Conservation Commission
Meeting
October 5, 2006
Peg Arguimbau Chairman, Janet Dunlap, Katherine Roth, Christine Turnbull and Hank Langstroth were the members present.
Stephen Cremer arrived at 8:15 p.m. Laura Nelson, liaison between the Finance Committee and the Commission was present in the
audience.
7:35 p.m. RDA Public Hearing filed by Oleg Stakhanov for the proposed implementation of landscape
improvements including loaming, seeding and grading in close proximity to a brook and
bordering vegetated wetlands at 140 East Foxboro Street:
Peg opened the hearing in the Applicant’s absence.
Greg explained to the Commission that while driving by the property at 140 East Foxboro Street he noticed
that the Applicant had started clearing the site prior to filing with the Commission for the proposed project.
The following day he met with the Applicant and requested that he stop clearing the property and file a
Resource Area Delineation Application with the Commission for the proposed project.
The Applicant agreed to comply with this request and no fines were imposed.
Greg explained the scope of the proposed project to the Commission:
· To fill in a ditch located on the property that was previously used for a Norfolk County
Mosquito Control project.
· To landscape the area above the bank of a nearby brook with stones and plants.
· To install a fence in the back portion of the property.
Peg recommended that the Commission visit the site to review the proposed project.
Peg called for a motion to continue the hearing until October 19, 2006 at 7:45 p.m.
Hank Langstroth moved. Katherine Roth seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
8:00 p.m. Planning Board Member, Wayne Bradley, to discuss proposed CSD revisions:
Wayne Bradley appeared before the Commission and explained that he is trying to focus on
potential future CSD development projects. He stated that, upon reviewing the current CSD
by-law with Kathy Roth, she recommended revising some of the existing language to help make
the by-law more effective and prevent problems concerning any future proposed CSD development
projects. He explained to the Commission that he is trying to avoid the problems that the Town
experienced with the Hunter's Ridge CSD project. In his opinion, there are three very important
elements in the proposed revised CSD by-law:
· Substantial changes made to the CSD by-law for altering the density bonuses.
· The hiring of a professional planner to assist the Planning Board with reviewing special
permit applications.
· Preservation of the buffer.
He stated that the Inclusionary Zoning proposed as part of the new CSD by-law has been controversial
for all of the Town Boards. (The requirement for 10% Affordable Housing units for CSD projects.)
Wayne felt that the Town Boards were unanimous that Inclusionary Zoning needs to be implemented
across the board for all zoning by-laws so that they meet the state’s affordable housing requirement.
Wayne offered some ideas for incorporating the housing stock into the Inclusionary Zoning by-law:
· Utilize CPA funds to purchase housing stock for the Town with small scale purchasing of existing
housing rather than adding to the existing housing stock.
· Create effective tools that would help slow the rate of development growth.
He said that proper safeguards are needed to support Inclusionary Zoning for the affordable housing component.
The CSD by-law could be an effective tool if developers would design their projects to utilize less land in the building of their infrastructure
and create more open space/ undisturbed land.
Wayne explained to the Commission that the Planning Board would not move forward with the Inclusionary
Zoning provision of the proposed CSD by-law without the support of the Commission.
Page 2 SCC 10/5/06 Meeting Minutes
Wayne suggested that the Mirrione project might be a perfect example for the Town to utilize CPA funds to
purchase some of its housing stock.
Greg explained Attorney Gelerman's interpretation of the "Yield Plan" proposed in the CSD by-law.
If the CSD by-law were changed to a 1.4 density then Mr. Mirrione would only be approved
for 144 lots instead of the initial 180.
Wayne stated that perhaps the Planning Board should postpone the Inclusionary Zoning by-law for the
time being and implement it across the board at a later date.
Peg stated that the Commission is uncomfortable with the Planning Board's being the permitting authority for
special permits. It is the Commission’s position that special permits should be obtained from the reviewing
board, which is the Zoning Board. The Commission agreed that the two main reasons for revising the
CSD bylaw are as follows:
The ZBA should be the appointing authority for special permits.
To lower the density bonus for proposed CSD development projects.
Kathy Roth expressed her opinion that the Commission should also be included in the section of the
CSD by-law concerning the issue of quantity and quality of water resources.
The Commission agreed to work on formulating new language for the proposed new CSD by-law and to
continue their discussion on October 19, 2006.
8:35 p.m. N.O.I. Public Hearing filed by the Sharon Public Works Department for the proposed wetland
sediment borings within bordering vegetated wetlands behind the Islamic Center off Chase Drive:
Present: Applicant, Eric Hooper, Superintendent of the Sharon DPW. Jeff Hershberger from ESS Group, Inc.
Tom Liddy, Wetland Scientist, from ESS Group, Inc. The Applicant submitted the green abutter cards and proposed plan entitled,
"Proposed Wetland Boring Locations in Chase Drive Property "dated 9/26/06 to the Commission.
Jeff Hershberger explained the scope of the proposed project to the Commission:
To install wetland borings approximately 5’ to 10’ deep, with a direct push rig, to investigate the nature and
thickness of wetland sediments in the vicinity of the existing 8” diameter test well at the Chase Drive site.
He said that there was a question during the technical review concerning the previous exploration activities on
the site. (Due to a lack of documentation concerning the actual thickness of the wetland sediments there was
a question of what the piezometers were actually showing concerning the results of the pump test and whether
the piezometers were constructed within the wetland sediments or aquifer material.)
Peg asked Jeff to explain what the difference would be if the piezometers were constructed within the wetland
sediments or the aquifer material and why a full coring sample is needed for this project.
Jeff responded that if the piezometers were drilled through the wetland sediments into the aquifer, it would be
suspect as to whether there would be drawdown during the pump test. There was a lot of technical work subsequent to that to add
to the assumption that the piezometers were completed within the Freetown Muck sediment and showing drawdown, therefore, there
was influence on the wetlands as a result of the pump test.
An evaluation was never completed on how thick the sediments were in that area. The Town received a
direct comment from the DEP indicating that there was a lot of uncertainty of what the piezometers were
actually monitoring during the pump test.
Jeff stated that the proposed drilling activities would be in six locations within the same vicinity of the two existing piezometers.
Eric explained to the Commission that if the Freetown Muck were, in fact, 6’ thick, you would not see the response on the surface that
was visible after the completion of the previous pump test because the permeability
of Freetown Muck is not good and would fail a septic perc test. He said that the evaluation results from the piezometer testing
concerning this proposed project would determine how thick the peat layer really is.
If it is found to be less than 6’ thick it would confirm that the previous pump test appears to be correct and
there would be an immediate response from the surface wetlands that would not be acceptable.
Page 3 SCC 10/5/06 Meeting Minutes
Stephen Cremer inquired as to what the Town is trying to accomplish by the various potential test results
of the proposed project and he asked how those results might influence the Town’s research concerning
water capabilities.
Eric responded that if the peat layer is determined to be shallow, then the response on the surface wetland
would be quick from the pump tests, consequently drying out the wetland.
If the peat layer were thick and impermeable, it would indicate that the initial pump test was flawed.
Stephen Cremer inquired as to the kind of evidence that would be necessary to obtain from the proposed
project to determine that the site would be acceptable for a new well.
Eric replied that a 6’ thick and impermeable layer of peat is needed to isolate the surface wetland from
the lower aquifer material.
Jeff Hershberger explained that the data received from the proposed test borings would be observed and
noted in a log.
Eric explained to the Commission that the Town is currently observing the 2" monitoring wells on the
Chase Drive site numbered 1-96, 6-A, 5-96, 2-96, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-5 and 6-96, as defined on the
submitted plan.
Peg called for a motion to close the hearing per submitted plan, pending receipt of the DEP File Number
with the condition that a copy of all of the data received from the proposed project shall be submitted
to the Commission.
Hank Langstroth moved. Stephen Cremer seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
9:05 p.m. Old/New Business:
Peg called for a motion to continue the Abbreviated Notice of Intent hearing for Drake Realty Trust until further
notified by the Applicant. DEP File #SE-280-0479.
Janet Dunlap moved. Hank Langstroth seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
Peg called for a motion to close the N.O.I. hearing for Adam Giandomenico, DEP File # SE-280-0481 and
to issue the Order of Conditions to the Applicant.
Hank Langstroth moved. Stephen Cremer seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
Peg called for a motion to close the N.O.I. hearing for Howard Glaser, DEP File #SE-280-0482 and to issue
the Order of Conditions to the Applicant.
Hank Langstroth moved. Stephen Cremer seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
Christine Turnbull and Stephen Cremer have been re-appointed to 3-year terms on the SCC by the Selectmen.
9:20 p.m. Signatures:
The Commission signed bills. Order of Conditions for the Sharon DPW for the Chase Drive proposed Project.
Order of Conditions for Howard Glaser, DEP File #SE-280-0482.
The Purchase and Sale Agreement for the acquisition of the King Philips Estates Parcel.
9:30 p.m. Approve Past Meeting Minutes:
Peg called for a motion to approve the July 6, 2006 meeting minutes as amended.
Stephen Cremer moved. Katherine Roth seconded. Voted. 5-0-1.
Peg called for a motion to approve the July 6, 2006 executive session minutes as presented.
Stephen Cremer moved. Katherine Roth seconded. Voted. 5-0-1.
Page 4 SCC 10/5/06 Meeting Minutes
Peg called for a motion to approve the August 10, 2006 meeting minutes as amended.
Janet Dunlap moved. Hank Langstroth seconded. Voted. 5-0-1.
Peg called for a motion to approve the August 10, 2006 executive session minutes as presented.
Katherine Roth moved. Hank Langstroth seconded. Voted. 5-0-1.
Peg called for a motion to approve the September 7, 2006 meeting minutes as amended.
Stephen Cremer moved. Hank Langstroth seconded. Voted. 5-0-1.
Peg called for a motion to approve the September 7, 2006 executive session minutes as amended.
Katherine Roth moved. Hank Langstroth seconded. Voted. 5-0-1.
The members of the Commission present at the September 21, 2006, "No Quorum" meeting
agreed that the minutes reflect the matters of the meeting.
Peg called for a motion to approve the September 21, 2006 executive session minutes as amended.
Janet Dunlap moved. Katherine Roth seconded. Voted 3-0-3.
10:10 p.m. Adjournment:
Peg called for a motion to adjourn.
Hank Langstroth moved. Katherine Roth seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
| 
