HomeMy WebLinkAboutConservation Comm. 10/15/2018kUEIVED
j'T (;E_ t:: G+ F10E
Town of Mansfield N18 CCC 18 P 3: 48
Conservation Minutes
4d F r
October 15, 2018 1'i;i S �i_�[)
Present: Michael Healey, Chair; Christopher Marcheselli; Mathew Reith; Aaron Roth; David Hobaica;
Diane Simms; Katelyn Gonyer, Conservation and Environmental Planner.
1. Meeting was called to order at 7:04 pm.
2. Eagle Scout Project: Johnson Acres on town -owned land in Norton.
Gordon Quinn Cunningham said Johnson Acres is a great place for hiking, walking and camping but the
area is not well marked and there is no direct route into the site. He explained the main part of this
project will be building a kiosk and cutting a trail. He said the other part of his project is to mark the
trails and to remove the immense amount of garbage on the property. He said he is planning to start
the project on October 28th and end on November 4th.
Mr. Cunningham said the first part of the project will be the cutting of the trail and he will assign a team
of scouts with 1 or 2 adults to cut down the marked trees, which will be placed along the sides of the
trails; he said the extra trees will be cut into sizable pieces and stacked in an area by the picnic tables in
the field. He said the next part of the project will be the building of the kiosk; he said he has already
started assembling the kiosk, putting together small parts that will be brought to the site by truck, and
assembled by a few scouts and adults.
Mr. Cunningham said a group of scouts will mark each trail that leads into Johnson Acres as well as the
picnic area, He said there is scrap metal, tires, a microwave and a lounge chair that will be cleaned up
and disposed of at the Norton Highway Department garage. He said the main part of the kiosk will have
a map of Johnson Acres and list the rules and regulations and information about the local wildlife and
plants will be place on the back of the kiosk.
Mr. Hobaica asked how big the trees are that will be removed. Mr. Cunningham said most of the trees
are small and any bigger trees will be taken care of by an arborist. All cutting will be done by hand saws
or band saws to be used by adults.
Ms. Simms said there is an Atlantic White Cedar Swamp on this site and asked if the trails will go
through the swamp. Ms. Gonyer said they will not. Ms. Simms clarified that this area is protected.
There were no public comments.
Mr. Roth made the motion to support the eagle scout projcet. Mr. Marcheselli seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-0.
Hearing ended at 7:15 pm.
3. Conservation Restriction: Baron Estates. Ms. Gonyer said the Commission has seen this before and
was part of a Natural Heritage review of a subdivision project in Easton where there was a take, so a
conservation permit had to be issued; what was determined was that a conservation restriction would
be placed on a certain portion of land, to be held by the Conservation Commission; she noted the
Conservation Restriction needs to be approved by the EDEA. She asked that a motion be made to re -
accept the conservation restriction.
Ms. Simms asked if there would be environmentally sensitive signs posted. Jay Zola, 12 Colonial Drive,
1
said there would be two signs on each house lot along the exterior of the site to protect approximatley
45 acres.
There were no public comments.
Mr. Marcheselli made the motion to recommend that the Commission approve the Conservation
Restriction dated October 27, 2016 for the parcel known as Baron Estates. Mr. Roth seconded the
motion.
Motion passed 5-0-0.
Hearing ended at 7:25 pm.
4. Request for Determination of Applicability: Town of Mansfield, 499 East Street, Map 33, Parcel 11.
To approve wetland line as shown on the plan and proposing to clear trees up to 50 -foot buffer of
wetland.
Richard Alves, Town Engineering Division, explained the project site is located at 499 East Street and
they are proposing to clear trees in a 49,000 square -foot area, between the 50 -foot and 100 -foot buffer.
He said a future site plan would be presented to the Commission with a Notice of Intent. He said he is
trying to coordinate this project with another Notice of Intent to be filed for a project located at the
intersection in front of the highway garage; he noted this area is located in a flood zone and will be the
future home of a police training facility. Mr. Alves said the wetland line was delineated by Ms. Gonyer,
field located by SMC and a site visit was done to verify the wetland line. He said 8" silt sock is proposed
along the 50 -foot buffer zone to address any impacts to the wetlands. He said he will come back before
the board for a Notice of Intent, to include site grading and approximately six building slabs. Ms.
Gonyer said the proposed work area is behind the Mansfield Green and said this is a previously
disturbed area with invasive species and a lot of materials have been stockpiled on the site.
Because the Canoe River is located on this site, Mr. Roth asked if this project should go before CRACK.
Mr. Alves said if this is necessary he will do so with the Notice of Intent filing. Ms. Gonyer said this is a
regional project and it is hard to solidify funding for the regional portion of the project, but they now
have the funding on the local level to prepare the site. She noted the site of the proposed work is less
than an acre, so it would not constitute as a land disturbance permit. Mr. Roth said he feels the project
should go before the advisory board.
Mr. Alves said the ultimate goal was to combine the two projects but, if the board does not want to vote
on the RDA now, he will do a Notice of Intent for both projects and file the proper notifications. He said
the cutting of the trees would be Phase I and then he would do additional topography work in this
location to get the proper site grading so there would be less impact to the resource areas. He said the
second project involves relocating the alignment of East Street at the intersection and creating an
auxiliary roadway away from the intersection to enter the Mansfield Green; he said there an existing
drainage issue that will be solved and he has done permeability testing and is proposing a pond.
Ms. Gonyer asked if Mr. Alves would include the clear cutting of the trees with the Notice of Intent for
the re -alignment of the Green. Mr. Alves said yes. She said the project can go before CRACK and when
the NOI is filed in December and, if the Order of Conditions is issued, the board can take into
2
consideration the CRACK comments at that time. She recommended the hearing for the RDA be
continued.
There were no public comments.
Mr. Reith made the motion to continue the hearing of the RDA for the Town of Mansfield, 499 East
Street, Map 33, Parcel 11, to approve wetland line as shown on plan and proposing to clear trees up to
50 -foot buffer of wetland, to November 19, 2018. Mr. Hobaica seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0-1 (Mr. Roth abstained).
Hearing ended at 7:59 pm.
5. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Heaney & Small, LLP, 47 Lancashire Drive, Map 002, Parcel
303. DEP SE 211-0800.
Ms.Gonyer explained this was an Order that was originally approved in 2010 for accessory structures,
landscaping and a pool; the pool was not installed and removed from the plan and the applicant applied
for a partial Certificate of Compliance. She said all areas have been stabilized and the Order has expired.
She recommended a full Certificate of Compliance be issued.
There were no public comments.
Mr. Reith made the motion to issue a full Certificate of Compliance to Heaney & Small LLP, 47
Lanscashire Drive, Map 002, Parcel 303. Mr. Roth seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-0.
Hearing ended at 7:32 pm.
6. Request for Certificate of Compliance: City of Attleboro Water Department, Rehabilitation of Blake's
Pond Dam, DEP SE 211-0968
Ms. Gonyer explained the Commission issued an Order of Conditions in 2017 to the City of Attleboro for
the rehabilitation of Blake's Pond Dam; they installed new sheathing because there was a lot of rust and
holes on the sheathing and a lot of water was lost. She said a very comprehensive design was
submitted. She gave a brief review of the project and said they are now applying for a Certificate of
Compliance for the original Order for the reconstruction of the dam and an amendment to the Order,
which included an auxiliary spillway. She said this portion of the project has been completed.
Ms. Gonyer said at the last hearing for this project the Commission amended the Order but also issued
an Enforcement Action, so the board can issue the Certificate of Compliance for the original Order. She
said the City of Attleboro has provided an Operations and Maintenance Plan, which would include all the
work the Commission wants to move forward with. She said the area is re -bounding very well. She said
the Commission will be closing out this Order but then will follow up with the City of Attleboro under
the Enforcement Action to make sure everything has been done. She said the remaining work includes
regrading and installation of erosion mats and seeding an area to the south of the main dam on the east
side of the river, installation of large riprap at the westerly side of the main dam abutment and
spreading more loam and fresh seed on the area to the south of the dike.
Mr. Healey asked about the sand scraping to be done during annual maintenance. Kourtney Wunschel,
Attleboro Water Department, said there are two filter beds at the plant and each filter bed gets two
inches of sand scraped on alternate years so there will always be sand. She said each bed is scraped
3
until there is a foot of sand missing and the sand is taken off site to be washed and then brought back.
She said a pile of sand would be there for approximately 12 years. Mr. Healey asked what type of
containment would be in place to prevent erosion. Ms. Wunschel said the location for the sand pile is at
a lower elevation.
There were no public comments.
Mr. Roth made the motion to issue a full Certificate of Compliance to the City of Attleboro Water
Department, for the rehabilitaiton of Blake's Pond Dam, DEP SE 211-0968, with the continuing condition
any further work that needed to be done on a routine basis would be covered under the O & M Plan,
stipulated by the maintenance letter dated lune 27, 2016. Mr. Hobaica seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-0.
Hearing ended at 8:17 pm.
7. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Donald A. Baker, 33-35 Kingman Avenue, Map 22, Parcel 163.
DEP SE 211-228
Ms.Gonyer said this is an Order of Conditions that was issued in 1988 for a 40 -unit apartment complex,
with most of the project within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland. She said the project was
denied by the Conservation Commission, and then appealed by the Applicant for a superseding Order to
DEQE, which is now DEP. She said DEQE enforced the denial. Ms. Gonyer said the original Order of
Conditions was recorded and now there is an imcumberance on the deed. No work was started. She
recommended a full Certificate of Compliance be issued.
There were no public comments.
Mr. Hobaica made the motion to issue a full Certificate of Compliance to Donald A. Baker, 33-35
Kingman Avenue, Map 22, Parcel 163, DEP SE 211-228; project was denied and no work ever occurred.
Mr. Reith seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-0.
Hearing ended at 8:21 pm.
8. Request for Determination of Applicability: Lena Moran, 43 Lakeview Avenue, Map 4, Parcel 52.
To repair and replace existing walkway and concrete landing and regrade sloped lawn area.
Ms. Gonyer explained for safety reasons portions of the work was done under an Administrative Review
with the caveat that Ms. Moran come before the Commission with an RDA for the work. Silt sock is
already in place. She said a tree will be removed as part of the RDA and Ms. Moran has contracted will a
tree company to remove the tree within two weeks. Ms. Gonyer said two 14" retaining walls will be
installed, one along the fence and another wall will be installed to help level out the yard; crushed stone
will be added between the two walls.
Mr. Marcheselli asked if the area would be terraced. Ms. Gonyer said terracing would be required to
slow down the sheet flow and will significantly reduce the rate of infiltration. She said she does not
have an issue with the project and they have done a great job so far.
Ms. Moran said she would like to remove the three yews near the house and she will replace them with
a patio with the same blocks used for the walkway. Ms. Moran said no heavy equipment will be used,
with all work done by hand.
There were not public comments.
2
Mr. Marcheselli made the motion to issue a Negative Determination for reason #3, work will not alter
resource area, to Lena Moran at43 Lakeview Avenue, Map 4, Parcl 52, to repair and replace existing
walkway, repair existing concrete landing and regrade sloped lawn area, as shown on site sketch with
the following conditons:
• Applicant may remove the dying tree, to be flush cut (as shown on hand -drawn site sketch dated
September 1, 2018) removed from the site;
• Agent shall be notified when project is complete and all disturbed areas have been seeded and
established;
• The Agent is to inspect the siltation control (as per plan) prior to the start of work. Silt sock
must be mulch and 12 inches in diameter. Silt fence or snow fence may be used on the rear limit
of work to delineate work zone. (Silt sock in place already);
• All disturbed areas are to be seeded as soon as possible and erosion control must remain in
place until areas have been stablilized;
• Applicant may remove three (3) yews and replace with a paver patio as shown on the site sketch
received with the application dated September 1, 2018.
Mr. Reith seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-0.
Hearing ended at 8:31 pm.
9. Request for Determination of Applicability: Sabrina Palanza, 158 Pratt Street, Map 30, Parcel 9.
Reconstruct rear portion of existing dwelling to include a second floor over the existing footprint and
construct a new three -season room within 100 feet of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland.
Ms. Gonyer explained this is an existing single-family dwelling and the back portion of the house will be
razed and a full foundation will be added for a two-story addition and a three -season room off the
proposed addition. She said she was not concerned with the project itself but there were some
compliance issues with the existing conditions on site that need to be addressed: a detached accessory
structure and a gravel driveway is located along the line of the wetland, an area in the back has been
cleared within the 25 -foot area and this area should be left to naturalize, some storage of construction
debris behind the accessory building and debris and lawn clippings have been dumped in the wetlands,
which would have to be removed. Mr. Palanza, who is overseeing the project, explained these
conditions existed prior to their purchasing the house. Ms. Gonyer said if the Applicant would like to
convert the area in the back to lawn it would have to be included in the application. She said she does
not want invasive species to grow in this area; however the area could be seeded with a
wildflower/conservation seed mix to establish the area, which would be more attractive and would not
have to be maintained. She said the preference would be grass, to be left alone, not mowed, because it
is too close to the wetland and there needs to be a protective buffer. Mr. Marcheselli suggested a
conservation mix. Ms. Gonyer said they could plant a wetland mix or native woody shrubs.
Mr. Healey said the applicant could plant herbaceous native species or a conservation seed mix to
prevent the invasive species from coming back and the area would look better and would not require a
lot of maintenance. Ms. Gonyer said she would supply the applicant with a list of species such as low
bush blue berry or the applicant can go to a local nursery for advice as to what to plant.
5
Mr. Roth asked what material would be used for the patio. Mr. Palanza said it would be poured
concrete.
Ms. Gonyer asked if the existing roof drainage was directed to drywells. Mr. Palanza said most of the
roof runoff spills to the back from the downspouts. He said he would like some type of drywell to
recharge the runoff into the ground.
Mr. Marcheselli asked when the work would begin. Mr. Palanza said as soon as possible because they
are up against the weather. Because Ms. Gonyer would have to inspect the limit of work before any
work begins, Mr. Roth asked if the Commission could let this project go forward; he said when Ms.
Gonyer goes out to inspect the limit of work she can make sure everything is cleanup to her satisfaction
and, if not, she can do a stop work order until the everything has been done. Ms. Gonyer said she would
want the project to move forward.
Ms. Gonyer said the Commission can issue the Determination with those conditions as long as there is
communication and a plan. She said there is enough vegetation in the 25 -foot zone so the area has
been stabilized and the plantings can be done in the spring.
There were no public comments.
Mr. Reith made the motion of issue a Negative Determination for reason #3, work will not alter resource
area, to Sabrina Palanza at 158 Pratt Street, Map 30, Parcel 9, for the construction of rear portion of
existing dwelling to include a second floor over the existing footprint and construct a new three -season
room within 100 feet of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland with the following special conditions:
• The Agent is to inspect the siltation control (per plan, "Conservation Plan 158 Pratt Street dated
September 18, 2018) 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;
• Agent shall be notified when project is complete and all disturbed area have been seed and
established.
• Applicant must discontinue dumping trash/landscaping debris/lawn clipping in the wetland area;
• The Applicant must not maintain the natural buffer along the wetland and lawn lines. This area
must be allowed to naturalize;
• Any roof drains for the new addition shall be directed to drywells;
• If there is a change in the plan in what to do with the buffer area, the Applicant must come back
to the Commission.
Mr. Marcheselli seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-0.
Hearing ended at 8:27 pm.
A
10. Notice of Intent: Crugnale Properties, LLC, 10 & 30 Reservoir Street, Map 36, Lot 1 & 2. DEP SE 211-
0976.
Redevelopment of existing site to include a portion of a new building, parking and associated grading
within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland and the 200 -foot Riverfront Area.
Robert Rego, River Hawk Environmental, on behalf of Crugnale Properties, LLC, said an overview of the
project was presented in August, which will include a hotel, restaurant and retail, all of which are
outside the 100 -foot buffer. He said there is some grading and a parking area within the 200 -foot
Riverfront Area and a small portion of the grading will take place within the 100 -foot buffer zone to the
Bordering Vegetated Wetland. He said at the last meeting Ms. Gonyer had question the wetland line
and wanted to check the line with the wetland consultant for the project, Brad Holmes from ECR. Mr.
Rego said they met out at the site and reviewed the wetland line and agreed with all the flag
placements; however, the very bottom of the southern portion of the river extended more directly away
from the site as opposed to going parallel to the property line so this area was realigned. Mr. Rego said
these changes have been made and calculations have been submitted that show a small non -
jurisdictional isolated land subject to flooding (ILSF). Mr. Rego noted he does show the 25-, 50-, and
100 -foot buffers for the ILSF but they are not proposing much work in this area. Ms. Gonyer said it is
also a non -jurisdictional wetland.
Mr. Rego said the one change that did occur was the parking lot; he said originally he included the
amount of square -footage of additional land that would be disturbed in the buffer zone; he should have
included all of the land including the existing and proposed, so the square footage increase from about
6,000 to 13,000, which is under the 10% allowed by the Riverfront Protection Act. He said minor
modifications were necessary and he reduced some of the proposed parking spaces. He submitted
revised plans to include existing conditions and the proposed grading and drainage.
Ms. Gonyer said she has no issues with the project as proposed and it is an improvement to the property
because they will be taking care of the stormwater. She said there is an active osprey nest on the
existing cell tower on site and she has reached out to the leaseholder of the tower to make sure this
area is not disturbed. Mr. Rego said as part of this project, the cell tower is staying.
Mr. Rego said Mr. Alves, Town Engineer, has reviewed the stormwater and submitted a memo dated
September 28, 2018, asking whether or not there is an increase in disturbance within the Riverfront
Area. Mr. Rego said he did submit the drainage calculations to Mr. Alves.
Mr. Hobaica asked if the Applicant has been before the Planning Department. Mr. Rego said they have
been to the Planning Board and the project will be voted on this Wednesday, which would be for a
special permit. Mr. Rego noted, due to the high traffic generated and the busy intersection of Route
140, the project is going through the MEPA process.
Ms. Gonyer recommended the Order be issued
There were no public comments.
7
Mr. Reith made the motion to issue the Order of Conditions to Crugnale Properties, LLC, 10 & 30
Reservoir Street, Map 36, Lot 1 & 2, DEP SE 211-0976, for the redevelopment of existing site to include a
portion of a new building, parking and associated grading within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated
Wetland and the 200 -foot Riverfront Area, 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 plans (revised October 3, 2018) 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 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;
• A construction sequence is to be submitted to the Commission prior to the start of work;
• The Conservation Commission or its agent is to be notified of the starting date of the work prior
to its commencement;
• Prior to the commencement of work, a pre -construction meet shall be held with the Agent, the
Engineer and/or Representative, and the General Contractor to review the Order of Conditions,
scope of work and construction sequencing;
• 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;
• Wetland flagging must remain in place until the project has been completed and the Certificate
of Compliance issued;
• 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
E:
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;
• Signage for industrial, commercial or any large scale project:
Prior to receiving a Certificate of Compliance, the Applicant must install permanent
"Environmentally Sensitive Area" signs on the subject lot. The Applicant must install 12" x 18"
metal signs on a permanent metal post. The quantity and location of the sign are to be
designated by Commission or the Agent on a case by case basis. Contact the Conservation
Department for signage details, sign vendors, and method of installation;
• No synthetic fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides or fungicides can be used; only organic products
may be used;
• All the terms and conditions set forth in the Stormwater Management Plan for (project title)
prepared by (Engineer), submitted on (date) are to be included with this Order of Conditions. All
on-going O&M plan activities are to be recorded as noted. All reports and checklist are to be
submitted to the Commission as noted;
• Dumping of lawn clippings and/or yard debris into wetland and/or 25 -foot No Disturb Zone is
prohibited. Storage is prohibited in these areas as well;
• The osprey nest, located on the cell tower, is not to be disturbed during construction.
Mr. Marcheselli seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-0.
Hearing ended at 9:05 pm.
11. Request for Determination of Applicability: VAM Realty Trust, 241 Francis Avenue, Map 30, Parcels
76, 32 and 276.
Proposed annual maintenance of mowed area along the facility perimeter fence.
Ms. Gonyer met with Russell Waldron, Ecological Designs, and Brian Quick, VAM Realty Trust, to go over
the plan and a plan with some revisions was sent to Dunn and McKenzie; Mr. Waldron said there were
no major changes made. He said there has been an on-going question with NRT and Brian Quick has
provided Ms. Gonyer a copy of their deed, which states they have a deeded right to do the work,
including any portion that falls on NRT land, so they do not need a letter or permission from NRT. Mr.
Waldron said basically nothing has changed, a ten -foot space will be cleared along the perimeter fence
and the concrete -lined swale and detention area will be maintained. He said the methodology has not
changed and all work will be done by hand or hand tools. He said the drainage ditch has completely
grown back in with 100% invasive species.
Ms. Gonyer reached out to NRT and forwarded a copy of the drainage easement to them.
Mr. Waldron said they are federally mandated to maintain a 10 -foot space along the fence for security.
Ms. Gonyer proposed that the Vegetated Management Plan be valid for five years instead of the three
0
years under the RDA. She said the Applicant would have to file again in five years but they could also file
a NO1 and the Order of Conditions could be extended up to nine years. She recommended issuing a
Negative Determination for reason #3 with the following conditions; the Determination be valid for five
years as a Vegetation Management Plan; only hand tools are to be used, no machinery; a copy of the
drainage easement is to be attached to the Determination.
There were no public comments.
Mr. Marcheselli made the motion to issue a Negative Determination for reason #3, work will not alter
resource area, for the required maintenance under federal guidelines with the following conditions: the
Determination to be issued for five years; work to be done by hand tools only; Agent to be notified
when work commences. Mr. Reith seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-0.
Hearing ended at 9:22 pm.
12. Correspondence:
13, New Business:
• Enforcement Order: 310 West Street
Ms. Gonyer said this is an old single-family dwelling that was in foreclosure. She said her original
concern was there was a port -a -potty close to a resource area and the area had been cleared; she asked
that both the port -a -potty and a dumpster be moved to the other side of the property and the disturbed
areas be loamed and seeded. She was concerned about the turbidity of the river and the large amount
of debris in this area. She said the owners then cut down a tree, completely cleared the area, and
chipped everything; all this debris, including the tree stump, was pushed into the bordering vegetated
wetland of Lyons Brook, allowing knot weed to flow downstream and blocking the entire flow of the
stream, with the overflow pouring onto the neighbor's property. She said two sump pumps have been
installed below groundwater in the cleared area that are continually running to temporarily dry out the
basement. She said the assistant building inspector issued a stop work order because of work being
done on the foundation and the electrical meter has been pulled because the house is opened to the
elements and the sump pumps were continually running; she said the basement now has two feet of
water in it.
Ms. Gonyer said this is the worst violation she has seen in Mansfield. They have blocked the entire flow
of the stream and she has had to watch the property for every storm event. Ms. Gonyer noted algae
blooms have been seen on the site. She has contacted the owners and they know there is a stop work
order, however they are not taking this very seriously and she told the owners to get an engineer to
locate the original wetland. She is working directly with RIM Engineering and has met with them on site;
RIM will put together a site plan showing the original wetland line.
10
Ms. Gonyer said her recommendation is that everything be completely restored and the driveway re-
located to the other side to the property. She said a chain link fence should be installed along the point
of the culvert to the house because it is all wet back there.
Mr. Marcheselli asked if the owners have a building permit and should they be fined. Ms. Gonyer said
the owners should be at the next hearing with RIM and, depending on what the Commission decides
should happen, she will enforce the fines. She said they have applied for a building permit for the
addition and one for a front porch, but they would need a variance for the porch because they are on a
scenic road.
Ms. Gonyer said all the knot weed chips need to be removed and there is more work to be done with
cleaning out the stream bed. Mr. Healey said if the stream were to be improved as part of the remedy,
it would help the people located upstream and downstream and possibly the property owner, who is in
violation right now.
Ms. Gonyer said there needs to be some oversight for this property by a wetland monitor who would
submit reports to the Commission. Mr. Marcheselli suggested an outside engineering firm be hired at
the owners' expense. Ms. Gonyer said there should be an extensive mitigation plan; all chipping should
come out, the driveway should be re -located to the other side of the property, and a chain link fence
added to protect the stream from whatever activities are happening on the site. Mr. Healey asked that
a list of wetland scientists be supplied to the owners, with a time line of two weeks to have that
company come in and start the work; he said for every day they are not doing the work, a fine of $50.00
per day will be levied. Ms. Gonyer will give the owners a list of pre -approved companies they can chose
from but if they wish to outsource their own wetland scientist, she would have to review and approve
the wetland scientist to make sure they are qualified. Mr. Healey asked what the scope of work the
board would want for the wetland professional. Ms. Gonyer said the scope of work would be for the
restoration for this fiscal year and then a design, implementation plan and the filing of a Notice of Intent
She said there should be a wetland monitor on site who would submit reports to the Commission.
Mr. Hobaica made the motion to include in the Enforcement Order for 310 West Street all the
parameters that Chairman Healey just stated with regard to needing to hire a qualified wetland scientist
to design, implement and monitor the restoration plan; if they have not hired a suitable wetland
scientist within two weeks, they will be fined $50.00 per day on a daily basis. Mr. Marcheselli seconded
the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-0.
Hearing ended at 7:55 pm.
Enforcement: 1148 East Street:
Ms. Gonyer explained this is a single family home and a Request for Determination of Applicability,
which expired in August 2018, was filed in 2015 to replace a deck and add five footings within 100 feet
of an intermittent stream that feeds into a Bordering Vegetated Wetland; she said the lawn area went
right up to the stream. Ms. Gonyer said when she went out to the site in 2015 Mr. Anifantis was
11
constructing a retaining wall that was not permitted so she had him add the retaining wall to the plan.
At that time, Mr. Anifantis asked if he could clear out an area adjacant to the stream; Ms. Gonyer
informed Mr. Anifantis he could not clear anything without permission from the Commission.
Recently, after receiving a call, she went out and noticed Mr. Anifantis was trying to fill in the yard to
cross over the stream. She then contacted Mr. Anifantis and issued a stop -work order; Mr. Anifantis
will now have to file and remove all the material that has been placed in the 100 -foot buffer.
Mr. Hobaica said fines should start immediately until Mr. Anifantis hires a wetland scientist to develope
a full restoration plan and restores the other side of the river.
Ms. Gonyer said all unpermitted crossings will have to be removed because he has put a structure on
the Inland Bank of an intermittent stream. She said she believes Mr. Anifantis is trying to make a
crossing so he can utilize the upland area in the back of the property; she said there should be no
crossings unless they have been permitted and the flow of the stream needs to be restored and
restoration of the area started. Ms. Simms asked how this violation was brought to Ms. Gonyer's
attention. Ms. Gonyer said it was an anonymous call. She said this is a big turbidity issue and if she had
done a turbidity test it probably would have exceeded the threshold for notification to DEP.
Mr. Healey said this is someone who has previously been before the board and a letter should be sent
to the owner letting him know he is in violation. Mr. Healey said long with the water flow issue, the
Commission would want to control some of the siltation.
To be consistent, Mr. Hobaica said the board can give the owner two weeks to remove the crossings and
then make full restoration. Mr. Marcheselli said instead of fining the owner, have him install siltation
control.
Ms. Gonyer said at the next meeting the board can decide what needs to be done to restore the area
back to its original condition; the first thing to do is to establish erosion control such as turbidity curtains
or silt fence with mulch sock to trap the sediment from traveling down stream. Mr. Healey said the
owner should hire a wetland specialist to design the retoration plan and report back to the Commission.
Ms. Gonyer said she and the Commission would have to approve the mitigation plan. She suggested a
split rail or chain link fence be added to the mitigation plan, to be installed along the entire length of the
stream, access to the upland area be removed and the owner come back with a Notice of Intent with a
profile and design of an adequate crossing.
Mr. Roth asked about the two week time frame to hire a wetland scientist. Ms. Gonyer said the owner
would have to have a signed contract within two weeks, with the caveat, if the owner does not show
proof of the hiring of the wetland scientist, he will be fine daily $50.00.
There were no public comments.
Mr. Marcheselli made the motion to issued an Enforcement Order to Mr. Anifantis, 1148 East Street, to
include the homeowner hire a qualified wetland scientist within two weeks for a plan for the
restoration, mitigation and monitoring and, within one week, the owner must provide some type of
siltation control to prevent further runoff and degradation of the stream or he will be issued a $50.00
fine daily. Mr. Roth seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-0
12
Hearing ended at 10:23 pm.
14. Old Business:
• Approve July and August minutes:
Mr. Reith made the motion to approve the July 17, 2018 minutes. Mr. Hobaica seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-0
Mr. Reith made the motion to approve the August 27, 2018 minutes. Mr. Hobaica seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0-1 (Mr. Marcheselli abstained).
15. Adjournment:
Mr. Marcheselli made the motion to adjourn at 10:20 pm. Mr. Roth seconded the motion. Motion
passed 6-0.
Next meeting will be November 19, 2018.
vi ",,',, 5- q "e — /I —
Michael Healey, Chair 1 Date
13