Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of conservation com 11/27/2006 r ~ "'" ~E~~I'yED ~ , ~ 0;, r, r, l~ r....: ,'~' ,-, L Conservation Commission Meetin~ ..... - .:. ,;:-;" j c: r.. November 27, 2006 DO DEe f 9 PM 2: 28 ~j t. i"j~; F j E l 0 MASSACHUSETTS Present: Colin Cauldwell, Chair; Paul Boyden, Vice Chair; Carole Matthew; Ben Monachino; Cindy Ostrowski; Jerry St. Hilaire; Jack Smith; Michele Grenier, Conservation and Environmental Planner. The Notice of Intent was filed for the proposed construction of a wireless communications facility consisting of a 90' monopole on an existing pad, the upgrade of the existing site utilities and the placement of an 11 '-6"x20" equipment shelter within the proposed compound within the 1 00 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. The distance between the closest project disturbance and the associated resource area is 53 ft. r Thomas White gave an overview of the project. The existing pad area is graveled. Hay bale/silt fencing will be installed. All work will be within the existing fence area. The fence will be extended out. A site walk was done on November 15, 2006. Michele told the Commission the construction is within an existing pad area, approximately 53 ft. from the wetlands. She would like a hay bale/silt fence line along the 50 ft. line. She recommends an Order of Conditions be issued. Cindy asked why the bridge to metal poles. Thomas explained the bridge allows them to run conduit over to each pole, to get it off the ground. Thomas told the Commission he would be going to the Planning Board on Wednesday, Zoning Board of Appeals on December 5th and then to building for the permitting. The work will be completed in 3 or 4 months. Cindy wanted to know if the poles would have to be camouflaged. Thomas said it was not required here but is in other areas. Cindy wanted to know about the upgrades to the utilities. Thomas said the upgrades include running power for the poles underground. Paul wanted to know if the area was maxed out, if it can be expanded anymore. r , . Thomas: It can't be expanded; fenced in area is the rented area. It can't go any further r than what is on the plan. Cindy made the motion to accept the plan as drawn, dated 10-18-06, for the installation of a monopole, upgrade of the utilities and a shelter and to issue an Order of Conditions, to include certified hay bale/silt fencing at the 50 ft. line along the area of work. Jerry seconded. Passed 7-0. Ralph Maloon of RIM Engineering was present. There is 11.45 acres of upland outside of the 100 ft. buffer zone at the rear of the site. The owner proposes to construct his own house and a tree farm in this area. In order to reach this area, wetlands must be crossed. They have chosen to cross in an area that would have the least impact on the wetlands while still remaining 100 + ft. from the vernal pools. The proposal will be the total build-out for the land. 61.4 acres on Parcel A will remain undisturbed and the applicant would like to transfer, by deed, this parcel of land to the Conservation Commission. r The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of a 14 ft. driveway to the upland at the rear of the site. This is a limited project (Driveway Crossing 310 CMR 10.53 (e)). Wetland Crossing with Compensation. Approximately 1,390 sq. ft. of bordering vegetated wetlands will be altered. The applicant will be replacing 3,372 sq. ft. ofBVW. Replication area is to be lowered to 6" below wetland grade. Topsoil and the upper 6 inches of subsoil in the wetland filling area will be removed and immediately spread in the replication area. Indigenous wetland plants will be allowed to grow back naturally and should appear in the next growing season. The area will be replanted if area fails to revegetate. A portion of the project is located within an Estimated Habitat. Michele explained there are new DEP regulations regarding all limited crossing projects in a Natural Heritage Area that alter 5,000 sq. ft. or more of wetlands. A qualified wildlife scientist must submit a wildlife habitat study and show the project will not adversely affect the wildlife habitat. She also feels there is not enough information; the utilities are not shown on the plan-are they going above or underground? If above, where will the poles be located? Ifunderground, where will the conduit be located? She also wondered if the Electric and Water Departments have been notified. r l . r Ralph told Michele he had contacted the Electric Co. a while ago. The plan is showing underground electric. Michele told Ralph the electrical work would have to be in before the roadway can be built. Michele has not walked the wetland line or reviewed the crossing. She will walk the site before the next meeting, December 18th. Siltation control is to be staked in place prior to any construction and maintained until all the work is completed and the area has been stabilized Jerry wondered if the tree farm became a sub-division, would the driveway need to be widened. Would they have to come back if they decided to do a sub-division instead of the tree farm? Because the proposal will be the total build out, the land cannot be used as a sub-division. Ralph said a letter was submitted to MESA regarding the full build out of the land and this prevents the applicant from doing anything else. Michele told the Commission a restriction could be placed on the property stating no other wetlands can be altered on the site, making it impossible for the land to be used as a sub-division. Ben wanted to know what traffic over the wetlands the tree farm would generate; will commercial trucks be using the roadway. The applicant told the Commission the tree farm is for his own use, he will not be selling trees to other businesses. r Jack wanted to know if town water or well water would be used. Ralph said it would be well water with a sprinkler system and perhaps a cistern with a pump. Cindy wondered if the septic could be moved further away from the vernal pool, maybe put it on the opposite side. Ralph said the well is to the east and the septic is to the west because it is down hill from the house. Michele explained about limited projects: anytime you have to cross a wetland to get to upland, usually you are altering more than 5,000 sq. ft., making it a limited project. Cindy wanted to know if a wildlife study could be done this time of the year. Michele said they could do an initial study. Because it is already known to be a habitat for Blanding's Turtles, an additional study will have to be done in the spring. Carole: "How can you propose to replicate an area without first hiring a wildlife scientist to do a wildlife study." Ralph said they have provided a reasonable area for the replication; the replication would not be done until the study has been done, to show the habitat would not be adversely affected. Paul made the motion to continue until December 18, 2006. The Commission would like Ralph to complete the following before coming back to the next hearing. . Contact the Fire Department to see if the 14 ft. roadway is acceptable. . Contact Natural Heritage. r T" r · Hire a qualified wildlife scientistlbiologist with a Masters Degree. The Commission has to vote to approve. There must be at least 2 scientists to choose from. . Show utilities, septic and wells on the plan . Cut and fill on the plan. · Ralph and Michele will walk the wetland line and review the crossing. . Contact the Electric and Water Department. Cindy seconded. Passed 7-0. Ralph will submit a letter if continuing from December 18th. (Michele isn't sure they have to come back on the 18th because they need to hire someone for the study. That person will tell them if they can do the study now or if they have to wait until spring). Peter Fontanini, Edward Valanzola, Jerry Carr were present. The Commission members have had a chance to review Peter Fletcher's report. On October 25, 2006 Peter Fletcher and Michele performed soil investigations at 40 Grove Street. Hydric soils were found up to the 23 ft. line. On October 6, 2006, Michele spent 3 hours out at the site. The wetland line was r reviewed and the vernal pool was photographed and surveyed. Fingernail clams were found in the mud of the vernal pool as well as a foot of water. The entire area in back of the house below the fill was full of water nearly to the fill line. She feels the stained leaves and the lines on the trees show there is water in there every year. The stained leaves show there is water there for an extended period of time. She doesn't think it can be disproved that it is a vernal pool. To be sure, we have to wait until April, Mayor June. Dr. Carr and Michele will go out and check on the vernal pool in the spring. If at that time it is determined to be a vernal pool, the pool will be certified. Everyone agreed the potential vernal pool on the property would need to be certified in the spring. Peter and Michele agree it is a vernal pool. Dr. Carr disagrees. Dr. Carr was given time to respond to Mr. Fletcher's report. Dr. Carr feels the alteration is a lot smaller then what Peter Fletcher found. Michele feels since our by-law requires a 25 ft. no disturb area for existing parcels, the applicant should be required to remove all the soil within the 23 ft. of alteration as determined by Peter Fletcher and an additional 25 ft. for the no disturb area (for existing construction, we maintain a 25 ft. no touch zone). There should also be a replication area. In the second Enforcement Order, Michele also asked that Mr. Fontanini hire a Professional Wetland Scientist to properly delineate the wetland and all resource areas. r r Attorney Valanzola wanted to go on record stating they do not feel the 2 Enforcement Orders have any jurisdiction over this property as they are written, either thru the local by-law or under the State Wetland Protection Act. Dr. Carr feels the main issue is the applicant would like to come in with a project, file a Notice of Intent, restoring what is reasonable, what the Commission fmds acceptable and go forward. Paul feels the vernal pool should be located, certified and put on the plan; the 25 ft. and 100 ft. buffer line should be delineated; submit a restoration plan; submit a plan for a retention structure on the 23 ft. line. Attorney Valanzola will submit a letter to Conservation addressing the issues brought up in the discussion. Michael Trowbridge of Hutchins-Trowbridge was present. r The Notice ofIntent was first filed in January 2006. The proposed project was a residential compound, with pavement, grading drainage and utilities. The proposed work was within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. The applicant will be crossing an intermittent stream. The residential compound will consist of 5 lots. Michael told the Commission in 1989, the parcel was approved as a sub-division with 6 lots and a 1,300 ft. roadway. The residential compound means less lots, a greatly reduced roadway and more open space. The applicant would like to transfer the open space, by deed, to NRT. This area borders existing Town owned property. Some of the work will be done within the 25 ft. buffer; there is no alternative means to access the property. No work will be done within the wetland area. The driveway will be 590 ft. in total and will follow an existing driveway. Michele told the Commission that subdivision roadways are normally 34 ft. wide. The applicant reduced the roadway at Conservation's request and is now 18 ft. wide. 18 ft. is as narrow as can be allowed for emergency vehicles. The existing driveway is 16 + ft. and will be eliminated when the new roadway is completed. A detention basin will be located on the easterly side of the property. Siltation control will be in place throughout the site where necessary. A 30-inch concrete box culvert, approved by the Engineering Department, will be used r for the crossing of the intermittent stream so the flow of water will not be interrupted. ! Cindy made the motion to accept the plan dated May 12, 1997, revised 10-13-2006 for the Appaloosa Residential Compound, for the construction of a roadway with the following conditions; Mr. Meeks will be required to place signage on the rails of the wooden fencing, spaced 30 ft. apart, to read "Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb". In addition, salt cannot be used on the roadway/driveway to treat ice and snow conditions. The Commission would like calcium chloride used because it does not harm animals or the plants. Carole seconded. Passed 7-0. A motion was made by Ben to accept the minutes of November 13, 2006. Cindy seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Paul wanted the Commission to know Karl Clemmey came by his house 2-3 weeks ago. Mr. Clemmey made rude comments while outside Paul's house. He invited Paul to visit one of his properties; he told Paul to "make sure you have a cop with you". Colin told the Commission he has heard from several more Eagle Scouts interested in doing projects in Great Woods. He also wanted the Commission to know Conservation has received $20,000.00 from the r applicant for Mansfield Crossing Mall. A thank you note will be sent. Michele told the Commission that Angelo Pasqualino of Angelina Drive has withdrawn the Notice of Intent permanently. Michele met with Bob Mangiaratti, Town Council, on November 27,2006 and letters will be mailed this week to Mr. Steven Borghi of 1 02 York Road (Enforcement Order issued 6-29-2005 with no response) and Mr. Shaun Kelly of20 Carol Road (Enforcement Order issued 4-25-2006 with no response) to let Mr. Borghi and Mr. Kelly know if progress is not made to remedy the violations within a reasonable time frame, they will be summoned to court. A motion was made (Jerry/Jack) to adjourn at 9:45. Next meeting will be December 18, 2006. r /;fBIo6 D e ( , -