Conservation Commission
Meeting
Sharon Community Center
April 5, 2012
Peg Arguimbau Chairman, Keevin Geller, Hank Langstroth, and Elizabeth McGrath were the members present. Stephen Cremer arrived at 8:07 p.m. Conservation Commission Member Christine Turnbull was absent from the meeting. The Conservation Administrator, Greg Meister, was also present.
7:45 p.m. A Notice of Intent Public Hearing filed by Stanley Sreda for the proposed grading and associated site work involved with the proposed construction of a single-family house at 623 Massapoag Avenue, DEP File # SE-280-0535:
Present: David Oberlander, P.E., BDO Engineering. Stan Sreda, Property Owner, 12 Mansfield St.
Abutter, Arlyn Bonfield, 619 Massapoag Ave. David Oberlander appeared before the Commission to represent the Applicant. He presented the green abutter cards and a proposed color-coded plan entitled, “Proposed Dwelling and Subsurface Disposal System at 623 Massapoag Ave., Sharon, MA.” Dated 12/23/11. David explained that there is an existing brook with an associated wetland resource area located on the western portion of the proposed lot. The elevation of the eastern portion of the proposed project site is higher than the western portion of the project site. The proposed project involves grading an area within the 100’ Buffer Zone to meet the existing sloped area of the proposed project site. The proposed new house and garage construction is proposed away from the 100’ Buffer Zone of the proposed
project site. The installation of the footings for the sono tubes for the proposed 12’ x 16’ open deck at the back portion of the proposed house slightly encroaches on the 100’ Buffer Zone of the proposed project site.
Peg explained that she previously met with Greg at the proposed project site to review the proposed wetland line, and analyze soils and vegetation. The proposed wetland line was approved as a result of their inspection.
Peg requested that the haybale line be revised on a new plan to reflect a new limit of work area along the 187 contour line of the proposed project site.
David Oberlander and the Applicant expressed a willingness to comply with Peg’s request.
Elizabeth McGrath requested that the walk-out area along the proposed deck area remain as a permeable surface for the protection of the 100’ Buffer Zone on the proposed project site.
The Conservation Administrator, Greg Meister, recommended that the proposed deck for the Applicant’s project remain as an open and unimproved structure to protect the 100’ Buffer Zone of the proposed project site.
David Oberlander and the Applicant agreed with the Conservation Administrator’s recommendation.
Abutter, Arlyn Bonfield, 619 Massapoag Ave., explained to the Commission that her property abuts the proposed project and her existing home is located within the 100’ Buffer Zone. She recalled that many years ago the language of the 100’ Buffer Zone regulations allowed for the Commission to approve her proposed addition to her existing house that was constructed within the 100’ Buffer Zone. Arlyn Bonfield asked the Commission whether there have been any changes concerning the 100’ Buffer Zone regulations since her completed project that allows for the construction of the Applicant’s proposed project.
Peg explained that the Applicant’s proposed project is for a new house construction that is being proposed away from the 100’ Buffer Zone of the proposed project site except for the proposed grading and footings for the sono tubes to support the proposed deck.
The Conservation Administrator, Greg Meister, offered to arrange a site visit with Arlyn Bonfield to review the boundaries of the delineated lot lines concerning the proposed project.
Peg requested that the boundary lines of the foundation for the proposed house and garage be staked as a point of reference to the 100’ Buffer Zone of the proposed project site.
Hank Langstroth requested that the Applicant revise the proposed plan to show the dimension of the 100’ Buffer Zone as 100 feet rather than 100 plus or minus feet.
It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the Applicant’s proposed project upon the submittal of a revised plan for the proposed project that reflects the following modifications:
- To show the revised haybale line on the proposed revised plan reflecting the new limit of work area along the 187 contour line that curves around the back portion of the proposed project site.
- For the proposed revised plan to show the proposed deck as a permanently opened and unimproved structure.
- For the proposed revised plan to show the dimension of the 100’ Buffer Zone as 100 feet rather than 100 plus or minus feet.
Page 2 SCC 4/5/12 Meeting Minutes
The Commission concurred that the Special Conditions for the Applicant’s proposed project shall state as follows:
- The Applicant shall stake the boundary lines of the foundation for the proposed house and garage as a point of reference to the 100’ Buffer Zone of the proposed project site.
- The Applicant for the proposed project shall contact the Conservation Administrator prior to starting
the proposed work for inspection of erosion control measures.
- Upon completion of all approved work, the Applicant shall submit an As Built Plan showing compliance with the Order of Conditions issued by the Commission before requesting a Certificate of Compliance for this proposed project.
The Conservation Administrator explained that permitting has been issued by the Board of Health with the relief requested by the Applicant for the proposed project.
Peg called for a motion to continue the hearing until the next Commission Meeting to discuss
closing the hearing pending receipt of the Applicant’s proposed revised plan.
Keevin Geller moved. Hank Langstroth seconded. Voted. 4-0-1.
8:00 p.m.: N.O.I. Public Hearing filed by the Sharon DPW. The proposed work involves approximately 3,700 linear feet of pavement installation between 371 and 596 Mountain Street:
Eric Hooper, Superintendent of the Sharon DPW appeared before the Commission to explain the proposed project. Abutters/Interested Persons were present in the audience. (See attached list.)
Eric Hooper submitted the green abutter cards and proposed plans to the Commission.
(See attached list of plans.) The DEP has not yet issued a file number for the Applicant’s proposed project.
Eric explained the scope of the following proposed project to the Commission:
- Reviews are still pending from the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, and the DEP.
- The Town still needs to file with the Norfolk County Commissioners concerning the proposed project.
- The stormwater management information concerning the proposed project has just been submitted to the DEP that includes the 2, 10, and 100-year storm events.
- The wetlands on the proposed project site have been delineated and the Conservation Administrator, Greg Meister, has approved the proposed delineated wetland line.
The depth to refusal is 10, 11, 12, & 20 inches. (Bedrock)
- The existing wetland resource areas of the proposed project are immediately adjacent to the roadway.
- Three different proposed plans are submitted for the Applicant’s proposed project as follows:
Photos were taken at each 100 foot station reviewing the upstream and downstream of the proposed project site.
- 18 foot-width paved surface roadway within the 25-30 foot Right-of-Way/the existing travel way. Three foot swales are proposed where necessary.
- The Design Plan indicates where the Old Right-of-Way deviates from the Old County Layout.
(No paved work is being proposed within the New County Layout.)
- The Watershed’s Stormwater Management Plan
- PSC was hired by the Town to develop the stormwater management plan to review the rates of potential stormwater runoff and they designed the proposed drainage swales to accommodate the stormwater runoff to meet the requirement of the 2, 10, and 100-year storm events. The proposed drainage swales are numbered on both sides of the roadway. All of the existing soil is comprised of exposed ledge material, all decayed bedrock. Most of the existing soils on the proposed project site are mostly vegetated soils.
- Soil Horizon Information: 0 Horizon = 0-2 inches/A Horizon = 2-5 inches
B Horizon = 5-20 inches
- Keevin asked if there are any culverts installed beneath the existing roadway.
- Eric replied that no culverts are beneath the existing roadway. He said that a new
culvert was installed during the last paving project approximately 400 feet north at the
end of the street.
Page 3 SCC 4/5/12 Meeting Minutes
- The total amount of watersheds is eleven.
The Erosion Control Plan including the swales and haybales
- The outermost lines shown on the plan are the property lines, the Right-of-Way.
- The green line on the proposed plan shows property ownership.
- The Borderland State Park is located on the westerly side of the roadway.
- The magenta line on the proposed plan shows the extent of the proposed edge of pavement.
- The heavy green lines on the proposed plan show the proposed haybale lines.
- The blue lines on the proposed plan show the proposed 3’ drainage swales.
- There is an existing windrow on the westerly side of the roadway along the southern
end of the roadway that was installed to control the stormwater runoff.
- Check Dams are proposed to be installed mostly along the southern end of the existing roadway to slow down any excess stormwater runoff.
- No utilities are proposed to be installed for the project.
- The speed limit of the roadway is low so there is no need to bank the sides of the roadway.
- Keevin asked how much prep work is needed to install the pavement for the proposed project.
He suggested that the members of the Commission review the proposed project site.
- Eric explained that the proposed project involves general road construction practices
and the proposed installation of an 8-inch sub-base along some areas of the existing roadway.
Eric explained that the intent of the proposed project is to reduce the width of the
traveled way of the existing roadway.
- Elizabeth McGrath mentioned that she is aware that some people like to pull over on some areas of the roadway to utilize the pathways and Borderland State Park. She asked whether parking spaces are proposed to be installed along areas of the roadway as part of the proposed project.
- Eric explained that he does not recommend installing parking spaces along the roadways because he feels it would tend to create traffic nuisances. He explained that he will look at the location of the trailheads and make sure the proposed drainage swales will not interfere with the area of trailheads so that vehicles could pull off the roadway in those areas.
- Peg asked Eric what is the purpose of the proposed project.
- Eric explained that the Road Commissioners have asked the DPW to pave this dirt road area of Mountain Street in response to the requests of some residents of the Town.
- Kyla Bennett from N. Easton asked how many square feet of the wetland resource area would be impacted by the proposed project.
- Eric explained that 44,935 s.f., is the proposed impact to the Buffer Zone from the proposed project, “Isolated Land Subject to Flooding.”
- Kyla Bennett commented on the following concerning the proposed project:
- The State has recently designated this area of Sharon as a “Priority Protection
Area,” that includes both sides of the gravel roadway.
- During October 2011, NADD, along with the help of PEER, submitted a letter to
the Conservation Commission that described the impacts to wildlife, particularly
to amphibians and reptiles. The letter contains the latest scientific research
information. The current impacts to amphibians and reptiles from a paved
roadway include habitat fragmentation, and increased mortality due to increased
vehicles speeding on the roadway. There is also water quality concerns. The
EPA recently performed a water quality study entitled, “Assessment of Water
Quality of Runoff from Sealed Asphalt Surfaces.”
- Eric pointed out that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contain volatile organics.
- Kyla expressed her concern that the proposed installation of drainage swales along
some areas of the roadway could potentially present a barrier for migrating animals.
The proposed drainage swales may retain excess stormwater runoff for a long enough
time for an animal to mistake the swale for a vernal pool and try to breed inside the
swale and potentially loose the breeding season. Kyla mentioned that there is a new
division of Penn State University named, “The Center for Dirt and Gravel Roads” that
offers free assistance to municipalities throughout the country. Kyla believes that
other alternatives should be examined concerning the proposed project due to the
significant amount of impact to the Buffer Zone from the proposed project.
Page 4 SCC 4/5/12 Meeting Minutes
- Eric explained to the Commission that the current posted speed limit would not be a safety issue for the proposed paved roadway. He is not proposing to change the speed limit following the construction of the proposed project. The installation of speed bumps might be considered.
Eric explained that turtles tend to nest in gravel. The mortality rate may actually be
higher on a graveled surface as opposed to a paved surface.
Eric explained that the depth to refusal is so shallow that the surface of the roadway
is not pervious, it contains bedrock and exposed ledge. A very little amount of
infiltration occurs. Eric said that although there are four dirt roadways within the
Town of Sharon, Mountain Street is the only dirt road used for vehicle traffic. Paving
Mountain Street would reduce the cost of maintaining the roadway.
- Rita Corey, 282 Mountain Street, expressed her concern of the potential impact to the wildlife from the Applicant’s proposed project. She said that last summer she found an Eastern Box Turtle at the edge of the roadway near her house. The Eastern Box Turtle is a Species of Concern. Rita feels that the traffic on the roadway would be increased from the proposed pavement project because the roadway would be used by vehicles as a shortcut through Sharon.
Spotted Salamanders are also a Species of Concern crossing the roadway to access
the nearby ponds. Many snapping turtles have been killed in the past trying to cross
the roadway. Rita explained that since her portion of the roadway was paved a few
years ago stormwater runoff has been eroding the soil along the edges of the road
and diverted onto neighboring properties.
- Eric explained that he would not have a problem closing a section of Mountain Street to allow wildlife to access the roadway during the time of the year when they migrate.
- Elizabeth McGrath inquired if there is some area of the roadway to focus effort on designing safe pathways for migrating wildlife if the proposed project is approved.
Eric explained that there may be many opportunities to explore this option.
- Kurt Buermann, 45 Furnace Street, discussed the idea of installing a binder course
similar to a pervious dirt road that might be a less expensive option to stabilize the
roadway than a paved surface.
- Eric explained some of the alternative options for the proposed project he reviewed such as pervious asphalt and a dry mix cement option but those materials were very expensive. He is willing to review additional options for installing a pervious pavement concerning the proposed project.
- Richard Gray, 256 Mountain Street, indicated that he is opposed to the Applicant’s proposed project. He reviewed a certified set of plans of the Mountain Street Layout. He commented that he is amazed that the Applicant did not obtain permission from the Norfolk County Commissioners before submitting the proposed project to the Commission.
- Eric said that the plans of the Mountain Street Layout presented by Richard Gray are not related to wetlands, the street layout falls under the jurisdiction of the Road Commissioners and the Norfolk County Commissioners.
- Peg allowed Richard Gray to express his concerns to the Commission.
- Richard Gray explained to the Commission that the Norfolk County Commissioners has written language recorded in the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds, Book 3901/ Pages 506-520, stating that the traveled part of the separate ways of Mountain Street shall be constructed not less than 24 feet in width. Any sidewalks shall be constructed, wherever, in the opinion of the Norfolk County Commissioners.
- Peg explained to Richard Gray that the formal hearing with the Norfolk County Commissioners concerning the Applicant’s proposed project may be a better venue for him to discuss the history of the location of Mountain Street Layout.
- Eric explained to the Commission that in 2004, the Norfolk County Commissions approved the DPW’s previous project that involved paving an 18 foot wide portion of Mountain Street.
- - Richard Mandell, 580 Mountain Street, inquired if the proposed project involves the installation of any drainage swales across the driveways on Mountain Street.
- - Eric explained that it is not the DPW’s intent to install drainage swales across the driveways on Mountain Street.
Page 5 SCC 4/5/12 Meeting Minutes
- Eric explained that the DPW will request a variance from the Norfolk County Commissioners to approve the required road width for completing their proposed project.
Eric agreed to provide a plan to the Commission showing the cross section of Mountain Street concerning the proposed project.
- Cheryl Weinstein, 4 Coach Lane, explained to the Commission that Blanding’s Turtles nests are found in Borderland State Park. She indicated that maintaining asphalt roads is costly and many Towns are crushing up asphalt to make gravel roads.
- - Eric said that it has been costly for the town to maintain the graveled section of Mountain Street.
He is willing to explore additional options for installing a pervious pavement surface for his Mountain Street project.
- Sharon Grady, 592 Mountain Street, explained that one of the reasons why the Board of Selectmen voted in favor of paving this graveled portion of Mountain Street is to provide safe access for emergency vehicles servicing the area. She explained that she is one of the few residents along Mountain Street that has a drainage culvert installed beneath their driveway and she indicated that the drainage culverts effectively control the stormwater runoff in that area of Mountain Street.
- Elizabeth Essex, 742 Mountain Street, indicated to the Commission that there was a small majority of residents along Mountain Street who submitted a petition to the Selectmen requesting to pave this section of Mountain Street and there was an overwhelming majority of residents along Mountain Street that submitted a petition to the Selectmen who did not want this section of Mountain Street paved.
- Kurt Buermann, 45 Furnace Street, indicated that he would be in favor of speed bumps or humps if this portion of Mountain Street is paved.
- Cheryl Weinstein, 4 Coach Lane, spoke about the Fire Department’s response time in providing emergency services to the residents along Mountain Street. The Fire Department explained to Cheryl that depending on some conditions, if they slow down to 30 MPH on the graveled road of Mountain Street the estimated emergency response time would be increased by 12.6 seconds or less. Cheryl also mentioned that the Easton Fire Department also provides emergency services to some of the residents along Mountain St.
Peg said that the Commission is interested in reviewing the alternative options for stabilizing or upgrading the area of the road between 371 and 596 Mountain Street rather than installing the typical asphalt pavement.
Peg thanked everyone in attendance for their valuable information concerning the Applicant’s proposed project.
Peg called for a motion to continue the hearing until a date agreeable to the Applicant.
Steven Cremer moved. Elizabeth McGrath seconded. Voted. Unanimous. 5-0-0.
9:35 p.m. The Commission signed bills. Order of Conditions for 623 Massapoag Ave., DEP File #SE-280-0535.
9:40 p.m. Old/New Business:
The Commission reviewed their March 22, 2010 letter to the Selectmen concerning the Commission’s interest in re-establishing the Dog Ban Policy on the beaches of Lake Massapoag. The Commission also discussed Article 3 of the May 7, 2012 Annual Town Meeting.
Steven Cremer stated for the record that the safety and security of all of Lake Massapoag’s beaches is dependent upon the care of our citizens.
Peg called for a motion in support of Article 3 of the May 7, 2012 Annual Town Meeting which addresses the banning of dogs, except for service dogs, on the beaches of Lake Massapoag.
Keevin Geller moved. Hank Langstroth seconded. Voted. 3-0-2
9:50 p.m. Approve Past Meeting Minutes:
Peg called for a motion to approve the March 1, 2012 Meeting Minutes as submitted.
Elizabeth McGrath moved. Keevin Geller seconded. Voted. 3-0-2.
10:05 p.m. Adjournment:
Peg called for a motion to adjourn.
Hank Langstroth moved. Stephen Cremer seconded. Voted. Unanimous. 5-0-0.
- List of proposed plans submitted on 4/5/12 to the Commission for the 8:00 p.m., N.O.I. Public Hearing filed by the Sharon DPW. The proposed work involves approximately 3,700 linear feet of pavement installation between 371 and 596 Mountain Street:
- Mountain Street Paving Project
Erosion Control Plans April 2012
Sheets 1-5
Sheet 1
Description: Erosion Control Plan
Date: April 5, 2012
Row survey performed by Norfolk County Engineering Department June 2002
Wetland Flagging Performed by Environmental Consulting and Restoration, LLC
and Witnessed by Greg Meister of the Sharon Conservation Commission
June 15, 2011
ECR Report Dated June 26, 2011.
Stormwater Calculations and Erosion Control Plans – PSC Foxboro, MA April 2012
Job Name: Mountain Street Paving
Location: Station 0+00-36+77.44
Drawn By: PMO and Norfolk County Engineering Department
Sheet 2
Job Name: Mountain Street Paving
Description: Mountain Street Paving Erosion Control Plan
Date: January 23, 2012
Location: Station 0+00-11+00
Sheet 3
Job Name: Mountain Street Paving
Description: Mountain Street Paving Erosion Control Plan
Date: January 23, 2012
Location: Station 11+00-22+00
Sheet 4
Job Name: Mountain Street Paving
Description: Mountain Street Paving Erosion Control Plan
Date: January 23, 2012
Location: Station 22+00-30+00
Sheet 5
Description: Mountain Street Paving Erosion Control Plan
Date: January 23, 2012
Location: Station 30+00-36+77.44
- Mountain Street Paving Project Plans February 2012
Sheets 1-5
Sheet 1
Row survey performed by Norfolk County Engineering Department June 2002
Wetland Flagging Performed by Environmental Consulting and Restoration, LLC
and Witnessed by Greg Meister of the Sharon Conservation Commission
June 15, 2011
ECR Report Dated June 26, 2011.
Job Name: Mountain Street Paving
Location: Station 0+00-36+77.44
Description: Mountain Street Paving
Drawn By: PMO and Norfolk County Engineering Department
Date: January 23, 2012
-1-
List of Plans continued
Sheet 2
Job Name: Mountain Street Paving
Location: Station 0+00-11+00
Description: Mountain Street Paving
Drawn By: PMO
Date: January 23, 2012
Sheet 3
Job Name: Mountain Street Paving
Location: Station 11+00-22+00
Description: Mountain Street Paving Drawn By: PMO
Date: January 23, 2012
Sheet 4
Job Name: Mountain Street Paving
Location: Station 22+00-30+00
Description: Mountain Street Paving
Date: January 23, 2012
Sheet 5
Job Name: Mountain Street Paving
Location: Station 30+00-36+77.44
Description: Mountain Street Paving
Drawn By: PMO
Date: January 23, 2012
- Mountain Street Paving Project Watershed Plans April 2012
Sheets 1-5
Sheet 1
Row survey performed by Norfolk County Engineering Department June 2002
Wetland Flagging Performed by Environmental Consulting and Restoration, LLC
and Witnessed by Greg Meister of the Sharon Conservation Commission
June 15, 2011
ECR Report Dated June 26, 2011.
Stormwater Calculations and Erosion Control Plans – PSC Foxboro, MA April 2012
Job Name: Mountain Street Paving
Location: Station 0+00-36+77.44
Description: Watershed Plans
Drawn By: PMO and Norfolk County Engineering Department
Date: April 5, 2012
Sheet 2
Job Name: Mountain Street Paving
Location: Station 0+00-11+00
Description: Mountain Street Paving Watershed Areas
Drawn By: PMO
Date: January 23, 2012
Sheet 3
Job Name: Mountain Street Paving
Location: Station 11+00-22+00
Description: Mountain Street Paving Watershed Areas
Drawn By: PMO
Date: January 23, 2012
-2-
List of Plans continued
Sheet 4
Job Name: Mountain Street Paving
Location: Station 22+00-30+00
Description: Mountain Street Paving Watershed Areas
Drawn By: PMO
Date: January 23, 2012
Sheet 5
Location: Station 30+00-36+77.44
Description: Mountain Street Paving Watershed Areas
Drawn By: PMO
Date: January 23, 2012
-3-
| 
