HANSON CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
TOWN HALL, 542 LIBERTY STREET, HANSON, MA
Called to Order at 7:00 PM under M.G.L. c 131, §40 and the Hanson By-Law 3-13, §5 and Rules and Regulations by John Kemmett, Chairman, in Meeting Room A at the Town Hall.
Present: John Kemmett, Chairman
Frank Schellenger, Vice Chairman
John Murray, Clerk
David Harris, Member
Phil Clemons, Associate Member
Also Present: Mary Guiney, Interim Agent
Rebecca Nehiley, Administrative Assistant
Minutes
Motion to approve minutes of September 11, 2012: John Murray
Second: David Harris
Vote: 4-0-0
Public Hearings
7:00 PM Notice of Intent for the installation of a pre-packaged 30,000-gallon capacity propane Aboveground Storage Tank within 100 feet of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 1158 Main Street, Map 43, Lot 50 for Larry Lundin, Hanson Fuel Co., Inc. represented by Environmental & Energy Solutions (DEP #SE175-0625) (New Hearing)
John Murray read the Public Hearing Notice and the abutters were verified. Mr. Joseph Dorsett, Jr. of Environmental and Energy Solutions represented Mr. Larry Lundin, who was also present. Mr. Dorsett asked the Commission to recall that they had been in previously for a Determination of Applicability to “gain knowledge and get the process going.” As a result, he said, Mr. Lundin was proposing to construct an above ground storage tank for propane gas so as to improve that part of the business which has grown. It is a new tank, in keeping with the historic use of the property, which at the turn of the 20th century began as McDonald Coal Co. before becoming Hanson Fuel as it is known today. The tank is 100’ from the
property line. Mr. Dorsett went on to say that the bordering vegetated wetland (BVW) was delineated using a MADEP wetland map and was confirmed in the field adding that the BVW follows the existing chain link fence and containment dike exactly. In addition, said Mr. Dorsett, a brook is more than 285’ from the proposed work, rendering impact from the project in the buffer zone only.
Ms. Guiney commented that, “overall, it’s not a bad project” adding that it doesn’t have a huge impact. However, she did provide comments that itemized a list of deficiencies to the Notice of Intent. Mr. Schellenger asked if Ms. Guiney verified the stream to which she replied “yes.” Mr. Schellenger requested that the 200’ Riverfront buffer zone be depicted onto the Plan. Mr. Kemmett asked for a variance request. Mr. Harris mentioned that the required DEP Stormwater form was missing from the filing as well as a Functions and Characteristics statement. Mr. Schellenger commented that because the site has been developed, it would be very difficult to mitigate. Mr. Clemons recused himself as
an abutter, but wanted to clarify that the stream in question is called “Great Cedar Swamp Brook” and is a tributary to and flows NW into Poor Meadow Brook. Mr. Clemons said that for the record, he doesn’t have any concerns. No other abutters were present. Mr. Dorsett was given a copy of Ms. Guiney’s report.
Motion to continue the hearing to 10/16/12 at 7:15 PM: Frank Schellenger
Second: David Harris
Vote: 4-0-0
7:15 PM Continued Notice of Intent for the construction of a driveway, single family home, intermittent stream crossing and utility service connections within the 100 foot buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland as well as alteration of approx. 3,785 s.f. of vegetated wetland at Whitman Street, Map 109, Lot 4 (builders Lot 1) for Thomas Hastings of Thomas J. Hastings Co., LLC, represented by McKenzie Engineering Group, Inc., 150 Longwater Dr., Suite 101, Norwell, MA (DEP #SE175-0616)
7:15 PM Continued Notice of Intent for the construction of a driveway, single family home, intermittent stream crossing and utility service connections within the 100 ft. buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland at Whitman Street, Map 109, Lot 4 (Builders Lot 2) for Thomas Hastings of Thomas J. Hastings Co., Inc. represented by McKenzie Engineering Group, Inc., 150 Longwater Dr., Suite 101, Norwell, MA (DEP #SE175-0617)
This hearing was continued from 8/28/12. Mr. Brad M. McKenzie, P.E., representing the applicant, made the initial presentation. Also present on behalf of the applicant were Mr. Brad Holmes, P.W.S. for Environmental Consulting and Restoration, LLC and Mr. James O’Brien, Agent. Mr. John W. Delano, wetland consultant for the Commission, was present as well. Mr. McKenzie submitted a letter dated 9/24/12 which was in response to Mr. Delano’s review letter of 9/18/12. He added that he had had some dialogue with Mr. Delano about the content and said it was mostly to discuss general engineering questions and clarification of the mitigation. Mr. McKenzie proceeded to go through the letter item by item. Of note
was a “proposed ‘No Cut’ area” added to Drawing #1 to indicate that the area between the two driveways at the front of the site were not to be cleared. Mr. Schellenger inquired how that area will be demarcated to alert heavy equipment operators. Mr. McKenzie answered that it will be staked out in the field. Mr. Schellenger wanted it noted for the record that it should be conditioned into a permit. Mr. Delano followed up Mr. Schellenger’s comment with a recommendation that orange safety fencing be installed around the area to protect the median strip.
Mr. McKenzie said that much of Mr. Delano’s suggestions had to do with the mitigation in the 50’ buffer zone (bz). To that end, Mr. Holmes elaborated on the 50’ Buffer Zone Mitigation Plan that he designed dated 8/21/12 reiterating that five (5) areas would be enhanced by the removal of invasive species to be identified in the field by a qualified botanist and removed by hand. Two (2) areas would then be re-vegetated with approximately 50 native plants to help “reclaim” the 50’ buffer strip. Mr. Holmes cited Section 8:01(4) of the Hanson Wetlands Protection By-law Rules and Regulations pertaining to enhancement of Buffer Strips.
Mr. Delano made his presentation, referencing his letter of 9/18/12. He referred to his concern of the amount of wetlands and the evidence of flooding. He inspected the stream on 9/5/12 during a rainstorm and was surprised to see it didn’t have a “lot of flow.” He could not find the 18” culvert that was depicted on the Route 58 Reconstruction Plan. Mr. Delano suggested that the revised Stormwater calculations took a very conservative approach in modeling runoff for the wetland watershed that showed the area to be saturated with a maximum amount of runoff. He was of the opinion that the computer models did not accurately reflect the empirical evidence in the field.
Mr. Delano changed his initial recommendation of a 20’ span bridge to a 10’ span citing his concern that very large, mature trees would have to be taken out and that that, “in and of itself would disturb the embankment.” He also suggested that contractors use rip rap to stabilize the bank and eventually, it would re-vegetate. Mr. Delano surmised that the Wetland Replication Plan was excellent except that no mature trees be cut in that area.
Relative to the Mitigation Plan, Mr. Delano suggested that because of the nature of the project, almost all of the mitigation is located entirely in the 50’ bz. The total estimated amount of disturbance is 31,024 sq.ft. or ¾ of an acre to construct the site. He was of the opinion that the applicant needs to rise to a higher level within the Commission’s standards than what is currently proposed to be worthy of a variance. Mr. Delano did not recommend removal of invasives because these areas have not been disturbed in 100 years and are heavily vegetated. Removal of the vegetation would open up the area to more light, changing the ecology and would require years of monitoring. He instead suggested to mitigate
entirely outside of the 50’ bz by adding additional plantings 10-15 feet up-gradient of the 50’ bz minimizing the total area of disturbance in the 50’ to 17,144 sq.ft..
Moreover, Mr. Delano had prepared and passed out a sketch plan and a model conservation easement (CE) for the property restricting any activity in the area to the west of the proposed driveways and a portion to the east at the border of the 50’ bz.. Mr. Delano maintained that the model is very specific as to what can and cannot be done: basically, maintenance of the driveway and culverts. He said its “simple to enact” and puts everyone, including the buyers, on notice that it’s an “area you stay out of.” Mr. Delano’s final suggestion was that conservation markers are depicted on the plan with a detail of said markers.
Mr. Kemmett asked if the wetland areas were more extensive than shown on the plan and if so, does the mitigation fall into those areas? Mr. Delano answered that because of the previous action taken by the Commission; he couldn’t recommend or comment too much, because the wetland line has already been determined. Mr. Kemmett requested that the replication areas be completed before construction begins. Mr. Delano said that it’s customary prior to construction, to stabilize the replication areas and the crossing before moving on, but that the Commission must also be cognizant of the seasons as it relates to construction of the dwelling and septic system.
Mr. McKenzie commented that the applicant will be bonded as required by the By-law for the replication area. He also wanted to remind the Commission that the all of the disturbance in the 50’ bz is associated with the Limited Crossings for Lot 1 and Lot 2 and that provisions in the Wetlands Protection Act and the Town Regulations give permission for extra discretion to provide the applicant more leeway to access other portions of the site. He added that he didn’t agree with the numbers and extent of mitigation required. He said they were open to other suggestions on how to approach the mitigation such as enhancement of the buffer strip. Mr. Schellenger said “Let’s be clear for the record here. The 100’ buffer zone is the resource area under the
By-law. The 50’ buffer zone is a no touch.” He asked if anyone could speak for the owner as far as putting a CE on the property.
Mr. O’Brien commented that because the CE is very large and it would affect the marketability of the lots. He offered to restrict activity beyond the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) line which was also depicted on the plan to satisfy the mitigation in the 50’ bz. Mr. Schellenger said that the CE covers the portion of the property where the Commission won’t permit anything anyway. Mr. O’Brien said he understands that it would be an enhancement to the Town of Hanson and he’s willing to consider it.
In regards to stabilizing the replication areas before construction, Mr. Holmes commented that there might be a constraint in that in order to do the replication and mitigation work, access is required; one must get the roadway and bridges in place. Mr. O’Brien reiterated that they would prefer a bond for the replication areas and suggested Mr. Delano come up with an amount, because ordinarily, they use a lot of the material from excavation of the house and septic to construct the road. Otherwise, they would have to bring more trucking and more disturbances. Mr. O’Brien said that they would have no problem bonding the site 1 ½ time the value, but would like to be able to “construct the site as is reasonably practicable.” Mr. Schellenger requested a construction
sequence be depicted on the plan.
Mr. Kemmett asked for comments from abutters: Those present were: Mark Reale, 751 Whitman Street. Mr. Reale had a question about the width of the road and if it was approved by the Fire Department. He also had concerns with safety. Mr. O’Brien said that some existing vegetation would remain to provide a buffer.
After having responded to Mr. Delano’s engineering questions, Mr. McKenzie summarized by saying that what it comes down to is mitigation. Mr. Schellenger suggested to the applicant’s representatives to either ask for the owner’s consent for a CE or to close the hearing. Mr. O’Brien said he was willing to restrict the NHESP area which is “close to ½ the lot.” Mr. Schellenger answered that the purpose of the CE is to make the mitigation “really easy.” His concern is that “the stream is the Town’s drainage for the entire Whitman St./Spring St. area. So protecting this stream is, as far as I’m concerned, is the most important thing we’re doing here.” Mr. Holmes said he would have to
re-examine the site to make suggestions for upland forested, dry species in the 50’ to 100’ bz’s, but he wasn’t sure if it needed anything. Mr. Delano was asked by Mr. Kemmett to elaborate a little more on what he is proposing.
Mr. Delano said that there are some areas between the 50’ to 100’ bz that need to be evaluated by Mr. Holmes to determine what types of plants are practical considering light, terrain, and the water table. He recommended something that would mimic the existing trees and shrubs to supplement the area and to create a wider, more enhanced buffer. He added that these areas be designated on the plan as an additional protected buffer. It would be “a one shot deal” versus a 5-year monitoring plan to eradicate the invasive species. Mr. McKenzie said that they would be more open and agreeable to mitigation if the Commission didn’t count the BVW replication area as alteration as that’s another 10,000 sq. ft..
Mr. Delano asked if the original plan was all one parcel before being subdivided into two lots. Mr. McKenzie answered “yes.” Mr. Delano suggested that the applicant has created his own hardship by creating two lots and it seems to be a fair trade to offer mitigation in the 50’ to 100’ buffer zone and that’s why we’re trying to balance the two with a conservation easement. Mr. Schellenger said “we’re negotiating for the best possible outcome for the Town.” Mr. Kemmett commented that “at this point, we’re at an impasse. We can close the hearing and make a decision or go back what Mr. Delano has presented.” Mr. O’Brien said that he was willing to mitigate 15,000 sq.ft. and give ½
the parcel over to an easement. Mr. Schellenger asked what part of the property he was talking about to which Mr. O’Brien indicated on the Plan the west of the driveway. Mr. O’Brien said he considered it a land taking on the other side, particularly if he wanted to negotiate with other parties. Mr. O’Brien said he wanted to keep his options open and did not want a restriction on that site. Mr. Clemons commented that if a different project were proposed, he would “be astonished” that there would be any prospect whatsoever for another entrance in the area of the intermittent stream adding that it was unreasonable to discuss that as anything but a wetland resource area. Mr. O’Brien asked for a continuance.
Motion to continue the hearing for Lot 1 until 10/16/12 at 7:30 PM: Frank Schellenger
Second: David Harris
Vote: 4-0-0
Motion to continue the hearing for Lot 2 until 10/16/12 at 7:30 PM: Frank Schellenger
Second: David Harris
Vote: 4-0-0
The Commission recessed at this point and reconvened after 5 minutes had passed.
Mr. Kevin Smith of 81 Ocean Avenue interrupted the meeting to allege that his recent complaint about an abutter was handled incorrectly by office staff. Mr. Kemmett requested that Mr. Smith put his complaint in writing.
7:45 PM Continued After-the-Fact Notice of Intent to construct a free standing garage and an addition to an existing dwelling and to install a swimming pool with associated landscaping and site grading within 100 feet of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 402 Spring Street, Map 109, Lot 18 for Matthew Duggan represented by Webby Engineering, Inc., 180 County Road, Plympton, MA 02367 (DEP #SE175-0620)
Motion to continue until 10/16/12 at 7:00 PM per request of applicant:
Frank Schellenger
Second: David Harris
Vote: 4-0-0
Ms. Guiney commented that she inspected 402 Spring Street this morning and the silt fence has not been repaired and in fact, a section was removed. Mr. Harris suggested a letter to the applicant/attorney and engineer and to fine Mr. Duggan $300.00 a day if it isn’t done before the next vote. Ms. Guiney
Certificates of Compliance
Certificate of Compliance for Whitman Street, Map 109, Lot 4 for Thomas J. Hastings Co., LLC (DEP #SE175-0510) – signed
Orders of Conditions
After-the-Fact Order of Conditions to construct an on ground deck at 29 Country Lane, Map 88, Lot 8-211 for Robert M. & Barbara J. Velardi (DEP#SE175-0624) - signed
Discussions
Proposal for Engineering Services – Factory Pond Dam Investigation
Motion to approve the expenditure of $2,500 and hire Amory Engineering to evaluate the spillway at Factory Pond Dam: Frank Schellenger
Second: David Harris
Vote: 4-0-0
Mr. Clemons volunteered to make the motion at Town Meeting for the article being recommended by the Conservation Commission. He also suggested that it would be helpful to have a handout with a map of the Plymouth County Hospital property depicting the fields and a simple one page explanation with a question and answer format highlighting the advantages of placing the area into the care and custody of Conservation.
Mr. Harris mentioned that Mr. Marangiello had started working at 1101 Main Street and filling in one of the foundations. Mr. Schellenger asked if he had scheduled a preconstruction meeting. Ms. Guiney said she had contacted Mr. Wry of Land Planning and left a message.
Old Business/New Business
MACC Fall Conference/Registration for 3 members/Invoice – signed
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn at 9:00 PM: Frank Schellenger
Second: David Harris
Vote: 4-0-0
| 
