Conservation Commission
March 8, 2006
PRESENT: Jeffrey Kane, Jason Talerman, Daniel Crafton, Allan Shaw,
Laurence Harrington, Paul Lugten
ABSENT: No one
The duly posted meeting of the Conservation Commission convened at 7:30 p.m. in room 105C at the Norfolk Town Hall.
The members signed a voucher for postage reimbursement.
It was noted that the February 22nd minutes were not completed as yet.
7:30 p.m. Appointment with Mrs. Cyndi Andrade – Mrs. Andrade stated that she had forwarded a memo to all of the Conservation Commission members with an update on the Conservation Commission managed properties. Mrs. Andrade noted that she resumed the responsibilities of the conservation land manager from Mrs. Maryann Magner in June of 2002. Mr. Harrington stated that a lot of activities were done on conservation managed properties by the Eagle Scouts. Mr. Harrington stated that he would like to see the use of the properties expanded. Mrs. Andrade stated that she has contacted Mrs. Ann Proto, The Recreation Director, about using the Town Forest for beginner snow shoeing. She noted that the Campbell Town Forest has a short path and has never been formally used for snow shoeing
before. Mr. Harrington stated that he wanted to see more outreach into the community by the conservation land manager. He noted that the Commission will be getting a conservation agent in the future. Mrs. Andrade stated that the conservation map should be updated. This may be a project that could be funded with Community Preservation monies.
Mrs. Andrade stated that there is a wood burned map at the entrance to the Campbell Forest. She has spoken with Jackie Dalton who informed her that the girl scouts would be creating a wood burned map for the Lind Farm off North Street. Mrs. Andrade noted that the Marshall Street entrance to the Lind Farm ends at a stream. The trail does not loop around. She noted that the trail is pretty much overgrown.
Mr. Harrington stated that he would like to expand the management of the conservation lands to other volunteers. He noted that the Commission does not have a sense of what has to be done for management. He noted that he would like to see a variety of ideas with education of the properties. Mrs. Andrade stated that there is a lack of manpower to properly care for the properties. Mr. Kane asked Mrs. Andrade to prepare a list of what projects needs to be done on each conservation managed parcel.
Mrs. Andrade noted that the Commission members could send her an e-mail of what the Commission would like to see on the properties. She noted that she visited Comey’s Pond recently with Ann Proto and noticed a lot of fishing line tangled in the bushes. She noted that this area would require some maintenance, such as cutting the vegetation back and to improve the driveway. She noted that there is some purple loosestrife in the area and some trash not too far from the shore. Mr. Harrington stated that he would like to see some reports on Mrs. Andrade’s findings. He noted that several people have asked him how they could do volunteer work for the town.
Mr. Harrington noted that the Commission manages some land off Main Street that could be developed with trails. Mr. Kane stated that the Commission would be interested in a list of conservation managed properties and what uses they could support. Mr. Kane stated that at present the Commission does not have a good grasp of the land in the town. Mr. Harrington stated that it would be helpful as a first step to have an inventory of the conservation managed parcels. Mr. Harrington stated that the Conservation Commission manages 200 acres out of the 9600 acres in the town.
Mrs. Andrade stated that Ian Cronin would be conducting an Eagle Scout project at the City Mills Pond. She noted that funds from the Kunde Trust are being used for the upkeep of the Kunde Forest. Another boy scout is proposing to do work in the Kunde Forest. The Commission questioned if they could use the Kunde monies to purchase more land to expand the Kunde Forest. Mr. Talerman noted that the Lind Farm could use another trail system. The development of the new commercial subdivision adjacent to the Lind Farm took out the trail that connected to trails in the Town of Wrentham. A new trail has to be created to complete the trail loop.
The Commission members noted that additional plantings could supplement what exists at the Kunde Forest. The office will locate the Kunde Trust document and copy it for the members.
Mr. Kane stated that he conducted a site inspection of the Department of Corrections Waste Water Treatment Plant off Old Campbell Street.
Mr. Talerman drafted the Order of Conditions for the DiPhilipo project off Union Street. No one has had a chance to review the draft however.
Mr. Shaw stated that he is drafting the Order of Conditions for ABB, Inc. off Main Street.
Mr. Kane will be drafting the Order of Conditions for Bay State Gas off Clark Street.
Mr. Harrington noted that he was in contact with George Hall, Town Counsel, about a seven acre parcel of land located behind the old dump road. The owner of the parcel (Mr. Hastings) wishes to donate the land to the Conservation Commission. A title search is now being done. There is no survey plan. He noted that the Conservation Commission should expect to see a deed sometime this week. The acceptance of this land does not require a warrant article for town meeting.
Mr. Shaw and Mr. Kane reported that they conducted a site inspection of the Paglia property off Main Street on Saturday. They noted that an under drain pipe was observed discharging to the wetlands. A retaining wall was also constructed that was not shown on the plan. The applicant was informed to prepare an as-built plan to document the conditions. It was noted that regrading may need to be considered to prevent the slope from eroding. Some ongoing monitoring may need to be done but the Commission will await the as-built plan before making final recommendations.
8:00 p.m. Preserve at Keeney Pond – Mr. Talerman recused himself and left the table. Mr. Weddleton stated that the Commission required a $280,000 bond for the completion of the turtle nesting plan. He noted that all work has been completed in the buffer zone. He asked for a 75% reduction of the bond.
Karen Beck from Commonwealth Engineers presented a plan that depicted lots 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43, which are all contiguous lots. She noted that one of the biggest issues with the development of these lots is the amount of disturbance in the 50-100 foot buffer zone. There will be no disturbance on any of the subject lots within the 0-50 foot buffer.
Ms. Beck noted that the disturbance on lot 39 was reduced from 8,000 square feet to 4,723 square feet within the 50-100 foot buffer. The disturbance within the outer buffer on lot 40 was reduced from 10,528 square feet to 7,927 square feet. The disturbance on Lot 41 was reduced from 9,421 square feet to 2,201 square feet. The disturbance on Lot 42 was reduced from 9,512 square feet to 6,014 square feet. The disturbance on Lot 43 was 6,402 square feet to 3,436 square feet. The proposal was to preserve a larger buffer around the turtle nesting area in accordance with Natural Heritage and Endangered Species. They wanted to take more land out of private ownership and give it to the town or a homeowner’s association. Natural Heritage wanted to see the lot sizes on 36, 37 and 38 be
reduced from the two acre plus lots to the one acre minimum size as required by zoning in the town. The applicant would be donating 995,295 square feet or approximately 23 acres of land to the town.
Ms. Beck noted that the portion of the donated land was highlighted on a plan. This land was not encumbered by any wetland or buffer zone. The total of this land is 98,704 square feet or 2 ¼ acres. This is land that would have been in private ownership that will now be given to the Town as conservation land
Ms. Beck noted that the remaining land was looked at individually to make sure that there was not any large cavity nesting trees, stands of sensitive or cinnamon fern within the 50 to 100 foot buffer zone. She noted that the upland land area would be donated on a 2:1 basis. A total disturbance area on all of the lots amount to 24,311 square feet. The upland area donated would amount to 48,642 square feet. She stated that there will be some impact on lots 36, 37, and 38. These are buildable lots that will have a single family home and septic systems, but the applicant will be donating 98,000 square feet of upland to mitigate for the loss of buffer.
Ms Beck stated that they will pursue an aggressive planting schedule within the subdivision. The detention basins will be planted with a large amount of vegetation in addition to the buffer planting of white pine. There will also be street plantings through out the entire subdivision. She noted that Mr. Weddleton makes a concerted effort to preserve as many trees as possible. She noted that in the area of proposed grading there will be trees wells encircling the larger trees. She noted that it would be difficult to show all of this mitigation on each individual lot. Only the worse case scenario is shown on the plans. Additional mitigation measures are being discussed to enhance the wildlife habitat values. Mr. Weddleton stated that some of the areas have already been previously disturbed
on lots 39 and 40 by a gravel excavation. A cart path is shown in this area.
Mr. Kane asked what measures were being taken to prevent impact from fertilizers that will migrate into the pond. Mr. Weddleton stated that every lot that has a grade differentiation of 3 or 4 feet will have a boulder wall. The boulder wall will be approximately 900 feet in length. The boulder wall will be installed along the lots where the consultants feel would be the best location. He noted that each of the houses would have walk out basements. Two of the lots would not require any grading in the back yard. Ms. Beck stated that in each of these instances there would be a flat rear yard behind the houses. If these areas receive any fertilizer this would be the area where it would be concentrated. The rear yards would not be sloped so that water would run off
into the wetland. The water will percolate into the soils. The remainder of the back yards will remain in its forested state. The soils in this area have a very good perk rate.
Mr. Weddleton noted that the boulder wall will be the limit of disturbance for the rear yards. Ms. Beck stated that native plant materials will be used for the backyards. The plant materials are listed on a list prepared by MA Audubon. Ms. Beck showed the access easements located at the rear of the properties.
Ms. Beck noted that Big Keeney Pond and Little Keeney Pond are not true ponds. They are high water table marshes with scrub shrub and emergent vegetation. She noted that this is an extremely interconnected wetland system. There is a hydrologic connection between Big Keeney Pond and Little Keeney Pond in the form of an intermittent stream. The majority of the data for the turtles was garnered from a turtle study of the box turtles and spotted turtles. They know exactly where the turtle movements are located. The wetland system supports a variety of wildlife habitat. A variety of ecotones support high wildlife habitat as well. By donating the land to the town, the area would be protected in terms of wildlife movement and patterns and ecotones. This area will be a
beneficial wildlife corridor. With the donation of land lot 38 would be under the ownership of the town of Norfolk.
Mr. Emery gave a presentation of his findings on this project. He showed a copy of the plan to the Commission. The subject lots would have to be submitted to the Planning Board for new form A lots. Mr. Emery stated that he went out to the site on Saturday to review wetland flags 12 to 32. He noted that reconstructed some of the wetland line but has recommended that Commonwealth Engineering locate all of the wetland lines by survey. He questioned if the Order of Conditions had been extended. He noted that the wetland lines are conservative. Mr. Emery stated that he spoke with Mr. Weddleton on Saturday at the site. He noted that Mr. Weddleton would be agreeable to restricting the 100 foot buffer zone. He showed revised plan that would restrict the entire 50-100 foot
buffer on lots 39 to 43. He noted that each of the lots would need a permanent concrete boundary demarcation and fencing or plantings for visual location. He noted that he tried to re-design the configuration of each of the lots to work with the slopes. He noted that lot 40 was the toughest lot. Mr. Emery suggested that no private irrigation wells be located in the 50-100 foot buffer because of possible drawdown that could affect the vernal pool areas and wildlife habitat of Keeney Pond. He noted that the applicant could elect to do a hydrology analysis to document that irrigation well would not impact the vernal pools and their species. He noted that his redesign would increase the square footage of land available to the developer. The final limit of work could be worked out between the Commission and the developer. Mr. Emery presented plans with color coded limit of work scenarios. With one of Mr. Emery’s plan the
conservation commission will not have to worry about the homeowner’s coming back to do any work in the 50-100 foot buffer.
Mr. Emery stated that he has the minimum habitat polygons for the Eastern box turtles or the spotted turtle. Any of the work before them is not within the minimum habitat polygon based upon the 5 year study conducted by Oxbow Associates. Mr. Emery noted that Lot 37 is going to be critical lot and considerable thought has to be given. He also recommended that a development plan be submitted for Lot 37. Mr. Emery stated that he spoke with Brian Butler of Oxbow Associates. He stated that Mr. Butler stated that the Eastern Box Turtle and spotted turtle habitat on the subject lots would not be impacted. He noted that if the commission were agreeable the lot boundaries could be re-designed and reconfigured so that the homeowners in the future would not come back in the future with
requests for shed, pools, etc. He noted that the re-design would meet the mitigation requirements sought by the Commission.
Mr. Emery recommended that a new access easement be created on the new Lot 37. This would allow the residents to use the existing cart path to access the newly donated land and the existing town owned land. Mr. Emery noted the area that a driveway could be located on Lot 37 if the applicant insisted on developing this lot. The existing town owned land is approximately 40 acres.
Mr. Emery passed out a draft copy of the 2005 Oxbow report. He noted that Natural Heritage issued a letter on November 15, 2005, where it is found that there would be no short term or long term adverse effects on the state listed rare wildlife species as a result of the project. He noted that Commonwealth Engineering also applied for a MESA filing for all five lots. He noted that MESA protects the upland and the wetlands. MESA is in the process of completing its review. Natural Heritage has asked for more information on lots 36, 37 and 38 and lot 4 (has ILSF) before signing off on the lots.
Ms. Beck stated that there are two letters from Natural Heritage. One letter clearly states that lots 39 – 43 are clear in terms of wetland rare species. There is a MESA letter relative to the priority habitat. MESA wants the applicant to donate this land as part of the entire subdivision review, which includes lots 39-43. If the applicant donates this land and provides them with deed restriction language, etc. they will sign off on the entire subdivision, including lots 39-43 and the other lots as well.
Mr. Harrington noted that the lots have not had clearance under priority habitat review. Mr. Harrington asked Mr. Emery if he thought that the applicant was offering a fair trade off. Mr. Emery stated that he had not had time to complete his assessment and evaluation. Mr. Harrington noted that the town of Norfolk has more values to protect than Natural Heritage. Mr. Emery stated that conceptually he felt that there is a fair trade off but he would like the opportunity to reserve his opinion until he has more time to review the various documents. Mr. Emery stated that he wanted to walk Lot 37 even though this lot is not on the table for review. He noted that there is a relationship between the NOI lots and the other lots. Mr. Emery noted that even though the mitigation area is not
contiguous to the subject lots it is still within the same reach of the ecosystem. Mr. Kane asked the Commission members if they would like to pursue Mr. Emery’s recommendations.
Mr. Crafton stated that he would want to see access to the land that is being donated. Mr. Lugten, Mr. Crafton, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Harrington stated that they would favor the plan prepared by Commonwealth Engineering. Mr. Kane stated that he could see Mr. Emery’s point in his recommendation. Mr. Weddleton noted that there are significant grade changes between the lots. He plans on constructing all of the stone walls behind the lots. Mr. Weddleton noted that there will be a huge inverted triangle between two adjoining back yards, which will be 20 to 30 feet from the house. He stated that initially he thought that Mr. Emery’s recommendation would be giving him more land to work with but after walking the lots he decided that the amount of land remaining after the constructing of decks,
etc., homeowners would be filling in the “gaps” to make the land level.
Mr. Weddleton stated that bounds would be buried and be useless. He suggested a perennial shade species to delineate the rear area. Mr. Weddleton stated that he would be willing to provide an access to the donated land. Mr. Kane stated that he wants Mr. Weddleton to go forward with a deed restriction. Mr. Weddleton stated that he will think about it. The Commission will conduct a site inspection. Mr. Kane recommended that Commonwealth show how each lot would be delineated. Mr. Weddleton stated that the delineated work area would be the stone wall area. The lots will be graded properly so that the houses will have a walk out basement. He noted that he has found that vegetation that grows to a four foot maximum height will provide wildlife value and limit of work area. Mr. Harrington
made the motion to continue the hearing to March 22, 2006 at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
9:15 p.m. Elden Langley Public Hearing – Off Applewood Road. Present was Fred Pfischner of Pfischner Engineering to represent the applicant, Charlotte Langley, and Michael Connolly and Jack Scott from Pine Creek Development. Also present was Henry Nover P.E. from Nover-Armstrong Associates. It was noted that Nover-Armstrong had prepared a report with 9 comments. Mr. Nover stated that there are two intermittent streams on the site. He noted that Marti Nover had indicated in a prior letter that Nover-Armstrong is in agreement with the wetland delineation line. EcoTec had revisited the flags and their response was satisfactory to Nover-Armstrong.
The applicants are proposing a 3-sided box culvert. In general their design complied with the MA River and Stream Crossing Guidelines. The work must be accomplished between July 1 and October 1. Mr. Nover stated that Nover-Armstrong felt that the extent of alteration was insufficient to make the crossing. NAA recommended five feet distance between the wing walls and the limit of disturbance. To build the crossing they would have to remove the stream bed and then put it back. NAA would want to salvage as much of the stream bed rocks as possible to reconstruct the stream
Mr. Nover suggested that the applicant provide additional documentation on replication. EcoTec did soil observations. They are proposing a stockpile area on the other side of the stream. NAA wants them to reconsider the area of stockpiling. The replication must be accomplished first. The stockpile area is immediately adjacent to the wetland. NAA wants a more suitable area for the stockpiling. EcoTec still believes that the upland side of the driveway is a good area for the replication.
Mr. Nover stated that the alternatives analysis is generally satisfactory. They did not satisfactorily address the access. They did demonstrate that the only to access the lot is through Parcel D.
Mr. Kane asked if they looked at the mitigation. Mr. Pfischner stated that they are looking at an alternative location for a septic system. Mr. Nover stated that he looked at the square footage of alteration. He stated that Mr. Pfischner did not include the 4,050 square feet of alteration on Parcel D.
Mr. Harrington stated that the plan is not accurate. The numbers on the plan do not include the disturbances on Parcel D. Mr. Nover agreed that this information is needed.
The replication area has to change as well due to disturbances beyond the wing wall.
Mr. Pfischner stated that the mitigation area will be marked on the ground. He stated that they will put a deed restriction on the 1.66 acres. They are also proposing to put an easement on the driveway to access the Christina Estates open space area. They have not submitted an ANR plan to the planning board for the easement. The easement will have to be calculated into the area of disturbance. The replication area has to change as well due to disturbance beyond the wing wall.
Mr. Kane stated that the Commission would need to know if an actual path is going to be constructed on Parcel D. He stated that the Commission needs something on paper if the path will be constructed. He advised Mr. Pfischner to show all calculations on the plan. He advised that the stockpile also be moved. He advised that the applicant should get something in writing from the planning board. The Commission has a draft decision for the Estate Lot from the planning board. Jack Scott said that the planning board only wants a paper trail and that there would be no clearing.
Mr. Harrington stated that the numbers on the plan have to be accurate. He noted that the path to the open space area may bump up the numbers. Mr. Nover stated that he did not believe that there was ever a proposed access from Parcel D to the Christina Estates open space area. Mr. Nover stated that the construction sequence needs to be more defined. Mr. Nover questioned the numbers.
The Commission discussed the mitigation proposed. The mitigation area consists entirely of woods. The Commission asked what can be used to delineate the mitigation area. They asked Mr. Pfischner to give them ideas on what they will use as boundary markers.
The Commission discussed a checklist of items that need to be on the plan:
1. recalculate the crossing disturbance
2. recalculate the replication size
3. relocate the stockpile area (put near the end of the cul-de sac) and show this area on the plan.
4. recalculate the 0-50 and the 50-100 foot buffers and include parcel D. This would also involve the recalculation of the mitigation numbers. Take out all old septic numbers off the plan.
5. Come up with a notation on what bound markers will be used.
6. Make notations that the actual stream bed will be reused.
7. obtain a memo from the Planning Board about a path being constructed.
8. make an enhanced construction sequencing plan. The bridge is only a conceptual plan and not indicated in detail.
9. The electric and telephone lines will go over the bridge. This is not indicated on the plan.
10. how will dewatering occur.
Mr. Pfischner stated that the bridge will be a prefabricated bridge. Mr. Nover stated that the bridge must be as big as possible. The entire stream bed must be spanned. The replication of the stream bed is very important. The wider the bridge the higher the bridge has to be. The Commission will type up the checklist to give to the applicant.
It was noted that the mitigation has to replace in kind what is lost.
Mr. Harrington made the motion to continue the public hearing to April 12, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
The members discussed items related to a Conservation Agent. They noted that the term of the contract will be one year and will be a, “at will” contract. The office hours should also be set beforehand. Mr. Harrington made the motion to offer the position of Conservation Agent to Janet DeLonga. Mr. Crafton seconded. The vote on the motion was 5-0 to grant (Mr. Lugten had left the meeting prior to this discussion). Mr. Harrington will draft the contract. A letter will be sent to the other applicants to thank them for their interest.
Mr. Kane stated that he will conduct a site inspection at Canterbury Estates, Phase II.
Certificate of Compliance –(Sonsire) 3 Toils End Road - The members read the memorandum from Attorney Iacoi regarding the request for a Certificate of Compliance under the Norfolk Wetlands Protection Bylaw only. Mr. Harrington made the motion to grant a Certificate of Compliance for the swimming pool project at 3 Toils End Road. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Mr. Shaw stated that he no longer wishes to be a member of the Community Preservation Committee. A letter will be sent to the Community Preservation Committee with this information. The Commission will ask for copies of all the CPC’s minutes to keep abreast of issues.
It was noted that Woodard & Curran submitted a contract to be signed for the peer review of the Beaverbrook Road lots. It was noted that all contracts need to be signed by Jack Hathaway. The Commission instructed the staff to contact Woodard & Curran to inform them that they have been awarded the contract. Woodard & Curran will be asked to come to the March public hearing in which the Beaverbrook Road lots are scheduled. The applicants will be notified that they must provide the Commission with the review funds prior to work commencing.
The Commission members reviewed the Community Preservation Committee’s request for proposed work at the town pond.
The members reviewed a revised plan for Lot 16 Cypress Lane (Christina Estates) showing the increase in the footprint of the dwelling. The dwelling is located within the upland. There will be no increase in alteration to the buffer zone. No further action is required.
Mr. Kane made the motion to enter into Executive Session at 10:35 p.m. to discuss ongoing litigation. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows:
Harrington - aye
Talerman - aye
Kane - aye
Crafton - aye
Shaw - aye
The members came out of Executive Session at 11:00 p.m. upon a motion made by Allan Shaw and seconded by Mr. Talerman. The role call vote to come out of Executive Session was as follows:
Harrington - aye
Talerman - aye
Kane - aye
Crafton - aye
Shaw - aye
The members did not go back into open session.
_______________________________,
Allan M. Shaw, Vice-chairman
| 
