HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of conservation comm 070907
',", r',
'! !i
RECEIVED
", rr' j
,\, ; .",. ~ ~l f\ ,~..... -, r:: I
." .. '. Ii", Cr,'
, I . I r ....t"...,
07 AUG 22 PH S: 5S
r
Conservation Meeting
July 9, 2007
Present: Colin Cauldwell, Chair; Paul Boyden, Vice Chair; Carole Matthew; Jack Smith.: Jokl Ai s sri [L D
Mulkern; Cindy Ostrowski; Michele Grenier, Conservation and Environmental Planner. MASSACHlISETTS
Ryan Blanchetto and TIm Williams of Allen & Major AssocIates, Inc., Peter Fontanini, the
homeowner and Edward Valanzola, Mr. Fontanini's attorney, were present.
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. Mr. Fontanini had pushed approximately
15,000 sq. ft. of fill Into an Isolated wetland. Work had also been done within 100 ft. of a vernal
pool and the wetland. Another Enforcement Order was Issued on November 9,2007.
The Commission asked that Mr. Fontanini hire a Professional Wetland Scientist, approved by the
Commission, to determine the original/historic wetland line.
Dr. Jerry Carr, of Carr Research, was hired by Mr. Fontanini to do the delineation. Because Dr.
Carr had been hired without approval from the Commission, the Commission, at a public meeting
on September 27, 2006, voted to hire Mr. Peter Fletcher, on behalf of the town to conduct an
Independent evaluation of the disturbed area and to bill Mr. Fontanini for Peter's services.
r
Michele and the Commission determined the disturbance line established by Peter Fletcher In
November 2006 to be the accurate determination of the wetland disturbance limits.
Dr. Carr submitted plans without considering Peter's report, which disagreed with the extent of
alteration. On May 7,2007, the Commission decided to reject the plan submitted by Dr. Carr and
continue the hearing.
It was decided by the applicant to hire another Professional Wetland Scientist. Allen & Major
AssocIates, Inc. was hired by Mr. Fontanini to re-examine the property at 40 Grove Street. With
the combination of the Peter Fletcher and Allen & Major Associates' reports, It is hoped the
Conservation Commission concerns can be addressed and the situation can be remedied.
Even though Mr. Fontanini and Dr. Carr dispute the wetland disturbance line established by Peter
Fletcher, for the purpose of settling the matter, It will be recognized.
Michele met will Ryan Bianchetto of Allen & Major Associates on June 13, 2007 to discuss,
informally, the violations and try to find a solution amenable to Mr. Fontanini and Conservation.
Because the site has been previously altered, Michele agreed the limit of no disturb would be 25
ft. from the wetland line.
Allen & Major Associates, Inc. has created a wetland replication area adjacent to the existing
wetland down hili on the site, near the 84-86 contour. The replication will be 1:1 and TIm
Williams feels It will enhance the existing wetland and provide an additional set back for the
vernal pool as well.
r
1
u ..__,
r
Even though the Commission had asked that the fill be removed from the wetlands, TIm Williams
suggested the fill be left where It Is. He feels If you go back In with equipment to remove the fill,
you will be creating additional damage to the wetland. In addition, the wetland Is very close to
the vernal pool; pulling the fill out could cause damage to the vernal pool. He feels, all things
considered, It would be better to leave It as Is and not create more disturbance/damage.
Michele agreed with Tim; the wetland has started to re-vegetatei wetland plants are growing on
the side and up thru the gravel. She would like to see the replication area extended toward this
wetland.
Colin wanted to know If It would be a benefit to loam this area. Michele said some solis would
have to be removed In this area to put In a hydric mix. Colin thinks the area should be loamed to
prevent potential run-off from the wetland Into the vernal pool; he asked If It would be wise to
plant or put some solis down more condudve to growing.
TIm Williams does not see a problem with putting some hydric soli and a wetland mix within the
25 ft. area.
Ondy is concerned about leaving the gravel in the wetland because it is so close to the vernal
pool. She would like the fill backed out of the wetland, restoring the wetland to its original
condition to protect the vernal pool. She would like the 100 ft. buffer from the vernal pool re-
established, essentially making this the replication area. She would also like the replication area
to be greater than 1: 1.
Joe also feels the gravel should be pulled out of the historic wetland area. "We need to figure
out a way to remove the gravel without doing more damage to the vernal poo/."
r Carole reminded everyone no work Is allowed within 100 ft. of the vernal pool.
Paul was concerned with the slope of the area and would like to see the grade reduced, cutting
the slope back. Jack would like the slope reduced also.
Ondy agreed with the reduction In the grade but stili wants the gravel removed.
Attorney Valanzola asked Colin the best way to proceed. He wanted to know If they should file a
new Notice of Intent or amend the first one submitted by Dr. Carr.
r-
Colin: "You need to deal with the Enforcement Order first. Once the Order Is released and the
replication Is done you can file the Notice of Intent". Michele and Colin told Mr. Valanzola to file
a new NOI and a new plan. The Commission would like to see the replication, the re-gradlng
and planting done before the NOI Is filed again.
Michele said the replication should not be started until the fall when It will have a better chance
of surviving. Colin wondered If the NOI could be filed before the replication has been totally
established; can the applicant proceed with remediation and the NOI before the replication has
been growing for 2 years?
Allen & Major Associates, Inc. will come back August 13th with the final replication plan. The
Commission would like the plans to include: pulling the gravel from the wetland and re-grading
to reduce the slope. If the Commission approves the plan, the applicant can proceed with the
Notice of Intent. When the NOIls filed, Colin told Attorney Valanzola the Commission would
require a construction schedule and a phasing plan.
2
~
Hearing ended at 7:35 pm.
r
Hearing started at 7:35.
Perry DIMascio and Stan Feck of Perry & Feck LLC and Ralph Maloon of RIM Engineering were
present.
The Notice of Intent was filed for Lot 11, DIMascio Drive (within Autumn Park Subdivision on
Essex Street) for the construction of a 28x38 house, 2Ox16 deck, 24x24 garage, driveway,
utilities and related grading within the 100 ft buffer zone and within an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern, the Canoe RIver. The distance between the closest project disturbance
and the associated resource area Is 51'.
Michele told the Commission the house is outside the 50 ft. no disturb area and the area Is
mostly flat so there will be minimal grading. She would recommend roof drains and dry wells be
added to the plan. A hay bale line should be established on the 50 ft. line.
The Commission wanted to know If both the replication areas had been completed. Perry said the
area In the front has been completed. Michele has looked at the front replication area and It is
well done. Stan told the Commission the replication In the back has not been done because the
wetland In this area has not been filled yet. Also, nothing has been done with the road In the
back.
r
Cindy asked why the road was being done In phases. Stan said it helps to keep control of the
construction. The road Is actually roughed In and the trees have been cut down. The road will be
done as the houses are built.
Because the corner of the house Is at 51', Ondy Is concerned the owners will want a yard. She
wants to be sure there Is something written so owners understand they will have no side yard,
that It Is a no disturb area and that they can not plant grass or trees or use the land.
Perry told her they could walk thru the area; they just can't disturb or add anything to the area.
Cindy would like a permanent structure such as a fence. Joe Is concerned about the side yard
also.
Cindy asked If fencing could be required with slgnage posted on it. Joe does not think It is fair to
the homeowner to require a fence so close to the home and but feels signage will be fine.
Ondy wants It noted In the record that the 0-50 ft. Is a no touch area and it can not be disturbed
at all due to future construction or planting.
At this time, only 4 houses are to be built, of which only Lot 11 and Lot 12 have conservation
issues. More houses are slated for next year.
Carole thought the roadway and replication areas were supposed to be finished before the
houses could be started. Stan told the Commission they were going before the Planning Board
for the phasing.
r
3
TI _._~
r
Stan told her everything for this section, the roadway, drainage, sidewalk, etc., will be completed
for the 4 houses before the next phase begins. The houses cannot be sold or occupied without
an occupancy permit. The Planning Board will not give an occupancy permit until the roadway is
complete in this section.
Colin would like to see hay bales staked with signage reading "Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do
Not Disturb" to keep construction workers and debris out of the 50 ft. area. Carole and Paul
agreed. There should be 4 signs for the hay bales. After construction Is complete, these signs
can be put on permanent posts, with a total of 5 signs.
When the applicant came before the Commission for the roadway, the Commission asked that the
area be kept cleaned. Ondy showed the Board trash she had picked up on the site. Perry: "This
is a big area. Trash was probably from today. The site gets deaned everyday. If this Is all you
found on 40 acres, we are doing very well in keeping the site cleaned. There are also
children/people who walk the site, leaving behind trash."
Colin told Cindy the Board does not have any jurisdiction concerning trash on site, unless it Is In the
wetlands. She told him she had found a small amount of trash In the wetlands.
r
Paul made the motion to accept the plan for Lot 11, DIMascio Drive, In the Autumn Park
Subdivision, dated June 6, 2007, to be revised to show the addition of 2 roof drains In front and
back of the house and 2 drywells and to Issue an Order of Conditions with the following special
conditions: hay bales will be put at the 50 ft line. Slgnage (a total of 4 signs) reading
"Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb" will be staked Into the hay bales, remaining until
construction is completed; when construction is complete, these signs, with one additional sign (5
total) will be posted on permanent metal posts on the 50 ft. line; hay bale line Is to be certified by
Michele and an Engineer; no synthetic herbicides, pesticides or fungicides can be used on the lawn.
Jack seconded.
Passed 6-0.
Hearing ended at 8:00
Hearing started at 8:04.
Perry DiMascio and Stan Feck of Perry & Feck LLC and Ralph Maloon of RIM Engineering were
present.
The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of a 36x26 house, 22x32 garage, 25x8x5x8 patio
deck, driveway, utilities and related grading within the 100 ft. buffer and within an Area of CrItical
Environmental Concern, the Canoe RIver. The distance between the closest project disturbance
and the associated resource area is 51'.
The same Issues concerning Lot 11 concern Lot 12.
r
Cindy told Perry and Stan the silt fendng is down by flag 42. Perry will re-establish the fencing.
Paul made the motion to accept the plan for Lot 12, DiMascio Drive, in the Autumn Park
Subdivision, dated June 6, 2007, to be revised to show the addition of 2 roof drains In front and
back of the house and 2 drywells and to Issue an Order of Conditions with the following special
conditions: hay bales will be put at the 50 ft line. Slgnage (a total of 4 signs) reading
"Environmentally Sensitive Area-Do Not Disturb" will be staked Into the hay bales, remaining until
4
rTI 1.1..-,
r'
construction is completed; when construction is complete, these signs, with one additional sign (5
total) will be posted on permanent metal posts on the 50 ft. line; hay bale line Is to be certified by
Michele and an Engineer; no synthetic herbicides, pesticides or fungicides can be used on the lawn.
Jack seconded.
Passed 6-0.
Hearing ended at 8:10.
Hearing started at 8:12.
Attorney Peter Clark, Annie Bauer's representative was present. Chris Colby, the prospective buyer of
lot A and Steve Copparlnl were also present.
The Notice of Intent was originally filed April 13, 2007 for the construction, on Lot A, of a slngle-
family home, 2-car attached garage, utilities, driveway and grading within the 100 ft. buffer of
bordering vegetated wetlands. The project Is also in an ACEC, the Canoe River, but not In a Habitat
Area. The hearing was on May 7,2007. The land has been subdivided Into 4 lots. This Includes Bill
Bauer's lot.
The distance between the closest project disturbance and the associated resource area Is 25 ft.
r
The driveway Is not out of the 50 ft. and Is on an easement granted by Bill Bauer, Annie Bauer's son,
to allow for the driveway to be built outside the 25 ft. no disturb area.
At the hearing May 7th, the Commission told Peter the driveway needed to be pulled out of the 25 ft.
Michele wanted the project held to the 50 ft. She felt the driveway should be a limited access
crossing of a wetland, to keep It out of the 50 ft. An alternative analysis would have to be done if a
limited crossing were done.
She also asked why the easement had been done before the applicant came before the Commission.
It was suggested that the easement be redone and a new NO! filed showing the driveway out of the
25 ft. The Commission would like some proof of the easement.
At the time of the hearing, the Commission decided to table the Notice of Intent and to have a look
at the site. Members of the Commission met Peter on May 14th and walked the site.
The Commission would stili like to see the roadway moved over towards Bill Bauer's property to get It
out of the 25 ft. They feel there are alternatives such as going thru Lot C or curving the driveway
more toward Bill's property to get It as far out of the 25 ft. as possible.
r
Colin said If they have to go Into the wetlands, a replication will be required and the project might
become cost prohibitive.
Peter told the Commission that Lot B has been sold, eliminating that route. Jay Zola/Folkman has a
right-of-way thru Lot C. Bill Bauer will not grant another easement to enable the roadway to be out
of the 50 ft. because it would require the removal of the shed and the well that services Bill's
property. The first easement has already been recorded so to do another easement would create
problems. Bill does not want any further encroachment on his property. This Is the extent of
encroachment Bill will allow. Peter told the Commission If it doesn't get approved as is, the plan
would be redesigned with a "limited" access through the wetlands. He will not allow the shed to be
5
11 r .1..-
r
removed. Peter said an offer was made to Bill to oonnect him to town water. Bill has refused the
offer.
Michele thinks Peter should tell Bill If It becomes a "limited" crossing of a wetland, the expense of the
crossing and replication would be cost prohibitive.
Paul thought Town Council should be contacted to get an opinion before the board denies the Notice
of Intent.
Peter would like to continue the hearing for 2 weeks. In that 2 weeks time, the Commission can
consult with Bob Manglaratti, Town Council, and Peter can go back to Bill Bauer to see what he wants
to do and to let him know the Board's Ideas. Is there a compromise that Bill and the Board can
accept? Joe asked If a new plan Is submitted, that the existing plan and the new plan be submitted
together on the plan to show how It over-laps the existing and the new.
Paul asked If prior to the original submission and the first hearing on May 7th had Lot B been sold.
Peter said It was sold after May Jth.
The Commission agreed to continue until July 23rd so Peter can talk to Bill and see what he wants to
do.
Hearing ended at 8:50.
Hearing started at 8:55.
r The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of a pool, a retaining wall and related grading
within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. Robert Catenacc/, the homeowner was
present.
Michele went out to this site last year. There was an existing house on the lot that Mr. Catenaccl
was going to remodel. She gave him permission to do the remodeling because the house was
out of the 100 ft. buffer.
r
Mr. Catenacd purchased the house in December of 2004. The original owner shut the heat off 1
week before the house went for closing. The house fiooded from burst pipes, resulting In water
damaged to the home. A permit was granted thru the Building Department to gut the house. An
inspect/on by Nick Riccio, the Building Inspector, determined structural damage and it was
recommended the home be torn down and rebuilt. The original foundation has also been
removed and replaced.
The house Is being built within the original footprint. At this time, construction of the house Is on
going.
Michele asked Mr. Catenacc/ to have the wetlands delineated. This has been done and Michele
has Inspected the line and changed 3 flags that are shown correctly on the plan submitted. The
distance between the closest project disturbance and the associated resource area Is 40'+/-.
Mr. Catenacc/ wants to put a pool in the back of the house. The pool is out of the 50 ft. and the
grading Is outside of the 25 ft. There Is a proposed retaining wall. The Notice of Intent was filed
for the pool, retaining wall and associated grading.
6
u .,_.
~
Colin has looked at the site. He found a lot of grading has been done on the property within 40 ft.
of the buffer and a large amount of material from the grading has been stored within the 50 ft.
buffer. He told Mr. Catenaccl he needs to put hay bales around the area Immediately. Mr.
Catenaccl told the Commission most of the plies are loam. Michele would like the piles moved.
Because of the slope of the area, Colin would like the hay bales placed behind the 50 ft. line to
encase the plies to prevent anything from going Into the wetlands.
The retaining wallis being put in to enable the homeowner to have a better back yard. The wall is
In the 50 ft. buffer and Colin wondered If the applicant would move the wall to the 50 ft. line.
Michele does not agree with asking Mr. Catenaccl to move the wall. It Is an existing yard, on top of
a bank with wetlands below. The 25 ft. was asked for because It Is an existing site. Colin agreed
with Michele. The wall will actually reduce any run-off. The backside of the wall will be allowed to
grow naturally. Most all of the trees on the property have been saved and wells have been put
around the remaining trees.
Colin wanted to know what kind of filtration system would be used with the pool. At this time, Mr.
Catenaccl has no plans for the pool. He told the Commission he would use a filtration system they
recommended. Colin told him to stay away from chlorine. He told Mr. Catenaccl to tell the Installer
the pool will be in an area near wetlands and an environmentally safe filtering system should be
used.
Colin told Mr. Catenacci the Commission needs more details, a cross section on the retaining wall
and where the grading will be done. Mr. Catenacci will come back with plans for the pool and the
retaining wall.
The Commission will give the go ahead for the pool because it is out of the buffer.
r Colin would like the hay bales as close to the 50 ft. line as possible from lot line to lot line.
Carole made the motion to accept the plan for 57 lancashire Drive, dated March 8, 2007, revised
June 25, 2007 and to Issue an Order of Conditions with additional conditions: Hay bales and slit
fenong to be put on the bank behind the pool (on the 30 ft. line (approximate)), outside the wall;
the applicant will submit plans for the Installation of the pool. The plan must be approved by
Michele; a plan showing the across section of the retaining wall must be submitted; applicant will
submit an as-built when pool and retaining wall are complete.
Joe seconded.
Passed 6-0.
Hearing ended at 9:15.
Michele sent a letter to Slmora landscaping In regards to 86 Eastman Street. An Enforcement
Order was Issued July 20,2005, because the landscaper was altering bordering vegetated
wetlands and within the 25 ft. no touch area. The landscaper was asked to stop all work on the
parking lot area.
The landscaper was asked to place boulders along the edge of the limit of work, abutting the
wetlands and to move all existing piles of landscaping materials Including wood chips, stones,
and soli away from the BVW (10 or more feet from the BVW). All the plies of material are
encroaching on the wetlands and the silt fencing on site Is gone.
r Michele asked that the work be completed by July 23,2007.
7
.U .._
( Suzanne Estates: Carole thought the Vernal Pools had been certified. She thought the
Commission required the applicant to place boulders and signs on the site.
When the ANRAD was filed, no conditions were stipulated In ORAD. A Notice of Intent was not
required; all homes were to be built well out of the 100 ft.
Ondy asked If you can condition an ORAD and If so, can conditions be placed on this ORAD.
Michele told her you can condition an ORAD but you can't amend an Order after the fact. This
ORAD Is no longer valid; they are only good for 3 years.
Carole asked Michele to go to the site and look for slgnage.
Colin would like Michele to write up the 50 ft. memo to have some clarification regarding the by-
law and the 25-50 ft. She will send It out to the Commission for approval/Input.
Paul would like an update as far as South Main Street (Clemmey).
Paul made the motion to accept the minutes of June 11, 2007 as written.
Carole seconded.
Passed 5-0. Jack abstained.
r
Motion to adjourn at 9:35 pm. Paul/Joe.
Next meeting will be July 23, 2007 at 7:00 pm.
~-f~
Colin ca well, Chair
~~7
r
8
Tl ,.''-1