Conservation Commission, March 1, 2017

HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION

1130 MAIN STREET

March 1, 2017

Members Present:  Rob Lowell Mike Scott, Luke Boucher, Anthony Costello, Ken Strom

Members Absent: Matt Kennedy, Mike Krikonis

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

Others on Sign In: James Dunn, Agricultural Commission; Mark Arnold, Goddard Consulting; Isabel McCauley, Senior Civil Engineer, DPW; Clea Blair, Greenwood Estates; Carl Hultgren, Quinn Engineering

R. Lowell called the meeting to order at 7:04PM.

Jim Dunn- Agricultural Commission – Discussion

Jim Dunn was present at the meeting and wanted to discuss with the Commission an initiative that would indirectly impact the Conservation Commission.  He handed out copies of a presentation for the Commission’s review.  He stated that there was a revision in MGL§8L Section 48 that was put in place to allow Agricultural Commissions to manage Town owned land.

J. Dunn stated that in the past year Holden’s Ag Com worked with the BOS and Fin Com to have an Open Space Preservation Fund set up and funded the account with $50,000.  He stated it is in the budget this year for another $50,000.  He stated that previously Con Com was the only Town body that could manage Town owned land and now with this change the Ag Com’s could manage the agricultural spaces as well.

J. Dunn stated that the rationale for the change was that Con Com’s don’t have the expertise to manage agricultural lands.  He stated that the Town does not currently own any agricultural properties so there was no impact right now but with the creation of the Open Space Preservation Fund there may be the opportunity in the future to acquire something and the regulation change would allow the assignment of properties to a different entity.  He stated that it would have to be determined who would manage the land as part of the acquisition process but it was just a different option that would be allowed.

J. Dunn stated he wanted to keep the Conservation Commission informed.  He stated the Town would need to accept the regulation change at Town Meeting so Ag Com would be presenting it to the BOS next week and requesting a warrant articles be added for Town Meeting.

K. Strom asked if there were any agricultural parcels in town.

J. Dunn replied there were 50 parcels in Holden that were Chapter 61.  He stated that Ag Com has been working on a process to evaluate the land.  He stated if they change use or change hands the Town gets the first right of refusal and if they have funds in the Open Space Preservation Account they can choose to exercise that right.  He stated that in the past there was no money so when a property would come up there was nothing that could be done about it.  He stated this was something Ag Com was working on but he just wanted to keep Con Com informed.

R. Lowell thanked Mr. Dunn for the update.

NOTICE OF INTENT- Goddard Consulting, LLC- Lot 1 Quinapoxet Street

Assessing Map and Parcel 102 (3 &14) Scott Goddard Construction of Single Family Home and Driveway

G. Williamson read the Public Hearing Notice into record.

Mark Arnold, Goddard Consulting, LLC was preset at the meeting, he handed the green cards to G. Williamson.

M. Arnold stated that this was a 2.2-acre lot.  He stated the back of the lot has uplands and the edges and center is mostly wetlands that has been flagged.  He stated there was an ORAD that expired about two weeks ago that was issued in 2013; DEP FILE #183-570.

M. Arnold stated that the Commission did a review at that time.  He stated the proposed lot is a wooded lot, he showed the Commission the buffer zone.  He stated the proposed construction is a single-family home with a driveway that goes to the side.  He stated the house is served by Town water and sewer and there was no septic or well on site.  He stated the site would be surrounded by erosion controls of silt fences and hay bales along the side and back so the site is encompassed in erosion controls.

R. Lowell asked what the nature of the wetlands was in the main portion of the property.

M. Arnold replied that it was typical wooded shrubbed wetlands.  He stated there were some channels and ditches in the back part of the parcel.  He stated that lot 3 had some channels and there is clearly defined embankment on the property.  He stated he included for the Commission an ANR plan with all three lots so they can visualize the whole area.

L. Boucher asked what the vegetation on the site was.

M. Arnold replied it was forested.

L. Boucher asked what the limit of clearing was.

M Arnold replied to the erosion controls

M. Scott asked if the flags were still there.

M. Arnold replied that they should still be there.  G. Williamson stated that she had located them.

M. Scott asked if the wetlands remained as is.

M. Arnold confirmed they did.

K. Strom asked for confirmation of the basement elevation. 

M. Arnold stated it was a split level with the back basement elevation of 733.5.

R. Lowell stated they would need demarcation on the back line.

Motion by M. Scott, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOI – GODDARD CONSULTING, LLC- LOT 1 QUINAPOXET STREET.  

NOTICE OF INTENT- Jefferson Meadows, LLC- Lot 3 Quinapoxet Street Assessing Map and Parcel 102 (3 &14) Denise D’Amore Construction of a Single-Family Home and Driveway

M. Arnold showed the Commission the wetlands and the buffer.  He stated the lot is wooded and stated that the erosion controls would be the limit of clearing.  He stated this lot would be a front entry driveway and again Town water and sewer.

M. Arnold stated that it was the same sizes house as the previous lot with a smaller driveway.  He stated the site was tighter so there would be a front entry instead of back.

R. Lowell asked if there was any opportunity to move the structure closer to the street.

M. Arnold stated he did not think that was possible.  He showed the Commission the setback.

L. Boucher agreed it was tight.

K. Strom asked what the arc line was.

M. Arnold replied it may be an old street line or possibly an easement that was not labeled. 

K. Strom asked if there was a setback requirement from the easement line.

P. Harding replied there was not.

G. Williamson asked how soon they would be starting construction.

M. Arnold replied he was unsure.

G. Williamson replied that she would need to be notified after the erosion controls were in place so she could do a site visit.

K. Strom stated the contour was over the EMC, 3:1, and that it needed to be tightened up.

P. Harding asked if they could move it to the side-yard setback to the left a little.

M. Arnold replied that was possible. 

R. Lowell asked him to look at that. 

L. Boucher asked about the stream. 

M. Arnold replied that he believes it is a ditch that has been channelized on the property.

G. Williamson stated there were a lot of pits on the property.

K. Strom stated there was a gravel pit there and the Boston Railroad used it.

Motion by M. Scott, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOI JEFFERSON MEADOWNS, LLC LOT 3 QUINAPOXET STREET ASSESSING MAP AND PARCEL 102; DENISE D’AMORE.

Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by M. Scott, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE THE STANDARD ORDER OF CONDITION WITH THE ADDED CONDITION OF MOVING THE BUILDING TO THE WEST AND INCLUDING DEMARACTION AT THE 25FT BUFFER/ EROSION CONTROL BARRIER.

GREENWOOD ESTATES II NOI REVIEW- * continued Quinn Engineering, Inc. Updated Stormwater Report dated January 13, 2017 Jackson Woods Investments, LLC

Carl Hultgren, Quinn Engineering, Clea Blair, Greenwood Estates, and J. Votruba, NE Environmental Design, were present at the meeting.  Isabel McCauley, Senior Civil Engineer, DPW was present at the meeting.

P. Harding stated that M. Scott was not able to vote on this matter.  She stated that she also let the developer know that M. Kennedy was unable to attend this meeting but that there was still a quorum.

M. Scott stated that they would need a unanimous vote in order to proceed.

R. Lowell stated that they had received a memo from Quinn Engineering that responded to the Commission’s questions raised at a previous hearing. 

C. Hultgren went through the memo.

Comment 7:  C. Hultgren stated that this had to do with the replication area.  He stated the developer proposed two wetland crossings.  He stated the comment had to do with the replication area, stating it should have the same groundwater elevation.  He stated the developer moved it down hill further and that they would go over that with the Commission.

Comment 9: C. Hultgren stated this comment was with regards to the fill and the replication being proposed.

Comment 14: C. Hultgren stated that he was looking for more details on this.  He stated that the developer did make a new submittal yesterday (February 28, 2017) and that he had been working on plans from February 22, 2017.

Comment 21:  C. Hultgren stated that this was something that was discussed at a previous meeting and was based on some language that was from the plan of record.  He stated that he was not a surveyor so he wanted to make note of it for the Commission to review.

Comment 23: C. Hultgren stated that this was with regards to the work within the 25FT no disturb zone.  He stated that the developer had two crossings and other areas on the site that was in this buffer and up until two days ago this was not addressed.  He stated that the developer could go through this with the Commission he just wanted to bring it to the Commissions attention.

Comment 37: C. Hultgren stated that there were some locations on the site that had pervious area from the driveways that originally was not draining to any stormwater BMPs.  He stated that stormwater management says that you should so the developer proposed a tree box filter.  He stated tree box filters were a concrete box with soil and a tree and water gets diverted there.  He stated it was similar to a bio-retention area and it gets filtered to the box and that it is in a few locations.  He stated that they were not currently identified on the plans so it was hard to comment on it too much but that was what the developer was proposing.  He stated that he did not have a lot of experience with these, but it was in the Stormwater Handbook.  He stated that he deferred to the Commission on this as it would require someone to maintain these and if the Town would need easements for them.

P. Harding stated these had been rejected in the past in other subdivisions. 

M. Scott asked if these driveways would otherwise drain to the lawn areas.

C. Hultgren replied they presumably would; he stated some would be on top of wetlands.

M. Scott stated that they could run to the wetlands but asked if there were lots yet.

C. Hultgren replied that the developer had proposed swales in the back of lots on many of the properties but that on others this was what was proposed.

Comment 86: C. Hultgren stated he wanted to bring to the Commission’s attention.

Comment 88: C. Hultgren stated this had to do with dewatering. He stated that it states that any discharge within 100FT of the buffer needs to be reviewed by the Conservation Commission and he just wanted to bring it to the Commission’s attention for review.

K. Strom asked where they were.

C. Hultgren replied that the developer had hay bales with filter bags inside so when its pumped it will be within the buffer.

K. Strom asked if that was during construction.

C. Hultgren confirmed that it was during construction and stated it was a temporary measure.

Comment 112: C. Hultgren stated this was a comment on tree box filters capturing the driveway runoff.

R. Lowell asked if there were any alternatives to this proposed.

C. Hultgren replied this was what they proposed.  He stated there were some places with limited areas. 

K. Strom asked if they could use water quality swales.

C. Blair replied they could not.

L. Boucher stated that it will all discharge through the lawn and into the wetlands.  He stated if you consider the composite TSS removal for the development as a whole if you used a 0% TSS removal for pretreatment and 0% TSS removal for treatment he stated he thinks it would be so small they will still meet 80% within the infiltration basins.

C. Hultgren replied TSS removal was greater than 80% for the development.

L. Boucher stated the tree boxes would be more of a hassle from a maintenance standpoint.

C. Hultgren agreed and stated that was why he was brining it to the Commissions attention.

C. Hultgren stated that the regulations stated that all pervious needed to be addressed.  He stated the tree boxes were pertaining to the driveways but he would defer to the Commission as to how they wanted it handled.

Comment 123:  C. Hultgren stated that this comment was about the alternatives at the two crossing locations.  He stated the developer had Lucas Engineering compare three alternative with retaining walls and slopes and that he would defer to the Commission on this matter.  He stated he was sure that the developer would review the details with the Commission but he thinks the Commission is familiar with the crossing.  He stated one has wall on both sides and the other has a wall on one side and a 1:1 slope coming down on the other.

Comment 126: C. Hultgren stated he needed more information on the floor base.

Comment 130:  C. Hultgren stated this was regarding the lot plan and that the developer is showing a driveway that they need BVW alterations.  He stated that the plans were there but it was not part of the application.

Comment 132:  C. Hultgren stated that the erosion controls needed to be adjusted.

The Commission discussed the crossings.

R. Lowell stated that there was a letter from Lucas Engineering dated February 23, 2017 that detailed the crossings as well. 

K. Strom stated that when the Commission left the last hearing, the crossing detail was a wall.  He asked if that was still being done.

C. Hultgren replied that was what was being proposed.

J. Votruba stated there were two crossing.  He showed the Commission the lower crossing and stated they were proposing a 1:1 slope on one side and a wall on the other side.  He stated that they did not have room to do anything else and it was out of the right of way.

C. Blair stated the crossing was located at the only place it could be. 

I McCauley asked why they can’t do slopes on the other side, she asked why it needed to be a retaining wall.

J. Votruba replied that they needed it to be a wall because of the grade of the land at that spot.

K. Strom asked what the height of the wall was.

J. Votruba replied he thought 6FT he stated it was outside the right of way.

M. Scott stated it was not just the footings as much as the natural conditions.  He stated that they could have 9ft crossings turn into a wide trench.  He stated that the walls do not salvage as much of the waterways as one would expect.

L. Boucher stated that they would need to restore it to the natural condition after the work but that it had already been disturbed.

I McCauley asked what the length of the wall was.

C. Hultgren replied the span of the box is 18ft.

I McCauley asked if that was the height all along the wall.

C. Blair replied it was about 4ft the whole way.

I McCauley asked why they couldn’t do slopes.

C. Blair stated that they couldn’t cover the culvert and they would have to dig it out.

J. Votruba stated that it was wetlands.

M. Scott stated it was the edge of the wetlands, he asked if they were using plantings or boulders.

J. Votruba replied boulders.

I McCauley asked about the wetlands area on the plans; she asked if the shaded area was the stream.

J. Votruba stated that the wall was going with the grade of the land.  He stated that it was a unique wetland and the water goes over the bank and then goes looking for a wetland.

R. Lowell asked about the watershed.

C. Blair stated that they have letters from DEP about that.  He stated that he thinks the water was created by street drainage from somewhere else.

J. Votruba stated that they were trying to use the least amount of fill.

P. Harding asked what the total fill on the crossing was.

The Commission reviewed the report submitted from Lucas Engineering.

C. Blair stated that Option 2B was the preferred option.

P. Harding asked what Option 2C was.

C. Hultgren stated it was the slope and the wall.

I McCauley asked if this had changed. 

P. Harding confirmed it had.

I McCauley stated that Option 2A was a 1:1 slope on one side and wall on the other.  She stated that the developer said that wall was not going to have any geo-grid; she stated there was no mention of this on the design plans.

C. Blair stated that there is a company that does not require a geo-grid and can go to 18ft without it. 

R. Lowell asked if the 4ft wall was being reviewed by DPW.

I McCauley confirmed they were. 

P. Harding stated that was for Crossing 2.  She asked about Crossing 1.

J. Votruba showed the Commission the location of Crossing 1.

P. Harding asked the date on the plan and asked if it was the latest set of plans.

J. Votruba replied January 21, 2017.  He showed the Commission the C Sheets and detailed sheets on the Crossing.  He stated the retaining wall was outside the right of way on the hill coming down. 

I McCauley asked how high the wall was.

J. Votruba replied it was 5 ft on the highest side and seven or eight feet at one point.

P. Harding asked which option they were speaking about.

C. Hultgren stated that Option 1A is a wall and a wall, Option 1B was also a wall and a wall, and Option 1C was a slope and a wall.

I McCauley asked where the slope was.

J. Votruba stated that they could not slope it.

I McCauley asked why. 

J. Votruba replied they would be filling more wetlands if they sloped it.

I McCauley replied she understood that it was limited what they could do but asked why they could not shift it over so there is more room.  She stated that it was all owned by the developer so they did have potential to do that.

C. Blair stated they would have to fill more wetlands if they did that.  He stated that any way they looked at it they would have to fill more wetlands.

J. Votruba stated they couldn’t shift it because then the street alignment would be directly across from a house.

C. Blair stated that DEP required three alternatives but they were not going to allow them to do more wetland fill if in the regulations it allowed them to do it with less fill and a wall.  He stated the way they presented it was the best way to do it creating the least amount of wetland fill.

I McCauley asked how it would be more by shifting it.

J. Votruba replied because of the grading.

C. Blair stated the cuts and fills would be unbelievable.

K. Strom asked if that was uphill.

M. Scott replied he thought it was downhill.

C. Blair stated the slopes did not allow for it to be done differently.  He stated that it was 300ft of intersection and the Town required 5% or less for the road. He stated that to have the least amount of fill and the best grading, they would need to cross at the proposed location.  He stated the walls were outside the right of way. He said if they lowered the pitch of the road they may be able to do something different.

I McCauley stated that Union Street was near a 10% pitch there and she did not think that grading to an already steep narrow street would be good.

C. Blair stated that it would be from a higher point so would lower the grade and have less fill and no walls. 

M. Scott stated that would require relief from the Planning Board.

C. Blair stated that was the best alternative for it but that the Planning Board would not give it to him.  

I McCauley disagreed.

C. Blair said without that relief, the walls were the best alternative.  He stated that there was no geo-grid and the walls were outside of the right of way so he felt that would be the best option for this crossing.  He stated that Lucas Engineering did a lot of analysis of locations to determine this.

M. Scott asked if 5% was the max road grade in town.

J. Votruba stated the Town would not let them change the road grade.

K. Strom asked if they could start higher on Union Street.

I McCauley asked if they were using the current path. 

J. Votruba replied it was the cart path.

I McCauley looked at the plans and asked where they wanted the 7%. 

C. Blair showed her where.   He stated that he did not see the safety problem with the change in grade as it was 200ft back to Union Street.  He stated he had asked J. Woodsmall, Director DPW that at the beginning of the process and that is how he (Blair) thinks you can limit the walls.

R. Lowell asked who would maintain the walls.

C. Blair replied the HOA.

P. Harding stated that was DPW’s concern.

K. Strom asked how high it would be for Crossing 1.

I McCauley stated it would be 14ft on one side and that was significant that it was supporting the roadway.  She stated it was a concern to her and she had not yet seen the design, but typically to support the structure the geo-grid is used.

C. Blair stated he had done this in Rutland for a 14ft on a bridge.

I McCauley replied she would prefer that the developer consider shifting the roadway so the slopes could be proposed on both sides.  She stated if that was not an option she would look at 1:1 slopes on the side but that she thinks they have 20ft of land they can work with.

C. Blair replied that it would be a lot more wetland fill.

I McCauley replied it was the fill versus a 14ft wall that homeowners would need to deal with.

J. Votruba stated that the Town’s regulations also stated that they cannot have a slope in the right of way.

I McCauley stated that they could limit the sidewalks.  She stated she would prefer them to look at alignment and if that was not an option then 1:1 slopes on one side and sidewalk only on one side.  She stated she would consider that if it was presented.

C. Blair stated that they will look at it.  He asked about lowering the right of way.

I McCauley asked where the guardrail was.  She stated if they don’t have sidewalks they need to have the guardrail and then have a 1:1 slope.  She stated she would rather see that then a 14ft wall.

C. Blair stated that the plan as presented met Holden Rules and Regulations 100%.  He stated that the Town should have to maintain the walls anyway, not an HOA, but that if it was the HOA then they would need to take care of it.

P. Harding stated that the Town had a few that have collapsed.

M. Scott asked if they could let the road be shifted; if DPW would be okay with the road not being centered on the right of way.

I McCauley stated that if they can show where they can come up with a 1:1 slope she would review.

C. Blair replied they would look at it.  He asked about the pitch in the road.

R. Lowell stated that was not a matter for the Conservation Commission.

C. Blair stated that how he currently has the plans meets rules and regulations. He stated if the Town would give him a waiver on that there would still be a 1:1 slope.  He stated that the road at 7% was not unsafe.

I McCauley stated that 200ft was not enough and it was not a leveling area. 

J. Votruba stated they went by the rules and tried to do what they could for the wetlands.

M. Scott stated that from the Commissions perspective it didn’t matter slope versus wall, he stated it was a question of what is more stable.

R. Lowell stated he would like to see the design.

L. Boucher stated either way it would need to be engineered.

R. Lowell asked if the wall block details were provided.

C. Blair stated that he did send a chart and that he had used them before. 

I McCauley replied that she had seen them not work.

C. Blair stated that to be clear, the walls did not have anything to do with the Conservation Commission.

R. Lowell replied that they were looking for suitable long term designs that keeps maintenance low.

R. Lowell stated that was the two crossings.  He asked if there was anything else specific that they wanted to look at.

C. Hultgren asked if the Commission wanted to look at the 25ft buffer.

C. Blair stated that with regards to the tree boxes, in most cases, 15 lots, it would require filing to the Commission.  He stated that he almost thinks that they satisfied the comment that it meets stormwater regulations and that the Commission made a good point about the water traveling down the driveways.

L. Boucher stated the grass was better.

K. Strom stated that they really could not say without the lots.

R. Lowell asked about the other lots. 

C. Hultgren replied that he thought for the most part the others would go towards the wetlands.

I McCauley asked if they said there would be 15 tree boxes.

C. Hultgren replied about that many.

I McCauley stated that on previous subdivisions, DPW always driveways be considered part of the pervious to be treated and meet standards.  She stated that driveways do not have the same impact as roadways because of salt and usage but they would rather be consistent and continue to request the same level of treatment and stormwater systems across the board.  She stated that the tree boxes are practices that they have not approved and they are not common.  She stated that the homeowners would have to maintain them and she was leery that homeowners would not keep up with it.  She stated these were not a conventional system.

C. Blair stated there was no other way.

C. Blair stated that he believes if the water runs along the grass it will cleaan it, he stated that roofs are clean.

I McCauley replied they could not say that for every development.

C. Blair replied then it was the only way.

R. Lowell asked about an infiltration gallery.

L. Boucher asked about subsurface chambers.  He stated that if you are over-treating an area then there are some areas they can’t collect.

I McCauley asked if that was the case here.

C. Hultgren replied they would need to do the numbers.  He stated the whole area goes into the 80% TSS removal calculations.

C. Blair stated that infiltration was accounted for; it was just TSS removal on the driveways they were talking about.

I McCauley stated that she did not believe this was the only way to address this issue.

C. Blair asked for suggestions.

J. Votruba stated that it was a way to address the issue under the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, he asked why they are saying that it can’t be used if it was allowed.

K. Strom replied it was not the only suggestion given in the handbook.

P. Harding replied it was not practical in a subdivision setting.

G. Williamson asked how much maintenance it was.

J. Votruba replied there was no maintenance.

I McCauley replied they had no control over them.

L. Boucher stated that it was in the O&M that the HOA needs to accept it and that it could include cleaning of the fore bays.  He stated that he agreed that it stinks that it is on the HOA and that a lot of towns accept maintenance but if DPW is not going to do it they would need to be cleaned every so many years so the work would need to be contracted out.

I McCauley stated there was a difference with cutting and mowing a pond that is visible and maintaining boxes.

R. Lowell asked if these were above ground or under ground.

J. Votruba replied they were in the ground.

L. Boucher stated he doesn’t propose they do them, he stated he did not like them as a BMP in this situation.  He stated that he had used them in a commercial urban area but he did not like them for a subdivision. 

C. Blair stated that it satisfied the condition.  He asked the Commission to offer something else and he would do it.

I McCauley asked if they could check references to see if it meets infiltration.

I McCauley asked if this was just for TSS. 

C. Hultgren replied it was.

L. Boucher stated that if the developer was doing what the Commission was discussing at treating in excess of 80% then having low amounts of technically untreated water in one area and over treated elsewhere then that is the tradeoff.  He stated they would have to over treat in one area to make up for not doing it here.

C. Hultgren replied that he believed removal was over 80%.

I McCauley asked about a swale. 

L. Boucher stated that it would need to be too long and too flat.

The Commission discussed the 25ft buffer zone. 

J. Votruba stated this helped at they were not in the 25ft no disturb.

P. Harding asked about the build out plan.  She stated they were in the 25ft all over it.

C. Blair replied that they were with the houses.  He stated that they were not filing the houses yet, only the roadways.  He read the memo from C. Lucas to the Commission with regards to the 25ft no disturb.

P. Harding asked why they couldn’t move over. 

K. Strom stated they were going to dry up the wetlands.

C. Blair stated that they were within the 25ft no disturb but only with the swales. He stated the issue was the grading was so difficult that there was no other place to put it where it worked.  He stated they could move it over a little.

C. Hultgren stated they were 5-7ft in from the 25ft, he stated they could just push the swale over a little.

C. Blair replied he could do that.

GREENWOOD ESTATES- Wetland Crossing Impact Analysis

Wetland Crossing Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan submitted Dec.7, 2016

By Christopher Lucas, Lucas Environmental LLC Jackson Woods Investment, LLC

Lot 45: C. Blair read from the memo from Chris Lucas.

L. Boucher asked about the pipe they were using.

C. Blair stated if they have to move it back they can.

L. Boucher asked if they have designed the rip rap apron.

C. Hultgren replied he had.

J. Votruba replied that they were directing the water to get to the wetland. 

C. Hultgren asked if they could rotate it and berm it.

J. Votruba replied that he could bring it back 15ft but then the rip rap was in the 25ft.  He said he could spin it.

Lot 4, 31, 32, and 34

J. Votruba showed the location of the wetlands.  C. Blair read from the memo from Chris Lucas. 

M. Scott asked if it could be flattened out.

L. Boucher replied it would depend on the lot he stated it was tight.

J. Votruba stated that there was a 24ft wide envelop to built it.

C. Hultgren suggested moving the basin and bringing the swale up. He showed the Commission on the plans.

C. Blair stated he did not know if there was anyplace for it to go.

G. Williamson stated they were encroaching in some areas, she asked if they could give more of a buffer in other areas to compensate.

M. Scott stated it was protected.

P. Harding stated that the plan should be improved upon to get out of the 25ft.

C. Blair stated that it was designed so that all the water and infiltration was calculated.  He stated everything was calculated so many times.

I McCauley suggested a different location.

C. Blair replied they were putting houses where I. McCauley suggested because it met regulations.

P. Harding replied it did not meet regulations as it was within the 25ft buffer.

C. Blair said they could move the whole thing up (showed the Commission where). 

R. Lowell replied that could be a solution.

J. Votruba stated that yes they were in the buffer but maybe some compensation would be that they got more buffer somewhere else.

K. Strom stated that was something they needed to take another look at adjusting as they were also fighting gravity.

C. Blair stated if they pull it in, they would gain more area elsewhere as well.

Lot 36, 38, 39

C. Blair read from the memo from Chris Lucas.

I McCauley asked who would maintain the swales that the developer was proposing.

C. Blair replied the HOA.

J. Votruba stated they could move it out of the 25ft or give compensating area.

C. Blair replied to move it out.  He stated it would be another conversation again with the house lots.

Lot 61

M. Scott stated that it was a pinch point.

C. Blair stated that this was a tough basin.

J. Votruba stated that a big area could be put towards preservation

C. Blair stated that the detention pond was the only thing he thought they could not fix.

R. Lowell asked for an alternative analysis.

J. Votruba stated they could give a big number towards preserved areas.

L. Boucher stated that the first 25ft is the most valuable so it is not just that they were getting 75-100ft, it still would not make it an even trade because of the value of that first 25ft.

C. Blair stated that the replication area was all that was left to discuss.

J. Votruba stated that C. Lucas spent a lot of time on the replication area.

C. Hultgren stated that if the Commission approves it they can do dewatering at time of construction.

R. Lowell stated that he thinks that is something they can do, to have the Commission or G. Williamson go and do a dewatering inspection instead of the developer saying there is designated spots on the plans.  He asked if that was acceptable.

P. Harding confirmed it was.

C. Blair read from Chris Lucas memo regarding the replication area.

J. Votruba stated that they initially had the replication area up by the road but they felt that it did more destruction then replication so they changed the area.  He stated they went down the old path and there was a low lying flat area that was an ideal spot.  He stated it was wetlands with a flat profile and it was twice the required area.  He stated that C. Lucas felt strongly about moving the replication area and that it will generate a nice larger area then was originally determined.

R. Lowell asked if it was 2:1.

J. Votruba replied it was. He stated it was on the same wetlands hydraulic line.

M. Scott asked who owned it. 

J. Votruba replied DCR.

R. Lowell asked if it abutted the wooded area. 

J. Votruba replied it did.

M. Scott asked about test pits.

J. Votruba stated there were soil borings down done.

L. Boucher stated that they had a 7 ft drop in grade and no test pits telling them about it.  He stated before they decide if it would be suitable, they need to know the soils and the ground water.

J. Votruba replied they would provide that.

R. Lowell stated they want that area to be successful.

M. Scott stated that they were cutting deep and the Commission would want some verification.

J. Votruba replied that they would get that information for the Commission. He stated they expected a discharge pipe to be closer as well.

L. Boucher replied that was water running over a vegetated area, it did not make it a wetland. 

M. Scott stated they needed to find out about the soils.

L. Boucher stated they need test pits.

A Costello asked what the actual lost area was.

M. Scott replied it was at the two crossings.

C. Blair replied 5,000 + square feet.

P. Harding stated that 5,751 square feet was the latest number.

R. Lowell stated the replication was for 12,000 square feet.

C. Hultgren stated that 6,300 square feet was the total loss.

J. Votruba stated they would get test pits done. 

G. Williamson asked if they were waiting on C. Lucas for the replication plans.

J. Votruba replied they were not they just needed more detail.

I McCauley asked on the crossing where they have the short uphill side. She asked why it couldn’t be graded with rip rap.

J. Votruba replied that would cause them to alter more wetlands.

R. Lowell stated they want to minimize that for their design.

I McCauley stated that it was supporting the roadway and therefore a different situation.

R. Lowell asked if that analysis was done. 

I McCauley replied that she did not think it was.

R. Lowell stated that option 2A was a 1:1 slope with a wall.

I McCauley stated she was referring to the other side.

C. Blair stated they would look into.  He stated that with regards to the tree box filters they would look at alternatives.

P. Harding stated that if the developer proves compensation, it may be an option to not do the filters.

C. Blair stated that with regards to the 25ft work within the detention pond area, they would work to alter the current locations.

R. Lowell asked them to look for the alternatives on this up slope out of the 25ft buffer. 

C. Blair stated he would also work on test pits and the replication area.

R. Lowell stated test pits for depth of ground water.

P. Harding reviewed; tree box, details and test pits done for the replication area and possibly look to reshape. 

C. Blair replied they would also look at the slopes. 

I McCauley agreed and asked for them to look at the 1:1 on both sides.

Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by K. Strom, it was VOTED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR GREENWOOD ESTATES TO APRIL 5, 2017 BY A VOTE OF 4-0-1 (M. Scott: abstain).

Approval of Minutes

Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 4, 2017 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED.

Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by A. Costello, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 1, 2017 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED BY A VOTE OF 4-0-1 (K. Strom: abstain).

Motion by M. Scott, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE MARCH 1, 2017 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:17PM.

APPROVED: _____________