Conservation Commission, June 7, 2017
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET
June 7, 2017
Members Present: Matt Kennedy, Mike Scott, Luke Boucher, Anthony Costello, Ken Strom, Mike Krikonis
Members Absent: Rob Lowell
Others Present: Pam Harding, Conservation Agent, Glenda Williamson, Conservation Assistant, Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary
Others on Sign In: Dan Marinone, Eagle Lake; Alan Lambert, Eagle Lake; Sandra Lambert, Eagle Lake; Dick Lipsoy, Eagle Lake, James O’Hare, Eagle Lake; Maureen Finlay, Finlay Engineering; Clea Blair, Morningside Estates; Cara Valeri, Eagle Lake; Tom Connolly, Eagle Lake; Janet DeLuck, Eagle Lake; Tammy and John Fitzgerald, 190 Jennifer Drive; Kim and Al Vuono, 182 Jennifer Drive; Duncan Keith, White Oak; Barbara Melecar, Eagle Lake; Valerie Sampson, Eagle Lake; Charles Blaum, Eagle Lake; Renee Boulanger, Eagle Lake; Joe Boulanger, Eagle Lake; Mark Lipsory, Eagle Lake; Gerald Kersus, Eagle lake, Kathleen Kersus, Eagle Lake; Karen Stern, Eagle Lake; Steve Kaminsi, Eagle Lake; Melissa Corady, Tighe & Bond; Jennifer Levi, White Oak; Doug Ritchie, Eagle Lake; Elaine Ritchie, Eagle Lake; Susan Derrick, Eagle Lake; Leo McCabe, Mill Pond Realty Trust; Brian Vitalis, Eagle Lake; Craig McCall, White Oak; Ralph Peck, White Oak; Loraine Marinone, Eagle Lake; Mark Hassey, Eagle Lake
M. Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:06pm.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY- Holden DPW – Lincoln Ave, Pump Station and Force Main Replacement, 1400 linear feet of force main from Lincoln St. Pump Station, Wachusett Street to Shrewsbury Street. No open trench, cured -in –place pipe liner. Tighe & Bond.
Melissa Coady, Tighe & Bond was present at the meeting. She stated that the force main by Chapin Pond was built in the 50’s out of cast iron 8” pipe that was past its useful life. She stated that the Town was doing a slip line which will form a pipe in the pipe without reducing the capacity. She stated this is a more cost-effective way of doing this project and will not require the pipe to be ripped up.
M. Coady stated that at the same time the Town was doing this project they wished to do place a permanent bypass at Lincoln Ave in the event of an emergency or for future maintenance. She stated that this project would be in the buffer zone and was essentially 850 sq. ft. in the buffer. She stated that the entire area was previously developed and generally paved and they would restore surfaces to where they currently were. She stated that they do think that they will need to dewater so anything up will be treated prior to discharge.
L. Boucher asked what the material of the temporary bypass would be.
M. Coady replied PVC.
L. Boucher asked the specifics of the material.
M. Coady replied that she did not yet have that level of specs. She stated that they did not want it to be a problem so it will be cut and covered and there was some work in the 25FT no disturb but they would have an erosion control barrier to protect the wetlands but there would be minimum ground disturbance.
G. Williamson asked what the timeframe would be.
Ryan Mouradian, Water/ Sewer Superintendent, DPW stated that they wanted to start it in August/ September and wrap it up by the winter.
M. Kennedy asked if there was special material for the lining that the Commission needed to be aware of.
M. Coady stated they were cured and put in place with steam. She stated it was a standard way to do it for sewer and storm drainage and culverts.
M. Kennedy asked if the public had any comments; no members of the public stepped forward.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by M. Scott it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DETERMINATION FOR REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY/HOLDEN DPW- LINCOLN AVE, PUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN REPLACEMENT.
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 (continued from May 3rd)
Clea Blair was present at the meeting.
P. Harding stated that this was a continued Public Hearing. She stated that M. Krikonis was unable to participate in this matter and M. Kennedy was able to because he had read the meeting minutes and signed the Mullins Affidavit.
C. Blair stated that this was his third time back. He stated that the Commission had some suggestions that his engineer had accommodated such as moving the house and fence. He stated the big thing that was outstanding was the O&M Plan that the Commission had requested. He stated that he was having a difficult time putting the burden on the homeowner for the O&M and he didn’t want it incorporated into the deed. He stated that he did not want the Plan to run with the deed in perpetuity so he did not submit one.
M. Kennedy asked him if he had an alternative proposed solution.
C. Blair stated that there were three detention ponds on people's lots and they were told that they needed to maintain them but there was nothing that was giving anyone teeth if they were not maintained and it wouldn’t really affect them legally. He stated now was different, there was an HOA and everyone was responsible and that was fair, but to stick it to one homeowner and place it on a deed felt out of line to him. He stated that he did not mind putting money in a bank book but that was probably the most he could do.
M. Kennedy asked if there was an easement now for maintenance.
P. Harding replied there was.
K. Strom asked if the easement was granted to the Town.
M. Scott stated that the lot had not yet transferred hands.
M. Kennedy stated that one mechanism could be that the homeowner was responsible for maintenance but there was additional funding in place in the event that something does need to be repaired or maintained.
C. Blair stated that they had cleaned it out and it cost about $5,000. He stated it had been 15 years since they had touched it to give an idea.
M. Kennedy stated that vegetation and accumulation of sediment could occur.
P. Harding replied the Town did not use sand any longer. She stated that she thinks they need something at least to specify what the maintenance should be with a formal document and money tied to it.
C. Blair stated he did not want it tied to the deed.
K. Strom stated that it had to be recorded or it was not enforceable.
C. Blair replied that was what he wanted to stay away from.
L. Boucher stated that there was a Stormwater BMP, so they needed an O&M Plan to be associated with it and it needed to identify a responsible party as part of the O&M.
M. Kennedy stated that it was not being built now, it was build in 1996/1997 and the maintenance was not accounted for it initially. He stated that they were trying to address the issue now because it wasn’t addressed then.
M. Kennedy stated that this was why they did not like this method. He stated that it a situation that was not good but the Town was not really in the business of maintenance of Stormwater BMP’s.
C. Blair stated that he did not agree with the Town on that. He stated that the Town makes the developers move Stormceptors off the road. He stated that the people in the subdivision would not maintain them anyway.
M. Kennedy replied that matter was not a Conservation issue.
P. Harding stated that the developer needed to propose something.
C. Blair stated that the alternative would be to put money in a bank book and have the money there if it was needed.
P. Harding asked if he had turned in the budget.
C. Blair replied he did not.
P. Harding suggested that he look at that and come up with some sort of proposal. She stated they needed it to be updated and for the developer to figure out maintenance costs.
C. Blair replied that it was in the O&M Plan so he did not address it. He stated that he thought $5,000; he stated that the normal was $50/ lot.
M. Kennedy stated that was the initial amount but that the HOA was supposed to pay a yearly fee into that.
M. Scott stated that the whole estimate needed to be revisited and when the lot transfers there should be an easement to the Town and then lastly whatever numbers are determined should be set aside but that account would need to be for the Town assuming it is acceptable to the Commission.
C. Blair asked if what they were looking for was a yearly budget for cleaning out the floor bay and mowing the grass.
P. Harding replied that they also wanted to see long term maintenance.
M. Scott replied they also would need a draft of the easement.
P. Harding replied an easement would need to go to Town Meeting.
M. Kennedy opened the matter up to the public.
Kim Vuona, 182 Jennifer Drive was present at the meeting. She asked as far as accountability, what would happen if there were financial problems.
M. Kennedy replied that the Town would have the money in this scenario.
K. Vuona asked what they would be basing the amount of money they collected on. She asked if the Commission asks for receipts so they can verify any projected costs.
M. Kennedy replied that was why they were asking for the budget and see if it was reasonable.
K. Vuona asked about the open gate with summer vacation and kids in the area.
M. Kennedy replied that was not a Conservation issue.
Al Vuono, 182 Jennifer Drive asked what would happen if there was a major breakdown of the system. He stated the system was 15/16 years old and asked if the $5,000 would be enough.
M. Kennedy replied that there were not a lot of components of the system. He stated that there were pipes and an outlet structure made of concrete but a scenario where there would be a hug breakdown.
A Vuono asked who would be responsible if cellars flooded.
M. Kennedy stated that was not a likely scenario.
A Vuono stated he didn’t think so but it could happen.
M. Kennedy stated that the neighbors were not worse than where they were today. He stated before this there was no accountability and the Commission was trying to create a better situation for the neighborhood.
Tammy Fitzgerald, 190 Jennifer Drive was present at the meeting. She stated that she has all her original documentation and there was nothing about an HOA.
M. Kennedy replied that their neighborhood did not have an HOA.
T. Fitzgerald asked why they were not given the choice to have one.
M. Kennedy replied that it was not done like that at the time.
T. Fitzgerald replied that they were not given a choice.
M. Kennedy replied that it was not choice. He stated that he really couldn’t address the history of that as it was not the Commission’s purview and there was nothing they could do at this point regardless.
T. Fitzgerald stated that A. Vuono was talking about a breakdown of the system. She stated that she owned a lot of buildings and that concrete does break. She stated that there was a sinkhole with the rain and part of the foundation got washed away at one of her locations so it does happen. She stated that the structure had been there for over 18 years, she asked if it had been inspected.
M. Kennedy replied that it is already built, they were not asking to build it at this point.
T. Fitzgerald asked if the Town takes it over would they inspect it. She stated that they were not informed of what was going on and why they didn’t have the HOA.
M. Kennedy replied that of course they were; he stated that they could not go back to 1996 and change things. He stated that all they could do was address the Conservation matters and try to make it a situation where it is maintained.
T. Fitzgerald asked if the easement was going to be moved 10ft.
L. Boucher replied the easement was not going to be moved, the fence was. He stated that the easement was an imaginary line. He stated for clarification purposes, the Town was not taking ownership of this.
T. Fitzgerald asked what happened the next time it needed to be cleaned out, she stated it grew fast.
L. Boucher replied that was the idea of the O&M Plan; that the maintenance should be occurring yearly. He stated that it should not go 18 years without anyone doing anything so $5,000 or whatever number is agreed on is the number being discussed after years of no maintenance. He stated the cost annually should be less but the maintenance has to occur yearly.
T. Fitzgerald asked if it will happen yearly.
L. Boucher stated that the Town was not responsible for the work.
M. Scott stated that C. Blair had volunteered to do a budget. He stated that this particular subdivision predates that requirement.
M. Kennedy stated that this was before the new Stormwater policy.
M. Scott stated that the requirements the Commission were discussing were not in place at the time of this subdivision. He stated if this lot was sold at that time it would be the same as the rest of the subdivision.
T. Fitzgerald asked why the lot was not developed at that time.
M. Kennedy replied that was not a Conservation issue. He stated that going back about the history of the subdivision was not germane to the Conservation Commission.
M. Kennedy asked if the public had any additional questions as it related to Conservation. No members of the public stepped forward.
The Commission discussed the date of their next meeting and determined it to be June 28, 2017.
M. Kennedy continued this matter to June 28, 2017.
GREENWOOD ESTATES II NOI REVIEW- continued
Quinn Engineering, Inc. – updated Stormwater Report dated January 13, 2017 Jackson Woods Investments, LLC.
C. Blair was present at the meeting. He stated that Carl Hultgren, Quinn Engineering, had not completed his review yet, he asked for a continuance until the next meeting.
M. Kennedy continued the matter until June 28, 2018.
NOTICE OF INTENT- Sean Xenos- Lot 8 Fisher Road-HCC 0117 Assessing Map 243 Parcel 40-Finlay Engineering-Construction of single family home, driveway, grading, water, and sewer service connections (Continued from May 3).
Maureen Finlay, Finlay Engineering was present at the meeting. She stated that they had met last month regarding lot 8. She stated that it was a single-family home and that the area that was under conservation was an isolated wetland that was subject to the Town Bylaw, not DEP specifically. She stated what they were proposing now was to run the existing sewer through the isolated pocket wetlands and stockpile soils and then replace them as per the Town’s request. She stated that Eco Tec, Inc. prepared the protocol on this and they will add in a few new plants once the soils were restored. She stated they would put silt fences on either side not touching the 25FT no disturb expect at the sewer line. She stated that as per the Commissions request, they would add trenches with the limit of work at 50FT behind the proposed home and they also added a detail and note to install the clay barrier on the wetlands line and street line so that the water within the wetland won’t drain out via the sewer trench.
M. Finlay stated those were the changes they discussed. She stated that the only other thing was that she was asked if they could move the house out the 100FT buffer. She stated that she thought it was the footing drain but that the other driving factor of the location was the pitch on the sewer line. She stated the sewer line is 2% and if they push the house back it would create more fill and potentially they could get into E1 and they were trying to avoid that. She stated in response to that, they pulled the drain back to 2% as well.
G. Williamson stated that the Town was concerned about the wetlands being drained; she asked if they would be stockpiling and using the existing for restoration.
M. Finlay replied that they were and that there was additional if they needed extra.
M. Kennedy asked if the Commission had any additional questions; no members had questions.
M. Kennedy asked if the public had any questions; no members of the public had questions.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE NOTICE OF INTENT-SEAN XENOS- LOT 8 FISHER ROAD, HCC-0117.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE THE STANDARD ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR NOTICE OF INTENT-SEAN XENOS-LOT 8 FISHER ROAD, HCC-0117.
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 May 3).
K. Strom and A. Costello recused themselves from this matter.
G. Williamson read the Public Hearing Notice into record.
Ralph Peck, White Oak was present at the meeting. He stated that his two dam experts, Paul McManus and Scott Morrison were meeting with clients so any engineering questions would be deferred to them.
R. Peck asked if the Commission received the supplemental information that was prepared by S. Morrison and P. McManus.
R. Peck gave the Commission and the Public a little history: in the early 90’s the Mill ceased operations and developers became involved with the building, the dam was offered to the Town. He stated this was logical, as they owned Eagle Lake- however, the Town refused because of liability. He stated at the time the Lake was used extensively and as a public service White Oak agreed to assume ownership. He stated that they did the required inspection and preformed maintenance that was required on their portion of the dam. He stated that there were two other owners that did not contribute or do work until recently; however, recently Mill Pond Realty Trust has contributed to inspection costs.
R. Peck stated that all of this was manageable however over time, DCR and the Office of Dam Safety enlarged their definition about what a dam was and designated the dam as a high hazard dam. He stated this means that there could be a breach, a loss of life, or that it could cause damage to property. He stated with that change there was more to maintain so what was once manageable previously was no longer manageable for a small land trust.
R. Peck stated that the last inspection was conducted in 2013 and in 2015 DCR issued an Order that certain things be completed. He stated that White Oak never received that Order. He stated that they did receive it in February of this year in the form of a Notice of Failure to comply with a Certificate of Non-Compliance at which time they said that since the 2013 inspection, the dam had been structurally deficient and in poor condition. He stated that they listed a number of requirements one of which was a Phase 2 Inspection Investigation. He stated that they (White Oak) understand this Phase 2 report to be about $30,000-$40,000 and in addition, DCR has imposed a fine of $5,000 to the owners of the dam.
R. Peck stated that they have sent a long and detailed letter challenging the fine and requesting that they come visit the dam and meet with everyone to come up with a solution. He stated that the 2013 report suggests that repairs could be $800,000 and while they don’t think it is a valid number, they cannot say until the Phase 2 Study is completed.
R. Peck stated that what they are asking for is permission to reduce the level of the lake by 4.5 feet and to do this at 6” per week during the growing season to allow the area to re-vegetate naturally. He stated that they were doing this for two reasons. One, they are hopeful that this will make the dam safer because there will be less water behind it and two it would also permit the owners to perform repairs to the dam. He stated that White Oak fully intends to do repairs on their side of the dam as soon as the water level is lowered. He stated that they also intend to do the Phase 2 Study where they actually will drill into the dam in order to get some details on the condition of the dam.
R. Peck stated that they have two goals, one is to divest themselves from ownership issue of the dam. He stated that Mill Pond feels the same way that White Oak does. He stated that failing to do this, White Oak wishes to demolish the dam. He stated that the only people that could take ownership would be the Town but a small land trust has no business owning a dam.
R. Peck stated that the technical aspects were well covered in S. Morrison’s supplemental information letter. He stated that the neighbors who live in the condo around Mill Pond and some people who live on the lake are distressed. He stated that they (White Oak) feel as though they cannot delay despite this although he believes that it would be about three years before a demo plan could be put together. He stated that these people who were in distress about this could put a plan together but that plan could not assume that White Oak owned the dam; the title would need to be transferred elsewhere.
G. Williamson asked about the other owners.
Leo McCabe, Mill Pond Realty Trust was present at the meeting. He stated that they endorse White Oak and support them in particular with the supplemental data. He stated that they have paid some minor fees and that Keith Beardsly has been working with and has a good relationship with S. Morrison.
R. Peck stated that Sundin is also an owner but they say they have no ownership interest. He stated that they have some essential machine in the basement of their building for the dam and that it is clear from plans that have been recorded that they do own it, however they deny ownership.
L. McCabe stated that they (Mill Pond Realty Trust) and White Oak each are responsible for 40% of the dam and Sundin is responsible for 20% of it; however, Sundin will not acknowledge that.
M. Kennedy stated that the request was for the drawdown and the owners divesting would be addressed at a different time. He asked if the drawdown would change the hazard rating of the dam.
R. Peck replied that they hoped it would but were not sure. He stated that they have notified DCR and the Office of Dam Safety of their intention; however, they have yet to reply.
M. Kennedy asked if there were any calculations done yet.
R. Peck replied he was not sure.
P. Harding stated that she was told that Leonard did and that was when the determination was changed.
M. Kennedy asked who did the determination.
R. Peck replied DCR did it and it was based on an inspection that was done in 2013.
M. Kennedy asked if anyone had revisited that and if Leonard agreed that the rating was accurate.
R. Peck stated that Leonard had agreed with the rating and that it was recorded in the Office of Dam Safety.
M. Kennedy stated that if they had different information they could change the rating based on the other information. He asked what the wetlands were, what were the impacts, and were they covered by any special limited project or exemption.
G. Williamson stated that DEP said it would be an ecological restoration project and they asked for additional information.
M. Kennedy asked if it was a limited project under the wetlands.
G. Williamson replied that it would be for the dam not for an ecological project.
M. Kennedy stated that they were unable to address any technical information without P. McManus and S. Morrison. He stated that the Commission was limited to discussing the impact to wetlands and if it was allowable. That was the Commission obligation.
M. Kennedy let the public know that the Commission would be discussing the matter first and would then open it up for public comment. He stated at that time, any member of the public would need to identify themselves and ask their question. He stated that it would be related to Conservation issues, if it was aesthetics or property value they would be unable to address the public comment.
M. Scott asked who owned the land under the pond.
R. Peck replied that the Town did
M. Kennedy asked about re-vegetation.
R. Peck replied that revegetation would occur naturally since drawdown would take place incrementally.
M. Kennedy asked if the other part of the causeway/ Stump Pond would be drawn down.
R. Peck replied that he was unsure and that one of his engineers may have addressed that.
M. Kennedy replied that would need to be addressed.
M. Kennedy asked about timing.
R. Peck replied that it was growing season so they would like to do it as soon as possible with the Commissions approval.
M. Krikonis asked if they were reducing at 6” intervals overtime.
R. Peck replied that they were going to do it weekly so it could re-vegetate naturally.
P. Harding stated that as a Town, they have needed to draw down Eagle Lake and the Town needed to notify Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program and MA Wildlife. She stated it was not noted on the application if they had notified them or if they were completing this under restoration and did not need to. She asked for the status of that.
M. Kennedy stated that they had listed species in the report.
P. Harding stated the Town was limited to a two foot drawdown.
M. Kennedy stated those were questions for White Oak to address.
M. Kennedy opened it up for Public Comment.
Gerald Kersus, 201 Kendall Road was present at the meeting. He stated that he was a lake abutter and that he had read about the drawdown in the Landmark and had went into the Town offices to look at plans with P. Harding. He stated that he was puzzled by the lack of detail in the application. He stated that it speaks about safety; however, the Phase 2 Study was not completed so they really don’t know how safe it is. He stated that they were making a major change without this information. He stated that 30 acres of Eagle Lake will be gone. He asked how they could do that if they didn’t know how serious it really was.
M. Kennedy replied that White Oak was under an Administrative Order.
G. Kersus replied that they were not doing the study.
M .Kennedy replied they do not have the funds for the study.
G. Kersus asked if the Commission just let other people slide if they don’t have funds for something.
M. Kennedy stated that the Commission could only rule if something is allowable under Wetlands Protection.
G. Kersus stated that the original order came from DEP.
P. Harding replied DEP does not approve it.
M. Kennedy stated that the process would be that DEP would review the Commissions ruling and make a determination. He stated this was not a standard situation, they question is asked if it was allowable under a limited project.
G. Kersus stated that the wording on the NOI was that they want to see it restored to the level of the dam.
P. Harding disagreed.
G. Kersus stated it was on the second paragraph, the NOI for taking down the whole dam.
G. Williamson stated that the NOI was for complete removal of dam or permitted under limited project. She stated that she had spoken with S. Morrison and that he was going to go with a limit project but that DEP did ask for additional information, which she does not believe he has given to them at this point.
G. Kersus asked again about the Phase 2 Study. He asked if they have looked at the impact on the wildlife. He stated that they will lose over 30 acres. He asked who owned the land under the lake.
R. Peck replied that the Town did.
G. Kersus stated that his deed says pipe to high water mark; he asked where that would go to.
M. Scott replied that would be a legal question.
G. Kersus asked if the Town was going to give up 30+ acres of wetlands.
M. Scott replied that the Town did not take ownership of the dam.
G. Kersus asked if the Commission was protecting wetlands or dam owners.
M. Kennedy stated that ecologically, removing the dam is a better solution. He stated that the dam is not good for water quality and is less good for wildlife and that is why there is a special provision to remove them. He stated from that standpoint, DEP is going to look more favorably to remove the dam then to keep it in place. He stated that to answer the question, from an ecological standpoint, taking the dam out is better.
G. Kersus asked how many high hazard dams were in Massachusetts.
M. Kennedy replied that was not germane to this conversation. He stated that they were welcome to discuss that with DCR.
G. Kersus stated that DCR labeled it a High Hazard Dam and stated it was in poor condition. He stated that DCR said to do a Phase 2 Study but they were not following what DCR said, they were rather going to disperse of 30 + acres of wetlands.
R. Peck stated that they would not be able to do a Phase 2 report until the dam was lowered anyway.
M. Scott stated that the notification from DEP required one of two things; filing to restore or to file an application to remove the dam. He stated he was not sure they could do a permanent drawdown.
G. Kersus stated that none of the other half dozen items from DCR Certificate of Non-Compliance were addressed. He stated that everything was downstream that needed to be fixed. He stated that if you look at the Phase 1 report from Leonard nothing that they need to fix requires the dam to be lowered.
M. Kennedy asked if G. Kersus had a question as it pertained to Conservation.
G. Kersus asked why they were rushing.
M. Kennedy replied that they were not.
G. Kersus stated that it was permanent.
M. Kennedy stated that the only way that they can answer a question was “is it allowable under the Wetlands Protection Act.” If it is, then the Commission needs to let them do it. He stated that they could add conditions but they cannot legislate or make opinions on motivation. He stated that he understood where the abutters were coming from, but these were issues between the abutters and the owners and maybe DCR.
G. Kersus stated that the Town of Holden was a land owner so they would have stake in the deal as well.
M. Kennedy replied that the Town does not own the dam.
G. Kersus stated that they were looking at a permanent drawdown and that would be 30-40 acres of wetlands jus so that they can alleviate the owners from stepping up and doing what they should to fix the problems.
M. Kennedy replied is it allowable under the Wetlands Protection Act was all the Commission could answer. He stated the Commission makes a decision and DEP will review it.
G. Kersus asked if this was an allowable activity.
M. Kennedy replied that the Commission does not know yet as the hearing just opened.
G. Kersus asked the process.
M. Kennedy replied that the Commission opens the hearing, if there were still questions, the hearing will be continued until the next meeting and it will continue that way until all questions were answered. He stated, at that point, if the Commission feels as though what was proposed meets the standards of the Wetland Protection Act and the Holden Wetland Bylaw then the Commission will issue Conditions to allow the work with a series of conditions attached. He stated the Commission then has 21 days to issue the Order of Conditions and there is then a 10-day appeal period where the decision could be appealed to DEP.
G. Kersus stated that what he wanted to know was what they were going to do, why they were going to do it, and what the impacts would be.
M. Kennedy replied that the why did not matter to the Commission as it was not up to them.
G. Kersus asked who could answer that.
M. Kennedy suggested DEP or DCR.
G. Kersus stated that he was looking for the justification.
M. Kennedy replied that he understands the impact this would be and can appreciate the situation they are in.
Brian Vitalis, 34 Village Way was present at the meeting.
B. Vitalis stated that, as the public, they wanted to point out that their review of the NOI and Supplement suggests a different flavor then what was already presented. He stated that they had a presentation as relates to the DCR Notice of Non-Compliance.
M. Kennedy stated that was not relevant and it needed to be relevant to the Conservation issues at hand.
B. Vitalis stated that the Notice outlines a procedure that was required a Phase 2 Study.
M. Kennedy replied that was between the owners and DCR.
B. Vitalis stated that the component that were in poor condition would remain in poor condition after the drawdown and the repairs would be needed if the dam was breached or not.
M. Kennedy stated that in the lowered condition, there was a smaller potential hazard moving forward.
B. Vitalis stated that the O-&-M Manual stated that in anticipation of a known storm they should lower the gates.
M. Kennedy replied they do that to protect the dam so there is not a breach.
B. Vitalis stated that you also reduce the storm surge and the lake acts as a buffer.
M. Kennedy replied taking the flash boards out would do the same thing.
B. Vitalis stated they would then have no way of adjusting the water.
M. Kennedy replied it would be most advantageous as it was permanent.
B. Vitatis stated that in anticipation of a flood surge, they can lower the water level.
L. Boucher stated that you have the most storage in the lowered conditions.
B. Vitalis stated that as it relates to the NOI it is written and reflected in the agenda as a permanent draw down. He stated that there is a lot of talk about lowering for vegetative re-stabilization. He stated that he does not have a problem with a temporary draw down for repairs but feels as though a permanent one would be premature.
M. Kennedy stated that he understands the abutters concerns but he needs a reason that is not just that the abutters want the water there; he stated they needed ecological value.
B. Vitalis presented a chart to the Commission. He stated that while it may still look like a lake at the end of the drawdown, it would be only inches deep and that would be a 30%-40% reduction in surface area. He stated that the reduction ends up being 65% not including Stump Pond. He stated that they would be left with only 12% of retained volume.
M. Kennedy replied that seemed consistent with what was presented. He stated that it would not really be a lake more of a stream.
B. Vitalis stated that with the shallow water, the temperature would be warm and that would lead to reduced oxygen and algae blooms would increase. He stated that was something else they should acknowledge. He stated this would go into the drinking water.
M. Kennedy agreed and stated that it would not have the same characteristics as the lake.
L. Boucher stated that the retention times would be lower so the water was not going to have as much time to heat up.
M. Kennedy stated that the impact on water quality was legitimate.
B. Vitalis stated that the nature of the wetlands would also be impacted. He stated in looking at the maps and water there would be no flow to some of the water that fed Eagle Lake and that would mean inconsistent water flow and no stable environment for what chooses to live there. He stated that would further change the wildlife.
B. Vitatlis stated that he did not know what the surge capacity was but that may be something to look at as well with the fluctuation of the in-feed and uncontrolled spillway.
B. Vitalis stated that with the removal of the slide gates it would be an uncontrolled spillway and any storm surges could not be mitigated. He stated that he and the Commission have a difference of opinion on this matter.
B. Vitais stated that the physical quality will change as well. He stated with only 35% remaining as water the NOI suggests that this will turn to marsh. He stated anyone familiar with the area knows there is a thick layer of muck and algae and that any thoughts of a marsh is far out in the future.
M. Kennedy replied he was not sure that he agreed with that as it would be considerably consolidated.
B. Vitalis asked if anything would grow in 4FT of algae.
M. Kennedy stated that sediment would be loosely formed into organic muck and it would be high in nutrients and have a great growing pace.
B. Vitalis stated that in 1993 when the lake was drawn down, there were complaints of odors. He stated that the NOI states that ecologically things will change and in his non- professional opinion it will not be a positive change.
B. Vitalis stated that they do also have a beaver population that if the lake turns into a stream could cause a safety issue pertaining to the beavers as well.
B. Vitalis stated that he does not think this is ecological restoration, he thinks this is ecological disturbance.
B. Vitalis stated that he thinks the perspective of returning surroundings to their natural habitat may be something that happens for a more recent dam where there is something recent to go back to more than a dam that is as old as this one is.
M. Kennedy replied he was not sure that was correct.
M. Scott stated that ones that he had dealt with were similar to this situation.
B. Vitalis asked if he could come back to the DCR notice. He stated that the Notice of Non-Compliance required a Phase 2 Study among other things. He stated that to decide the fate of the dam without doing all those things is not right. He stated that all costs need to be known before a permanent removal was decided on.
M. Kennedy stated the question was if they could move forward; the Commission could not consider if they should do a Phase 2 Study or not.
B. Vitalis stated that the Phase 2 Study was required.
L. Boucher stated it was not something the Commission was requiring.
B. Vitalis asked what the Commission was deciding on the request.
M. Kennedy replied the permanent drawdown.
B. Vitalis stated that the abutters were trying to see a cost and secure funding. He asked for the permanent removal aspect of the request be redacted. He stated that additionally in the DCR Notice, they did not require immediate draining, they wanted periodic with monitoring.
M. Kennedy replied he heard Mr. Vitalis but that the only thing the Commission could consider was the action before them; does it meet the Wetland Protection Act and does it meet Holden Wetlands Bylaw. He stated the Commission could not rule on items under DCR jurisdiction.
M. Scott called a point of order. He stated that an Order of Conditions was not an order, it was permission to do something; if approved the Commission would be affording them the right to do something, not an obligation which is a big distinction.
B. Vitalis replied that in that case, his audience was White Oak.
M. Kenney stated that the Commission cannot put their own feeling into this. He stated that the Commission could only consider what was before them. He stated that it was a complicated and emotional situation but they were held to what they could consider.
B. Vitalis stated that he wanted to point out that the components of the embankment were determined in 2013/2015 and that this was not the lowest rating. He stated that they were not talking about an unsafe dam, he stated water could be put back in after a temporary drawdown.
M. Kennedy replied that they wanted to limit their liability. He stated that lowering the water level would make it safer because you were storing less water with less potential energy. He stated that this was still not germane to the Commission. He stated that the question was “is it allowable?”
Tom Connolly, 29 Village Way was present. He said that it didn’t matter why the owners want to do what they want to do or if the owner's assumptions were correct. The Commission could not review that.
M. Kennedy agreed.
T. Connolly stated that he thought that he understood the Commission to say that the result of lowering the level of the dam from wetland is a better result then preserving the lake as it is now.
M. Kennedy replied that in general that was correct.
T. Connolly replied that the abutters had a whole bunch of things they wanted to present to the Commission but what they really needed to do was to have a caucus and see if they can take White Oak out of their position and then if they are the owners they would not have to execute the conditions that were given to them by the Commission.
M. Kennedy stated that nothing was given and clearly there were questions that they needed answers to. He stated that the next time that could happen would be at the next Conservation Commission meeting which would be held on June 28, 2017. He stated that if all the questions were answered maybe at that time an Order of Conditions could be issued and then there was an appeal period which they may move forward with as well and then maybe in a year from now something would happen. He stated the process takes time.
T. Connolly stated he was going to ask for some time to figure out what they can do with White Oak. He thanked the Commission.
Susan Derrick, 1775 Main Street was present. She stated that she canoes around Stump Pond and that there was an incredible amount of wildlife on the pond. She submitted photos to the Commission. She asked what would happen to Stump Pond if Eagle Lake was drawn down.
M. Kennedy replied that was a question that was presented to the applicant but that the Commission thinks Stump Pond will have no water in it. He stated the culvert holds the water into Eagle Lake and with no water in Eagle Lake there will be no pressure to have water to Stump Pond.
S. Derrick asked what Stump Pond would end up being.
M. Kennedy replied that it was his impression that the applicant had not really answered that question as of yet but the Commission believes it would be marshy.
S. Derrick stated that if the inspection that is needed cost $35,000 and it could be drawn down to do the inspection wouldn’t that be the first thing to do; get the inspection?
M. Kennedy replied that the Commission had already addressed that and the only thing the Commission could address is what they are asking to do which is a permanent drawdown.
A Member of the public suggested getting grants to help.
M. Kennedy replied that was not germane. He stated the Commission could not make a decision based on any of that as it would not be upheld on appeal. He stated the Commission has regulations that they administer and that is what they can consider.
J. Deluca, 42 Village Way was present at the meeting. He stated that he did not think it was in the Commissions realm to grant a permanent drawdown.
M. Kennedy replied that the way it was presented was to draw it down and leave it.
Mark Lipson, 41 Village Way was present at the meeting. He asked what was considered wetlands and once the lake was down and the land dried up would it still be considered a wetland.
M. Kennedy replied that there were multiple wetland definitions; land under water bordering vegetated wetlands, marshes, etc. He stated that they each have a specific definition based on vegetation, soils, and how wet the soils were.
M. Lipson stated that they would lose the wetlands by draining the lake.
M. Kenney replied that they could lose wetland but they could also gain vegetated wetlands.
M. Lipson stated that it was the owner’s negligence in not maintaining the dam so if anything should happen they should be held accountable for their negligence.
M. Kennedy replied that was not the Commission’s determination to make.
M. Lipson replied that was how he felt.
Tim Ethier, 10 Nichols Street was present at the meeting. He stated that he is on the Board of Selectmen and feels that the Town has an interest in the lake. He stated the lake was a source of pride for many years. He stated that he has a lot of respect for Holden and for White Oak. He asked what the cost of repairs on the dam were.
M. Kennedy replied that the Phase 2 would determine what would need to be done for the Dam Safety Regulations for the state. He stated that it was about $30,000-$50,000 to do the study and then there would be some recommendations and work. He stated that the estimated work from was about $800,000 but it could be more or less and they would not know that until the Phase 2 Study was completed and they looked at the geo tech. He stated that typically in these situations, repairing the dam was more expensive than removing it.
T. Ethier asked if White Oak wanted to do the Phase 2 Study.
R. Peck stated that he thinks they have to but they cannot afford to.
M. Kennedy stated that they were having an issue paying.
T. Ethier stated that Holden should look at assuming ownership of the dam, he stated it sounded as though White Oak would not object to that.
M. Kennedy replied it needed to be someone with the means to maintain it.
M. Kennedy stated another option would be to have a lake association where the liability was spread over many homes.
Dan Marinone, 37 Village Way was present at the meeting. He stated that he had met with S. Morrison. He stated that White Oak has a limited source of resources so there is a group of people that have organized and in a month, they have sanded and done repairs and done some superficial cleaning and brush clean up. He stated there was a lot of interest in the lake.
M. Kennedy stated that was not in the Commission’s purview.
Al Lambert, 36 Village Way asked if timing was in the Commission’s purview and, if so, could they do it in the fall.
M. Kennedy replied that they could specify timing but they would want to go with the growing season so you have a say in what grows there; otherwise, you would end up with a muddy flat. He stated that the timing could be discussed but they were not there yet.
A Lambert stated that the State has money on the table, people just need to apply.
An unnamed member of the public asked which was better from a wetlands perspective, a free-flowing stream or swamp like conditions.
M. Kennedy replied that answer was not an either/or question. He stated that what gets established receives a high value as does a stream; however, an artificially impounded lake has less value.
M. Kennedy stated that there were several questions that needed to be addressed by the applicant along with having the engineering people present to answer technical questions.
M. Kennedy stated that Notice of Intent- Eagle Lake Drawdown 183-642 was continued to the June 28, 2017 Conservation Commission Meeting.
K. Strom and A. Costello returned to the meeting.
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- 183- 604 / Assessing Map 244, Parcel 20. 84 Jordan Road, Lot 26. Charles Black- Kendall Homes-Oak Hill.
G. Williamson stated that this lot was fully stabilized lot at Oak Hill.
Motion by M. Krikonis, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR 183-604, 84 JORDAN ROAD, LOT 26.
REQUEST FOR CERTIFIATE OF COMPLIANCE- 183- 592/ Assessing Map 134, Parcel 2. 664 Bullard Street (Lot 4B) Wingspan Properties, Construction of single-family home and septic system.
G. Williamson stated that this looked good.
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR 183-592, 664 BULLARD STREET, LOT 4B.
LOT 14, 66 LIBERTY CIRCLE- Wachusett Valley Estates- 183-630/ Review of Lot development Plan, Protection of the sewer line easement along the western property boundary.
G. Williamson stated that the developer wanted to do a wall along the sewer easement that runs through the lot.
K. Strom asked what they were asking for.
P. Harding stated that there were wetlands on the other side, so the Commission did demarcation and he wanted to move it further.
L. Boucher stated that seemed fine. The Commission agreed.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by M. Scott, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APRROVE MOVING THE SEWER LINE EASEMENT TO THE OTHER SIDE.
MALDEN HILL SOUTH CONSERVATION RESTRICTION- Greater Worcester Land Trust/ White Oak. Assessing Map 136, Parcel 22-13.6 acres, Holden CC to hold the CR
P. Harding stated that the Commission was second owners of the restriction. She stated that they had previously voted to support the Greater Worcester Land Trust if White Oak did; so they were first and the Commission was second.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by L. Boucher, it was VOTED TO ACCEPT HOLDING THE CONSERVATION RESTRICTION BY THE HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION FOR MALDEN HILL SOUTH CONSERVATION RESTRICTION BY A VOTE OF 4-0-2 (K. Strom: abstain; A. Costello: abstain).
TROUT BROOK PAVILIONS- Holden DPW- Rebuild two existing 40x40 pavilions, replace with two 28x24 pavilions, gravel floors and pitched roof
M. Kennedy asked if they were ripping up the asphalt.
G. Williamson replied that they would be leaving them soft bottom and the roof would pitch.
M. Krikonis asked how many they were doing.
G. Williamson replied two.
K. Strom asked who was doing them.
P. Harding replied DPW.
Motion by M. Krikonis, seconded by M. Scott, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE PLAN FOR THE REBUILDING OF THE TROUT BROOK PAVILIONS BY HOLDEN DPW SUBJECT TO ANY BUILDING/DEMO PERMITS REQUIRED.
MEETING MINUTES
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by M. Scott, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 1, 2017 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED BY A VOTE OF 4-0-2 (Kennedy: abstain; Krikonis: abstain)
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by K. Strom, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 5, 2017 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED BY A VOTE OF 5-0-1 (Krikonis: abstain).
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by L. Boucher, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE MAY 3, 2017 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED BY A VOTE OF 4-0-2 (Kennedy: abstain; Krikonis: abstain).
FORREST CUTTING
P. Harding stated that these were for information purposes only.
Motion by A. Costello, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE JUNE 7, 2017 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:30PM.
APPROVED: _______________