Conservation Commission, November 2, 2016
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET
November 2, 2016
Members Present: Mike Scott, Kenneth Strom, Luke Boucher, Mike Krikonis, Rob Lowell, Kenneth Strom, Anthony Costello
Members Absent: Matt Kennedy
Others Present: Pam Harding, Conservation Agent, Glenda Williamson, Conservation Assistant, Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary
Others on Sign In: Scott Morrison, EcoTec; Brett Perrone, Salisbury Street; Carl Hultgren, Quinn Engineering; Eric Brunelle, Black Diamond Construction
R. Lowell called the meeting to order at 7:01PM
GREENWOOD ESTATES II NOI REVIEW- Quinn Engineering, Inc.
Jackson Woods Investment, LLC Union Street
R. Lowell stated that it looked as though item by item the Developers had been doing the work.
Carl Hultgren, Quinn Engineering was present at the meeting. He stated that the third review had resolved many issues although there were still some outstanding.
P. Harding stated that while there was a quorum, M. Scott and M. Krikonis were unable to vote on the matter. She stated if the hearing opened, M. Kennedy would be disqualified from voting in the future as well.
C. Blair asked if they could hold off on opening the hearing as he did not want to lose M. Kennedy. He stated that there was a matter that he wanted the Commission to weigh in on put he asked if the Commission could do it outside the public hearing so as not to lose another member.
L. Boucher asked what item was in question. C. Blair replied item 50. He stated that he needed the Commission’s input to move forward. C. Blair requested a continuation on the public hearing for Greenwood Estates II NOI Review.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR GREENWOOD ESTATES II, NOI REVIEW, JACKSON WOODS INVESTMENT LLC TO THE DECEMBER 7, 2016 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING.
R. Lowell stated that he would allow for an information discussion on soil types.
C. Hultgren, stated that the item in question was item 50 on the review letter. He stated that basically the USDA map soils in the US and they use those maps to calculate recharge and runoff rates. He stated that the USDA classifies soil in different types and they get assigned a hydrologic soil group (A, B, C, or D). He showed the Commission a map of the property.
C. Hultgren stated that part of the Stormwater Handbook requests that during the evaluation they look at soil and confirm that the USDA mapping is accurate. He stated that NE Environmental Design went out and did the soil profile and showed the Commission the location of the testing on the maps. He stated that the USDA maps show the soil type to be Woodbridge Soil. He stated that the Woodbridge Soil should have 32” of fine/ sandy loam and then under that a fine sandy loam.
He stated that Canton Soil has 26” of fine/ sandy loan and under that gravely loamy sand and Merrimac Soil has 26” of fine/ sandy loam and under that gravely sand.
C. Hultgren stated that they did a test pit and it is not consistent with the Woodbridge Soil that is indicated on the USDA maps. He stated it is more of a Merrimac/ Canton Soil. He stated with that being said, his comment 50 is referring to the fact that in the test pits, it does not look like Woodbridge soil it looks like Merrimac and Canton. He stated that is basically what the comment states and it would tie into infiltration and basins with regards to construction. He stated that there is a lot of things that go into the designation, texture, water table, etc. He stated that his comment states that it looks as though the soil is not designated correctly and they should use the correct designation when calculating recharge and runoff.
R. Lowell stated that sounded favorable to the developer.
C. Hultgren replied that runoff for Type A gets infiltrated into the ground more than for
Type C. He stated that once you pave over it you will need to provide more recharge. He stated generally speaking the basins are okay and the issue is the runoff.
C. Blair stated that the way he understood it was that when you figure for pre/ post runoff at a site, the water cannot have any more velocity downstream after then it does before. He stated that what they (Carl Hultgren) is saying changes the runoff. He stated that the runoff characteristic preconstruction if they use what C. Hultgren is saying is like bringing a beach to the top of the soil and that is not what is happening. He stated that what the comment will do is increase the size of the basins to hold more water but there is not any runoff. He stated if the designation is changed he will need to make bigger basins and he does not think they are necessary.
C. Hultgren stated that they had spoken about the beach up to the surface and that will happen post development in the basins. He stated that the sand is below the top soil. He stated he does not know the runoff, but in the locations of the test pits, it is Canton Soil and he needs to do it how USDA indicates.
K. Strom asked if the only thing being impacted was the basins. He asked if there was going to be a lot of pavement.
C. Hultgren showed the Commission the locations of the wetlands. He stated he has no issues with the rest.
K. Strom asked how big of impact it was going to be.
C. Hultgren stated two basins, and showed the locations.
L. Boucher stated that it was the road that was the big change.
R. Lowell stated that the big picture was to keep the run off equal or less.
L. Boucher stated that he had always done it the way that C. Hultgren was describing. He stated that it was logical that if you had compacted loam on top it would act different but USDA does not really allow the leeway to say it is compacted vs. non-compacted. He stated that there was the ability to choose different grades; good, fair, poor, and that way be a way to bring in the observations that he (C. Hultgren) saw.
C. Blair stated that it was sand below.
L. Boucher stated that there is always going to be top soil and if USDA is calling it a Group C and the test pits match better with a Group A, you need to go with what the testing says. He stated that the mapping is very generalized and that is why they confirm test pits.
C. Blair stated that it was going to create bigger basins than necessary.
G. Williamson left the meeting at 7:22PM.
M. Scott stated that it looked like the lower part of the hill was consistently good materials. He stated that he had looked at soil throughout the state and that a hairline change can alter the work that is being done.
G. Williamson returned to the meeting at 7:23PM.
M. Scott stated that he deals with this daily and the change can be dramatic. He stated that the volume was not going to be significant if it was going to be covered by pavement.
C. Hultgren replied that it was different in predevelopment, he stated you wanted to match the lower number.
C. Blair stated it is C at the surface and then it goes to sand.
M. Scott stated that the top soil is factored into all soil types. He stated that the way that the engineer could account for the condition of the upper layer would be to incorporate the good/ fair/poor into the designation and see how dramatic the change would be.
C. Hultgren asked if they (himself and the developer) could get some direction from the Commission so they are speaking on the same matter.
R. Lowell stated that he thinks him (C. Hultgren’s) classification is on target.
The Commission agreed with C. Hultgren’s classification.
L. Boucher suggested that they speak about the conditions with one another prior to the next meeting.
K. Strom asked if there were any other highlights that the Commission should be aware of.
C. Hultgren stated that Condition 21 stated that there was a note on the plan that says the property line is point of record and that NE Environmental Design assumes no responsibility for that.
K. Strom stated that is not common practice and it would need to be rectified.
C. Blair stated that Ron Dumbroski did the prelim survey and that was on record and NE Environmental Design used those plans. He stated they will address it.
C. Hultgren stated Condition 88 was the dewatering detail. He stated that he thought the Commission may want to determine discharge locations before issuing permits. He stated it was hard to know where to dewater but that the Commission could make a blanket statement that indicated not to discharge in the buffer.
C. Hultgren stated that a lot of the conditions were resolved at this point.
The matter was continued to December 7, 2016.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABITILY Perrone Properties-LLC 876 Salisbury Street, EcoTec, Inc.
Scott Morrison, Eco Tec, Brett Perrone, Salisbury Street, and Eric Brunelle, Black Diamond Construction were all present at the meeting.
S. Morrison stated that there was an existing landscape facility on the property and the building is in poor conditions so the owners want to demolish the front half and reconstruct the portion that comes at a line straight off the existing facility. He stated that they want to tear down the whole building and replace the garage bays.
S. Morrison stated that they will use silt fences and straw wattles for erosion controls. He stated that the rear that is not being reconstructed will be loamed and seeded. He stated it was a relatively simple project and they were removing about half of the existing structure that was closest to the wetlands.
R. Lowell asked if there was a sewer down there.
P. Harding replied up to the subdivision.
K. Strom asked if they had been working on the parking lot.
B. Perrone replied that they were having a problem from the slope off the hill. He stated they were catching everything off the road so they used road grindings to stabilize it.
G. Williamson stated that she did a few site visits and all the work is within the existing paved areas. She stated that the bordering vegetative wetlands is close but based on the work an RDA is sufficient if they have good erosion controls and they are put in properly.
S. Morrison stated that they have erosion control wrapping the building. He stated there was runoff from Salisbury Street eroding to the brook so they needed to do the road grindings stabilize it.
R. Lowell asked about demolition. He asked if they would be using an excavator.
B. Perrone stated that they will be using Wachusett Landscaping and they will use an excavator.
A Costello stated that he wanted to comment that Poor Farm Brook is one of the few cold water brooks that is left and it is sustaining a healthy population of brook trout. He stated that he would really like to see very good erosion controls in place.
S. Morrison stated silt fences and straw wattles would be used.
G. Williamson suggested the use of straw bales as well.
S. Morrison agreed.
P. Harding asked if the wetlands were flagged.
S. Morrison stated that the back half were flagged.
P. Harding asked if they (Eco Tec) flagged.
S. Morrison replied they did not.
R. Lowell asked if it was clear where the controls needed to be installed.
S. Morrison agreed, he stated they would work in the back of the building and then reach in from the front to pull forward.
R. Lowell stated that there was no stock piling.
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by A. Costello, it was UNANIMOSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DETERMINTATION FOR PERRONE PROPERTIES, LLC- 876 SALISBURY STREET, ECOTEC, INC WITH THE ADDED STIPULATIONS OF PROPERLY INSTALLED STRAW BALES FOR EROSION CONTROLS AND NO STOCK PILING OF MATERIALS ON SITE.
R. Lowell asked when they would be moving forward with the project.
B. Perrone replied they want to move forward as soon as possible to stay ahead of the weather.
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- 183-593 385 Salisbury Street (Lot 3) Wingspan Properties
G. Williamson stated that she went to look at this property and they requested the Certificate of Compliance. She stated that she spoke with the applicant and they cleaned up some silt and did some repairs. She stated that everything was about 99% stabilized and the erosion controls look good.
R. Lowell asked when the work was done.
P. Harding replied last spring.
Motion by M. Krikonis, seconded by M. Scott, it was UNANIMSOULY VOTED TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR 183-593 385 SALISBURY STREET LOT 3 WINGSPAN PROPERTIES.
REQUEST FOR FULL CERTIFCATE OF COMPLIANCE (183- 535) 31 January Lane, Noble Construction
R. Lowell asked if a partial was already issued.
G. Williamson confirmed that it was. She stated that the site stabilized nicely and that the homeowners can probably remove the erosion controls.
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE THE FULL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR 183-535, 31 JANUARY LANE, NOBLE CONSTUCTION.
TROUT BROOK DAM IMPROVMENTS- DPW Dredging Pond Discussion / Project Status
P. Harding stated that G. Williamson had put together a summary for project and had requested a review with DEP and DCR. She stated that since that time the pond filled up a little higher but there was a control inlet and outlet so they are hoping that it will be approved as a minor project. She stated that it was only about 12,000 SQ FT of effective area.
K. Strom asked how deep it was.
P. Harding replied the center of the pond was about 30” with hardly anything on the edge.
G. Williamson stated that she had called DWP to do an onsite visit and they had requested more information. She stated that she had provided them with this information but that they wanted DCR (Nancy McGrath) to be onsite at the same time and that they were also concerned with the fisheries because they want to confirm that there is no trout still in the pond.
P. Harding stated she is unsure if the project will work anymore based on the recent rainfall.
G. Williamson stated that they would also have to do preconstruction notification. She asked what that involved.
R. Lowell replied it took time, he stated that if it was under the threshold it would take about a month but if it needed review it could take 4-6 months.
G. Williamson stated they wanted to do the work when the water table was at the lowest.
R. Lowell agreed. He stated it would have the least impact on the fish in those conditions. He suggested putting together a plan and permit and try to anticipate future conditions. He asked about the funding of the project.
P. Harding replied that DPW could be doing the work. She stated they were also sending the soils out for testing.
R. Lowell stated that once the work is completed and permits obtained, he believed there was a 3-5 year period of time that they could shelve the project. He stated that perhaps the Town could seize another opportunity down the line.
MOUNTVIEW- Shrewsbury Street- Update on Slope – October 24th Site Inspection
P. Harding stated that they did the slope work and while stabilizing they blocked the outlet and the storm went over the 100 year outflow and washed the slope out again. She stated it blew the soil out from under the matting. She stated that most of the rip rap was maintained but the soil was gone.
G. Williamson shared a photo with the Commission.
P. Harding stated that they would need to rip everything up and repair it again. She stated that they would need to gain access by driving over the new sod.
R. Lowell asked if the repair was scheduled yet.
L. Boucher asked why they blocked the outlet.
P. Harding replied that they wanted to stabilize the slope and they did not anticipate this size storm. She stated that it went over the spillway, not the level spreader.
M. Scott stated that it did not steer the water correctly if it wiped out the slope.
L. Boucher stated that it sounded like it blew out at the bottom of the slope next to the level spreader.
P. Harding replied it did not make it to the level spreader. She showed the Commission where the water went over the outflow.
L. Boucher stated that this was not designed well. He stated that the whole idea of the 100 year overflow in the same location of the discharge is that it should go to the same place.
P. Harding stated that Mike Andrade, Eco Tec was out there and would give an update. She stated that there was 6-8” of sediment that would need to be cleaned up as well.
A Costello asked what blocked the pipe.
P. Harding replied that they had to allow for the slope to stabilize.
G. Williamson stated that Holden received 4” of rain.
L. Boucher stated that it was the intensity of the rain. He stated the design storm is over a 24 hour period but that this storm was short.
K. Strom agreed and stated that it came too fast.
M. Scott stated the volume was like a seven but it was more intense.
L. Boucher stated that had they not blocked the pipe they could have had a similar outcome. He asked if they were going to comment on it.
P. Harding stated that they think it will be fine once it is put back together and the pipe is opened. She stated they were working on clean up now.
Wyoming Drive Drainage Improvements- DPW 183-322- Discussion / Project Status/ October 17th Site Inspection
G. Williamson stated that she visited the site today (November 2, 2016) she stated they were installing the outlet pipes and are covering structures.
P. Harding stated that they were crushing the old pipes and filling them; she stated that they were closing off the old structures.
R. Lowell asked if they were abandoning them. P. Harding confirmed they were.
L. Boucher asked if they were using flowable fill.
P. Harding replied it was on the permit. She stated that she did not think it was flowable fill, as it was a prescriptive easement. She stated that the pipe collapsed and people started to get sink holes so they were redoing the drainage.
G. Williamson stated that they were moving soils onsite so it looked as though they were doing grading.
M. Krikonis left the meeting at 8:04PM.
K. Strom asked if the project was going to be done this year.
P. Harding replied that it should be done soon.
R. Lowell asked the size of the pipe.
P. Harding replied she thought 18”
Forest Cutting Plan CH 132- DCR 134-7008-14 (Elmwood Ave Lot 5263 Wachusett and Mill Street, 2nd Extension Ducat Lumber)
G. Williamson stated that she had received a Forrest Cutting Plan from DCR on Wachusett St and Mill Street.
M. Krikonis returned to the meeting at 8:05PM.
K. Strom reviewed the document.
P. Harding stated that DCR owned the land.
G. Williamson asked if DCR owned the land, how much jurisdiction the Commission had over it. She asked if she was able to go out and see the land.
R. Lowell stated that she could go and walk it.
P. Harding stated that DCR was exempt from everything.
K. Strom stated that they needed to map the crossings.
R. Lowell stated that there was not action to be taken on this matter.
Meeting Minutes
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by K. Strom, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 5, 2016 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED BY A VOTE OF 6-0-1 (A. Costello: abstain).
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE NOVEMBER 2, 2016 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:15PM.
APPROVED: ______________