CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2006
PRESENT: Jeffrey Kane, Allan Shaw, Jason Talerman, Paul Lugten, Daniel
Crafton, Janet DeLonga (agent)
ABSENT: Laurence Harrington
The duly posted meeting of the Conservation Commission convened at 7:30 p.m. in room 105C at the Norfolk Town Hall.
There were no vouchers for the Commission members to sign or minutes to review.
The Commission members noted that Town Counsel had forwarded a fax this evening regarding the gift of land from Mr. Robert Hastings. The office will contact George Hall via e-mail and let him know that the Commission approves the deed. Mr. Hastings will sign the deed first and then the Commission.
7:30 p.m. Public Hearing Elden Langley – Fred Pfischner P.E. was present to represent the applicant. Also present were Jack Scott, and Robert Brown from Pine Creek Development and Arthur Allan from EcoTec. Mr. Pfischner stated that he submitted revised plans. Mr. Allan stated that Nover-Armstrong had outlined eleven outstanding issues. Mr. Pfischner passed out a schematic of a bridge that would be used to cross the intermittent stream. Mr. Pfischner stated that because of the cost involved they did not want to pay a supplier for a structural design for a bridge crossing. The schematic was a detail of a typical design of a bridge that may be used for this project.
Mr. Pfischner stated that he has added a construction sequence and a narrative for dewatering on the plan. The plan also depicts an area for stockpiling of loam and gravel.
Mr. Pfischner stated that the narrative on dewatering techniques state that haybales will be installed on the ground and the water would be directed into the haybales. The areas designated for the bridge and for the private well were shown. Mr. Pfischner stated that he does not feel that there will be much dewatering for the construction of the bridge and the abutments. Mr. Kane acknowledged that as long as the bridge construction is ongoing during the dry period there should not be much water. Mr. Pfischner stated that the bridge construction cannot be started until July.
The details for the construction sequence were as follows:
1. Installation of erosion controls
2. Grub and clear
3. Stockpiling along access driveway
4. Excavate for bridge footings and abutments and dewater if necessary
5. Place structure and backfill with suitable material
6. Repair and replace the stream with stockpiled material
7. Complete the wetland replication
8. Put final coat of pavement on the road
Mr. Pfischner stated that he recalculated the areas of disturbance. The mitigation area outside of the 100 foot buffer resource is now 6,380 square feet. Page 2 of the plan shows the wetland replication calculations. They will install concrete bounds in 50 foot intervals to permanently mark the mitigation area.
Mr. Pfishner stated that a letter from the Planning Board had been submitted to the Conservation Commission. There will be a 20 foot wide easement extending along the eastern boundary line of parcel D is shown on the plan. The applicant will not be responsible for completing the pathway to the Christina Estates open space area. Mr. Pfischner stated that this easement will be noted on the deed once the Planning Board signs off on the ANR plan.
Mr. Talerman asked Mr. Pfischner to respond to item #2 of the March 31st Nover-Armstrong memo regarding the enhanced construction sequence found on sheet 1 of 2 of the plan. Mr. Nover suggested that the Commission may want to consider requiring a two piece construction of the “U” section to facilitate the stream bed restoration. Nover-Armstrong believes that the replacement of the hydric soils and stones within the 6 inch wide, 3 foot high long space will prove to be problematic. Mr. Pfischner stated that he addressed this issue prior to the memo being sent by Nover-Armstrong. Mr. Talerman stated that Mr. Pfischner submitted correspondence to Nover-Armstrong on March 29th and Nover-Armstrong responded on March 31st.
Mr. Lugten stated that he would like to see the boundaries of the mitigation area of 6,430 square feet. Mr. Pfischner noted the area on the plan. Mr. Kane stated that he would like to see plantings, such as pine trees, between the concrete bounds to make a more solid buffer. The Commission will condition the Order of Conditions as to what the offset distances for the plantings will be. Mr. Kane stated that during construction he would like to see a stabilized construction entrance at the end of the Applewood Road cul-de-sac and silt sacks surrounding all catch basins in the immediate area.
Mr. Shaw made the motion to close the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
7:50 PM – Public Hearing for Norfolk Landing – The applicants, Mr. Jose Martins and Mr. Ron Nations were present and were represented by George Connors, P.E. of Connorstone Engineering. Also present was Bruce Simpson, the chairman of the Norfolk Zoning Board of Appeals. Others in attendance signed an attendance sheet.
Mr. Kane stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has arranged for the review of this project from the Zoning Board’s consulting company who will then share findings with the Conservation Commission. He noted that this hearing will have to be continued as the Zoning Board’s consultant has not finished the review. The Norfolk Landing project is located off River Road and is on the site of the former airport. The applicants have been working with the Zoning Board of Appeals for the last year on this project. Mr. Connors noted the area of the project on a plan and also noted that the site contains a vernal pool and a floodplain. Lark Road has an existing pipe that discharges stormwater directly into the Charles River. There are three separate applications filed for the work
associated with the Norfolk Landing project.
Request for Determination of Applicability – Removal of asphalt pavement within the 50-100 foot buffer zone of the vernal pool. Mr. Connors stated that the applicant wishes to remove the paved area at the access to the site from River Road to Lakeshore Drive. This area is the airplane tie-down area. They will remove the pavement and establish drainage and a habitat area. An earthen berm separates the excavated area from the wooded area surrounding the vernal pool. The pool will be protected from any impacts from the project. Mr. Kane questioned the proposed habitat area for the vernal pool species. Mr. Connors stated that they originally talked about constructing a critter crossing between the vernal pool and the detention basin. The roadway at the culvert crossing will be
at its highest elevation.
Notice of Intent Filings (repair of drainage pipe on Lark Road and detention basin within BLSF)
Mr. Connors stated that the other component to the project is the outfall pipe for the drainage discharge from Lark Road. A 12 inch pipe under Lark Road has collapsed. There are three catch basins that feed the stormwater into the pipe which is then discharges directly into the Charles River. The existing culvert will be replaced with a full headwall and the 12 inch pipe will be replaced with a 24 inch pipe. A stormceptor water quality unit will be installed as well. Mr. Connors noted the 100 foot riparian zone on the plan. Mr. Connors stated that they will be enhancing the drainage characteristics of the existing pipe. Mr. Kane questioned if the applicant will be increasing peak flows. Mr. Connors stated that they will only be increasing the size of the pipe. He stated that the flows
through the pipe to the river would not change.
The final component to the project is the flood storage required for the construction of the detention basin in the BLSF. The detention basin will be located just off of the access road to the project off River Road. The plan shows the fill and elevation area of 137 feet and compensatory flood area. The calculations show that there is more compensatory flood storage by the time the project is finished. The only resource in this area is Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF) to the Charles River.
Mr. Connors noted that the FEMA elevation is set for elevation 138.5 feet in this area. He noted that the Zoning Bylaws require that 100 year flood elevation be set at 140 feet. The study done by NRCS in 1973 calculates the flood zone just under elevation 139 feet. He noted that there was some discussion whether they should be complying with elevation 139 or elevation 140. Mr. Connors depicted a plan that showed the limit of area that would flood at elevation 139 feet. The calculations show that 20,000 cu.ft. of flood storage is required. The storage replaced is 16,000 cu ft. He noted that somewhere at elevation 140 feet there would be an impact to the proposed houses.
Mr. Simpson, the chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals stated that the components that are being presented to the Commission this evening have not been seen by the entire Zoning Board of Appeals. They will be hearing this issue at next Wednesday’s Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Simpson noted that these three issues are being reviewed by the Board’s consultant, Tom Houston. A report will be generated that will be shared with the Conservation Commission. The Administrative Assistant noted that Butch Vito, DPW superintendent will also be submitting a report. Mr. Simpson stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would be supportive of the removal of the asphalt within the 100 foot buffer zone. Mr. Kane stated that he believed that this work would be an exempt activity under the
State Wetland Act. Mr. Simpson stated that the Zoning Board would be concerned with the disposal of the asphalt material.
Mr. Connors stated that the stormwater basin for the entire site would be constructed as a wet basin. Mr. Kane asked if the applicant had sought input from someone knowledgeable with the design of a critter crossing at the roadway culvert. Mr. Connors stated that he has 20 years experience with designing critter crossings for conservation commissions. The actual width of the crossing would be just over two feet. Mr. Connors stated that water would be able to migrate through the critter crossing during a very intensity storm (50 year or higher storm events).
Mr. Kane questioned if the DPW is happy with the location of the stormceptor. Mr. Connors stated that the DPW was consulted for this project.
Mr. Timothy Gay, an abutter at 80 River Road, stated that he is concerned with runoff. He stated that his backyard floods on a regular basis with upwards of one foot of water. He is concerned with the construction of mounded septic systems along River Path and Lark Road. He noted that his rear yard is basically a basin that collects the runoff from other properties and the street. He stated that he was concerned with additional runoff from this project. He stated that he would want catch basins to be constructed to collect all of the water before it impacts his property. Mr. Gay stated that the Assistant foreman from the Highway Department witnessed the flooding on his property. The water infiltrates into the ground after a period of time. Mr. Connors stated that
the project will not exacerbate the flooding problem.
Mr. Connors stated that they are infiltrating a 100 year storm. The site has good drainage. Mr. Gay stated that when he spoke with the DPW Director, Butch Vito, he recommended that more catch basins be installed along River Path. Mr. Connors stated that the entire watershed had been calculated that would be tributary to each catch basin and he feels that the catch basins and the new pipe would be able to accommodate the runoff. Mr. Gay stated that his rear yard is the lowest point in the neighborhood and the grades all slope to this area. Mr. Kane noted that the properties with mounded septic system fields would not necessarily exacerbate any increase of runoff to his property.
Mr. Steven Marzalkowski, the owner of the airport property property, questioned how far back from the airport the septic systems would be located. Mr. Connors stated that the septic systems would be located at the rear for two of the lots and the rest of the septic systems would be located in the front yard. Mr. Marzalkowski stated that runoff drains toward the airport. Mr. Connors stated that the runoff generally flows toward the east but the runoff will be captured and mitigated through the detention area. He stated that there would actually be less runoff going to the airport property than what presently exists. Mr. Connors noted that all of the lots will have their own individual septic systems. Mr. Connors stated that it would not be necessary to obtain a groundwater
discharge permit.
The detention pond would be located in an area of high water table. Mr. Connors stated that during the spring months the basin would remain wet. During the dryer times the water table would still remain high. The soil matrix in the bottom of the basin would be comprised of 80% sand and 20% peat. He stated that capillary action would bring the water to the hyrophidic plants to do the job of cleansing the stormwater. There would be water in the wet basin from late winter through the spring. Afterwards the only water that will be seen is after a rain event. The water will infiltrate in less than 48 hours. The
Mr. Talerman noted that the plan that is presented shows 28 lots. He asked what areas the lots were thinned to bring the number down to 28 from 32. Mr. Connors depicted the locations. Mr. Talerman questioned the rationale for the locations of thinning.
Sarah Delmastro questioned how long Lark Road would be dug up and what would be the impacts to the neighbors. Mr. Connors stated that the work should be very quick. The worst case scenario would be one week. An abutter noted that they have a microFAST septic system and stated her concern with the vibration to her system. Mr. Connors stated that the soils are mostly clay in this area. Mr. Kane stated that there would be vibration. Mr. Connors stated that no borings were conducted along the alignment of the pipe. He noted that the existing pipe would be excavated and just replaced with a larger pipe.
Mr. Simpson noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals is still discussing housing density. The Commission discussed the migratory patterns of the vernal pool species as it related to the removal of the asphalt within the buffer to the vernal pool. Mr. Talerman noted that the migratory paths were multi-directional. Mr. Kane noted that the Commission is looking for an additional habitat area. Mr. Kane stated that if the density is reduced closest to the vernal pool that would make the habitat area that much bigger and would serve the purpose.
Mr. David Meader, an abutter at 54 River Road, noted that the site is a registered archeological dig site. He noted that the applicant was required to hire an archeologist to conduct tests in this area. Mr. Kane stated that this is not a jurisdictional issue with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Talerman stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals will have to deal with the archeological issue.
Mr. Talerman made the motion to continue the public hearing to May 24, 2006 at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The public hearing adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
8:25 p.m. Preserve at Keeney Pond (lots 39, 40, 41, 42, 43)- Present were the applicant, John Weddleton and Karen Beck from Commonwealth Engineers. Also present was Forrest Emery from Phoenix Environmental, the Conservation Commission’s consultant. 8:25 p.m. Mr. Talerman recused himself and left the table.
Ms. Beck stated that the Commission had wanted to see the limits of disturbance staked out on lots 39 through 43 by Saturday, March 25, 2996. The site was staked by that date. The Commission also requested a water budget assessment for the roof - water vs. the irrigation well. This too was submitted and reviewed by Forrest Emery. Mr. Emery stated that the water budget assessment documents that the input of water into the ground greatly exceed the outflow so that the irrigation wells could be allowed within the 50-100 foot buffer zone. Ms. Beck stated that as a result of the water budget assessment they have added irrigation wells to lots 41 and 43. Ms. Beck submitted revised plans and narratives for Lots 41 and 43. Ms. Beck noted that nothing else has changed on any of the
other lots. There will be an additional 382 square feet of disturbance on Lot 41 and an additional 296 square feet of disturbance on Lot 43 due to the installation and excavation of the irrigation wells. The drill cuttings would generally not be removed from the site according to Mr. Weddleton. The wells will be approximately two hundred feet deep. The location of the irrigation wells are in compliance with the offset requirements to septic systems according to the Norfolk Board of Health Rules and Regulation. Lot 39 will be the only lot that will not have an irrigation well because the irrigation well cannot comply with the required offset distances to a septic system. She noted that eventually they will re-address this issue for Lot 39. The state regulations require only a 50 foot setback. She noted that they cannot meet the local regulations of 125 feet setback for the irrigation well to a septic system. All of the plans show
the water budget assessment calculations. This is the only additional new information for the remainder of the lots. Ms. Beck also submitted two copies of the mitigation plan.
Mr. Shaw made the motion to close the public hearings for Lots 39-43 at 8:35 p.m. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Mr. Talerman returned to the table.
8:30 p.m. Discussion on Arthur Frontzcak case – Mr. Talerman questioned if the Commission may see a rush of water cascading down the proposed pathway that ends at the 50 foot no build. They questioned how the stormwater can be contained from the structure. The Commission may want to ask the applicant to bring in information on this matter. Mr. Talerman stated that he is worried about the impacts from a significant storm event. The Commission wants to move this case along. The plans show a deck area over the slope to Highland Lake. The house was rotated into a different angle. The Commission noted that there is a 30 foot difference in grade at the top to the bottom of the slope. The Commission discussed having peer review. It was noted that a new feature is
a staircase on the slope. Mr. Kane stated that he did not feel that this filing would require peer review. Mr. Talerman stated there is not enough time to obtain a peer review. The Commission will schedule the public hearing for April 26, 2006 at 8:30 p.m. The court remand stated that the Commission has a right to obtain peer review.
Mrs. Andrade informed the Commission that she received an email correspondence from Pam Musk, the director of Stony Brook. The Wrentham Open Space Committee will be sponsoring a walk and invited the Commission to participate. The date of the walk will be May 20, 2006, which is on a Saturday. Mrs. Andrade will speak to Ms. Musk first and then contact the Norfolk Boomerrang. She suggested that posters be placed in storefronts around the town. Mrs. Andrade will contact the Commission if she needs assistance.
Mrs. Andrade stated that she has been in contact with Ann Proto, the recreation director about listing all of the open space parcels in the recreation department pamphlet. The Commission would like to see the list before it gets published.
The Commission discussed the fence that had been installed on the Lind Farm. They noted that Ms. Ellie Rose objects to the fence and wants it removed. It was noted that former Commission member and Open Space Project Manager, Maryann Magner, wanted the fence installed as the Cullens’, who live on Marshall Street, continue to ride an ATV on the Lind Farm trails. The Department of Public Works personnel installed the fence. Mrs. Andrade stated that she has not seen any evidence of ATV use from the Cullen property recently. The Commission discussed that a gate could be installed in the fence to allow Ms. Rose to access the Farm with her horse. At present the fence appears to be working as planned.
It was noted that Janet DeLonga, the agent is working on the Bay State Gas matter.
The Commission reviewed the draft denial of an Order of Conditions for 3 Diamond Street. Mr. Talerman stated that he would like Mr. Harrington to add his input to this document. He noted that the Commission needs to cite the history of continuances on this case and why the Commission closed the hearing.
9:05 p.m. David Gage --- Mr. Gage was not present. Mr. Talerman made the motion to re-open the public hearing for David Gage for further consideration. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The public hearing is continued to 10:30 p.m. on April 26, 2006.
Ms. DeLonga stated that she has been out to inspect the Canterbury Estates, phase II site several times. She stated that she noticed that the haybale stakes were not firmly installed into the ground. She also met Mr. Borrelli out there. Ms. DeLonga sent Mr. Borrelli a copy of her field report along with photographs. She will be conducting another site inspection tomorrow. She noted that there was no DEP sign on the site.
The Commission will discuss the matter of the Kunde Trust at another meeting
Ms. DeLonga stated that she contacted MACC to see what other towns have for Wetland Bylaws. She noted that she printed out some of the Bylaws from other towns. This matter will be deferred to the next business meeting.
Ms. DeLonga questioned if the Bay State Gas Enforcement Order had been officially lifted by the Commission. The office staff will check.
Mr. Kane notified the Commission members that he is extremely busy at work and worried that he may not have time to continue to be the Commission’s chairman. He noted that if no one takes the position he will remain as chairman. The Commission will contact Mr. Harrington to ask him if he would be interested in assuming the chairmanship.
Mr. Talerman made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shaw. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
| 
