Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConservation Comm 11/21/2016Town of Mansfield pp r Conservation Minutes ti! f i fs-� r ,r t November 21, 2016 1G1 it"• 1 5= 43 Present: Michael Healey; Chairman; Christopher Marcheselli; Matthew Rieth; Jack Smith; Ryan Maxwell; Katelyn Gonyer, Conservation and Environmental Planner. 1. Meeting called to order at 7:08 pm. 2. Parcels of private land off Maple Street to be approved under a Conservation Restriction as part of Natural Heritage Review of subdivision project in Easton -Baron Estates: Applicants Jay Zola and Charles Maylord were present. Last hearing Ms. Gonyer summarized the subdivision project in Easton (Baron Estates) within Natural Heritage land. After a review by Natural Heritage the project was conditioned and, because the project would result in the "take" of land in Easton, certain parcels of land would be put under a very specific conservation restriction. As part of the project a few parcels of land were looked at in Mansfield, which would have to be held by a private land trust or a private entity such as the Mansfield Conservation Commission. Ms. Gonyer said there are three isolated parcels of land with no access off Maple Street; these parcels will be put under a conservation restriction as part of the Easton subdivision project and the Mansfield Conservation Commission will hold the restriction. All information has been sent to Town Counsel, and on his recommendation, the Conservation Commission will not sign off until the proposed conservation restriction is approved by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Division of Conservation Services. Also Town Counsel questioned if there would be any expense of time or effort that would need to be expended by the Commission to enforce the terms of the conservation restriction. Mr. Zola said there is access from Stearns Avenue to these parcels of land, but Mr. Maylord said they do not want public access because it would be a protected area under the conservation restriction. He said they only want the Commission to vote to accept the land so they can move forward with the state's review and acceptance. Mass Division of Fisheries and Game would also have to sign off. Ms. Gonyer said the Commission would hold the land but not own it. The Commission was polled: Maxwell, Smith, Reith, Healey in favor. Marcheselli abstained. Hearing ended at 7:23 pm. 3. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Brian P. Thibault, 557 Maple Street, Map 38, Parcel 46. DEP SE 211- 0842 Ms. Gonyer explained this request for a Certificate of Compliance is for an Order of Conditions that was issued for the construction of two (2) single-family dwellings on Maple Street. There was one crossing access, resulting in the construction of an open box culvert and some restoration. The culvert area has been stabilized and appeared to be clear and flowing at the time of Ms. Gonyer's site visit. The restoration area has been monitored for two growing seasons by the wetland consultant, LEC Environmental, and monitoring reports have been submitted. Ms. Gonyer recommended a full Certificate of Compliance be issued. Mr. Marcheselli made the motion to issue a full Certificate of Compliance to Brian P. Thibault, 557 Maple Street, Map 38, Parcel 46, DEP SE 211-0842, with the ongoing condition no lawn clippings in wetland or within the 25 -foot No Disturb Zone. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended 7:29 pm. 4. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Christopher Marcheselli, 4 Dutton Drive, Map 40, Parcel 318. DEP SE 211-0943 Mr. Marcheselli recused himself. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering Co., Inc., was present Ms. Gonyer said this Request for a Certificate of Compliance is for one of the single-family homes in a four lot subdivision off Winter Street. She said a NO1 was filed for the whole subdivision and an individual NOI was filed for this house. The house has been constructed in the approved location, all disturbed areas closest to the resource areas have been seeded. She noted there is a potential vernal pool across the street. Ms. Gonyer said one concern is the wetland area to the left of the property; she does not want to see this area incorporated into the lawn area; she recommended a full Certificate of Compliance be issued with the ongoing condition that the existing approved limit of work shall remain the extent of the lawn. Mr. Maxwell made the motion to issue a full Certificate of Compliance to Christopher Marcheselli, 4 Dutton Drive, Map 40, Parcel 318, DEP SE 211-0943, for the construction of a single-family dwelling within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland with the following ongoing conditions: no lawn clippings in wetlands or within 50 feet of the wetland; limit of existing lawn (limit of work) shall remain. - the lawn area shall not increase towards wetland or Winter Street. "Conservation As -Built Plan of Lot 2 Hse. No. 4 Dutton Drive in Mansfield, MA" dated October 26, 2016, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Mr. Rieth seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0-1. Hearing ended at 7:33 pm. 5. Request to Extend Order of Conditions: Paul Donovan, 17 Goose Lane, Map 40, Parcel 246. DEP SE 211- 0911 Ms. Gonyer said the Order of Conditions was issued as the result of an Enforcement Order issued in November 2013 for regrading and landscaping in back of the single-family house. The NOI was filed for all yard work done within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland and an intermittent stream. She said as one of the conditions, the Applicant was to establish a mitigation area with shrubs, Maple trees and seed. Ms. Gonyer said the homeowner would like to add a patio and shed, but because the Order is set to expire, she suggested extending the Order for three (3) years to November 20, 2019; any future work could be done under an amendment to the Order. 2 Mr. Rieth made the motion to issue a three-year extension to the Order of Conditions for DEP SE 211-0911, issued on November 20, 2013; the new expiration date of the Order will be November 20, 2019, Mr. Maxwell seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 7:37 pm. 6. Request for Determination of Applicability: Dimitrios Loukos, 321 Balcom Street, Map 2, Parcel 101. The Request is for the addition of a second floor to an existing house within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering Co., Inc., explained the homeowner is going to rehab the existing house with the addition of a second floor and a new septic system, to be located in the front of the house. The work will occur within an existing lawn area. Ms. Gonyer said silt fence should be installed for the back area to delineate the work zone for the second floor addition and a waddle for the side area. She said any materials stockpiled from the septic installation should be in front or to the side of the house. She suggested gutters and downspouts to drywells or stone trenches to capture roof runoff from the second floor addition. Mr. Maxwell made the motion to issue a Negative Determination for reason #3, work will not alter resource area, to Dimitrios Loukos, 321 Balcom Street, Map 2, Parcel 101 for the addition of a second floor to an existing house and replacement of a septic system within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland, "Upgrade Sewage Disposal Plan for 321 Balcom Street' dated September 22, 2016, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., with the following Special Conditions: • The Agent is to inspect the siltation control (per plan) prior to the start of work • Erosion Control to the east side of the house will be silt sock and must be mulch. • Erosion Control to delineate the work zone at the rear limit of work may be silt or a snow fence • All roof runoff shall be directed to drywells • All disturbed areas are to be seeded as soon as possible. Erosion Control must remain until areas have been stabilized • Stockpile of materials is to be in front or side yard area • Agent shall be notified when project is complete and lawn has been seeded and established Mr. Marcheselli seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 7:48 pm. 7. Request for Determination of Applicability: Chris Colby, 250 Willow Street, Map 28, Parcel 160 The Request is for the construction of a single-family house, driveway and septic system with grading within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland and a Flood Plain. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering Co., Inc., explained this is a vacant lot abutting the parcel of land at 242 Willow Street and there is a seasonal stream located more than 200 feet from the proposed house. Mr. Cygawnoski said because Willow Street is a scenic road, the proposed single-family home would have to be 75 feet back from the road, which would push the rear lawn area into the 100 -foot buffer zone. He said the majority of the work, the house, septic system and driveway, will be outside the 100 -foot buffer zone. He said the flood plain on the lot is at the wetland line and does not impact the work. Ms. Gonyer said the date for the plan of record was stamp received November 9, 2016, showing the flood plain. She said when she was on site to review the filings for 242 and 250 Willow Street, she noticed a lot of miscellaneous debris and, because the property lines are not defined, she said one of the conditions for approval should be to remove all debris out of the buffer zone; if any machinery for the removal of the debris is necessary, she would have to meet on site for approval of a removal plan. Ms. Gonyer said the limit of work as shown should be kept as the delineation between the lawn and natural area. Mr. Healey noted there are no gutters or drywells shown on the plan. Mr. Cygawnoski said they will be added to the plan. Mr. Rieth made the motion to issued a Negative Determination for reason #3, work will not alter Resource Area, to Chris Colby, 250 Willow Street, Map 28, Parcel 160, for the grading and site work associated with the construction of a single-family house, driveway and septic system within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland, " Plan Sewage Disposal Plan for No. 250 Willow Street in Mansfield, MA" dated October 24, 2016, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., with the following Special Conditions: • All debris located in the buffer zone shall be removed. If machinery is necessary, a meeting with the Agent will take place onsite to review the methodology of removal • The Agent is to inspect the siltation control (per plan) prior to the start of work. Silt sock must be mulch. Silt sock may be 8" diameter (min.) • All disturbed areas are to be seeded as soon as possible • Erosion Control must remain until areas have been stabilized • Drywell for roof runoff shall be installed per plan (revision date November 30, 2016) • Agent shall be notified when project is complete and lawn has been seeded for a final inspection Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 7:57 pm 8. Request for Determination of Applicability: Allen I. Willis, Jr. 242 Willow Street, Map 28, Parcel 5. The Request is for the construct of a 24'x24' addition within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland and within a Flood Plain. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering Co., Inc., representing homeowner Allen I. Willis, was present. Mr. Cygawnoski explained the existing duplex was built in 1999 and the area where the construction of a two - car garage with an addition above is proposed is an area of hard packed gravel, which has been driven over for the past 16 years and is without vegetation. Ms. Gonyer said an intermittent stream runs north to south along the west side of the property and there is very little BVW and natural buffer. She said the stream ties into BVW that runs along the back of the property onto the abutting property at 250 Willow Street. M Ms. Gonyer said because the addition is within the flood zone, there should be compensation for flood storage, but the area where the addition is proposed is currently hard packed gravel and she is not sure this area is functioning as flood storage. She said she would rather see mitigation along the edge of the wetland on the left side of the property. Ms. Gonyer noted there is a substantial amount of debris and trash on site and a plan will have to be developed for the removal; she would not propose a limit of work until all the debris is removed starting from behind the shed up to the resource area. Because there is a lot of activity on this property right up to the resource areas, Ms. Gonyer said no further development should occur on the property until there is a mitigation plan in place. Mr. Healey noted there will be work within the 25- and 50 -foot No Disturb Areas as well as the flood plain and questioned the filing of an RDA instead of a Notice of Intent. He said in lieu of flood plain compensation, the property should be cleaned up and stabilized and, once this is done, a smaller driveway area delineated. Ms. Gonyer said the proposed scope of work is minimal and could be done under an RDA but because of the condition of the site, an NOI probably should have been filed. She said the Applicant should establish a smaller driveway, between the two sides of the duplex, with as much space as needed to enter the new garage and turn around. She asked that a plan be developed to remove all debris from the site and shrubs be planted with seed mix along the bank. She said the Determination is a finding which can be conditioned but there would be no oversight once the Determination is issued. Mr. Maxwell said he would rather have the applicant file a Notice of Intent. Ms. Gonyer said the work on the site will be a benefit; with a site so close to the resource areas you have to allow certain parts to stay natural and not over develop the site or the systems start to suffer. She said a Determination can be issued with conditions and she will follow up; if the Applicant is not in compliance, an Enforcement Order will be issued for the removal of the debris and mitigation with plantings. Mr. Marcheselli made the motion to issue a Negative Determination for reason #3, work will not alter Resource Area, to Allen I. Willis, Jr., 242 Willow Street, Map 28, Parcel 5, "Proposed House Addition Plan at Hse. No. 242 Willow Street" dated October 24, 2016 and revised December 1, 2016, to construct a 24'x24' garage/addition within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland and within a Flood Plain with the following ongoing Special Conditions: • All debris located in the buffer zone shall be removed. If machinery is necessary, a meeting with the Agent will take place onsite to review the methodology of removal • The siltation control shown on the site plan will not be inspected by the Agent until all trash and debris is removed from the buffer zone. • The owner shall discontinue storing anything within the natural areas; 10 -foot strip of natural area along the bank of the stream to be seeded with conservation mix and left to naturalize • The Agent is to inspect the siltation control (per plan) prior to the start of work. Silt sock must be mulch. Silt sock may be 8" diameter (min.) • All disturbed areas are to be seeded as soon as possible. Erosion Control must remain until areas have been stabilized • Once the garage is constructed, the driveway area is to be minimized (note #5 on plan). The Agent shall review new driveway footprint 5 • Areas outside of the new driveway footprint are to be seeded as lawn Mr. Maxwell seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0 Hearing ended at 8:28 pm. 9. Request for Determination of Applicability: Mansfield Station LLC, 75 Chauncy Street, Map 21, Parcel 331. Request to confirm there are no jurisdictional resource areas David LaPointe, Beals & Thomas, on behalf of Mansfield Station LLC, explained the RDA was submitted for 75 Chauncy Street, the site of the former Cleveland Twist Drill site with approximately 6.3 acres. He said the southeast corner of the property is currently being used as commuter parking for the train station. He said there are applications before the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals to utilize the southwest corner of the site for additional commuter parking; he said they filed with Conservation to confirm there are no jurisdictional resource areas in the northern part of the property. Ms. Gonyer said the area is all upland and the closest resource areas are to the north behind a single-family home on Howe Street. She agreed there are no jurisdictional areas on the site. Mr. Healey noted this is an Activity Use Limitation (AUL) site with several wells in the area and said he was concerned about surface water runoff entering the stream. Mr. LaPointe said the area to the southwest is basically all impervious and the plan is to park without disturbing the ground. He said they do have future plans for further development of the property, which would likely include the northern area of the site. Ms. Gonyer noted any disturbance of over an acre of land would generate a Land Disturbance Permit which would trigger all stormwater management. Mr. Marcheselli made the motion to issue a Negative Determination for reason #1, the area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Wetland Protection Act or the local By -Law, to Mansfield Station LLC, 75 Chauncy Street, Map 21, Parcel 331. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 8:37 pm 10. Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation: Stanley Feck, 177 Old Elm Street, Map 6, Parcel 35. Ms. Gonyer said the applicant has requested a continuance of the hearing to December 19, 2016. Mr. Rieth made the motion to continue the hearing for Stanley Feck, 177 Old Elm Street, Map 6, Parcel 35 to December 19, 2016. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0-1 (Mr. Marcheselli abstained). Hearing ended at 8:39 pm. 11. Notice of Intent: John Patrinos, 18 & 19 Jennifer Drive, Map 39, Parcel 2. DEP SE 211-0963. Construction of two single-family dwellings, utilities, driveways, septic system and associated grading within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands. C9 Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins -Trowbridge Associates, Inc., said Mr. Patrinos is proposing to construct two (2) single-family homes. He explained this is a site that was granted a variance in 2004 through the Zoning Board of Appeals, but due to the economy at that time, the lots were never built. He said the approvals through Conservation, Board of Health, Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board have since expired. Mr. Trowbridge said the applicant has once again received approval by the ZBA and septic plans were submitted and approved by the BOH. The application was sent to Natural Heritage and received approval from the state, but under Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA), the proposal must be conditioned to avoid a prohibited take of state -listed species (outlined in letter dated October 25, 2016 from Division of Fisheries & Wildlife). The remaining 30 acres will be donated to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Trowbridge said the houses will be at least 50 feet from the wetlands, but grading, at some points, will be up to the 25 -foot No Touch Area. Everything is in the upland, no work is within the resource areas and everything is outside the 200 -foot Riverfront Area, Little Canoe River, located to the north of the property. He said on the right and left sides where the grading has come close to the wetland, they have tried to define the area with boulders so future homeowners will realize this is the extent of work. The houses do have roof drains for recharge and will be on town water. Ms. Gonyer said the most recent revision to the plan is dated November 14, 2016. She reviewed the Natural Heritage finding; it states there is "no take" under the Wetland Protection Act, however there are conditions under MESA; she said there are no conditions for the actual development of the house lots. Because the previous delineation under DEP SE 211-738 had expired Mr. Trowbridge re -flagged the wetlands and Ms. Gonyer reviewed and agreed with the delineation. She said there will be a double -wide driveway that splits for the two houses; the driveways have been staked. Ms. Gonyer said she has some concerns since the limit of work is so tight to the abutting lot line and the edge of the driveway, but said she believes this is a permittable project. Mr. Trowbridge discussed the proposed driveways and drainage. Ms. Gonyer said the proposed silt control will be the limit of developed lawn area. She said there are concerns regarding the runoff from the driveway, which is also a concern with the direct abutter. Mr. Trowbridge said any concerns would be with the first 100 feet of the driveway and there could be a special condition that the driveway be super imposed on the southwest side, which is the lowest area of the property. Dennis Corning, 15 Jennifer Drive, the direct abutter to the right of the project said because his property is lower than the elevation of the house lots at 18 and 19 Jennifer Drive, he is concerned with snow storage, runoff and possible erosion. He also said it appears the driveway for 19 Jennifer Drive will be located right on the property line. Mr. Trowbridge said the driveway would actually be super elevated, so it would pitch toward the wetland. Mr. Trowbridge said, as part of the Order of Conditions, no snow would be put onto abutting properties; the snow would have to be plowed to the left side of the property where the boulder retaining wall would be located. Mr. Corning asked if there could be more of a buffer along the lot line. Mr. Healey asked if the width of the driveway could be reduced from the proposed 16 feet. Mr. Trowbridge said a special permit would be required to reduce the width of the driveway. Ms. Gonyer said she did the offsets for a smaller driveway and did not see it changing the limit of work or the impact to the resource area. Mr. Trowbridge said because there were concerns about snow plowing and storage, a special condition for a 6 -foot white vinyl or stockade fence (on the east side) could be added for the 75 -foot section of the driveway. 7 Carla Smargon, 14 Jennifer Drive, asked how her property would be impacted as far as the wetlands are concerned. Mr. Trowbridge said her property is up -gradient, drainage will not flow towards her property. He said as part of the permitting process, roof drains will go to drywells to be recharged into the groundwater, resulting in a net decrease in stormwater runoff. Ms. Gonyer said all points the abutters discussed concerning wetlands and conservation have been addressed by the super elevation of the driveway and the installation of a fence along the 75 -foot section of the driveway on the east side and along the property line for 16 feet. Mr. Maxwell said he would like to see the retaining wall brought in closer to the house at 19 Jennifer Drive to keep it closer to the 50 -foot line. He asked for more details for the 6 -foot boulder wall and the front area, and information for the proposed contours as opposed to existing contours for 18 Jennifer Drive; he said the plan for 18 Jennifer Drive should be clearer. Mr. Healey asked if the driveway at 18 Jennifer Drive could be located on the other side of the house with the leaching field in the back. Mr. Trowbridge said the driveway was put on the left side to minimize the grading. Ms. Gonyer suggested a versa- lok wall instead of the boulder retaining wall because it would be less of a footprint. Mr. Marcheselli said the versa-lok wall would define the area more. Mr. Corning asked if the debris and trash could be removed from the cart path; the area will be cleaned up. Ms. Gonyer summarized the Commission's issues with the project: a revised plan showing the front entrance should be submitted; a clearer plan for the lot at 18 Jennifer Drive; at 19 Jennifer Drive, the boulder retaining wall should be closer to the 50 -foot No Touch Zone; Mr. Trowbridge would blow up an area from the back of the silt control at 18 Jennifer Drive to the cul-de-sac; a versa-lok wall will be installed in order to have as tight a work area as possible; honoring the limit of work as shown on the plan; returning the boulders to avoid the use of the cart path; all debris is to be removed from the cart path (as part of the Order); a detailed construction sequence to be submitted for review by the Agent to make sure it is covering all issues when construct starts; review the limit of work before the start of work; putting a fence from the first 75 feet of the lot line and returning it 16 feet along the lot line; super elevating the driveway to the southwest of the property. Mr. Marcheselli made the motion to issue an Order of Conditions to John Patrinos, 18 & 19 Jennifer Drive, Map 39, Parcel 2, DEP SE 211-0963, for the construction of two single-family dwellings, utilities, driveways, septic system and associated grading within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands, with the following Special Conditions under the Mansfield Wetland Protection By -Law, Chapter 220: Mr. Trowbridge will submit a plan showing the super elevated driveway at the southwest corner of the lot and a 75 -foot fence, to be 4 feet high, on the abutting property line with a 16 -foot return for the issue of snow removal; on Lot 123, 19 Jennifer Drive, take the curve out of the boulder wall and bring it closer to the 50 -foot buffer line; the lot at 18 Jennifer Drive, on the existing plan, starting from the "H" in cart path, a versa-lok wall will be constructed along the 25 -foot No Disturb Zone down to the end; the grant of the Order will be subject to a review by the Agent of a detailed construction sequence for the overall project, referencing the plan "Sewage Disposal System 18 & 19 Jennifer Drive dated August 23, 2016 and revised November 14, 2016 and December 15, 2016; a plan be submitted, showing the area from Jennifer Drive to the back of 18 Jennifer Drive; all debris on the cart path will be removed; and the condition, given the tight limit of work, if anything deviates from the plan submitted during construction that the Agent will be contacted before any work goes forward. Mr. Reith seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 10:08 pm. 12. Notice of Intent: James Lazzara, 130 Spring Street, Map 28, Parcels 164 & 165. DEP SE 211-0964. This filing was for the construction of a 12 -unit Residential Building for an over -55 community with associated driveway, parking, drainage, water, sewer and utilities within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland and 200 -foot Riverfront Area of the Rumford River. Lauren Gluck, Pare Corporation, presented the project at the October meeting. Mitigation is for the work to be done in the 25 -foot No Disturb Zone with a 3:1 mitigation. She said originally they proposed 6,400 square feet of mitigation to provide planting and restoration to a highly disturbed area that is currently dominated by invasive species, in areas located adjacent to the proposed access driveway to offset the disturbance of 5,400 square feet. It was later determined that additional mitigation should be provided and Ms. Gluck and Ms. Gonyer did an onsite to look at the southern limit of work to create a better vegetated screen between the proposed development and the wetland. They are proposing some additional plantings in this area and will also mitigate an area along the west side of the access drive. They will be removing the invasive species and replacing 1:1 with native species, to be determined during construction. Ms. Gonyer said at the October meeting, Mr. Maxwell asked if the parking could be relocated to the west side of the building to get it out of the Riverfront Area. Ms. Gonyer said she and Richard Alves, Town Engineer, met with Mr. Buckley, Bay Colony Group, to discuss the project; the modifications Mr. Alves' asked Mr. Buckley to do have been done. Mr. Buckley said there are still some questions about groundwater and he will contact Mr. Alves. Mr. Buckley said some of the major concerns from the last meeting have been addressed: the parking spaces have been reduced to the minimum 2.0 spaces per unit; the plan now shows the limit of work (sheet 9); the acreage of the two parcels has been corrected — 7.4 acres; minor modifications to the landscaping plan have been made. Ms. Gonyer said she is all set with the restoration plan. Mr. Maxwell asked what the rational was for not changing the location of the parking to the west side of the building. Mr. Buckley said they look at cost, existing technology, the proposed use and logistics. He said the cost and technology are not issues but the proposed use is because this is an over -55 community. After discussing the change, Mr. Lazzara felt the eastern exposure to the parking area, particularly in the winter, would be important due to the age and health and safety of the residents. Mr. Buckley said the logistics is the right side of the property is the only area where there is natural vegetation, a large portion of this area is heavily disturbed and the restoration would double; they would like to save this portion of the site for screening. Ms. Gonyer recommended leaving this natural area to provide screening, adding more mitigation and extending that mitigation area between the buffer area to the grading along the south side, instead of relocating the building and parking area. Mr. Maxwell made the motion to continue the hearing for James Lazzara, 130 Spring Street, Map 28, Parcels 164 & 165, DEP SE 211-0964, for the construction of a 12 -unit Residential Building for an over -55 community with associated driveway, parking, drainage, water, sewer and utilities with 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland and 200 -foot Riverfront Area of the Rumford River to December 19, 2016. Mr. Rieth seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 10:46 pm. VA 13. Continued Hearing for Notice of Intent: Kevin Boyden, 37 Lakeview Avenue, Map 4, Parcel 54. DEP SE 211-0962. Homeowner Kevin Boyden was present. Ms. Gonyer said this is for the construction of a foundation, utilizing the abutting property at 41 Lakeview Avenue for access to Mr. Boyden's property so he is able to install/repair a portion of his foundation. Mr. Boyden was to submit a limit of how far any machinery would encroach on the abutter's property; the width of a trench for roof drainage, which would be recharged onto Mr. Boyden's property; reference the signed agreement between Mr. Boyden and Mr. and Mrs.Quintiliani; a construction sequence. Everything was submitted for the October meeting, but because Mr. Boyden was not present, the hearing was continued to the November meeting. Ms. Gonyer asked if a stone trench would be suitable for recharge instead of drywells. Mr. Healey said a stone trench would require more maintenance. Ms. Gonyer said the agreement with the abutter will expire November 30, 2016 and Mr. Boyden said he would address this issued with Mr. Quintiliani. He said he is ready to go forward with the work. Ms. Gonyer said the Commission cannot approve work on another person's property without their permission. She said Mr. Boyden can proceed with the work at his own risk. Mr. Quintiliani said the Commission will issue the Order contingent upon the signed agreement. He noted the terms of the agreement are valid as of November 21, 2016. Mr. Marcheselli made the motion to issue an Order of Conditions to Kevin Boyden, 37 Lakeview Avenue, Map 4, Parcel 54, DEP SE 211-0962, "Proposed Foundation Repair/Restoration Plan at Hse. No. 37 Lakeview Avenue, revision date October 7, 2016, to install a new foundation as needed and associated grading on an existing house within 100 feet of the Inland Bank of Greenwood Lake with the following Special Conditions under the Mansfield Wetland Protection By -Law, Chapter 220: • No work can be started until 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 plan (dated October 7, 2016) referenced as "the plan of record" in this Order. • All limits of work and erosion controls shall be installed prior to any construction, clearing, or excavation. The erosion controls shall consist of a 8" diameter biodegradable mulch -filled silt sock with wooden stakes every 10 feet on each sides of sock or equivalent (do not pierce silt sock with stakes). In addition to the silt sock, trenched -in silt fence may be required depending on the specific site conditions. See the Conservation Agent (Agent) for specific erosion control design standards. The Applicant shall notify the Agent when any such devices or measures are installed so that a site visit can be conducted 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 maintained on site. • The Applicant shall ensure that all demarcation (i.e. limits of work) and erosion control devices will remain in place and be maintained throughout the construction process and until all disturbed areas are stabilized. Stabilization shall be achieved once a complete vegetative cover is reached. Seeded areas shall be covered with a suitable protective cover to allow the seed to germinated and become established. All side slopes greater than 3:1 (but less than 2:1) are to be covered with jute mesh and seeded. At no point shall erosion 10 occur resulting in sediment entering the wetland areas. If erosion occurs, the Agent is to be contacted to review the extent of the erosion and determine follow-up actions. • All roof runoff is to be directed in drywells or equivalent drainage components approved by the Commission. The Commission or its agent shall review the locations of the drywells. Roof runoff to be recharged onsite. • A construction sequence on plan to be followed. • The Conservation Commission or its agent is to be notified of the starting date of the work prior to its commencement. • The Applicant shall be responsible to ensure that all contractors on site during the construction have received and reviewed the Order of Conditions and all plans of record. • 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 the Commission for review. For single family lots, this Order is for the structures shown on the plan of record only. Any additional structures including, but not limited to, decks, patios, sheds, pools, walkways and/or any hardscape features must be reviewed by the Commission. If, after their 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. Any additional revisions must be reviewed. • No synthetic fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides or fungicides can be used; only organic products may be used. • All terms and conditions of the legal agreement between Mr. Boyden and the abutters are met. Mr. Maxwell seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0 Hearing ended at 11:07 p m. 14. Request to Amend the Order of Conditions: Hemze Sengaba, 140 Williams Street, Map 6, Parcel 101. DEP SE 211-0952 Ms. Gonyer explained the homeowner, Hemze Sengaba, has requested to amend the Order of Conditions and to accept a newly revised plan as the Plan of Record for several unapproved in -field changes at 140 Williams Street, including the garage slab that was constructed 4.2 feet higher than proposed, re -grading in the back of the property with fill added, and the excavation of pits 7-8 feet down, which were to be no deeper than 3.5 feet due to high groundwater; the pits were eventually backfilled with gravel. Mr. Sengaba was to submit a revised plan to include: • a permanent split rail fence, not just plants/trees, to delineate the 35 -foot limit of work — this is not shown on the plan dated November 8, 2016; • additional wall details - a cross section of the wall; • eliminate drywell #2; • move shed out of wetland area; • extend natural area (removal of mulch bed and allow this area to naturalize at the right front area of the property) — not shown on November 8, 2016 plan; • Drainage information. 11 Ms. Gonyer said the driveway has been pulled back 10 feet from the wetland. Mr. Sengaba said everything has been pulled away from the resource area; the shed, a larger turnaround and retaining wall are now outside the 50 -foot buffer. He said he does not want to do a split rail fence for the safety of his young children; he said he would plant additional trees in this area. Mr. Healey said the fence would protect and limit access to the resource area. He said there have been changes made that were not included on the original Plan of Record dated December 8, 2016; the elevation of the house, amount of fill and location of subsurface drywells. In place of the split rail fence, Mr. Marcheselli suggested a vinyl picket fence. He said the Commission is in agreement with the block wall, the driveway, and roof drains. Ms. Gonyer said the roof drains are fine as long as the Commission approves the new components shown on the plan. Mr. Marcheselli said drywell #1 will be a crushed stone swale; all roof runoff will go into drywell #3 and #4. Drywell #2 will not be eliminated; patio pavers will be pervious; the shed has been moved forward; a revised plan will need to be submitted as the Plan of Record. As a cautionary note, Mr. Healey said if the Commission finds there are any differences with the Plan of Record (dated November 8, 2016, received November 9, 2016) they will exercise their right to fine $25.00 per day until the differences are corrected. Mr. Marcheselli asked if the slate pile was removed, would there be more disturbance to the area. Mr. Healey said because the slate pile does not impact the resource area, it should not be removed. Mr. Homan Sengaba asked if he could remove the logs and trash located to the left of the house. Mr. Marcheselli said he can remove the logs and trash by hand. Mr. Healey said cleaning out the logs and trash would be a benefit to the area. Mr. Marcheselli made the motion to issue an Amended the Order of Conditions to Hemze Sengaba, 140 Williams Street, Map 6, Parcel 101, DEP SE 211-952, for a request to accept a new Plan of Record, "Amended Site Plan for Hse No. 140 Williams Street in Mansfield, MA, Sheets 1 & 2 dated November 8, 2016, received November 9, 2016, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., for the construction of a new single-family dwelling with landscaping within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland, with the amended changes: in lieu of trees, a stockade fence will be installed along the rear limit of work, starting approximately from behind drywell #3 and running to a point behind drywell #2; all Special Conditions from the original Order issued January 4, 2016 will remain in place. Mr. Rieth seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 11:51 pm. 15. Correspondence: 16. New Business: 17. Old Business: Update of Enforcement Order for 300 West Street: Ms. Gonyer said everything has been removed from the 25 -foot area and the area will be planted in the spring. Ms. Gonyer suggested the area be seeded. Approval of October minutes: Maxwell/Rieth. Motion passed 2-0-3 12 18. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 11:57 pm (Rieth\Marcheselli). Motion passed 5-0. Next meeting will be December 19, 2016 r n —)J-1 Michael Healey, Chairm n Date 13