Conservation Commission
November 8, 2006
Present: Jeffrey Kane, Allan Shaw, Paul Lugten, Cheri Lawless, Jason Talerman,
Laurence Harrington, 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 first order of business was an appointment with the Master Plan Committee. The Master Plan Committee is updating the Town’s Master Plan, which was last updated in 1992. The goal of the committee is to present the Plan to the Spring Town Meeting for adoption. The Committee was represented by Robert Nicodemus, Coleman Bushnell, and Lori Scholl. Mr. Talerman is the Commission’s representative on the Master Plan Committee. Mr. Nicodemus passed out an Open Space agenda to the members.
There are two components to the revised Plan. One is goals and objectives and the second is implementation. One role that the Commission should have a major role is the Open Space Plan. The Master Plan Committee is seeking input goals and objectives and implementation of the Open Space Plan from the Commission. Since 1992 the largest single change within the Town was the adoption of the Community Preservation Act, which provided for a funding mechanism for open space acquisition.
The Commission had given Gino Carlucci, the Planning Board’s Planner, input for the Community Development Plan (CDP). Mr. Harrington noted that a Green Belt concept was presented in the CDP. The Planning Board will be the implementation resource to all of the boards/committees/commissions presented by the Master Plan Committee.
The Commission will obtain a copy of the draft CDP report and review the contents and again address the matter as a group at the January meeting. The Commission will meet with the Master Plan Committee again on February 14, 2007. The 2004 CDP report is located electronically on the Town’s web site. One of the more challenging issues is how to achieve the goals and objectives. Mr. Nicodemus noted that there should be some interconnection between the Conservation Commission and the Community Preservation Commission due to their funding capabilities.
It was noted there are different types of open spaces that would have to be considered. There may also be some small isolated areas of wildlife habitat that would need to be identified. Mr. Nicodemus has some maps with open space areas depicted. The issue of access to the open space area will also be an issue. Some open space areas are not accessible to the public or should be available to the public due to the sensitivity of the habitat to wildlife. Mr. Nicodemus will provide any further information through the Commission’s office rather than through the Planning Board’s office. Mr. Nicodemus has a lot of maps as part of the CDC report and will disseminate them to the Commission in a large format and also electronically.
Appointment with Sarah DelMastro (chairman of Affordable Housing Committee) Mrs. DelMastro informed the Commission that the Board of Selectmen formed the Affordable Housing Committee on Monday of this past week. Mrs. DelMasto is the chairman of the Committee. Mrs. DelMastro stressed that it is important to establish communication with all of the boards and commission in the town. She requested input on how to best interact with the Commission and if the Commission had any particular concerns.
An Affordabe Housing Plan has already been prepared and submitted to the State. It was noted that the Affordable Housing Plan embrace a balance with the Commission’s goals to save open space. Mr. Talerman stated his concern that the town may never reach their percentage goal of 10% affordable units.
Mr. Harrington noted that the Affordable Housing Commission should keep in mind that the Commission is charged with protecting wetland resources and their values and functions. Mr. Talerman recommended that the Affordable Housing Committee adopt a formal written policy. This policy could be viewed as evidence in court. He noted that the Committee should leave nothing to chance and that policies can be changed at any time.
Mrs. DelMastro asked what would be the best way to communicate with the Commission. She was advised to communicate through the office. Any updates to the Plan should be forwarded to the office for disbursement. Mrs. DelMastro left her phone number with the Commission.
8:15 p.m. Hoover Realty Trust - Mrs. Simpson informed the Commission that she had a telephone conversation with Mr. Scott Colwell today. He informed her that he would be withdrawing his Notice of Intent. Mr. Kane noted that the Commission should contact DEP first. Mr. Crafton stated that once the DEP has been contacted, they will notify the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The response will be very quick. It was agreed that Mr. Kane will make a phone call to DEP. It was determined that no vote was required in this matter. This item will be left on the agenda for the next meeting.
Stony Brook Nature Center Public Hearing – Pam Musk was present. Hand drawn plans for the trail was passed out to the Commission members. It was noted that Ron Clough, the Division of conservation and recreation, would prefer to see wood used rather than concrete for support piers if a boardwalk were proposed. Mr. Harrington and Ms. DeLonga had conducted a site inspection of the locus. Mr. Harrington recommended that the disturbed area be revegetated and that rubble be removed. Soils from the proposed pathway could be removed to fill in the ruts. Ms. Musk stated that they will also plant some wetland shrubs to make the pathway more attractive. Ms. Musk stated that they wanted to complete the physical portion of the project before a hard freeze.
Visitors will start to use the pathway next spring. It was noted that caution is required when operating the backhoe. Erosion controls will be required.
Ms. DeLonga requested information on the width of the path. The boardwalk will be four feet wide and twelve feet in length. It will comprise approximately 100 square feet. Mitigation would consist of 288 square feet, more than twice the amount of disturbance. The boardwalk would extend to the toe of the slope at pole #6. Mr. Kane requested that the measurements be put on the plans as this plan will be used to reference this project in the Order of Conditions. A sketch locating the erosion controls should also be put on the plans.
Ms. Musk stated that they do not need to have the boardwalk be any wider than four feet. They wan to provide adequate space for wheelchairs. The existing boardwalks at Stony Brook are three feet in width. The Department of Conservation and Recreation would prefer that they not use sono tubes for supports. All of the boardwalks have posts as supports. They will use the new pressure treated wood that does not contain any arsenic or chromium. The boardwalk has not been specked out yet. The incline has to be at a manageable grade. The boardwalk will be slightly raised from the ground to allow salamanders to cross beneath.
Mr. Talerman made the motion to close the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Ms. Musk forwarded a letter from DCR to the Commission. The Commission will vote on this matter on the 29th so that the project can move forward the first week in December.
8:30 p.m. Martin Pearson Public Hearing – 34 Kingsbury Road – Karen Pearson was present and was also represented by Paul Cutler from Landmark Engineering. The excavation for the septic system has been staked out. Some Commission members already conducted a site inspection. At least four trees in the buffer zone will have to be removed for the septic system. Mr. Cutler stated that the D-box could be moved. No mitigation is proposed. The site consists of lawn. A shed and pump house will be removed. Ms. Pearson noted that she wants to keep the shed so it will be relocated outside of the 0-50 foot buffer.
The Commission will discuss how may trees will need to be replanted. Ms. Pearson noted that one tree is leaning on the house and she is fearful that it may land on the house during a storm event. The Commission gave its approval to remove the tree. The Commission asked Mr. Cutler to add some trees to the plan, which could be planted near the property line outside of the 50 foot buffer. This will be the mitigation for the lost buffer due to the project. There is still no DEP file number issued. Ms. DeLonga noted that there is some confusion as to the owner of the property. The Commission needs to have the property owner’s signature.
Ms. Pearson stated that Paul Curry is her husband and he works in the evenings. They are married and do live together. She will take the original filing and have Mr. Curry sign the application. The public hearing will be continued to the next meeting at which time the hearing will be closed. Mr. Talerman made the motion to continue the public hearing to November 29th at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The hearing adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
8:50p.m. Extension of an Order of Conditions for Christina Estates. Attorney Matt Watsky and Helen Pavlosky, a paralegal from Intoccia were present. A letter, dated November 8, 2006, was presented from John Parmentier, P.E. from Dunn-McKenzie, Inc. that 4,881 square feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands had been altered as a result of the construction of the subdivision. This letter establishes a baseline of the actual disturbance of wetlands within this subdivision for future reference. It was noted that any disturbance to the wetlands on the lot off Applewood Road (Langley lot) would also be applied to the amount of disturbance within the subdivision. The wetland crossing has not been figured into the BVW disturbance as yet. The members reviewed the Langley file to determine how much BVW
was proposed to be disturbed as a result of the crossing. It was noted that Parcel D within the Christina Estates Subdivision was sold to Pine Creek Development. There is buffer zone disturbance proposed on Parcel D.
Mr. Shaw made the motion to extend the Order of Conditions for Christina Estates for one year to November 18, 2007. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The extension form was signed and notarized.
The members signed vouchers for expenses for the month.
Review of Minutes - Mr. Shaw made the motion to approve the January 11, 2006 minutes. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. After a discussion, the vote was unanimous. Mr. Shaw made the motion to approve the minutes of March 8, 2006. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Mr. Shaw made the motion to approve the October 11, 2006 minutes. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
The members discussed the wetland violations occurring at 47 Leland Road. The owner has been working steadily on his project. The Commission discussed issuing an enforcement order. The owner will be contacted. Mr. Harrington made the motion to send a letter to the homeowner of 47 Leland Road asking him to come to a meeting. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. He will be asked to attend the meeting on the 29th. Mr. Kane noted that he contacted the owner several months ago and asked him to prepare a plan. Ms. DeLonga had also visited the site and had taken photographs.
Mr. Kane asked the office to remind him to contact DEP regarding Buckley and Mann property. Mr. Kane will also draft a letter to Mr. Jacobs (6 Whites Pond Drive). DEP will need to be contacted to ascertain a DEP file number for Martin Pearson before the Commission can close this public hearing.
Mr. Kane noted that he would like the Commission to receive the written report from Gavves Engineers on their review of Pine Creek Development before the next meeting. Mr. Kane noted that after reviewing the Graves Engineering report the Commission will decide whether Pine Creek should attend the meeting on the 29th.
The Commission reviewed the correspondence for the month. An inspection report from Woodard & Curran was sent to the Commission on the “Village at River’s Edge.” The Commission asked Ms. DeLonga to conduct a site inspection of the project.
Discussion on Call & Wait – The Commission discussed whether Town Counsel attended Wrentham District Court on behalf of the Conservation Commission regarding the appeal of Call & Wait of the $13,500 in enforcement fines. It was questioned if Call & Wait ever signed the agreement with the Town. A noted will be sent to the Board of Selectmen asking for an update on the matter of the fines. The Commission was given a copy of the draft agreement and they noted that the agreement called for a “reduction of inventory” on the site. Call & Wait will continue to keep the repair shop and the class II license. It was noted that the Commission has a legal duty to protect the wetland resources on this site. Mr. Harrington will draft a letter and
forward it to Mr. Kane for approval.
Budget discussion – the Commission discussed the draft FY’08 conservation commission budget. The budget will have to be reduced by $647 in order to be a level funded budget. Mr. Shaw made the motion to accept the draft budget. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Mr. Harrington asked the Administrative Assistant to contact the Town Administrator about allowing the Call & Wait fines to remain with the Conservation Commission. He noted that the Commission already has a revolving account. The revolving account could be expanded to include the acceptance of monetary fines. It was noted that perhaps the Commission could be self-funded with the use of the fines.
Mr. Shaw made the motion to close the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
______________________________,
Allan M. Shaw, Vice-chairman and Clerk
File: concomm.2006.Nov8,06minutes
| 
