CONSERVATION COMMISSION
JULY 26, 2006
PRESENT: Jeffrey Kane, Paul Lugten, Laurence Harrington, Allan Shaw, Janet
DeLonga (agent)
ABSENT: Daniel Crafton, Jason Talerman
The duly posted meeting of the Conservation Commission convened at 7:45 p.m. in room 105C at the Norfolk Town Hall. Also present at the meeting was Cheri Lawless, a candidate for the open seat on the Conservation Commission.
The members signed vouchers for postage reimbursement.
The Commission reviewed the minutes of July 12, 2006 and the Executive Session minutes of July 12, 2006. Mr. Harrington made the motion to approve both sets of minutes. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Reorganization - Mr. Shaw stated that he would assume duties of the clerk. Mr. Harrington made the motion to appoint Allan Shaw the clerk. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous
The members reviewed the Lawrence Street water line installation plan submitted by Hoover Realty Trust. The members will review the plan later in the evening.
Highland Lake dam - Mr. Kane stated that the Commission had been asked by the Town Administrator to discuss the dam control matter at Highland Lake. Mr. Kane noted that some property owners have control over flash boards. He noted that the flash boards at Mirror Lake are controlled by the Town of Norfolk but the lake is owned by an association. Butch Vito stated that Highland Lake is in the forefront now. The Town needs to have some control over the flash boards in an emergency situation. The other side of the coin is environmental. The raising and lowering of the lake by manipulating the flash boards cannot be done whenever the owner wants.
Mr. Kane noted that Town Counsel could come up with a contract dealing with the maintenance of the flashboards at Highland Lake once the Town takes control. The Town would also assume liability. It was noted that the raising and lowering of the flashboards affects Land Under Water and therefore comes under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. The Commission can notify the owners of the flashboards of the indiscriminate raising and lowering of the flashboards can result in a monetary fine.
Mr. Vito questioned what would be the control levels at Highland Lake. The Town would have to study the lake’s levels. Mr. Shaw noted that there is money in the Wetland Protection Fund for this study. It was noted that Andy Bakinowski, former member of the Commission and an employee with the Department of Corrections had done some research on the lake levels. The Commission will talk about this matter at their meeting on August 9th. In the meantime the Commission should request that George Hall look over the agreement with the Mirror Lake Association.
8:00 p.m – Marion Tuesley/12 Ridgefield Road - Mr. and Mrs. Tuesley were present. There were no abutters or other parties in interest in the audience. The Commission reviewed the revised plan and the accompanying letter prepared by Stavinski Engineering.
The site consists of lawn area. Mr. Tuesley stated that no trees will have to be removed. The Commission’s agent conducted a site inspection and some additional issues were noted. One issue is that additional wetland area on the westerly side of the lot was observed. Some wetland flags are also missing.
The existing septic system has failed and a new leaching field is proposed to be located within the 50-100 buffer zone. The issue of mitigation was discussed. The lawn area has no habitat value. The commission decided that no mitigation is required for this specific project. Mr. Shaw made the motion to close the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Mr. Harrington made the motion to issue an Order of Conditions for the septic repair at 12 Ridgefield Road. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. A single row of haybales will be required as erosion controls. The contractor will be advised to maintain the slope. If any additional soils or any retaining walls are installed they will have to come back to the Commission for a change in the plans.
8:10 p.m. Department of Public Works/ Pond Street - Butch Vito, the DPW Director, Mr. Jay Hall from Coler & Colantonio and Mr. Robert Stahl, an abutter were present.
Mr. Shaw and Ms. DeLonga had forwarded their concerns to the Commission members. The members wanted to see a more detailed view of the wetland crossing. Mr. Hall stated that there is not a lot to see out in the field. He brought 5 copies of what the actual bridge crossing would look like. The bank is stone lined vertical walls. There is a bridge span criteria stating that bridges must be 20% larger than the crossing. This bridge would be 40% larger than the stream. The plans depict the 100 foot flood elevation. They would not be restricting or affecting the stream channel. The stream channel will remain intact.
Ms. DeLonga stated her concern regarding the location of the haybales. She noted that the haybales should be staggered to permit wildlife crossings. She has seen turtle kill in this area. The project may last over a two year period. The haybales will need to have openings to allow wildlife passage. They will be required to provide openings in the haybale line near the stream channels.
Mr. Hall noted that if the haybales have openings the runoff will flow into the wetlands. It was noted that turtles will walk along the haybale line until they find a gap. Mr. kane recommended that a notation be put on the plans to instruct the contractor on the haybale requirements.
During the site walk conducted by Mr. Shaw and Ms. DeLonga and representatives from Coler & Colantonio there was a discussion about the sidewalk going off of the roadway alignment. This is an area that they could provide mitigation. The Recreation Field entrance will have a new driveway opening. This will give the applicant a chance to add mitigation trees and shrubs. Mr. Hall stated that this is a limited project for the reconstruction of an existing roadway. There are different standards for limited projects. They done have much room to mitigate. Mr. Harrington noted that the sidewalks could be eliminated. Mr. Vito stated that the Town has been pursuing sidewalks to access the Recreation Area.
This filing is under the local Wetlands Bylaw and the State Act. They are asking for waiver to conduct work within the buffer zone. .
Mr. Shaw stated that he wanted to see a final set of drawings. Mr. Vito noted that this is a MA Highway project and they have the final write off on the plans. Before they sign off on the plan they need all permits in place. Mr. Kane stated that the Commission wants a final plan that will be presented to MA Highway by the Town. If specifics change they will have to bring back the changes to the Commission. Mr. Vito stated that they will keep an open dialogue with the Commission on this project. Mr. Harrington noted that if there are any material changes to the plan, the permit will be voided. Any changes, such as increasing the width of the sidewalks, constitute material changes.
Allan Shaw mentioned that he did not see any cross-section details for the culvert crossings on the plan.
It was noted that the project would have the Pond Street and Marshall Street areas to install mitigation. They will do whatever they can to provide for mitigation. Any mitigation that they propose for off-site has to be approved by the State. The State does not entertain any offsite mitigation. Mr. Kane noted that they area proposing a great amount of lost buffer. A planting plan will be shown on the plan. The contractor will guarantee the plants.
The Town will oversee the wetland replication. Coler & Colantonio has a landscape architect on their staff. It was noted that the buffer zone is a transitional area to the wetland. The Commission would want the landscaper to coordinate with the wetland coordinater. Mr. Harrington stated that he wants to see a high quality and high density planting plan. There is no place along the roadway corridor for the plantings however. Mr. Vito stated that they do not know if they have to file with the Zoning Board of Appeals under the Watershed Protection Bylaw.
Mr. Vito stated that the final design for the re-alignment of Pond Street will be submitted to MA Highway later this year. Mr. Kane stated that the Commission would want to wait and see the final landscaping plan before issuing an Order of Conditions. Mr. Harrington noted that the Order of Conditions would be non-effective based upon a 25% plan of work. Mr. Vito stated that the hearing has to be closed and an Order of Conditions be issued nonetheless.
Mr. Mark Slusarz, P.E. from Coler & Colantonio will provide extra full sized plans for the Commission. He will drop off 14 sets tomorrow.
The Commission will close this public hearing in two weeks at their business meeting. They will issue a partial Order of Conditions for the water line installation project. The plans that the Commission receives on August 9th will be the plans on which the Order of Conditions is issued.
Mr. Robert Stahl, an abutter to the project, stated that he owns property on the west side of Route 115 across from Old Coach Road. There is a water way located within ten feet of the roadway and runs parallels with the road. He noted that Coler & Colantonio identified this waterway as a “ditch”. He questioned why the stream would be called a ditch. He asked if the environmental impact be more severe if the ditch was defined as a stream. Mr. Kane noted that the “ditch” means an intermittent stream.
Mr. Stahl noted that a good percentage of the drainage from Lafayette Lane is directed into a 24 inch culvert that goes beneath Route 115. He noted that basically all of the contaminated street water is directed into the stream, which is on his property. He stated that he believes that this is illegal. He noted that there is an eighteen inch pipe that comes down Old Coach Road that collects water from many of the storm drains. All of this water flows into an eighteen inch culvert and then terminates at the 24 inch culvert. This culvert needs to be upgraded. The culvert cannot be widened on the stream side an that means that they will have to rework the piping to gain access. He noted that this is a very sensitive area.
Mr. Stahl noted that when the original work was done on the culverts, it was probably not illegal but since then this system would not be allowed. The applicant is not proposing to install a vortechnics unit to handle TSS removal. It was noted by the applicants that the drainage patterns are not changing in the area. Mr. Vito stated that there will be an improvement to the water quality due to the installation of curbings. Mr. Kane stated that once the catch basins and curbings are installed there would be some improvement in water quality.
Mr. Stahl noted that during periods of rainfall and melt he has seen the eighteen inch pipe approximately ½ full and discharging at a significant rate. Mr. Stahl stated that the stream is contaminated with salt and oils from the street. He noted that there may be nothing that the Commission can do about this situation.
Mr. Lugten made the motion to continue the public hearing to 7:45 p.m. on August 9, 2006. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
9:10 p.m. Beaverbrook Road public hearing – Mr. Joseph Simmons, an abutter to the project, was present. The Commission noted that the applicants, Mr. Bailey and Mr. McTernan sent a letter to Commission requesting a continuation to August 23rd. Mr. Lugten made the motion to continue the public hearing to August 23, 2006 at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
9:15 p.m. Tec Associates/Herbicide Spraying/Amtrak Right of Way – Mr. Wayen Duffet, a representative from Tec Associates was not present. The Determination of Applicability filing is for the vegetation management along the Amtrak right of way from the Walpole line to the Franklin town line. It was noted that the spray plan was updated. Mr. Kane noted that he was concerned that there is only a diagram of the mile and one half track. He stated that he does not feel that this is a realistic plan. He noted that the vegetation management is an exempt activity under the state law. Amtrak will be able to conduct herbicide spraying whether or not the Commission approves or disapproves the project. Mr. Shaw made the motion to close the public hearing at 9:20 p.m.
Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. A cover letter will be sent with the Determination of Applicability stating that the information provided was basically useless. Mr. Harrington made the motion to issue a positive Determination of Applicability. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
9:20 p.m. Anthony and Nancy Lancellotti public hearing/23 Lake Street. – Mr. and Mrs. Lancellotti were present. Also present was Mrs. Tara Werlick, a direct abutter, and Chris Mason from Mason Associates and Paul Cutler from Landmark Engineering. Mr. Lancellotti stated that they have received comments from the Commission’s consultant and the comments seemed reasonable. They have not submitted a revised plan addressing the comments but they did provide a response narrative. They are waiting to hear from the Commission’s consultant, Graves Engineering, to see if the responses are accepted before they request that the hearing be closed. Mr. Lancellotti noted that comments from EcoTec were also received. Mr. Lancellotti stated that he agrees with all of
the comments from Graves Engineering. He will revise the plans to reflect what Graves Engineering wants to see.
Mr. Mason of Mason Associates stated that there is a minor issue with the proposed replication plan. He noted that the replication plan specified that the excavation should be one foot below the final grade and then 18 inches of organic topsoil be added. They assume that the intent of the Bylaw is pre-compaction, which is appropriate. He will suggest that a note be added to the plan that the final grade would be “post compaction”.
They are also proposing that soil testing be done to ensure the proper mixture of organics. They are proposing to meet the water table for their replication plan. They will strip off the first 12 inches of soils and set it aside in a stockpile and take soils out of the replication area and mix it with minerals, topsoil and organic matter to achieve the 10% mixture. They want to move very quickly on this project.
It was noted that the monitoring plan seemed to be appropriate. The Commission will hire a monitor for the project at the applicant’s expense.
The applicants stated that they do not feel that de-watering would be necessary, but if it is required they have come up with a plan. Mr. Kane requested that they add a note on the plan that the Commission is to be notified at least 48 hours before the de-watering process. Mr. Mason suggested some locations for the de-watering activity.
The Commission also noted that they think that it would be best to be specific on the type of equipment to be used. The applicant could propose the equipment however. The last set of plans will be updated. Mr. Cutler stated that he could update the plans in a couple of weeks.
Mr. Lancellotti stated that the August 23rd meeting date may be a little tight but they would like to continue the hearing to that date and continue the hearing if the consultant has not had the time to review the revisions. Mr. Shaw made the motion to continue the public hearing to August 23, 2006 at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The hearing adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
9:40 p.m. Hoover Realty Trust/water line/Lawrence Street – Butch Vito, the DPW Director was present as was Scott Colwell, the applicant.
Mr. Harrington reminded the applicant that the barrels and transformers are still located within the buildings on the Buckley-Mann site. He noted that the transformers are still mounted on the poles.
Revised plan had already been passed out to the members regarding the water line. They added items to the plan as recommended by the Commission. Mr. Kane questioned if the designated fueling area was appropriate. They agreed that it was and the applicant will install silt sacks in the catch basins. Mr. Kane noted that the plan need a notation on the type of fabric to be used. The roadway would not be closed down when the project is underway. The excavation will be just off-center of the road.
Mr. Colwell stated that he is still working with Mr. Vito on the pipe specifications. The project could be finished with one week. The roadway will be patched after the water main installation. Mr. Vito stated that they are talking about different methods of installation. An inspection engineer will be present at the site everyday while the project is ongoing.
Mr. Harrington noted that there seems to be adequate protections against erosion. Ms. DeLonga requested recording information that can be included in the Order of Conditions. A bridge plan was also submitted to the Commission.
Mr. Kane recommended that only washed stone be used at the entrance to the work and staging sites. This will also be included on the plan and mentioned in the Order of Conditions.
Mr. Harrington noted that he observed clouds of dust from the work activities at the Village at River’s Edge on Rockwood Road. He stated that he was concerned with particulates floating into the pond from work activities at this locus. A condition will be included in the Order of Conditions to cover the stockpile or keep it damp with water. Mr. Kane noted that any time period longer than two weeks may require more protection. The Order of Conditions may include that a street sweeper be used at the end of each day.
Mr. Shaw made the motion to close the hearing for the Lawrence Street water main installation. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Mr. Harrington made the motion to approve the water line installation project as set forth in the plan provided and with conditions. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The public hearing closed at 9:55 p.m.
10:00 p.m. Pine Creek Development – Mr. Harrington recused himself and left the table. Present were Robert Brown, Michael Connolly and Jack Scott of Pine Creek Development. Mr. Kane noted that there is no quorum of members to have the public hearing at this time. Only Mr. Kane, Mr. Lugten and Mr. Shaw are present. Mssrs. Talerman and Crafton are absent and Mr. Harrington recused himself. Mr. Kane noted that they would have to continue the hearing. Mr. Scott stated that under the Mullin Rule they can give the information to the missing members. They are still waiting for their attorney however.
Jack Scott asked if the chairman had any knowledge that the missing members would not be present. Mr. Kane stated that if he had known that the members were going to be absent he would have informed the applicant. Attorney Nylen and Rick Goodreau entered the room. Mr. Nylen requested that the Commission place Pine Creek Development on the August and September agendas.
Mr. Nylen asked if the consultants representing the Commission and Pine Creek could get together and talk about the project. Mr. Kane stated that when they get to a point in the proceedings the Commission will make a determination as to whether the consultants should get together.
Mr. Nylen requested a continuance. Mr. Shaw made the motion to continue the public hearing to August 9th. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote to continue was unanimous. No information was taken in. The hearing adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Mr. Harrington returned to the table.
The Commission members interviewed Ms. Cheri Lawless, who was interested in being a member of the Commission. Ms. Lawless has a Master’s degree in environmental engineering. She is familiar with the Wetlands Act. After the discussion with Ms. Lawless, Mr. Shaw recommended that the Commission send a memo to the Board of Selectmen recommending appointment. Mr. Kane will draft the memo.
Mr. Shaw reminded all of the members of the August 8th Call & Wait hearing to be conducted by the Board of Selectmen.
The members discussed a draft letter that will be sent to Call & Wait.
Mr. Lugten made the motion to close the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
_____________________________________,
Allan M. Shaw, Clerk & Vice-chairman
| 
