Conservation Commission
Minutes of February 28, 2007
Present: Laurence Harrington (left meeting at 10:50 p.m.) Cheri Lawless, Daniel Crafton, Paul Lugten (left meeting at 10:50 p.m., Jay Talerman, Janet DeLonga (agent)
Absent: Allan Shaw, Jeffrey Kane
This meeting was videotaped by NCTV.
The duly posted meeting of the Conservation Commission convened at 7:30 p.m. in room 105C at the Norfolk Town Hall. Mr. Talerman chaired this evening’s meeting in the absence of Mr. Kane.
The members discussed the RFQ’s received for the ANORAD review of Paddocks and Corrals. The members felt that the price from Wetland Strategies, Inc. appeared to be reasonable. Mr. Talerman noted that Wetland Strategies would be a good choice for this project. Mr. Crafton made the motion to award the review to Wetland Strategies Inc. Ms. Lawless seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. A copy of the letter from Ralph Greggs to the Commission will be sent to Wetland Strategies.
The members signed vouchers for supplies and expenses.
The members noted that a letter was forwarded to the property owner at 209 Dedham Street to cease and desist activities at the site due to wetland violations under the Act and Bylaw. It was noted that the Building Commissioner had also sent a letter to the party utilizing the site that there are also zoning violations and advised that the occupants had had ten business days to vacate the property.
The members signed a certificate of release for 23 Fruit Street. The Order of Conditions had expired for this property.
7:45 p.m.Norfolk Enterprises, LLC – John Glossa. P.E. from Glossa Engineering was present to represent the applicant, Norfolk Enterprises, for the filing of a Request for Determination of Applicability for Lot 40 Main Street and an Abbreviated Notice of Intent for Lot 41 Main Street. The abutters present signed an attendance sheet, which was entered into the record on this matter. This is the first public hearing on this matter even though the Commission the opened the public hearing last month and continued the hearing to this date. The hearing was continued as the abutters had not been notified of the public hearing.
Mr. Glossa stated that Lot 40 and Lot 41 Main Street will be subdivided from 260 Main Street, the site of an existing house and farm stand formerly occupied by William Sweet. Mr. Glossa stated that an intermittent stream runs through properties across the street from this site. This stream then crosses beneath Main Street near 272 Main Street (former owner was William Sweet’s sister, Mrs. Shipley) and travels in a westerly direction towards Lake Street. Carr Research flagged the wetlands around the stream. He stated that for the most part the front lawns of the houses along Main Street extend down to the stream. There are some shrubs and brush on either side of the stream.
The wetlands and its buffer zone were identified on the plans for Lots 40 and 41. There would be no work within the buffer zone on lot 40. There is small amount of 50-100 foot buffer on Lot 41, which encompasses the driveway for that lot. This area is directly across the street from Sweetland Farm Road. Mr. Glossa stated that he hoped that the Conservation Commission would agree with them that there would be no impact to the buffer zone as a result of the development on Lot 40 and no Notice of Intent would be necessary. Mr. Glossa noted that some time ago he appeared before the Commission informally to ask what type of filing would be required for the two lots.
Mr. Talerman noted that correspondence has been received from MESA that there would be no taking due to the presence of rare species. Ms. DeLonga has not had an opportunity to conduct a site inspection of the proposed project. She noted that DEP sent a memorandum stating that the stream across the street is shown as perennial on the most recent U.S.G.S. map. The riverfront area associated with the perennial stream would impact these lots. The applicant would have to file Notices of Intent for both projects if the stream is perennial.
Mr. Glossa said that the intermittent status of this stream was adjudicated by DEP many years ago. He noted that he would supply the Commission with this information if the office could not locate this information readily. Mr. Glossa stated that DEP determined that the downstream portion of the stream was intermittent as well. The matter went before a DEP adjudicatory hearing, which ruled that the stream at Canterbury Estates, Phase II was intermittent. He stated that it would be impossible to have the upstream portion of the stream be perennial and the downstream portion of the stream be intermittent. It was determined that this issue occurred approximately 7-8 years ago. Ms. DeLonga requested that backup information be submitted for the wetland delineation around the stream.
Mr. Glossa addressed the Abbreviated Notice of Intent for Lot 41 Main Street. He noted that in 1996 or 1997 Mr. Borrelli installed a water line down Main Street and he left town hookups to the lots that he proposed for this area. The hookups are approximately 90 feet from the edge of the wetlands. The contractors have to excavate 4 ½ to 5 feet down to the copper hook ups in the street and that work will occur in the buffer zone. Mr. Glossa stated that the water pipe will be one inch in diameter. The water line trench will be backfilled, loamed and seeded.
The second area impacting the buffer is the driveway. The farmstand has a gravel surface approximately 10 feet from the street to the stand. The area beyond the gravel to the farmstand itself consists of shingle tabs to make a harder surface. These areas were shown on the plan. Mr. Glossa stated that he positioned the proposed house so that the driveway would cross the gravel surface and the shingle tab areas. They would like to pave the entire driveway. The amount of disturbance is 60 square feet for the excavation of the water line and 240 square feet for the driveway.
Ms. DeLonga stated that if the stream is deemed to be perennial and the one lot is split this would pose a problem. Mr. Talerman noted that he would want to see the adjudication decision to determine if there may be a problem. There would be certain grandfathered rights if the lot was recorded before a certain date. Mr. Talerman noted that the adjudication decision labels certain areas of the stream in its identification. He noted that whoever made the decision made a sketch of the stream and labeled its status. Mr. Talerman reminded Mr. Glossa that the backup information for the wetland delineation is also required.
Mr. Harrington asked if the applicant would be willing to remove the original driveway area and plant in its natural condition. He noted that this could be worked out. He stated that Mr. Borrelli would be willing to replant. He noted that all areas outside of the 100 foot buffer zone would be planted as lawn.
Mrs. Christina Gleason, a resident of 249 Main Street for 16 years, pointed out that there are two large ponds behind her house. She stated that the ponds are always full. She noted that as the stream continues downgradient it may become intermittent but at least in her area the stream always flows. She noted that there is always flooding at the intersection of Canterberry Lane in front of her house. She noted that areas that flood on Main Street. She noted that the construction of the houses would exaggerate the flooding problems on the street. She noted that several years ago the stream overflowed and flooded the street. She noted also that after the construction of two frontage lots on Main Street by Mr. Borrelli, the lawn areas from the houses washed down onto Main Street after a
rain storm. Mr. Glossa stated that Mrs. Gleason was referring to the Borrelli dwellings with steep front yards. The proposed lots that now encompass the Sweet house would not be steep. One of the lots would rise five feet from the proposed garage to the street. Mr. Gleason stated that Canterbury Estates has a full drainage system but the street still has only a binder course of asphalt that could allow runoff to overflow the catch basins, which are set at a higher elevation to accommodate the height of the finish asphalt.
Mrs. Gleason stated that the catch basin on Main Street also does not properly function. The water does not flow into the basin and the catch basin is level with Main Street. Mrs. Gleason asked that no more water be added to the situation. Mr. Harrington noted that any runoff coming down the driveway instead of infiltrating into the ground will run into the street. Even though these are ANR lots it does not mean that anyone can discharge more stormwater than what exists.
Kevin Gleason stated that there is culvert and drain made by Mr. Borrelli just before it reaches the Sweet property. Mr. Glossa stated that this is the overflow for the underground basin. All of the catch basins on the street connect with each other via a series of pipes and the pipes direct flows to an underground infiltration and retention basin. Mr. Gleason noted that none of the water is reaching the catch basins. He noted that a lot of water collects in the street in front of the area of the proposed houses on Main Street. This poses a problem when the stormwater freezes in the winter. Mr. Talerman noted that some of these drainage problems may need to be addressed by the Planning Board.
Thelma Ravinski, an abutter who resides on Medway Street, stated that she has been a resident of Norfolk for over 60 years and her brother-in-law constructed the farmstand on Mr. Sweet’s property as well as one of the barns. Mrs. Ravinski stated that she is also a member of the Historical Committee. The Sweet house is an historical house. The top floor of the Sweet house is the original structure. Mrs. Ravinski stated that she has never seen the stream go dry. Mr. Glossa stated that he has hundreds of photos of the dry stream.
Mr. Gleason asked if there were any blockages of the stream as the ponds and streams on his side of the street are always full.
Mr. Talerman questioned the size of the proposed lots. Mr. Glossa stated that lot 40 would be 30,070 square feet. Lot 41 would be 30,000 square feet. Mr. Talerman noted that there is a discrepancy on the plan as it references 2.6 acres. Mr. Glossa noted that some of the land had been purchased by Mr. Borrelli at an earlier time but he left the extra acreage with Mr. Sweet. One of the lots that Mr. Borrelli had an option to purchase was shaped like a bread crust that encircled Mr. Sweet’s property.
Mr. Talerman stated that the Commission will require a continuance to clear up some outstanding issues. Mr. Harrington made the motion to continue the public hearing for the Abbreviated Notice of Intent to March 28, 2007 at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Mr. Harrington made the motion to continue the public hearing for the RDA to March 28, 2007 at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The hearings adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Pine Creek Development Public Hearing – 8:30 p.m. Mr. Harrington recused himself from this matter. The public hearing will be opened for administrative purposes only and continued to March 28th as there not a quorum for the hearing. The applicant had been advised of this situation. No one was present to represent the applicant and there was no written request to continue. The public hearing had a continuance date of March 28 already. Mr. Lugten made the motion to continue the public hearing to March 28, 2007 at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Crafton seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The hearing adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
The Commission entered into general business related discussions prior to the commencement of the Bixby public hearing and received an update from Mr. Talerman on the items being discussed and reviewed by the Community Preservation Committee. Mr. Harrington asked that the staff research the Conservation Restriction that had been proposed to be placed on the Weeber property.
Christopher Bixby (36 Birch Road)Public Hearing – 9:00 p.m. Christopher Bixby was present. Paul Cutler from Landmark Engineering was not present. Mr. Bixby stated that his current septic system is failing. The old system will be abandoned and a new system installed. The entire house at 36 Birch Road is within the 100 foot buffer zone. The proposed system is located mostly outside of the buffer resource. The area where the proposed septic system is to be located is lawn area. Mr. Bixby stated that he already filed his plan with the Norfolk Board of Health. He was advised to find out if the project involves the filling in of the old D-box and for the existing system. The Commission wants to know the approximate limit of disturbance for the project and
how the wetlands were determined. The Commission will conduct a site inspection of the locus. No DEP file number has been assigned to this project. The applicant was advised to have his engineer, Mr. Cutler, contact the agent. Mr. Harrington made the motion to continue the public hearing to March 28, 2007 at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Call & Wait public hearing - 9:15 p.m. This is the second public hearing on this matter. The first public hearing was continued without any information being received. Mr. Daniel Orwig was present. Mr. Orwig passed out copies of a summary sheet of the proposed clean up plan. He also showed an existing conditions plan to the Commission. The plan depicts two structures on the 5 acre parcel. The access to the parcel is from Lincoln Road. The site contains two retaining walls. The major circulation system of the operation was shown. Mr. Orwig noted that a Notice of Intent had been filed sometime in the past and an Order of Conditions issued for the construction of a drainage swale with an outlet structure, manhole and discharge pipe.
The embankment is a filled area with debris evident in a number of locations. This area is designated as a clean up area. There is riverfront, BVW and buffer zones on the lot. Call & Wait is working with the Board of Selectmen to address the closure of all of the environmental problems. The proposal for environmental clean up has a number of considerations. One is to remove the debris within the embankment. The debris consists of concrete from a former hospital that was removed and debris from a prior owner. They propose to line the existing swale with clay and install three drainage systems. One system would be for the roof runoff, a second would consist of a stormceptor unit that would pick up drainage from the roadway loop in the site and the area adjacent to the maintenance
facility that is proposed to be paved. There will also be two catch basins leading to the swale. A stormceptor will be installed in this area. They are proposing a vegetated cover for the entire embankment that would eliminate any access to the wetland area and river. A private well on the site will be abandoned and a town water service will be installed.
Three areas of swales are proposed to be constructed that would capture runoff and sedimentation. One of the swales would prevent sedimentation from running down Lincoln Road. The entire roadway to the site will be regarded. The list of the items and elements of the clean up plan area were shown on the clean up plan.
Mr. Orwig noted that Mr. Waznus installed a 12 inch corrugated pipe to handle the roof runoff. This work was done without an Order of Conditions. This work was done approximately 2 months ago. Mr. Talerman questioned how the 12 inch pipe will work to accommodate the roof runoff. Mr. Orwig suggested that water be poured through the pipe to check if it is working.
Mr. Orwig stated that he has a meeting with the LSP (Brian Klinger) on Wednesday.
Mr. Orwig stated that all of the automotive parts are in the process of being sold. Mr. Orwig stated that he has a compendium of everything that has been sold that is current to January 1, 2007. Mr. Harrington asked what would be the expected usage of the site once the equipment has been liquidated. He noted that the structures that are being proposed anticipate a use of the land that is not different than what is there now. Mr. Orwig stated that the difference in the use will be that no automotive parts will be sold. The site will be used for whole truck vehicles for sale. Mr. Orwig stated that there would be no further crushing of vehicles, no miscellaneous parts for sale. Currently Call & Wait does not have a license to sell the whole trucks. Mr. Orwig stated that he was told that
if the site is cleaned up the Board of Selectmen may issue a license to sell trucks. The number of trucks to be sold at the site would be how many the site can hold. Mr. Harrington noted that when the commission evaluates the plan to protect the environment, which is what the commission is charged, the commission has to think about what the use of the land would be in the future. Mr. Harrington noted that it makes a big difference on what the property will be used for. Mr. Orwig stated that he could make an overlay of the property and see how many standard sized trucks could physically fit on the site. Mr. Orwig noted that only one small area around the building is proposed to be paved. Mr. Harrington noted that any future trucks will be parked on the dirt. Mr. Orwig noted that he assumes that there will be drip pans beneath each vehicle. Mr. Orwig stated that every truck that comes on the lot will be drained of fluids. Mr. Harrington
noted that the Commission would want to know if there was adequate protection from anti-freeze leaks, etc. Mr. Orwig noted that any vehicle that is being worked on or repaired has to have all fluids removed. Mr. Harrington expressed concern with the adequate protection of the site. Mr. Harrington stated that he is especially concerned with the debris within the embankment. He noted that he is very concerned with sedimentation flowing into the river and wetlands while the work is being accomplished. He noted that they would need a machine to clean up the slope. Mr. Orwig noted that they have to do some exploratory work first. Mr. Harrington noted that the commission is concerned with the sequencing of the cleanup and what are the critical issues. He asked how a machine will get down the embankment and how the debris will be loaded. Mr. Orwig stated that they would be working from the top of the slope to the bottom. Mr.
Talerman noted that the Commission also wants to know what kind of impacts would be expected from the clean up and what would be the process for restoration.
Mr. Orwig noted that very little water collects in the swale by the embankment and gets discharged. Mr. Crafton noted that the contaminates found at the crushing area were also found at the outfall of the swale. The outfall discharges to the wetlands. He noted that there is some transportation of pollutants with the stormwater.
The subject is what the critical issues at the site are and how they should be prioritized. Mr. Orwig had provided a sequencing plan for the clean up but the commission noted that they may want to take more of a micro look at the subsections to see what should be done first. Mr. Crafton noted that more sampling would have to done before the construction of the swale. He noted that if contaminates are shown at the crushing site and at the outfall of the swale, then it is safe to assume that the contaminates are also between those two points. He stated that in that whole general area the contaminates need to be delineated before any excavation. Mr. Crafton suggested that the assessment work and soil sampling be conducted first and take out whatever soils need to be removed before grading. Mr. Crafton asked if they could get a machine to cross the swale to access the embankment. Mr. Orwig stated that they would have to build something to allow the machine to cross. He noted
that perhaps a contractor that deals with heavy equipment should look at the site first. Mr. Talerman recommended that the debris on the slope be tackled first. He suggested that Mr. Orwig bring in his protocol on what they propose to do. Mr. Harrington suggested that the applicant get contractors to come out and give prices and a construction sequence. He noted that they could get several ideas on how to best approach the clean up on the embankment. Mr. Crafton suggested that some inert debris should be left in place. The commission discussed at what point they should look at the site again. Mr. Talerman noted that by the next meeting the commission and the applicant should have a good idea on to best deal with the debris in the embankment. Mr. Harrington noted that the commission should also consider how to permit this clean up as they go along. Mr. Orwig noted that he could talk to the LSP about this.
Between now and the March 28th meeting they will be getting bids for the scope of work. In the meantime the applicant is to take immediate steps to prevent runoff from the driveway from entering the Stop River. A sequence plan for the removal of the debris and a good defensive system for erosion control should also be presented.
Mr. Harrington made the motion to continue the public hearing to March 28, 2007 at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Lugten seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. The hearing adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Mr. Harrington and Mr. Lugten left the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
Master plan Committee - 10:50 p.m. Robert Nicodemus and Lori Scholl, members of the Master Plan Committee, were present. Mr. Nicodemus stated that the committee will be issuing a document in March that addresses open space. He stated that a warrant article will be placed on the Spring Town Meeting that will present the goals and objectives for open space only. It is important to coordinate with the conservation commission on the commission’s priorities for open space. The full Master Plan will be put on the warrant in the fall.
Mr. Talerman noted that the CPC addresses most of the goals and objectives. He stated that he would like to see the implementation schedule tweaked. He noted that since 2004 the open space committee ceased to exist. He noted that the additional level of oversight by an open space committee has not been proven effective. He suggested that one of the goals should be to work within the existing structure. This is preferable to forming yet another committee that has to meet and coordinate with other committees. He noted that no one has the time to meet with multiple committees. He noted that nothing gets done by forming another committee. Mr. Nicodemus stated that the open space committee existed in 2000 and they created an open space plan. The committee shortly dissolved.
Mr. Nicodemus noted that committees have a limited role in executing a plan but they are more useful in planning, i.e. a sidewalk committee. Mr. Talerman stated that the town has some new opportunities to revisit some linkage of open space parcels. He noted that there is no plan in place to implement open space linkage on the Weeber property. He noted that the commission spoke to the developer of the Paddocks and Corrals property who indicated that they would be giving some trail access from that property to the Spruce Road well.
Mr. Nicodemus stated that there is a huge gap in communicating to the public what the opportunities are and what they mean to the citizens of Norfolk. He noted that if presented correctly the community would be supportive. Communication would be a goal of the Master Plan
Mr. Talerman suggested that another goal is to revisit parcels where linkage could be provided and revisit how to communicate better. The identification of open space parcels should be done. Mr. Nicodemus stated that it is difficult to get anything done between June and September so they have some deadlines to get the goals and objectives finished soon.
Mr. Nicodemus left the meeting notes of their meeting with the Community Preservation Committee. He noted that open space is not the highest priority of the Community Preservation Committee.
Mr. Nicodemus stated that they will come back to the Commission in two weeks. A report will be issued within a week or so. If the commission wants to meet with the Master Plan Committee by the end of March they could be available. An electronic copy of the file will be sent so that it could be critiqued ahead of time.
The commission reviewed the correspondence from the Zoning Board of Appeals to Handong Zhang of 53 Fruit Street regarding the course of action that they will be taking with the existing zoning violation. The ZBA will await the completion of the rain garden project to the satisfaction of the conservation commission before taking further action.
The meeting closed at 10:30 p.m.
______________________________,
Jason Talerman, Acting Chair
| 
