Conservation Commission, December 7, 2016
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET
December 7, 2016
Members Present: Mike Scott, Kenneth Strom, Luke Boucher, Mike Krikonis, Rob Lowell, Kenneth Strom, Anthony Costello
Members Absent: Matt Kennedy, Mike Krikonis
Others Present: Pam Harding, Conservation Agent, Glenda Williamson, Conservation Assistant, Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary
R. Lowell called the meeting to order at 7:02PM.
ACCESS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS OFF MASON STREET H21 GATE
Dave Getman- DCR- discussion – access road crossing
DCR was not present at the meeting; matter will be discussed at a later time.
NOTICE OF INTENT- Summit Engineering – 1049 Princeton Street
Assessing Map and Parcel 36-1 (1-2 Portion of Lot 10) Dave Brunnelle
G. Williamson read the public hearing notice into record.
Andrew Baum, Summit Engineering was present on behalf of 1049 Princeton Street.
P. Harding stated that the Assessors Office incorrectly certified the abutters so they need to be re-notified and sent the hearing notice for the January meeting. She stated that one abutter was not notified however she expressed interest in wanting to present information to the Commission. P. Harding stated because she was omitted in error, they need to re-notify and fix it; she (abutter) was unavailable for tonight’s meeting.
P. Harding stated that there were a few things that could be discussed at tonight’s meeting, however because of the error, the hearing could not be closed. The abutter sent additional information to the town about the property.
A Baum stated that he understood and would go through his presentation for the Commission.
A Baum showed the Commission the plans. He showed them the location of Princeton Street and the location of two of the lots (7 & 8). He showed them the location of an existing driveway that accesses a hayfield for a common drive to lot 9.
A Baum showed the Commission the hatched lines representing the vegetative wetlands and the orange shading that showed the 25FT no disturb zone. He stated the red on the plans was the 100FT buffer zone. He stated they were proposing a driveway crossing and proposing overhead wires that would then go underground.
A Baum stated that it was a sloped site that climbed up to the level area fill system for septic and there was a ditch proposal on the inside of the driveway, the purpose of the ditch being to take sheet flow.
A Baum stated that was the proposed work. He stated that there was some siltation barrier on both sides of the causeway and to manage water they were proposing 10FT wide stone spillway/ level spreader before the water reached the well. He asked if the Commission had any questions he could answer.
R. Lowell asked if the ditch will be lined with vegetative or other improvements.
A Baum replied that they want to climb as quick as possible and that the profile is steep at 12%, he stated it was rein enforced with rip rap.
R. Lowell asked how big the rip rap was.
A Baum replied 3”
P. Harding reminded the Commission that they had spoken about this lot when they had discussed lots 7 & 8. She stated there was a culvert at the wetland and the applicant responded that they were agriculturally exempt however it was not previously there. She stated it was new work and there was an existing access point.
R. Lowell asked if that was the June letter from G. Kiritsy. P. Harding stated it was.
R. Lowell stated they had indicated that it was a similar culvert. P. Harding replied that the Town had noticed it was new work, an upgraded culvert.
R. Lowell asked if that work was now in compliance with filing. P. Harding replied that they had conducted wetlands fill and never filed for it. She stated that they are stating it was an agricultural exemption however there is 1,200FT of disturbance.
R. Lowell asked if it was hayed. P. Harding confirmed it was.
K. Strom asked what the recourse for widening the crossing was.
P. Harding replied that they have pictures and there was not previous crossing.
K. Strom asked how much square footage it occupied. P. Harding replied it was significant but she was not sure the square footage.
R. Lowell asked if it was stable. P. Harding replied it was stable but there was an impact.
R. Lowell asked when it was installed. A. Baum replied that he did not have any information on it, that they had taken on the project after that work was done.
R. Lowell asked what the mitigation would be. P. Harding replied it was bvw fill andthat they would need to replicate it.
G. Williamson stated that it was her understanding that the culvert was put in and then they went back and redid it.
P. Harding replied that according to abutter and pictures that was not that case.
R. Lowell asked if they could gather a little more information to determine the age of the culvert.
P. Harding replied she is not sure how they would go about that doing that. She stated that it looked as though it was put in this year. She stated they filed lots 7 and 8 in the spring and it was in place at the time.
R. Lowell asked if they could estimate the area of impact. G. Williamson replied they could.
P. Harding stated that she thinks they need to prove that it is an exemption because that was not the Town’s opinion. She stated they could do that or determine the area of impact and come up with a remediation plan.
K. Strom stated they would ordinarily require a span. P. Harding replied that it was not a stream crossing.
K. Strom asked if it was a BVW. P. Harding stated they did that to avoid a 401.
A Costello asked when the wetlands were flagged.
A Baum replied that the original flagging occurred about four years ago and then as part of a more recent flagging, Steve Sears adjusted lot 7 and 8 this year. He stated the last flag location that reflects came over across flag BF 16-1 by Z 20. He stated that was the deviation from the Ross flagging vs. the original flagging.
L. Boucher stated the Z series was from 2013. A. Baum stated the BF series was this year.
L. Boucher stated that the total existing slope is the wetlands limit so in 2013 they did not stop at the slope. He asked what was the extent of the 2013 flagging.
A Baum replied that they truncated it, it was not a clear path.
L. Boucher stated that they could base it on the different flagging, 2013 to 2016, and use that to see what the wetland impact was.
P. Harding stated that around the culverts is all rip rap.
R. Lowell asked if it was existing. P. Harding replied it was new.
K. Strom asked if they had a detailed survey of the area.
A Baum stated that what was reflected today was the total rip rap.
L. Boucher stated if they overlay the two, and then cut back to a point it will show you the total rip rap which would be your change. That would be the sq footage of fill.
A Baum asked if there was any concern on their design.
L. Boucher asked how the width of the level spreader was being determined.
A Baum stated that it was a small site so there was not any details but 10/1 ditch bottom to spreader and 2 ft and then spread it out.
L. Boucher stated he was concerned about the existing contours.
A Baum stated he was trying to keep it away from the 25FT no disturb.
L. Boucher stated that it was going to pool.
R. Lowell stated that he thinks the Commission would like to see a presentation and a better management of the discharge.
M. Scott asked if a common driveway was standard. P. Harding replied it was not, it would have to be a special permit granted by the Planning Board.
M. Scott asked if specific things would need to be addressed. P. Harding replied it would be a 14% max grade and the fire department was going to want a turn around radius.
M. Scott asked if stone and gravel was okay and if there was any construction standard that needed to be followed. P. Harding replied there was not.
L. Boucher stated that he would be concerned with the 12% grade and ¾ inch of crushed stone on top.
M. Scott agreed and stated he would be concerned with it ending up in the buffer zone.
L. Boucher agreed and stated that the subgrade gravel would then be exposed as well.
R. Lowell asked if it was a vegetative land or hay field.
A Baum replied that there was a wood line and then the rest is hay that will be left as grass.
L. Boucher stated that where the required 25 FT no disturb was close to the tree line.
A Baum agreed.
R. Lowell stated that he would like to see what the Town would want for the replication area.
L. Boucher agreed. He stated once it was in there they would also want some sort of demarcation line to prevent further clearing.
R. Lowell stated that he would like to see the impact area and a mitigation plan for the next meeting.
The matter was continued to the January 4, 2017 Conservation Commission meeting.
A Baum asked if they needed to notify the abutters. P. Harding replied that the Town would do it.
GREENWOOD ESTATES II NOI REVIEW
*continued from Wednesday November 2nd. Quinn Engineering, Inc. Jackson Woods Investments, LLC
P. Harding stated that M. Scott cold not vote on this matter and if the Commission opened up the hearing it would disqualify M. Kennedy from voting in the future.
C. Blair was present at the meeting. He stated that with M. Kennedy being out and them not being ready he would like to continue the matter
The Commission continued Greenwood Estates II NOI Review to January 4, 2017.
NOTICE OF INTENT- LOT 4, 965 SALISBURY STREET 183-613
Discussion on an amended NOI to be submitted, Pat Burke, H.S & T Group
G. Williamson stated that this plan had changes made to it.
Pat Burke was present at the meeting. He stated that they had previously come in for lot 4 and had received a permit for a single family home with septic. He stated that when they had gotten further with the design they wanted to expand the grading to the rear to have less of a slope and to incorporate landscaping into the plan.
P. Burke stated that there was originally a wall but they took the wall out. He stated they expanded the grading in the back and they wanted to see if they could come in with the same order of conditions.
R. Lowell stated the changes start to come into the buffer area.
P. Burke stated that they were in the buffer area but outside the 25FT no disturb.
L. Boucher stated that it looked as though they were clearing up to the property line. P. Burke replied they were in one area.
R. Lowell asked if the adjacent lot was owned by the same owner. P. Burke replied that it was not.
R. Lowell asked about the original order of conditions. He stated that the demarcation was place in order to keep intrusion out of the wetlands. He asked what the designation of the driveway was and if it was a no touch zone.
G. Williamson stated that special condition 29 stated erosion controls must be approved but that they could look at the minutes to see more specifically.
P. Harding replied that it may not be addressed as they were so far out of the buffer originally.
M. Scott asked about excavation. He asked if they knew anything about soil types on the gradient slope down of the wetlands where they proposed the cut in.
P. Burke replied it was C soil.
M. Scott replied if they cut the grade it would end up drying out or end up in the proposed pool.
K. Strom asked about the contributory drainage area.
P. Burke replied that there was about 10-20,000 sq ft that shifts and then breaks and then continues (he showed the Commission the direction on the plan).
M. Scott asked if there was presently a ridge where the pool was.
R. Lowell asked if the applicant could confirm the soil type. He stated the Commission may feel better about the changes if they could confirm that the wetlands would not be drained and if they had more information about the contributory drainage area.
P. Harding stated or they could put the grading further away.
R. Lowell asked if they were proposing a deck. P. Burke replied they were not.
R. Lowell stated he was concerned with the impervious area, they wanted to make sure that the design is not draining the wetland.
The property owner stated that they had not changed anything from the original design. P. Harding replied that they changed a lot.
R. Lowell stated that the grading was important and needed to be looked at.
M. Scott stated that if there was a berm left not just down slope it would be another small assurance.
R. Lowell asked how much of a cut it would be. P. Harding replied it would be a 6FT cut.
K. Strom asked if any of the work on the project had begun. P. Harding replied it had not.
R. Lowell asked if there was adequate info on the clearing.
L. Boucher stated that the area was wooded. He stated that if they cut even a foot then trees were potentially going to die. He said that they may say that they will save the trees but the reality was that a lot of the trees be gone due to the grading.
R. Lowell stated that the grading was excessive. P. Burke replied that they would look into it.
K. Strom stated that they needed more information.
P. Harding asked if they were able to do the work under the existing order.
R. Lowell replied that they did not reopen it and they were examining it to see if they are able to do it as an amended notice.
K. Strom stated they could modify the order.
M. Scott asked if there was a home on the lot next door to the south. P. Burke replied there was not.
P. Burke stated it was White Oak land behind them.
R. Lowell stated that the Commission would entertain it as an amendment to make the right determination. He told the applicant they would see them in January.
GREATER WORCESTER LAND TRUST
P. Harding stated that the bulk of the Malden Farm land purchased was in West Boylston however the grant required that someone hold the CR. She asked if the Conservation Commission would be the signers of the CR for the Holden portion of the land.
R. Lowell asked if it obligated the Commission for inspection.
P. Harding stated that they were going to approach White Oak to see if they would do it.
A Costello stated that it had not yet been presented to White Oak but that it was the sort of thing that they would do and they do work with GWLT on other matters.
M. Scott asked how we would carry the liability. P. Harding replied that the Greater Worcester Land Trust would be the owners.
P. Harding stated that the Commission did not have to accept it tonight but to draft a letter that indicates it is something that they would look into.
R. Lowell stated that it appeared that the Commission preliminarily supported it.
Harris Street- Revision to Building Plan
G. Williamson stated that this site received an RDA and they wanted to propose a larger house outside the buffer zone and to reduce the grading in the vicinity of the driveway entrance. She asked if those changes could be done under the existing RDA.
R. Lowell asked if the grading change was in the buffer area. P. Harding replied that the street was incorrectly mapped on the FEMA.
R. Lowell asked if there were otherwise complaints. P. Harding replied that nothing had been built.
R. Lowell asked about the house that was currently there. P. Harding replied it was there before the mapping adjustment.
K. Strom stated that this was the last lot that could be build on and then it was DCR land.
M. Scott asked what the change was.
K. Strom stated that the house had gotten a lot bigger.
R. Lowell asked if there were any changes to the driveway. P. Harding replied there was a little change.
K. Strom stated that it was a significant change but as far as wetlands impact it was not in jurisdictional areas and the grading was not changed.
R. Lowell asked if they needed an RDA.
G. Williamson stated one was issued in January 2015. She asked if a letter stating they could do the work with the existing RDA and showing no additional impacts to the wetlands as per the plan provided with inspection was sufficient.
R. Lowell agreed it was.
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 183-616
Lot 4C – 38 Rondeau Road- Greenstone Realty, LLC
G. Williamson stated that she had been out there Monday (December 5, 2016) and it looked good. She stated everything was stabilized and there was a special condition that they leave boulders along the 25FT buffer from wetland flag A21 to 34. She stated that there is a small section in the front that it did not make sense to put boulders.
R. Lowell replied that was okay and that sometimes the Commission could not see those details from the plan.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by A. Costello, it was UNANIMOULSY VOTED TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR 183-616 LOT 4C – 38 RONDEUA ROAD- GREENSTONE REALTY, LLC.
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 183-632 922 Salisbury Street, Erin Christiano, Septic Repair
G. Williamson stated that she had reviewed the property multiple times. She stated it was very flat land and it was stabilized except for a small circular area.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR 183-632, 922 SALISBURY STREET, ERIN CHRISTIANO, SEPTIC REPAIR.
EAGLE LAKE DRAWDOWN- Discussion
P. Harding stated that this was not going to be done this year.
TROUT BROOK POND- DPW- Dredging – Discussion / Permitting Status
R. Lowell asked if there was any update on this matter and if they had formalized the plan or permits.
G. Williamson stated that they had met on the site last week with the fisheries people, DCR, DEP, and Chris DeMoranville, DPW. She stated that they received a lot of very useful feedback about what they were up against and additional information about permits. She stated that they decided to start with the MEPA because that was triggered by the Watershed Protection Act. She stated that they were working on some maps and then they will do the DCR Variance Application. She stated after that they will do an NOI. G. Williamson stated that they did receive the soil samples from the dredging and they came back fine so that information would be submitted with the 401 and they will address comments as needed.
R. Lowell asked about the fill.
G. Williamson replied that because it was clean it would be dewatered on the field and they can use it for whatever reuse they want. She stated that the fisheries were concerned about the remaining organisms in the pond and they would want them to be removed before the dredging.
R. Lowell asked if there were any endangered species. G. Williamson replied there was not.
A Costello asked about the vegetation.
G. Williamson replied that they were proposing to remove the cattails on the corner so they can increase the surface area for fish
R. Lowell encouraged them to keep moving forward as there was a long time in between receiving the permitting and the work.
WYOMING DRIVE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS – DPW 183-322
Discussion – Project Status- November 2nd Site Inspection
G. Williamson stated that she was at the site this week and it looked as though the work was almost complete. She stated that the site would not be fully stabilized until the spring but it looked as though construction was being wrapped up for the winter.
FOREST CUTTING PLAN- CH 132- DCR- 134-7008-14 update
Wachusett and Mill Street, 2nd Extension Ducat Lumber
G. Williamson stated that DPW was concerned because there was a water well and underground utilities. She stated that they wanted to work more closely with DCR when they began the forestry work. G. Williamson stated that she would do a site visit as well to look for BMP’s.
P. Harding asked who the owner of the land was. G. Williamson replied it was owned by DCR.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES- November 2, 2016
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 2, 2016 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
MISC.
The Commission discussed the parcels at 1049 Princeton Street/ D. Brunelle.
G. Williamson stated that the applicant believed they had the agricultural exemption because of the hay.
K. Strom stated there were different access points they could have used.
M. Scott asked when they did the ANR. P. Harding replied 2014.
M. Scott asked if the ANR was for access. P. Harding replied it was not but that you could not deny an ANR for wetlands.
L. Boucher stated the question was about the square footage of the fill.
K. Strom asked if it was previously 61A land. P. Harding replied she did not remember it being 61A otherwise the Commission would have voted on it.
G. Williamson told the Commission that she could not join the MSNCC until January 2017.
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE DECEMBER 7, 2016 CONSERVATION COMMISION MEETING AT 8:31PM.
APPROVED: ______________