Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConservation Comm 04/27/1981HEARING PURPOSE: To acquaint the public with the Wetlands Bylaw to be proposed by the Conservation Commission at the 1981 Town Meeting HEARING DATE AND TIME: Monday, April 27, 1981,ut 00 PM %', r. , �'. Com. Sheehan, on behalf of the Commission, outlined zoning bylaw. She explained that while in most respects this bylaw is identical to the Hatch Act, it does add other areas which the Commission can take into consideration in writing the local bylaw Order of Conditions. Com. Sheehan mentioned that several towns in the state have enacted similar bylaws, e.g., Concord, Canton, Easton, Foxborough, Sharon, Falmouth, Reading, Dennis. One of the advantages cited for such a bylaw is that it will keep some degree oflocal control for all projects involved in the wetlands in contrast to the State control of any projects appealed to DEQE. Some questions from the audience: 1. What are the specific differences between this bylaw and Chapter 131, S. 40 of the Mass. General Laws. (Tony Caponigro, 160 Gilbert St.) S. 1 - The State does not consider wildlife, recreation, and aesthetics. S. 3 - Stockpiling of materials is not included by the State. 5.10 - Posting of a bond is not included in the Hatch Act. 2. Who would decide on the amount of bonding? (Grace Genotassio, Leonard C., It would be negotiated by the applicant and the Commission. 3. Are you talking about public or private property? (Carl Nelson, Spring St. Both. The Town would not be exempt from this law; the State however, is exempt from such laws on State-owned property.) 4. Could a project be denied because of the presence of wildlife on the site? (T. Caponigro) No; it merely gives the Commission the right to take wildlife habitat into consideration. 5. Judgement is very much involved in administering many aspects of this bylaw. What happens in the future if members of the Commission f are not fair-minded? (Robert Currivan, 300 East Street) We would hope that all members of the Commission would be fair-minded. WETLANDS BYLAW HEARING --PAGE TWO 6 Is this law to protect wetlands or against developers? (R. Currivan) 7. How many of the Commission's decisions have been appealed? (Robert Chavaree, 16 Riverside Drive) 35-40% of the major projects. 8. One-third of Mansfield is wetlands; this gives the Conservation Commission a near -dictatorship over one-third of the town. In 1952, Mansfield had no zoning regulations; now we are over -regu- lated. (R. Chavaree) 9. Does the Commission feel that they or future Commissions possess the knowledge and background to act on this bylaw? (Ronald Bonviey 650 Ware Street) The Commission can, as it has in the past, hire outside consultants. 10. How do you protect wetlands, water supply? (C. Nelson) By purchasing land to protect sensitive areas and by establishing zoning regulations to prevent damage to our water resource. This is the purpose of this proposed bylaw --to supplement the protection presently provided by the Hatch Act. 11. Any developer could take this bylaw into consideration when planning a development and the Town would be better for such planning. (Marydee Flynn, 102 Jewell Street) 12. Where can decisions under this bylaw be appealed? (Allen Johnson, SUN CHRONICLE) The appeal is through the courts (just as the appeal of a Title 5 decision by the Board of Health is to the courts). The appeal for the Order of Conditions would still be to the State except for those sections which the local bylaw contains not included in the Hatch Act. The Commissioners explained that the intent is that the court would have to be involved only if it was an appeal of the matters pertaining to erosion control, wildlife, recreation, and aesthetics, stockpiling of materials, and bonding. Several audience members contended that since it is a local bylaw, it could not be appealed to the State since no other local bylaws can be so appealed and therefore the appeal would be through the touts, often an expensive and lengthy process. The Commissioners suggested that the wording could perhaps be changed to reflect their intent. 13. Why doens't the Commission take the work of the registered engineer who presents the plans? (T. Caponigro) A second opinion is often a good idea. E WETLANDS BYLAW HEARING --PAGE THREE 14. Why is stockpiling so bad? What is aesthetically pleasing to me, might not be so to you. You are infringing on my consti- tutional rights. (C. Nelson) It could be worded so that aesthetic considerations would be ancillary. The courts have ruled that if you still have use of your land it is not an infringement of your constitutional rights. Stockpiling can be detrimental to wetlands. 15. Why do you feel it is necessary to protect the applicant's neighbors? If they are agrieved, they have recourse through the courts. I do commend the Commission in their attempt to protect our water supply. (R. Currivan) 16. Perhaps it would be best to wait and see what the new regulations concerning wetlands to be issued by the State will be. Aesthetics, etc., are open-ended and the cause of litigation. The new State regulations will be out in eight -ten weeks and perhaps might make this bylaw unnecessary. Administratively this local bylaw could be expensive. The State may withhold funds if the regulations are too restrictive to developers. This will affect land owners as well as developers. (Allen Willis, 495 Ware Street) The hearing closed at 10:00 PM. MANSFIELD CONSERVATION C MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1981 Members Present Chairwoman Roy Johnson, Jane Webb (left at N' 6' " 1 MINUTES PAGE1 T e Cotes Pau -1.-- oyden, Keith Sheehan, Stuart Sweet, Doris 10:30 PM) Proposed Wetlands Bylaw: From 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM a workshop session was held in order for the Commissioners to review the material on the proposed Wetlands Bylaw. At 8:00 PM a public hearing was held to acquaint the public with the non -zoning Wetlands Bylaw to be proposed at the 1981 Town Meeting by the Commission. A summary of this hearing is filed separately; a tape of the hearing is also on file with the Town Clerk. Minutes: MOTION: To postpone reading the until the next meeting. (Boyden - Webb; all in Correspondence: Minutes of April 20, 1981 favor) VOTED 1. Notice of Intent dated April 17, 1981 from Massachusetts Electric Company to relocate an existing electric power line to accommodate the new location of Route 140. The Wetlands Protection Act Hearing for this project has been scheduled for Monday, May 4, 1981, at 8:00 PM. 2. Superseding Order of Conditions from DEQE to Rewlew Trust for the filling of Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of Woodland Park (SE211-71). 3. April 23, 1981 letter from Town Counsel Mulcahy informing the Commission that he was in Court on April 21, 1981 in connection with the Town of Mansfield vs. Kelton Potter (1030 and 1036 East Street). Town Counsel Mulcahy asks how much fill is to be removed and when it was placed there in order to inform the Court. Coms. Boyden and Johnson will review File No. SE211-67 and make their recommendation to the Commission at the next meeting of the best next step to take in this matter. 4. April 24, 1981 letter from Messrs. Chavaree and Willis requesting a one-year extension for their restoration of Cabot Pond project. MOTION: To grant Messrs. Cha.varee and Willis a one-year extension to their project, File No. SE211-54. (Webb - Sheehan; all in favor) VOTED MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1981 MINUTES PA CE 2 5. April 24, 1981 memo from Planning Board stating that the Board will study the storage of excess materials problem outlined by the Conservation Commission. 6. Copy of April 10, 1981 letter to Elwood Shepard from the Corps of Engineers requesting an after -the -fast permit application for the filling in of/the Rumford River and adjacent wetlands. /a portion of It was agreed that this case will be reviewed at the next meeting and appropriate action taken. 7. Copy of April 10, 1981 letter from Board of Selectmen regretfully accepting Charles Meszoely's resignation from the Conservation Commission. 8. April 27, 1981 bill from Patricia E. MacKay in the amount of $+5 for ten hours of secretarial services. MOTION: To pay this bill in the amount of $45. (Sheehan - Webb; all in favor) VOTED 9. Copy of April 17, 1981 memo to James Hall from Paul Folkman stating that the proposed weigh station would be located in a swamp quite close to the Witches Pond Well and that the State should be notified that a Wetlands Protection Act Hearing would be necessary for such a project. Eagle Scout Project: Com. Webb informed the Commission that a prospective Eagle Scout is anxious to build wood duck boxes and has requested funding from the Commission. MOTION: Due to the tight financial situation of the Commission at this time, to compose a letter to be used by this boy scout as an introduction to businesses that might be willing to donate the necessary materials, such letter to state that the Conservation Commission is aware of and commends this project. Associate Commissioner Meszoely will be asked to supervise this project. (Sheehan - Sweet; all in favor) VOTED Thomas J Coughlin - East Street: File No. SE211-74 MOTION: To issue the standard Order of Conditions with the following two conditions added: 1. Filling of the swamp shall be restricted to that area shown on the above-cited plan as a 30 -foot right of way. MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1981 PAGE 3 2. A 12 -inch reinforced concrete pipe, at least 35 feet in length, shall be installed at an elevation of 99' approximately 50 feet from the concrete bound which marks the beginning of the road. This pipe shall be installed to best construction practices. (Sweet - Webb; all in favor) VOTED Northeast Weed Control Co. - Bun aL_Lake_ File No. SE211-75 MOTION: To issue the standard Order of Conditions for this project without additions. VOTED (Webb - Boyden; all in favor) David White - Tree Cutting on School Street: MOTION: To refrain from taking any action because of possible litigation in connection with this matter and to consult Town Manager concerning legal implications. (Town Counsel is on vacation.) (Boyden - Johnson; all in favor) VOTED (Com. Webb left the meeting at this ti -me.) Mrs. Jellinek - Maple Park Gravel Pit: Mrs. Jellinek produced a 1954 Plan of Land To Be Taken for Water Supply Purposes as well as a Special Town Meeting Vote of December 12, 1966 transferring control of land to the Conservation Commission. Mrs. Jellinek contends that Parcel 1 on this map, apparently controlled by the Conservation Commission since this 1966 Special Town Meeting Vote, is the location of the gravel pit being operated by the Town. Mrs. Jellinek went on to say that the Attorney General is on record as being ready to protect well recharge areas until laws are passed to provide such protection. Mrs. Jellinek contends that this gravel pit is, indeed, within a recharge area. R_ay Goddard - 496 Ware Street: Mr. Goddard presented the Commission with signed, witnessed, and captioned photographs, taken from his property, depicting the violations alleged by Mr. Goddard in connection with Leon Grant's pond development. MOTION: To issue a Cease and Desist Order to Leon Grant for his ponldevelopment because he is working without a valid Order of Conditions (expired March 31, 1981). (Sheehan - Johnson; all in favor) VOTED MOTION: To send a memo to the Building Inspector requesting that he make a joint on-site inspection of this project with MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1981 the Commission. (Boyden - Sweet; all in favor) MINUTES PAGE 4 VOTED Peter DeGirolamo - East Street: Chairwoman Royle informed the Commissioners that at the last meeting she had neglected to mention that on April 16, 1981 she had spoken with Peter DeGirolamo concerning the alleged wetlands violation on his East Street property and that Mr. DeGirolamo had assured her that he was filling neither in nor within 100 feet of a wetland. When Chairwoman Royle requested permission to make an on-site inspection, Mr. DeGirolamo stated that he would like to receive such a request in writing together with the letter alleging his violation. MOTION: To send a letter to Peter DeGirolamo enclosing Mrs. .Jellinek's letter of April 20, 1981 bringing this matter to the Commission's attention and requesting permission to make an on-site inspection of this East Street property. (Johnson - Sheehan; all in favor) VOTED Commission's Candidate to fill Vacancy_ MOTION: To nominate Ronald Bonvie as the Commission's candidate to fill this vacancy. (Boyden Sweet) MOTION: To nonimate Barbara Libby as the Commission's candidate to fill this vacancy. (Sheehan - Johnson) VOTE: Ronald Bonvie FOR: Sweet,Boyden OPPOSED: Johnson, Royle, Sheehan Barbara Libby FOR: Johnson, Royle, Sheehan OPPOSED: Boyden, Sweet MOTION To send a memo to the Board of Selectmen stating that the Commission's choice, selected through the balloting process, to fill the vacancy on the Commission is Barbara Libby. VOTED (Johnson - Sheehan; all in favor), Adjournment: MOTION: To adjourn this meeting at 11:40 PM. VOTED (Sheehan - Johnson; all in favor) } Date to Town Clerk as ` MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1981 PAGE 5 ADDENDUM: Robert Rizzo - Plantingfield Road: On April 29, 1981, Robert Rizzo called Mrs. MacKay to notify the Commission that Norwood Engineering had requested an extension for this project, not realizing that Certificates of Compliance have already been issued for all the lots with which the .Commission is concerned and that only road work remains to be done in this project. Thus, Mr. Rizzo requested that the Commission ignore the request for an extension since it is unnecessary. (File No. SE211-42.)