Conservation Commission
September 20, 2007
Minutes
Land Use Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Neal Carpenter, NC; David Lane, DL; Tim Flanagan, TF; Rose Fitzgerald Casey, RFC; Dick Ferren, DF; Vince Ammendola, VA
Also present was Mark Stinson of the Department of Environmental Protection.
Absent with notification: Joe Strauch, JS;
7:30 pm 172 Cliffwood, Wilkinson, Update regarding silt runoff at new construction site. Wayne Wilkinson attended this meeting and stated that the area that was the source of the runoff has been remedied. Scott McKnight and Tri Town Paving have completed the work. Sod and mulch has been put in place and the drive has been paved. He said that the DPW is satisfied. Some of the Commissioners have observed the work and they too are satisfied. There are a few spots where the sod has died, but Mr. Wilkinson assured the Commission that this will also be corrected.
7:45 pm Hashim, Request for Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation, Land Acquisition Trust, LLC, Pittsfield-Lenox Rd., Map 17 Parcel 41. Making this presentation was Dan Nitzsche of Bay State Environmental. In attendance were Rob Akroyd and Paul Tesoniero of Greylock Design Associates.
Mr. Akroyd noted one change in the application and that was the name of the applicant. It is Acquisition Trust, LLC, and not Land Acquisition Trust.
Mr. Nitzsche presented a review of the site which is approximately 70 acres divided by a central limestone ridge with forested section. There are two distinct vegetated areas that are divided by this ridge. The western portion of the parcel contains an open meadow area with two wetlands located near the front of the parcel. The central and eastern portion of the parcel is comprised of a mature forested area that contains a large wetland complex and intermittent stream channel.
Mr. Nitzsche, a soil scientist, says the vegetation cannot be determined as the area has been mowed for several years. Because of this his delineations are based on soil. He acknowledged that only a small part of the site has been viewed by the Commission, this is because he knows that the hearing will be continued. Also, TF was not there at the site visit to discuss other areas that TF had questions about.
NC said that at the site visit, Commissioners observed what appears to be more wetland than Mr. Nitzsche has delineated. This observation is based on the vegetation, as NC stated he is more familiar with this than soil types. TF added that the flags along the road have caused him concern. He would like to see more information.
Mr. Stinson stated that as soon as the applicant knew there was an ANRAD, there should not have been anymore cutting.
The Commissioners stated that last year they requested Mr. Akroyd to see to it that the mowing be ceased to enable them to read the vegetation. Mr. Akroyd said that this is a conflict as Natural Heritage had said that they, the applicant, should continue to mow once or twice a year.
Evidence of soil shows historically what has been going on, soil samples show gray in wetland and tan and brown in the upland. If vegetation is going to be used as a stronger indicator he offered to go out with
TF asked how could a boundary be drawn with a mosaic pattern of clear patches that are both upland and wetland . Dan said that he would be looking at the hydrolic connection. TF feels that there is enough vegetation evidence to support a larger area of wetland and that enough pits would have to be dug to have a fine enough resolution. Mr. Nitzsche said that he is not arguing about the vegetation, as he sees that evidence, it is just that he is using the soil as the indicator.
The Commission agreed that they would like to have a third party look at the delineation. Mr. Akroyd said that he would contact the applicant and get back to NC within the next few days.
DL made a motion to hire a wetland consultant with the cost to be paid by the applicant. RFC seconded the motion and the Commission agreed 6-0.
Mr. Stinson commented that a vegetative drainage swale is a channel that cannot have BVW in a bank. This may not be jurisdictional. If it comes up on appeal, he wants to be sure the Commission’s decision can be supported. Mr. Stinson urged the Commission to look at this carefully to see if this is jurisdictional or not.
DL made a motion to continue this hearing to October 4, 2007 at 7:45 pm. RFC seconded the motion and the Commission approved 6-0.
Other business:
Minutes-DL made a motion to approve the minutes of September 6, 2007 and TF seconded the motion. The Commission approved 5-0-1 with VA abstaining. (He was not present at that meeting.)
Mark Stinson, Circuit Rider for DEP: Mr. Stinson came to meet the Commissioners and discuss his role with the DEP. He brought handouts and CD’s for the members. It was a very informative session in which he described procedures to follow and the role of the Commission.
RFC made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 pm. DL seconded it and the Commission agreed 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
