1
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2006
ROOM 105c
PRESENT: Jeffrey Kane, Allan Shaw, Daniel Crafton, Jason Talerman, Laurence
Harrington, Cheri Lawless, Paul Lugten, Janet DeLonga (agent)
ABSENT: No one
This meeting was videotaped by NCTV.
The duly posted meeting of the Conservation Commission convened at 7:35 p.m. in room 105C
Vouchers were signed for various expenses for the month.
Zoning Bylaw Study Committee Appointment – Mr. Talerman made the motion to appoint Allan Shaw as its appointee to the Zoning Bylaw Study Committee for the 2007 year. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Mr. Kane signed the appointment form and forwarded it to Mr. Shaw.
Old Business
· The discussion on revised Bylaw Regulations will be deferred until next month.
· Mr. Kane will draft a letter to Mr. Jacobs regarding 6 Whites Pond Drive. He will send the letter to the Conservation office tomorrow.
· DEP will be conducting a site inspection of the Town Pond and review the stand of phragmites, the subject of the Recreation Department’s Notice of Intent on December 20th at 10:00 a.m.
Orders of Conditions
Glen Capachin – 162 North Street – The Commission reviewed and revised the draft Orders of Conditions prepared by Ms. DeLonga. Mr. Talerman made the motion to approved the draft Orders as revised. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Martin Murphy – 29 Stop River Road – The members discussed the planting schedule and the types of plants that will be used for mitigation. The specimen plantings that currently exist around the house will be supplemented. Mr. Talerman made the motion to approve the draft Orders as revised. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was 6-0. Mr. Crafton abstained.
James Murray – 114 Cleveland Street – The members discussed the draft Order of conditions and revisions. Mr. Talerman made the motion to approve the Order of Conditions as revised. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
The Commission reviewed the Request for a Certificate of Compliance from John and Elizabeth Hathaway of 25 Evergreen Road within the Christina Estates Subdivision. The Commission referred to a plan depicting the locations of all lots within the subdivision. Lot 25 is encumbered by the subdivision infrastructure and drainage Order of Conditions only. Mr. Talerman made the motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 25 Evergreen Road provided that a notation is included in the Certificate that only releases 25 (lot 11) Evergreen Road. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
The Commission adjourned its business meeting at 8:00 p.m. to conduct the public hearing for Pine Creek Development. Mr. Harrington recused himself and left the table.
8:00 p.m. - Pine Creek Development Public Hearing - The applicants ( Jack Scott, Robert Brown and Michael Connolly)were present and were represented by Attorney Richard Nylen. Others present signed an attendance sheet, which was entered into the public record for this project. Mr. Harrington recused himself and left the table.
Attorney Nylen reported that the Town of Norfolk adopted the M.G.L. provision that allows a member of a permit granting board to miss one meeting and to still participate in the public hearing and vote provided that they get up to speed on all of the information that was missed. He noted that one member of the Commission has missed one meeting. He had forwarded a letter to the Commission and noted that their court stenographer would be able to provide a transcript of all the meetings. Mr. Kane noted that this would be at the discretion of the member who missed the meeting. Mr. Crafton stated that he will stay out of the proceedings.
Attorney Nylen noted that a site inspection was conducted this past weekend. They would conduct another site inspection if the Commission requested one.
Attorney Nylen updated the Commission on the documents provided to date. He stated that new engineering plans prepared in response to the Graves comments are not yet finished. There were three major issues raised at the last meeting. One issue was the 2.4 inch infiltration rate for the detention basin. Mr. Goodreau has redesigned the basin to meet that requirement. It appears that there will be no additional work in the buffer zone as a result of that redesign. The basin was redesigned to accommodate water quality and water quantity issues. The original design did not take into consideration the 2.4 inch infiltration rate. This plan will be given to the Commission and to the consultants at the beginning of the next week.
Another item was the replication work as presented by Ingabord Hegemann. It was discussed at the site inspection that more enhancement would be planned for on-site mitigation.
The 3rd item was the alternatives analysis.
Mrs. Hegemann stated that she visited the replication area at the site walk and several; questions were raised. Some of the large trees that were going to be saved were identified. It had been asked if the 75% viability of replication vegetation included the trees and shrubs. Mrs. Hegemann passed out a letter, dated December 13, 2006, with specific conditions to address those issues. She stated that she just gave a copy of this letter to EcoTec at this evening’s meeting. She noted that the letter includes information that has been compiled from the Notice of Intent filing and put together in one document. The applicant will be monitoring for each layer of construction of the replication area. The replication specs were also updated. She noted that any questions related to erosion
and sedimentation control would be addressed by Rick Goodreau.
Ms. Hegemann noted that a concern of the Commission’s consultant was that if the trees were thinned out they would be opening up areas for invasive species. She noted that they propose to thin the pine trees but the earth around the base of the trees would remain undisturbed. She proposes to establish more beech trees and reduce the density of the pine trees. There is also an open area which would be supplemented with more shrubs for a wildlife food source. They propose to remove any invasive species in other areas.
Mr. McManus noted that the 6 page document, dated December 13, 2006, passed out this evening by Ms. Hegemann Hageman
is now the controlling document for replication. This will be put on the plans. Mr. McManus stated that he wanted one cohesive set of instructions. Mr. Nylen stated that they believe that they have submitted everything that the Commission has asked for relative to replication and wants to close this portion of the project.
Mr. Steven Palmer, an abutter at 3 Bigelow Place, stated that he wanted to read all of the documents that were passed out this evening.
Ms. DeLonga noted that the square footage of wetland alteration is lower than the original numbers. The original number was 650 square feet of actual wetland alteration and the new number is 640 square feet. The square footage of alteration due to bridge shading was also lower than the original number. Ms. Hegemann stated that these are now the correct numbers. She noted that the original numbers may have been inaccurate.
Mr. Kane noted that the applicant is in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals and wanted to know if the replication portion of the project complies with the Watershed Protection Bylaw. Mr. Nylen stated that this project is in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the construction of a bridge. Mr. Kane noted that any disturbance within 25 feet of a wetland is within the Watershed Protection District and that would also include the replication area. Mr. Talerman asked if Mr. Nylen could review the Watershed Protection Bylaw to see what his impression is regarding the inclusion of the replication work under the Bylaw. Mr. Kane recommended that the applicants review the Zoning Bylaw to see how it relates to section D.3. Mr. Nylen noted that they are seeking relief from the Zoning Bylaws to do the
replication. He noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals is upset with the applicant as they keep requesting continuations of the public hearings. He noted that he must finish the review with the Conservation Commission before he can ask for relief under the Zoning Bylaws. Mr. Talerman asked that Mr. Nylen provide the information presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals to the Commission. Mr. Nylen stated that they have applied for the zoning permits as the state Wetlands Act requires that all obtainable permits be applied for and have let the application sit while they come before the Commission. Mr. Nylen stated that they will give this information to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Talerman noted that the Zoning Bylaw seems to preclude the replication work.
Mr. Goodreau stated that he took the comments from the last meeting and also had a meeting with Butch Vito, who will ultimately be the responsible party for maintaining the drainage system. Mr. Goodreau passed out an unsigned letter from Butch Vito, dated December 13, 2006. They also considered the concerns from Graves Engineering and EcoTec with respect to the plantings that they were proposing and have made some modifications. The changes include making the basins larger and making the underground basin larger as well. The plantings were relocated from the bottom of the basin to the side slopes and top berm around the basin. This would eliminate the need to remove the vegetation within the basin should any maintenance work be required. They talked to Butch about what is needed to clean and
maintain the swale areas. Butch felt that the plantings shown would be adequate and that the DPW would be able to access the basin for routine “short term” maintenance (i.e removal of sediments and silts and clearing any brush or obstructions). The outstanding issue would be for “long term” maintenance if in fact something has to be done in a 15 -20 year period. Depending upon what needs to be done underground will determine what vegetation is planted and will remain. Mr. Nylen stated that the applicants would be granting drainage and access easements. He noted that this will be run by a homeowners association until the town takes the infrastructure over. The easements are part of the Operations and Maintenance Plan so that whoever maintains the drainage would have the ability to access these areas. The access easements surround the basin and the swales. Some of the easements are within the 100 foot
buffer zone according to Mr. Goodreau.
Mr. Nylen noted that the DPW was concerned that after 15 years if problems were found at the bottom of the basin to the extent that they had to remove the vegetation, it would have to be replanted and it would be too expensive for the town.
Mr. Goodreau stated that they made changes to the northeast section of the site. Two proposed houses, including the driveways and grading, would be relocated further away from the underground basin. This would maximize the vegetated areas. The houses were moved approximately 5 feet.
Mr. Kane noted that Butch Vito mentioned in the unsigned letter that the projected life of the detention/retention area is 15 to 20 years before maintenance is required. He asked if Butch was also referring to the infiltration galleys. Mr. Goodreau stated that he assumes that Butch Vito is including the underground infiltration galleys as well.
Mr. Goodreau noted that all documents for this evening were given to the Commission’s consultants who were sitting in the audience. He noted that at the site walk the issue of erosion controls and de-watering for the bridge construction was raised. The bridge footings had been staked out. The bridge would be constructed during the low flow period. If water was encountered in the stream channel they would install a temporary pipe to divert the water to bypass the areas where the footings would be constructed. As far as de-watering, they propose to create a sump and pump water up to a point (on sheet 44 of the construction phasing plan) and discharge the water into a dirt bag upgradient to a temporary sediment basin, which would be constructed prior to the bridge work commencing. The
pumped water would enter the bag for treatment and then flow overland into the sediment basin and back into the wetland area. They would anticipate that the construction of the four footings would take place within a one week period from the time of excavation to the pouring of the concrete for the footings. A copy of the erosion control narrative was given to Graves Engineering this evening by Mr. Goodreau.
Mr. Kane stated that he would also want to see stabilized construction entrance in and out of the site. Mr. Goodreau stated that this would be on the plan.
Mr. Nylen that they will get the revised engineering changes to the Commission and Graves Engineering either Friday, the 14th or Monday, the 18th at the latest. This will be sufficient time for review before the January public hearing. Mr. Kane noted that the Town Hall is closed on Fridays.
Ms. DeLonga asked how far the footings would be from the stream bank. She noted that at the site inspection she had mentioned that the footings should be shifted to avoid impacting the stream bank. She noted that in the NOI it was stated that there would be 447 square feet of impact to the BLSF. She asked where this impact is located. Mr. Goodreau stated that this impact is shown on the plan as a result of the study conducted by Green International. He stated that the BLSF does not extend onto the site. Ms. DeLonga stated that she could not see that any work was being proposed within the BLSF. Mr. Goodreau stated that there would be impact from grading within a corner of the replication area. Mrs. Hegeman stated that there is no impact to BLSF.
Ms DeLonga asked how much riverfront area is on the lot. Mr. Goodreau stated that they are not proposing any work within the riverfront area. Mr. Goodreau stated that he would calculate the percentage of riverfront exists on the lot as a result of Ms. DeLonga’s questioning and provide that number to the Commission.
Ms. DeLonga referred to item #3 on the Stormwater form (recharge to groundwater). She asked if the number provided includes houses and driveway’s and other impervious surfaces from total buildout. Mr. Goodreau stated that he will be filling out the stormwater management forms as a part of the re-submission. Mr. Nylen stated that there would be changes to the stormwater calculations due to the revisions. The new forms will replace the original stormwater forms.
Ms. DeLonga noted that when she pasted the sheets together to obtain an overall view of the project she noticed that the erosion controls were not carried over to subsequent pages of the plan. The 0-50 and the 50-100 foot buffer zones were not split out for clarity
purposes. Mr. Goodreau stated that he would show the inner and outer buffer zone delineations on the revised plans.
Ms. DeLonga noted to Mr. Goodreau that a drain shown on the plan shows pipes going in but no pipes going out. This was not a pipe from a catch basin. This area was meant to catch water in the swale at the rear of the houses. No street drainage would be directed to the drain. She also referred to another drain that appeared to have no outlet. Mr. Goodreau stated that based upon the comments from Graves, this was changed.
Mr. Nylen stated that they would be back in January and wished to be placed on the February agenda.
The Commission commented on the alternatives analysis that was previously submitted by the applicant. Mr. Talerman stated that he had studied the alternatives analysis and had visited the site. He stated that two of the analysis were 40B proposals and noted that they would not be applicable. He stated that the 40B projects could be accomplished without a wetland crossing. If the Commission were to use the 40B analysis he would construe it against the applicant. He noted that as many as 12 lots could be done off of the Village Green cul-de-sac. Mr. Nylen noted that he wanted to show that there could be a higher density of development with the 40B project. Mr. Talerman stated that it could also be a lower density project. At least two of the submitted alternatives would
be eliminated as potential projects.
Mr. Talerman stated that he is still trying to understand the Zoning Bylaw regarding an Estate Lot and wants to ask for some interpretation. He will get back to the Commission and applicant at the January meeting on this issue.
Mr. Talerman noted that a question that has been bantered about is whether one developed lot is enough development on the site. He noted that the purchase price of the parcel was very low and the economic impacts are not necessarily a factor in the Commission’s ultimate decision.
Mr. Talerman addressed alternative #1 that showed two cul-de-sacs and no crossing. This would require waivers from the Planning Board. He stated that it appears to him that there would have to be 2 -1200 foot cul-de-sacs. He asked how many lots they could develop if there were 1 or 2 shorter cul-de-sacs. He noted that he had a conversation with the Planning Board chairman and asked if the Planning Board would entertain a shorter length of cul-de-sac and if the shorter cul-de-sac could mitigate some of their concerns. He noted that the Planning Board chairman suggested that the Conservation Commission send the Planning Board a note and the matter will be placed on their agenda. Mr. Talerman stated that he already drafted a short memo to the Planning Board and submitted it to the
other members for review. He stated that he would not like to see a crossing if it can be avoided.
Mr. Nylen stated that they went to the Planning Board on a number of occasions. The Planning Board indicated that they do not grant any waivers on the 500 foot maximum length of a cul-de-sac. The Planning Board would also want to have an engineered plan in front of them that showed what the waivers were. He stated that they appeared before the Planning Board and the Planning Board told them that they would not grant any waivers on the cul-de-sac length.
Mr. Talerman stated that he wanted the Planning Board to receive this memo tomorrow to start some dialogue. He noted that the Planning Board chairman indicated that the Board would be interested in hearing what benefits could be gained. Mr. Talerman stated that he would relay his concerns to the Planning Board and would be seeing this matter through with them.
Jack Scott stated that he has been through 5 Conservation Commission chairmen and 14 Commission members and he feels like a ping pong ball. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars making engineering changes. He stated that the boyscout property had been on the open market for almost one year and the $225,000 price for the property was offered first to the neighbors and then to Peter Chipman, who walked away from the site. He stated that he paid $600,000 to purchase a house off Village Green to have access to the site. He stated that he tried not to cross the wetlands. He stated that it is his opinion that he is getting delayed. Mr. Nylen stated that the Planning Board does not want to establish precedent for an extension of a cul-de-sac. Mr. Talerman noted that the courts have rejected
arguments involving precedent setting action.
Claudette Healey, a resident of 3 Bigelow, Place thanked Mr. Talerman for hearing the concerns of the abutters and the addressing the concern of a wetland crossing.
Mrs. Joanne Yatsuhashi, a resident of Old Colony Drive, stated that she has a presentation to make to the Commission. She noted that she is the spokesperson for her neighborhood, which is downstream of the project. Mrs.Yatsuhashi presented packets of information to the Commission members, their consultants and the applicants.
Mrs. Yatsuhashi gave a brief history of the efforts of three previous parties to develop the property. She noted that the Old Colony neighborhood has serious water issues. Through a series of photographs and plans, Mrs. Yatsuhashi noted that there were several outstanding concerns, such as:
· An unknown high water level of the streams on the site
· This site lies within the Charles River Watershed area
· The Charles River Watershed stated that replication areas do not work
· Several studies show that wetland replication does not work or has a very low success rate
· The area serves as habitat for a lot of wildlife species
· All but two houses have water problems in the Old Colony neighborhood
· Mrs. Yatsuhashi commissioned an engineer, Fred Pfischner, in 1999 to conduct a study on the potential water impacts from the development on the boyscout property. He stated that any development of the scout land could affect ground water in the Old Colony neighborhood as the only outlet for water from the boyscout site is behind the Old Colony area.
· Andrew Bakinowski was commissioned by Mrs. Yatsuhashi to report on hydrological issues. He recommended that groundwater studies be conducted and expected problems with concentrated subsurface discharge from the Pine Creek Development. This is a subject that needs to be closely looked at. The current scheme of subsurface discharge for the Pine Creek Development will adversely impact the downstream areas.
· Photographs of flooding in the Old Colony neighborhood were presented
Mr. Ilchek from Old Colony Drive stated that after he purchased his property he realized that he had a serious flooding problem. He had installed french drains, which worked for a couple of years. This past year however his basement was again flooded. After speaking to an engineer, he was advised to install at least two vertical stormwater drainage wells in his rear yard, which may or may not work. He presented photographs. He stated that one tree utilizes 90 gallons of water per day and if the trees are removed on the boyscout site the water table will rise and his flooding situation will get worse. He noted that newly installed septic systems will also increase underground water levels. He asked who will pay for his flooded basement after the upstream site is developed and noted that
there is no groundwater flood insurance in Massachusetts.
Mr. Kane noted that Mrs. Yatsuhashi’s presentation raised the issue that the existing water levels will be exacerbated by the Pine Creek Development subdivision. Mrs. Yatsuhashi agreed.
Mr. Kane asked Mr. Jeff Howland if he had enough information to determine the off site flooding impacts from this development. Mr. Howland stated that he could look at surface groundwater to see what effects would be to downstream areas. Piezometers have been installed on the Pine Creek site to determine ground water levels for replication. The peizometers had been installed for almost one year.
Peter Dillon, a hydrologist for the applicant, stated that the groundwater at the site is between 12 and 15 feet below the surface. They have done mounding analysis according to Board of Health requirements but they will be redone. He stated that the control structure downgradient of the site is artificially controlled and groundwater levels and flooding problems are the result in the Old Colony area. He stated that he does not believe that there will be any real increase in the stormwater post development. Mr. Dillon stated that the Pine Creek subdivision would not make the water situation any better for the downstream neighbors. He noted that the artificially controlled elevation of the downstream pond is controlling the groundwater levels. Mr. Kane stated that the Commission would like to
have the mounding analysis information that was conducted for the stormwater from the site. The majority of the stormwater basins are within the buffer zone and they will be reviewed by the Commission’s consultant. The Commission wants to know that the development is not making the downstream flooding worse. Mr. Nylen noted that the stormwater infiltrates faster than 2.4 inches per hour. Stormwater
guidelines require a design for slower infiltration rates. This information is being sent to Mr. Dillon to review and conduct mounding and do new calculations. The new mounding studies would confirm that their existing calculations would not be changed.
Jack Scott stated that Mr. Pfischner and Mr. Bakinowski were previous conservation commission members and the information they prepared for Mrs. Yatsuhashi was done to stop his project.
Mrs. Healey requested that the Commission investigate the successful replication projects done by the applicant’s consultant to be sure that the projects are similar to this project.
Mr. Nylen stated that the replication has been designed to intercept the surface water, which is similar to what exists.
Mr. Kane reiterated what comprehensive information was expected from the applicant early next week. This information would then be sent to Graves Engineering.
Mr. Shaw made the motion to schedule the public hearing on February 28th at 9:00 p.m. (Note: hearing was already scheduled for January 24 at 8:00 p.m. The Commission wanted 4 sets of drainage reports and 4 sets of full sized plans and 8 – ½ size sets of plans. An executive summary of the drainage report will be provided as well.
Mr. Nylen asked when the Planning Board would be meeting. Mr. McManus asked if there were any specific requests of EcoTec. At this time there is nothing. Mr. McManus will review the information received this evening and draft a short report.
Ms. Lawless made the motion to continue the hearing to January 24 at 8:00 p.m. and February 28 at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The hearing adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Call & Wait discussion – It was noted that the Board of Selectmen sent a notice of the violation of the Agreement to Call & Wait. The members viewed copies of the digital aerial photos that were forwarded to the conservation office from the Town Administrator.
The members reviewed the FY’08 budget impact statement. The Commission will recommend that $1500 from the Conservation Agent line item be re-allocated to the office supply account. The Commission will take $1500 from the Wetlands Expense Account and apply it to the Agent’s expense line item. Mr. Harrington asked how much money was in the Wetlands Protection Account. The “appropriated” amount of money for the FY’08 Conservation Commission budget will remain level funded.
Discussion of Buckley-Mann property – A letter was sent to the Commission from Hoover Realty Trust requesting the Notice of Intent be withdrawn. There was a concern that the hazardous materials would remain onsite. Mr. Harrington was to draft a letter on
behalf of the Commission requiring that the barrels be removed and disposed of in a proper manner.
The Commission reviewed correspondence from the month. The Commission will defer reviewing and voting on the draft minutes to the next meeting.
The Commission reviewed a revised plan submitted for 44 Massachusetts Avenue (Mica Breen) prepared by Dunn-McKenzie. The plan was accompanied by a cover letter. There is an increase in the size of the addition by 12 square feet (2 foot by 6 foot area). Approximately 6 square feet would encroach into the 50-100 foot buffer. The Commission will send a letter requesting an enlargement of the additional area that encroaches into the buffer zone. Mr. Shaw made the motion to send a letter asking for a revised plan highlighting the additional 2 foot by 6 foot encroachment. The area already deed restricted is noted on a different plan and will remain unchanged. Mr. Harrington seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
10:00 p.m. Executive Session - Mr. Harrington made the motion to enter into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. The roll call vote was as follows:
Allan Shaw - - - - - - aye
Jeffrey Kane - - - - - - aye
Paul Lugten - - - - - - aye
Daniel Crafton- - - - - aye
Cheri Lawless - - - - - aye
Laurence Harrington –aye
Jason Talerman - - - - aye
The vote to go into Executive Session was unanimous. The Commission will not go back into an open session.
Mr. Shaw made the motion to come out of Executive Session at 10:20 p.m. for the purpose of adjournment. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The roll call vote to come out of Executive Session and adjourn the meeting was as follows:
Allan Shaw - - - - - - aye
Jeffrey Kane - - - - - - aye
Paul Lugten - - - - - - aye
Daniel Crafton- - - - - aye
Cheri Lawless - - - - - aye
Laurence Harrington –aye
Jason Talerman - - - - aye
The vote on the motion was unanimous. The Commission closed the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
___________________________,
Allan M. Shaw, Clerk
File: concomm.2006.dec13.06
| 
