CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
January 24, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Janet DeLonga, Jeff Kane, Allan Shaw, Larry Harrington, Paul Lugten, Jason Talerman, Cheri Lawless
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Crafton
Meeting called to order at 7:35 p.m.
Janet informed the Committee that the Public Works Department went in and breached the beaver dam in the Mill River. DPW received all necessary emergency certificates.and breached the dam with hand tools. DPW is looking into putting a pipe that lets the water flow through the dam without displacing the beavers. Janet was impressed with Tom Benedetti’s knowledge of the beaver and other animal life in the pond. Larry noted that photos showed no difference in the water level between the 11th & 16th.
Vouchers signed.
Jay asked Janet to look at the stone wall at the Frontczak property. Looks like they may be having trouble installing the wall and some of the erosion control barriers are collapsing.
Request for Quotes – Members reviewed the three Requests for Quotes for Paddocks & Corrals for the first time. The Commission has decided that they want to see the property before making any type of decision. GPR is a consulting company that Jeff heard of through the engineering grapevine. The bid from Phoenix Environmental is too high. The other bids are too low. Site walk Saturday, February 10, 2004 at 2:00. Everyone to meet at Town Hall.
Lind Farm Fence – Janet went to the property. No one answered, looked like no one was home. Abandoned cars have been removed. Section of the fence that was removed is directly behind the house. Looks like one of the posts was neatly removed. It is a 60 foot gap. Janet to check the price of fencing. Jeff to call Butch.
Janet spoke to DEP regarding the correct procedure for Hoover Realty Trust. Hoover Realty Trust should be asked to withdraw. We should not issue a denial. DEP said that is should be done as a withdrawal in case they want to appeal. Jeff signed the letter.
Certificated of Release – 23 Fruit Street. Janet reviewed the property. All conditions have been met. Jeff signed the release.
Jay asked if the letter regarding the Town Pond went out. Elaine to check with Marie.
Taunton Watershed. Cheri to investigate the regulations and present at 2/14 meeting.
7:45 – Norfolk Enterprise – A letter was sent from Glossa Engineering asking for a continuance to February 28th. Jay motioned to continue hearing to February 28th at 7:45 p.m. Allan seconded the motion. No further discussion. All in favor.
7:50 – Norfolk Enterprise – A letter was sent from Glossa Engineering asking for a continuance to February 28th. Jay motioned to continue hearing to February 28th at 7:45 p.m. Allan seconded the motion. No further discussion. All in favor.
8:00 – Pine Creek Development – Larry recused himself. Attorney Chip Nylen, Mr. Jack Scott, Mr. Rick Goodreau were present from Pine Creek. Attorney Nylen informed the committee that he would like to discuss the following four points: Planning Board cul-de-sacs, revised mitigation plan, MESA endangered species act and four updated changes
Mr. Nylen informed the commission that Jay Talerman suggested that he go before the Planning Board to discuss the extensions of cul-de-sacs. An alternative analysis was presented to the Planning Board but they were issued a denial of a waiver. The Planning Board sent a letter to the Commission. Mr. Nylen went on to explain that the Planning Board stated they were not going to grant any additional lots off current cul-de-sacs or allow them to be extended. That would leave us the ability only to develop one lot on the entire 34 acres. Jay Talerman – disagreed with the Planning Boards overly rigid approach. Which is worse public safety wise? Butch made some good points regarding water looping. Seems that public safety and open space were both losers. Planning Board said adding one extra foot there is more unsafe than cutting through. Jay asked for any accident data in the past 20 years on Village Green. The Planning Board takes a very rigid view and allows no exceptions
or waivers. Jay – to be clear The Planning Board denied cul-de-sac length for really long cul-de-sacs. He was suggesting something really short. It was something that had never been before the Planning Board so it was new information to them. He was asking them to consider a new idea. Mr. Scott informed the commission that Jack Hathaway spoke at length with the Chief of Police. He viewed both of those cul-de-sacs as unsafe. Attorney Nylen reminded the committee that they have asked for a copy of the ZBA filing. He sent it under separate application. Pine Creek will need a special permit from them under the Water Resource Protection Area. They are continued with ZBA because he can’t get a permit from them until they get an answer from Conservation. Attorney Nylen asked the Commission if there is any other information that they need pertaining to the estate lot. The alternatives analysis provided
suggest that we could only build one lot. Jeff – that is still a viable alternative whether it is included in the analysis or not, it will still be considered going forward. Attorney Nylen pointed out that at the time of submission the provision of the estate lot did not apply to subdivisions that had been approved. They had the preliminary approval at that time. Jay – what Jeff is saying is before you ever contemplated a subdivision. Attorney Nylen – They didn’t have estate lots then. The estate lot came in late and did not apply. Jay - The point is that is not that there is no alternative out there it is that there are some alternatives that may or may not have merit. Attorney Nylen sees this as an alternative but not a viable alternative because in terms of the investment and cost that has gone in to purchasing that lot as apposed to the value of an estate lot is apples and oranges. That is what one
looks at. Jeff – the other issue that we talked about is that cost will not come into this. It is clearly stated in our bylaw. Jay feels regulatory taking analysis doesn’t come into play here. He stated an SJC case on record. Jay feels that the commission will have to consider during deliberations is that whatever alternative are out there are slim. Jay has stated on record that you don’t have a lot out there and the commission will have to consider that. He states that it would be hard for him to say that just one lot would be enough of an alternative. Attorney Nylen wants to make sure that there is enough information/evidence to make a decision regarding the alternatives. Jay thinks we have all the evidence. Mr. Scott pointed out that there is no guarantee that they would get the estate lot. They have looked at the rules and regulations and basically the Planning Board was
concerned about extending the road or adding another house. Right now there seven house on that street. That exceeds the amount of homes the Planning Board will allow so even it was said that the estate was an alternative there is no guarantee that he will get the estate lot. Jeff – he agrees there is no guarantee if denied a crossing that would leave only one lot. Attorney Nylen – no, because the Planning Board could take the same position that it is not a taking and they could deny the use of that property by saying it is not a regulatory use. Mr. Scott– the issue he has with the Planning Board regulations is that they call for no more than seven houses on a cul-de-sac. When plans were submitted regarding the alternative analysis, he was acting in good faith (he understands the estate lot). If the thought they were going to rule toward the estate lot, he would not have gone through the last six months trying to work in good
faith. Jay – let’s move forward from here. We have what we need.
Mitigation – Attorney Nylen pointed out that we have been discussing three separate areas for mitigation that have been referred as the gores. We have to replicate 2 to 1 for buffer zones. Rich Goodreau – to bring everyone to speed. There were concerns with the original proposal being 3 separate areas. Since that time they have indicated an area that they could give back 2.2 times (almost 3 acres) the buffer zone disturbance that they are proposing on other areas on the site. We are also proposing plants that we have discussed previously to revegetated the wooded area from the wetland up past the 100 foot buffer. We are also proposing a forest management plan and rare species plan. To summarize were we stand with respect to the buffer zone mitigation and the new
proposal to create this one area as opposed to the 3 separate areas. Jeff asked if they would enhance the area. Rick - that is part of the forest management. Jay asked if there was anything new planned for those areas and if not, why we can’t have all the replication areas. They can’t use them anyway. Jay wants it all as a restricted buffer zone. Jay was concerned with Pine Creek giving us something that we have anyway because it is undevelopeable which is what got us to the green areas. Jay thought the green areas would be bigger but is happy to see the three larger areas instead of all the fragmented pieces. Janet asked for the square footage on the larger piece. Mr. Goodreau stated 165,600 square feet total. 145,600 square feet is out side the jurisdiction Jeff asked how the green areas on the north side correspond with drainage easements in the area. Mr. Goodreau pointed
out that there are overlays of each drainage area. Jeff – has a problem with that. Concern is any maintenance required is going to be a constant disturbance. It will be a perpetual disturbance in areas that are considered buffer or restoration area. Rick- an attempt to increase that green belt. Most of these areas are outside your jurisdiction. Jeff – there was one drainage easement that ran through the wetland for a tie in. Rick – yes that is a planning board requirement. We need to provided an easement from the high water mark of the stream. Needed to provide access from the road way to that. Jeff – is the 100 foot buffer on that side. It will require ongoing maintenance which will probably be done by the town. Jeff has an issue with that if there are infiltration chambers, it is just a matter of time when maintenance will need to be done. Rick - Tried to focus
plantings on the edges of the swale with a small amount of planting to be done over the infiltration basin. Jeff – to consider any plantings within the easement or the drainage easement itself is not something that we can consider. Even DEP states that. Jeff wants everything pulled out of the buffer.
Letter from MESA – Attorney Nylen presented a letter from MESA – endangered species program. Difference between MESA and Wetland Protection Act is MESA regulations endangered species both in wetland and in buffer zone and upland. This is different when 1st came. Oxbow- turtle study done. No endangered species on the property. Still none sits on the property. The property is within the polygon. They will have to work with MESA. Under bylaw they have complied with requirements. Will go through that process as well. We expect that con comm. would make the request in the OOC stating they have to be incompliance with the Endangered Species Act. It becomes a separate permit that regulates anything outside your jurisdiction. Jeff
wants to be cc’d on the documentation going to MESA.
Timing – plans in December they would have plans in January. The hydrogeologists don’t have reports yet. It will be for the mounding and all the comments from Graves. Jeff - Looking at the infiltration systems - needs to be 100 feet away from a septic system. Initial plans show they are closer than 100 feet. Jack Scott asked if plans that go to Grave’s can Rick talk with him directly. Jeff wants to see them first then they can go to Rick. Eventually they may be able to talk directly.
Jeff asked for anyone’s input. No abutters. Attorney Nylen asked to be continued to February 28 at 8:30 p.m. and also March 28th at 8:00. Allan made motion to continue the hears. Paul seconded. No discussion. All in favor.
Larry returned to the table.
8:45 – Paddocks & Corrals - ANORAD Karro Frost – New England Environmental representing Paddock & Corrals. Property owner, Mr. Howard Bailey, was present. Wetlands had been delineated in 2005 by a different group. She walked the lines over the summer to prepare an ANORAD and establish were the wetland boundaries are. The primary wetland resources that have been delineated are bordering vegetated wetlands. Two ponds are in the area with water year round. Both ponds are surrounded by wetlands. Most of the area is open and maintained as pasture. It is an active horse farm. Land subject to flooding is down by Stony Brook. Main issue on property is past wetland restriction. The plan show where the restricted
wetland areas are and what the delineated wetlands are. DEP had no comments. There have been past violations on this site.
Jeff informed Ms. Frost that we are in the process of collecting RFP’s. We will chose one by our next business meeting. We would like to set up a site walk. Jay asked for a location of wetlands in the materials. History on restricted wetlands was based on aerial photo from 1969. Town based the recommended wetland restriction order that was at that time given from the DEM. Wetland restrictions are now regulated by DEP. Allan asked if there were any vernal pools – Karro none found. However, the did a survey last spring and will do another in the spring. Area is with Priority Habit there is potential of rare species on the site. They have been dealing with National Heritage. Paul - Wrentham minutes reference intermittent stream and drainage area. Karro it is off the map. It doesn’t have hydric plants or hydric soil but there is an occasional flow of water but with no wetlands established with it. Larry – sense of wildlife on the property. Karro – no study done. Larry -
any turtle nesting. None noticed. Karro- we will be doing more wildlife studies.
Jeff asked abutters for questions:
Diane Miller – Maple Street. Can abutters go on the site walk? Jeff – initially it will be just the commission. We can try to set up another one later.
Steve Protucci – Longmeadow Road. What is intent of meeting? Jeff – looking to set the limits of the wetland on the property. What they do after that is up to them. You can assume they will develop the property.
An abutter questioned - Will we be notified if they come to Planning Board with a development? Jay – you will be notified by the planning board. Larry – They may or may not have to come back to us.
An abutter asked about the past violations. Karro that was in a different area that pertained to a crossing. It is believed that the previous owner filled the wetland in order to access that section of the property. Was resolved by creating a wetland restoration area.
Jean Siegmann – Who resolves the issues. Con Comm and the property owner
Beverly Riddock – Maple Street - Use to be able to walk into the woods. You can’t do that now because the water is out onto Maple st. Jeff- what is going to happen when we have consultant on board they will go out there and outline the limits of the wetlands. Animal situation not a concern at this meeting it is strictly the limits of the wetlands. Wildlife will be considered at the time it becomes a development.
Jennifer Kuzeja – Maple St. will they be notified of the changes after the consultant goes out?. Jeff – each of these hearings will be continued meetings. You will not be notified of every single hearing. You will have to follow the continuations on your own. Larry- process they have a professional that they hired and we are hiring one to do a peer review. The two professional will submit their recommendations.
Jean Siegmann – Does DEP come in and do a more current wetland line? Larry no. If they (Paddocks & Corrals) establish a wetland line and we don’t like it and our consultant doesn’t like but Paddocks & Corrals insists on it. They can appeal our decision to DEP. We can take our consultants point of view over their. We have that power to do that.
Green – how scared are the delineations of the restricted wetland from 1969. Are they subject to change by negotiations? Allan - there is no change allowed to a restricted wetland. Abutter – can they be expanded based on what is seen in the field today? Jeff - the restricted wetlands will not be verified. We are talking about field verifying the ones that you can see or the soils that you can test and find a real break point between wetland & upland soils.
Paddock & Corrals left an 11 x 17 copy of the plans to be kept on file if abutters would like copies.
Janet presented the commission a letter from Patricia St. Aubin, an abutter on Shady Way. She was unable to attend meeting.
Consultant should be picked by 2/14. Consultants have 21 days to get us a report.
Janet- Did you sent to endangered species? Karro – That information has not been sent yet.
DEP# 240-280 for Paddock’s & Corrals. DEP had no comments.
The property is all flagged and numbered. Access through Warren Drive. Site walk Feb 3rd 9:00 am. To meet here.
Larry made Motion to continue public hearing until February 28, 2007 at 9:15. All in favor. Karro Frost asked if we would have a consultants report by then. She suggested waiting until we have the report back from the consultant to have the next meeting. Larry revised the motion to continue the meeting until March 28th at 8:30. All in favor.
9:15 Call & Wait – called to order – Jeff informed the committee that Call & Wait requested that their public hearing be continued 2/28 at 9:15. Jeff asked for a motion to continue. Jay motioned to continue to Feb. 28 at 9:15. Seconded by Larry. All in favor. Janet asked if it was possible to do a site walk. We still have an open NOI. Larry – the settlement agreement gives us the right to enter the land. Just notify the applicant. You may want to ask Bob Bulloch.
Allan – Contacted by a young man who wants to do a Boy Scout project? Told him to contact Cyndi Andrade. The Town Pond came to mind. It would be an Eagle Scout project. Jeff- we need to look into what we want him to do out there. We don’t want the phragmites removed and the ground left barren so we would get invasive species coming back. We need some type of ground coverings (i.e. mulch, pine needles, and cover with plastic). Larry- we should give him more direction that we usually do. Jeff asked the members to look into what they would like to see once they are removed. (i.e. plantings, mulch.)
Jay – Highland Lake. CPC is looking at this as a potential purchase. Jay feels that we should not buy anything until we find out what we would be actually buying. It might be worth buying Kevin Roche’s property if we buy the Highland Lake. Jeff – it would connect to the Stop River – if they are willing to remove the garage. It would be something to consider. It would protect the river. It would help with the river clean-up. Lot 20 off Campbell Street is not included in the purchase. But that is where everyone accesses the lake. Larry asked what is being offered. Jay says everything including lots 34 & 35 on Main St.,the entire lake, the entire large parcel and the culvert parcel on the lake side. It is $500,000
more or less. Not a bad price for what it is but we are concerned with the liability of the dam. CPC has not made a final vote. Jay would like to wait on a vote until there is a full engineering review as to what is going on. Access is an issue. Dam is a bigger issue. Can’t see how it could become a subdivision.
Master plan committee – they are under a tight time frame. They are looking for goals and objectives of Conservation Commission. Jay would draft 5 or 6 items and circulate it. One would be to acquire/identify more open space. Keep a war chest out there for Jane & Paul’s farm. Jeff we did have that on a plan that we submitted. The emerald necklace. Maintenance of the Lind Farm, etc.
Allan motion to adjourn. Larry seconded. No discussion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00.
___________________________,
Allan M. Shaw, Clerk
| 
