground to allow for turtles, etc to pass. Signage to read Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb on 50 ft. centers, on posts (not trees). All work to be completed by June 1,2006 (see minutes of March 27,2006). Carlos & Elizabeth Vieira, 430 Fruit Street-Enforcement Order issued April 11, 2006- At the April 24th hearing the Commission asked the homeowner to hire a professional wetland scientist to flag the wetland areas on the property. The Vieiras' are also required to put signage on posts with 50 ft. centers (to read Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb) on the wetland line. The homeowner will not be allowed to build, no cutting or treeslbrush disposal within the 25 ft. no disturb area. 102 York Road, Steven Borghi-Enforcement Order issued on June 29, 2005-an existing in-ground pool built without a valid Order of Conditions, several loads of fill placed within a BVW and within the 25 ft. and 50 ft. no touch zones without a valid Order of Conditions. Michele asked Mr. Borghi to pull the fill out and back at least 8 ft. and have the wetlands delineated. ~ 8 of 10 r 114 Rumford Avenue, Ian Ford-after purchasing the property, Mr. Ford tried to clean the back yard of the debris left by the former owner. About 50 ft. of the 100 ft. Riverfront was disturbed. Mr. Ford, with Michele's help, submitted a restoration plan, including a planting scheme. The area was to be planted with native species and he was to submit monthly reports on the conditions of the trees, shrubs and plantings during the growing season between April and September of 2006. 6 Winslow Way, Paul and Denise Mahoney-A Request for Determination of Applicability was filed, asking for permission to remove dead trees close to the house within 100 ft. ofBVW. At the October 24,2005 meeting the Mahoneys' were given permission to remove 3 large oak trees and 5 dying cedar trees and to clean up the side yard. 112 Pine Street, Roy Barnes and Ms. Orlando-Letter was sent to Ms. Barnes concerning illegal riding of dirt bikes on land owned by the town of Mansfield located behind her house. "Gilbert Park" -because the site is within an Estimated Habitat, signage was to be put on Lots 1 thru 6 along the 100 ft. buffer zone. Michele will check to make sure this has been done. Conservation Restriction for approximately 13.3 acres ofland located off Nicole Road in Mansfield. Michele told the Commission the Restriction has been signed by Jay Zola and will be returned to Conservation tomorrow. .r East Street, Police Shooting Range (Hearing date May 15, 2006)-because it will be within the 100 ft. buffer of BVW and within an ACEC area, the Canoe River, the Commission asked that Michael Trowbridge look into a recovery program for the bullets (because of the lead contained in the bullets). Michele was to investigate the need for a recovery program, whether it is mandated or not. She told the Commission that the EP A has a lead recovery program and that DEP has started to give enforcements to all gun clubs; the clubs have to have a recovery system for the lead especially where wetlands are a concern. Michele does not think the town has started construction. Elm Street, Thomas P. Walsh-Carole wanted to know if the vernal pool on site has been certified. The vernal pool has been certified. Carole asked about identification cards for the Commission members. The cards should read: Town of Mansfield Conservation Commission Name of Commission member Telephone for Conservation Office Term expiration date f' 9 of 10 .. ' r" r r-. Carole asked if she could get a list of successful replication areas? Michele will compile a list for the Commission. Jerry made the motion to adjourn at 9:30. Ben seconded. Passed 7-0. Next meeting will be September 11,2006 at 7:00 pm. J (I~ (JJ4 Colin Cauldwell, Chair lic ~ /r;( Date { 10 of 10