Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of conservation comm 050707 1'\ \\" RECEIVED "\ rc (; \'= tr'f" : '. "\. r Conservation Commission Meeting 07 JUN I 5 AI'~ /0: 22 May 7, 2007 . ,~, :', ' ,., ,'- 1 .~.... J 0 t'IJ';'('4J11l:L Present: Colin Cauldwell, Chair; Paul Boyden, Vice Chair; Carok ~1I8Eif T S Monachino; Jack Smith; Joe Mulkern; Michele Grenier, Conservation and Environmental Planner. Discussion started at 7:06 pm. Ann McMenemy responded to the Commission's questions from the April 23, 2007 meeting in regards to the herbicide treatments to control the aquatic invasive plant, milfoil that is dominating the vegetative cover in the pond. At that meeting, Ann told the Commission the applicant was requesting the approval to control the milfoil growth in the pond to improve the habitat for fish and wildlife and the aesthetics of the pond. LL Bean would like to use the pond for kayak and fly fishing demonstrations. r- Marc Bellaud of Aquatic Control Technology, Inc. presented the proposed scope of services for the management of the School Street Pond. The Commission had asked Ann to get more information on alternative methods to eliminate the milfoil. They wanted to know if another herbicide other than 2,4/0 would be as effective in treating the pond. They also asked for information regarding other ponds/lakes that have been treated with 2,4/0. The Commission was concerned with the possibility that the chemical would drain down stream, affecting other areas. Colin wanted to know if the pond could be blocked off or drawn down before the herbicide is being applied. Ann told him the pond would be sandbagged prior to the application. Marc gave a summary of different methods used to control the milfoil as well as other herbicides to be used for invasive aquatic plants. Because the milfoil has taken over more than 75% of the pond, the alternatives such as mechanical harvestinglhydro-raking, biological control or sediment excavation are not recommended. r Marc told the Commission that 2,4/0 granular, also known as Navigate, is the most effective milfoil control. It is systemic-acting and will kill the entire plant, including the root n [11. /" structures. He said, due to the high plant density, the pond would need two successive years of treatment and then follow-up maintenance treatments every 1-2 years. The plants will be treated when they are actively growing, but not yet at full maturity. Treatment will occur between late May and early July. Treating the not yet mature plants reduces the amount of plant biomass that will decompose after the treatment, protecting against significant changes in the oxygen and nutrient levels in the pond. The milfoil will begin to die within a week to ten days, disappearing totally within two to three weeks after treatment. As Ann had told the Commission at the last meeting, some algal growth and loss of water clarity may be experienced until the native plants re-colonize the pond. If this occurs, the pond will be treated with a copper based algaecide or buffered alum for the first two years of a management program. After controlling the milfoil for two consecutive years, the pond will be reevaluated for an ongoing maintenance program. The chemical will be applied at or below the recommended rate. Marc told the Commission he will apply for the License to Apply Chemicals from the Department of Environmental Protection. A copy of the license will be sent to the Commission prior to the start of treatment. Marc said the pond shorelines would be posted with orange signs, reading "Do Not Use Water" and warning of all temporary water use restrictions. (' Marc submitted summaries of each herbicide approved by the Department of Environmental Protection, detailing ingredients, how it is applied and the toxicity. He also submitted a list of clients/water bodies Aquatic Control Technology, Inc. has treated. The Commission would like to be notified when the herbicide will be applied. Ann told the Commission she would be coming to the May 21 st meeting with the information requested concerning the seasonal dock LL Bean has requested. Ben made the motion to approve the proposed scope of services for the management of the School Street Pond, as submitted by Aquatic Control Technology, Inc., dated May 1,2007 with the following conditions: a copy of the License to Apply Chemicals from the Department of Environmental Protection will be provided to Conservation prior to the start of the treatment; the applicant will prepare a planting schedule and planting scheme for restoration of the area after the initial management plan has been completed; the Commission will be notified when the initial treatment will be done and for any subsequent applications; Ann will submit any testing results for the pond in regards to the chemical treatment; a plan will be submitted for the proposed sandbagging of the pond to minimize any run-off of chemicals to surrounding areas. (' Discussion ended at 7:30 pm. 2 "'R' ..__ (' Hearing started at 7:35 pm. Peter Clark, an attorney representing the Bauer Family, was present. The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction ofa single-family home, utilities, a 12 ft. driveway and grading within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. There will be a 2-car garage attached to the house. The distance between the closest project disturbance and the associated resource area is 25 ft. The project is within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, the Canoe River, but not in a Habitat Area. The driveway is not out of the 50 ft. and is on an easement, not shown on the plan. Bill Bauer, Annie Bauer's son, will give the easement to who ever buys the lot in order for the driveway to be built outside the 25 ft. no disturb area. Michele would like this project held to the 50 ft. She thinks the driveway should be a limited access crossing of a wetland, keeping the driveway out of the 50 ft. An alternative analysis would need to be done if a limited access crossing is done. r- Peter Clark told the Commission that Bill Bauer has donated the easement back to his mother and to move the driveway out of the 50 ft. area would require the removal of a shed and there is also an artesian well servicing Bill's house in the area. He told the Commission crossing the wetland would be a substantial issue. The landowner does not want further encroachment on his property. Peter thought with the discretion the Commission has to allow work outside the 25 ft area, it was better to file the plan with the driveway out of the 25 ft. zone as opposed to a limited crossing. He told the Commission the applicant is not going to disturb anything in the 25 ft. area. The septic system is as far away from the wetlands as it can possible go. Roof drains will be installed for any roof drainage. Drainage will go into conduit drains. Colin wondered if there were any Zoning issues with this lot. Peter said because it is a Form A lot, there are no zoning problems. A variance was approved-there was a lot depth issue. Peter told the Commission the lot is before the Planning Board at this time. Joe wanted to know if there were any issues with the well. Peter told the Commission only Bill's home is serviced by the well. Annie's lot will be serviced by town water and Bill's house could also be hooked up to the town water system. r 3 - Michele asked why the applicant did not come to Conservation regarding the easement (" before filing. She said normally this is done first. Peter said the easement was set 4 months ago; to change the easement now would be difficult. Colin suggested the easement be redone and the Notice of Intent filed again showing driveway out of the 50 ft. Ben asked about a "limited project". Michele explained a "limited" project is allowed only as an alternative means of access from a public way to an upland area if no other access is available to the upland. "Limited" projects are discretionary; the Conservation Commission mayor may not approve. The Commission would consider the extent of the alteration and the availability of alternatives to the proposed activity. An alternative analysis would be required for the "limited" project. The Commission would allow the loss of up to 5,000 sq. ft. of a bordering vegetated wetland. The disturbed area would have to be replicated 3: 1. Paul made the motion to table the Notice of Intent and take another look at the site. Joe seconded. Passed 6-0. The Commission members and Michele will walk the site on Monday, May 14,2007 at 6:00 pm. Hearing ended at 8:10. ,r' Hearing started at 8: 13 pm. Christian Farland of Dunn McKenzie was present. Sam Patel, the applicant was also present. Sam Patel has filed a Notice of Intent for a restaurant and a retail building at the southeast corner of Chauncy Street and Route 140. The restaurant will be approximately 5,137 +/_ sq. ft. and the retail building will be 3,200 +/- sq. ft. The site is currently undeveloped, with few trees and is overgrown. It has been used as a dumping ground for many years. Christian Farland and Dunn McKenzie, Inc. have been working with Sam Patel for 3 years to develop this parcel. He told the Commission there is a total of2.38 acres with approximately 10,953 sq. ft. (0.25 acres) of bordering vegetated wetlands. There is also 7.64 acres that will be donated. Christian said the major obstacle of the site is the wetland area and the town requirements; the set backs for landscaping and the set backs around the buildings. Christian feels the plan is the best fit for the parcel. r-- There were some issues with the entranceway. As proposed it was felt the entrance posed a traffic hazard. The applicant has been working with the abutter trying to get an easement to 4 n ...... r improve the entrance to the site, to enlarge the entrance to accommodate this project and the abutter, eliminating the need for 2 separate entrances. Another issue raised by the Engineering Department was the stormwater management because of the high ground water table with slow permability. To solve the problem, Christian told the Commission the area was raised high enough to provide minimum separation from the seasonal ground water and the bottom of the infiltration chambers. Wetland areas are fed by the existing drainage. The stormwater management system will consist of catch basins inlets, Stormceptor units, drywells (for the roof drainage) and infiltration chambers and trenches to be located around the buildings and in the rear of the parking area of the restaurant. TSS removable is up to 94%. The system has been designed to handle a 100-year storm and to prevent the pollution of any water resources in the area. Christian believes all concerns about the buffer zone have been addressed. He does not feel the work will have an adverse effect on the resource areas. A permanent barrier will be used so no work or disturbance will occur in the 25 ft. buffer. Christian feels the plan presented tonight addresses all the issues and concerns Engineering, Planning, Building and Conservation have. John Sullivan has approved the plans. The plan also received a positive recommendation from the Planning Board. r The plan is a reduction of the previous plan submitted. Christian told the Commission this plan for the site would be an improvement considering the level of disturbance today. Charles Mulcahy of Wynn & Wynn, P.C. spoke in favor of the project. He has been to many meetings with Michele, Nick Riccio, Rick Alves and other departments from Town Hall about the proposed project. He has walked the site recently and has spoken to Lou Andrews who live there many years ago. He acknowledged there are wetlands on the property. The issue is if certain work can be done within the 25 ft. buffer since this is a heavily disturbed area. There is a lot of construction and other debris that has accumulated for years on the site. The majority of the site has been previously disturbed by the construction of Route 140. Because the site, in its present condition, is an eye sore the restaurant/retail building will be a plus for the area. Charlie hopes the Commission will use its discretionary ability to allow the building of this project within the 25 ft. area. He told the Commission the work would not have an adverse effect on the resource areas on the site. Michele commented the area is disturbed and needs to be cleaned up. She would like to see construction fencing to prevent anymore disturbance and signage, reading "No Disturb Area", around the 25 ft. area to prevent the construction crew from entering the area while working. r' Ben wanted to know if dumping on the site classifies the area as disturbed. Can anyone dump on their land and state the land has been previously disturbed. Colin told Ben this site 5 r has construction debris from the highway, it has been clear cut and excavated and filled many times over the past years. Carole asked about a snow removal/storage plan. Michele told the applicant to submit a revised plan showing a snow removal/storage plan. Carole wanted to know if the 25 ft. buffer would be enhanced. Chris said the area would be left as is. Any debris will be removed from the site and the area will be replanted with a Conservation Mix. Paul wanted to know why the restaurant could not be moved to comply with the 50 ft. Chris explained the configuring of the parking lot makes it impossible to move the building. Chris will submit a revised plan showing snow removal/storage. Ben made the motion to accept the site development plan for 282, 292 & 296 Chauncy Street, dated 12/22/2007, to be revised to indicate the location for snow removal, to be approved by the Commission; hay bales/silt fencing per the Commission's specific detail, along the 25 ft. line; signage to read "Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb", on 50 ft. centers, on metal poles, not on trees; clear/remove all debris presently on site; temporary construction fencing will be installed around the wetland area during construction to prevent workers/equipment from entering the wetland; the site will be monitored to clear and remove all debris during and after construction; the disturbed area within the buffer will be replanted ~ with a Conservation Mix: Michele will have final approval on the planting scheme; preconstruction meeting prior to the start of work; a proposal will be submitted for the 7.64 acres to be donated. Carole seconded. Passed 5-0 with Jack abstaining. Hearing ended at 8:40 pm. ,- Discussion started at 8:42 pm. An Enforcement Order was issued to Mr. Fontanini on June 26, 2006, after Michele received a call from a neighbor that Mr. Fontanini was filling wetlands. A site visit was made by Michele and Mike Ahern. Approximately 15,000 sq. ft. offill had been pushed within an isolated wetland. Work had also been done within 100 ft. of a vernal pool and an isolated wetland. The delineation of the wetland was not correct and the Commission asked Mr. Fontanini to hire a Professional Wetland Scientist, approved by the Commission, to determine the origina1/historic wetland line. Deep Hole Soil Boring Samples were also to be performed to determine the extent of the alteration. Mr. Fontanini told the Commission he was selling the property and the prospective buyer wanted a larger yard. Mr. Fontanini was asked if there were any other plans for the property, such as new structures and he told the Commission there were none. 6 - Mr. Fontanini was to restore the altered area with a replication plan approved by the /~-. Conservation Commission. Carr Research Laboratory, Inc. was hired by Mr. Fontanini without the approval of the Commission. On September 27,2006, based on a site visit performed on September 12th, the Commission held a public meeting and voted to hired Peter Fletcher on behalf of the town to conduct an independent evaluation of the disturbed area and to bill Mr. Fontanini for Peter Fletcher's services. Plans have now been submitted by Jerry Carr that have not taken into consideration the report by Peter Fletcher. They disagree as to the extent of alteration. The Notice of Intent has been filed for the replication of the wetlands that were filled and the replanting of filled areas within the 25 ft. buffer. Also, Mr. Fontanini now proposes to build a barn, 2 additions and 2 driveways. The barn and a parking area are within the 100 ft. buffer. Michele will write a letter to let Jerry Carr know the reasons why the plan has been rejected and why the hearing has been continued. Discussion ended at 8:55 pm. Ben made the motion to accept the minutes of April 23, 2007 as written. ( Carole seconded. Passed 6-0. Michele updated the Commission on Shaun Kelly, 20 Carol Road. The court date is Wednesday, May 9, 2007, in Fall River. Carole wanted to let the Commission know that Bob Craig, 99 Patty's Road, has been allowing a landscaper to dump grass clippings into the wetlands. Michele will check on the site and try to contact the landscaper. Paul wanted to know if the same treatment used for the pond at Mansfield Crossing could also be used at Sweets Pond. He told the Commission the pond is badly over-grown. Motion to adjourn: Ben/Carole at 9:03 pm. 2007 at 7:00 pm. r:J7 - I 7 n ...,_ ...