Conservation Commission, September 7, 2016

HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION

1130 MAIN STREET

September 7, 2016

Members Present:  Matt Kennedy, Mike Scott, Anthony Costello, Kenneth Strom, Luke Boucher, Mike Krikonis, Rob Lowell, Kenneth Strom (7:10PM)

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

Others on Sign In: Scott Morrison, EcoTech, Inc; Carl Hulturey, Quinn Enginnering; Cathlene Christiano, Birchwood Drive; Chris Lucas, Lucas Environmental, LLC; Julian Votruba, Stoney Brook Estates; Isabel McCauley, DPW

M. Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:00PM.

P. Harding introduced Glenda Williamson to the Commission; she stated that G. Williamson would be working as a part time Conversation Agent for the Town and would be attending meetings.

ORDER OF CONDITIONS- Review of Drainage – Stoney Brook Estates

L. Boucher recused himself from the meeting at 7:02PM.

Julian Votruba, New England Environmental Design LLC, was present on behalf of Stoney Brook Estates.  He stated that he believes everyone is happy with the final plan but that it is still being reviewed by Graves Engineering.

G. Williamson left the meeting at 7:03PM.

J. Votruba stated that there was going to be a drain going to the pump station where there used to be a swale.  He stated that they came up with a closed pipe system that dumps the water into the wetland area because it was felt that the original design may fail over the life of the system and this was a better alternative.

G. Williamson returned to the meeting at 7:04PM.

J. Votruba stated that they were taking the pipe over the abutter’s property but they wanted to minimize the impact on the backyard.  He stated that they were waiting to hear from Graves Engineering.   J. Votruba stated that he had met with Mike Andrade, Graves Engineering on Thursday (September 1, 2016) and that he had made a few suggestions such as having the pipe extend so it did not discharge into the pond.

P. Harding stated that the Planning Board had requested that Graves Engineering do a peer review.  She stated she did have comments from Graves Engineering and it seems as though the plans being presented should be approvable. 

R. Lowell asked what the estimated velocity at the end of the pipe was.

J. Votruba replied that he did not have the exact number.  He stated that the pipe was level for a good distance, which was one of Graves Engineering’s changes.  He stated that there was a .0096 slope for about 100FT so it would really bring the energy down.

R. Lowell asked who’s property the water was discharging onto. 

J. Votruba replied it was Luke Boucher’s property.

P. Harding stated that there were wetlands in the buffer zone and they had requested the flags to be redone as they had fallen off over the years.

M. Kennedy asked if there were any public comment; no member of the public stepped forward.

I McCauley, Senior Civil Engineer, DPW was present at the meeting.  She asked if Mike Andrade, Graves Engineering commented on the initial recommendation to split the flow and if there was any concern about not doing that.

P. Harding replied that it was initially recommended due to some slope concerns at the top of the discharge point however discharge was now at the bottom of the pond.

I McCauley asked if he (Mike Andrade) was good with that. 

P. Harding replied that she would forward the review plan; she stated that he seems to think that will be good.

Motion by M. Scott, seconded by R. Lowell, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE CHANGES TO THE DRAINAGE FOR STONEY BROOK ESTATES AS PRESENTED AND RECOMMNED THE CHANGES UNDER THE EXISTING ORDER OF CONDITIONS BY A VOTE OF 7-0-1(L. Boucher: abstain).

EXTENSION OF TIME 109 ARIZONA AVENUE- DEP FILE # 183-528

P. Harding stated that this order would expire in October and the work has not yet started; they are asking for a two year extension of time for the completion of the single family home.

M. Kennedy asked if there was any reason the order should not be extended. 

P. Harding replied that she did not see a reason to not approve it.

M. Kennedy asked if there was any public comment; no members of the public stepped forward.

Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO GRANT A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 109 ARIZONA AVENUE, DEP FILE NUMBER 183-528.

NOTICE OF INTENET- Greenwood Estates- DEP File #183-612 Jackson Woods Investment, LLC Union Street Assessing Map and Parcels 132-95, 132-80 and 148-47

C. Blair, Greenwood Estates was present at the meeting; he stated that they are in the middle of redoing the comments on the property and that John Woodsmall recommended that they come in and speak with the Commission to get an opinion on crossings.

C. Blair stated that DPW wants them to use fill and not use retaining walls on the project and he does not want to do that; he stated he wanted the Commission’s opinion on the use of fill versus the retaining walls.

K. Strom entered the building at 7:10PM.

Chris Lucas, Lucas Environmental LLC was present at the meeting on behalf of Greenwood.  

M. Kennedy asked what the concern with retaining walls was.

I McCauley stated that DPW did not want to have retaining walls in the right of way; they don’t want to own them or maintain them.

P. Harding stated that when the retaining walls were on the lots owned by the Home Owners Association and DPW did not want to accept public ways that have infrastructure owned by an HOA.

I McCauley stated that they had been clear from the beginning that they did not want to see retaining walls in the right of way. She stated that retaining walls were not just the blocks, she stated there was more to the wall; footings and geo grids.  She stated if the whole structure was outside of the right of way it would be one thing but the way that it was currently proposed portions of it were in the right of way.

C. Lucas stated that if they did not do a retaining wall the impacts that would be created to the wetland would be large and would trigger preconstruction notification requirements. 

M. Kennedy asked if there was anything in the Subdivision Control Regulations that states the Town will not accept retaining walls.

P. Harding replied that the Control Regulations stated that they stated that nothing was allowed in the right of way.

I McCauley stated that what J. Woodsmall and DPW expressed to the developer was that they will look at it if there was no other solution but they believe that the developer can build the slopes and replicate the wetlands.  She stated that they would rather see slopes and less retaining walls that were owned by an HOA and eventually the Town.

C. Lucas stated that the slope was a significant impact and he does not see it being approvable.

R. Lowell asked if they would still be significant with a longer span of a bridge.

C. Lucas replied that the Town did not want more than 20FT of span either.

M. Kennedy asked where the walls and additional fill would be located.

J. Votruba showed the Commission where they had the walls going in; he stated that they were trying to save the wetlands and it had the wall on one side and the fill would begin the contour to slope.  He showed the Commission the plans.

J. Votruba stated that they were within 300FT of intersection so needed a 5% grade of the road.  He stated they couldn’t dip down because they would not meet roadway requirements if they did.

C. Lucas stated the third option that they looked at was to have alternate access from Highland Avenue; he stated that they ran the calculations on that and there would be 50FT of distance and it would not be feasible to get grades that way.

M. Kennedy stated there was a 2:1 slope.

C. Blair stated it was a 1:1 slope.

M. Kennedy stated that the drawings were not to scale.  C. Lucas agreed.

M. Scott asked if it was proposed at a 2:1 slope or a 1:1 slope.

J. Votruba stated it was proposed at a 2:1 slope.

M. Kennedy asked what the maximum slope they can do would be.

I McCauley replied that they can do a 1:1 slope.

M. Kennedy stated that they can steepen the slope by double so instead of using the retaining wall they can steepen the slope to reduce the impact to the wetlands.

C. Lucas stated that they can look at the numbers with the 1:1; he stated that they may be able to cut it in half but he suspects that it would still be over 5000FT and that it would still be a concern with DEP. 

I McCauley stated that they (DPW) told the developer that if they do not feel as though there is another option they (DPW) would look at it but that the Town had done other subdivisions (Oak Hill) with slopes and there was a lot less infrastructure that needed to be maintained.

C. Blair asked if the Commission thought a 1:1 slope would be okay if it cut the impact in half.

M. Kennedy stated that it would be up to the DPW.

I McCauley stated that a 1:1 slope was okay as long as it was designed by a geotechnical engineer and met all standards. 

C. Blair stated that they would rather do a 1:1 slope than the wall; he stated they were just looking beyond that to see what DEP was going to say.

M. Kennedy replied that they don’t really know that.

C. Lucas replied that they would need to speak with DEP. 

M. Kennedy asked if when they were discussing the impact they were speaking about the retaining wall construction impact or up to the limit of the wall.

J. Votruba replied up to the limit of the wall.

M. Kennedy replied that was not correct as they would need to build it as well.

J. Votruba replied that it would be temporary impact beyond that number.

Carl Holtgren, Quinn Engineering was present at the meeting.  He stated that he also had a question and wanted access off both sides of the subdivision evaluated.

C. Blair replied that they had evaluated both sides; access from either side Highland or Hearing would create the same issue.  He stated he would send the information to C. Quinn.

C. Lucas asked if the Commission would be open to a 1:1 slope if it worked for DPW.

M. Kennedy stated that he wanted to understand the situation and what they were showing.  He stated he wanted to understand the wall versus another way.

C. Lucas replied that they could take a look.

M. Kennedy asked if there was any other way to minimize impact.

C. Lucas replied that he believes those are the only options; he stated shifting it would not work because it is at the best location.

M. Kennedy asked if anyone reevaluated the realignment and if that was as low as they could go.

J. Votruba replied that because of the road alignment and the minimum grade of the intersection (5%) it was the lowest they could go.

M. Kennedy asked the Town if there was a hard line on the 5%.

J. Votruba stated that J. Woodsmall had told him there was a hard line on this regulation.

C. Blair stated that he had asked if they could get a waiver on this.

I McCauley asked if they were speaking about the slope of the road.

M. Kennedy replied that they were speaking about the vertical alignment of the road itself; he stated if they went lower there would be different opportunities.

I McCauley replied that she did not see DPW recommending changing the 5% requirement.

P. Harding replied that the Town requirement was 5% for 300FT.

J. Votruba replied that they were right around the 300FT mark

I McCauley stated that Union Street had a pretty big slope.

M. Kennedy asked how high the retaining wall would be.

C. Blair replied about 28FT.

M. Kennedy replied that he could see the concern.

I McCauley stated that the max slope within the right of way would need to be 2:1.

M. Kennedy stated that was just in the right of way.

C. Lucas replied that they could look into that.

M. Kennedy asked if there was anything that could be done with the road to align it a little bit more.

J. Votruba replied that they studied the grade and road alignment pretty hard.

C. Blair stated that there were a few cul de sacs that they looked at that would not work either.

M. Kennedy asked where the replication area was going to be.

C. Lucas showed the Commission on the plan the location of the replication areas; he stated they may move it though.

L. Boucher asked where they would move it to.

C. Lucas stated that they would need a new area and they would need to re-identify a larger area.

J. Votruba showed the Commission a large area that was adjacent to the wetlands that may be conducive to the replication area

C. Lucas stated that they would be looking at it again to see if that area was in the best location. He stated that they wanted to minimize clearing.

R. Lowell stated that this was challenging.

M. Kennedy stated that a wider span would help some but that if it went too wide there would be permitting issues.

C. Lucas stated that if they went over 5000SQ FT they would need to go to DEP and they will scrutinize the analysis.  He stated before the filing happened he wanted to come before the Commission to discuss the options. 

I McCauley asked about the plans; she stated the ones that she had did not match the ones being spoken about.

M. Kennedy stated that if the wall was outside the right of way it would meet the Towns regulations.

I McCauley stated that everything would need to be out of the right of way; the wall, the geogrid, everything.

C. Blair stated that all of it was moved outside of the right of way.

M. Kennedy stated that if the whole wall was outside of the right of way the alternatives analysis may tell them (developer) that they have to do it.  He stated if it was preference vs. regulation you will have to minimize the wetland fill.

L. Boucher stated that the geo grid would be 20FT.

C. Lucas stated that it was also a rocky hillside.

M. Kennedy suggested doing a 2:1 ratio until they were far enough out of the right of way and then do a wall.

C. Blair asked how far out they would need to go.

I McCauley replied 15-20FT.

C. Blair stated that they could do stone and minimize the geo grid.

M. Kennedy stated that believed they would need to go with whatever alternative minimized wetland fill and then follow Town’s regulations.  He stated if there was a wall it would need to be designed by someone.

A Costello asked if the wall was outside the right of way who would maintain it.

C. Blair replied that HOA.

I McCauley stated that DPW preferred slopes.  She requested a copy of the plans that showed the retaining wall outside the right of way.

C. Lucas replied he would resend it.

K. Strom asked if Carl Holtgren, Quinn Engineering had gone over his report. 

C. Holtgren replied this was one of their comments as well.

C. Lucas stated that they were looking at this first because it was a challenging and critical aspect to the design. 

C. Blair stated that no one environmentally was going to approve that much fill. 

C. Lucas stated that he felt as thought they needed to analyze the 1:1 slope and pull the geo grid out of the right of way.  He stated that way they can move forward with the understanding that they are still meeting Town regulations.

M. Kennedy replied that they should look at whatever they can within reason that meets the Town Subdivision Regulations.  He stated that preference is not as strong as a determining factor but that the design needs to be good.

M. Kennedy stated that the matter was continued to the October 3, 2016 Conservation Commission Meeting.

C. Blair replied that they will have the revisions to Quinn Engineering by then as well.

NOTICE OF INTENT-  Erin Christiano Dep File #183-922 Salisbury Street, Assessing Map and Parcel 250-11 Septic Replacement

S. Morrison, Eco Tech was present at the meeting.  He stated that this was a Single Family Home that the septic system did not pass Title V so they wanted to replace it.  S. Morrison stated that there was bordering vegetative wetlands to the east of the site and wetlands across that flowed to the culvert.  He stated that there was 100FT buffer that extended and straddled the house.  He stated that essentially this proposed location was the only area that a septic could fit and use a gravity system.

S. Morrison stated that they would protect it with a silt fence and there would be minimal grading to get the system in.  They would replace it, loam and seed and then remove the erosion controls.

M. Kennedy asked if there was any sewer tie in.

S. Morrison replied there was not.

L. Boucher asked the location of the current system in the front of the property.

S. Morrison showed them the vicinity of the system and stated he did not know specifically.

P. Harding stated that she and Glenda Williamson had visited the site and the wetlands looked fine.  She stated there was some yard debris and they requested haybales along with the silt fences.

S. Morrison asked if they wanted straw wattles.  P. Harding confirmed they did.

M. Scott asked if the rear yard was wooded now and how far away from the trees it was.

S. Morrison replied that it was a lawn and it was close to the back property line.

P. Harding stated that it was close to the wetlands.

K. Strom asked what the debris was in the wetlands.  P. Harding replied it was grass clippings.

K. Strom asked if it was White Oaks Property. 

S. Morrison replied it was. 

R. Lowell asked if they could condition to have the debris removed from the resource area.

K. Strom replied it was not their property.

M. Kennedy asked if there were any members of the public wishing to speak; no members of the public stepped forward.

G. Williamson asked how soon they wanted to start the project.

S. Morrison stated that the house was on the market and there had been a previous buyer back out because of the time it was taking to approve the work.  He stated that it would go to bid and try to move forward with the installation as soon as possible so the house could be sold.

Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOTICE OF INTENT ERIN CHRISTIANO DEP FILE #183-922 SALISBURY STREET, ASSESSEING MAP AND PARCEL 250-11 SEPTIC REPLACMENT.

Motion by K. Strom, seconded by R. Lowell, it was UNANIMOSLY VTOED TO APPROVE THE NOTICE OF INTENT/ERIN CHRISTIANO DEP FILE #183-922 WITH A STANDARD ORDER OF CONDITIONS PLUS STRAW WATTLES IN ADDITION TO THE SILT FENCE THAT IS SHOWN.

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- DEP File # 183-593 385 Salisbury Street (Lot 3) Wingspan Properties

P. Harding stated that they did not inspect the slope so she was not recommending issuing the certificate of compliance at this time.

REQUEST FOR AMENDED NOI- LOT 4 SALISBURY STREET –DEP File #183-613 Senharip Tanoglu/ Pat Burke HST

P. Harding stated that this was an existing order for a pool and a retaining wall and the applicant had changed the grading and eliminated the retaining wall.  She stated that they were looking to amend the NOI that was issued.

K. Strom stated that he felt as thought the changes were fairly substantial. He stated it would be a bad precedent to approve such a radical change.

M. Scott pointed out the location of the utilities.

L. Boucher agreed he stated that in the initial plan the utilities were almost out of the 100FT buffer and now they were way inside of it.

M. Kennedy stated it looked like something that was approvable.

P. Harding stated that she will let the applicant know that they will need to file an amended NOI. 

FORREST CUTTING PLAN CH 132- DCR 134-8317-17 Elmwood Ave Lot 5263

P. Harding told the Commission that the information was in their package at their request.

CHAPTER 61A Release: Lot 8A River Street, Map 90 Parcel 33 Richard Ricker representing Earl and Serena Massey (owners)

P. Harding stated that the applicant was carving out an ANR lot and under 61A the Town gets the first right of refusal of the property.  She stated that there was a purchase and sales included for $80,000.  She stated there was a steep slope and no wetland resource in the area.

L. Boucher asked what the area in the back was.

P. Harding stated it was the remaining land that was under 61A owned by Massey.

Motion by K. Strom, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOSLY VOTED THAT THE LOT 8A RIVER STREET, MAP 90 PARCEL 33 HAS NO CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE.

WATERSHED PROTECTION ACT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

The DCR proposes to rescind a regulation found at 350 CMR 11.00 (Watershed Protection) and to replace it with a new regulation found at 313 CMR 11.00.  Comments will be received and posted public hearings. 

R. Lowell stated that they are changing the watershed act but that it is not a substantive change; they are doing it to update the divisional identity.

P. Harding replied that was her understanding as well.  She stated that they had gone through the redline version and it was more housekeeping stuff.

R. Lowell stated that it was to have the water supply more align with reservoir purpose and to update the language of the act. 

Next meeting:  October 5, 2016

Motion by K. Strom, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:07PM.

APPROVED:  _____________