CONSERVATION COMMISSION
January 25, 2006
PRESENT: Jeffrey Kane, Allan Shaw, Daniel Crafton, Paul Lugten, Jason Talerman,
Laurence Harrington
ABSENT: no one
The duly posted meeting of the Conservation Commission convened at 7:35 p.m. in room 105C at the Norfolk Town Hall.
The members signed vouchers for office expenses (postage, Landlaw).
The Commission reviewed the correspondence and plan submitted by Holmgren Engineering regarding the enforcement order issued to Bay State Gas.
The members reviewed and discussed the draft Order of Conditions for John Marland (31 Leland Road). Mr. Lugten will revise the draft to reflect the comments of the members. Mr. Shaw made the motion to approve the draft as revised. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was 5-0 (Mr. Harrington was not present for the vote).
Mr. Shaw made the motion to issue a certificate of compliance for 10 Grove Avenue. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Mr. Kane will conduct a site inspection of Lot 6 Keeney Pond for a certificate of compliance.
8:00 p.m. Public Hearing for ABB Inc. - 372 Main Street. Bruce Wilson from Wilson Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the lot was formerly a commercial lot but was recently rezoned to residential. The lot is located at the Franklin/Norfolk Town line near City Mills Pond. Mr. Wilson stated that there is bordering vegetated wetlands and floodplain on the lot. The applicant is now proposing a single family home on this lot. The proposal will utilize the existing driveway on the lot. The house will be designed to have a garage under the dwelling. The dwelling will be serviced by a private well and septic system. Both the well and a portion of the septic system will be located within the 50-100 foot buffer zone.
Approximately 900 square feet of 50-100 foot buffer will be altered. The majority of the project will be located outside of the buffer zone. The plan shows septic breakout grading in the 50-100 foot buffer. No breakout wall is proposed. The disturbed areas would be loamed and seeded. No work is proposed within the floodplain.
Mr. Daniel Ianuzzi and Mr. Thomas Eisner, abutters to the proposal, reviewed the plan. Mr. Ianuzzi stated that there is a deeded easement on this lot. He stated that the proposed well would be on the Ianuzzi property. A small portion of the existing asphalt driveway is proposed to be removed but this portion of the driveway is not located within the buffer zone. Mr. Wilson stated that he cannot move the driveway if there is an easement on it. Mr. Eisner presented a copy of the deed noting the easement. Mr. Talerman stated that the easement area is not located within the buffer zone. The applicant and the abutters will work out the problems with the easement. If there are any changes to the plan as a result of the easement issue, the applicant will have to come back to the
Commission.
Mr. Wilson stated that the applicant wants to deed the rear portion of the lot to the Conservation Commission. This area is quite wet. There would be access to the rear portion of the lot. The Commission stated that they will need to inspect the site. It was noted that the deeded land and some planting of trees would be deemed mitigation for the minor disturbances in the buffer zone. The Commission will do the site inspection next week. Mr. Wilson was told to stake out the four corners of the house and septic system prior to the site inspection. Mr. Shaw made the motion to continue the public hearing to February 22, 2006 at 9:20 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The public hearing adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
8:15 p.m. Public Hearing – Dale Wigmore (24 Mirror Lake Avenue). The applicant’s engineer submitted a written request to continue the public hearing. A revised plan was also submitted with the correspondence. The proposed dwelling will be located on the same footprint as the existing house. Mr. Talerman made the motion to continue the public hearing for Dale Wigmore to February 22, 2006 at 9:40 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Clerks to do list. Mr. Harrington reviewed the list with the members. He noted that he received a phone call from Mr. Brian Foysthe for a site inspection for a certificate of compliance. The Commission still needs to conduct a site inspection at 112 Myrtle Street (Dennis Schworer). Mr. Kane will conduct a site inspection of 15 Harlow Avenue (Steve Simpson). Proposed Bylaw Regulations will be discussed on March 1, 2006.
The members discussed issuing an enforcement order to Call & Wait. Mr. Harrington stated that there has been a lack of action on their part and the Town needs to get their attention. The Commission will discuss this further on February 8, 2006. A letter will be sent to Mr. Orwig and to Call & Wait informing them that the Commission has been trying to get in touch with them. They will be instructed to attend the next Conservation Commission meeting. Mr. Harrington will draft the letter, which will be forwarded to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Harrington stated that the Commission should also inform the Selectmen that the Commission is not happy with the lack of progress on the Call & Wait matter. Mr. Harrington made the motion to send a letter to Call & Wait and Mr.
Orwig and to have a Conservation Commission member attend the next Board of Selectmen meeting to inform them that there has been no progress from Call & Wait. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Mr. Shaw stated that he would attend the Board of Selectmen’s meeting.
8:30 p.m. Public hearing - David Gage. The Commission received a written request from Mr. Gage to continue the public hearing to March. Mr. Talerman made the motion to continue the public hearing for David Gage to March 22, 2006 at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
A letter and a plan was submitted from J.K. Holmgren Engineering, (Bay State Gas), dated January 11, 2006. The letter noted that the work was started on the gas line to the prison the day after the close of the public hearing. The members reviewed the mitigation plan. The shoulders to the road would be stabilized. It was noted that this work could be done at any time as long as the backfill was not frozen. A fabric mat or jute mat will be used on the slopes for stabilization. It was noted that it would be difficult to keep loam on the slopes. Any erosion controls would be left in place. If the slopes were hydro-seeded the slopes would remain stabilized. The hydro-seeded slopes should also be covered with hay mulch. This will be a condition on the Order of Conditions. The Order of Conditions will also incorporate the mitigation plan. Mr. Kane will draft the order.
The Commission reviewed a site plan of the Swan Pond site and correspondence from the Mr. Scott Colwell regarding the removal of buildings on the former Buckley & Mann property. Mr. Colwell will be notified that he must file a full Notice of Intent for the removal of the buildings, which are located within the buffer zone.
Mr. Harrington reported on the meeting of the Community Preservation Committee that he attended earlier this evening. He stated that there was a discussion of the Weeber property warrant article that is scheduled for a town meeting vote on January 25, 2006.
9:00 p.m. Public Hearing - Howard Bailey (Beaverbrook Road)… The applicant had requested a continuance of the public hearing. Mr. Bailey stated that they looked at all of the issues and they have brought another wetland consultant on board to reflag the site. They will be making the houses smaller in size. The proposed dwelling footprints will be staked in the field. Mr. Bailey requested another site inspection. He also stated that they will be making their case for grandfathering of the lots. The Zone 2 of the municipal well is also located on the revised plan. Mr. Harrington stated that the Commission would need at least one week to review all of the information. Mr. Bailey stated that he will get this new information to the Commission immediately. At
present they are awaiting their new wetland consultant’s flagging. Mr. Harrington requested that a narrative be included with the revised plan. Mr. Bailey stated that they will be ready for the February 22nd meeting. The Commission will deal with both Beaverbrook Road lots. Mr. Shaw made the motion to continue the public hearing to February 22nd at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. .
9:15 p.m. Public Hearing – Howard Bailey (10 Beaverbrook Road). Mr. Harrington made the motion to continue the public hearing for 10 Beaverbrook Road to February 22nd at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
9:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Mary Varey (Request for Determination). Mrs. Betty Varey, the applicant, was present. Also present was Mr. Peter Liffiton, the owner of Old Mill Meadow Estates, which is the subject of the public hearing. Mrs. Varey stated that she is concerned with potential impacts to her aunt’s property at 66 Seekonk Street, located directly across the street from the detention pond for the subdivision. Mrs. Varey explained that the Town had taken a 20 foot drainage easement on her aunt’s property to catch runoff from Seekonk Street. The easement joins a stream at the rear of her aunt’s property. Mrs. Varey submitted photos of the rear of her aunt’s property and photos of the detention basin.
Mrs. Varey stated that her main concern is the water flowing into the detention basin and the increase in the water table to the point of impacting her aunt’s property. She stated that many years earlier she was a member of the Animal Advisory Committee that investigated an animal issue and the stream on the David Burns’ property. She stated that she obtained a copy of the 1984 minutes from the Board of Health that dealt with the stream issue on the Burns’ property. She stated that she also spoke with David Burns about a stream on his property. She stated that Mr. Burns may allow the Commission to conduct a site inspection of his property. The Commission will call this week for an appointment to visit the site.
Mr. Kane stated that it appears that this is a Planning Board issue to determine if the stream on the Burns’ property flows has been accounted for in the applicant’s stormwater calculations. He suggested that this question be posed to the Planning Board. Mr. Kane stated that he will draft a letter to the Planning Board.
Mr. Butch Vito, the Department of Public Works Superintendent, was in attendance and explained that the water that is discharged into the catch basin on 66 Seekonk Street flows from Boardman Street and Seekonk Street. The property is lower than the adjacent roadway. Mrs. Varey stated that she is concerned that the increase in water from the detention basin and all of the water from the streets will prevent her aunt from constructing a septic system on her property. She stated that she has presented enough evidence to prove that there is stream on the David Burns’ property which discharges into the Old Mill Meadow Estates detention basin. Again, she stated that her concern is with the mounding of groundwater with breakout on her aunt’s property.
Mr. Kane stated that he has observed a significant amount of water coming from the Burns’ property. He noted that this is still a Planning Board issue. Mr. Kane stated that he could not determine if there is a resource on the Burns’ property. The Commission
will move forward with the negative determination but will send a letter to the Planning Board. He stated that he cannot determine an observable stream bank. Mr. Shaw stated that a lot of anecdotal evidence was presented by Mrs. Varey.
Mr. Liffiton stated that he is empathetic with Mrs. Varey’s concerns. He stated that this project has undergone a high degree of engineering however. Mr. Kane stated that the runoff from the Burns’ property should have been addressed with the hydrological study conducted by Dunn- McKenzie, Inc. Mr. Liffiton stated that a mounding analysis was conducted. He stated that several monitoring wells were installed but no monitoring wells were installed on Mrs. Varey’s aunt’s property. Mr. Liffiton asked that the letter on file from Dunn- McKenzie be forwarded to the Planning Board. Mr. Kane recommended that Mr. Liffiton provide this letter to the Planning Board himself. Mr. Talerman made the motion to close the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. Mr. Harrington
seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous
9:55 p.m. Pine Creek Development. Mr. Harrington recused himself and left the room for this public hearing. Present were Jack Scott, Attorney Nylen, Mr. Brown and Forrest Emery. Others present signed an attendance sheet which was entered into the public record for this project.
Mr. Kane stated that the Commission visited the site the previous Saturday to review the revised wetland lines. The original lines were flagged in 1999. It was noted that wetland representatives from BSC and Mr. Emery conducted a field study. Mr. Emery stated that he had two flag changes, but basically he agreed with the revised wetland flags as delineated by BSC. It was noted that Sparrow Environmental’s flagging was co-incident with the BSC line.
Mrs. Ingabord Hageman, the principle of BSC presented a plan that highlighted the revisions to the lines.
Mr. Emery stated that when the applicant’s wetland consultant, Donald Yoniker, flagged the property he noticed that some of the flags were upgradient of the wetland. He stated that it is his policy to not adjust flags that are set too high. Mrs. Hageman stated that it appeared that Mr. Yoniker only used vegetation to delineate the wetlands. Sparrow Environmental used two parameters to delineate the wetland but did not auger far enough into the soils.
Mr. Kane stated that the Commission has to make a decision on which wetland flags to use. Mrs. Joanne Yatsuhashi, an abutter to the project, stated that the original line should be the only line.
Mr. Steven Palmer of 3 Bigelow Place, asked if the Commission has a standard to judge wetland lines. Mr. Kane stated that the revised wetland line was determined according to DEP standards.
Mr. Emery stated that the DEP Regulations require a conjunctive two part test to determine wetlands. He recommended that the Commission accept the BSC wetland line.
Mr. Shaw made the motion to close the public hearing at 10:10 p.m. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. Mrs. Hageman stated that she would like to come back to the Commission at some time to discuss the replication areas. Mr. Nylen stated that they do not want to come in with a formal plan as yet. Mr. Talerman stated that he would like to see a narrative before a plan is submitted. The Commission may be able to put a discussion of the replication on a business meeting agenda. The vote to close the public hearing was unanimous.
10:10 p.m. Public Hearing - Elden Langley (off Applewood Road) – The applicant was represented by Fred Pfischner of Pfischner Engineering. Mr. Kane stated that at the last meeting on this subject it was agreed that if filed in time the Abbreviated Notice of Intent filing for a temporary stream crossing would be heard in the place of the original NOI filing for the development of the Langley lot. Mr. Harrington made the motion to continue the original Notice of Intent public hearing to 9:30 p.m. on February 22, 2006. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The Commission will review the Nover-Armstrong letter on the 22nd. The applicants can give a formal reply to the Administrative Assistant who will disseminate it to the
Commission prior to the hearing.
Mr. Pfischner stated that they are proposing to use a rubber threaded excavator. He stated that any equipment lighter than that would not work. The excavator would have an 8 foot wide track. Mr. Kane stated that the track was too big. Mr. Pfischner stated that the test pit will be at least 10 feet deep and he anticipates tight digging. The deeper one goes the better information one gets on the water table. He stated that they will encounter trees and snags. He has not flagged the actual path that the equipment will be taking to access the test sites. Mr. Harrington stated that a smaller machine will not disturb trees and would be able to maneuver around the lot without damage to vegetation. Mr. Pfischner stated that they will use the path that was proposed to be
the driveway location. This path will cross the stream at the narrowest point. Depending upon when they conduct the tests the ground could still be frozen. Mr. Pfischner stated that he proposes to put planks across the stream bed or install steel plates over the stream.
Mr. Pfischner stated that it would take no more than 2 days to complete the testing. Mr. Pfischner stated that he feels that they can get their equipment to the test site without
damage to the vegetation. Mr. Kane stated that at least two steel plates should be used across the stream.
Mr. Scott stated that they will speak to their equipment person and use a ten foot machine. Mr. Harrington stated that railroad ties would be preferable over the steel plates. Mr. Scott referred to the site plan and showed the Commission the general area of access to the upland testing area. Mr. Shaw stated that the access area has many large boulders that would cause them to deviate from the path. Mr. Kane stated that photos must be taken prior to and after the crossing. These photos must be submitted to the Commission. He stated that any damages would have to be remediated.
Mr. Kane stated that that the applicant is to give the Commission a week’s notice before conducting the tests so the Commission can do a site inspection. The Commission will ask Marti Nover to attend the February 22nd public hearing on the original filing.
Mr. Harrington made the motion to close the public hearing for the temporary stream crossing. It was noted that DEP has not issued a filing number to this case as yet. Mr. Harrington made the motion to approve the Abbreviated Notice of Intent for a temporary stream crossing to conduct perk testing in an upland area with conditions as discussed. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The public hearing closed at 10:30 p.m.
Discussion on Pine Creek Anorad for revision of wetland lines. Mr. Harrington recused himself and left the table. The members briefly discussed the evidence. Mr. Talerman made the motion to approve the BSC line as recommended by Phoenix Environmental. The ORAD will be based upon the plan dated October 6, 2005 and amended on 12/21/05. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Mr. Harrington returned to the table.
Mr. Talerman made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
| 
