CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2006
PRESENT: Jeffrey Kane, Allan Shaw, Laurence Harrington, Jason Talerman, Paul
Lugten, Daniel Crafton, Janet DeLonga (agent)
ABSENT: No one
The duly posted meeting of the Norfolk Conservation Commission convened at 7:35 p.m. in room 105C at the Norfolk Town Hall.
The Commission’s agent, Janet DeLonga, signed a contract for the position of Conservation Agent. The members signed vouchers for office expenses.
The members had received copies of the January and February minutes to review in their packets. Mr. Shaw made the motion to accept the January, 2006 and February 2006 minutes. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
The members discussed the Bay State Gas Order of Conditions. The discussion will be deferred to later in the evening.
David Gage Order of Conditions – The members briefly discussed the evidence presented in the new filing. Mr. Talerman made the motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Mr. Talerman made the motion to deny the Order of Conditions for reasons to be outlined in the draft document prepared for this evening by members. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The members signed the denial of the Order of Conditions.
7:45 p.m. Call & Wait Public Hearing - No one was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Harrington made the motion to continue the triage hearing to May 24, 2006 at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was 4-1 to continue. Mssrs. Talerman, Harrington, Crafton, and Lugten voted in the affirmative. Mr. Shaw voted in the negative. Board of Selectmen member, James Lehan, who was present in the audience, stated that, as a point of information, he had heard that Call & Wait would be withdrawing their application from the Conservation Commission. The Commission noted that they did not hear of this. Mr. Lehan stated that the Board of Selectmen had sent a letter to Call &Wait acknowledging their withdrawal of the Class III
license. The letter indicated that the town would continue conducting on-site inspection and the triage work would continue as a condition of the Class II license. Mr. Lehan stated that the Board of Selectmen wants to meet with the Conservation Commission on this subject after the May Town Meeting.
The Commission discussed the groundwater and soil sampling results that were conducted at the Call & Wait site by Groundwater Analytical, Inc. The report was received by the Commission on April 24, 2006. The samples were taken on March 24, 2006. The Commission hired Woodard and Curran to monitor the sampling process. Mr. Crafton stated that 3 groundwater samples were taken. Monitoring well #2 had indicated reportable concentrations of a gasoline additive, MTBE in the groundwater. There were no volatile organic compounds found in the groundwater tests. There were no heavy oils found in the groundwater or surface water in any of the monitoring wells.
Mr. Crafton noted that E.P.A. ranges show reportable concentrations in all soils samples taken from the site. Notification is required to DEP. Several chemicals were found in concentrated levels high enough to be reportable to DEP. Well #2 shows contamination from lead. There is also contamination from chromium and PCB’s. The PCB levels were low but still at reportable concentrations. The PCB’s were detected at the outfall of the stormwater swale. Most of the soils samples were taken adjacent to the crusher. Mr. Crafton stated that at a minimum Call & Wait has a 120 day reporting condition. In some cases there may be a 72 hour reportable condition (to DEP). The Department of Environmental Protection will then issue a Notice of Responsibility and will
lock Call & Wait into cleaning timelines. Call & Wait will have to report directly to DEP and also prepare a RAM plan.
At a minimum Call & Wait has a 120 day reporting condition and some area a 72 hour reportable condition to DEP. Call & Wait now has timelines with DEP to clean up the site. Call & Wait will have to report directly to DEP for the clean up. Mr. Crafton stated that the PCB levels are lot but reportable nonetheless. There are some low levels of PCB’s at the outfall of the existing stormwater swale. Mr. Crafton will check with the Northeast and Central regional offices of DEP on this matter.
Mr. Butch Vito, the DPW Director, was present to discuss Town Pond. Mr. Vito showed the Commission a plan of the town pond area. He noted that in 1995 he clear cut and cleaned the town pond area. The project had received an Order of Conditions for the work. He noted that as a part of the Town Pond restoration project he will clear the woods in the existing parking lot and re-install a beach and other green space. He noted that Fish and Game will put in a handicapped access. The original project came out of the town center drainage project. He noted that all drainage on the north side of the town center now discharges into this area. The area has been retrofitted with upgraded drainage basins and water quality treatment units. Mr. Kenneth Caputo, an engineer from
Coler & Colantonio, stated that all of the northside drainage eventually runs into the brook that runs alongside of the town pond. All water has been treated before discharge. The town pond is now a detention basin. During a 100 year flood, the pond and the brook will “marry”. The town pond is now designed to accommodate drainage storage.
Mr. Vito stated that there is also the capability to accommodate drainage from the school.
He noted that a lot of the areas that were calculated for the drainage were not used. He noted that at this time the pond and the brook may never co-mingle as a result. Mr. Caput stated that the Division of Fish and Wildlife will create a boardwalk crossing of the brook in an area that would call for the least amount of clearing. The access driveway would be no more than 20 feet wide.
DPW- Water Line improvements – 8:05 p.m. Present were Kenneth Caputo and Jay Hall from Coler & Colantonio. Mr. Caputo stated that the funding for this project would come from the state and federal government. The proposal is to rebuild route 115 for a total of just under 3 miles of improvements. A new sidewalk is proposed to be constructed along the Pond Street Recreation side of the street. The roadway width varies between 24 and 26 feet. The road will be widened slightly to accommodate bicycles. The roadway will be resurfaced.
The project passes a number of wetland resources. As a whole the design has been to avoid and minimize impacts as much as possible. Mr. Caputo noted that some retaining wall would be constructed to minimize grades changes. This activity meets the threshold for the filing of an Environmental Notification Form. The MEPA unite will be conducting site inspections.
Mr. Hall, a wetland ecologist from Coler & Colantonio, stated that MEPA is trying to arrange a meeting on May 11, 2006. He noted that both travel lanes would be expanded by four feet and a sidewalk added. There would be 3,200 square feet of alteration within 2.8 miles of the roadway. He noted that headwalls would have to be constructed to minimize impacts.
Mr. Hall stated that there are no areas of critical concern within the project. There is an area of habitat but there will be very little impact. He stated that Natural Heritage reported that there would be no impacts. There are four perennial streams within the project. There will be no work done to the existing culverts. They contacted DEP concerning wellhead protection. No new wetland crossings are proposed but there will be some roadway realignment. There is approximately 130,000 square feet of 0-50 foot buffer. They will be impacting approximately 60,000 square feet of 0-50 foot buffer. There is no other choice but to work in the 50 foot buffer. There is approximately 200,000 square feet of 50-100 foot buffer. They will be impacting 60,000 square feet
of the 50-100 foot buffer. Most of the work will be in the existing roadway shoulders. Some of the wetlands are directly against the roadway. They will also be working within the riverfront area. Actual wetland impacts total 3,000 square feet. Most of the replication will be located right along the roadway. There is 6,000 square feet of replication proposed.
Mr. Hall discussed the areas to be impacted. He noted that there will be no impacts to Stony Brook on North Street. Haybales and silt fencing will be installed to protect against sedimentation.
There are three wetland areas along Pond Street. Approximately 98 shade trees will have to be cleared. The trees are identified on the site plan. It will be difficult to replace the lost trees along the street. They cannot be put back in the same location. They were not planning on planting any trees.
Sheet #8 shows an isolated wetland. They will completely avoid the isolated wetland. The isolated wetland is located just west of the playing fields. Wetland “H” is a tributary associated with Bristol Pond. There is riverfront along this area. Wetland replication is proposed in these areas. Sheet #9 depicts the playing fields. Sheet #12 shows another isolated wetland. This area will be avoided. The work will be within the edge of the 0-50 foot buffer.
Sheet #13 shows another perennial tributary to the Stop River east of the playing fields. A retaining wall will be constructed to reduce the amount of fill. There is replication proposed on both sides of the street.
Sheet #14 depicts a large wetland system.
Sheet #20 depicts another named perennial stream. The road shifts to the west. They are not disturbing the floodplain. This area is located adjacent to ForeKicks. The project will pass the railroad. There are fairly small wetland areas here.
This will be a two prong project. A road widening and the installation of a water main. The water main project will be from Valley Street to Route 1.
Mr. Talerman stated that the Commission would want the replication to be done at the same time as the roadway work. MA Highway will be doing this project with monitoring by the Town DPW. The town will have to provide an environmental monitor to achieve the best results.
Mr. Talerman questioned the work sequence that we can hold MA Highway. Mr. Caputo stated that between the Order of Conditions and the DPW’s oversight they will make sure that the soils that are disturbed in the wetland will be reused. An area for stockpiling will have to be used however. The time of year that the work occurs is an important factor to a successful replication. This is going to be a year long project. The replication should be specked out once the grading limits are met. They will not leave this matter to MA Highway. Coler & Colantonio will prepare the specs. The more detailed the better. Mr. Caputo stated that monitoring is a good idea as well. Don’t leave anything to chance. Mr. Caputo will provide some specs and give it to the
Commission to review. Mr. Vito stated that any environmental monitoring will come from the town at a cost to the town. This will be put in the Order of Conditions. He noted that the State will not pay for an environmental monitor.
Mr. Harrington stated that there is 3,200 square feet of wetland disturbance and over four acres of lost buffer zone. He asked how they will make up the permanent loss of buffer. He noted that the Bylaw requires mitigation and replacement. Mr. Talerman noted that in order to create additional buffer they would have to go off road and create new areas. Mr. Harrington noted that they have not proposed to mitigate for the lost buffer. Mr. Caputo stated that the Commission has to look at this project from a public safety issue. Mr. Kane suggested that Coler & Colantonio look at the work corridor and identify some areas that could be improved. Mr. Talerman noted that this is a linear and a limited project. If they create more buffer zone they will have to disturb even more areas. Mr. Kane stated that
the areas to identify should be existing blighted areas.
The roadway is a 60 foot wide layout. Mr. Kane stated that it may be impossible to achieve a 1:1 mitigation ratio. He asked Coler & Colantonio to give the Commission some options. Mr. Caputo will come back to the Commission with some proposed areas that could be used for mitigation.
Mr. Shaw questioned why the project requires sidewalks. Mr. Caputo stated that the town decided to go forward and have the sidewalks. Mr. Vito stated that around ten years ago the Board of Selectmen selected two projects for a TIP grant. The sidewalks and the widening of the road were chosen. If the sidewalks were taken out of the project they would lose this project. The state is looking at transportation and sidewalks are included in the equation. He noted that when the Recreation Center was obtained they were looking at constructing sidewalks from both sides of the town. The commission asked Mr. Caputo to put this information in a written narrative. Mr. Shaw asked for a Riverfront analysis.
Mr. Harrington stated that they should think out of the box. He suggested taking some buffer areas and making it larger. He noted that the Commission cannot ignore the regulations and Bylaw. Mr. Caputo stated that he will return with some proposals without going beyond what the state will fund. He felt that the project would be exempt from the local wetland bylaw. They will however, respect the Towns’ wetland protection bylaw.
Curbings and stormdrains will also be created with this project. Mr. Caputo stated that there are three or four intermittent streams along the route. The Commission questioned how they will address the 80% TSS removal.
Mr. Shaw asked what methodology they used to delineate the wetlands. Coler & Colantonio used hydric soils and vegetation. They have prepared DEP Field Data Reports.
Mr. John Cairns of 69 Pond Street questioned how long this project will take. It was noted that there will be major disruption for approximately 18 months at the most. The water installation project will occur this summer.
Pam Musk, the Director of Stony Brook asked that they contact Stony Brook when they start their project and start to close streets. Mr. Caputo stated that they are not contemplating closing any streets or detours. Ms. DeLonga stated that she wants contact information for this project.
Mr. Harrington made the motion to continue the public hearing to May 24, 2006 at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The public hearing adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
9:10 p.m. Mr. John McTernan/Mr. Howard Bailey (lots 1 and 10 Beaverbrook Road) The applicants John McTernan and Mr. Howard Bailey were present. It was noted that the Commission had reviewed the terms of the Woodard and Curran cost and proposal. They also received and reviewed Lenore White’s proposal. Mr. Talerman stated that he will speak to Dan Garson from Woodard and Curran. He noted that there is a four thousand dollar price difference with Woodard and Curran being the larger amount. Mr. Talerman noted that it is illegal to sign a contract without the funding in place. The Commission will get back to Mr. McTernan after speaking with Woodard and Curran.
Mr. Harrington made the motion to continue the public hearing to May 24, 2006 at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Cingular Wireless Communication – Attorney Adam Braillard was present to represent the applicant. Cingular has an Order of Conditions for the Dean Street site. He explained the proposed revision to the Commission. There would be a 10 foot by 15 foot steel grated platform that would be pervious. The equipment will be installed on this surface. The footprint has been reduced in size resulting in a reduced impervious area. The Commission determined that there were no new issues. Mr. Braillard stated that he would submit a new plan to be approved. Mr. Talerman stated that the Commission can draft a letter of approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Talerman made the motion to approve the amended project subject to the receipt of a new plan. Mr. Harrington
seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
9:25 p.m./ Sawtelles… -Mr. and Mrs. Sawtelle were present as was Adam Holmes and Bruce Wilson from Wilson Associates. Mr. Holmes stated that there is a revised plan showing a double staked line of haybales (page 4 of the plan). The total amount of disturbance would be 2000 square feet. Of that number 1200 square feet was previously disturbed. One hundred seventy square feet of asphalt will be removed. There will be 180 to 200 cubic yards of fill required. As mitigation they propose to plant five blueberry bushes, maple trees and holl6y bushes. The blueberry bushes will be planted near the wetland areas. Other vegetation can supplement this plan as well. Mr. Talerman made the motion to close the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Mr. Harrington seconded the
motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Arthur Frontzcak 9:35 p.m. (14 Main Street) Mr. and Mrs. Frontczak were present as was their attorney Elisabeth Maitland. Mr. David Beraducci, their landscaper was also present.
It was noted that the Frontczaks had appealed the issuance of the previous Order of Conditions. They also appealed to Superior Court. In August of 2005, the DEP issued a superseding Order of Conditions. The riverfront area was the biggest objection. This issue was resolved. The plan is now slightly modified. They reconfigured the retaining walls and driveway. There would be no work in the bordering vegetated buffer zone. Mr. Harrington stated that the proposed garage is located within the buffer zone. The plan is not correct. There are several errors on the plan. It was noted that a walkway is proposed within the 100 year flood zone. The stormwater runoff rate would be increased due to the staircase to Highland Lake.
Ms. Maitland presented a copy of a letter from Paul Cutler from Landmark Engineers, dated April 25, 2006.
Mr. Beraducci stated that he is looking at the least amount of disruption to the site. The proposed house has been pulled back higher on the ridge line. The driveway was relocated. The house would be slightly angled. Not as much filling is required as presented in the first proposal. To preserve the trees along the garage, they propose to construct a retaining wall. They can now bring the amount of disturbance right to the edge of the driveway. They will be removing a total of 17 trees.
A detail of the pathway to the slope was depicted on detail sheet #1. The pathway would be crushed stone and landscape timbers. This would slow the runoff. Mr. Kane noted that this would happen except when the ground was frozen. They will try to bring the grades back to normal as quickly as possible.
They are planting in the upper portion of the front and side of the driveway. A plant list was submitted. The plants would provide cover and food for wildlife. The plant list is depicted on page 4 of the plan.
Mr. Harrington noted that most of the collection of water would come from the proposed patio. He suggested that a couple of drains be installed in this area to intercept the water. The proposed deck would be covered. There are no downspouts or gutters on the house. Mr. Kane suggested that a strip drain on the front wall in front of the stairs be provided. He noted that the biggest concern was the proposed stairway to the pond and the number of plantings. Mr. Beraducci stated that the staircase will be surrounded with haybales. Mr. Kane requested that they double up on the haybales at the bottom of the slope. It appears that the impacts have been reduced from the original filing.
Mr. Kane stated that his biggest concern was the runoff down the hill. He requested that the runoff be slowed at the patio. He was concerned that if there was enough velocity the plantings would not slow the flows.
Mr. Harrington stated that his concern was the mitigation and how it was going to function. The total replication area is 3,276 square feet. They are proposing 74 plants for 6, 400 square feet of disturbance. Ms. DeLonga requested a clarification of the symbols on the plan. The shrubs that will be planted will bear fruit (berries). The plants were recommended by Weston Nurseries. There will be more plantings on the site as suggested by Weston Nurseries. There will be another 1500 square feet of plantings proposed around the house.
.
Mr. Frontczak stated that they will do what is required on the plan within the first two years. Mr. Harrington wanted to make sure that the right documents are referenced in the Order of Conditions.
Mr. Talerman noted that the Commission received a letter regarding a 40 acre site adjacent to this lot that is being researched for development.
Mr. Talerman made the motion to close the public hearing at 10:05 p.m. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Beverly Smith - Harlow Avenue 10:05 p.m. Shea Engineers revised the septic plan and provided a narrative. Ms. DeLonga had requested a clarification of the flood elevations. This information was now shown on the plan. The DEP number is 240-459. Mr. Harrington made the motion to close the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
10:15 p.m. Town Pond Discussion – Present were Butch Vito, the DPW Director, Ann Proto, the Recreation Department Director, Jack Hathaway, the Town Administrator, Board of Selectmen member Ramesh Advani, and members of the Community Preservation Commission, Recreation Commission and Advisory Board.
Ms. Proto stated that the Recreation Department wants to re-establish town pond as a swimming facility.
Mr. Talerman stated that he supports the idea of the cleanup of the town pond area but questioned the use of swimming at this site. He noted that he was not sure if this was the ideal location for swimming. He stated that he was also concerned with access for emergency vehicles. He noted that he would support the facility for fishing and passive recreation. Mr. Crafton stated that the Recreation Department would have to find a way to keep fishermen out of the swimming area. He noted that he would be concerned with injuries.
Mr. Shaw questioned how much the town pond would be used. Ms. Proto stated that this project was resurrected because of a survey. She noted that over ½ of the 400 responses to the survey mentioned swimming facilities. Mr. Kane noted that the Commission would positively support passive recreation at the town pond but would not support swimming as a use. He noted that at a future date the Recreation Commission could come back to the Conservation Commission to take another look at the swimming potential. Ms. Proto stated that this project was presented to the Community Preservation Committee as a fishing and swimming project.
Mr. Chisholm, a member of the Recreation Commission, stated that he would not be in support of the project if there were no swimming component. Mr. Kane stated that he would want public input to the swimming proposal. He stated that the parking area could accommodate 60 vehicles. He noted that this is an excessive amount of space.
Mr. Talerman stated that he is concerned with the potential overuse of the town pond. He noted that the eutrophication issues would not improve with overuse. He noted that much of the town has private swimming pools. Ms. Proto stated that a swimming pool was voted down by town meeting approximately seven years ago. Mr. Chisholm noted that the Community Preservation funds could not be used toward a swimming facility at the Pond Street Recreation area. Mr. Harrington questioned if the issue using CPC funds for a swimming facility at the town pond was ever decided. Mr. Advani stated that the issue has been resolved. Mr. Advani stated that they asked George Hall for an opinion.
Mr. Paul Terrio, the chairman of the Community Preservation Committee, stated that Town Counsel feels that the swimming project at town pond can use CPC funds. He noted that Town Counsel will assist the CPC in the amended motion on town meeting floor. Mr. Harrington stated that he felt that this was premature.
Ms. Proto stated that they have done some initial testing of the pond water this summer. The pond water has to be tested once per week.
Ms. DeLonga stated that she would be concerned with people degrading the water, which will impact the trout. She noted that the turbidity will warm up the water, which will be detrimental to the trout. Ms. Proto stated that they have deferred this issue to the Fish and Game. She noted that last August the surface water tested at 70 degrees.
Mr. Terrio stated that they conducted a site inspection of the town pond area and Mr. Vito put together a budgetary picture.
Mr. Talerman stated that Mirror Lake is a great swimming resource. Ms. Proto stated that there is no public access to Mirror Lake.
Mr. Advani stated that the Town Meeting should be asked for the funds to do the restoration and then get a sense of how much of the project would be used for fishing only. Mr. Talerman stated that we don’t want to create an expectation that we are creating a swimming facility on town meeting floor.
It was noted that the Recreation Commission will say that they want money to study the feasibility of using Town Pond for recreational use. The bottom line is that the Commission will support the project if the town meeting presentation says that there is a potential towards swimming.
Mrs. Terrio, a member of the Advisory Board, stated that the Advisory Board was looking for a consensus on this matter. Mr. Talerman stated that the Commission would be supportive of uses at the Town Pond. The discussion closed at 11:00 p.m.
11:00 p.m. Dale Wigmore – 24 Mirror Lake Ave. Revised plans were submitted by Brian Grady from GAF Engineering. They were originally going to raze the structure and install an upgraded title 5 septic system. The proposed plan now calls for the reconstructing of the existing dwelling and the installing of a microFAST system. They had requested several variances from the Board of Health. All of the variances were approved. They will use a block retaining wall for the septic system.
The wetland line is adjacent to the house at the side and rear. The house footprint would not be enlarged. No mitigation is proposed with the exception of the removal of the old septic system and the installation of the FAST system.
Mr. Talerman stated that the Commission can impose a condition on the mow line. A post and rail fence will be installed along the limit of work. Mr. Talerman noted that the Commission would not want to see the rear yard encroach further into the wetlands.
Mr. Harrington made the motion to close the public hearing at 11:10 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
11:10 p.m. Anthony Lancellotti (23 Lake Street). Mr. Lancellotti was present. The members discussed the consultant fees submitted by Graves Engineering. Mr. Talerman made the motion to hire Graves Engineering for the peer review of the Lancellotti project. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Mr. Lancellotti filled out a W-9 form and wrote a check for the amount required in the scope of service contract.
Mr. Harrington made the motion to continue the public hearing for Anthony Lancellotti to May 24th at 9:20 p.m. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
The members reviewed the draft Order of Conditions for Bay State Gas. Mr. Harrington made the motion to approve the Order of Conditions as drafted. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
The members reviewed the draft Order of Conditions for Langley (off Applewood Road).
A letter to Jack Scott was signed by the chairman.
Mr. Talerman made the motion to close the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
______________________________,
Allen M. Shaw, Vice-chairman and Clerk
| 
