Conservation Commission, January 4, 2017
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET
January 4, 2017
Members Present: Matt Kennedy, Mike Scott, Kenneth Strom, Luke Boucher, Rob Lowell, Kenneth Strom, Anthony Costello
Members Absent: Mike Krikonis
Others Present: Pam Harding, Conservation Agent, Glenda Williamson, Conservation Assistant, Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary
Others on Sign In: David Getman, DCR; Jason Shulman, DCR; Jeff and Julie Sobol, 1001 Princeton Street; Jenn Laing, 86 Armington Lane; Justin Sobol, 86 Armington Lane; George Kiritsy, Andy Baum, Summit Engineering; Pat Burke HST Group; Robert and Kathleen Frye, 927 Salisbury Street
M. Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:02PM.
ACCESS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS OF MASON STREET, H21 GATE – David Getman- DCR- discussion – access road crossing con’t
Dave Getman and Jason Shulman were present at the meeting. They showed the Commission an overview of the site and stated that this was year three of a ten year shared watershed study. D. Getman stated that there is an existing access road off Mason Road and over the course of the three years the road has gotten beaten up. He stated that they were looking to do some drainage improvements and to install a culvert at the entrance. He stated that they would look to do the work once it had dried out and asked if the work would warrant an NOI or RDA.
M. Kennedy asked what work they were suggesting, he stated it was probably an NOI.
D. Getman replied that the first work if they broke it up with replacing a culvert. He stated there was no stream channel.
M. Kennedy asked if it was BVW on either side.
D. Getman replied that the work proposed was.
J. Shulman stated he was looking to put impervious rock with a 4” subdrain under it.
M. Kennedy replied that work could be done with and RDA.
D. Getman stated that most of the work would be done in the buffer zone.
R. Lowell asked who owned the land. D. Getman replied that DCR owned and maintained it.
D. Getman stated they want to do the work because there is another six years of accessing it for the study.
R. Lowell stated that the safest way to move forward was by filing an NOI for the whole project rather than separate filings.
D. Getman showed the Commission another site on the map that was degrading that they wanted to maintain.
K. Strom asked if they were going to put gravel.
J. Shulman replied they were going to build it up with impervious rock.
M. Kennedy asked when they would do the work.
J. Shulman replied most would be done in the summer.
M. Kennedy stated if they were going to do it altogether, they should do one NOI, if not they could do separate RDA’s.
J. Shulman replied he did not think he would have the funding for all of it.
D. Getman stated that they had two foresting sites that they were studying long term and one harvesting site that was going to be looked at before, during, and after.
D. Getman stated they would do work as separate RDA’s and if it looked as though financially they were able to do all the work together they would lump it into one NOI.
M. Kennedy replied the NOI was the safest course but likely that would work.
R. Lowell reminded them that an Order of Conditions would be good for three years, so it they knew they were going to be obtaining funding in the future they could do that as well.
NOTICE OF INTENT- Summit Engineering- 1049 Princeton St, Assessing Map and Parcel 36 (1-2 Portion of Lot 10) Dave Brunelle Con’t
Andy Baum, Summit Engineering and George Kiritsy, Esq. were present on behalf of 1049 Princeton Street.
G. Kiritsy stated that he had appeared before the Commission in June and presented a two page letter about work done for an access road crossing. He stated that he had submitted a letter about an Agricultural Exemption and had not heard anything from the Commission until last month when an NOI was filed for construction of a driveway into a buffer zone. He stated that he still stands by the letter that it was an Agricultural Exemption and that was their official position on the matter but that they had revisited the site to see what could be done relative to the replication and restorative work and A. Baum was there to fill the Commission in about the results of that review.
A Baum provided eight copies to the Commission and apologized for the late nature of them. He stated that if the Commission recalled, the proposal was a driveway cutting across an existing access road to access lot 10 and the future lot 9. He stated that as per a conversation at the previous Commission meeting, he reviewed an old flag location (shown on page three of the plans) to show the location of the wetlands in relation to the work that they see today. He stated it was shown on the plan in a shaded purple hue and was a total area of 833 SQ FT. He stated the easterly side between Princeton Street and wetlands was 10ft wide swath along the vegetative wetlands and there would be a 2:1 replication area. A. Baum stated that the reason this area was selected was because the area was flat and grading would permit for a narrow swath that could be excavated and replicated. He stated those were the changes made from the previous meetings comments.
P. Harding stated that the proposed remediation was in response to a conversation had at the previous Conservation Commission meeting. She stated that culverts and crossings were newly expanded and through the wetlands.
M. Kennedy asked if the Commission would have approved the project as part of a limited project.
P. Harding stated that there were ten lots and she does not know.
M. Kennedy asked if the developer should have to go back to the beginning of the process versus allowing them to claim it as an Agricultural Exemption and then asking for forgiveness later.
G. Kiritsy stated there were originally culvert pipes.
M. Kennedy asked if he was originally involved in the Agricultural Exemption.
G. Kiritsy stated that it was originally Peter Spring who then gave the property to Dave Brunelle. He stated that the access road is clearly visible going back 15 years online.
The public present at the meeting disagreed with G. Kiritsy.
G. Kiritsy stated that the area had been hayed. He stated it was grass and now its gravel and there were pipes in place. He stated he had raised this issue to the Commission in June and did not hear back from the Board.
L. Boucher stated that when the Commission met in June it was not this lot and not on the agenda.
G. Kiritsy again stated that he had appeared before the Commission in June.
K. Strom stated that the Commission’s lack of response did not mean that they agreed.
G. Kiritsy stated that there was no enforcement order and no challenge made.
M. Kennedy replied that they did not approve it they just did not take action.
G. Kiritsy stated that the Commission took no action and they (the developer) believed they did it right. He stated that if the Commission wanted replication then the developer could do the work that A. Baum proposed.
L. Boucher asked if the hatched purple on the plans was the difference between the currently flagged and what was flagged in 2013. He asked if that was representing the sq footage of fill required to put in the culvert.
G. Kiritsy stated that if Julian Votruba, NE Environmental Design was correct the area (shown on the plans) was BVW.
K. Strom asked if they are saying there was no BVW between the pink and green shown on the plans.
A Baum stated that they were not connected. He showed the Commission the plans and stated that in the original plan it was indicated there was a gravel cart path that was hard to see now because there is a driveway on top of it.
K. Strom asked if the Town had walked the site.
P. Harding replied that she did with A Baum and Steve Sears when they filed for lots 7 and 8.
M. Scott stated that what A. Baum presented was consistent with what was spoken about at the previous meeting. He stated the Commission did ask for the comparison of the two.
R. Lowell agreed and stated they asked for an estimated impact.
M. Scott stated that there was discussion about if there was a path there and if they had the right to expand it or not.
G. Kiritsy stated that assuming they were right and there is expansion, they would then need to look at how to give then back the 2:1 replication. He stated that was what A. Baum presented. He stated that when his client bought the property he was told that the work was done with an Agricultural Exemption so now they are trying to come back and see how can they remedy it and move forward.
P. Harding submitted a photo to the Commission from an abutter.
M. Scott stated that the photo predates the new crossing.
G. Kiritsy stated that the trees are still there and the area is now graveled out.
A Baum stated that if you use google earth and look at historical photos, if you look at 995 it is pretty clear that there is a cut line.
G. Kiritsy stated it had been mowed regularly.
M. Kennedy asked what they were asking for permission to do.
G. Kiritsy stated they were looking for an NOI to build a driveway with these plans and then they would do a replication of 2:1 in a replication area.
M. Kennedy asked what the disposition of the area was currently.
A Baum replied it was brush and grass with maple trees along the wall but no old growth.
P. Harding stated that on top of the hill is the hay field.
G. Kiritsy stated that they would prefer to do it on the easterly side because it is flatter and would have less disturbance. He stated if they did it on the west side there was a greater risk of erosion and more damage to the wetlands.
R. Lowell asked if that extended to lot 9. G. Kiritsy confirmed that it did.
M. Kennedy asked how they were ensuring the hydrology and making sure it was successful.
A Baum stated that they would do shallow growth and they did do soil testing on lot 8 and the area was consistent.
M. Kennedy asked if they were putting it on the same elevation.
A Baum confirmed they were. He stated it was a foot below the wetlands line.
M. Kennedy asked if they had borings in that area.
A Baum replied that they did not.
G. Kiritsy stated that they would be expanding the wetlands out ten feet to the east.
M. Kennedy stated he would like to see some borings throughout to show that the hydrology is going to work.
G. Williamson stated that she would like look at the replication and delineation area.
M. Kennedy stated they would need to commit to a long term guarantee that it is going to work. He stated that it would need to be established.
A Baum asked if a two year term at 75% was what the Commission was looking for.
P. Harding replied that they usually see three year terms.
M. Kennedy replied that the Commission would want 3-5 years for this property. He stated that this was a very dubious way around the Wetlands Protection Act and now they were coming back and trying to replicate it after the fact. He stated they would really to go over the top to avoid an enforcement action.
G. Kiritsy stated that he did not have an issue for what they are requiring relative to a guarantee but he does disagree that they did something wrong.
K. Strom asked what the treatment of the discharge was.
A Baum stated that the intention was to have check dams to slow the water down and then a 4” pipes diverting.
K. Strom stated that some of the water would continue.
A Baum agreed. He stated that the low flow will peter water off and the high flow will pull some water out and when the IEPS are inundated the water will continue down the swale.
K. Strom asked if there would be three of them.
A Baum confirmed there would.
M. Kennedy opened the matter up for public comment.
Justin Sobol, 86 Armington Lane was present at the meeting. He stated that he had lived there his entire life there and that there were not culverts. He stated that the new road is now 5-6 feet with culverts and the corner of the newly installed driveway comes right to his property so it does overflow onto his property. He stated that he also noticed that the septic goes to the property line as well and he believes it needed to be 10 feet away.
A Baum stated that the wall was 3 feet wide and offset from the grading.
M. Kennedy stated that it may not be a Conservation issue but that it may be a civil issue they should discuss.
J. Sobol stated that the water dumps onto his property and then continues to the wetlands. He stated that there was a crossing that has been there for hundred of years and that could propose an issue as well.
A Baum stated that they were sending the water where it going today.
J. Sobol stated that they pitched everything into the swale and it goes to him.
K. Strom stated that they may get more flow down there on the corner of his property.
M. Kennedy asked what was there on the property.
J. Sobol replied that it was just wetlands. He stated that it could impact his crossing though.
M. Kennedy told the applicant that thy needed to be prepared to address that matter so there is no impact to the abutters. He suggested walking the site with Mr. Sobol.
Jeff Sobol, 1001 Princeton Street was present. He stated that earlier in the meeting M. Kennedy asked P. Harding if they would have approved the matter if they saw all ten lots together. He stated that was interesting to him because the lot layout is ridiculous and maybe the crossing was put in to help them get the approval.
M. Kennedy replied that they would have had to allow the crossing for limited access so it is likely that they would have had to allow something and it probably would have been at that location. He stated the asking for permission after the fact did not sit well with him but that it may have been approved that way logically.
G. Williamson asked if there was an access elsewhere.
J. Sobol replied at the top of lot 9.
M. Kennedy asked if the developer could use that. A. Baum replied it would be a break in the wall.
M. Kennedy asked when the lots were subdivided.
P. Harding replied 2014.
G. Kiritsy stated that was only on these lots.
M. Kennedy replied that his point was that you can’t create a limited project for yourself. He asked if they put themselves into a limited project.
P. Harding replied they did.
M. Kennedy asked how many square feet of impact it was.
P. Harding replied 1,200, less than 5,000.
M. Kennedy stated they probably would have allowed it.
A Baum asked if the Commission if they wanted the hydrology and the rip rap on the outflow for the 4” pipe.
M. Kennedy replied they also wanted the stormwater on the corner lot too.
G. Kiritsy stated they also needed to do the borings on the replication area.
A Baum stated he would also speak with Mr. Sobol.
M. Kennedy stated that most replication areas were not successful so this would need to be thoughtful and well planned and that he wanted to see a long term monitoring plan.
NOTICE OF INTENT- LOT 4, 965 SALISBURY STERET 183-613 (con’t) Discussion on amended plans received on 12/28/16 Pat Burke, H.S & T Group
G. Williamson stated that the applicant submitted revised plans and soils but have not started the work. She stated they would like to get permission to expand the grading around the site a little further and work within the same order of conditions.
P. Burke stated that there was a little wall before that was pulled back from the wetlands. He stated they also wanted to look at the watershed work five acres from the site. He stated that where the house was proposed, the wetlands went down the hill and swale. He stated they were going to look to see if the wetlands were going to bleed out. He stated other than that, the work was the same.
G. Williamson asked where the erosion controls were.
P. Burke stated that they were they were using haybales and they were not shown on the plan the Commission was looking at.
M. Kennedy asked if the grading was going away from the isolated wetlands.
P. Burke stated that there was a little bit of berm and a pocket wetlands and there was a swale that comes down and it bypasses the area.
G. Williamson asked for clarification of soil type B and C.
B. Burke stated that C had less impervious particle sizes and they differed in how much water they could absorb.
G. Williamson stated she thinks they accomplished everything the Board asked of them.
M. Kennedy asked if any members of the public had any questions. No members of the public stepped forward.
Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED THAT THE CHANGES TO THE NOTICE OF INTENT FOR LOT 4, 965 SALISBURY STREET 183-613 WERE DIMINIMIS AND COULD BE ACCEPTED UNDER THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF CONDITIONS.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATIO NOF APPLICABILTY- 927 Salisbury Street- Robert and Kathleen Frye: Addition of an 11x18 room, David E. Ross Assoc, Inc.
Robert Frye, 927 Salisbury Street was present at the meeting. He stated that he had submitted an RDA to add an 11x18 breakfast room to the side of his home. He stated that it will be within the 100FT buffer zone and 69FT away from the edge of the wetlands. R. Frye stated that they will use straw waddles and siltation barriers between the work and the wetlands and that he had submitted the drawings for the Commissions review.
M. Kennedy asked what the closest distance to the wetlands would be.
R. Frye replied it would be 69FT. He stated the add on would be to the kitchen area and would be on four 10” concrete piers.
K. Strom asked if there would be a full basement.
R. Frye stated there would be no extension of the basement.
M. Kennedy stated that it seemed consistent with what the Commission would allow, a minor amount of disturbance that was more than 50FT away from the wetlands.
G. Williamson stated that the owner had asked to do the work without an RDA but she had requested on because of the down slope to the wetlands. She stated she wanted the RDA and erosion controls. She stated she wanted waddles and the straw siltation barrio posts and she wanted to do an erosion control check before the work began.
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DETERMINATION OF APPROVAL FOR RDA 927 SALISBURY STREET – ROBERT AND KATHLEEN FRY.
GREENWOOD ESTATES II NOI REVIEW- *Continued from Wednesday December 7 Quinn Engineering, Inc. Jackson Woods Investment LLC
P. Harding stated that they had asked for a continuance to the February 1, 2017 meeting. She stated they had submitted revised plans.
GREENWOOD ESTATES- Wetland Crossings Impact Analysis Wetland Crossing Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan submitted Dec. 7, 2016 By Christopher Lucas, Lucas Environmental LLC Jackson Woods Investments, LLC
Matter was continued to February 1, 2017 Conservation Commission Meeting.
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- 183-130 215 Cranbrook Drive: Michael & Mary Dowd (Final Orders recorded on November 17, 1989 Brook 12557, Page 391
P. Harding stated that this was an old order that was still registered at the Worcester Registry of Deeds issued to the Town of Holden. She stated it was for the well that was never built. She stated it could be released because it was never constructed.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR 183-130, 215 CRANBROOK DRIVE.
PARKER POND DAM MAINTENANCE- PHASE 1// Dan Harrington, Sunnyside Ford
G. Williamson stated she put this matter on for the Commission to be aware. She stated they were replacing the trash grate and doing other maintenance.
Dave Getman stated there was some confusion because DCR owns the pone but not the outlet and he had not heard about this maintenance.
M. Kennedy stated that they could get D. Getman a copy of the letter they received. He stated it was a report for information purposes.
PERRONE- 876 Salisbury Street
P. Harding stated that they wanted to expand the building 10FT not on the wetland side.
G. Williamson stated that they added erosion controls.
TROUT BROOK POND- DPW – Dredging
Discussion – Permitting Status- MEPA
G. Williamson stated that the MEPA permits were almost completed and they were working with DCR on a variance application. She stated that if the permits were finished and approved they were looking at the summer for the work.
MAIN STREET WATER MAIN- Holden DPW- Project Status- December 29, 2016
G. Williamson stated that 6000ft of the 8000ft of pipe were installed and the construction company will call prior to moving on to the next section.
K. Strom stated there were wetlands down by Stepping Stone.
G. Williamson stated she would revisit the plan when construction started again.
FOREST CUTTING PLAN CH 132- 1090 Princeton Street, Dan & Sophie Sobol, Chapter 61B Map 29 1-2
G. Williamson stated she wanted to do a site visit with the owners of the land.
M. Scott asked which side of the road the cutting was being done on .
G. Williamson stated it was on the opposite side of 1049.
M. Kennedy asked if there were wetlands there.
G. Williamson stated there were and her concern was the access road and wetlands. She stated she would contact them for a site visit.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes were continued to the February meeting.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by R. Lowell, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE JANUARY 4, 2017 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:08PM.
APPROVED: ___________