Conservation Commission, January 7, 2015
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET
JANUARY 7, 2015
Members Present: Matt Kennedy, Anthony Costello, Robert Lowell, Kenneth Strom
Members Absent: Luke Boucher, Mike Krikonis, Michael Scott
Others Present: Pam Harding, Conservation Agent, Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary,
Others on Sign in: Mark Popham Greenstone Realty; Jeffrey Brem, Meisner Brem Corp; Paul McManus, EcoTec, Inc; Isabelle McCauley, DPW; Josh Olson, Greenstone Properties, Mr. Iqbal Ali, Fisher Terrace, Scott Morrison, EcoTec, Inc; Kevin Quinn, Keith Prachniak, 462 Bailey Road, Kimberly Petalas, The Landmark
Meeting called to order at 7:03PM by M. Kennedy. M. Kennedy stated that there was a quorum.
NOTICE OF INTENT- Wachusett Valley Estates, Greenstone Properties, LLC- 36 Lot Subdivision
Jeff Brem was present on behalf of Wachusett Valley Estates. He stated that they had begun to work on the changes that were set forth in the letter from Graves Engineering and should be able to finish all the modifications within the month.
J. Brem handed out a report that he had completed in response to the Commission’s request of putting together a water budget for the wetlands. J. Brem told the Commission it was based on TF 55 over time. He stated that they had used new curve numbers and standard runoff equations in order to get the numbers presented. J. Brem stated that there was excess that drained off into the channel. He stated that based on these calculations post development it showed that the wetlands will still fill up and will not dry out.
M. Kennedy replied that he did not believe that they had used the run off equation correctly. He asked if Graves Engineering had reviewed the report. P. Harding replied that they had just received it.
J. Brem stated that he had done some research and used the storage equation. M. Kennedy replied that it was done for a rain event not the whole season.
J. Brem stated that he would work with Graves Engineering.
J. Brem stated that all other issues had been completed and that they had added notes on the plans for individual lots. He stated that the front area not being in Zone A was in technical review.
M. Kennedy asked about the original water budget analysis in particular watershed. He stated that it was inconsistent. J. Brem replied that it was corrected and that he had detailed plans for the Commission.
Isabel McCauley, DPW was present at the meeting. She stated that DPW had just completed their comments and that there were a number of things that needed to be addressed. She stated that they were concerned with the wetlands and how the plans were showing there is a discharge from the wetlands into the infiltration trench. She stated there was no pretreatment and infiltration trenches require pretreatment prior to being discharged. She stated that the concern was that the trench may clog sooner than anticipated. I. McCauley also stated that volume of the discharge was based off the runoff from the development and not the additional flow from the wetlands; because of this it would not provide much recharge because the flow from the wetlands was not accounted for.
J. Brem confirmed the wetlands I. McCauley was speaking about. He stated that they were taking the flow and bypassing the system.
I. McCauley replied that based on that plan, the recharge is not provided from what they had calculated because the volume available is being used by the wetland area in addition to the run off from impervious surfaces.
J. Brem replied that was not his intent. I. McCauley replied that it would go into the trench. J. Brem replied that it should be missing the trench.
M. Kennedy asked I. McCauley if there were a lot of comments for the developer to address. I. McCauley confirmed there were.
M. Kennedy asked the status of the comments from Graves Engineering. P. Harding replied that they were not present tonight (January 7, 2015) however they had a few additional comments as well.
J. Brem replied that they had almost completed the list of items from Graves Engineering.
J. Brem told the Commission that the Planning Board wanted the developer to finish up for the February 10, 2015 meeting.
M. Kennedy asked if the comment for the Planning Board had been addressed. P. Harding replied there were still outstanding issues for the Planning Board to review however the Planning Board wanted everything wrapped up. She stated that the Planning Board was frustrated with the amount of storm water comment and DPW comments.
M. Kennedy asked if there were any public comments; no public comments were made.
Wachusett Valley Estates was continued to the February 4, 2015 meeting.
NOTICE OF INTENT-Fisher Terrace Phase II-Fisher Terrace Phase II-Construction of 12 additional condominium units
Mr. Iqbal Ali, Fisher Terrace was present at the meeting. He stated that they had received the report from EcoTec earlier in the week. He stated that they had a few questions about the wetland delineation and he asked if they could continue the matter until the next meeting.
P. McManus, EcoTec was present at the meeting. He showed the Commission the site plan. He stated that while looking at the plans you could see flags in areas however in the field they were unable to locate them. He stated that there was a comment being made that a line had “existing approval” however he did not know the status of the prior approval.
P. Harding asked why all the flags changed to “a-48”. Mr. Ali replied that he did not know.
M. Kennedy stated that the area was flagged over three years ago. He asked if there was an order of conditions completed. P. Harding replied that there was an extension.
M. Kennedy asked if the extension locked in the wetlands for new filing. Mr. Ali replied that his engineer Mr. Glen Krevosky, EBT Environmental had worked on the situation and he had indicated that the wetland line was locked in.
P. McManus stated that the area in question was an area that had never been settled. He said you can issue an order of conditions that confirmed the wetland boundaries. P. McManus stated that it was his opinion that the order of conditions dictates work and if they grated it, they can build what they want.
P. Harding stated that it occurred in 2004 and had long expired.
M. Kennedy replied that he agreed with P. McManus’ opinion however now his interpretation would be that whatever wetland existed today would apply to Phase II of the project.
Mr. Ali stated that it was already approved.
M. Kennedy asked what the impact would be on the wetlands. P. McManus replied 50 linear feet.
M. Kennedy stated that there was no other access to this land. P. McManus stated that if the Commission’s position was that the line was not fixed, it would need to be revisited, cleanly numbered and flagged.
M. Kennedy reviewed the plans and asked if the crossing shown was the best one. P. McManus replied that he did not think it was but he was not sure.
M. Kennedy asked what was in the area currently. P. McManus replied that it was forested.
M. Kennedy asked if the wetlands were forested as well. P. McManus showed the Commission and area and stated that it was already beat up. He stated that may weigh into the Commissions consideration.
M. Kennedy stated that the Commission would need to review and monitor the area. P. McManus replied that one of the things that had occurred based on dead vegetation is that the hydrology of the area had been changed. He stated that it is possible that some of the uplands in the past had turned into wetlands.
M. Kennedy asked if the conditions had changed. P. McManus replied that he thought they did.
M. Kennedy asked if the public had any questions; no questions were asked by the public.
M. Kennedy told Mr. Ali that the Commission would be looking for resolution on the points brought up in the meeting (January 7, 2014).
Notice of Intent; Fisher Terrace Phase II was continued to February 4, 2014.
NOTICE OF INTENT-Homestead Road DEP File #183-598 David Cook construction of single family home.
Scott Morrison, EcoTec was present. S. Morrison showed the Commission the plans and outlined the location of Homestead Road and the Providence/Worcester Railroad. S. Morrison stated that the proposal was to construct a single family residence with a driveway. He stated that through construction there will be an erosion control barrier set consisting of silt fence and barrels.
M. Kennedy asked how far the house would be from the railroad tracks. S. Morrison replied that it would be within 100FT.
M. Kennedy asked about the other side of the lot where there were no wetlands. S. Morrison replied that the other side was potentially buildable however based on the crossing, he felt it would have more of an impact to do that.
M. Kennedy asked about the sewer. S. Morrison showed the connection and stated that there was a manhole in the driveway; same as the water.
M. Kennedy asked what the current condition of the lot was. S. Morrison replied it was currently forested.
P. Harding asked about the drainage. S. Morrison replied that the drainage would go down in a similar fashion to its current flow. P. Harding replied she was concerned that it would follow the driveway. S. Morrison replied that the land went up a little.
S. Morrison showed the flow of the drainage.
R. Lowell asked if drainage would change from the current flow. S. Morrison replied that it would not.
K. Strom stated that the road pitched down, he asked if there were any catch basins. P. Harding replied that she did not see any.
K. Strom asked if there was discharge. S. Morrison replied there was not.
M. Kennedy asked if the developer was giving anything back for the encroachment into the 25FT no work zone.
S. Morrison replied that they had tried to keep the line and angle the home with the end of the neighborhood.
M. Kennedy asked if they were okay with the lawn. P. Harding replied that it was condition on the ZBA approval as well.
K. Strom stated that he was concerned with pipes crossing. S. Morrison replied that there was a drainage easement as well. K. Strom asked if the proposed manhole was at the edge of the property. S. Morrison confirmed it was and they will need to put one in.
M. Kennedy asked the public if there were any questions; no questions were asked by the public.
Motion was made by R. Lowell, it was seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR HOMESTEAD ROAD DEP FILE #183-598.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by R. Lowell, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR HOMESTEAD ROAD DEP FILE #183-598 ADDING IN THE DEMARCATION FOR ANYTHING THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE LOT.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY- Local Bylaw Harris Street- Paul and Kristen Danielson
S. Morrison from EcoTec was present for this matter. He reminded the Commission that they had filed a Abbreviated Request for Resource Area Delineation for this property last year. He showed the Commission the location of the isolated wetland that was regulated by the town bylaws. S. Morrison stated that they were staying outside of the 100FT buffer zone. He showed the Commission the portion of the isolated wetland where they were requesting access. He stated that they had filed a request for that. S. Morrison stated the other issue on the lot was the flooding issue.
Kevin Quinn was present to speak about the flood issue. He told the Commission that they had been working with FEMA and had filed a map revision correcting the location of the stream that was originally shown incorrectly. He stated that after FEMA reviewed, the house, septic, and driveway were all outside of the floodplain.
M. Kennedy asked at what elevation the crossing would occur. K. Quinn replied 573.05. He stated that because of grading they had to build up.
M. Kennedy reviewed the map.
S. Morrison stated that the river was substantially lower. K. Strom asked if it would have a finished basement.
M. Kennedy replied that it would be outside the flood zone. K. Quinn stated that FEMA had indicated that there was going to be a map revision sent to Town.
M. Kennedy asked if the notice of intent needed to be filed.
K. Quinn replied that they did need the Conservation Commission to support that the development was not within the flood zone
The Commission discussed the best way to support that it was not in the flood zone, they spoke about issuing a negative determination, or a Notice of Intent, or issuing a letter.
S. Morrison told the Commission that they had filed and RDA under the bylaw act. K. Strom asked if they had commented yet, P. Harding replied they had not.
K. Strom wanted to ensure that the Commission was able to condition regardless of how they moved forward. R. Lowell agreed that the developer would need to provide controls.
P. Harding asked if they anticipated doing just a silt fence with no haybales. S. Morrison replied yes, he stated that the soils were good. K. Strom stated that there was a good amount of fill and he wouldn’t want to see that wash away.
The Commission discussed the use of a silt fence, haybales, or waddles.
Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DETERMINATION ON THE RDA WITH CONDITIONS ADDED FOR EROSION CONTROLS AND TO REMOVE THESE CONTROLS WHEN THE SITE WAS STABALIZED.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by R. Lowell, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO AUTHROIZE THE TOWN CONSERVATION AGENT, PAM HARDING, TO DRAFT A LETTER TO THE BOARD OF HEALTH INDICATING THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE-120 Moscow Road DEP File #183-480 Installation of Septic System and Construction of Addition
P. Harding told the Commission that the site had been stabilized and completed in 2012 and they had requested a certificate of compliance.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by R. Lowell, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TO 120 MOSCOW ROAD DEP FILE #183-480.
OTHER BUSINESS
Keith Prachniak of 462 Bailey Road was present at the meeting. He stated that he owns property that abuts the Stony Brook Estates and they are getting run off onto their property and lots of trash. He expressed his displeasure with how the site was being maintained in regards to his property and asked the Commission for assistance in addressing the matter.
K. Prachniak stated that he believed the water was coming off Joel Scott Road and washing into his property.
M. Kennedy asked if the storm water management was complete. P. Harding replied that the developer had built two fences and they have a steep slope near the rear. She stated that it appears they had eroded down and some of the sediment had traveled beyond the silt fence.
P. Harding stated that she would walk the site in the following week
K. Strom asked what the demarcation of the property was. K. Prachniak replied that to his recollection, it was 5FT beyond the silt fence. He stated that the hay bails had been washed over and he believes that it will continue downstream and dump into the watershed.
K. Strom asked if it had been filing in. P. Harding replied that she had not been on site since October.
K. Prachniak shared pictures with the Commission that showed his property.
M. Kennedy stated that he was sensitive to the issues that Mr. Prachniak had presented. He stated that it could be a civil matter between K. Prachniak and the developer however if they were putting sediment into the wetlands, the Conservation Commission could address it.
K. Prachniak asked about the trash. P. Harding replied that she will contact the developer and have them address it.
K. Strom asked if there was a bylaw pertaining to maintaining the site. P. Harding replied that there was one. She stated that she had sent an email today (January 7, 2015) to the developer to address the debris. She also stated that prior to going onto the Prachniak property he needed permission.
M. Kennedy asked about the condition of the slope and sediment. P. Harding stated that they rushed to complete everything and did not properly stabilize the site.
P. Harding stated that she would need to go to the property and document it for herself. She stated that she could probably enter from the Stony Brook property side and would obtain permission from the developer prior to doing so.
K. Prachniak told P. Harding that she had his permission to enter the property. She stated that she reminded the developer that he was not permitted to bring large equipment onto the abutter’s property and any removal of sediment would need to be done with buckets.
K. Prachniak asked if it was reasonable to expect the trash to be picked up within two weeks. P. Harding replied that it was. K. Prachniak thanked the Commission for their time and assistance.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- DEP File Number Preservation Lane
DEP File #183-555 Lot 5 Bk 49759 Pg 229
DEP File #183-556 Lot 6 do not have recoding information
P. Harding told the Commission that they did not fix what they were supposed to.
M. Kennedy continued the matter until February 4, 2015
MEETING MINUTES
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by R. Lowell, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 3, 2014 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
OTHER BUSINESS
K. Strom asked M. Kennedy a question on the water report submitted from Greenstone Properties, LLC. M .Kennedy replied that there is a specific way that analysis must be completed and it was not.
P. Harding stated that she would send the water report to Graves Engineering.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by A. Costello, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE JANUARY 7, 2015 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:29PM.
APPROVED: ________________