CONSERVATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 22, 2006
PRESENT: Jeffrey Kane, Jason Talerman, Allan Shaw, Laurence Harrington
ABSENT: Daniel Crafton, Paul Lugten
The duly posted meeting of the Conservation Commission convened at 7:35 p.m. The members signed vouchers for expenses.
7:40 p.m. It was noted that the public hearing scheduled for the Sawtelles ( 9 Longmeadow Road) would have to be continued due to lack of time. This was a late filing and was scheduled for this evening even thought there was no time to hear the case. Mr. Harrington made the motion to continue the public hearing to March 22nd at 7:45 p.m. The motion was seconded by Allan Shaw. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
7:45 p.m. Smith - 1 Harlow Ave. Mr. Harrington noted that this filing was also submitted at the last minute and the public hearing schedule for this evening was full. Mr. Harrington made the motion to continue the hearing to March 22nd at 8:35 p.m. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Mr. Wilson requested that a site inspection be conducted prior to the next meeting. Mr. Kane advised Mr. Wilson that the septic area should be staked out and then he should call the office.
Mr. Harrington noted that a letter had been sent out to Attorney Iacoi regarding property on Toils End Road (Wendy Sonsire). Attorney Iacoi noted that he was filing an ANR form with the Planning Board. Mr. Harrington noted that the last time he was at the site he noticed that the pool area had been completely landscaped and the disturbed areas planted with sod. The Commission has to conduct a final site inspection to insure that the project complies with the Order of Conditions before issuing a Certificate of Compliance.
The Commission briefly discussed the Call & Wait filings. An Abbreviated Notice of Intent had been filed for the monitoring wells, which was approved, and a Notice of Intent for the triage work of cleaning the embankment and for additional buildings for dismantling. The Notice of Intent for the triage work and additional buildings is scheduled for March 22, 2006 at 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Talerman noted that he will be recusing himself from the Keeney Pond public hearings this evening. The Commission will lack a quorum of members to hear the public hearings unless Mr. Crafton or Mr. Lugten attend this evening. The Keeney Pond hearings were postponed to later in the evening. Mr. Harrington noted that Mr. Lugten is vacationing out of the country.
Mr. Harrington noted that a certificate of compliance was requested for Lot 6 Keeney Pond. Some of the members conducted a site inspection on February 11, 2006. Mr. Harrington made the motion to issue a certificate of compliance for Lot 6 Keeney Pond. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Mr. Harrington noted that a request was made for an erosion control check at 31 Leland Road (Marland). The erosion controls were inspected by several Conservation Commission members on February 11, 2006. Mr. Harrington made the motion to approve the erosion controls and send a confirmatory letter to the Marlands. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Mr. Harrington noted that a request was received from Mr. Paglia for a full certificate of compliance for 1 Main Street. The members conducted a site inspection on February 11, 2006. The members observed several significant items at their site inspection. Mr. Talerman noted that there was some stormwater flow on the property that appeared to come from the neighboring property. The flows went under a fence and across the driveway and the small front yard. The water terminated into the wetland at the end of the lawn. Erosion gulleys were visible at this point. The applicant will have to figure out a way to deal with the drainage flows. The site is difficult due to the presence of a large rock outcropping. He also stated that some of the slopes at the rear of
the lot also showed some erosion. The Commission noted that the adjacent lot had to install splash pads and riprap at the end of roof drains. Mr. Talerman noted that the roof drains on the dwelling at 1 Main Street appeared to not be connected. Mr. Harrington noted that the day of the inspection was clear and dry but the driveway was wet. Mr. Talerman suggested that Mr. Paglia attend a Conservation meeting. Mr. Kane suggested meeting Mr. Paglia at the site this weekend. The Administrative Assistant will contact Mr. Paglia.
Mr. Harrington noted that the Commission conducted a site inspection of 112 Myrtle Street (Dennis Schworer) on February 11, 2006. The members noted that Mr. Schworer had complied with the enforcement order issued by the Commission. Mr. Harrington made the motion to rescind the enforcement order and all monetary fines issued under the bylaw and to issue a certificate of compliance. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Mr. Harrington noted that a request was made by Steven Simpson of 15 Harlow Avenue for an erosion control inspection. An inspection was made by Commission members on February 11, 2006. Mr. Harrington made the motion to approve the location and installation as installed and to send a confirmatory letter to Mr. Simpson. The motion was seconded by Mr. Talerman. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
The Commission will defer signing the Varey Determination of Applicability (DOA) on until later in the evening.
The Commission discussed the members’ availability to conduct site inspections. It was agreed to conduct the site inspections on March 4th. The members will not be meeting on March 1st as previously discussed.
The members noted that due to the lack of quorum they would continue the public hearing for Keeney Pond. It was suggested that this project be contracted out for peer review. It was recommended that Phoenix Environmental conduct the review as he is very familiar with the site. Mr. Harrington made the motion to schedule the public hearing for 8:00 p.m. on March 8th. Mr. Shaw recommended that the Commission conduct a site inspection. Mr. Weddleton gave verbal permission for the Commission to walk the site.
8:30 p.m. Beaverbrook Road Public Hearing - The Applicant Howard Bailey was present as was Attorney John McTiernan, the applicant’s representative. Mr. Harrington stated that the Commission had conducted a site inspection of 1 and 10 Beaverbrook Road. Mr. Bailey stated that he believed that the area encompassed by 10 Beaverbrook Road was formerly used as a staging area when the subdivision was being constructed in the 1970’s. Winrows of loam on located on the site. An inadequate number of plans were submitted to the Commission.
The revised plan for 10 Beaverbrook Road depicts a revised wetland boundary line. The wetland line also impacted the location of the 0-50 and 50-100 foot buffer zone. Mr. Bailey stated that there is a depression on the lot. He stated that there is a collapsed 18 inch corrugated metal pipe within the depression. The earth surrounding the pipe has given away as well. The wetland consultant, New England Environmental had conducted soil sampling within the depression.
The proposed house size was reduced from 30 feet by 60 feet to 28 by 28 feet. A garage will be located under the dwelling. The proposed septic system will be located at the front of the dwelling. The septic system will be mounded. The highest point of the mound will be 192 feet – a 6 foot high mound. The sidewalks in front of the lot are at elevation 186 feet. The top of the foundation will be at 195 feet. The septic system was designed to be 50% larger to accommodate a garbage grinder.
Mr. Talerman expressed concern with the small size of the backyard, which is adjacent to the 50 foot no disturb buffer. There is approximately 1200 square feet of lawn at the rear of the house.
Mr. Harrington questioned what the plans were for mitigation. Mr. Bailey stated that they had looked into mitigation. They feel that this lot does not fall under the jurisdiction of the bylaw regulations and that the lot is exempt and grandfathered as the lots are pre-existing. Mr. Kane noted that the lots may be grandfathered but the work on them is not exempt. Mr. Harrington stated that grandfathering is a legal concept under zoning but not under the Wetland Act or Bylaw Regulations. Mr. McTiernan stated that this project will be on an undeveloped lot that was in existence prior to the passage of Wetland Bylaw Regulations. He stated that they feel that they have made all reasonable efforts to minimize impacts. Mr. Harrington stated that this is a new lot as it has been recently
combined with the adjacent lot. Mr. Talerman stated that the court cases submitted does not support the Applicants assertions. Mr. McTiernan stated that the combination of lots does not change the status of the existing lot. Mr. Talerman stated that the zoning issue is not a matter for the Conservation Commission to decide.
Mr. Kane stated that the Bylaw Regulations state that mitigation in the buffer resource must be at a 1:1 ratio. Mr. McTiernan stated that the mitigation would be to do as little as possible in the way of disturbance when developing the lot. He stated that they have done everything that they could to reduce the impacts from development. He asked the Commission what they wanted him to do. Mr. Kane stated that it is up to the applicant to provide additional buffer habitat.
It was noted that there is 6200 square feet of permanent disturbance within the 50-100 foot buffer zone on lot 10. Mr. Bailey stated that a lot of the area is comprised of gravel. He suggested that they could take a gravel area and plant vegetation. Mr. Kane stated that he wanted to make sure that this area is not a turtle nesting area. He noted that the depression on 10 Beaverbrook could also be functioning as a vernal pool. The Commission would require peer review of this proposal. The peer review would also determine wildlife habitat.
Mr. Harrington stated that he has a problem with the encroachment into the 50 foot no disturb buffer zone. Mr. Bailey stated that they can make the new homeowners aware of any conservation restrictions. He noted that they tried to install granite markers on other projects as well as two rail wood fences. Mr. Harrington stated that homeowners would want to enlarge the structure nonetheless. Mr. Bailey stated that they could put something in writing for the homeowners. Mr. Kane stated that he would like to see markers on the plan.
Mr. Harrington suggested that the driveway remain pervious. Mr. Bailey stated that he knows that the industry makes pervious pavers. He will provide information to the Commission.
The wetland consultant from New England Environmental stated that this area is a disturbed site. He stated that some of the surface has been stripped bare to the gravel from a machine. He stated that the soils within the depression appeared to be very bright. He noted that the water in the depression does not remain very long. He stated that it is his opinion that the depression does not function as a wetland even though the depression contains wetland vegetation. The water table varies on the lot. The water table is very near to the surface of the lot near the wetland areas.
Mr. Bailey stated that mottling appears between 4-5 feet below the surface. There would also be correction factors imposed by the Board of Health agent.
Mr. Kane stated that most of the lot is shown to be within an Inland Restricted Wetland. He questioned if the applicant had done any research on the location of the Inland Restricted Wetland. The applicants stated that they did not research the Inland Restricted Wetlands. Mr. Shaw stated that approximately 11 years ago the Commission dealt with the Restricted Wetland issue on this street. It was noted that the boundaries of the Inland Restricted Wetland were not shown on the plan. Mr. Kane stated that the wetland maps are in the commission’s office. The wetland consultant stated that he was not aware that this lot was within a restricted wetland. Mr. Kane stated that this will also be an issue for peer review.
#1 Beaverbrook – A revised plan for 1 Beaverbrook was also forwarded to the Commission members. The number of plans was inadequate and no plans were received for the file. The structure on this lot was also downsized to a three bedroom 24 foot by 38 foot structure. The septic system was also reconfigured. They also added the zone 1 delineation of the Spruce Road municipal well on the plan. They also presented a zone 1 plan prepared by Landmark Engineering. The plan shows a stream that is subject to the Rivers Act. The 200 foot riverfront area is also shown. The riverfront does not impact the lot. The 100 year floodplain is also shown. The 100 year flood line is at elevation 183 feet. Mr. Bailey stated that the bylaw allows for some floodplain to be
filled but they would have to provide compensation. He noted that they are constructed a 3 foot high wall around the septic system to avoid encroaching into the 50 foot “no disturb” buffer. Mr. Kane questioned if they put the buffer zone to the floodplain on the plan. Mr. Bailey stated that he did not know that the floodplain had a buffer. Mr. Harrington explained the Bylaw regulations to Mr. Bailey. Mr. Harrington stated that a good chunk of the project is within the 50 foot “no build” buffer to the floodplain.
The total amount of disturbance on this lot would be 16,000 square feet on this 60,000 square foot lot. The wetland consultant stated that the lot is currently an undisturbed forest. The uplands consist of white pine and red and white oak. Approximately 90% of the new wetland flags were located in the same area as the previous wetland flags. Some of the flags were moved 5 feet as a result of the new delineation. The vegetative understory becomes thicker the closer one gets to the wetland. The area of the proposed house would have to be clear-cut of vegetation. Approximately 1/5th of the lot would be disturbed.
Mr. Kane noted that the main issue on this lot is the lack of area to provide mitigation. The three bedroom dwelling would be 48 feet by 28 feet. Mr. Bailey stated that they could make the house smaller. Mr. Bailey stated that the town may have an interest in acquiring the four remaining lots due to the proximity to the zone 1 of the well site. He noted that these lots could be deeded to the town. Mr. Harrington stated that he is concerned with the impact of development on several resource areas on this lot. This lot would also require peer review.
There would be 6200 and 11,000 square feet of disturbance on the two lots. Mr. Shaw stated that the Commission still has to deal with the Inland Restricted Wetlands. Mr. Kane stated that the Commission will obtain the services of a wetland consultant and let the applicant know of the price of the service. Mr. Harrington stated that the Commission’s consultant would have to pay attention to the wildlife habit values in the depression and a wildlife value and quality of any replication to the exposed areas on 10 Beaverbrook. He would want to know by what percent the land would be improved by any proposed re-vegetation.
Mr. Harrington made the motion to continue the public hearings to 7:45 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on March 22nd. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The hearing adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
9:30 p.m. Mark DiFilippo public hearing - Mr. and Mrs. DiFilippo were present. James Susi from United Consultants was also present and representing the applicants. Mr. Susi presented a revised and narrative. The revision includes relocating the house to be 56 feet from the street. The previous plan depicted the house to be 88 feet from the street. The width of the house is also smaller. The house has been reduced to a three bedroom dwelling. The overall design of the house was reduced as well. The septic system has also been reduced in size. The driveway would remain impervious pavement. 2,239 square feet of disturbance in the 50-100 foot buffer zone. The new design has reduced the impact of the development by approximately 600 square feet. (previous size
was 2,960 square feet). The outer riparian disturbance is 9,427 square feet from the 11,700 for an earlier proposal. The total lot area is 121,698 square feet. The total Riverfront Area is 116,761 square feet. The total disturbance has now been reduced to 8.1 % of the second riparian zone.
The actual dimensions of the house would be a 38 foot by 38 foot house. The garage would be located to the right side of the house.
A retaining wall will be constructed to reduce grading. The disturbed area would be returned to lawn area. Mr. DiFilippo stated that logs had been placed alongside the existing shed. He noted that the logs rotted and left a stain on the shed. Mr. Talerman asked that the shed be removed from the inner riparian. The shed is sitting on a concrete slab. The applicant stated that he will remove the shed and build a shed closer to the house and outside of the 50 foot no build buffer and inner riparian zone. The shed will be the same size as the existing.
The Commission discussed the need for a conservation easement. Mr. Kane stated that he liked the idea of a conservation easement. Mr. Harrington stated that he was comfortable with just the plantings. Mr. Talerman stated that if the Commission requires the plantings then the condition would run with the land. The plantings are the mitigation for the disturbance. Mr. Talerman stated that when the Commission drafts the Order of Conditions they can stipulate that there is a continuing requirement to have the plantings and the area will remain undeveloped. This condition can be reiterated on the Certificate of Compliance.
Mr. Talerman made the motion to close the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Mr. Talerman will draft the Order of Conditions.
9:45 p.m. ABB Inc. Public Hearing. - Bruce Wilson from Wilson Associates was present to represent the applicant. He presented a revised plan for the development of 372 Main Street. There were two small revisions. One revision was to take the well out of the easement area and the septic system was moved closer to the buffer zone. The revisions were due to provide the 100 foot wide radius required of the Board of Health for horizontal setback distances of a well to a septic system. To mitigate for the disturbance Mr. Wilson proposed to offer the Conservation Commission a 1.77 acre portion of the property. The access to the property would be from the driveway easement. The house and driveway layout will remain the same. There would be 700 feet of
disturbance for the septic system. Mr. Wilson will submit a Form A to the Planning Board next week that will take the 1.77 acres out of the lot. The 1.77 acres will be labeled “not a buildable lot” on the plan.
Mr. Shaw made the motion to close the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
9:50p.m. Elden Langley – Off Applewood Road – Fred Pfischner was present to represent the applicant. Also present was Jack Scott, the purchaser of the property. It was noted that Marti Nover from Nover-Armstrong was not present. The Commission noted that they will need to contact her. Mr. Scott stated that he wants to move forward. He stated that his proposal is all set with the Planning Board. They have to submit a revised plan however. Mr. Scott stated that he has an issue with Marti Nover not being present at this meeting.
Mr. Arthur Allan from EcoTec suggested that Marti Nover contact them directly rather than going through the Conservation Commission. Mr. Kane stated that the next Conservation Commission meeting will be on March 8, 2006. They will ask Marti Nover to come to that meeting. Mr. Kane asked Mr. Scott to get something in writing from the Planning Board stating that they have no issues. Mr. Kane stated that EcoTec must go through the Conservation Commission rather than to contact Marti Nover directly. Mr. Talerman made the motion to continue the public hearing to March 8, 2006 at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The hearing adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. Dale Wigmore - Mr. Shaw made the motion to continue the public hearing to March 22, 2006 at 9:30 p.m. at the written request of the applicant. The letter noted that the applicant must apply to the Board of Health for a Variance. Mr. Shaw made the motion to continue the public hearing to March 22nd at 9:30 p.m. The applicant has to file for a variance with the Board of Health and may need more time. The motion was amended to continue the public hearing to April 26, 2006 at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Michael Taurasi attended the meeting to discuss the outstanding issues at the proposed Fern Ridge Estates present, especially the fact that the stormwater runoff will be draining off site into the MeadowBrook Street wetlands. He also presented a written narrative.
The Commission discussed the Arthur Frontczak case. The Commission will review the file and schedule an executive session for March 8, 2006.
The Commission signed the Certificate of Compliance for Lot 6 Keeney Pond Road.
Mr. Paglia had responded that he would like to meet the Conservation Commission on March 4th at 1 Main Street.
Mr. Harrington made the motion to authorize Mr. Kane to deal directly with Holmgren Engineering on the Bay State Gas matter. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
The Commission directed the Administrative Assistant to contact Cyndi Andrade, the Open Space Project Manager to attend the next Conservation Commission scheduled for March 8, 2006.
Mr. Crafton made the motion to close the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
______________________________,
Laurence Harrington, Clerk
| 
