Conservation Commission, April 5, 2017
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET
April 5, 2017
Members Present: Matt Kennedy, Rob Lowell Mike Scott, Luke Boucher, Anthony Costello, K. Strom
Members Absent: Mike Krikonis
Others Present: Pam Harding, Conservation Agent, Glenda Williamson, Conservation Assistant, Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary
Others on Sign In: Julian Votruba; NE Environmental Design, LLC; Craig and Cindy Smith, 171 Jennifer Drive; Kim and Al Vuona, 182 Jennifer Drive; Kevin Stone, 53 Courtney Drive; Nancy Gaudette, 162 Jennifer Drive; Tammy Fitzgerald, 190 Jennifer Drive; Ted Peterson, 87 Britney Drive; Kathy Peterson, 87 Britney Drive; Glenn Gaudette, 162 Jennifer Drive; Toney Amico, 6 Courtney Drive; Peter Hawley, 150 Broad Street; C. Blair, Stoney Brook Estates, John Boardman, Places Associates;
M. Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:03PM.
NOTICE OF INTENT- Stoney Brook Estates, LLC- 11 Courtney Drive Assessing Map 157 Parcel 111. New England Environmental
Construction of a Single –Family Home and Driveway
G. Williamson read the Public Hearing notice into record.
Julian Votruba, New England Environmental Design was present at the meeting.
J. Votruba stated that on the corner of Courtney Drive there is a lot. He showed the Commission the location of the existing detention pond and stated that they have room to put a single-family home with a driveway on Courtney Drive. He stated they were not disturbing the 25FT no disturb, there is an existing outflow culvert out of the detention pond and they were bringing it back to the right state. He stated that all grades were relatively flat until the back and the home would have a walk out basement in the back.
M. Kennedy asked the Commission if they had any questions.
K. Strom stated there were a lot of issues with the pond.
J. Votruba stated that they had cleaned it last spring.
P. Harding stated that they came in to the Commission in 2006 with the same proposal to do a single-family home. She stated that they were asked for a maintenance plan for the detention pond and for funds to be set aside in escrow for the purchaser of the home because they would own the detention pond. She stated that it was left in limbo as the applicant never fulfilled the request from the Commission. P. Harding stated there was no HOA and the land owner was responsible for the detention pond. She stated this was the only lot not built upon and the applicant had been neglecting maintenance on the lot for some years. She stated last fall the Town requested it be cleaned up and the applicant complied.
M. Kennedy stated that he is sure that the Commission would have the same concerns now as they did then.
K. Strom asked if the pond was sufficient size and capacity.
P. Harding stated that the as-builts were provide for stormwater and they did find it sufficient at the time of construction of the subdivision.
M. Kennedy asked if they knew the high level of the pond.
J. Votruba replied he did not know it but could get it. He stated that the slab was at the height of the berm.
M. Kennedy asked if it was public water and sewer.
J. Votruba confirmed it was.
M. Kennedy asked about the O&M Plan and how they would ensure that there was not grading around the pond and that it would not lose capacity.
J. Votruba stated that there was a fence that would be repaired.
M. Kennedy asked if it would be the home owner’s property.
P. Harding stated that there was a drainage easement around the fence and pond.
M. Kennedy asked who that was for.
P. Harding replied it was for drainage not specified to anyone.
R. Lowell stated that they needed a fence in.
J. Votruba replied that there was one.
M. Kennedy stated that it was about 5FT and that it had potential to be moved by the homeowner. He stated that it was also at a weird angle.
L. Boucher stated that it did not follow the 906 contour which seemed to be the top of the basin.
M. Kennedy stated that they would want that situation addressed; a yard that protects the basin so a homeowner doesn’t alter it later. He stated the other concern was that there was a culvert there and then wetlands so there was virtually no yard available to the homeowner.
G. Williamson agreed and stated that it dropped off behind.
R. Lowell asked if it was vegetative over the culvert.
J. Votruba replied it was kind of. G. Williamson stated it was low shrub.
L. Boucher asked about the discharge pipe.
J. Votruba showed the Commission the location. He stated it runs out over the ditch to the wetlands.
G. Williamson stated that there was a small pipe with water flowing heavily. She stated that it was not a big pipe but the water was coming out and it was rusty and bad quality. She stated that there was ponding as well.
M. Kennedy asked if there was an existing Order of Conditions.
P. Harding stated that it had expired.
R. Lowell asked when the wetlands were flagged.
J. Votruba replied this fall.
P. Harding asked if the easement was shown on the plan.
J. Votruba showed the location on the plan.
M. Scott asked who owned the easement.
J. Votruba replied Stoney Brook, LLC did.
M. Scott asked how the Town handled that easement at time of sale. He asked who was responsible for the maintenance.
P. Harding replied that she would have to check it.
M. Scott asked if the homeowner could block the pipe. He asked who would have the right to the easement.
P. Harding replied she assumed the subdivision would.
M. Scott asked if the homeowner would be responsible. P. Harding agreed.
K. Strom stated that an easement was drafted.
M. Scott stated that the lot was never sold so it was not transferred.
P. Harding stated that they had spoken with Town Counsel for review but the matter was never presented.
M. Scott asked if there was a standard form the Town used to do this.
P. Harding replied that the Town did not really do it like this any longer.
R. Lowell stated that the applicant would need to get that cleared up.
M. Kennedy opened the hearing up for public comment.
Kevin Stone, 53 Courtney Drive was present. He asked if the Order of Conditions was public record so the neighbors could know what was going on.
M. Kennedy replied that if they are issued, they would be Public Record. He stated that the process if the developer applies for the Notice of Intent and the Commission holds a Public Hearing. If the Commission gives an approval, they will issue the Order of Conditions with conditions and it would become a public document.
K. Stone asked if there would be another hearing.
M. Kennedy replied that during construction, someone would periodically look in on the work and then the applicant would submit and as-built once the work was completed.
K. Stone asked if the last ones were on record showing they did not comply.
M. Kennedy replied that they had never issued one. He said that the Commission had told the applicant to address some issues and they never came back to the Commission. He stated that the Commission is once again saying that they need to deal with the detention basin, which is the primary concern, to make sure that they do not change the functionality of it and then the Operation and Maintenance plan.
K. Stone stated that the history of maintenance had been poor.
M. Kennedy stated that no subdivisions were set up in this way any longer. He stated that this essentially makes one lot owner responsible for the pond.
Tammy Fitzgerald, 190 Jennifer Drive was present. She stated that she lived on an incline and that she has seen a number of basement floods. She submitted to the Commission pictures of the last storm so they could see the draining into the culvert. She stated that she was personally told that the easement would never be used because it complied with EPA and was registered.
M. Kennedy asked T. Fitzgerald to clarify her question.
T. Fitzgerald stated that the easement was registered with the EPA and that after she moved in she had flooding issues until she put sand in her backyard.
M. Kennedy asked T. Fitzgerald if she had any concerns relative to this proposal.
T. Fitzgerald stated that her neighbors’ lives could be greatly impacted. She stated that the houses themselves were very close to the easement. She stated that her second concern was about pollutants. She stated that she had called the Worcester Water Authority and told them that there was run off into Kendall Reservoir from their development and the one above it. She stated that she had not yet gotten in touch with the Director but they are concerned. She stated that Worcester was serious about their water and since Holden buys water from Worcester she thinks that we should keep their water clean too. She stated that she always tells her neighbors not to use fertilizer for that reason.
M. Kennedy asked T. Fitzgerald her concerns with this matter.
T. Fitzgerald replied she was concerned with flooding and pollution. She stated that if the developer puts a building with a foundation and soil in and moves the easement, the water will not go down downhill.
M. Kennedy stated that cannot change the detention at all.
T. Fitzgerald stated that it was also the only open space.
M. Kennedy stated that it was a buildable lot in a subdivision. He stated that they all built their homes and the lots were subdivided from the build out. He stated that if the lot is buildable the Commission can not stop them from doing so.
T. Fitzgerald asked why they had not tried to build on it before.
M. Kennedy stated he could not answer that. He stated the Conservation Commission is only concerned with Conservation matters.
T. Fitzgerald stated there was wildlife in there too.
Al Vuona, 182 Jennifer Drive was present at the meeting. He asked if this went through who would be responsible for the maintenance.
M. Kennedy replied it would be the homeowner.
A Vuona stated that up to this point Blair was responsible to maintain it.
M. Kennedy agreed; he stated it was because he was the owner of the lot. He stated that if someone was going to buy it that is not a developer, they would need to have money put in escrow to do the maintenance and understand the responsibility.
A Vuona asked if there was enough frontage.
P. Harding replied there was.
M. Kennedy stated that other than this, there is not a lot of issues the Commission would have with this lot.
A Vuona stated that he was close to the pump station and had a drain on his property and still had water from the basement.
Glenn Gaudette, 162 Jennifer Drive was present at the meeting. He asked if the Commission could explain the letter they received about the applicant encroaching on the buffer zone.
M. Kennedy replied that with wetlands there was a 100FT regulatory buffer zone and anytime anything was built in there, there needed to be an NOI before the Commission in order to the Commission to consider the work. He stated that it was not a protected zone but a regulatory review zone. M. Kennedy stated that in Holden they hold a 25FT no touch zone to the wetland. He stated that for this proposal they are more than 25FT away from the wetlands.
G. Gaudette asked if all construction would be outside the 25FT but inside the 100FT zone.
M. Kennedy confirmed this and stated that most of the homes in the neighborhood were within the 100FT buffer zone.
G. Gaudette asked who set the 100FT zone and why did Holden do 25FT.
M. Kennedy stated that the idea of the buffer zone was so that if someone was doing work close to the wetlands, it was being reviewed.
G. Williamson stated that the 25FT was a local bylaw.
M. Kennedy stated that there was a state regulation that said you could go to the limit of the wetlands but Holden holds the 25FT for a little more protection.
Steve Sendrowski, 25 Courtney Drive asked if the fence was staying.
M. Kennedy replied it was.
S. Sendrowski asked if they could shrink the pond.
M. Kennedy stated that they could not.
Kim Vuona, 182 Jennifer Court asked for the Commission assurance that they would not change the size of the pond. She stated that in the letter it states that it can be removed or altered.
M. Kennedy stated that they were being notified as an abutter and the letter contained standard language. He stated that the best thing the neighbors could do would be to notify the Commission is anything was no in accordance.
K. Vuona asked if she should notify DEP.
M. Kennedy replied that they were not DEP; the Commission was delegated authority from DEP for the protection of wetlands and enforcement of the Wetlands Protection Act.
K. Vuona asked who approved the Commission.
K. Kennedy stated that DEP could get involved if someone were to appeal the Order of Conditions.
K. Vuona asked if the Commission goes to view the property to see if they are doing something that is not proposed.
M. Kennedy replied that not everyone went but usually one or two members of the Board did.
K. Vuona asked who was in charge.
M. Kennedy replied ‘Pam Harding’
K. Vuona asked if the pond was working at 100% capacity. She stated that they were in the middle of a drought and it was still inundated with water.
A Vuona asked if it was doing its job.
M. Kennedy stated that they could not ask that; they needed to ask if it was built in accordance to the original plans and the Town had determined some time ago that it was.
P. Harding stated that she would be interested to see the sediment accumulation.
M. Kennedy agreed and stated that would be maintenance and that would be what he wanted to see put in place. He stated that they would also need a funding mechanism and that thee was an understanding of the maintenance.
C. Blair was present at the meeting. He stated that DPW had them clean it out last fall and it was in bad shape.
M. Kennedy replied it was because C. Blair was not maintaining it.
C. Blair stated that they would need to tell the homeowner when they buy the home that they are responsible for maintenance but he asked the Commission how he would go about a funding mechanism.
P. Harding stated that he had previously done an estimated maintenance cost and he was going to put some funds in an escrow for the first few years of maintenance.
C. Blair stated that he could do something like that. He asked what the dollar amount would be? $5,000?
P. Harding stated that it was $5,000 in 2006.
K. Vuona stated that if they put a catch basin in that had a lot of water there would not be the same amount of water in the area.
M. Kennedy stated that they were not proposing a catch basin. He stated that the same area was going to drain though same as today.
T. Fitzgerald stated that she had been in contact with DEP on 3/20/17 and that she spoke to someone that was very interested in this. He stated that he wanted to know the outcome from the meeting and that she intended to call him tomorrow.
M. Kennedy stated that there was no outcome at this point.
T. Fitzgerald replied that she would tell him how the meeting went.
M. Kennedy replied that DEP has the option to comment on NOI’s.
K. Strom stated that the outcome was that the matter would be continued.
T. Fitzgerald stated that the Worcester Water Authority was also interested.
M. Kennedy asked if there was any additional public comment.
K. Vuona asked if the abutters would be notified again.
M. Kennedy stated that they would not receive another notification letter; the continuance would be their notification.
K. Vuona asked if there was a moratorium on the kind of house that could go there.
M. Kennedy replied that the only thing that the Conservation Commission could consider was wetlands issues. He stated that the Commission had asked the applicant to come back and present information about how they would address maintenance, a fence, a useable yard, etc, and a funding mechanism. He stated that once the developer provided the answers to those questions, the Commission may have additional questions or they would close the public hearing and vote. He stated that if they issue the NOI then there is 21 days to file; if they do not then there is 10 days to appeal.
K. Strom stated that some of the Commission may be around the property in this time as well.
K. Vuona asked if the next meeting was at the Senior Center.
P. Harding confirmed it was on May 3, 2017 at 7:00PM at the Senior Center and it would also be posted on the website.
M. Kennedy told the applicant to plan to fix the fence as well.
C. Blair confirmed they would.
M. Kennedy stated that the matter was continued to May 3, 2017 at 7:00PM at the Senior Center.
NOTICE OF INTENT- Holden Realty Inc. – Lot D Cutler Road – Assessing Map and Parcel 84 (Portion of 22-28) John Boardman, Places Associates; Construction of a Single-Family Home and Driveway
AND
NOTICE OF INTENT- Holden Realty inc. Lot E Broad Street/ Assessing Map and Parcel 84 (Portion of 22028) John Boardman, Places Associates Construction of a Single- Family Home and Driveway
J. Boardman provided the notification forms and copies of the green cards to G. Williamson.
G. Williamson read both Public Hearing Notices’ into record.
J. Boardman stated that he was a Civil Engineer out of Littleton and they came last fall in order to have the wetland lines reviewed. He stated an ORAD was submitted and they do not yet have a DEP file number but he wanted to give the Commission a quick overview to show the lots. He stated that he assumes the matter would need to be continued until the file number was provided and he could also do a site walk with any interested parties.
J. Boardman showed the Commission the street. He showed the Commission the wetlands and stated that they tried to design outside the buffer zone.
J. Boardman stated that Lot D is a large piece of land 2.5 acres and lot E is just over 5 acres.
J. Boardman stated that Lot D rotated a little and has a long driveway that starts on Cutler lower in elevation. He stated that it was all sand and gravel and they were proposing the driveway in the buffer. He stated the house was outside the buffer and the well was in it. He stated that the work is in the DCR line and they had filed with them as well and were still waiting on an answer.
J. Boardman stated that the blue line was the approved wetland; the orange is the 25FT no disturb; the yellow was the erosion control limit of work and the 100FT breaks off the lot and then comes back in. He stated the other lot is adjacent, next to it on top of the hill.
J. Boardman stated that Lot E has access of Broad Street. He showed the Commission the wetland, no disturb, and erosion control lines. He stated this property would look out over the wetlands that are on top of the hill. He stated this would have Town water so no well. He stated that they were able to move the driveway to the property line and grade it to abutting lot in order to stay out of the buffer zone.
M. Kennedy asked if the Commission had any questions.
L. Boucher stated that on both driveways it looked as though there was a low point where the flow was going to concentrate. He asked if they could do anything to prevent channelizing to the wetlands.
J. Boardman stated that the side-slope was a 3:1 ratio so fairly flat and not a steep runoff. He stated the soil was pure sand as gravel as well so he did not think there was going to be a lot of run off. He stated that if there was concern they could put an infiltration trench at the low point and that would do some treatment and act like a level spreader.
K. Strom asked if the driveways were going to be paved.
J. Boardman stated that the intention was to pave them.
K. Strom asked how long the driveway was in Lot D.
J. Boardman replied it was a little over 400FT.
P. Harding asked if they had considered the common driveway provision.
J. Boardman stated that the applicant would be putting the lots up for sale so he was not sure if they wanted to do that. He stated that he could see a developer going in that manner but that they needed to have it permitted in order to sell it.
K. Strom asked about the property line for Lot G.
J. Boardman showed the Commission and stated that it continued off Mauschpaug Road.
K. Strom asked if the property had been walked.
G. Williamson stated that she had and did not have concerns as she followed the delineation. She stated she did not walk Lot E yet.
P. Harding stated that there was an ANRAD.
G. Williamson stated that she had the ANRAD; she asked if the portion of Cutler from 122 was a Town road or a private one.
P. Harding replied it was private.
K. Strom asked when the ANRAD was from.
G. Williamson replied it expired on 9/26/2019.
P. Harding stated that they had in peer reviewed as well.
M. Kennedy stated that they would prefer to see the concentrated stormwater flows addressed at the driveways low points.
R. Lowell stated that it could be a gravel trench or something.
J. Boardman stated that he would add it to the plan.
G. Williamson and Commission members asked about meeting for a site walk. J. Boardman stated that he would set one up.
K. Strom asked if the property was staked.
J. Boardman replied it was not but he could have it done or walk the lot with the Commission.
M. Kennedy stated that the matter was continued to May 3, 2017
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- DEP File # 183-381 / Mary Sullivan, Lot 12 Chapin Road, LAM Builders Map 208, Parcel 9
G. Williamson stated this was issued but the book and page was in correct. She stated that it had been reissued and recorded and she asked the Commission to resign.
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- DEP File P-121
Daniel Ciaramitaro, 111 Wachusett Street; S.A. Sundin & Sons Map 76, Parcel 29.
P. Harding stated that this was not a Conservation Commission matter it was a Natural Resource Office matter.
M. Kennedy stated that the Natural Resource Office no longer existed.
G. Williamson stated she would look into this.
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- DEP FILE #183-454
Atty. Paul A’Breau- 117 Wachusett Street-Alden Woods, Lot 1 Map 176, Parcel 14.
P. Harding asked G. Williamson to look into this matter prior to issuing the Certificate of Compliance.
GREENWOOD ESTATES- Wetland Crossing Impact Analysis Wetland Crossing Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan submitted December 7, 2016 by Christopher Lucas, Lucas Environmental LLC; Jackson Woods Investments, LLC
P. Harding stated that the applicant was not prepared to speak and she recommended not opening the Public Hearing.
C. Blair agreed. He stated that he had a meeting with DPW and they agreed to look at a waiver of 150FT to the intersection and to eliminate the retaining walls. He stated that it would add some wetland fill but pull in 40FT. He stated that he is hopeful they will approve it and they are working on it currently
The matter was continued to the May 3, 2017 Conservation Commission meeting.
Town of Holden – Main Street Water Main
Construction began on March 27th in the vicinity of Steppingstone Drive and Cedar Road.
G. Williamson stated that the Town started phase 2 of the project and the erosion controls were in place. She stated this was for the Commissions information.
Town of Holden DPW- Spring Street Well- Beaver Management- 3 locations on Asnebunskit Brook
G. Williamson stated that they were doing a reach in at 3 different location and trapping.
R. Lowell asked who was doing it.
G. Williamson replied DPW was.
K. Strom asked if they needed permits to trap.
P. Harding stated that the Board of Health was involved.
K. Strom asked if it was a public nuisance. P. Harding agreed it was. She stated that they have DCR’s approval.
K. Strom asked how large the beaver dams were.
G. Williamson replied she was unsure.
P. Harding stated that trapping season ended on the 16th.
MISC
M. Kennedy stated that the drainage on Stoney Brook Estates seemed to be working okay. He asked if P. Harding had looked at it.
P. Harding replied she had on April 4, 2017 and it held up
L. Boucher stated that the developer may want to put additional erosion controls in the road leading to the sediment fore-bay. He stated that the forecast was rain and the road was currently muddy and the water could sheet towards and into the forebay.
C. Blair stated that he would send someone to address it.
Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE APRIL 5, 2017 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:13PM.
APPROVED: ________________