Conservation Commission Meeting
November 29, 2006
Present: Jeffrey Kane, Allan Shaw, Paul Lugten Laurence Harrington,
Cheri Lawless, Daniel Crafton (left meeting at 9:15 p.m.), Jason Talerman, Janet DeLonga (agent)
Absent: No one
This meeting was videotaped by NCTV.
The duly posted meeting of the Conservation Commission convened at 7:30 p.m. in room 105C.
Vouchers were signed for postage reimbursement and Woodard & Curran.
The members reviewed the minutes of the following meetings:
March 8, 2006
March 8, 2006 – Executive Session
November 25, 2006 – Executive Session
Mr. Talerman made the motion to accept the above draft minutes. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
The members reviewed the draft Orders of Conditions prepared for Stony Brook Nature Center. A discussion on the use of pressure treated wood vs. cement sono tubes took place. It was noted that the draft shall be amended to include a provision that the applicant shall notify the Conservation Agent on the exact number and type of mitigation plantings to be installed. Mr. Talerman made the motion to accept the draft Orders of Conditions as amended. Ms. Lawless seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
A Certificate of Release for an expired Order of Condition that encumbered 19 Eric Road was signed and notarized.
Mr. Kane is to draft a letter acknowledging the proposed driveway construction of 6 Whites Pond Drive.
The Administrative Assistant reported that she has received feedback on a draft impact statement for the FY’08Budget impact and will continue to refine its contents.
Mr. Daniel Orwig/Call & Wait Auto, Inc. The Commission noted that based upon the signed agreement with the Town, Call & Wait is to have a remediation plan submitted to the Conservation Commission by December 1, 2006. Mr. Orwig stated that the written narrative outlining the remediation schedule is the “plan”. The Commission disagreed that this is a plan. The Commission noted that they want a Notice of Intent filed along with a plan showing the implementation of the remediation.
Mr. Harrington noted that there are reportable levels of contamination at the Call & Wait site. Mr. Orwig noted that DEP has not been contacted regarding the reportable conditions. Mr. Crafton informed Mr. Orwig that the applicant is required to notify DEP when reportable concentrations of pollutants are found.
Mr. Lugten asked who determines the percentages as outlined in the agreement. Mr. Orwig suggested that a working meeting be set up to decide this and other outstanding issues. Mr. Kane agreed. Mr. Harrington noted that there will be a violation of the agreement as of December 1, 2006 as a plan has not been filed with the Conservation Commission. The schedule of work to be performed is not a plan. Mr. Harrington noted that the Town must notify the applicant of the non-compliance and compliance must be reached within 30 days of notification. The schedule of the work as prepared by Orwig Associates would be satisfactory to the Commission. Mr. Orwig stated that he would file a Notice of Intent this week. The filing will not be complete however. A working session will
be scheduled for December 13th with Mr. Orwig.
Mr. Shaw made the motion to schedule a working session on the Call & Wait matter with Mr. Orwig for December 13, 2006 at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
8:00 p.m. Martin Pearson/34 Kingsbury Road - Karen Pearson was present. It was noted that Paul Cutler had contacted the office and notified the staff that he would not be present this evening. Ms. Pearson presented a signed application by her husband, Paul Currie. Mr. Talerman made the motion to close the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Ms. Lawless seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The Commission gave verbal permission to Ms. Pearson to remove the tree overhanging the house. Ms. Pearson was advised that she could install her erosion controls now. No work is to commence until the ten business day appeal period is over after the issuance of the Order of Conditions. The Commission reviewed a draft Order of Conditions for 34 Kingsbury Road.
8:10 p.m. Pine Creek Development Public Hearing – Mr. Harrington recused himself and left the table. Attorney Richard Nylen represented the applicants (Jack Scott, Michael Connolly, Robert Brown). Jeff Howland and Paul McManus, the Commission’s consultants from Graves Engineering and EcoTec, were also present. Others in attendance signed an attendance sheet, which was entered into the public record on this matter.
Mr. Nylen stated that this evening the applicants would be addressing information from Ingabord Hegemann, with respect to invasive species and forest management, Richard Goodreau would review the recent comments from Graves Engineering and EcoTec and Mr. Nylen would present an updated alternatives analysis will be presented.
Ingabord Hegemann reviewed the project site and submitted a letter identifying the most invasive species on the site and reviewed information and ways to manage the species. She noted that there were five different species identified as invasive. She also presented a forest management plan to be implemented in the mitigation areas. The dominant trees species in the mitigation areas are oak and white pine. There are also beech trees becoming established. They will be working on a management plan to open up areas and allow the beech trees to become more established. The beech trees require more light. The beech trees provide a lot of food value for wildlife. Some of the invasive species include Japanese Barberry and Glossy Buckthorn. Some Oriental Bittersweet appears as well. The species of concern is the Buckthorn. This species will take over in a matter of years and become a dominant shrub in the area. Ms. Hegemann observed one large Burning Bush in the understory.
Honeysuckle was also observed. The Japanese Barberry was observed in the wetland itself. The invasive species are at manageable levels at present.
Mr. McManus from EcoTec agreed that the site is fairly homogenous and opening up the area around the emerging beech trees appears to make sense. He noted that when an area is opened up however, the Japanese Buckthorn will take over. Monitoring would be very important to make sure that the Buckthorn does not become established. Buckthorn does not become established with a closed overhead vegetative canopy. Ms. Hageman noted that the opening of the overhead canopy would entail a monitoring program. She noted that if this is an acceptable concept to the Commission she would prepare a definitive plan that shows where the openings would occur. She also suggested that sugar maple trees be planted in the mitigation areas to provide balance. Ms. Hegemann will finish the plan and submit it to the
Commission.
Mr. Nylen noted that EcoTec has commented that the replication plan seemed to be on-track.
Richard Goodreau passed out copies of plans and photographs and gave a brief overview of the mitigation areas that they propose. Under the original application they showed various mitigation area proposals. Those areas were shown in highlight on a plan. The total area of mitigation located in and out of the conservation commission jurisdiction is 252,000 square feet in total. One of the concerns was that the Commission wanted a 1:1 ratio of mitigation area outside of the area under the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Goodreau noted that they had shown three separate areas that consisted of the appropriated areas that matched the proposed buffer zone that would be disturbed. They prepared another plan and highlighted the area that will remain vegetated on the westerly side of the wetland. They also show an area in which no vegetation clearing will be done. They also showed what areas would be cleared inside and outside of the buffer zones for stormwater infrastructure and roadways. They also worked with BSC to develop a planting plan for these areas. They modified the detention pond system and eliminated the stone trench and will revegetate these areas. The swale areas will also be vegetated with a mixture of plantings. They propose to vegetate on top of the underground infiltration systems. They propose trees, shrubs, plants and ferns for the areas that would be disturbed for the temporary sedimentation basin.
Mr. Goodreau stated that looked at the proposed drainage system at the easterly side of the wetlands for buffer mitigation. They propose an undisturbed buffer zone with additional plantings for mitigation. There would be approximately 25,000 to 30,000 square feet of plantings. Mr. Kane stated that the Commission has never allowed mitigation plantings within a stormwater management area. These proposed plantings cannot be included in the mitigation inventory. The plantings could be done for purely aesthetic reasons.
Mr. Kane questioned if the plantings proposed on top of the infiltration areas would remain viable and be a maintenance issue. Mr. Goodreau stated that the planting on the infiltration areas would be small shallow shrubs and ferns. No trees would be proposed on these areas.
Mr. Paul McManus from EcoTec stated that he was concerned with the basin located near the Rockwood Road side of the site. He stated that he would want to make sure that the vegetation is compatible with the potential management needs of the basin. He questioned if there was a management plan that requires that the basin be mucked out so that anything that gets planted there gets mucked out also. He noted that there should not be any low bush blueberry or spirea shrubs. He noted that the typical way to keep trees from growing in a detention basin is to mow the basin. He asked if the plan was also compatible with the “long term” maintenance of the basin.
Mr. Goodreau stated that this will be addressed in the Operations and Maintenance Plan. They did supply an access to the basins. They have allowed access to the inspection ports of the basins as well. They will look again at this site to see what shrubs should be there and where to plant the shrubs. This infiltration basin will not drain as quickly as the one at the “Village at River’s Edge”. Ms. Hegemann showed photos of the detention basins at the “Village at Rivers’s Edge”. She noted that perhaps they should plant along the sides of the basin instead of the bottom of the basins.
Mr. Jeff Howland from Graves Engineering noted that typically sandy material is placed at the bottom of an infiltration basin. He questioned if plants would survive in the basin and when the basin has to be maintained, the plants will be removed and replanted. He noted that typically a bulldozer would go into a basin and scrape out the upper six inches of material. He would like to take a closer look at this proposal.
Mr. Nylen passed out a document, dated November 29, 2006. There were not enough copies for the file. He also addressed the alternatives analysis. Mr. Goodreau had prepared 4 alternatives plans. The Bylaw requires a vigorous alternatives analysis in order to receive a permit for a wetland crossing. The Bylaw was amended in 2003. Prior to that date the Bylaw allowed filling of a wetland for the crossing. The original crossing called for a culvert beneath the roadway. The plan had been revised to the fixed span bridge. Mr. Nylen stated that the intent of the alternatives analysis is a three pronged test to first avoid, to minimize and finally to mitigate for the disturbance. He stated that the applicant must show that there is no other alternative to get into the site and
that a wetland crossing is unavoidable. The crossing work impacts must be mitigated and the project must be minimized, i.e. that the crossing must be located at the narrowest part for the least amount of intrusion.
Mr. Nylen noted that there are no other ways to access this site other than through Village Green and Juniper Lane. He noted that under the Planning Board regulations, both Juniper Lane and Village Green are already considered an extension of a cul-de-sac. The Norfolk Planning Board Regulations limit cul-de-sacs to no more than 500 feet of cul-de-sac length. Mr. Nylen stated that he spoke to the Planning Board several times at the request of the conservation commission and asked if they could extend the cul-de-sacs to create frontage for lots. The Planning Board verbally told them that they could not. They went back to the Planning Board for definitive submission and asked for the waivers of the cul-de-sac lengths. A letter from the Planning Board denying the extension of the cul-de-sacs
was included in the NOI filing packet. They told the applicant that they denied the waiver requests due to public safety considerations.
The applicants also looked at other streets surrounding this parcel for an additional access (Old Colony Road, Boardman Street, Rockwood Road). There is no frontage on any of those streets to access the property. There is a stub road off Village Green to the boyscout property, but this is a private way.
Mr. Nylen noted that at the time of their application for a subdivision plan, the Estate Lot Bylaw stated that if you could subdivide the property then an Estate Lot would be denied. He noted that Pine Creek already had a preliminary subdivision approval at the time. Subsequent to the revised filing, that limitation to the Estate Lot Bylaw was removed. The Bylaw now states that only one Estate Lot for the entire parcel. He noted that the applicants have expended more than $1.3 million dollars for engineering and land development so far. In order to meet the requirements for an Estate Lot, only one lot can be created. Mr. Nylen stated that this is not a practical alternative for the applicant. Mr. Kane noted that financial burden is not part of alternatives analysis. Mr. Nylen
disagreed and noted that cost should be included in the alternatives analysis. He stated that an Estate Lot is not a viable alternative.
Mr. Nylen explained how the applicant proposed to reduce impacts once they access the property. There are 4 alternatives for the reduction of impacts.
1) the project is a 15 lot subdivision
2) alternative 1 on the plan – extension of cul-de-sacs on Juniper and Village Green (would allow 17 lots)
3) make a through road – would allow a 17 lot subdivision. This would have more impacts than the proposed submitted plan.
4) If there was no Norfolk Wetland Protection Bylaw - They would propose a 40B project. No application under the Norfolk Wetland Protection Bylaw would be required. Under a 40B they could develop 6-8 units per acre. There are 34 acres on the property. There could be a much more intense use of the site.
These alternatives available to them shows that the current proposal allowing 15 lots of which no houses would be located within the buffer zone. The other requirement for the alternatives analysis is to demonstrate that there are no impacts to wildlife as well as buffer zone and water quality and quantity under the Stormwater Management Regulations. Mr. Nylen stated that Ms. Hegemann and Mr. Goodreau are working on this.
The applicants will return in December and January for further discussion.
Mr. Talerman stated that he did not believe that either 40B proposal had much relevance as an alternatives analysis. He noted that the Estate Lot may be plausible. Mr. Kane noted that under the local wetlands bylaw for wetland crossings it states that the inability to develop all proposed or conceptual lots in any residential subdivision of any size shall not be considered a hardship. Mr. Nylen stated that the bylaw and regulations define alternatives in terms of practicable and feasible.
Mr. Talerman noted that there are provisions for waivers in the case of a taking in the bylaw. This does not have to be included in the analysis.
A copy of the alternatives analysis was given to Mr. McManus and Mr. Howland by the applicants.
Ms. DeLonga questioned how many house lots the applicant could create without extending the cul-de-sacs and without the crossing. Mr. Nylen stated that the Planning Board stated that the Village Green and Juniper Lane cul-de-sacs were already determined to be too long. Under the Planning Board regulations the stubs are extended as far as they can go. They cannot get any more lots under the Planning Board regulations as there is no frontage for the lots. The only option is to propose an Estate Lot, where the frontage would be from the main roads.
Mr. Goodreau stated that Juniper Lane and Bigelow Place combined are well over the minimum of 500 feet and service more than 7 houses as per the Planning Board regulations (not over 500 feet and service 7 or fewer houses). By the Planning Board’s definition this is considered one dead end roadway system. This precludes them from using the Juniper Lane/Bigelow Place roadway system to extend the roadway. There is only one paved connection to Village Green. Cleveland Street is well over 3500 feet in length and services over 17 houses. These are the only points of access to the property. They had requested a waiver to extend the cul-de-sacs but the Planning Board denied the request.
Mr. Nylen stated that they would only be able to construct one house lot on the 34 acre parcel.
Mr. Goodreau asked for a clarification of question #4 on the Graves report. Graves report stated that attempted to calculate the rate of infiltration rates for the various ponds. This information will be summarized with the revised submission. There appears to be an issue with the 2.4 inches per hour being the maximum infiltration rate required under the stormwater standard. Mr. Goodreau stated that they are proposing to provide 80% TSS removal prior to discharge to the system and therefore think that the 2.4 inch/hour suggested maximum rate is applicable because they are not using it as part of the treatment. The 2.4 inch/hour is required for pollutant removal. Mr. Kane noted that the pollutant removal will not remove the solids….it deals with a different type of pollutant.
Mr. Howland stated that they have had discussions with DEP regarding the 2.4 inch/hour, outlined in the guidelines for infiltration trenches and basins. The infiltration guidelines state 2.4 inches/hour. In discussions with Tom McGuire from DEP, the 2.4 inches is the maximum design rate for infiltration basins. Closed systems are allowed to be designed as high as 5 inches/hour. Mr. Howland stated that the best management practice rate is 2.4 inches per hour. This allows for clogging for fine material. He noted that even in the best of soils, over a very short period of time, the infiltration basin clogs, especially in an open basin. Mr. Howland noted that a former gravel pit site in Sutton had its infiltration basins clogged within two years. This number is a built in factor of safety.
Mr. Nylen noted that this issue was what he wanted the engineers to talk about.
Mr. Shaw stated that he is still trying to determine if the proposed replication will work. He stated that he needs more information. Mr. Kane noted that EcoTec addresses some concerns in their report. Mr. Shaw stated that he still has questions on a BSC report and Peter Dillon’s reports (page 6 and 7 of his report). He also questioned surface and groundwater mounding. Mrs. Hegemann explained this to the Commission. Mr. Shaw stated that he would like to conduct another site inspection. Mr. Crafton questioned if the wetland is perched. There is some exchange of hydraulics on the site.
Mr. Nylen stated that they are working on answering Graves comments right now.
Mr. Talerman made the motion to continue the public hearing for Pine Creek Development to December 13, 2006 at 8:00 p.m. and January 24, 2007 at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The hearing adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Mr. Crafton left the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Harrington returned to the table at the conclusion of the Pine Creek public hearing.
9:15 p.m. Martin Murphy – 29 Stop River Road Public Hearing – Mr. Murphy was present and submitted a revised plan prepared by Landmark Engineering. The wetlands have been reflagged and the mitigation area and disturbance areas are shown on the new plan. The lawnscape will be removed and shrubs and bushes will be planted. The mitigation plants will produce lots of berries. The original plan did not show the buffer zones. The proposal is for a 16 foot by 16 foot addition.
It was noted that DEP had a question on the adjacent stream that flows beneath Stop River Road. The stone wall marks the edge of the existing wetland. The site consists of lawn from the edge of the house to the stone wall. Sparrow Environmental conducted the revised wetland delineations. Mr. Kane noted that it would have been helpful to depict what resource was being delineated by the flags.
Ms. DeLonga had conducted a site inspection. The proposed mitigation would consist of 280 square feet. The mitigation plantings would consist of vibernum and other plantings similar to what is existing on the site. The existing plantings were approved several years ago as mitigation plantings when the applicant proposed to install an in-ground swimming pool.
The 16 foot by 16 foot deck will be constructed on the same level as the addition. Mr. Shaw made the motion to close the public hearing at 9:25 p.m. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
9:25 p.m. Glenn Capachin Public Hearing ---- Bruce and Beverly Wilson from Wilson Engineering were present. Mr. Capachin was also present. No abutters were present. Mr. Wilson stated that the shed will be removed from the back yard. They met with Russ Waldron from AES to discuss the species to be planted that would provide habitat. Mr. Waldron had revised his report to be lot specific. Haybales were included on the plan. On the back corner of the proposed addition they propose to locate a small entry way going into the basement. They may need to construct this to comply with the building code. If the internal stairway works they may not need to add this addition al 80 square feet of impervious area.
Mr. Harrington and Ms. DeLonga conducted a site inspection, as did Ms. Lawless.
The entire proposal will be constructed within the 50-100 foot buffer zone. Mr. Harrington noted that he observed debris in the woods and in the buffer. This will be removed. The mitigation trees will create a barrier. The wetlands commence just beyond the compost pile. The addition is proposed to be located on the existing driveway and lawn area. The rear yard will be shortened due to the addition proposal. Mr. Capachin stated that there is a 10 foot by 12 foot concrete pad beneath a clothes line. This impervious area could be removed. This had been proposed to be the footings for a shed. The house was constructed in 1976.
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.
9:40 p.m. – James and Judith Murray- 114 Cleveland Street public hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Murray were present. No abutters were present. The project is a shed addition to be constructed alongside his two car garage. The amount of disturbance would be approximately 200 square feet. The shed will be constructed on sono-tubes with a concrete slab. This area was once part of the asphalt driveway. Mr. Murray had removed the asphalt about three years ago and reseeded the area. Mr. Murray stated that the shed would house some lawn equipment. The existing lawn on this side of the house slopes toward the wetland. Ms. DeLonga conducted a site inspection and had taken photographs, which she forwarded to the members. Mr. Murray stated that he did not propose any
mitigation plantings but he could plant some shrubs along the edge of the wetland.
Mr. Kane noted that the site was historically a driveway prior to recent replanting. He noted that with the exception of roof top runoff there would be no impact to the wetland. He noted that driveway runoff is considered “dirty” as opposed to roof runoff that is considered “clean”. There were not issues.
Ms. DeLonga stated that she would recommend that the haybale line be extended. She noted that there is a lot of evidence of wildlife. She observed an infestation of bittersweet vines along the edge of the lawn and wetland area. She had suggested to Mrs. Murray at the site inspection that the vines be cut. The bittersweet vines will hurt the tall trees. She noted that shrubs could be planted in the rear yard. She noted that there was not recording information on the application. She also noted that there was no date on the plan. The DEP filing number had been received. Mr. Kane noted that there should be no requirement to plant additional mitigation plants. Mr. Talerman noted that the removal of the bittersweet could be a benefit to the site. This condition will be
included in the Order of Conditions. Mr. Talerman made the motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote to close the hearing at 9:45 p.m. was unanimous.
Discussion on 39 Lafayette Lane (Sheehan Construction) – The applicant had requested if he could construct a deck using wolmanized wood to the rear of the house that was not originally shown on the approved plan. The commission will not permit the deck to be constructed without a filing.
The Administrative Assistant reported that she attended a conference at the Tri-County School in Franklin on the newly enacted Chapter 43D that espouses expedited local permitting. Follow up information is expected shortly. This legislation would not impact any areas under the Conservation Commission’s jurisdiction.
3 Harlow Ave. The applicant requested that the 8 Grey Stem Dogwood proposed as mitigation be changed to Silky Dogwood or Highbush Blueberry. The Commission would accept a change in the planting species but would want trees as opposed to shrubs.
Discussion on Buckley & Mann property – Lawrence Street. Mr. Harrington stated that the drums that contain unknown substances are still in the abandoned buildings on the Buckley & Mann site. Scott Colwell, the developer, has backed out of the development. Buckley & Mann are still the property owners and will be responsible for the removal of any hazardous waste. The commission noted that it will be a good idea to get DEP involved.
The Administrative Assistant will put together an action list for the members on the basis of this meeting. for what Jeff has to do.
The members reviewed the letter from Mosquito Control. Mr. Harrington stated that Mosquito Control references statutes that do not exist or have anything to do with Mosquito Control. It was noted that Mosquito Control feels that they are exempt from the wetland act. DEP has stated that Mosquito Control is not exempt. It will be up to the Commission to be vigilant on the type of work that Norfolk Mosquito Control is proposing. The Commission will respond to the letter. Mr. Harrington will research the statutes referenced in the letter and forward it to Ms. DeLonga. The members recalled an incident where the Norfolk Mosquito Control informed the Commission in a letter that they would be dredging a stream along Main Street due to a flooding situation this past spring. The
source of the flooding was discovered to be a child’s sled caught in a culvert under a driveway. The activity that Norfolk Mosquito Control proposed was unrelated to mosquito control abatement. The Commission contacted Norfolk Mosquito Control via phone regarding the source of the flooding. The project never took place.
Mr. Harrington made the motion to close the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
_____________________________,
Allan M. Shaw, Vice-Chairman & Clerk
| 
