Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Foxborough commission continues 56 Spring Street hearing after neighbors press for erosion-control details
Summary
The commission continued the notice of intent for 56 Spring Street (DEP 157671) to July 13 after the applicant presented a mitigation plan; neighbors asked for clearer erosion-control limits, a label for a new stone retaining wall, and engineering details for a stone trench and compost sock.
The Foxborough Conservation Commission on June 22 continued the hearing for 56 Spring Street (DEP 157671) to July 13 after the applicant presented a revised mitigation plan and neighbors raised concerns about erosion control and driveway alterations.
Karen Scannacatrone, representing the property owner, showed a plan that includes 950 square feet of mitigation plantings and said debris had been removed. She told the commission the erosion-control system — described on the plan as a compost sock — would be installed the following day.
Why it matters: commissioners must reference an official plan in the order of conditions, and neighbors said the current plan lacks certain engineering details and labels for recent site work that could affect runoff toward the brook.
A neighbor, Tom Lehi of 52 Spring Street, said the plan's erosion-control line does not extend across the full slope above the brook and warned recent vegetation removal and driveway widening could increase runoff. "I'm glad to hear that the erosion control structure will be going in," Lehi said, but he asked whether the proposed erosion control would be adequate to stop overland flow on the steep contour toward the brook.
The applicant confirmed the erosion control would be a compost sock rather than hay bales and agreed to add a label identifying a newly installed stone retaining wall that appears on site but not on the current plan.
Marlo Serrano, who identified herself as living at 56 Spring Street, said the engineer had provided an updated plan during the day that includes drainage detail. Serrano described a trench dimension in the plan: a "24-inch by 2-foot" stone trench intended to slow runoff and promote infiltration, and she explained the driveway grades to the street and toward the trench. The applicant agreed to circulate a PDF of the updated plan to staff and to leave a hard copy for the commission.
Commissioners pressed for an engineering detail to be added to the official plan — depth, width and construction notes for the stone trench and confirmation of the design storm — so the information can be referenced in the order of conditions. Karen Scannacatrone said the engineer designed the stone trench to infiltrate and that, based on the presentation, it was intended for roughly a 10-year storm, although commissioners explicitly requested a detail that states depth, width and design standard for the record.
A motion to continue the hearing on DEP 157671 until July 13 was made and seconded; the commission voted in favor. Staff said Craig, the peer reviewer who requested plan clarifications, was on paternity leave but would return to the office Wednesday and follow up with the applicant.
The commission deferred approval of minutes to the July 13 meeting and noted several new applications will appear on the next agenda. The hearing was continued; staff will receive the updated plan and commissioners asked that Craig's requested revisions be incorporated into the official plan before the order of conditions is issued.
