Conservation Commission
Meeting
March 17, 2005
Peg Arguimbau Chairman, Katherine Roth, Hank Langstroth, Janet Dunlap, and Stephen Cremer were the members present.
7:45 p.m., N.O.I. Public Hearing filed by Thomas Altieri for the proposed installation of a
driveway, retaining wall and grading associated with the construction of a single family
residence at 78 Norwood Street:
The Applicant, Tom Altieri, was present along with his Attorney, Joel Fishman. (Attendance list is attached.)
Engineer, Bill Buckley from Bay Colony Group, Inc., appeared before the Commission to represent the Applicant.
Bill presented the Commission with the green abutter cards and a copy of a Sewage Disposal
System Design Plan, revised date 2/15/05. (A potential vernal pool on the site has been added to the proposed revised plan.) Mr. Buckley explained the overview of the proposed project to the Commission:
This is a filing for Lot 3 that was created as part of a 4-lot parcel on Norwood Street under a
Form 4-A Plan approved by the Planning Board. The size of Lot 3 is approximately 88,000 sq.ft.
It is located on a hillside on the southwesterly side of Norwood Street, adjacent to the
Boston Edison Power Line Easement.
(The remaining parcel, Lot 4, contains approximately 6 acres and is not included in this filing. The amount of frontage on Lot 4 is approximately 1,000'. A portion of the parcel encroaches on the Edison Easement.)
Phoenix Environmental Group delineated the wetlands on the proposed site last Fall and evidence of a potential vernal pool was located near the Edison Power Lines.
No work is proposed within the 200' setback from that potential vernal pool for this project.
A BVW exists on the southeasterly side of the property. A portion of the right side of the proposed driveway and a section of the proposed retaining wall encroaches on the Buffer Line adjacent to the BVW.
The size of the slope on the proposed driveway is 12% to 14%. (The topography at the front of the site has an approximate grade of 22%.) The proposed driveway and retaining wall would be designed and graded to prevent stormwater drainage from negatively impacting the BVW. (Drainage from the left side of the driveway would drain under a natural swale before discharging into the BVW. Drainage from the right side of the driveway would "sheet flow" for a minimum of 100' before discharging into the BVW.)
Bituminous material is proposed for the driveway and for the berm that is proposed along various sections of the driveway.
The height of the proposed retaining wall varies from 2' to 6'. The retaining wall is being proposed to help minimize the grade work for the project and to help alleviate the Buffer Zone impact to the BVW.
The proposed dwelling and septic system are located outside the 100' Buffer Zone for this project.
A double row of hay bales and a silt fence is proposed for the protection of the resource areas of the site during construction of the project.
Peg requested that the Applicant submit a design plan for the proposed driveway and retaining wall.
Peg recommended that a culvert type structure be placed at the bottom of the proposed driveway to prevent stormwater from discharging onto Norwood Street and the wetlands on the property.
Peg expressed concern regarding protection of the wetlands on the site from potential stormwater runoff from Lot 2.
Mr. Buckley agreed to provide the Commission with drainage control plans for the proposed project.
Stephen Cremer requested that the Applicant submit a proposed snow removal plan.
Greg inquired as to the Applicant's position pertaining to the future development plans for the remaining six acres of Parcel 4
Attorney Joel Fishman stated that the Applicant has some financial constraints in trying to develop all 4 lots at the same time. The Attorney presented the Commission with a copy of a deed restriction limiting
the total number of lots to be divided in the entire 11-acre parcel to 4. He said that it is possible that 1 more additional lot might be developed sometime in the future from the remaining 6 acres of Parcel 4.
The Attorney stated that the Applicant might address that issue with the Commission at a later date.
Page 2 SCC 3/17/05 Meeting Minutes
Janet Dunlap requested that the Applicant submit a proposed plan delineating the entire 11-acre parcel as well as the wetlands on the site so that the Commission can make a determination regarding this filing.
Peg explained to the Applicant that there was an understanding with the previous property owners to preserve the remaining 6 acres of the property. (The side closest to the Griffin Property).
The Commission to review Lot 3 considering the new information that was presented in this filing.
Peg explained that under the Town's By-law, there is a law that allows for a Conservation Restriction to be part of the filing.
Greg stated that information regarding access to the proposed building would be necessary if the
Applicant intends to develop Lot 4; and if the Applicant feels that the development of Lot 4 involves a wetlands crossing, then information should be submitted to the Commission indicating why it is the only practical alternative.
Hank requested that the Applicant submit a complete set of proposed plans for the project.
Peg requested that the Applicant submit detail regarding the upper break of the retaining wall for slowing down the velocity of the water running down the slope and the detail for the culvert at bottom of the driveway. (To indicate how the drainage from the driveway is going to be controlled.)
Peg called for a motion to continue the Hearing until 7:45 p.m. on April 7, 2005.
Hank Langstroth moved. Stephen Cremer seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
8:05 p.m., N.O.I. Hearing Continuance - Hunter's Ridge Estates. Discuss proposed changes to the preliminary plan as a result from Earth Tech's recommendations, DEP File # SE-280-455:
Katherine Roth recused herself from the hearing, as she is an abutter to the proposed project.
Applicants, Nick and Christine Mirrione were present. (See attached attendance list.)
Dale MacKinnon, Representative from Earth Tech, and Scott Faria Engineer from Gallagher Engineering, appeared before the Commission to represent the Applicant. Dale stated that Earth Tech is working for the Commission and the Planning Board regarding a limited review of the proposed project.
He has recently met with Gallagher Engineering regarding the changes recommended by Earth Tech.
Dale reviewed items in a letter dated March 17, 2005 addressed to the Commission and the Planning Board from the Assistant Town Engineer Peter O'Cain, in response to Earth Tech's review of the proposed project:
(A copy of the letter from DPW is recorded in the office file.)
- Earth Tech and the DPW are satisfied with the calculations provided for the detention basins and for the drainage analysis for the proposed project.
Dale discussed with the Commission Peter O'Cain's response regarding the review of the proposed
drainage design plan. Dale clarified for the Commission that Gallagher Engineering proposes to install a sediment forebay in Detention Basin 2 as well as Detention Basin 1.
Gallagher Engineering has requested a variance with the Planning Board regarding the 4' detention
basin requirement.
(The Planning Board requires that the bottom of detention basins be at least 4' above the seasonal high water table whereas the DEP Stormwater Policy recommends that detention basins be elevated only 2' above the high water table).
- The DPW is satisfied with the design plan for the proposed access to the detention basins for the project.
- The DPW agreed with Earth Tech's comments regarding the proposed infiltration system. (The sediment forebay will improve the water quality at Basin 1.)
- The DPW had no issue with Gallagher Engineering's proposed storm drainage system. It is designed to carry flow from the 10-year storm event without surcharging.
- EarthTech agrees that the revised plans and calculations demonstrate adequate control of a
100-year storm event and mitigation for the detention basins.
- Earth Tech is satisfied with Gallagher Engineering's revised design plan regarding the drainage from Bradley's property being piped directly into the wetland rather than being piped into the detention basin.
- Peter O'Cain would like to hear comments from Mr. Bradley regarding this matter.
The Commission discussed the possibility of a swale installation by the open space between the Bradley Property and Lot 1 to help carry drainage to the roadway sooner.
Page 3 SCC 3/17/05 Meeting Minutes
-Abutter, Wayne Bradley inquired as to details regarding the proposed design of the drainage structure and maintenance plan.
Scott Faria replied that a 6'x 10'x 1' stone area is proposed at the pipe connection to help serve as a filtering system. A landscaping design plan is proposed around the drainage area.
- The DPW agreed with Earth Tech's recommendation that a pre-construction meeting and a
review of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan should be required for the proposed project.
The DPW stated in the review letter that the Commission should decide if an Operation/Maintenance Plan for the proposed drainage system should be submitted to the Town on an annual basis.
- Earth Tech recommended that an erosion control plan and routine cleaning of the catch basin
silt sacks be included in the Commission's Order of Conditions.
- The DPW requested that detail for a stone construction entrance be provided on the proposed
plan.
- Peter O'Cain and Earth Tech expressed concern regarding groundwater control at the cut slope
behind Lot 3 - 30. Peter O'Cain might require mitigation methods if the situation becomes
harmful to proposed structures.
- Earth Tech recommended that the Commission's Order of Conditions require that a temporary
diversion berm be installed above the rear slope of units 48-50 until the 2:1 slope is completely
stabilized. If stormwater is concentrated in the rear of the properties then that concentrated
flow over the slope should be rip-rapped. (This would prevent erosion from discharging into the
wetlands).
- The DPW agreed with Earth Tech's recommendation.
- Gallagher Engineering proposes to install a level spreader at the 3 discharge points in the drainage
design so that the runoff from a 10-year storm is no greater that 0.2 cu.ft. per linear foot.
Erosion control measures to be installed around the perimeter of the limit of work as requested by
Earth Tech and perpendicular to the roadway at 5 lot intervals.
- The DPW requested a detailed drawing of the configuration of the silt fence.
The Commission addressed the following concerns from the Abutters present in the audience:
- Who would be the designated authority to oversee the proposed construction work for the project?
Peg replied that various Town Departments would inspect the construction work for the proposed project.
- Abutters expressed their concern regarding changes to the ground water level on the property from the proposed project and the potential for flooding to occur on neighboring properties from the proposed work on the sloped area of the site.
Peg explained to the abutters that the Commission would review proposed changes to the project with Peter O'Cain, including the stormwater pollution control plan and the proposed disturbance to the slope areas of the site.
- An Abutter requested a description of the work being proposed inside the 20' Buffer Zone.
Scott Faria explained that the 20' Buffer Zone is a Planning Board Regulation and that a variance has been filed with the Planning Board to allow grading for a landscaping plan within that Buffer Zone.
-An abutter inquired if the Commission had previously encountered a similar project with respect to
the same conditions as the environment, water, grading, etc.
Peg recalled that a subdivision on Furnace Street had similar existing conditions but that the density and size of the proposed project makes this filing unique.
- Abutters expressed their concern regarding the possible negative impact to the wetlands on the site from the proposed septic system.
Scott Faria explained that Title 5 regulates the septic system design. Title 5 requires that the
leaching system be 50' away from the wetlands on the site. The location of the proposed leaching system for the project is more than 200' away from the wetlands.
Peg called for a motion to continue the Hearing until April 7, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.
Hank Langstroth moved. Stephen Cremer seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
Katherine Roth rejoined the meeting at this time.
9:15 p.m. Eli Hauser and Gina Maniscalco met with the Commission to discuss housing initiatives with proposed Conservation Land Swaps:
Page 4 SCC 3/17/05 Meeting Minutes
Selectman David Grasfield was present in the audience. (See attached attendance list).
Planning Board Member Eli Hauser, explained to the Commission that the Planning
Board has been meeting for approximately 2 years regarding the EO418 Development Plan that
involves elements of conservation, economic development and housing.
The Planning Board previously presented the Board of Selectmen with a proposal for addressing the Town's affordable housing issue.
The Selectmen agreed that a group of people should formulate an approach to submit a housing production plan to present to the State that would give the Town certain advantages.
Planning Board Vice-Chairman Gina Maniscalco informed the Commission of the State's requirement that 10% of housing stock be affordable. She stated that communities are penalized for not having 10% Affordable Housing. The price of an affordable house in Sharon is estimated at $280,000. The price of rent for affordable housing is approximately $1,800.00 per month.
Eli explained to the Commission that until there are 400 affordable homes in the Town, 40-B Developers are allowed to build on any size lot at 5 to 8 times the density.
It is the Planning Board's desire that the Town could sponsor up to 150 affordable homes over the next ten years. If the Town could produce up to 48 - 50 homes per year for Affordable Housing it would not be subject to 40-B Applications.
Eli Hauser presented an overview to the Commission:
- To develop Town owned parcels: (This would provide the Town with up to approximately 150 homes toward the 400 homes required.)
The Planning Board would have more control for this type of plan with regards to the building
constraints for Affordable Housing being constructed on Town owned parcels.
- LIP (Local Initiative Project.) The Board of Selectmen sponsors the LIP proposal.
(All apartment complexes built under the LIP are counted toward the 400 homes required.
The proposed Avalon Bay project would be a good development under the LIP option, as 150
homes would be counted as affordable.)
Approximately 275 homes could be counted toward the 400 required if the current housing
development and the Avalon Bay project were considered under the LIP.
The Planning Board would have less control for this type of plan. (Through the Board of
Selectmen and various Town Boards, The Planning Board could have an influence as to how
Affordable Housing could be built.) The Planning Board feels that this is a more viable and
reasonable type of plan.
- Multi-Use Properties within the Overlay District - This would allow developers to build
apartments over the retail space.
- Inclusionary Zoning- If developers build over 10 houses then 10% has to be Affordable.
- Accessory Apartments - To be built for in-laws and family members.
The Planning Board would not have much control for this type of plan.
- Granting A Property Tax Break L- In return for homeowners to deed restrict their home to
become and remain Affordable Housing when they sell their home.
Gina expressed that this plan would help diversify Affordable Housing throughout the Town.
Stephen Cremer inquired if there is a plan to convert the rental property available in this Town for
Affordable Housing, as it could help decrease the amount of new building for Affordable Housing.
Gina to research the issue and advise the Commission.
The Planning Board submitted a plan to the Commission identifying three different types of property in Town. (Land owned by the Town. Town owned property that could be used as a swap with Conservation Land. Conservation Land located near a roadway.)
Stephen Cremer expressed concern that Town Land, which is restricted for conservation purposes,
might be impacted by the Planning Board's initiative proposal.
Alice Cheyer commented that Eli's effort is correct concerning his effort to protect the Town against potential 40-B Applications.
Selectman Grasfield reviewed information with the Commission pertaining to this subject and
commended efforts made by Eli regarding this issue.
Gina stated to the Commission that June 21 is the deadline for the Planning Board to submit their
production plan to the State.
Page 5 SCC 3/17/05 Meeting Minutes
Janet inquired if there is knowledge of precedence established in other communities regarding a
Conservation Land Swap. (Gina to advise the Commission.)
Peg explained to the Planning Board that the Commission had formerly voted not to release any property that was previously donated to the Commission.
The Commission agreed to reconvene this meeting on April 21, subsequent to the Commission reviewing the list and map proposals submitted by the Planning Board.
10:10 p.m. N.O.I. Public Hearing filed by The Kendall Whaling Museum for the proposed repair of the septic system at 27 Everett Street:
The Applicant Gare Reid, was present. (See attached list of abutters/interested persons.)
Thomas Hardman from Cullinan Engineering appeared before the Commission and submitted the
green abutter cards and a Septic System Repair Plan dated 2/22/05.
Thomas Hardman explained the scope of the proposed project to the Commission:
The proposed project is within the 100' Buffer Zone to three BVW's on the site.
The three wetlands found on the property were delineated by Wetlands Consulting, Inc., and
flagged by a field survey. The first wetland exists in the upper north corner of the property. The second wetland was located down at the northeastern corner of the property. The third wetland is in the vicinity of an intermittent stream. The proposed project is necessary to bring the septic system up to the state code.
The proposed pump chambers for the septic systems empty into a leaching facility.
Concrete containers are proposed to house the pump chambers.
The existing grade within the Buffer Zone will be restored after construction for the proposed project.
The abandoned septic systems on the property will be pumped and filled-in as part of the proposed project.
There are two septic systems proposed: 1,300 gallons per day and 800 gallons per day.
Peg requested that the Applicant submit definitive information plans for the proposed two septic systems.
Peg called for a motion to close the hearing pending receipt of the DEP file number and submittal of a complete set of plans. The Orders of Conditions to be issued as per plan.
Stephen Cremer moved. Katherine Roth seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
10:20 p.m., Signatures: The Commission signed bills.
10:25 p.m., Mr. Fred Martin met informally with the Commission regarding the proposed King Philip's Estates:
Greg presented a plan with a 117' diameter turnaround roadway in the back of the proposed property with two house lots within the west corner of the site without the existing Conservation Easement.
The Commission to attend the next Planning Board meeting to seek a cut and fill waiver for this proposal.
Fred submitted a plan to the Commission with 3 lots proposed outside the 600' radius from the west
corner of the site with a proposal that a condition be placed on the subdivision plan and recorded on the deed that no houses are to be built within 600' of the west corner. This would preserve the hilltop of the property and the sight line from King Philip's Cave without infringing upon the agreed Conservation Easement.
Fred feels that his proposed plan would accommodate the frontage requirement for the development of three house lots.
Fred said that the Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office is planning to review the
proposed project relating to the potential negative impact to the Wampanoag Indian Tribe's cultural aspects of the site.
The Commission agreed with Janet Dunlap's recommendation for the Assistant Town Engineer to review Fred's proposed plan to verify that the proposed plan did not violate Planning Board Regulations.
Peg stated that based on information from Peter O'Cain's review of this new proposal, the Commission
will discuss their position with the Planning Board on March 23 and explore the possibility of placing a Conservation Restriction on the proposed subdivision plan.
10:50 p.m., Adjournment:
Hank Langstroth moved to adjourn. Katherine Roth seconded. Voted. Unanimously.
| 
