Conservation Commission
Minutes of October 11, 2006
Present: Jeffrey Kane, Jason Talerman, Allan Shaw, Cheri Lawless, Daniel Crafton, Laurence Harrington (left at 8:50 p.m.), Paul Lugten (7:50 p.m.)
Absent: No One
The duly posted meeting of the Norfolk Conservation Commission convened at 7:3 p.m. in room 105C at the Norfolk Town Hall. Charles Carter and Paul Jacobs (Charleyjane Construction) were present to discuss the driveway construction at 6 Whites Pond Drive. Convened at 7:30 p.m. No abutters were present. Mr. Jacobs stated that they presented a plan at the last meeting. He noted that the driveway width would be 12 feet. This was an outstanding issue from the last meeting. The driveway would be constructed with No. 1 binder and 6 plus inches of processed gravel along with a storm retention area. Mr. Kane asked if the material was going to be No. 1 binder of the special popcorn mix that they spoke about. Mr. Jacobs stated that it would be No. 1 open mix. This plan was provided at the
last meeting.
Mr. Kane questioned the gradation of the processed gravel. He questioned if it was a standard MA Highway mix. He noted that he was looking for a more porous mix. Mr. Kane requested that MA Highway specifications for the gradation of the gravel be submitted. This would be a more open mix. He stated that he wanted to see a poor gradation so that it won’t get packed.
Mr. Talerman noted that there was an open question at the end of the last meeting about some open work under the Order of Conditions. The members discussed the status of the Order of Conditions. Some of the members questioned if the Order had expired. It was noted that two Orders of Conditions had been issued for this project. The second Order of Conditions was issued on May 5, 2004. The Order is still valid. Ms. DeLonga noted that the Commission has to decide whether to require an amended Order of Conditions or require this new information on an-built plan. It was noted that the first Order of Conditions provided for the paving of the driveway. The second Order of Conditions was issued to finish the project as the original Order had expired. Mr. Kane recommended that the new
information will be attached to the original Order and no new filing fees or new application will be required.
Mr. Kane asked that the applicants to provide a sectional detail of the driveway showing materials and depths. He noted that a geotec fabric should be installed beneath the gravel. He noted that the Commission would just need the specifics of the details for the construction.
Mr. Talerman made the motion to continue this matter to October 25, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The Order of Conditions will be reviewed to ensure compliance with all of the conditions.
7:40 p.m. Norfolk Recreation Public Hearing – Present were Ms. Ann Proto, Norfolk Recreation Director and Mr. Lee Lyman of Lycott Environmental. Mr. Lyman stated that he had sent the Commission a copy of an article on phragmites. He noted that the most preferable method for the control of a small stand of phragmities is to use herbicides. He noted that phragmities spread and can become quite disruptive. This plant will also disrupt other plants and the soil. He stated that he recommends that the phragmities near the town pond be treated with herbicides. Mr. Lyman stated that 70-80% of the phragmities can be taken care of by a fall treatment and another treatment in the spring will take care of 90% of the problem.
The commission discussed other methods for the control of phragmities. One suggestion is to remove the phragmities by hand. Ms. Proto stated that they do not have the manpower to remove the phragmities by hand. She stated that if they don’t take care of the phragmities, Fisheries and Wildlife would not be interested in pursuing the stocking of the pond with trout for fishing. Ms. Proto stated that she was told by Butch Vito, the Department of Public Works Superintendent, that there is no manpower and no money to manually take care of the phragmities.
Mr. Kane asked if this is a question of manpower or the price of taking care of the phragmities. Ms. Proto stated that Butch did not elaborate.
Mr. Lyman stated that the stand of phragmities are not near the town pond. He stated that if they brought in equipment to excavate the phragmities they will have to disturb the wetlands. Mr. Lyman asked what problems and issues are a concern for the Commission and how do they want to manage the phragmities. He stated that if the Commission does not allow the treatment of the phragmities they could appeal to DEP and a permit would be issued via a superseding Order of Conditions. Mr. Talerman stated that the Commission is the steward of the town pond as well as the permit granting authority.
Ms. Proto asked if the Commission supports the bigger project for the town pond. She stated that she thought that she had the support of the Commission when she approached the Community Preservation Committee about the town pond project. Mr. Shaw stated that he has never changed his mind about the use of chemicals in the environment. Ms. Proto stated that the best time to treat the phragmities is right now.
Mr. Shaw stated that he conducted a site inspection of the town pond area and found that there were two stands of phragmities. He noted that one stand of phragmities has not changed in size for the last ten years. The 2nd stand in proximity to the stream crossing is new. He stated that the stand is quite small and could be easily managed. Mr. Shaw stated that he has done research on chemicals that are proposed to be used to treat the phragmities. He stated that he does not want to be uncooperative but he would prefer another method of management.
Ms. Proto stated that there had been a lot of requests from townspeople for a swimming facility. She noted that when Fisheries and Wildlife visited the site they stated that the town had to get rid of the phragmities and address the algae problem in the pond.
Mr. Talerman stated that Ralph Tiner had prepared some facts on phragmities control. He stated that he feels conflicted because Mr. Tiner talked about manual control. He noted that it may be cheaper to remove the phragmities manually by covering the stand with black plastic.
Ms. Proto stated that the phragmities had been pulled out once before but they came back. Mr. Lyman stated that he had done a big project for the City of Boston in the Fens area. He noted that several methods of phragmities control were used, i.e. cutting, covering, etc. and the bottom line is that none of the manual methods worked as effectively as herbicide treatment. The root system of the plant species had not been destroyed using manual methods. He noted that phragmities need to be continually managed.
Ms. Proto stated that Fisheries and Wildlife wants to conduct work at the pond such as putting in benches and adding six or seven parking spaces. They would also install fencing along the adjacent railroad tracks. Mr. Harrington asked that something be provided in writing to the Commission from Fisheries and Wildlife. He noted that this plan is a major re-engineering of a conservation area. He asked to see the entire plan and not have the project fragmented. Ms. Proto stated that there is such a plan but the phragmities need to be taken care of first. Mr. Harrington stated that he wants to see in writing that the state will not contribute if the phragmities are not taken care of first. He asked if Fisheries and Wildlife wanted a management plan as well. Mr. Harrington noted that
phragmities also have habitat value for birds and mammals. Mr. Lyman stated that more native plants will take over the area if the phragmities are managed. Mr. Kane stated that he is concerned that this project is being presented in a piecemeal fashion.
Mr. Talerman stated that he shares Mr. Shaw’s concerns regarding the use of chemicals. Ms. Lawless stated that she had no problem with the use of chemicals for aquatic weed control. Mr. Lugten stated that he is not a proponent of using chemicals but noted that this is a small area. Mr. Crafton stated that the longer the weeds are allowed to remain the more likely they will spread. Mr. Kane stated that using manual means to remove the phragmities makes more sense as the site is very small. Mr. Talerman stated that he could vote for the chemicals with strict conditions.
Mr. Lyman estimated that the cost of managing the phragmities using chemicals would be approximately $2200. The herbicides would be mixed on the site and the plants would be sprayed with a hand held applicator. Each individual plant would be sprayed. The chemical would be absorbed into the root system of the plant within a two week time period. He stated that chemical management of aquatic weeds has been in existence for approximately 20 years. There would be approximately 20 to 30 ounces of the chemical used for the treatment.
Two treatments would be proposed. The treatment in the fall should be done in August through October. Ms. Proto stated that she could take before and after photos.
Jay would vote in favor with some strict conditions. Mr. Lyman requested that the hearing be closed. It was noted that the Commission is very divided on this matter. Mr. Lyman stated that if there is no hard frost they could still treat the weeds this year. It was noted that the option of doing mechanical work on the weeds could be undertaken in the fall. Mr. Talerman made the motion to close the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
David Meader – 48 River Road – 8:30 p.m. Mr. Meader was present. Mr. Shaw, Mr. Crafton and Ms. Lawless had inspected the site. Mr. Crafton stated that there may be no alternative in this case and there may not be a lot of stockpiling. Mr. Meader requested that the hearing be closed. Mr. Talerman made the motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous to close.
Handong Zhang – 53 Fruit Street – 8:31 p.m. Mr. Michael Clark from Norfolk Ram Group and Mrs. Zhang were present. Mr. Clark stated that he prepared some supplemental information for additional mitigation at the site. One change is to add native plantings, such as Dogwood and Summersweet. He also added and Operations and Maintenance plan in addition to information on gravel driveways.
Mr. Clark stated that they would be picking up some of the runoff from the driveway near the house. They are trying to implement some stormwater treatments that were not available at the time of the original permit applications. Mr. Lugten and Mr. Crafton agreed that this plan is superior to a dirt road and they have no problem with this corrective action.
Mr. Clark stated that he tried to keep the roadway to the same footprint. The two bioretention cells will be located in an existing grass area. There would be a temporary disturbance only. The existing lawn would be replaced with the bioretention cells. The proposal would capture and treat runoff from a 2, 25 and 50 year storm event.
Mr. Shaw stated that the Conservation Commission is changing a long standing policy. Mr. Kane noted that there are three different driveway materials. Based upon site conditions one material may be more appropriate than another. Mr. Clark stated that the cost of this proposal would be approximately $10,000. Mr. Clark recommended that the Commission visit the Varney Brothers plant to see how porous concrete performs. He noted that this would be the 6th or 7th installation that he has undertaken. He will file with the Zoning Board of Appeals next. Ms. DeLonga requested a copy of the revised plan, which is dated September 25, 2006. Mr. Talerman made the motion to close the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion
was unanimous.
The Commission met with Mr. John. Glossa of Glossa Engineering, who was representing Paul Borrelli. This was a last minute appointment. Mr. Glossa presented a plan of William Sweet’s property on Main Street. There is a stream located across the street. A small portion of the 100 foot buffer zone impacts Mr. Sweet’s property. They would be working within this small portion of the buffer when developing Mr. Sweet’s property. The curb stop will also be within the 100 foot buffer. They could bring the access into lot 40 without going through the buffer zone however. Mr. Kane advised that they should prepare and submit a Request for Determination (RDA). Ms. DeLonga stated that even if they don’t need to file a Notice of Intent they would still have to file
under Natural Heritage if the site falls within a priority habitat. Mr. Kane stated that he would like to do the shortest route possible even though there is only a sliver of land being impacted. The Commission stated that they could not set a precedent of allowing this go forward without a review. Mr. Kane suggested that the RDA show erosion controls.
Stephen Kane Order of Condition – 96 Main Street. The Commission will revise the draft to include a suggestion that the frog pond retaining wall should be repaired before it collapses. This repair is a separate project from the septic repair project. The repair of the frog pond wall will require a separate filing. Mr. Talerman made the motion to approve the Order of Conditions as revised. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was 4-0. Mssrs. Kane and Harrington abstained. The final Order of Conditions will be forwarded to Mr. Glossa.
Philip Chadwick – 15 Castle Road –Order of Conditions. The Commission reviewed the draft Order of Conditions and questioned how much of the project would be located within the 50-100 foot buffer zone. Some of the work is proposed within the 0-50 foot no build. Some of the work proposed in the 0-50 foot no build would be new construction. There would be 73 square feet of new disturbance in the 0-50 foot no build zone. It was noted that a memorandum from Natural Heritage expressed concern with disturbance to the box turtle. The applicants propose to plant highbush blueberry bushes along the bank of the stream as mitigation. Mr. Talerman stated that he wants the Order to include a finding that the commission generally prohibits disturbances in the 0-50 foot buffer zone. Ms.
Lawless stated that the applicants could have added to the house without encroaching into the 0-50 foot no build.
Mr. Shaw made the motion to deny an Order of Conditions for the proposed work at 15 Castle Road. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The Commission noted that it is their policy to prohibit any disturbances within the 0-50 foot buffer. Waivers are granted in only rare circumstances. In this case there are alternatives to increasing the living space in other areas. If the addition were proposed within the same footprint as the existing deck they would allow the work. An alternative of a redesigned addition was discussed. The Commission noted that they could approve the project subject to a redesign of the addition that will not incur any further disturbances within the 0-50 foot buffer.
Ms. DeLonga stated that she did not care for the proposed mitigation. She noted that the mitigation is strip of plantings. She noted that no erosion controls are shown on the plan. Mr. Shaw withdrew his original motion.
Mr. Talerman stated that a scaled down addition could be approved if the addition did not exceed the footprint of the existing deck. Mr. Shaw made the motion to approve the Order of Conditions subject to a redesigned plan showing disturbances limited to the footprint of the existing deck and erosion controls added to the plan. Mr. Talerman seconded the motion. The mitigation area will also show the area of the lawn that will be removed and replaced with leaf mulch. A second row of haybales shall be placed at the western limit of the proposed mitigation area. This plan shall be submitted to the Commission prior to any work being done at this site. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Anthony Lancellotti Order of Conditions – 23 Lake Street. The members reviewed and discussed the draft Order of Conditions. The mitigation measures will be described in the Order. The revised plan shows the enhanced mitigation areas. The replication areas are also spelled out in the plans. The replication needs to be done prior to any work. Mr. Talerman made the motion to approve the Order of Conditions as revised. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote was 6-0 to approve. Ms. Lawless abstained.
Bay State Gas discussion – Mr. Kane noted that he spoke to Bay State Gas when they were excavating the intersection of Clark Street and Main Street. He stated that he told them to fill the trench and not to install any gas pipes as this area was in a buffer zone. Bay State Gas filled the trenches. No fines were issued.
Vouchers were signed.
The Commission reviewed the draft minutes of April 12, 2006, August 9, 2006, August 23, 2006 and September 13, 2006. Mr. Talerman made the motion to approve the above mentioned sets of minutes. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Mr. Talerman made the motion to close the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
___________________________,
Allan M. Shaw, Clerk/Vice chairman
| 
