Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET
DECEMBER 2, 2015
Members Present: Matt Kennedy, Luke Boucher, Kenneth Strom, Mike Krikonis (7:02PM), Robert Lowell, Michael Scott, Anthony Costello, Kenneth Strom (7:05PM)
Others Present: Pam Harding, Conservation Agent, Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary
Others on Sign in: Elizabeth Ennis, Graves Engineering; David Johnson, Resident; Betty Johnson, Resident; Loren Caroll, Resident; Scott Carnell, Resident; Stephen Duff, Resident; Andrew Weagel, Resident, Cle Blair, Jackson Woods, Julian Votruba, Jackson Woods, Scott Dzik, Resident; Scott Jordan, Eco Tec, Valerie Ostrander, HTTC, Aerbone Felder, HTTC, Margaret Watson, Resident, John Saari, HTTC, Ray Levine, HTTC, Vincent Vignaly, DCR.
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
No additional information was submitted.
M. Krikonis entered the meeting at 7:02PM.
M. Kennedy told the Commission that they were looking for the as built that was requested a few months prior. He asked the Commission if they should extend it another month or let it expire and have the applicant re apply.
P. Harding stated that the next meeting was January 6, 2016.
R. Lowell asked if it will be completed by next meeting. The applicant indicated that it would be.
Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO GRANT AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR J & K VENTURES, 2451 MAIN STREET FILE #183-503 UNTIL THE JANUARY 6, 2016 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING.
NOTICE OF INTENT- Greenwood Estates- Jackson Woods Investment, LLC Union Street- Assessing Map and Parcels 132-95, 132-80 and 148-47
P. Harding stated for the record that M. Scott had missed the previous hearing however under Mullins Law, if he reviewed the meeting minutes and signed an affidavit he would be able to participate in the hearing.
M. Scott signed the affidavit.
Julian Votruba, NE Environmental Design was present for the applicant. He told the Commission that since the last meeting, additional work had been completed with regards to the concept of the plan. He stated that they had submitted a set of lot grading plans at 100 scale that showed what the sites looked like.
K. Strom entered the meeting at 7:05PM.
J. Votruba stated that they had also done soil testing and found out that much of the area was sands and gravels. He stated it was 10-12FT bone dry and there was no sign of groundwater. He showed the Commission where they found glacial till. J. Votruba stated that they are able to redesign the drainage systems and detention ponds. He stated that they were working on doing the analysis based on the soil tests; with the new information there will be changes so they will need some additional time to complete that.
J. Votruba stated that the design engineer had taken the time to go though the project and grade it. He stated that the red lines found on the plans were 10FT contours. The dark green area will be preserved and the applicant will not need to clear cut that area which will allow them to preserve a great amount of natural slopes and terrain. He stated that in the brownish area, they were proposing a 1:1 rip rap slope so they don’t have to cut upwards. He stated it was out of the right of way and on private property. He stated that once they get though the drainage and grading they will have accomplished what the Commission had discussed.
The Commission asked if they were intending to do a common driveway.
M. Kennedy stated that would be a Planning Board question.
P. Harding stated that common driveways are allowed for two homes under special permit so they would need to be applied for.
M. Kennedy asked if that was part of the new subdivision. P. Harding replied it was not typically what they see and that it is usually done in order to avoid a wetland crossing.
M. Kennedy reiterated that the common driveway would be a Planning Board question and would be the risk of the developer if they were unable to get it approved.
C. Blair, Jackson Woods stated it could be a shared driveway or the easement is wide enough that they can have their own driveway.
P. Harding stated that what C. Blair was suggesting was not allowed as it needed to be on the lot it services or a common driveway of the lot; she stated that was a zoning issue.
C. Blair replied that it made more sense to come in through the other side; he stated it would help a lot to be able to do that.
L. Boucher replied that it was not an argument for the Conservation Commission.
M. Kennedy replied that he was pointing out to the developer because if that was not allowed they were going to have to make substantial grading changes.
K. Strom asked about different lots.
J. Votruba showed the Commission a different intersection; he stated they changed the grading so that it is going to be eliminated. He told the Commission that they would get a fresh set of plans.
M. Kennedy replied that the Commission does want to see grading and contours before they are done.
J. Votruba replied that they just wanted to give the Commission an idea of the project. M. Kennedy replied that he appreciate that.
J. Votruba replied that the soils that they had found were surprising in some spots; he stated that it followed a whole ridge so the developer was able to eliminate the sub surface infiltration system.
M. Kennedy asked for additional information at the next meeting.
C. Blair asked the Commission if they were able to come through the wetlands where there is temporary impact for the underground infiltration holding area.
M. Kennedy asked if he meant to cut through the wetlands.
C. Blair replied that because of Zone A, there is temporary impact there.
M. Kennedy asked if it was a BVW or a stream. J. Votruba replied it was a BVW.
M. Kennedy asked where the stream ended. J. Votruba showed where the stream began and the direction it moved.
K. Strom stated it would be temporary impact. M. Kennedy replied that they would need access to it forever.
J. Votruba showed a different way they could go through. M. Kennedy replied that ideally no; they should not go through the wetlands.
J. Votruba stated that they were trying to eliminate the underground system; he stated they would continue to look into it.
M. Kennedy asked if there was anything else.
J. Votruba asked what data the Commission wanted him to use for rain fall. M. Kennedy replied the newly published one.
J. Votruba told the Commission that the Planning Board is allowing the applicant to do 24FT wide streets.
K. Strom asked if they were requiring sidewalks on both sides. J. Votruba replied that they had asked for that waiver as well but it was not approved by the Planning Board.
C. Blair stated it had been determined that the area in question was not a Zone A. P. Harding replied that she had been forwarded the information.
M. Kennedy asked the applicant if they had looked at the cluster development bylaw.
C. Blair replied that it wouldn’t work well on this property. He stated that he had looked into it and they were still investigating it but that because of the size it would be too close together. He stated that they had built a cluster at Holden Manors and they were difficult to do because they were so tight.
M. Kennedy replied that the bylaws had changed.
P. Harding stated that the issue was that they were in a zone freeze from 2000 zoning. She stated that they were frozen in at a smaller lot size.
M. Kennedy asked if there were any members of the public that wished to speak. No members of the pubic stepped forward.
M. Kennedy stated that Greenwood Estates would be extended to January 6, 2016.
ORDER OF CONDITIONS- Review of Drainage- Stoneybrook Estates
P. Harding provided the Commission with a revised plan for the outlet of the detention pond in addition to comments from Isabel McCauley, DPW Engineer. P. Harding stated that I. McCauley requested that they look at alternatives and evaluate the pond itself and figure out the reason behind the velocity of the water.
C. Blair replied that they were looking into it.
M. Kennedy stated that they Commission will take the matter up at the January 6, 2016 meeting.
NOTICE OF INTENT – 38 BRATTLE STREET- HOLDEN TOWER TENNIS CLUB- Construction of 3 Tennis Courts and Associated Parking
P. Harding read the public hearing notice into record.
Scott Jordan, Eco Tec and Elizabeth Ennis, Graves Engineering were present for Holden Tower Tennis Club.
S. Jordan gave the Commission a quick overview of the property. He stated the property was located at 38 Brattle Street on 4.5 acres just south of Shrewsbury Street. He stated that Eco Tech was working on it in July in order to delineate the wetlands on the property and what they found was that a southern portion was a BVW associated with an intermittent stream that flowed southerly and crosses under the access drive where the project is proposed. He stated that the Tennis Club has existing tennis courts in the northern section and there is a parking lot at the end of the access road. He stated they wish to expand the gravel parking lot and construct three adjacent tennis courts in the southern portion of the property. He stated the bulk of the area is currently wooded.
E. Ennis, Graves Engineering told the Commission that there was nothing proposed in the 25FT no disturb zone and that they were doing stormwater management as well.
M. Kennedy asked if I. McCauley reviewed this project. P. Harding asked the applicant for additional copies of the plans.
M. Kennedy asked for more details on stormwater.
E. Ennis stated that the surface was clay and they were directing the water with drainage swales to the side; she stated that in order to deal with the run off they were proposing dry detention basins. She stated that all the stormwater calculations show that they were reducing the water. She stated that there were some surface drains to direct water into the detention basins and that the detention basins discharged to the wetlands.
M. Kennedy asked what the surface will be. E. Ennis replied that the area within the chain link fence will be clay and that their stormwater calculations treated it as impervious surface.
M. Kennedy asked about infiltration and how they dealt with it.
E. Ennis replied that because it was not technically asphalt; there were no cars or fluid being dumped so they just addressed runoff.
M. Kennedy replied that the point of impervious area is that there is still atmospheric deposition and there is still potential runoff so given the size of the courts, they still probably need to address it from a water quality standpoint. He asked if there were any special things that needed to be done to treat the surface.
Ray Levine and John Saari were present for Holden Tower Tennis Club. They replied that it is watered during the day with town water.
K. Strom asked if the other courts were clay. Holden Tower Tennis Club (HTTC) replied that they were all clay.
K. Strom asked about the parking area. HTTC replied that it was gravel.
E. Ennis replied that the proposed area was gravel as well.
M. Kennedy asked when the water runs off if the clay gets picked up with the run off.
HTTC replied that it filters the water; he stated if it was heavy rain it runs off some and the water that is used to irrigate soaks in.
M. Kennedy asked if there was any erosion with heavy rain.
HTTC replied there was.
L. Boucher asked if you can tell that the clay is running off; he asked if the surrounding areas were red (from the clay).
HTTC replied that the court is compacted so the run off tends to not carry a lot of the clay wit it.
L. Boucher asked if there was something that was going to direct the parking lot run off.
E. Ennis replied that there is a detail on the worksheet that states that it will be brought up to grade in that area.
M. Kennedy asked if it was open graded gravel or dense graded gravel. E. Ennis replied that it was pretty dense.
M. Kennedy asked the applicant to make a note on the plan that shows the limit and make the information a little more clear.
L. Boucher asked why there was a subdrain in the back.
E. Ennis stated they adjusted the grades a little and they were concerned about it being to direct.
L. Boucher asked if it was going in the same direction as the swale. E. Ennis replied that they were utilizing the swale but they just wanted to have extra protection.
M. Scott stated that he presumed it was to help keep the water off of the courts.
K. Strom asked if a subdrain under a court was typical.
M. Scott asked if the terrain continued up into the north so there was water coming down. E. Ennis replied that it did.
K. Strom asked for a cross section of the plan. E. Ennis replied that they did not have a cross section but that it was about 8” of clay and crushed stone.
K. Strom asked if the clay was about 4” E. Ennis replied 2”-4”.
L. Boucher asked in terms of TSS; he asked if they were proposing that they do not have to remove 80% TSS prior to removal because their position was that it is a clay court.
M. Kennedy stated he was not sure if he agreed with that. L. Boucher replied he wasn’t sure if he did either.
M. Kennedy asked the area of the tennis court. E. Ennis replied 156x120.
M. Kennedy asked if the public had any question or comments. He stated that any comments or questions would need to be related to wetlands or conservation. He told the public that anything relating to noise or land use would need to be addressed with the Zoning Board.
David Johnson, 100 Doyle Road was present. He stated that he understood the need to expand the tennis court with the merger of Worcester Tennis Club but he is more concerned with the water run off. He stated his property is the recipient of a lot of water and that he had done was much as possible within town regulations but he asked what steps would be taken for his property.
M. Kennedy asked where he was located relative to the plans.
D. Johnson replied that he was on Doyle Road. He showed the Commission the location of his home. He stated that he bought two additional parcels behind his lot for privacy. He stated the town could not come down to his home with a pump truck and that he had been there since the 60’s and that it is worse now then it ever has been.
M. Kennedy asked if it was wetlands; he stated if it was wetlands, nothing should be done.
D. Johnson stated that his land is adjoining the lots from Steele Street where there is a stream to a natural holding area.
M. Kennedy replied that it may be a part of the natural wetlands.
D. Johnson replied that it sits on his property and he was concerned.
M. Kennedy replied that the only thing the Commission could do is to make sure that they don’t make any existing conditions worse. He stated that as far as being a good neighbor; if there is anything that HTTC could do to mitigate issues they could. He asked where the wetlands goes.
S. Jordan replied it goes in a southerly direction.
M. Kennedy asked where it ended; he stated he thinks they need the answer to that.
E. Ennis replied that she does not believe they are increasing the volume.
M. Kennedy replied that they are increasing the impervious area, so they are increasing the volume. He stated that if the area was landlocked, they would need to show that.
Loren Carroll, 81 Steele Street was present. She stated that her property slopes back and asked about the drainage.
M. Kennedy asked if she was discharging water to them. L. Carroll replied yes and asked if it was going to go into the drain.
M. Kennedy replied not necessarily. He asked if her concern was the wetlands. She agreed.
Scott Dzik, 78 Doyle Road was present at the meeting. He thanked the Club for being a good neighbor though the years. He stated that he wanted to echo the concerns of the others present and ask HTTC to further their study to show how the stormwater discharge is going to impact the lots. He stated a lot of work had gone into the project but not much had been done for the abutters. He bought up the underground stream and he asked what was going to happen with that.
M. Kennedy asked what he meant by underground stream. S. Dzik replied that there were likely 55 gallon drums that run though the area.
M. Kennedy asked if they meant a conduit. S. Dzik replied yes.
D. Johnson replied that they have rotted away and it has caused backlog.
S. Dzik replied that he was not sure if it was in the report or if it was accessible to the public, but that it did not seem as though these question and concerns were addressed and he suggested the applicant looking into it.
Margaret Watson, 94 Doyle Road, stated that the area has a serious water problem with underground springs. She stated that the problem was called to the attention of the Town a number of years ago by Mr. Smith, a neighbor at the time, but that he never received any information back from the town. She stated the Town may still have the letter on record.
Stephen Duff, 71 Steele Street was present at the meeting. He stated that he was worried about the illumination in his backyard.
M. Kennedy replied that it was not something the Conservation Commission could address.
S. Duff asked who they should speak with. M. Kennedy replied that he strongly encouraged the applicant to meet with the neighbors in order to help alleviate some issues. He stated those issue would be dealt with by the ZBA and Planning Board.
M. Kennedy stated that with regards to the water issues, the only things that the Conservation Commission could consider would be will the problem be worse after the project is completed. He stated that in the meantime; he strongly encouraged the applicant to meet with the neighbors.
Scott Carnell, 81 Steele Street was present at the meeting. He stated that the area was extremely wet; he asked if the swale will drain into the property. M. Kennedy replied it will take the water and bring it away from there.
M. Kennedy stated that they had asked for additional information; he suggested continuing the matter until the January 6, 2016 meeting.
Motion by M. Krikonis, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CONTINUE THE NOTICE OF INTENT-38 BRATTLE STREET, HOLDEN TOWER TENNIS CLUB, CONSTRUCTION OF 3 TENNIS COURTS AND ASSOCIATED PARKING TO THE JANUARY 6, 2016 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING.
M. Kennedy reminded the abutters that they will not receive another notice in the mail; he stated that the meeting was their notice that the matter will be held on January 6, 2016.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE – 20 Rondeau Road Greenstone Properties DEP File #183-545
P. Harding stated that the applicant has requested a Certificate of Compliance for the construction of a single family home. She stated the site was stabilized, the house slightly shifted and a deck was added to the rear. P. Harding replied that it appeared fine.
Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR 20 RONDEAU ROAD, GREENSTONE PROPERTIES DEP FILE #183-545
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- 30 Newell Road Jardus/Greenwood Properties, LLC DEP File #183-576
P. Harding stated that the site was not stable and the grass was not growing; she suggested holding off on this until the January 6, 2016 meeting.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 84 Jordan Road DEP #183-604 Construction of Single Family Home
P. Harding stated she had not reviewed the property yet; matter was held until the January 6, 2016 meeting.
ANRAD
P. Harding stated that a site walk was requested before the January 6, 2015 meeting or she could hire a peer review. P. Harding told the applicant that she would speak with the Commission about it.
P. Harding stated it was potentially 8 lots and that the applicant had filed test pits with the BOH.
M. Kennedy asked who did them and if they were wetland scientists. P. Harding replied that Karen with Environmental Consulting in Westminster did them.
M. Scott stated there were a lot of wetlands on the site. P. Harding agreed; she stated that they went to the Board of Health and that the 200 offset from the tributary came up so they needed to do some redesign.
The Commission agreed to walk the site independently.
OTHER
P. Harding told the Commission that DCR ruled in Blair’s favor and they were able to clear cut.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by K. Strom, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 4, 2015 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED BY A VOTE OF 6-0-1 (M. Scott: abstain).
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by A. Costello, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE DECEMBER 2, 2016 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:00PM.
APPROVED: ___________