Conservation Commission, October 1, 2014
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET
OCTOBER 1, 2014
Members Present: Robert Lowell, Luke Boucher (7:06PM), Kenneth Strom, Michael Scott, Anthony Costello
Members Absent: Matthew Kennedy, Mike Krikonis
Staff Present: Pam Harding, Conservation Agent; Liz Fotos Recording Secretary
Others on Sign In:Iqbal Ali, Fisher Terrace; David Getman, DCR; Mark Popham, Greenstone Realty; Denise Bartone, NSTAR; Norm Vigeant, 136 Bullard; Paul McManus, EcoTec, Inc.; Glen Krevosky, EBT Environmental;
7:05PM Meeting Called to order by R. Lowell.
R. Lowell informed the public that there were four members present and therefore a quorum.
NOTICE OF INTENT- Wachusett Valley Estates, Greenstone Properties, LLC- 36 Lot Subdivisions
L. Boucher entered the meeting at 7:06PM.
Mr. Jeffrey Brem, Meisner Brem Corporate and Mr. Mark Popham, Applicants wetland scientist. were both present to provide the Conservation Commission an update on Wachusett Valley Estates, Greenstone Properties. J. Brem stated that Mr. Josh Olson, Greenstone Properties was unable to attend the meeting.
The location of the wetlands at 325 Bullard Street was being questioned at the last meeting (September 3, 2014). At this time J. Brem told the Conservation Commission that there was currently a survey planned, prepared and stamped with new flag locations that had been confirmed by EcoTec, Inc.
R. Lowell asked if the plans showed the proposed lot lines. M. Popham replied they were shown in relation to the subdivision; Mr. Pophams flags and EcoTec, Inc. adjustments were both shown on the plan..
J. Brem stated that he did not anticipate being able to complete the review tonight (October 1, 2014). He stated that the changes that were made were significant and they affected the lots in the area. J. Brem stated that he changed proposed lot lines and sewer lines to not do any work within the 25FT no disturb zone.
J. Brem handed out updated plans. The first changes that needed to be made were regarding the 25FT no disturb zone J. Brem showed where they had previously had a detention basin that discharged into a Zone A and stated that the Commission would not allow it so a bioretention area was located across the street. In addition to needing to comply with the 25FT buffer, the Planning Board and DPW wanted a 75’ offset to Wagner Lane. pavement edge to pavement edge.
The second change that was made was to relocate the storm water discharge from the Zone A. J. Brem showed the two potential ways that they could accomplish this task. The first was indicated by blue line. It showed discharging to an existing catch basin. The problem with this option is that DPW does not want to do it. The alternative option was shown in orange. The orange line showed discharging to Zone A (more than 25FT but into the wetlands).
J. Brem and J. Olson had asked Mr. Dave Getman from DCR to visit the property and see if it met the criteria for Zone A. D. Getman went to the property and did not find a bank so the applicants are trying to get the property reclassified. J. Brem stated that he had contacted Marielle Stone, DEP and she had escalated the matter to Boston.
J. Brem asked the Commission if they could ask Paul McManus, Eco Tec, Inc. to do the same review of the property that D. Getman had completed. If P. McManus found the same results as D. Getman and submitted a report showing the same findings it was possible that the changes to the classification of the property could be made.
R. Lowell asked D. Getman if he had been to the property. D. Getman responded that he had been to the site on Monday, September 22, 2014 and had completed a review. He stated that there was a discharge pipe from the street to the wetlands. He also stated that there were pockets throughout the wetlands and there were hydraulic radium from the uppermost portion but no channel areas.
R. Lowell asked if there was enough volume to see a channel. D. Getman responded that he did not find the channel but that he would defer to the experts.
R. Lowell asked P. McManus, EcoTec, Inc. the Commission’s peer review consultant if he would be able to do to review. P. McManus replied that he would approach it the same way that D. Getman did; he would do transects along contour lines and see if there was any flow.
P. McManus outlined his understanding of what the Commission was requesting of him. He stated that as he understands it, the Zone A definition is offset through a tributary. He stated a tributary is a defined channel and further that he used the definition of streams from wetland regulations. He said the issue that is presenting itself was the question of whether there is a definite channel on the property. P. McManus stated that in his mind a definite channel is physically discernable and obvious and that if that was acceptable to the Commission then he could move forward with the review.
R. Lowell stated that was acceptable to the Commission. He opened it up to the public. No public comments were made.
J. Brem asked if the Commission would direct P. McManus to review the property. R. Lowell replied yes, they would.
Mr. Mark Popham, c presented further information to the Commission. He showed the pink lines that delineated the 25FT of no disturb zone. He stated that the plan was to have no activity around the newly delineated center wetland area; structures, utilities, service lines, etc. would all be beyond the 25FT zone. M. Popham showed the Commission that the orange showed siltation controls that paralleled back. He stated that within the 100FT buffer zone to the wetlands there were several residences; 3 of the lots would lie within that area so some utility connections would be within the 100FT buffer zone, however everything was outside the 25FT zone.
M. Popum stated that for lots 11 and 12 shown on the subdivision plan, they would be required to cross over that ditch (intermittent brook feature). He stated that it was consistent with 2.7FT width. He stated that they wanted to mimic the capacity of the channel. M. Popham left copies with the Commission of the two crossings. He stated they wanted to leave the channel “as is” and essentially install level 18” culver pipes that mimic the channel. He stated they would fit into the bottom of those 2 channels and sit on stone and driveway fill (just enough to get some cover over the channel). He stated that it was no fill per se in the channel other than the stabilizing stone.
M. Popham stated it would remain as an open channel as designed and it would retain the rest of the channel as it is through the development through the lots and only be disturbed at the driveway sites.
R. Lowell asked if the ditch was meant to keep the water level in the wetlands low. M. Popham replied that they did not know. He stated that it looks as though there is a section at the start of the channel feature that allows it to fill up a little before draining out. He stated that it appears to be very old, that the channel was older than the pipe.
R. Lowell asked if they thought it would get more flow as a result of the new development. J. Brem replied no. He showed that all the drainage for the roadways went into catch basins.
K. Strom clarified if the Commission was considering lots or just roadways. M. Popham replied that the original notice of intent was for all of it. He stated that through the process it has been agreed that there were now features that needed to be looked at in conjunction with the entire subdivision.
K. Strom agreed and asked if the Commission was going to look at each lot separately. J. Brem replied that he didn’t think so. He didn’t think it changed the state application.
P. Harding asked to discuss that further. She stated that P. McManus said that the wetlands are bordering vegetative wetlands and the ditch is an intermittent stream. She said that would change it jurisdictionally for the state.
M. Popham replied that the total area impacted is 520 square feet and actual work being done in 130 square feet. He stated that he believes that at this point everyone would agree that it was a drainage channel for some purpose and it was created by excavating down. He stated it does not flow, it terminates. M. Popham stated that Eco Tec, Inc. determined that it has a beginning and an end and is not going anywhere and therefore stream standards do not apply.
J. Brem stated that in P. McManus’ report it states it is an intermittent stream. P. McManus replied that it is his opinion that the channel was likely put in by a farmer which probably in natural state without channel had more water than it could now. He stated the channel is several feet and would drain that area. He further said that he had not witnessed water flowing in the area; but that he does think water flows in the area. P. McManus stated that there is clearly a grading to the channel and that it then dissipates on the hillside and then over the natural grade occurs. P. McManus stated it was their opinion that the channel is draining the vegetative wetlands. Based on this information he stated that he would disagree with M. Popham that stream crossings don’t apply. P. McManus finished by stating that it is his opinion that it is a stream and that he does not see any way around it.
J. Brem asked where that left them.
R. Lowell asked if it was partially vegetative. P. McManus replied that it was largely non vegetative; he stated they did not feel it was a long thin BVW and that all parties agreed on that.
M. Popham stated that they had presented their information to the Commission. He asked that prior to review, could P. McManus review the details to see if it satisfied various Town criteria and see if the details provided satisfied the Town by-laws.
P. McManus replied that if the Commission decided, the applicant may want to ask the opinion on stream crossing standards. He stated the ratios that the applicant had provided do not meet the openness requirements.
P. McManus also stated that on the bigger picture regarding the filing, it was his understanding that the original filing did not include specific houses.
M. Popham replied the original plans did include lots. P. McManus asked if on the original plans, were there any houses in the buffer zone.
J. Brem responded just on lot 26. M. Popham stated that the area was depicted.
K. Strom asked if the notice of intent included the lots with the crossing.
M. Popham replied just one lot.
J. Brem stated that regardless of lots, there was roadwork that needed to be reviewed by DEP. He asked if they should add the lots to the filing or deal with the lots at a later time.
P. Harding replied that the Commission has historically required separate filings because they do not like to issue partial certificates of compliance.
P. Harding stated that if the applicant was going to contest the peer review of designating the new wetland system as BVW and the corresponding channel as an intermittent of the stream, she believed that it should be done in written format so that it can be reviewed and a determination could be made appropriately.
J. Brem stated that they will submit that information in writing. He stated that he believed the subdivision was ready to go and the big open question was the question of the Zone A.
M. Popham stated as a point of information that the applicant was leaving lots to a later point but that it was important to have the Commission’s input relative to the 2 lots in question because it impacted their meeting with the Planning Board.
L. Boucher asked if a separated filing could be done for the two lots now.
J. Brem asked if they could do a common driveway for those 2 houses.
P. Harding stated that it was allowed by special permit but that J. Olson declined that option. M. Popham replied that they had explored it and that the common driveway resulted in substantial loss of value.
R. Lowell replied that the developer would need to make those adjustments.
A. Costello said that it was his understanding that the drainage design was going to divert some of the water that would normally go into the wetlands.
J. Brem confirmed it. A. Costello asked if it should be going into the wetlands.
R. Lowell asked if they had delineated the watershed for the wetlands. J. Brem replied they had not but they could do that.
M. Scott asked if the Town Engineering Department had reviewed the plans yet.
P. Harding stated they had not yet reviewed the new plans but they would. She stated the Town had just received revised information. P. Harding also stated that it was voted to have a peer review for drainage completed in addition to the Town Engineer review. She said that she was waiting for Zone A information before it was sent out for review to Graves Engineering.
R. Lowell asked if there were any additional public comments. No public comments were made. He stated that this will be continued to the November 5, 2015 Conservation Commission Meeting.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by A. Costello, it was UNANIMOSLY VOTED TO CONTINUE THE NOTICE OF INTENT FOR WACHUSETT VALLEY ESTATES, GREENSTONE PROPERTIES, LLC, 36 LOT SUBDIVISION UNTIL NOVEMBER 5, 2014.
NOTICE OF INTENT-Fisher Terrace Phase II- Fisher Terrace Phase II Construction of 12 additional condominium units.
Mr. Patrick Berk and Mr. Lincoln Ross, HS & T Group were present, with Glen Krevosky from EBT Environmental
P. Berk stated that he had just been notified that the order that was extended had expired and that they needed a new notice extended.
P. Berk stated that the proposed work is on an abutting parcel his client had purchased and is adding to the townhouses that crosses the wetlands. P. Berk stated that the plan was not complete however because they had not been in front of the Commission in some time, they wanted to appear and inform the Commisison the amendments were progressing..
P. Harding stated that the order expired September 15, 2014 for Phase I.
G. Krevosky stated that there were several matters that would need to be adjusted; move buildings away from wetlands, DCR review, water quality, re flag, etc. He asked how the Commission would handle the expired notice and how to move forward.
P. Harding replied that it was an open hearing and the notice had only expired two weeks prior, so it would be up to the Commission as to how they would like to proceed;
M. Scott asked how much work was remaining in Phase I. P. Harding replied the back duplexes and the associated driveway for an upland crossing..
M. Scott asked if it was all within the buffer zone. P. Harding replied it was partially within it.
R. Lowell stated that the project had been very quiet for some time.
M. Scott asked if it was possible to amend the notice and include Phase I. He stated that in his past experienced with DEP, the Commission was not able to retro act anything. P. Harding replied that she believed there was case law pertaining to the matter.
K. Strom asked what needed to be done to complete Phase I. Mr. Ali stated that the foundation was already in and that he was waiting to make the duplexes. He stated the driveway was in but not paved and that two other foundations were not in yet.
R. Lowell asked if that all needed to be completed before Phase II. Mr. Ali responded yes.
R. Lowell stated that he would rather extend Phase I than amend the NOI to Phase II. G. Krevosky agreed and stated that different phases had different regulations they needed to adhere to. P. Harding stated she would consult with Phil Nadeau at DEP to determined if DEP would be opposed to an extension.
G. Krevosky stated that they would have the formal request to extend the order into the Town by tomorrow (October 2, 2014)
R. Lowell asked about Phase II and the time frame the applicant anticipated.
The applicants stated that they needed to sure up the drainage report with catch basins and culver crossings and that they would be back in front of the Commission soon with this information.
P. Harding asked if they had a Zone A designated on the plans. The applicant stated they did not.
P .Harding said she did not want them to have any issues with storm water treatment in Zone A so she wanted to bring it to their attention at this point.
R. Lowell stated that they should anticipate the request for extension from the applicant. G. Krevosky replied that it would be in to the Town by 9:30, October 2, 2014.
R. Lowell asked if there were any public comments. No public comments were made.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by A. Costello, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CONTINUE THE NOTICE OF INTENT FOR FISHER TERRACE PHASE II, CONSTRUCTION OF 12 ADDITIONAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS UNTIL NOVEMBER 5, 2014.
NSTAR GAS- Putnam Lane/ Putnam Road
Ms. Denise Barton from NSTAR was present.
D. Barton stated that NSTAR was proposing to install 500FT into Putnam Lane. She stated it is within the 100FT buffer zone. She stated they wanted to do the open trench method and that it would be temporary. D. Barton outlined that they wish to do 1-2 FT trench bucket length doing 3FT deep laying in the pipe and moving excess soil that will be carted off and disposed of properly. D. Barton stated that work would be within 1 day (typically do 200FT/ day) and that if needed they would put a road plate in. D. Barton stated that the services are within landscaped lawn and that homeowners were responsible to address their own lawns. NSTAR would be responsible for repaving. Total length of the project is estimated at 14 days.
R. Lowell asked if they were trenching in the wetlands. D. Barton replied no, in the buffer. She showed the commission the color version of the plans and stated that they use wattles, not hay bales.
L. Boucher asked if they could extend the erosion control barrier along the driveway (the one to the north of the wetlands). D. Baron replied that they could extend it if the Commission wanted.
P. Harding stated that she believed the topography was fairly flat. K. Strom asked if P. Harding could confirm that fact.
P. Harding replied they could do it as a condition of the RDA.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DETERMINATION AS DEPICTED ON THE SKETCH.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- DEP File #183-382 Sewer Main Installation.
Wachusett Street between Lincoln and Malden, C. B Blair Development, Corp. This is an order from 2001 for the installation of a sewer main to service Approval Not Required lots on Wachusett Street. The project was completed in 2004 but a Certificate of Compliance was never given.
The Commission asked P. Harding some clarification questions regarding the project and its location. P. Harding answered.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by M. Scott, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR DEP FILE #183-382 SEWER MAIN INSTALLATION ON WACHUSETT STREET BETWEEN LINCOLN AND MALDEN.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- DEP File #183-341 700 Main Street-Expansion of parking area.
R. Lowell asked if the stability of the site should be verified. P. Harding replied that they have a permit under DCR. They want to have a compliance certificate, they were initially denied but it was believed that the issues were rectified.
Continued to November 5, 2014 meeting.
RESIGNING OF ORDER- Lot 6 Erin’s Way
The Applicant lost the original Order before it was recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
The Commission signed two lost orders; 6 Erin’s Way and 30 Cimarron Way.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by K. Strom, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTD BY A VOTE OF 4-0-1 (M. Scott: abstained).
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE OCTOBER 1, 2014 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:40PM.
APPROVED: ______________________