Conservation Commission, May 6, 2015

HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMISSION

1130 MAIN STREET

MAY 6, 2015

Members Present: Matt Kennedy, Anthony Costello, Kenneth Strom, Mike Krikonis, Michael Scott, Robert Lowell

Members Absent: Luke Boucher

Others Present: Pam Harding, Conservation Agent, Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary

Others on Sign In:  Isabel McCauley, DPW; George Willis, DCR; David Getman, DCR; Julian Votruba, New England Environmental Design; Jim Soucy, J.M. Soucy Inc.; Ken O’Brien, Board of Selectmen

M. Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:00PM.  He stated there was quorum for tonight’s meeting.

Notice of Intent- Town of Holden, Department of Public Works- 156 Princeton Street- Removal of underground storage tank

Isabel McCauley was present for DPW.  P. Harding read the public hearing notice into record.

I. McCauley told the Commission that the project would be to remove a storage tank that serves a generator for a sewer pump station.  She stated that it is going to be replaced with a newer generator and there would be no need for an underground tank; it will sit above the ground beneath the generator.

M. Kennedy asked how far it would be from the resource area.  P. Harding replied about 80FT.

M. Kennedy asked how large the tank was.  I. McCauley replied 300 gallons.

M. Kennedy asked if it was a day job.  I. McCauley replied that it was and that there would be an environmental company doing the removal.

M. Kennedy opened the floor up to the public; no members of the public stepped forward.  He opened it up to Commission questions.

P. Harding told the Board that they proposed waddles. 

A Costello asked if there was any protection if there were leaks from the tank.  I. McCauley replied that they would follow precautions and if there is any contamination they will properly remove soil and sample the soil until it tests clean. 

M. Kennedy asked if there was any indication that the storage tank was leaking.  I. McCauley replied there was not.

M. Kennedy asked how old the tank was. I. McCauley replied it was 30 years old.

R. Lowell asked if it was going to be placed on a concrete pad.  I. McCauley replied that it was.

M. Kennedy asked about the time frame of the project.  I. McCauley replied about a day. 

M. Kennedy asked if it was going right over the hole.  I. McCauley replied that the pad was going next to it and the tank would be on top.

Motion by K. Strom, seconded by A. Costello, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TOWN OF HOLDEN, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; 156 PRINCETON STREET-REMOVAL OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK.

Motion by M. Scott, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, 156 PRINCETON STREET, REMOVAL OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK, WITH THE STANDARD ORDER OF CONDITIONS MINUS DEMARACTIONS.

RESERVOIR STREET- Guard Rail and Embankment Repairs, Department of Public Works

I McCauley was present for DPW.  She stated that on Reservoir Street one of the barriers is missing and the other side (south bound) is compromised because of a car accident.  She stated that DPW wants to replace the barrier walls.

M. Kennedy asked if they were going to slab the full width of the road.  I. McCauley replied that they were doing to do 23FT long barrier walls and extended guard rails on each side. 

M. Kennedy asked if it was going to be precast and driven in.  I. McCauley replied that it was.

M. Kennedy asked if there was going to be excavation.  I. McCauley replied milling.

P. Harding stated that taking out the existing structure could get a little messy.

M. Kennedy asked if there were any controls set.  I. McCauley showed the Commission the draft designs.  She showed the commission the waddle which was composted of mulch and filter tubes.  She showed where the new guard rail was stated that they were proposing to go past the proposed end of the guard rail. 

M. Kennedy asked if DPW was coordinating with the City of Worcester.  I. McCauley replied that DPW will let them know but that they will be happy with it as it was improvement for them as well. 

M. Kennedy asked if DPW was doing it as a maintenance provision, so no NOI.  P. Harding replied that they were. 

K. Strom asked if they would be doing a double box cover.  I. McCauley replied that they were. 

R. Lowell asked if the culverts were being changed.  I. McCauley replied that they were not. 

K. Strom asked about the structure beneath and if it was stable.  I. McCauley replied that it was good.

A Costello asked if traffic was going to need to be diverted.  I. McCauley replied that it probably would need to be.

M. Kennedy asked if there were any houses being impacted.  I. McCauley replied that she didn’t believe there were any homes being impacted.

M. Kennedy asked the time frame.  I. McCauley replied a day. 

M. Scott asked if the slab was precast.  I. McCauley replied that it was so the time would likely be a day for structure and a day for the guardrail.

Motion by M. Scott, seconded by R. Lowell, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE RESERVOIR STREET/GUARD RAIL AND EMBANKMENT REPAIRS AS PRESENTED TO BE UNDERTAKEN AS MAINTENANCE AND NOT REQUIRING A NOI AS LONG AS PERIMETER CONTROLS ARE PROVIDED AND DPW WORKS WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS. 

NOTICE OF INTENT- Fisher Terrance Phase II-Fisher Terrace Phase II/ Construction of 12 additional condominium units

P. Harding told the Commission that they had requested a continuance until the June 3, 2015 Conservation Commission meeting.  She stated that they had brought a sketch of revised plans to the 401 Water Quality Site Visit with DEP on May 5 that were incomplete and the wetland line was not accurate. She told the Commission that DEP agreed with the peer review completed. 

P. Harding replied that P. McManus, Ecotec, Inc. did not hang flags, he sketched it out and that the Town has not reviewed the delineation yet.   She stated there was a disagreement as to whether DEP could change delineation that was covered under an existing order.  P. Harding stated that DEP said they are likely to deny the project under an incomplete package but the applicant would be eligible to resubmit plans after the design was complete.

P. Harding clarified that DEP wants changes made and Glen Krevosky, for Fisher Terrance said that they could not do that.

M. Kennedy replied that the believed the application was more incomplete than wrong.   P. Harding replied that it was wrong delineation or it had since changed since it was done in 2002.

M. Kennedy asked if the other phase had been continued.   P. Harding replied that Phase I expires in September 2015 and then the Town has the right to change it.

M. Kennedy stated that the Commission could make the change under the bylaws as well.  P. Harding agreed and stated that the applicant has not been to the Commission for alternate lay out either.

M. Kennedy asked if the public had any questions or comments; no members of the public stepped forward.

P. Harding told the Commission that they had also driven a tractor through the wetlands.  M. Kennedy stated that was an enforcement order.

Motion by M. Krikonis, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOTICE OF INTENT/ FISHER TERRACE PHASE II CONSTRUCTION OF 12 ADDITIONAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS. 

Motion by K. Strom, seconded by M. Scott, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A DENIAL FOR REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE AND DENY THE ORDER OF CONDITION FOR FISHER TERRACE PHASE II BASED ON THE FAILURE OF THE APPLICANT TO ADVANCE THE PROJECT IN OVER A YEAR,  AND PRESENT A PLAN THAT WAS PERMISSABLE UNDER THE WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT, NO RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND INCOMPLETE SUBMITTAL.

NOTICE OF INTENT- DEP File #183-600 Bond Road Lot #3-J.M. Soucy Contracting, Inc. Construction of Single Family Home

Julian Votruba, New England Environmental Design was present to discuss Bond Road Lot #3.  He presented the Commission with the plans and showed the Commission the location of the wetlands and where the 25FT no touch area was located.  He also showed where the town line was located between Holden and Rutland.  He stated that the applicant had kept the septic tank 100FT away from the wetlands and showed the location of the house, driveway, and road.  He stated that they had gone through DCR and that they approved it.

P. Harding stated that both she and K. Strom had stopped on location to review.

K. Strom stated that the geometry of the flags did not look correct.

M. Kennedy asked if the flags were labeled.

J. Votruba stated that when they got on location there was a flag hanging with a number ripped off (#16) but that they had corrected it.

P. Harding stated that there may have been a little disturbance because of tree cutting.

K. Strom explained where he felt flag J17 looked incorrect.

M. Kennedy asked K. Strom if be believed the line was wrong.  K. Strom replied that it looked wrong.

P. Harding stated that when they arrived she had moved a flag (presumably #16) that did not match the plans.

M. Kennedy stated that the flags were not clearly marked and that there were no numbers on them.

J. Votruba stated that there were only two flags in Holden. 

M. Kennedy asked P. Harding if she had reviewed the area.  P. Harding replied that she had and she showed the Commission where 18 was flagged.  She stated that they did not auger there as she was more concerned with Flag 16 and Flag 17 and there they did about 5 augers. 

J. Votruba stated that it can be shifted as it is a 60FT footprint and they want a 40FT footprint.

J. Votruba asked what could be done as he would like to not go another month without approval if possible.

P. Harding asked K. Strom if he thought Flag 17 was okay.  K. Strom replied that he thought Flag 17 was good but then it jumped in. 

J. Votruba stated that it was all going to slide towards Rutland.

M. Kennedy stated that he believed that they would have to agree on the wetlands line.

K. Strom, P. Harding, and J. Votruba all reviewed the plans together in order to see if they could come to a consensus in order to approve the plans.

M. Kennedy asked the Commission if they were comfortable with everything as shown on the plans if they closed the public hearing.  The Commission and P. Harding both said yes.

M. Kennedy asked if there were any public comments or questions; no members of the public stepped forward.

Motion by M. Scott, seconded by R. Lowell, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DEP FILE #183-600 BOND ROAD LOT #3 J.M. SOUCY CONTRACTING, INC. CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

J. Soucy was present at the public hearing.  He told the Commission that he would use silt fences and waddles. 

Motion was made by M. Scott, it was seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE NOTICE OF INTENT- DEP FILE #183-600 BOND ROAD LOT #3 J.M. SOUCY CONTRACTING, INC CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH STANDARD ORDER OF CONDITIONS MINUS DEMARCATION BARING THE APPLICANT PROVIDES AND UPDATED SITE PLAN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

NOTICE OF INTENT-Department of Conservation and Recreation Quinapoxet Street-Map 75 Parcel 2- Construction of Gravel Roadway referred to as Parkers Pit Road

P. Harding read the public hearing notice into record.

D. Getman, DCR and George Willis, DCR were both present. 

G. Willis told the Commission that they had the drawing he was referring to in their packet.  He stated the existing land is an abandoned railroad bed that goes to Quinapoxet Street off Mill Street.  He stated that ownership is unknown.  DCR is proposing to construct a new segment so the entire roadway is on DCR land.  The plan entails removing trees and stumps from a forested area where the grading is relatively level and was chosen in order to cut as few trees as possible. G. Willis stated the locations were drawn with GPS but in the field it would be laid out appropriately.  He stated that they would use two rows of straw waddles in sensitive areas to prevent infiltration.    

D. Getman showed where most of the work would be done; he stated the roadways would be left intact.

M. Kennedy asked the purpose of the Notice of Intent.

D. Getman replied because DCR does not own the land.

P. Harding asked if there was an easement for the main road through the property.  G. Willis replied there was not one.

M. Kennedy asked the materials that would be used.  G. Willis replied at this point 6” dense gravel but he is unsure of the field conditions.

M. Kennedy asked how wide the road would be.  G. Willis replied 10FT. 

M. Kennedy asked what equipment would be accessing it.  G. Willis replied Watershed forester and ranger trucks.

M. Kennedy asked how often it would be utilized.  G. Willis replied that he was not sure as they don’t currently use it.

D. Getman replied that there would be long term use of the property.

M. Kennedy asked if they could avoid the 100FT area.  D. Getman replied that the idea was to remove as few trees as possible.

K. Strom asked if they could do the road through the trees.  G. Willis stated it looked closer together on plans and that in the field it was not as intense looking.  D. Getman replied that if they can move it out further to avoid the 100FT they will.

M. Kennedy stated that they were not proposing major clearing.  G. Willis agreed.

R. Lowell asked about the tree cutting.  G. Willis stated he tried to not cut anything greater than 6-8”

K. Strom stated there was ill maintained drainage on the main roadway.  D. Getman agreed and stated that it had resulted in some ponding.  G. Willis replied that he was hopeful that by redefining the land it will alleviate the majority of that problem.

M. Kennedy asked if there were any public questions or concerns; no members of the public stepped forward.

Motion by A. Costello, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE NOTICE OF INTENT-DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION QUINAPOXET STREET- MAP 75 PARCEL 2-CONSTRUCTION OF GRAVEL ROADWAY REFERRED TO AS PARKERS PIT ROAD.

P. Harding asked when they would be doing work.  G. Willis replied late in the summer.

Motion by M. Scott, seconded by R. Lowell it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE NOTICE OF INTENT- DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION QUINAPOXET STREET-MAP 75 PARCEL 2 WITH THE STANDARD ORDER OF CONDITIONS MINUS DEMARCATION.

AMENDMENT TO ORDER OF CONDITIONS- Brewer Way-DEP File #183-577 John Harrison

P. Harding stated the applicant is proposing to move the house to allow for a driveway under the garage. 

M. Kennedy asked if it changed the layout.  P. Harding replied that it was a few feet closer to the wetlands and that it moved it closer to the silt fence line so there was only about a foot of space.  She stated it was very tight.

M. Kennedy asked if that was a no de minimis change or would they require a new file.  He stated that it sounded like something that they would typically allow for without filing again.

P. Harding replied that the order of conditions was still valid and it fell under the permit extension act.

M. Krikonis asked is there was any additional impact.  P. Harding replied that it was a little closer to the wetland line. 

M. Scott asked if they inspected the erosion control barriers. 

Motion by M. Scott, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ACCEPT THE CHANGES DE MINIMIS FOR DEP FILE #183-577 JOHN HARRISON AND NOT REQUIRE A NEW FILING.

EXTENSION OF TIME- WACHUSETT WOODS LOT 16-19 DEP File #183-(463-466)

P. Harding told the Commission that the orders for the lots expired on April 20, 2015 and the applicant submitted a request for an extension of time in March.  She stated they had not yet started work and there is a large pile of fill on the property, no erosion controls in place and the flags are gone.   She stated there may also be new wetlands by the detention ponds.

M. Krikonis asked the location of the wetlands.  P. Harding replied in front of it. 

M. Krikonis asked if the extension of time would have any impact on the road completion.  P. Harding replied that this would be just for the lots.  She stated the Town had ownership of the roadways and money to complete the roadwork.  

Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by M. Scott, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR WACHUSETT WOODS LOT 16-19 FOR ONE MONTH WITH INSTRUCTION FROM P. HARDING AS TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

REVIEW OF PROPOSED WORK 108 Mill Street

P. Harding told the Commission that there was a fire at 108 Mill Street and the whole foundation needed to be redone.  She stated the home needed to be demolished and rebuilt.  She showed the Commission plans from a septic replacement that was filed not long ago and outlined the project.  P. Harding stated this was filed to let him begin with erosion controls.

Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ALLOW THE OWNER TO CONDUCT EMERGENCY EROSION CONTROLS AND TO FILE WITHIN THE NEXT 90 DAYS.

MISC.

Sel. O’Brien from the Board of Selectmen was present at the meeting.  He asked if it was okay to speak to the Commission without being posted to the agenda.  M. Kennedy replied that it should be filed but that they would like to see what Sel. O’Brien wanted to discuss.

Sel. O’Brien started by thanking the Commission for the work that they do.   He stated that he was there because one of the issues that has been brought up at the Selectmen meetings is the weeds that are growing in the Town’s ponds and waterways.  Sel. O’Brien stated that he was there at the Conservation meeting to see the Commissions thoughts on improving the quality of the waterways.  Sel. O’Brien stated that the Selectmen had asked DCR to go to a Selectmen meeting and that they had spoken about doing draw downs but that they wanted to see what the Conservation Commissions stance on the issue was. 

P. Harding stated that draw downs were done for Eagle Lake annually.  K. Strom replied that White Oak does it.

Sel. O’Brien stated that he was unaware that was done.

M. Kennedy stated that it had been done for about ten years but that it doesn’t make a big difference as they are required to leave a certain amount (5FT) because of the fish and wildlife in the water.

M. Kennedy stated that one thing the Commission may be able to look at would be funding a diagnostic feasibility study and see if there are additional things that could be done.  He stated that many of the things that could be done get expensive very quickly.

R. Lowell stated that one of the best things that could be done is volunteer hand removal but it is a very labor intense process.

M. Kennedy asked if there were any chemical treatments that could be done.  D. Getman, DCR stated there were no chemical treatments.

R. Lowell stated that chemical treatments were not successful enough to warrant them.

Sel. O’Brien asked about dredging the ponds.  M. Kennedy replied that it was very expensive to do that.

D. Getman replied it would also require looking at the sediment that was dredged as well.

M. Kennedy stated that for a dredging project you would need into the millions by the time sediment and hydrology of the lakes is reviewed.  He stated if anything was found in the sediment, you would be looking at the proper removal which would get into landfill disposal, trucking, and disposal costs for sediment often go for $50/ yard.

Sel. O’Brien replied that there was a lot more to doing this then meets the eye.  P. Harding agreed and stated that it was not easy.

M. Kennedy asked if they did sediment testing with the feasibility study.  A. Costello replied that there was a slightly increased level of arsenic but that they believed it had to do with the local rocks. 

A Costello stated that one possible solution could be something called a benthick map which was an impervious mat that you weigh down over the area that you want to use for swimming.

K. Strom asked what the material was.  A. Costello replied it was some sort of plastic but that it was expensive and divers were needed to put it down. 

Sel. O’Brien asked if the Conservation Commission could develop some points that would make sense at the Selectmen level.  He stated that the Selectmen want to take steps to solve some of the problems and that the Town has some money they may be able to fund ideas with.  He stated that the Conservation Commission was much more in tune with what was feasible and he wanted the Town’s experts to work on some constructive ideas to possible help the waterways.

P. Harding asked where the controls for Chaffins were located.  K. Strom replied it was by the railroad. 

P. Harding stated that there was no public access to Chaffins so there may be no benefit to the Town.  She stated that just because it was filling in did not mean it was bad water.

Sel. O’Brien stated that there were a lot of places that the Town could have public access.  P. Harding replied that it would make a difference for grant funding. 

Sel. O’Brien stated that he was there to begin the conversation in a cooperative way.  He stated that they would like to see what improvements could be made for the Town.

M. Kennedy stated that they would have to have someone map everything and see what could be realistic to do. 

Sel. O’Brien stated that his purpose of attending the Conservation Meeting was to get the Conservation members to think about it and see what some constructive first steps would be.  He asked if the Conservation Commission could keep this item of their radar and perhaps the Town Manager could begin a committee and someone from the Conservation Commission would be apart of it.

M. Kennedy thanked Sel. O’Brien for coming out to discuss the matter.  Sel. O’Brien thanked the Commission again for their work. 

MINUTES

Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 4, 2015 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED.

Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE MAY 6, 2015 CONSERVATION COMMSSION MEETING AT 8:47PM.

APPROVED: _____________________