Wrentham Conservation Commission
Minutes of April 8, 2010
A regular meeting of the Wrentham Conservation Commission was held Thursday evening, April 8, 2010 in the Wrentham Town Hall Meeting Room. Present were Chairman Leo Immonen, Vice Chairman Barry Kassler, members William Bauser, Christopher Yarworth, George Smith, Jr., who arrived at 7:40 p.m., and Dianne Demarais, and Agent Darryl Luce. Member Michael Mavrides was absent.
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m..
Mr. Kassler made a motion to approve the minutes of March 25, 2010, as amended. That motion received a second and was approved 5-0-1 with Mr. Yarworth abstaining.
Mr. Kassler made a motion to approve the minutes of March 31, 2010, as amended. That motion received a second and was approved 5-0-1 with Mr. Yarworth abstaining.
At 7:45 p.m. the Chairman reopened the continued Public Hearing for the proposal by Eagle Brook Development to replace an existing 6-inch water main in Route 140, Franklin Street. The Chairman stated the Commission had recently received a letter from the Natural Heritage Program that stated the project would meet the standards of the program. The Chairman asked if there were any further concerns regarding this project. No additional information was submitted. Therefore, Ms. Demarais made a motion to close the Public Hearing. That motion received a second and was approved 5-1 with Mr. Kassler voting “no,” as he was concerned that the presentation to follow would bear on this hearing.
Mr. DiPlacido remained after the hearing was closed to discuss the draft Conservation Restriction for the Eaglebrook Subdivision. Mr. DiPlacido was accompanied by his Attorney, John Smolak. The Conservation Restriction is for 44+ acres of open space that runs along Eagle Brook for which the Conservation Commission will become the Grantee of the parcel. Mr. Smolak was interested in feedback from the Commission on the Restriction. Mr. Yarworth had questions regarding how the document allows or limits access and the accounting of the impervious cover and nitrogen loading between the developed areas and the open space. After a brief discussion of these matters it was agreed that Mr. Yarworth would outline his concerns and questions in writing and send them to Town Counsel for review along with the Conservation Restriction. The Chairman said that he would send the Conservation Restriction to Town Counsel. Mr. DiPlacido requested to meet again on this issue on May 13th, 2010 at 7:45. The Commission agreed.
At 8:13 p.m. the Chairman re-opened the Public Hearing for 375 Thurston Street, a proposal by Mr. John Carroll to cut down trees in a wetland, buffer zone and floodplain on Town-owned land. Present were Mr. John Carroll and his representatives: Richard Merriken of Merriken Engineering; John Engwar and Nick Novick, both from GroundScapes Express. Mr. Merriken then distributed a corrected Notice of Intent, a single 24x36-inch plan, and a narrative that he said would support his presentation and address some of the deficiencies found during the hearing of March 25th. Mr. Merriken, stated that approximately 43 trees of 6-inch diameter or greater would be cut down to a height of 7 to 12 feet high. Mr. Engwar stated he believed that approximately 50% of those trees were affected by invasive Oriental Bittersweet. Mr. Merriken pointed out the narrative discussions of the Riverfront Act and Alternatives Analysis in the materials he had submitted. Mr. Merriken then explained that material would be hand-cut, borne out of the work area by hand, and then chipped on Route 1 with the chips to be taken away.
The Chairman inquired about the requirements under the Bylaw to request a waiver for work inside the 50-foot No-Build buffer zone. Mr. Merriken said that he has not done that yet but will email the request on April 9, 2010.
Mr. Carroll then submitted an untitled, three page letter for the Commission’s review that outlined work procedures for the invasive plant treatment. One page included the descripton of work being done by the applicant on a prior application. Mr. Engwar and Mr. Novick then began to explain elements of the work to be performed, particularly the types of herbicides and how they would be applied.
The issue of a wildlife habitat assessment was then raised as the Act has a threshold of 5,000 square feet in the riverfront, which is exceeded by this proposed project, where the Commission may require such an evaluation if it deems it necessary. A discussion ensued regarding the nature of the work, the definition of alteration, and the proximity of Route 1.
Matt Miner, an abutter, pointed out enclaves of invasive bittersweet on Town property that should be addressed as well as drawing attention to the ease of which the entire work area floods during rainstorms. He pointed out that without addressing that location the bittersweet would return to the site of the application.
Mr. Merriken stated that they had not heard back from the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. The Chairman then inquired about Mr. Merriken's prior verbal request to waive the local fees and asked for the request in writing. Mr. Merriken said that he would submit the written request.
The Chairman then queried the Commission as to the need for a wildlife habitat assessment as outlined in the State Regulations under 310 CMR 10.58 (d)1 Riverfront requirements. Because three of the six members present of the Commission stated it not to be necessary, the Chairman told the applicant it was not needed.
Because the Commission must hear from NHESP prior to issuing any decision and the applicant must supply additional information described above, the Chairman stated that the Hearing must be continued. The applicant agreed and signed and submitted a form requesting a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Kassler then made a motion to continue the public hearing to April 22, 2010 at 7:45 p.m. which received a second and was passed unanimously, 6-0.
At 9:20 p.m. the Chairman opened the Public Hearing for 40 Sycamore Road. Mark Revere, who identified himself as the son of the applicant stated that the engineer to present the project, Mr. Paul Cutler of Landmark Engineering, was not present but they were expecting his arrival soon. Mr. Kassler then made a motion to continue the public hearing to later in the evening which received a second and was passed unanimously, 6-0.
At 9:22 p.m. the Chairman opened the Public Hearing for the proposal by the owner of 55 Carriage House Lane to add a pool, cabana, and garage to an existing home. Paul DeSimone of Colonial Engineering, representing the owner, and the owner, Matthew Littlefield were present. Mr. DeSimone described the work to be performed and the limit of the work as represented by the erosion control noted on the plans. The Commission found that the house had been constructed in 1986 and that the work was within an area of existing lawn that had been in place since roughly that time, therefore, the Bylaws 50-foot No-Work policy was not applicable. Mr. Howard Wagner of 45 Carriage House Lane asked if the excavation for the pool would affect the water table and Mr. DeSimone responded that he believed it would not. Mr. DeSimone then related that the pool would not have an external flush and provided technical specifications for the filter. Mr. Yarworth asked that the elevation be placed on the pool apron, new paving be identified, and that Cul-Tec chambers be provided for the garage and driveway area. Mr. DeSimone agreed. Because the Commission requires the requested information above, and agreed that it must view the site before issuing any decision, Mr. Kassler made a motion to continue the public hearing to April 22, 2010 at 8:00 p.m. which received a second and was passed unanimously, 6-0. Mr. Littlefield agreed and signed and submitted a form requesting a continuance to the next meeting.
At 9:40 p.m. the Chairman re-opened the Public Hearing continued from earlier in the evening for the project proposed at 40 Sycamore Road. Mr. Revere stated that a mix-up had occurred and that Mr. Cutler was unavailable that evening. Because the Commission agreed that Mr. Cutler’s testimony was essential to consider the project and its possible impacts, Mr. Kassler made a motion to continue the public hearing to April 22, 2010 at 8:15 p.m. which received a second and was passed unanimously, 6-0. Mr. Revere agreed and signed and submitted a form requesting a continuance to the next meeting.
At 9:45 p.m. the Chairman opened the Public Hearing for the proposal by the owner of 149 Lakeside Avenue to repair an existing stone retaining wall on Lake Archer. Carl Kristensen, representing the applicant described the work as repairing a 20-foot section of stone wall that had fallen into the lake by pulling the stones out with an excavator, and pouring a concrete wall in its place to support an existing patio that is being undermined by erosion. Mr. Kristensen stated that he will restore to the original line and not go into the lake and that the work will be performed when the level of the lake has receded. The access point for the work is an existing easement. A written response from the Department of Environmental Protection, dated March 26, 2010, was placed into the record. Because the Commission agreed that it must view the site before issuing any decision, Mr. Kassler made a motion to continue the public hearing to April 22, 2010 at 8:30 p.m. which received a second and was passed unanimously, 6-0. Mr. Kristensen agreed and signed and submitted a form requesting a continuance to the next meeting.
The Agent discussed the issues surrounding the recently decided Marszalkowski decision, describing the conditions at the site and the events leading up to the court case. Because the case has yet to be finalized, no further discussion ensued. The Agent also related that the recent denial by the Planning Board of a proposed open space development on the corner of West Street and Cumberland Road may affect the proposed transfer of 6 acres of land to the Joe’s Rock Conservation area that directly abut the pond. The members briefly discussed options for preservation including the provisions of Subdivision Control Law under Section 81R that would designate such area as “parkland” and would afford temporary protection. The Commission briefly discussed sending a letter imploring the Planning Board to consider this option but demurred.
The Chairman explained that the agent and the chairman were completing a Notice of Intent for the work to control invasive plants at Crocker Pond.
At 10:42 p.m. Mr. Bauser made a motion to adjourn. That motion received a second and passed unanimously, 6-0.