Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of conservation comm 031207 r 07 ~1AR 27 PH 3: 29 H/-\j, SF IJ~'LD Present: Colin Cauldwell, Chair; Paul Boyden, Vice Chair; tj~..tiJ}~~ S Ben Monachino; Jack Smith; Cindy Ostrowski; Joe Mulkern; Michele Grenier, Conservation and Environmental Planner. Conservation Commission Meeting March 12, 2007 p!:'rj:'IV~O (: '- ~,- t;,(' (~ (~f.:"r .e')1 J IrF Colin introduced the new Commission member, Joe Mulkern. Tom Mahoney HNTB Corporation, Steve Riberdy, Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc. and Carl Lambrecht, Phil Finer and Howard Fisk, Airport Commissioners were present. The proposed project involves rehabilitation of the existing T -hangar area located at the northwest corner of the airfield, including repavement and improvements to storm water. A portion of the work will occur within the Riverfront Area, Back Bay Brook, and within the 100 ft. buffer of BVW. r- Phase I work: Restoring approximately 65,000 sq. ft. of existing pavement around the existing hangars and provide new storm water management. Presently, there is no storm water management. Under the proposed work, the impervious surface will be decreased by approximately 800 sq. ft. This area will become grass. Michele flagged the wetland line. Steve Riberdy flagged the high water line. A small water quality swale/catch basin is proposed to recharge a small portion of the site. A Stormwater report was submitted to John Sullivan, Town Engineer and was accepted. No drainage structures are within the work area. The area will be re-graded and the existing pavement will be re-cycled and mixed with additional stone for the repaving. Michele feels the repaving and the swale/catch basin will not adversely affect the area. The work area is not in a Priority Habitat or an Estimated Habitat for Rare Species. Hay bales and silt fencing will be placed along the work line. She recommends an Order of Conditions be issued. r- A planting scheme is presented in the Notice of Intent. r Money will determine if Phase II will be done this year or within the next year. Cindy wanted to know why a swale/catch basin was needed. Tom told the Commission that the hangers were built on already paved surfaces. Water presently runs under the buildings. The swale will direct the water away from the buildings and slow down the run off. Some of the water will recharge back into the ground before it reaches the river. Cindy is concerned about the trash generated while construction is going on. It will be written into the Order of Conditions that the trash will be picked up and disposed of properly. Tom said he will be on site during construction and will make sure the area is kept clean. Cindy made the motion to accept the plan as drawn, dated February 2007, with the additional conditions that hay bales and silt fencing will be placed at the line of work and will be certified and the garbageltrash will be monitored to keep the area clean during construction. Paul seconded. Passed 6-0. Jack abstained. r Scott Goddard of Carr Research Laboratory, Inc. and Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering, were present. This hearing was continued from November 27, 2006. The applicant proposed to construct a single-family home with a tree farm in an upland area. In order to reach this upland area, the roadway must cross wetlands, a limited access project. The plan submitted in December 2006 shows the minimal wetland crossing while still remaining at least 100 ft. from vernal pools. There will also be a pull-off area. This proposal along with the construction of the Gilbert Park Subdivision will be the total build out for the land. New plans, dated February 28, 2007, have been submitted. A concrete block retaining wall will also be built by the culvert. There is a total of 30.1 acres with 11.45 acres of useable land in the upland. Ralph told the Commission an additional 61.4 acres can be deeded to the Town. At the hearing on November 27, 2006, the Commission asked that Ralph complete the following: r- 2 1. Contact the Fire Department to see if the 14 ft. roadway is acceptable. The Fire department has no problems with the 14 ft. driveway and r approves of the plan. 2. Contact Natural Heritage. A letter dated December 12, 2006 from Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) stated that based on a review of the information provided, this project, as currently proposed, will not adversely affect the actual habitat of state-protected rare wildlife species under the Wetlands Protection Act regulations (310 CMR 10.59). They requested additional information to complete their review under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA). Scott told the Commission the applicant is actively working with NHESP in a site review under MESA in regards to the Blanding's Turtle habitat. Based on a Natural Heritage review of December 12, 2006, this crossing area is not an actual habitat of the Blanding's turtle. Scott told the Commission not only will this area be evaluated but also the entire parcel of land, including Gilbert Park will need to be evaluated as a whole site because MESA does not allow for project segmentation. In May, Scott will be doing a baseline study to determine the total population of the Blanding's Turtle on site for Natural Heritage's database. r- 3. Hire a qualified wildlife scientist/biologist with a Masters Degree to conduct a wildlife study. The Commission has to vote to approve. There must be 2 scientists to choose from. At the request of the Mansfield Conservation Commission, a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation was done to determine if important wildlife habitat features are present in a proposed area of resource alteration. Under the new DEP standards-Massachusetts Wildlife Habitat Protection Guidance for Inland Wetlands dated March 2006, Appendix A and/or Appendix B-the guidance document details the extent of the study. Scott told the Commissioners that only Appendix A was used in this case, since no Appendix B threshold was triggered. The evaluation was limited to the area of the proposed driveway crossing within the BVW. Scott noted the impact area is a wooded swamp dominated by red maple, yellow birch, white pine, highbush blueberry, horse brier, sweet pepperbush and mosses. The area lacks standing water and does not pond water. The substrate is stony. ~ 3 Scott told the Commissioners when each parameter in Appends A was examined on December 14, 2006, no important habitat features were found to exist in the area with the exception of the area being mapped as a habitat for state-listed r species. r r- Cindy feels the applicant did not follow the Commission's request that they hire 2 professional wetland scientistlbiologist for the Commission to approve. She feels because they did not follow the rules, the hearing is null and void. She feels the applicant should submit 2 additional names to be voted on by the Commission and the study redone. Colin feels "we got the information we requested and it was done by a competent wetland person but it did not follow the criteria of the board". But he feels the information is adequate, there are safeguards built in. Natural Heritage has the final say and has to sign off on it. The applicant had already started the evaluation before the hearing on November 27, 2006. 4. Show utilities, septic and wells on the plan. Conservation asked Ralph to move the SAS away from the wetlands and that the well be moved to the other side of the roadway. This has all been done. New plans have been submitted showing utilities, septic and wells. 5. Cut and fill on the plan. A cut and fill plan has been submitted. 6. Ralph and Michele will walk the wetland line and review the crossing. Michele, Ralph and John have walked the wetland line and review the crossing. 7. Contact the Electric and Water Departments. Ralph contaCted the Electric Company and they requested that Ralph install another box and use a different pole for the electric. This is shown on the new plan. Paul wanted to know what the water table is on the site. Ralph: this is a wetland area that stays very wet. Scott disagreed: this particular wetland area is very dry. Even though there are a lot of wet areas on site, this area is heavily forested. There is no standing water, no stream channel. Cindy disagreed with Scott. She had walked the site in December and feels there is a streambed even though at that time it was not flowing. 4 Carole asked if the culvert would be embedded. If it is not, the turtles might not use the culvert. Ralph said the bottom of the culvert would be level with the grade on either side of the culvert. r Although Scott agrees with Carole about box culverts needing to be embedded, he does not feel in this case it is necessary. With such a long driveway, with so many areas for the turtles to cross, this being one particular location out of hundreds of feet, it is not really that important as far as the turtles are concerned. Michele believes the culvert should be embedded. Even though there are a lot of areas for the turtles to cross with this project, all culverts in town should be embedded. She will talk to John Sullivan about the culvert to determine how much it should be buried. Michele spoke with Natural Heritage about the Blanding's Turtle; the project will have no adverse affect on the turtle because the turtle's habitat is the vernal pools. She feels a single-family home with a driveway is appropriate for this site but not a subdivision. Some of the Commission members are concerned that at a later time, the applicant will return with plans for more lots. Ben: "If this was going to be a big subdivision, would our review (analysis) be any different than for a single family home". r- Ralph: "The width of the road would have to change and the Planning and Zoning Boards would never allow a roadway for a subdivision. There is not enough frontage for additional houses, the area is only suitable for 1 house. The full build out also restricts any further work". Michele said Natural Heritage probably would not allow a subdivision. Paul would like more soil samples done. Michele did not agree; a single-family house should not be required to do soil sampling. Scott told the Commission the 61.4 acres will be donated or place under a Conservation Restriction for permanent protection. Michele and Paul said the Town no longer accepts donations of land but it can be placed under the Restriction. Cindy would like a Conservation Restriction placed on the upland area to prevent the applicant from later being able to build a subdivision or a residential compound. Michele and Colin do not feel the Commission has the jurisdiction to do a Conservation Restriction on the upland area. Natural Heritage does but Conservation is only concerned with the 100 ft. buffer (wetland) and the 200 ft. of r- 5 Riverfront Area. The house is not even in the 100 ft. area. The applicant only needed to file for the roadway. r Scott said there would be a Conservation Restriction on both sides of the roadway, making it impossible to expand the road to meet subdivision requirements. Ben: "Everything approve here today has to be subject to review and the Conservation Restriction must have the approval of the Commission". Colin: "One of the conditions of the Order will be that the Conservation Restriction must be reviewed and acceptable to the Commission". Scott reminded the Commission that the CR would take time to draft. It has to be approved by Conservation, Natural Heritage, the Selectmen, Town Council and the owner. Paul made the motion to accept the plan, dated November 2, 2006, revised February 28, 2007, for Gilbert Street, Lot 7 and to issue an Order of Conditions with the following additional conditions: the Conservation Restriction must be approved by the Commission; the final grade of the culvert should be situated at such an elevation as to not impede the movement of wildlife; hay bales and silt fencing will be certified by Michele. Ben seconded. Passed: 6-1 Cindy opposed. r- Continued. There are many more changes on the plan regarding elevations, etc. and rework of the stormwater calculations. Michele asked the applicant to continue until Engineering approves the plan. Ben made the motion to accept the minutes as written. Carole seconded. Passed: 4-3 Cindy, Joe and Jack abstaining. The Commission vote (7-0) to have the hay bale/silt fencing at the Soccer fields re-established. Colin asked that Michele once again check on Shaun Kelly of 20 Carol Road. Mr. Kelly was issued an Enforcement Order on April 25, 2006. Equipment and debris had been placed in the 50 ft. no touch area, a path had been worn through the BVW and the river, Hodges Brook, and Mr. Kelly had been illegally withdrawing water from the river by a pump. An illegal electrical line had also been installed. r- 6 . ' Mr. Kelly was asked to hire a Professional Wetland Scientist to delineate the bordering vegetated wetlands (BVW) and the mean annual high water line of Hodges Brook. He was also asked to remove the equipment/debris from the 50 r ft. no touch area of the BW'J, remove the pump and electrical line and to place metal signage, to read "Environmentally Sensitive Area, Do Not Disturb", on metal posts, centered every 50 ft. along the BW'J line on the entire property. Town Council sent a letter in December 2006 stating legal action would be taken if Mr. Kelly did not comply. Mr. Kelly has not responded to the letter or subsequent phone calls from Michele. She will contact Town Council to start court proceedings against Mr. Kelly. A motion was made to adjourn at 9:00 pm. (Ben/Carole). Next meeting will be March 26, 2007 at 7:00 pm. (lltl~(?.J Colin Cauldwell, Ch 'rman/' 3k~/o7 I Date .r' r 7