Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConservation Comm 01/25/1982eg evx� AV MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISS1 99 INUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1982 AGE ONE Members Present: Chairwoman Dianne Royle, Coms. Ronald Bonvie, Paul Boyden, Anthony Durbano, Keith Johnson, Stuart Sweet, Doris Webb Minutes: MOTION: In the interests of time, to postpone considering the Minutes of January 11, 1982 until next meeting. (Bonvie - Sweet; all in favor) VOTED Correspondence: 1. Invitation from the League of Women Voters to a Legislative Reception on Friday, January 29, 1982. No one will be able to attend. 2. Notice of February 3, 1982 Bi -Monthly Meeting with the Selectmen. Com. Johnson will represent the Commission at this meeting. 3. Notice of February 4, 1982 meeting with Finance Committee, Chairwoman Royle will attend this Budget Meeting. 4. Bill from Mrs. MacKay in the amount of $135. MOTION: To pay this bill in the amount of $135. (Johnson - Sweet; all in favor) VOTED 5. January 12, 1982 Notice of Intent from Compo Chemical for the filling of a wetland in order to construct a warehouse and driveway. Chairwoman Royle informed the Commission that the hearing has been set for Monday, February 1, 1982 at 8:00 PM. After studying the Notice and the plan, it was agreed that the Board of Health and the Hazardous Waste Advisory Task Force should be notified of the hearing with the notation that it might be of special interest to them. 6. January 14, 1982 letter from Town Counsel Mulcahy informing the Commission that he had been advised that a title examination will be necessary in connection with the transfer of the Kane property gift and asking if the Conservation Commission is in a position to have such a title search done. It was the consensus that such a title search should be done MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1982 MINUTES PAGE TWO but that it would be advisable to get a rough cost estimate from Town Counsel before making a final decision. j Later in the meeting when the Commission discussed the cost of such a title search with Mr. Mulcahy, the Town Counsel suggested that it would be less expensive to hire a title examiner --rather than a lawyer --to accomplish this task. 7. Completed "Request to Determine..." form from Poni Corp. for an Elm Street project. The Commissioners discussed at some length the inspection of the project site, the inconsistencies in the plans and the information provided by Mr. Caponigro at the last meeting and at the on-site inspection. MOTION: To require a Wetlands Protection Act Hearing for this project since it involves work within 100 feet of a brook. (Webb - Sweet; in favor: Royle, Sweet, and Webb opposed: Bonvie, Boyden, Durbano, and Johnson FAILED MOTION: To request more information concerning this project before making a determination. (Bonvie - Durbano; in favor: Bonvie, Boyden, Durbano, and Johnson opposed: Royle, Sweet, and Webb VOTED Later in the meeting, Mr. Caponigro explained to the Commissioners that he would be willing to locate the house 80 feet from the brook if they so desired. He also stressed that he does not intend to disturb the brook or its embankments. MOTION: To request Mr. Caponigro submit to the Commission a copy of his revised Board of Health plan which will include the exact location of the proposed house, the brook, and its adjacent wetlands. (Boyden - Bonvie; all in favor) VOTED Reimbursement Article --Town Meeting: Chairwoman Royle read the wording of the proposed Town Meeting Article which calls for the reimbursement by the Town of the Conservation Commission's expense incurred in the purchase of property for future well exploration, noting that the Selectmen have voted to support this article. MOTION: To submit this Article to the Town Clerk for inclusion in the 1982 Annual Town Meeting. (Johnson - Sweet; all in favor) VOTED MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1982 PAGE THREE 1030 and 1036 East Street: This meeting was attended by Kelton Potter, accompanied by his attorney, Edward Modiste, and his engineer, Ralph Maloon, Town Counsel Mulcahy, and the Conservation Commissioners. Iii the audience were Mr. and Mrs. Martin Cahill, 1024 East Street, and Anna Souza, 1048 East Street. Chairwoman Royle briefly outlined the history of this situation beginning with a Cease and Desist Order issued in August, 1979, not only to refresh recollections but also to give the new Commissioners background on the matter. When Town Counsel inquired whether the Commission had a solution to suggest, Chairwoman Royle explained that while the Commissioners had discussed the project and recently revisited the site, it was the feeling of the Commission that Mr. Potter and /or his engineer should come up with such a solution. It seemed to be agreed by all that the crux of the problems lies in whether the illegal fill has increased the water problems of the abutters --a difficult determination to make. In the alternative, it was agreed that if Mr. Potter et al could propose a method, agreeable to the Commission, of moving the water off these lots, the problems of all concerned might be alleviated. In response to Attorney Modiste's query, the consensus was that the goal of this solution would be to insure that the water problems of this area are not increased by any development of these two lots. Ralph Maloon stated that he would begin a study of the drainage system of the area in order to present a proposal to the Commission in the near future. Martin Cahill stated that he would be amenable to a method of moving water off these lots which would not increase water problems experienced in the vicinity. Anna Souza expressed her view that this spring --after a snowy winter --would be a good indication of the severity of the flooding situation here. Mrs. Jellinek --Fairfield Park: Mrs. Jellinek urged the Commission to look into the drainage from this project since it eventually drains into Back Bay Brook. Wendy Kay, an abutter to this project, voiced her objection to the open -ditch method of carrying this drainage. Chairwoman Royle suggested that in view of the time and the complexity of the situation, it would be wiser to discuss this at the next Commission meeting. Ralph Maloon, engineer for the project, agreed to discuss this with the Commission at their February 1, 1982 meeting. Town of Mansfield - West Church Street: MOTION: To issue the standard Order of Conditions for this project with the addition of the following condition: Cim, Bonvieleft the room during this discussion due to a conflict o interest. r=n MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1982 MINUTES PAGE FOUR This project is significant to pollution prevention. Therefore, the contractor is to take every necessary step to insure that siltation devices shall be used as the project requires, i.e., hay bales properly installed and changed, pea stone dams, and other suitable devices (even to include if necessary a retention area or a siltation basin) to control the siltation from the open pumping. (Webb - Bonvie; all in favor) VOTED Brown Property--Balcom Street: Chairwoman Royle reported that she had received a phone call from Deborah McNeilly, 94 Balcom Street, who is very concerned with the flooding of this property. Chairwoman Royle went on to say that she has invited Mr. Brown and the abutters in to discuss this matter toward the end of February. Penn Central Land: MOTION: To send a letter to Penn Central stating that the Town of Mansfield is interested in entering into a contract for the 50 -acre parcel as soon as the money becomes available but questioning the increase in price to $800/acre when the land had previously been offered to the Commission at $500/acre. (Boyden - Webb; all in favor) VOTED Local Wetlands Bylaw: MOTION: To reopen the discussion of the local wetlands bylaw. (Boyden - Webb; in favor: Boyden, Durbano, Johnson, Royle, Sweet, and Webb opposed: Bonvie VOTED Com. Boyden urged that the local wetlands bylaw, as presently prepared, be submitted to meet the February 1, 1982 deadline for Town Meeting articles but that it be worked on during the months before Town Meeting and then changed on the Town Meeting floor. Town Counsel Mulcahy stated that as long as the intent of the article did not change, this would be permissible. Com. Bonvie restated his opposition to presenting such a "haphazardly prepared" article. It was the consensus thatklr aesthetics" be struck from S. 1; (2) S. 10 on bonding should be modified; (3) in S. 11, "Mans- field Conservation Commission" should be substituted for "Dept... authority"; and (4) the appeal process should be clearly spelled out. Town Counsel Mulcahy suggested that (1) S. 40A and S. 41 of the General Laws and the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw could be used as a guide for establishing criteria for bonding; and (2) it might be worthwhile to check on the experiences of those Towns already carrying such a local wetlands bylaw. MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1982 MINUTES PAGE FIVE There was much discussion of the advisability of changing an article from the floor, the possibility of submitting the article for a Special Town Meeting, the necessity of having a Town Engineer to back the Commission up under such a local bylaw, and the admini- stration of this bylaw vis a vis Ch. 131, S. 40. MOTION: To polish the local wetlands bylaw in anticipation of submitting it at the Special Town Meeting. (Boyden, Durbano; in favor: Boyden, Durbano, Johnson, Sweet, and Webb opposed: Bonvie and Royle VOTED Adjournment: MOTION: To adjourn this meeting at 11:40 PM and to schedule the next meeting for Monday, February 1, 1982. Accepted by 9A&'U-C ) To Town Clerk r. pem