Conservation Commission, January 6, 2016
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET
JANUARY 6, 2016
Members Present: Matt Kennedy, Robert Lowell, Anthony Costello, Luke Boucher, Kenneth Strom
Members Absent: Mike Scott, Mike Krikonis
Others Present: Pam Harding, Conservation Agent, Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary
Others on Sign in: Herb Feldman, David Johnson, Andrew Weagle, Glenn Krevosky, Bryant Bonner, Valerie Ostrander Worcester Tennis Club, Scott Jordan EcoTec, Elizabeth Ennis, Graves Engineering, David Getman, DCR, John Boardman, Places Associates, Inc, Pete Hall
M. Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:00PM. He stated that the Commission had a quorum for all agenda items.
EXTENSION OF TIME- J&K Ventures- 2451 Main Street- DEP File #183-503
P. Harding told the Commission that the applicant had submitted the as built and that it is laid out slightly different than originally determined however it was further away from the wetlands than what was permitted in the order of conditions. He is asking for a two year extension of time.
Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by A. Costello, it was UNANIMOSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF TIME OF TWO YEARS FOR J&K VENTURES- 2451 MAIN STREET DEP FILE NUMBER 183-503.
NOTICE OF INTENT- Greenwood Estates- Jackson Woods Investment; LLC Union Street – Assessing Map and Parcels 132-95, 132-80, and 148-47
Clea Blair, Jackson Woods was present at the meeting. He stated he is requesting a two month extension in order to redesign the project. He stated that they are changing the grading and all of the underground drainage is to be constructed on the surface and it is taking some time to make the changes.
M. Kennedy stated the matter was continued until March 2, 2016.
ORDER OF CONDITIONS- Review of Drainage- Stoneybrook Estates
C. Blair was present at the meeting. He stated that they had been working on this issue and they believe they have an idea as to what needs to be done in order to correct it. He stated that they had taken some muck out of the pond and have gotten to the bottom where it should be and have bought some loam back in. He stated it is now how it was designed and it should work properly. He stated that they will not know until spring, but they will submit an as built to P. Harding. He stated he is hopeful that the problem is solved.
M. Kennedy asked if they did anything besides clear out the pond. C. Blair replied they did not.
M. Kennedy asked if this fix had been communicated to the neighbors. P. Harding replied that she had spoken to the neighbors and that they are worried about conditions during the spring.
M. Kennedy asked if they will observe the spot in the spring. C. Blair replied that they were working there and will observe it as well.
NOTICE OF INTENT- 38 BRATTLE STREET – HOLDEN TOWER TENNIS CLUB- Construction of 3 Tennis Courts and Associated Parking
M. Kennedy stated that this matter had been continued from the last meeting. He stated that the peer review from I. McCauley had been completed and forwarded to the applicant. P. Harding stated she had just received them today (January 6, 2016).
Elizabeth Ennis, Graves Engineering and Scott Jordan, Eco Tech, were present at the meeting.
E. Ennis stated that the project consisted of three clay tennis courts and removal of some trees in order to expand the driveway. She stated they were also putting a storm water basin in as well, but they changed the stormwater basin from the last meeting to allow for infiltration and a 6” layer of coarse sand to allow run off to go into the ground.
M. Kennedy asked if they had tested the soil to see if it would accept that. E. Ennis replied that they did do test pits in October and found that there was dense sandy loam in those locations.
M. Kennedy asked what the ground water elevation was. E. Ennis replied that it was 826, 826, and 828; she pointed to various locations on the map.
E. Ennis stated that they were proposing a sediment fore bay and she showed the Commission the location.
M. Kennedy asked if there were any other changes since the last submittal. E. Ennis replied that they had added another detail; a sub drain.
M. Kennedy asked if the Commission had asked for that. E. Ennis replied they did.
M. Kennedy asked if the applicant had any additional discussions with the abutters.
E. Ennis replied that they did some site visits in the month of December and she had also obtained some old drainage plans. She stated Doyle Road was the area that had the biggest drainage problems. She showed the Commission the location of the applicants’ site in addition to showing them the location of the wetlands that they are contributing to.
E. Ennis stated that they saw there was an inlet that goes to Steele Street and outlets to Doyle Road.
K. Strom asked where the Tennis Club drained to. E. Ennis replied that they drained to an isolated wetland.
E. Ennis showed the Commission an old drainage map; 1946 WCH layout of Doyle Road that they received from the Town. She showed them the culvert and the underground piping
K. Strom asked if they had a similar map for the Westerly section of Doyle Road. E. Ennis replied they did not.
S. Jordan stated that it appears that there are 7 catch basins or drop inlets in the area. He showed the Commission the low-lying area and stated that they couldn’t find the headwalls or the culverts.
M. Kennedy asked if that information was obtained by DPW. E. Ennis replied it was from MA GIS system.
M. Kennedy asked if they had any conversation with DPW about it. E. Ennis replied that DPW did not join them on this and they were not familiar with any catch basins there.
L. Boucher stated that the letter provided by I. McCauley; item 4 addressed about stormwater analysis and the culvert at Doyle Road.
E. Ennis replied that she did meet with I. McCauley and did mention that she saw the culvert. She stated that when she mentioned it, she assumed that it connected. S. Jordan replied that it now appears to be two separate systems.
M. Kennedy asked if they would speak to I. McCauley about that. E. Ennis replied that she would.
M. Kennedy asked what the impact of that would be. E. Ennis replied that the implication is that it connects someplace other than where they originally though the discharge was going. She stated that their discharge is not contributing to either wetlands.
M. Kennedy asked how it gets to the cross culvert and if it maintained functionality. E. Ennis replied that she did see water flowing. She stated that in the catch basins, she did see some leaves but that it could have been the time of year that she observed it.
E. Ennis replied that they looked at the change in total runoff pre and post conditions and what they found was that they took the area of the wetlands in a two year storm and they are lowering the total run off. She stated that during 100 year storms they were raising the change by .14 inches; which is less than 2%.
M. Kennedy commented if they are getting infiltration. E. Ennis agreed.
M. Kennedy asked what infiltration rate they were using. E. Ennis replied 56.
M. Kennedy asked about the reduction in model for the two year storm. E. Ennis replied 62 cubic feet; she stated it was a small reduction and a reduction in peak flow as well assuming all water hits at the same point in time.
M. Kennedy asked if the Commission had any further questions; no questions were asked.
M. Kennedy asked if the public had any questions.
A member of Holden Tower Tennis Club was at the meeting. He stated that he is involved with the courts and that they could make the surface more porous in order to help infiltration.
M. Kennedy asked if it was more erosive if it was more porous. Holden Tower Tennis Club replied that clay in terms of the tennis court is subjective as is silt and sand. He stated there was 4000 yards that they could change.
M. Kennedy stated this may make sense in an area where there is potential flooding issues. He asked how much water the court could absorb.
HTTC stated that a material called har tru could be used and it maintains 6” of water. He stated that he is not an engineer but there is a big difference between har tru and asphalt and with stone base under it there would be even more infiltration.
M. Kennedy replied that could be something to consider.
Valerie Ostrander, Worcester Tennis Club was present at the meeting. She asked if the calculations that the engineers used were based on clay. E. Ennis replied they were.
V. Ostrander replied that with clay and the infiltration system in place along with the sub drain they would still only increase water by .04 in a 100 year storm.
E. Ennis replied that it would be less then that because the calculations were based on water coming in one moment. M. Kennedy replied that it would assume that the water was not leaving the wetland and was in a closed wetland.
David Johnson, 100 Doyle Road was present at the meeting. He stated that he was there to express concern about the drainage. He stated that he wished to preface his comments with the fact that he is not opposed to what is being planned. He stated he prefers what they are planning versus having some sort of subdivision.
D. Johnson stated that he is a lay person and that Mr. Chandly came to visit the neighborhood and heard the concerns that were being voiced. He stated that his concern is that without any development in the area, the water and runoff that they experience is hard to absorb; he asked what was going to happen with new development. He stated that he is still uncomfortable with what is going to transpire.
M. Kennedy asked if there were any additional comments; there were none.
M. Kennedy told the applicant that there were several comments from the town engineer, Isabel McCauley.
E. Ennis asked if they satisfied I. McCauley’s comments if there was anything additional they needed to worry about.
M. Kennedy replied that he didn’t know if there was anything that the Commission had bought up but that there was still neighborhood concerns.
R. Lowell stated that any measures that could be taken to help the neighborhood would be good. He stated if there was a different product with better absorption and additional measures that could be taken may be combined to make it a better project for the neighborhood.
M. Kennedy stated the matter would be continued to the February 3, 2016.
ABBREVIATED NOTICE OF RESOURCE DELINATION Culter Road/ Muschopaugue/ Broad Street
John Boardman, Civil Engineer at Places Associates, Inc. Littleton MA was present at the meeting. He told the Commission that the existing parcel of land had no development. He stated that they wanted the wetland boundary reviewed and to obtain approval prior to moving forward with the design of a single family home.
M. Kennedy asked if there was a peer review and if they agreed.
P. Harding stated that an ANRAD was submitted for review, a site walk was conducted on December 22, 2015 with peer review consultant, Paul McManus, EcoTec, Inc. There were no amendments to the wetlands line or resource areas which were found to be conservative.
M. Kennedy asked if there was a scan of the site for wetlands. P. Harding replied that they did the whole site in cross sections.
M. Kennedy replied that it sounded straight forward he asked if there was anything additional from the Commission; no additional comments were made.
M. Kennedy asked the public if there were any questions.
Pete Hawley, 150 Broad Street, asked if this meant that they were going to design the layout.
M. Kennedy replied that this was the process that an applicant goes through before they do a design. He stated that they mark the wetlands and now that they have the certainty of where the wetland lay, they are able to design. He stated that the only thing the Commission is doing is approving the location of the wetland line; now that they are approved, they are in place for three years.
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE ANRAD AS DELINIATED FOR CUTLER ROAD/MUSCHOPAUGUE/BROAD STREET.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY- Fisher Terrace Phase II Soil Testing
Glen Krevosky, Fisher Terrace Phase II was present at the meeting.
Fisher Terrace submitted a Request for Determination of Applicability to do soil testing. Accessing the detention area requires the crossing of a wetland. Plans were included for the Commission’s review and the applicant requested the Commission to conduct a site inspection prior to the hearing. It appears that the existing “Cart Path” was the site of a former violation.
G. Krevosky noted that there were orange flags on the property. He stated it was bounded by stone walls and a steel fence and a wooded area. He stated that in the past the consultants had crossed the wetlands however they now wished to stay on the old cart path. He stated that they would do the work in the winter when the ground was frozen and that it was not in a Zone A space. G. Krevosky stated that DEP confirmed the limits of the Zone A and that they (the applicant) agreed with them.
M. Kennedy asked if they had received a letter from DEP yet. G. Krevosky replied that they were waiting on the letter.
M. Kennedy asked where the test pits were. G. Krevosky replied 200FT from stream channel.
M. Kennedy asked if it was in the buffer zone. G. Krevosky replied it was not.
M. Kennedy stated that they were requesting access and delineation. He asked if they had any pictures.
P. Harding stated that she had been out there.
M. Kennedy asked if it was safe to drive. P. Harding stated she wondered why they didn’t do the crossing by Phase I.
G. Krevosky replied that it created a cattail marsh and is a lot longer than the cart path. He stated if they crossed from Phase I, they would be crossing a wetland system.
P. Harding replied that it was very wide. G. Krevosky stated he would not recommend it.
M. Kennedy asked if it was already damaged. G. Krevosky replied that it had already been used. He stated there were not trees and that they would be able to do the work when frozen with a mini excavator.
M. Kennedy asked P. Harding about the flags. P. Harding replied they were not up when she was at the site.
G. Krevosky stated that they were not in mud at the site at this time. He stated there was no water in the crossing currently.
M. Kennedy asked when they would do the work. G. Krevosky replied they would do it immediately before the snow gets heavy.
M. Kennedy replied not during the spring. G. Krevosky agreed and stated they would do it when the ground was frozen.
M. Kennedy asked if P. Harding wanted to observe the area before the Commission approved it.
P. Harding replied that she could go and take pictures.
M. Kennedy asked P. Harding to see if any other measures needed to be taken.
Dave Getman DCR was present. K. Strom asked if D. Getman had observed the site. D. Getman confirmed he did.
G. Krevosky asked if D. Getman had heard about DCR agreeing on the Zone A information. D. Getman replied that they did agree.
Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY FOR FISTHER TERRACE PHASE II SOIL TESTING PURSUANT TO A FIELD INSPECTION AND EVALUATION BY P. HARDING AND BARING THE WORK IS COMPLETED WHILE THE GROUND IS FROZEN/ MARCH 2016.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- 94 Greenwood Parkway DEP File #183-375 Book
P. Harding stated that this had expired in 2012. She stated the construction was for a single family residence that was different then the original plans however it was no closer to the wetlands. She stated the attorney requested the certificate of compliance.
Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR 94 GREENWOOD PARKWAY, DEP FILE #183-375; BOOK 29815, PAGE 238, AND EXTEND BOOK 38748, PAGE 355.
CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP APPLICATION/ Holbrook Property-Salisbury Street. .
A Costello told the Commission that White Oak owns a large part of the Holbrook property which has access off Fisher Road. He stated that the trust that owns the land off Salisbury Street has been selling the land off for development. A. Costello stated that they had negotiated for access off Salisbury Street but at the time they were not willing to do it at the price that White Oak was offering. He stated they then came up with a plan that gave a segment next to the parcel that they already owned; 21 acres in all. He stated that White Oak agreed to purchase that portion at appraised price.
A Costello stated that the offer to purchase was based on a Conservation Partnership from the stated. He stated that during the last term, the program was unexpectedly competitive and that although the stated liked the proposal it did not win. He stated the alternative that they came up with was to apply for the Land and Water Conservation Fund which is a municipal only fund.
M. Kennedy stated that they would have to apply as a Town. P. Harding agreed.
A. Costello stated that White Oak is offering to provide the match so it would cost the town nothing. He stated that White Oak would also make sure that the Town was not held down with additional responsibilities so they offered to manage the lot and comply with any requirements that were placed. He stated what they were looking for is approval from the Conservation Commission to move forward as a municipal project.
M. Kennedy asked if the Board of Selectmen would need to sign off on it.
R. Lowell asked if there were wetlands on the site. A. Costello replied that there were.
M. Kenney asked if there were any special habitats on the land.
A. Costello replied that it was a good mix of forested area, lightly forested area, and re-generation land which attracted a lot of wildlife. He stated that it also had qualities that will make it possible to continue the trail to Dawson Road, to Kinneywood Property, and to Salisbury Street which would allow them to have an almost continuous trail.
M. Kennedy asked how much the grant was. A. Costello replied that land and water will give 50% reimbursed so the Town would have to fund that half until the closing.
M. Kennedy asked how much. A. Costello replied $190,000 but it may change as it requires a different appraisal that meets federal standards.
M. Kennedy asked if the Conservation Fund could be used for this project. P. Harding replied that it could and she would check to see what was currently in the account.
P. Harding stated that the IIF money could be eligible for this kind of thing as well.
K. Strom asked if A. Costello needed to recuse himself from voting based on his ties with White Oak. It was determined that he did not as he stood nothing to gain and had no vested interest in the matter.
Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO SUPPORT THE CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP APPLICATION FOR HOLBROOK PROPERTY/ SALISBURY STREET.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 2, 2015 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOULY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE JANUARY 6, 2016 CONSERVATION COMMISSION METING AT 7:56PM.
The January 6, 2016 Conservation Commission minutes were approved on February 3, 2016.
APPROVED: ________________