Conservation Commission, June 28, 2017
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET
June 28, 2017
Members Present: Matt Kennedy, Mike Scott, Luke Boucher, Anthony Costello, K. Strom, Mike Krikonis, Robert Lowell
Others Present: Pam Harding, Conservation Agent, Glenda Williamson, Conservation Assistant, Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary
Others on Sign In: Gregory Savageau, T &G News; Shawn Collins, Holden Youth Soccer Abutter; Bob Collins; Valerie Sampson, Eagle Lake; C. Blaum, Eagle Lake; Dan Marinone, Eagle Lake; Sandy Lambert, Eagle Lake; Alan Lambert, Eagle Lake; Gerald Kersus, Eagle Lake; Kathleen Kersus, Eagle Lake; C. Blair, Greenwood/ Stoneybrook; Leo McCabe, Mill Pond Realty; John Fitzgerald, 190 Jennifer Drive; Tammy Fitzgerald, 190 Jennifer Drive; Margaret Selizman, Abutter; Justin Sobol, Abutter; James O’Hare, Eagle Lake; Dean Shea, 420 Bullard; Dick Lipson, Eagle Lake; Susan Derrick, Eagle Lake; Jennifer Leila, May Fields; Patrick Healy; Ralph Peck, White Oak; Duncan Leith, White Oak; Paul McManus, White Oak
M. Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:03
NOTICE OF INTENT- Holden Youth Soccer- 183-xxx
351 Bullard Street, Assessing Map 164, 150 Parcels 16 and 43. Patrick Healy, Thompson-Liston Assoc., Construction of two new soccer fields, access driveways, parking, stormwater management facilities and grading within the buffer zone.
G. Williamson read the Public Hearing Notice into record.
Patrick Healy, Thompson-Liston Assoc. and Bill Donahue, Holden Soccer were present at the meeting.
K. Strom and M. Scott recused themselves from this matter.
P. Healy stated that 351 Bullard was adjacent to Mayo School. He stated that in 2012 it was voted to sell the property to Holden Youth Soccer and HYS went through a Special Permit and Variance that was appealed. He stated that there was a settlement in 2015 and they had taken the settlement conditions into account and revised the site plan. He stated that it was 12 acres, with 9.5 dedicated as playing fields, parking, stormwater management, field storage, and buildings.
P. Healy stated that they were proposing an access driveway off Mayo School that would cross the swale. He stated there was a gentle slope and then on the right side there would be full playing fields, then retaining wall, and a field going up and some plantings for a line of sight for the neighbors. He stated there would be two infiltration basins and the fields would run off into the basin. He stated that there would be a system of under drains in the field to help the fields drain quickly and it would allow the fields to be converted to synthetic surfaces in the future. He stated that they had also provided to the Commission documentation regarding the drainage and how it would meet DEP standards.
P. Healy stated that they had done a number of test pits but had not done one at the furthest basin as they had redesigned the site to meet settlement conditions and they pushed it down so there was not a test pit there but they could do one if it was needed. He showed the Commission the buffer zone and 25ft no disturb on the plans. He told the Board that the site is a habitat and they would be working with MA wildlife in this area.
M. Kennedy asked what the habitat was for.
P. Healy replied that he believed it was for turtles.
P. Healy stated that they had provided the Commission with detailed construction and post construction O&M Plans. He stated that they have infiltration in two basins to meet standards and at the two outlets they have kept the 25ft limit and used a rip raps apron adjacent to the wetlands to accomplish that.
M. Kennedy asked what the path was from a location on the plan to the wetlands.
P. Healy replied it was gently sloped.
M. Kennedy asked if they had addressed erosion controls.
P. Healy replied they had not designed full erosion controls yet as they wanted to meet with the Commission and Engineering.
M. Kennedy stated that they would cut the slopes. He asked how the fill slopes would be stabilized.
P. Healy replied there would be a 10FT retaining wall with plantings. He stated that there would be geo-tech done with a straw fiber net. He stated that they had received their DEP File number today (June 28, 2017) and with the number was some comments with respect to stormwater that needed to be addressed. He stated that they had pointed out a Zone A that would need to be delineated to public water and that the infiltration could not be located in Zone A so that may need to be reshaped as well.
L. Boucher stated that he believed they would need those test pits.
P. Healy replied that they could do that. He stated that there was a comment about the outlets that needed to be addressed as well and they could add two pipes to the headwall if need be.
M. Kennedy asked if the Commission had any additional questions.
R. Lowell asked about the parking.
P. Healy showed the Commission the parking and stated it was for about 100 cars and overflow at the schools.
M. Krikonis asked what the material would be.
P. Healy replied asphalt.
M. Kennedy opened it up for public comment.
Sharon and Bob Collins, 471 Bullard Street were present at the meeting. She stated that there was a vernal pool that DPW had not been aware of. She stated that her concerns were the vernal pool and the noise level.
M. Kennedy stated that the noise level was not germane to the Conservation Commission. He stated that while the Board could sympathize with the noise complaints, they could only address things that were relative to conservation. He asked her to point out on the plan where she believed the vernal pool to be located.
P. Harding replied that the area was shown as a BVW.
S. Collins stated that the vernal pool takes up her backyard and the there was a lot of wildlife by the homes.
M. Kennedy stated that it was shown as a wetlands area.
S. Collins asked about seed distribution.
M. Kennedy replied that was what they were proposing.
S. Collins asked if they were just going to dig it out and replace it.
M. Kennedy replied that they were not doing the work in the existing wetlands. He stated that the wetlands had been delineated and asked if it had been reviewed.
G. Williamson replied that EcoTec had reviewed the wetlands.
B. Collins asked about the area between the detention pond and the two fields. He asked how it was landscaped and if people were going to go up there.
M. Kennedy replied it was shown as mowed and maintained as lawn. He stated that this area was not in the wetlands and therefore the Commission could not review it. He stated that the Planning Board was meeting next month and could address additional concerns.
B. Collins asked if there were trees up against his property line.
P. Healy replied that it would be a landscaped area.
B. Collins asked why they would not add trees where most of the abutters were.
M. Kennedy replied that landscaping was not in the Commission purview.
Matt and Jennifer Lech, 51 Birchwood Drive was present at the meeting. They asked about the nature trail that was promised.
B. Donahue replied that there was a nature trail.
Margaret Selizman, 411 Bullard Street was present at the meeting. She asked if there was going to be any issues with the septic system due to the construction and fields.
M. Kennedy stated that it appeared that they were cutting the closest edge of the property not filling it so they should be okay.
M. Selizman asked about the trees as well. She stated that in other construction they had indicated they would not take down the trees but they ended up with a lot of dead trees.
L. Boucher stated that there was not a stormwater BMP in that area.
M. Selizman asked if all the vegetation was being protected.
M. Kennedy stated that they were cutting down so the cuts were below the natural grade of the land. He stated that the Commission was limited to Conservation matters.
Jason, 226 Bullard Street asked about the synthetic surface. He stated that they could put synthetic field surfaces in at any time and he was concerned about them doing so and the cancer clusters that could occur because of the plastics.
M. Kennedy replied that they were not proposing it now and if they did in the future they would need to come back in front of the Commission.
Sharon, Bullard Street stated that if they were not putting in synthetic surfaces then it would be the chemicals which were just as bad. She stated that when Mayo was put in they were promised a lot of things and now peoples yards were changing and neighbors were losing their yards to water. She stated that they were promised a lot when Mayo got okayed and they did not receive it. She stated that the sound was also going to be bad.
Tammy Fitzgerald 190 Jennifer Drive was present at the meeting. She stated that the fertilizers were one of the main causes of pollution in the water table and more developed area would need to be fertilized.
M. Kennedy stated that they would continue the matter until the August 2, 2017 Conservation Commission meeting. He stated that they had some additional questions they would like addressed and that he thinks they should double check the upper corner of the property as both the Commission and DEP were concerns about the ground water depths in that area. He stated that there were a number of people at the meeting concerned about different things and he suggested taking this time to work with the abutters as well.
R. Lowell stated that there was the possibility of errant balls headed into the wetlands so he requested adequate fencing to protect the wetlands from an errant ball.
M. Kennedy stated the next meeting would be on August 2, 2017 in the Senior Center and that the abutters would not be noticed again.
K. Strom and M. Scott returned to the meeting
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABITLIY – Justin Sobel, 1010 Princeton Street, Assessing Map 36, Parcel 17. The removal of soils and addition of stone along 300 linear feet of an existing 12’ wide access road within the buffer zone to provide construction access for a new barn construction.
Justin Sobel, 1010 Princeton Street was present at the meeting. He stated that he wanted to put a barn at the end of his property. He stated that he had an existing crossing but he would like to put some gravel in order to provide access for a new barn crossing.
M. Kennedy asked for the plans.
G. Williamson replied that she put the plans in the packet. She stated that she did a site visit with J. Sobel and that there was an existing crossing that is old and he wished to put a barn in the back. She stated that he would tear up the soils if he did not stabilize the land which is an existing access road. She stated that it was a narrow crossing, 12ft wide and 300ft long.
R. Lowell asked if it was in contact with groundwater / was muddy.
G. Williamson replied that it was a small narrow stream, that it was the same one down the road that the Commission had looked at for a different matter.
M. Kennedy asked G. Williamsons thoughts; he asked if she thought they would be in good shape with erosion controls.
G. Williamson confirmed she thought they would be but that she would want an erosion control inspection prior to work.
Motion by M. Krikonis, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DETERMINATION FOR REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY, SOBOL, 1010 PRINCETON STREET, ASSESSING MAP 36, PARCEL 17 WITH APPROPORATE EROSION CONTROLS IN PLACE.
NOTICE OF INTENT-Stoney Brook Estates 11 Courtney Drive 183-641 Assessing Map 157 Parcel 111. New England Environmental/ Construction of a Single-Family Home and Driveway (Cont. from June 26, 2017)
C. Blair was present at the meeting. He stated that at the last meeting they had spoken about adjustments to be made and no new adjustments were necessary. He stated that the Commission had asked him for a budget and it was discussed that the budget should take care of the maintenance of the basin. He stated that he felt that the $5,000 in the bank book beat out any budget number he came up with so he did not put figures on the O &M Plan that he had provided to the Commission. He stated that the Commission had asked for proof of easement so Holden could go in and maintain the basin if need be and he did send that to P. Harding’s attention too. He stated that he believes that was everything that they commission had asked him to do.
P. Harding stated that C. Blair submitted an O&M Plan on Monday.
R. Lowell asked if the basin been maintained recently.
C. Blair replied that they did it last year but that the fence still needed to be fixed.
R. Lowell asked if it was draining.
C. Blair replied it was.
R. Lowell asked if the measuring rod had been installed.
C. Blair replied that he would install that.
L. Boucher asked about the keys for the lot.
P. Harding replied that DPW did not have those keys.
C. Blair replied that he would get them a copy of the keys.
M. Kennedy stated that the category “all structural” on the budge lacked specificity. He stated that they needed to indicate the components given the fact that the homeowner was responsible for this. He suggested having a figure as well with labels for ease of the homeowner so they can see where components are on a label.
P. Harding stated that she felt there should be an associated cost with each maintenance item as well. She stated going by the figure presented to the Commission 8 years ago, it would be outdated.
C. Blair asked what the difference was if he was going to provide $5,000.
L. Boucher stated it would be more for the homeowner so they could look at the maintenance plan and have an idea of the relative costs. He stated if the $5,000 lasts 15 years that would be great but the homeowner should know about it.
C. Blair stated that it was not a whole lot of money so he felt that $5,000 was sufficient.
L. Boucher replied that was the Towns money in the event the homeowner did not maintain it.
C. Blair replied he would resubmit it with numbers next to it.
M. Kennedy replied that the Commission felt the $5,000 would suffice they just wanted more details for the homeowners benefit.
P. Harding replied that she would like to see a more detailed O &M Plan with pricing. She stated that she felt it should be attached to the deed with the permanent order as well so the new homeowner is aware of their responsibility to maintain it.
C. Blair replied that he did not think it was fair to the person in the house to maintain it. He stated he disagreed with having it attached to the deed.
P. Harding replied that handing over an O&M at the sale of the property was not going to do anything; she stated they wouldn’t even know that it was part of the paperwork they received.
K. Strom agreed with P. Harding and stated that it needed teeth.
C. Blair asked why they would put it on the new homeowner.
M. Krikonis stated he agreed that the homeowner needed a clear description about what would be required of them and that it needed to be very transparent.
C. Blair stated that he was not attaching it to the deed and if they included it with the Order of Conditions, he could appeal it.
L. Boucher at what point the money to the Town came into play.
P. Harding replied only in default.
L. Boucher stated that they would be bound by the deed.
P. Harding stated that he could provide it to the homeowner; she stated it was for Blair to tell the Commission.
M. Scott stated that either way, the Deed or the Order of Conditions, the homeowner was susceptible to it because it ran with the land.
C. Blair stated that the Commission was going to do what it wanted but that it was not fair to the homeowner.
M. Kennedy asked if any member of the public had any comments.
T. Fitzgerald stated that it cost Blair $5,000 to clean.
C. Blair replied that was the cost of it last year.
T. Fitzgerald stated that he wanted to give $5,000; she stated that with the rate of interest there will not be enough money to use if there is an increase of cost to clean it.
M. Kennedy stated that there was a lot of erosion that occurred during construction to fill the basins. He stated additionally the Town no longer used sand on its roads so both of those things would help to minimize the amount of sediment.
C. Blair replied that the cost was over 15 years as well.
M. Kennedy replied that it had accumulated more because of the sand and construction.
T. Fitzgerald stated that $5,000 is a small amount of money and in ten years it will be smaller.
M. Kennedy replied that he did not know if that was true as it had been 15 years now and the two main things that caused sediment would no longer be in play.
T. Fitzgerald stated that the HOA would not be doing any of the work they were currently doing for upkeep if someone else owned the land.
M. Kennedy stated that right now, no one was responsible for it.
T. Fitzgerald stated that neighbors did take care of it now but they wouldn’t do that if it was owned by someone else.
M. Kennedy replied that they were trying to address the situation in order to help ensure it is maintained.
T. Fitzgerald asked if C. Blair had put his spec house up.
M. Kennedy replied that it was not germane to the Conservation Commission.
T. Fitzgerald asked if he was going to build a home there.
M. Kennedy replied that once an Order of Conditions was issued, he could build a home and sell it.
M. Scott stated that DEP would approve it. He stated that a house can and will be built on the lot and they were looking for the best way to resolve the situation. He stated that he felt it was unfortunate that one person in the neighborhood would be responsible for maintaining it.
T. Fitzgerald stated that the Commission had asked for an itemized list of costs. She stated she protested what he gave and he was also supposed to fix the gate and now there were a lot kids around it and it was not safe.
M. Kennedy asked if the Commission felt as though it needed to be attached to the deed.
L. Boucher stated that it needed to be attached to the deed or the Order of Conditions.
R. Lowell stated that if it was part of the Order of Conditions, it would make it part of the deed by default.
M. Scott stated that they also wanted an itemized cost of the small tasks to help the homeowner know their responsibilities. He asked for a small labeled sketch to be attached to the O&M Plan as well.
L. Boucher stated there was the outstanding O&M Plan, the lock and key, and the fence being fixed.
M. Krikonis stated that the homeowner needed to be able to look at the sketch and understand what needed to be done.
M. Kennedy asked him to put it in layman’s terms as well.
The Commission continued the matter to the August 2, 2017 Conservation Commission meeting.
GREENWOOD ESTATES II NOI REVIEW-*cont. Carl Hultgren, Quinn Engineering, Inc. Review of updated Stormwater Report dated June 26, 2017
Carl Hultgren, Quinn Engineering and C. Blair, Greenwood Estates were present at the meeting.
C. Blair stated that they received C. Hultgren’s review on Monday, June 26, 2017. He asked if they wanted him to review his comments.
C. Hultgren suggested going over the crossing change first.
C. Blair stated that at each entrance they eliminated the walls that the Town was concerned about and added a slope. He stated the Town did allow them to come into the easement for the 40FT and they slope upwards. He stated none of the walls were over 5/6ft at this point. He stated that they put a pipe in instead of the open culvert because with the change in regulations anything over 10ft was considered a bridge. He stated everything now was rip rap and they had increased the pitch at the bottom from 1.5% grade to 3-4.5% grade. He stated that at the top they asked for a waiver from the Town to come in at a deeper pitch. He stated that they eliminated the wall, bought in the rip rap, eliminated the bottom culvert, and improved the pipe. He stated that was all for Conservation.
P. Harding stated that she had some question about the details of the crossing and the culvert.
L. Boucher asked if her questions were about the box in.
P. Harding said it was.
C. Blair stated that it was for both crossings. He stated that they put a pipe in a pile and he showed the Commission the profile. He stated that it was not anything different, it had a bottom instead of three sided culvert, a pipe with no walls and they used slope. He asked what other questions they had.
R. Lowell asked if the round culvert was used to eliminate the determination of a bridge.
L. Boucher asked if it was a 48” pipe with wingwalls.
C. Blair replied that it was headwalls.
C. Hultgren stated that the culvert was essentially level.
C. Blair stated it was a gradual step.
C. Hultgren stated that there were grates all around.
L. Boucher asked if the grates were for access or access prevention.
I McCauley, Senior Civil Engineer, DPW was present at the meeting. She stated her concern with the grates was that they were difficult to maintain. She stated that they could see that there would be issues with leaves and then the structure would be blocked and they would have a failure in the system. She stated there could also be issues with animals getting stuck.
P. Harding agreed and stated they were concerned about blockage.
M. Kennedy asked for detail on that.
I McCauley replied that there was none.
M. Scott suggested a beehive type structure.
L. Boucher stated that a beehive structure may be a decent idea he stated that there could still be leaf accumulation but there would not be an immediate plugging issue.
I McCauley asked why it couldn’t be a regular culvert without an inlet.
C. Hultgren replied that he thinks they would end up with a big excavation on the high side and it would end up being very steep if they did that.
M. Kennedy stated that they would have to create some sort of sump to get the water through it.
K. Strom stated that both crossings have the detail.
M. Kennedy stated that they did not want the opening so small that it would be plugged.
C. Blair stated that there was a reason it was put like that but he would need to check with his engineers as he did not remember why.
M. Scott suggested it was designed in that manner because of the sewer crossing.
M. Kennedy replied that it was further down.
C. Blair stated that it could be because of the water velocity.
L. Boucher stated if it was velocity it could be taken care of on the downstream end.
M. Scott stated that it would pool and flood.
C. Blair stated that the reason it was down so deep is because they lowered it to eliminate the walls. He stated that he felt as this was what the Town was looking for on the Planning side.
The Commission discussed other ways to deal with the crossings. They discussed the location of the pipe and the possibility to move it but it was determined that to do so would increase the height of the wall and there was an issue of utilities and property lines.
P. Harding suggested running utilities underground
C. Hultgren replied that it had not been determined and they may have to move it.
I McCauley asked if it could be a regular culvert that the inlet ends and the road would be high. She asked if they could come in under the culvert.
C. Blair replied if they did that they would be back to walls.
L. Boucher stated they would still need about 6ft from invert to roadway.
M. Scott stated that would move the roadway up 6ft again; that you would have to make the grade up one way or the other.
M. Kennedy asked if DPW’s concern was maintenance.
I McCauley stated that it was. She stated that she was having a hard time seeing why it could not be slopes. She stated that they were trying to keep it under 5ft, but couldn’t see why they couldn’t raise it slightly.
C. Blair stated that there was also a property line issue.
I McCauley stated using the elevation they had before, they could make it work.
C. Blair replied that they needed to get the water to the pipes as well.
M. Kennedy replied he would prefer them doing that (the wall) than raising the road.
I McCauley replied it would need to be outside the right of way.
M. Kennedy replied it would be on the HOA.
K. Strom stated that they would need to do some engineering on it.
C. Blair stated that he would look at it with his engineers but that he thought that the property line was an issue as well.
C. Hultgren stated that there was a new letter that was updated dated June 26, 2017. He reviewed the letter with the Commission.
C. Hultgren stated that there was some discrepancy with the replication area and they wanted some clarification with that. He stated that there needed to be a 2:1 ratio.
Comment 9: C. Hultgren stated that the Commission wanted borings for the ground water in the replication area and he had not seen any information related to that yet.
Comment 14: C. Hultgren stated that they need more details on.
Comment 23: C. Hultgren stated that they had spoke about relocating all the work outside the 25ft buffer.
Comment 37: C. Hultgren stated that this comment was with regards to the tree box filters. He stated at the last meeting, the Commission spoke about taking a look at other BMPs. He stated he wanted to point this out and see what the Commission wanted to do regarding this item and see if the driveway discharge was considered de-minimis.
Comment 112: C. Hultgren stated this was the same.
Comment 123: C. Hultgren stated he just wanted to reiterate this as the Commission asked to look at the slopes of both crossings. He stated when the Commission was satisfied with this, the comment will be resolved.
C. Hultgren stated that there were also 17 new comments.
C. Blair stated that regarding the soli borings in the replication area, the area was so large that the groundwater was close to the surface water but they can do them.
C. Hultgren stated that the high side of replication is 612 to 604, he stated that 8ft of replication would be what they were looking at. He stated that the area was gravely. He stated that if it was within 2ft of the surface, borings would be suggested and he thought it was a good idea.
C. Blair stated that if they have to grade it, they can. He stated there was room and it was not a huge issue.
M. Kennedy agreed that they would want to see it.
C. Blair stated that with regards to Comment 9; the area was 14,485.
C. Blair stated that regarding Comment 14, it was solid surface and those were emergency spillways.
M. Kennedy stated that the rip rap for Comment 15 was porous so they would need something to set the elevation.
C. Hultgren suggested they set the elevation to where they wanted the spillway to be. He stated that then they would have 6/8th and that would be the solid surface on the top and the curve would be the crest
M. Kennedy stated there were a few new comments for the developer to address and then to resolve any outstanding issues with I. McCauley and DPW.
M. Kennedy asked if the Commission had anything further. No members of the Commission added anything additional.
M. Kennedy opened it up for public comment; no member of the public stepped forward.
The Commission continued the matter to August 2, 2017.
NOTICE OF INTENT- EAGLE LAKE DRAWDOWN – 183-642- Scott Morrison- White Oak Land Conservation- remove stop logs from dam structure for permanent drawdown (continued from June 7)
Scott Morrison and Paul McManus were present for White Oak.
A Costello and K. Strom recused themselves from this matter.
S. Morrison stated that he had not been present at the last meeting but he did receive a series of questions and spoke with both White Oak and P. Harding and provided the answers.
S. Morrison stated that with regards to Stump Pond, any drawdown to Eagle Lake would not have an impact on Stump Pond. He stated that the culvert would hold the water in Stump Pond.
S. Morrison stated that the MA Fisheries and Wildlife Act required that they work from May 1 – August 30. He stated that he asked them for comments for the NOI and if they have comments or concerns White Oak would comply with them, however they had received a copy of the NOI that was filed.
S. Morrison stated that regarding the water quality and temperature, Eagle Lake would be only a fraction of the size that it is now. He stated the proposal was to drop the lake 4.5ft, so the lake would be smaller and the depth would be smaller as well. He stated with less water and water flowing though, the water would be a lower temperature and lower temperature water generally implied a high water quality.
S. Morrison stated that it was unclear what the hazardous level would be when the pond was drawn down. He stated that given the amount of water they were reducing the pond by, and with the 60ft crest at the discharge, it was possible that they could go from a two year inspection to a 5 or 10 year inspection.
S. Morrison stated that with regards to dam maintenance, some of the neighbors had offered to work on some dam maintenance. He stated that regardless of what happened White Oak would need to keep doing the maintenance. He stated that if something happened where the Town or someone else took over the dam, it would then be in the same or better position than they were now.
S. Morrison stated that DEP had comments about the ecological restoration project. He stated that they said it may fit better in the draw down / repair category and they (White Oak) did not have plans to do the ecological restoration, so they did not file as such. He stated that they were maintaining the habitat. He said that the way it was now, there was no way to pass through but by removing the flashboard, wildlife could continue through so this project did qualify for an Ecological Restoration.
M. Kennedy asked if it was a limited project.
S. Morrison replied that it is. He asked if there were any additional questions that he could answer.
M. Kennedy asked him to quantify the change of resource.
S. Morrison replied that they would be lower it in 6” increments weekly.
M. Kennedy stated that there would be BVW loss.
S. Morrison replied that he would not think it would be substantial loss.
M. Kennedy stated that they would also be creating new ones.
M. Kennedy asked if they had spoken with DEP since the filing.
S. Morrison replied he had not but they had provided comments.
G. Williamson asked them to fill the Commission in on how they were using habitat connectivity as the way to use the limited project restoration permit.
S. Morrison stated that there was no way for any wildlife movement to go upstream and then 4.5ft over the structures so by removing the lots there is the slope up and then the water so it encouraged habitat connectivity.
M. Kennedy asked how long the concrete slope was.
S. Morrison replied it was 200ft in length.
M. Kennedy asked what was traveling up that.
S. Morrison replied that small wildlife, turtles, beavers, muskrats.
G. Williamson stated that she did agree it was a limited project she asked about MA DEP Stormwater.
S. Morrison stated that they there was no impervious area so they did not need to address MA Stormwater requirements.
G. Williamson asked what the impacts on private water wells would be.
S. Morrison replied that it was municipal water and sewer in the immediate area.
M. Krikonis asked for the location of the beach on the map.
S. Morrison showed the Commission the location.
M. Krikonis asked what the depth of the water was.
S. Morrison replied that it was about 1.5ft until you get out further and then it gets deeper.
M. Krikonis stated his concern was the access to waterways and peoples use of the public space that was created.
S. Morrison replied that they were working with abutters to save the pond and they had also met with the Board of Selectmen to see if the Town would take over some of the responsibility. He stated that they were a non-profit land trust and they could not financially maintain it.
G. Williamson asked where they were with DCR.
S. Morrison replied that they had not yet filed with DCR.
M. Kennedy stated that if it fits into the limited project scope it would allow for it with an increase in BVW and decrease in land under water. He stated that the concern would be the slope as that could limit the value of the habitat connectivity.
S. Morrison replied that White Oak’s future plans were to completely remove the flash boards or seek someone else that wished to own the dam.
M. Kennedy asked once the flash boards were removed and wetlands established, what would it take to put the boards back in.
S. Morrison replied it would take an amendment to the Order of Conditions if need be.
M. Kennedy asked if the Commission felt there was a way to include a provision in the Order of Conditions to allow the boards to be removed but also allowed them to be added back in.
M. Kennedy opened the matter up for public comment.
Dan Marinone, 37 Village Way was present. He asked if the Commission could approve the revised permit regardless of the NOI. He stated that there were people that were motivated to clean out brush and maintain around the dam and he wanted to make sure they were compliant with those matters.
M. Kennedy stated that they would have to close the public hearing in order to issue that.
S. Morrison asked if they needed to be permitted to do the work.
M. Kennedy stated that the existing RDA had a negative determination and that if the work was consistent with that, they were covered.
M. Kennedy asked if the Commission could write the order in a way that they could remove the boards but that they could be put back in. He stated that they could be clear that they could be replaced but would not have to be replaced.
D. Marinone, asked the Commission to consider if for the permanent drawdown all the process steps were being followed.
M. Kennedy stated that the process was not that rigorous. He stated that it fell under the limited project and that if the Commission believed that it met the requirements then they could approve it. He stated that the question they had was if they can include something that would allow the owners the option to put the board back in without having to put them back in. He stated that the concern was once a habitat was established they should not alter it.
Val Sampson, Village Way stated that the DEP stated it was a limited project and that they needed to have a private plan for restoration of water levels.
M. Kennedy replied that they did say that initially but that was when they were looking under a different limited project then the owners had filed. He stated that there was a ‘Dam Repair Limited Project’ but that was not what White Oak filed under. He stated that they filed under ‘Ecological / Habitat Connectivity Limited Project’ and that had different requirements
V. Sampson stated that wildlife comes up not down.
M. Kennedy replied it still was connected.
V. Sampson stated that the NOI was for a permanent drawdown to do repairs but they were not doing repairs.
S. Morrison stated that DCR was requiring certain repairs to be made however White Oak did not have funds to do the repairs.
M. Kennedy stated that the owners were trying to reduce the hazardous nature of the dam.
V. Sampson replied that the dam was not hazardous.
M. Kennedy stated that if it failed, the impact was hazardous and it was classified as such by the state.
V. Sampson stated that they were concerned with the permanent drawdown; she stated she did not know if it was going to do what the Commission wanted.
M. Kennedy replied that they could discuss that with the owners as the Commission could only discuss what was before them, which was the NOI.
V. Sampson asked if DEP would be aware of what was happening to the lake.
M. Kennedy replied that if the Commission issued the NOI then they would see it. He stated that there was 21 days for the Commission to issue the Order of Conditions and then 10 days for anyone with standing to appeal.
Janet DeLuck, Village Way stated that she was at the Board of Selectmen meeting and that Selectmen Tim Ethier was very vocal in his support to get Town funds to maintain it. She asked if they were going to allow the Town to make a decision before the drawdown occurred.
M. Kennedy replied that it was not relevant to the Commission and that there was no one present at the meeting from the Town that was indicating that they were going to do so. He stated that if the Commission felt that there was enough information to make a decision it was the Commissions duty to do so.
L. Boucher stated that they could not delay a decision if all the information was in front of them.
Dick Lipson, Village Way was present he asked why they didn’t need to spend the $30,000 to see the condition of the dam.
S. Morrison stated that they had provided a copy of the latest dam inspection report that downgraded the safety level of the dam. He stated that for White Oak, public safety was its first concern.
D. Lipson asked if the Commission was going to make a decision.
M. Kennedy replied that the question was if the NOI was approvable.
V. Sampson stated that there would be long term ramifications of draining the lake.
M. Kennedy stated that it did not matter if he agreed or disagreed; the question was if it was allowable and if it was they needed to allow it.
V. Sampson stated that she would think that it made more sense to do the drawdown in the fall/ winter to help kill the weeds.
M. Kennedy stated that the period was selected to allow the most growth.
S. Morrison stated that the dates he provided was what was required by the Wetland Protection Act.
V. Sampson stated that she did not know how it was considered a limited project as there would no longer be a Town beach.
M. Kennedy replied that was recreational not ecological.
Gerald Kersus, 201 Kendall Road was present. He stated that he did not understand how losing all the water fits into Conservation.
M. Kennedy stated that they were looking at land under water and habitat connectivity.
G. Kersus asked how much BVW would be lost.
M. Kennedy replied it would be a net increase.
G. Kersus replied it would not be a gain in his backyard.
M. Kennedy replied that vegetative wetlands were not wet. He stated that the Wetland Protection Act was based on the presumption that a dam across a river is negative ecologically. He stated that the reason people here did not want the dam to go was because they liked the lake and the water.
G. Kersus stated that he did not think they would know the effects until it was taken down. He asked why they were drawing it down; safety or cost.
M. Kennedy stated that the initial information that came back from DEP was because they had misunderstood what was being filed under. He stated that if the Commission issued the NOI then DEP would get copied on it and an appeal process could begin.
Susan Derrick, 1775 Main Street, stated that if the water was drawn down the mosquitoes were going to be outrageous.
M. Kennedy replied that if anything the turnover of water would be faster.
A member of the public asked how it was good for the Town to have a lake that people liked drawn down.
M. Kennedy replied that the Town did not own the dam and they had the opportunity to do so.
The man stated that Mr. Ethier was vocal in his support of owning the dam.
M. Kennedy replied that they could not wait to act on the NOI, if they had the right information they needed to act on it.
The man stated it was clear to the Board of Selectmen that the Town should have it.
M. Scott stated that there was 21 days for the Commission to issue it and then 10 for the appeal process. He stated that the permit was not an obligation to do the work, it was permission to do the work.
The man stated that the Town needed to look at it before the topography of the lake was changed.
S. Morrison replied that they were willing to have the conversation.
Susan Derrick, 1775 Main Street, asked where the other owners were and why they did not need to be involved.
M. Kennedy replied that White Oak owned the section where the boards were located.
G. Williamson asked if the Commission had a clear understanding of all the regulations and requirements.
L. Boucher asked if there was anything in particular she wanted them to review.
G. Williamson replied #5; ‘Other Ecological Restoration’
M. Scott replied that he believed it met the guidelines under #5 for several of the reasons that were defined.
M. Kennedy agreed as did the Commission.
V. Sampson asked about the Worcester Water Supply.
M. Kennedy replied it had been brought up. He stated that moving forward in this manner was no more of an issue than having a big lake with limited turnover. He stated it is hard to argue that having a dam is a better ecological decision.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT- EAGLE LAKE DRAWDOWN-183-642 WHITE OAK LAND CONSERVATION.
M. Scott stated that the Standard Order did not address what the applicant would need to adhere to in terms of timing and the process. He asked the timing for each stage.
S. Morrison replied that it would be 6” / week. He stated that there was a specific Order of Conditions for Ecological Restoration.
M. Kennedy stated that they would need a 9 -week period of time to do this work. He stated that he did not believe there was enough time to do this in 2017.
M. Scott asked if the Commission needed to refer to the drawdown being permanent in the order.
M. Kennedy replied they could indicate that the Commission was “allowing for the removal of boards.”
M. Scott suggested adding that the boards could be put back in over the life of the Order of Conditions.
M. Kennedy stated that in order for the applicant to meet the Ecological Restoration /Connectivity portion that they were filing under he believed that they would need to do all the work in one growing season. He stated that he does not think that the applicant could take the top few feet off as there would be no benefit attained. He stated that based on that reasoning, he did not believe that the work could be done until 2018. He stated that 4.5ft of boards to remove would be 9 weeks so there was not enough time left to do the work this year.
M. Kennedy asked the Commission if there was anything relative to monitoring that should be added.
M. Scott suggested that the applicant file reports.
S. Morrison stated that they would do 3 reports with a status and a picture status added to the report.
L. Boucher suggested notification prior to work and reports throughout.
M. Scott asked if there were any other restrictions that they should add such as that the work could not begin under high flow.
S. Morrison replied that they had that in there and that they would not be reckless with their work.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by L. Boucher, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE NOTICE OF INTENT / EAGLE LAKE DRAWDOWN183-642/ WHITE OAK LAND CONSERVATION BY A VOTE OF 5-0-2 WITH THE ORDER OF CONDITIONS PLUS
-WATER TO BE DRAWNDOWN AT A LEVEL OF 6”/ WEEK
-ENTIRE 4.5FT REQUIRED TO BE DRAWN DOWN IN ONE SEASON TO SATSIFY ECOLOGICAL CONNECTIVITY
-FLASH BOARDS ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE REINSTALLED FOR THE LIFE OF THE ORDER WITH AN ADEQUATE PLAN WITH FLOWS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION
-NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO WORK
(Costello: abstain; Strom: abstain).
M. Kennedy told the Public that the Order of Conditions would be issued in 21 days and then anyone with standing would have a 10 day appeal period.
K. Strom and A. Costello returned to the meeting.
REQUSET FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- 183-243 243 Main Street, Assessing Map 223, Parcel 36., Yaser Najjar, Single-Family Home.
G. Williamson stated that the property looked stable.
Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR 183-243/ 243 MAIN STREET, ASSESSING MAP 223, PARCEL 36, YASER NAJJAR, SINGLE-FAMILY HOME
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- 183-368 411 Highland Street, Assessing Map 117, Parcel 70- Nicholas Kean COC requested by George Rapsomanikis, HJ Realty Group.
G. Williamson stated that the property looked stable and boulders were in place.
Motion by M. Krikonis, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR 183-368/ 411 HIGHLAND STREET/ ASSESSING MAP 117, PARCEL 70/ NICHOLAS KEAN.
EXTENSION OF TIME- Lot 1, 140 Paxton Road- 183-537
Robert Keeny owner, Julian Votruba, Rep. Single-family home, Septic, replication area
G. Williamson stated that it was extended to July of 2018 and there is still work that needed to be completed.
M. Kennedy asked if there was any reason to not extend it. P. Harding replied there was not.
G. Williamson stated that she had requested that they replace the erosion controls as well.
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR LOT 1, 140 PAXTON ROAD/ 183-537 FOR A TIME PERIOD OF ONE YEAR.
MT VIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL- 270 Shrewsbury Street- Review of latest report from Eco-Tech dated June 6, 2017 and Level Spreader and Apron Repairs plan by Graves Engineering, Inc.
G. Williamson stated that they were reworking the issue.
M. Kennedy stated that they needed to appear before the Commission
K. Strom asked if the contractor was still responsible for the issue.
P. Harding replied that they Town kept money and put the work out to bid.
FORREST CUTTING PLAN- CH 132- DCR- 134-8851-17 Broad Street (Rt. 68), 55 Acres
G. Williamson provided the Forrest Cutting Plan to the Commission for their information.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission held onto approval of minutes until next meeting.
Motion by R. Lowell, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE JUNE 28, 2017 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:36PM.
APPROVED: ______________