Conservation Commission, April 4, 2018
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET, SENIOR CENTER
April 4, 2018
Members Present: Rob Lowell, Michael Scott, Anthony Costello, Luke Boucher, Dave Nyman, Ken Strom
Others Present: Glenda Williamson, Conservation Agent, Liz Fotos, Town Secretary
Not Present: Pam Harding, Director of Planning and Development
Others on Sign In: Gregory Mills, RDA for Stoneleigh; Eric Veien, NOI; Paul McManus, Eco-Tec, David Lindberg, Mill Project.
R. Lowell called the meeting to order at 7:06PM.
NOTICE OF INTENT- 1 Brentwood Drive- DEP File #183-651
Assessing Map 225, Parcel 54. Eric Veien and Yumi Uetake. Removal of existing garage, construction of a new attached garage, driveway realignment, retaining wall relocation and associated site work in the 100-foot buffer of an intermittent stream. Eco-Tec, Inc. Scott Morrison
G. Williamson read the Public Hearing Notice into record.
Paul McManus was present at the meeting on behalf of the applicant.
P. McManus stated that the project was to replace the existing garage with a new one in a similar footprint. He stated that there was an intermittent stream and that there was a steep slope and that he did delineation for much of the length of the stream and there were no bordering wetlands with the exception of one small area of BVW. He stated that because the existing house and features were close to the stream, he also delineated the edge of the existing lawn. He showed the Commission the delineation in green on the plans. He also showed the Commission the location of the existing home and driveway and the outline of the existing garage. He stated that there was a downward slope and that they would use simple erosion controls around the perimeter.
R. Lowell asked if the new garage was larger or smaller in size.
P. McManus replied it was slightly larger in size.
K. Strom asked if the left side of the garage was aligned with the pre-existing structure.
P. McManus replied that the wetland side was remaining the same.
R. Lowell asked if there was demarcation along the wetland line currently or if the slope was too steep.
P. McManus replied that the existing lawn had a fairly abrupt transition a little beyond where he had flagged. He stated that you could tell that it had previously been landscaped but that it was currently overgrown.
R. Lowell asked if it was wetland plants.
P. McManus replied it was not.
K. Strom asked if the Town had walked it.
G. Williamson replied that she had.
R. Lowell stated that there would be a slight increase to impervious area.
G. Williamson stated that the erosion controls were currently just silt fence.
P. McManus stated that he had them propose a silt fence with a straw wattle.
R. Lowell stated that the difference in the footprint for the impervious area was just the delta.
P. McManus stated that part of the existing garage was on existing paving. He stated that the garage itself was 366 sq ft and the proposed was 600 sq. ft so the difference in the building size was approximately 235 sq ft. He stated that not all of that, only a portion of it was on existing impervious material.
R. Lowell asked if there were any considerations for improvements or enhancements.
P. McManus stated that G. Williamson spoke with Scott Morrison about doing some native planting. He suggested that they be located in the back of the property.
R. Lowell asked if it was conducive to do a permanent demarcation because of the topography.
P. McManus stated that the slope was abrupt and it was difficult to do the demarcation.
R. Lowell suggested some additional plantings in lieu of demarcation. K. Strom agreed.
A Costello asked for the location of the bridge.
P. McManus replied it was near flag 83.
R. Lowell asked if any members of the public wished to speak; no members of the public stepped forward.
L. Boucher suggested doing the plantings further back from the bridge area. He stated that he thought that they could find room for a half-dozen shrubs, six to eight feet apart.
P. McManus agreed.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by A. Costello, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOTICE OF INTENT- 1 Brentwood Drive- DEP File #183-651
REQUEST FOR DETERMINAITON OF APPLICABILITY- 108 Stoneleigh Road, Gregory Mills, Assessing Map 203 Parcel 47. Construction of a 29’ x 39’ one story addition, extension of the existing paved driveway within the 100-ft buffer of an intermittent stream.
G. Mills was present at the meeting. He provided copies of the map to the Commission and showed the location of the brook to the edge of the property. He stated that with the addition there will be a two-car garage and then a great room and a bathroom. He stated that the extension of the driveway would go from the existing driveway back to service the garage. . He stated that the brook was sometimes dry and that there was a steep dip and pine trees that have not been disturbed because it holds the bank and the structure.
R. Lowell asked if those would be left alone.
G. Mills replied they would. He stated that the brook moved away from the home and all of that would be left alone. He stated that there was some tree removal done by the Town because of trees falling over or rotting.
G. Mills stated that there was originally a septic system to the left before sewers went to that side of town. He stated that they did a Title V system and the addition would not interfere with that.
D. Nyman asked if the house was currently on sewer.
G. Mills replied it was not because they completed the septic system before the sewers were put in.
R. Lowell asked if they planned to keep it as a septic system.
G. Mills replied they did. He stated that it was designed for the lateral and it was done at the furthest location from the brook.
K. Strom asked if the driveway was going to be paved.
G. Mills replied that it was currently paved and the preference was to pave the addition.
R. Lowell asked what the increase to impervious area was.
G. Mills replied it would be about 24FT but he was not sure. He stated that it was basically lawn beyond the existing driveway.
R. Lowell replied 1,200 SQ FT give or take. He stated that they would be increasing impervious area and it was for an RDA. He stated that the final conditions were going to be different.
K. Strom asked if the back area was wooded.
G. Mills replied that it was wooded and they had not done anything to remove trees unless they were falling or infected.
R. Lowell asked when they proposed to do the work.
G. Mills replied that the construction would start when they received the Conservation approval.
R. Lowell stated that the intermittent stream would need to be protected especially during flow which was now until June or later. He stated that he had some concerns as this was presented as an RDA. He stated that it was similar to an NOI but the question was would the Commission need additional detail as to how they were handling the driveway. He stated that if they were going to pave it the Commission would want it managed in some capacity.
G. Mills stated that they could do crushed stone.
R. Lowell stated that if it was all paved it would be something that they would need more detail on. He stated they would need to know how they would handle the down spouts from the structure. He stated that he was leaning towards this being an NOI right now.
K. Strom stated that the structure was well away from the stream. He stated that they could condition the RDA.
M. Scott asked about the soils. He stated that gutters could help with recharge and if they used crushed stone that would help too. He asked if it was crushed stone under the deck in the back.
G. Mills replied that it was just soil. He stated that the deck would be removed for the addition and then they would add a deck to the south end so it would be further away from the wetlands at that point.
R. Lowell stated that there was a will to do an RDA with low impact construction and to specify some infiltration and erosion and protection of the resource area to make sure the excavation does not go where it was not supposed to go.
G. Williamson stated that she would not mind flagging the top.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by M. Scott, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILTIY – 108 STONELEIGH ROAD.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DETERMINATION FOR THE RDA// 108 STONELEIGH ROAD WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:
-Erosion control barriers along the edge of construction// silt fence or straw wattle in correct location
-Infiltration of roof runoff to dry well or similar mechanism to ensure that water does not drain towards brook
-Gravel or similar material driveway// no paved driveway
-G. Williamson to do a review of line and a review of erosion controls once in place.
G. Mills asked if he would receive a copy of the conditions. G. Williamson replied that he would.
R. Lowell stated that G. Williamson would visit the site before they began work.
D. Nyman stated that they should make sure the infiltration system/ dry well was the appropriate distance from the septic system.
R. Lowell stated that they should verify with their (applicant’s) engineer on this matter to ensure it would not cause any issues with the Title V System.
REQUEST FOR CERTICATE OF COMPLIACNE- DEP FILE #183-625 //1051 Princeton Street, Lot 8- David Brunelle, Assessing Map 36 Parcel 20
G. Williamson stated that 1051 Princeton Street was fully stabilized. She stated this was the house that was closer to the street. She stated that there were boulders for permanent demarcation. She stated that there was black tubing on site.
K. Strom asked if it was the foundation drain.
G. Williamson replied that it was in the line and there was a yellow hose going from the house into the wetlands as well. She stated that she called D. Brunelle and that he indicated that it was to water the trees. She stated that there was a lot of ponding under the back steps as well.
The Commission suggested that G. Williamson keep an eye on the property however with the site stable the Commission needed to move forward with the issuing of the Certificate of Compliance.
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR DEP FILE #183-625 // 1051 PRINCETON STREET, LOT 8.
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE – DEP FILE #183-64 1055 PRINCETON STREET, LOT 7 – Davide Brunelle, Assessing Map 36, Parcel 21
G. Williamson stated that the lawn was fully stabilized.
L. Boucher asked if this property had permanent demarcation.
G. Williamson stated that it was in the orders to have permanent demarcation but that the applicant stated there were no more boulders and the slope was on a 45-degree angle so if they went in with equipment the vegetation that was in there would be torn up.
R. Lowell asked if there was demarcation in any way.
G. Williamson stated that there were trees there and natural vegetation. She stated that it was fairly well protected. She stated that the applicant stated it was outside the no disturb.
M. Scott stated that it looked like it was 50ft away from the house from the plans.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE THE CERTFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR DEP FILE #183-64// 1055 PRINCETON STREET.
DISCUSSION
Holden Agricultural Commission- Open Space Evaluation/ Prioritization
G. Williamson stated that Jim Dunn, Ag Com provided an evaluation for the Commission to review. She stated that it was his methodology for classifying Chapter 61, 61A, and 61B properties. She stated that he wanted the Commission to use the evaluation tool and that they wanted to prioritize all the properties in Town.
K. Strom stated that White Oak had a number of properties that maps 61A.
G. Williamson stated that there was a GIS program but they were working on updating it with current data.
A Costello stated that he would send the Town the list from White Oak.
R. Lowell stated that this evaluation form did not talk about wetlands or wetlands protection and that number 9 discussed endangered wildlife but that the Conservation Commission would also want to consider vegetative habitats.
R. Lowell asked if this document was final or if they were just sharing it with the Conservation Commission.
G. Williamson suggested having J. Dunn into a meeting so the Commission could share their thoughts.
969 Salisbury Street (Lot 4) Tanoglu/HST Group
G. Williamson stated that there was not a lot of discussion on this matter but that the Town had been receiving a lot of phone calls about the location. She stated that they were clear cutting a large space and there was going to be a gas line as well as a few easements in addition to the house.
L. Boucher stated that it looked bigger than you would expect.
R. Lowell asked when it expired. G. Williamson replied November of this year.
Trout Brook Pond// 401 Water Quality Certification
No Change
Eagle Lake (Appeals Status/ Eagle Lake Committee)
A Costello stated that there was supposed to be a report coming out.
K. Strom stated that it seemed that the report was going to recommend that the Town buy it.
Holbrook Property
G. Williamson stated that this was closing on May 15 and the Commission needed to sign the CR at the next meeting on May 9, 2018.
MISC
K. Strom asked if the Commission would be receiving a new member.
G. Williamson stated that it was down to three potential individuals.
G. Williamson stated that the May meeting was rescheduled to May 9, 2018.
1049 Princeton Street: Photos were provided about plowing into a wetlands. R. Lowell suggested starting this matter with a conversation with the owners that were plowing into the wetland and asking them to pull out the materials that were plowed into them.
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOSULY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE APRIL 4, 2018 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:15PM.
APPROVED: ______________