Conservation Commission
Meeting
October 15, 2009
Peg Arguimbau Chairman, Meredith deCarbonnel, Keevin Geller, Elizabeth McGrath, Hank Langstroth, and Stephen Cremer were the members present.
7:45 p.m., Abbreviated N.O.I. Public Hearing filed by Beverly Weisman for the proposed addition to an existing single family dwelling and associated grading at 5 Seminole Circle, DEP File # SE-280-0510:
David Oberlander from BDO Engineering appeared before the Commission to represent the Applicant.
He submitted the green abutter cards and a proposed plan entitled, “Conservation Plan for Notice of Intent, 5 Seminole Circle, Sharon, MA” dated 9/23/09. David Oberlander explained to the Commission that the Applicant is requesting a variance for a non-conforming lot from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Conservation Administrator met at the proposed project site with David Oberlander on
September 14, 2009 to review the wetlands and define the limit of work area.
David Oberlander explained to the Commission that the Applicant is proposing the construction of a 12’ x 14’ addition located approximately 35’ from the wetlands on the site. There is no proposed clearing of trees or vegetation removal for the proposed project.
The Commission reviewed and approved the Applicant’s proposed project as per submitted plan.
Peg called for a motion to close the hearing.
Hank Langstroth moved. Keevin Geller seconded. Voted. Unanimous. 6-0-0.
Peg called for a motion to issue the Order of Conditions to the Applicant with the following conditions:
- The installation of hay bales along the limit of work area for erosion control during construction of the proposed project.
- Any excavated material from the proposed project is not allowed to be deposited beyond the hay bale line or within the wetland areas of the site.
Elizabeth McGrath moved. Stephen Cremer seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
8:00 p.m., Paul Vitali met with the Commission to discuss issues concerning the Oakland Road Sand Pit:
Paul Vitali, 17 Valley Road, appeared before the Commission as a concerned abutter to the Oakland Road Sand Pit site. He presented photographs of the area from September 2009 to the present. Paul explained that, in his opinion, the most sensitive area of the site lies between the man-made ice rink and the expanded train station parking area. He said that the sand pit had been dormant for the past few years and now the DPW has been allowing contractors to dump and store materials on the site. The gate to the sand pit area has been closed at times but not locked.
The following is a list of some the activities Paul has observed occurring at the site:
- The installation of a dumpster container to the right of the sand pit.
- The dumping of asphalt and boulders, along with the storage of loam and gravel, to the left side of the sand pit and beyond the frog pond area.
- The asphalt removed from the recent North/South Main Street paving project has been dumped on the site.
- The DPW has dumped snow and salt removed from various roadways in Town.
- Brown sludge has been dumped by a contractor in the northwest corner of the property and has seeped down the embankment onto a man-made ice skating rink. The rink is located within 200’ from the edge of a certified vernal pool existing on the site.
Paul inquired as to who would be the responsible party for monitoring the site. He expressed his concern of the possible impact to the nearby aquifer and natural habitat of the site from the recent dumping activities.
Peg explained that the Commission would notify the Selectmen and the Town Engineer that it has been brought to the Commission’s attention that the Oakland Sand Pit area is being used in a manner that does not seem appropriate. The Commission will also inquire as to the responsible party for monitoring the site.
Page 2 SCC 10/15/09 Meeting Minutes
The Conservation Administrator agreed to contact Attorney Webster concerning a title search of the property to identify the conservation boundary lines on Oakland Road.
The Conservation Administrator will contact the DPW about locking the gate to the sand pit area
Paul Vitali agreed to report back to the Commission next month.
8:15 p.m., Steve Pearlman, from the Neponset River Watershed Association, discussed pollution
control measures concerning the Neponset River and its Tributaries:
Steve Pearlman explained to the Commission that the Neponset River Watershed Association (NRWA) performs water quality sampling within the Neponset River Watershed. He said that DEP is supposed to do the sampling under the Federal Clean Water Act but have outsourced it to the NRWA. Approximately every two years, DEP makes a list of impaired waters and name the particular pollutants that are impairing the waters to the extent that they do not meet state water quality standards. According to the data collected this year by the NRWA, the major pollutant found within the Neponset & Taunton River Watersheds is bacteria. Once a body of water has been identified as impaired, DEP is required by the Federal Clean Water Act to develop a pollution budget designed to restore the health of the impaired body of water. This budget
is generally referred to as the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). It identifies both the direct and indirect sources of the pollution and determines the maximum amount of pollutant that can be discharged to the water body in order to meet water quality standards. Stormwater Standards for direct discharges and indirect runoff is the geometric mean of equal to or less than 200 bacterial organisms per 100 millimeters. TMDL is issued under the Federal Clean Water Act. The Commission’s jurisdiction falls under the Wetlands Protection Act. The 2008 Stormwater Handbook recognizes that if there is a TMDL and if it says that stormwater is one of the major culprits of this pollution then conservation commissions can do something about it. The handbook indicates that if a proponent is proposing a project that is in the watershed of a water body with a TMDL, and if the project is subject to wetlands jurisdiction, the proponent must select structural BMPs that are consistent with the TMDL.
Because pollution prevention is an interest identified in the Wetlands Protection Act, conservation commissions and the DEP may require use of such BMPs when reviewing projects subject to jurisdiction under the Act. The key point is that the wetlands regulations stormwater standards require Total Suspended Solids (TSS). DEP indicates that prevention of pollution is an interest of the Wetlands Protection Act and if DEP has confirmed a serious problem and if stormwater is one of the causes, then conservation commissions can go beyond what they normally could do.
Steve Pearlman presented the Commission with a copy of an article he wrote for the September/October MACC Newsletter explaining what conservation commissions can achieve under the Wetlands Protection Act in the way of stormwater control that is effective for bacteria treatment. He also provided a list of BMPs effective in removing bacteria.
Peg stated that the Commission cautiously deals with projects near tributaries, septic systems, and swimming pools. It is the Commission’s practice to implement a stormwater management control plan for those projects. The Massapoag Brook is pretty well protected on both sides from the time it flows from the lake into Canton.
Steve Pearlman explained that he had reported data from May 2007 through September 2008 indicating that Massapoag Brook was in compliance with bacteria levels, even in wet weather. However, Beaver Brook was not in compliance.
Steve Pearlman explained that it is important to remember that the installation of deep sump catch basins and oil/grit separators are not effective for bacteria removal, but they are effective for TSS.
Peg stated that the Commission would be willing to incorporate stormwater control effective for bacteria removal into an Order of Conditions for future pertinent projects, regulations or bylaws.
8:45 p.m., N.O.I. continuance for a hearing that was opened on August 20, 2009 at 8:00 p.m., for Lot 106 Eisenhower Drive:
Present: Attorney Jon Rockwood from Town Counsel’s Office
Applicant’s Attorney Matt Watsky
Applicant, Mr. Thomas Altieri
Page 3 SCC 10/15/09 Meeting Minutes
Attorney Matt Watsky explained to the Commission that the N.O.I. filed by the Applicant was done in part in response to the court order that the Commission obtained against Tom Altieri that directed him to stop work, remove all equipment from his property, file a Notice of Intent, or Request for Determination of the wetland line. Mr. Altieri stopped work, removed all the equipment from his property, prepared a preliminary site plan dated 2/9/09, and filed a Notice of Intent with the Commission.
When Matt spoke with Attorney Rockwood, he suggested the following options to resolve the pending litigation for Lot 106 Eisenhower Drive and at the same time proceed with the Notice of Intent:
Option 1. – Close out the litigation by entering into an agreement for judgment that Tom agrees to stop all work and remove all equipment from his property and that going forward no further work would take place on the property until he has all necessary permits in hand before proceeding.
Option 2. – The Conservation Administrator reviewed the site with Peter Fletcher to inspect the wetland line that was delineated by Steve Ivas and depicted on the submitted plan prepared by Pilling Engineering. The Conservation Administrator and Peter Fletcher modified the wetland line closer to the roadway than the wetland line depicted on the submitted plan. Knowing that the disagreement of the wetland line cannot be resolved, Matt Watsky is requesting that the Commission act on the Notice of Intent and issue an Order of Conditions. He assumes that the Commission would approve the wetland line delineated by the Conservation Administrator and Peter Fletcher, and then issue a decision stating that it is either approved under state law but with a different wetland line shown or denied because the Commission does not
feel that the wetland line delineated by Steve Ivas is accurate. A way for the Applicant to resolve the dispute is to file a request for a Superseding Order of Conditions and ask DEP which wetland line is accurate. The wetland line approved by DEP would be depicted on a revised plan and submitted to the Commission.
Matt Watsky suggested that the Commission not issue a decision that is both under its local by-law and the state law due to the disagreement in the wetland line. The Commission can stay action under the Town’s Local By-law or consider the N.O.I. submitted by the Applicant withdrawn. Then, the Applicant would proceed under state law and have DEP issue its ruling. Once there is clarification of the wetland line then we can decide how to proceed under the local bylaw and have the Commission implement its ruling.
Peg explained that the Commission’s position is still in disagreement of the wetland line proposed by the Applicant. The Commission would like to contact Town Counsel prior to any definitive decisions.
Matt Watsky requested that the Commission close the hearing tonight and make a decision within 21 days.
9:05 p.m., Executive Session:
Peg called for a motion to enter into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation concerning
Lot 106 Eisenhower Drive.
Hank Langstroth moved. Stephen Cremer seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
9:20 p.m., Adjourn from Executive Session:
Peg called for a motion to adjourn from Executive Session.
Stephen Cremer moved. Hank Langstroth seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
9:25 p.m., Jon Rockwood reiterated the Commission’s decision in terms of the court judgment:
- The Commission agrees to end the litigation as it currently exists in Superior Court by negotiating an agreement for judgment. Incorporating the agreements that the Applicant will stop all work and remove all equipment/machines. No further work will be performed on the site until all necessary permits are issued.
Peg explained to Attorney Watsky that the Commission will agree to make a decision on the filing and allow him to submit a written request to stay the action under the by-law until the decision is made by DEP because the Commission will probably deny the project due to the disagreement with the wetland line.
Page 4 SCC 10/15/09 Meeting Minutes
Therefore, an appeal by the Applicant to DEP would not be bound by the by-law appeal.
Attorney Watsky submitted the following written request to the Commission:
- “As per our discussion please stay action on this filing under the Sharon Wetland by-law, and proceed under the State Wetlands Protection Act.”
Peg called for a motion for the Commission to stay the action under the Town’s Local By-law in order to pursue the culmination of this wetland filing.
Hank Langstroth moved. Elizabeth McGrath seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
Peg called for a motion to deny the proposed project based on the disagreement with the proposed wetland line.
Hank Langstroth moved. Keevin Geller seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
Peg explained that the Order of Conditions denied by the Commission will include previous information that the Commission received to support the Commission’s decision to disagree with the wetland line.
Peg called for roll call vote for all those in favor of the motion to deny the proposed project based on the disagreement of the proposed wetland line.
Voted. Unanimous.
Peg said that the Applicant would receive his copy of the Order of Conditions denied by the Commission within 21 days.
9:30 p.m., Peg called for a motion to enter into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation for
140 Maskwonicut Street:
Stephen Cremer moved. Elizabeth McGrath seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
9:35 p.m., Adjourn from Executive Session:
Peg called for a motion to adjourn from Executive Session.
Meredith deCarbonnel moved. Hank Langstroth seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
9:40 p.m., Signatures: The Commission signed bills. Order of Conditions for 5 Seminole Circle,
DEP File # SE-280-0510. Peg signed a statement approving Matt Ostrow’s completed trail work on
Trowel Shop Pond for his Eagle Scout Project.
9:45 p.m., Approve Past Meeting Minutes:
Peg called for a motion to approve the September 10, 2009 meeting minutes as presented.
Meredith deCarbonnel moved. Elizabeth McGrath seconded. Voted. 5-0-1.
Peg called for a motion to approve the October 1, 2009 meeting minutes as presented.
Stephen Cremer moved. Hank Langstroth seconded. Voted. 4-0-2.
9:50 p.m., Adjournment:
Peg called for a motion to adjourn.
Stephen Cremer moved. Hank Langstroth seconded. Voted. Unanimous.
| 
