Con Com Meeting Minutes
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET
October 7, 2015
Members Present: Matt Kennedy, Michael Scott, Kenneth Strom, Mike Krikonis, Luke Boucher, Anthony Costello (7:07PM)
Members Absent: Robert Lowell
Others Present: Pam Harding, Conservation Agent, Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary
Other on Sign in: Don Bonci, Resident; Lisa and Oscar Johnson, Resident; Mike and Marie-Anne Lavallee, Resident; Keith Prachick, Resident, George Kiritsy, Greenwood and StoneyBrook; Ernest Contis, Resident; Chris and Cindy Joslyn, Resident; Paul McManus, EcotTec; Chuck Nayes, Resident; Chuck Miller, Resident; Brian Paine, Resident; Susan Delorne, Resident; Tom and Kathy Runstrom, Resident; Karen Taylor, Resident, J. Blair, Blair Builders, Mr. Blair, Blair Builders
M. Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:03PM.
VIOLATION- Order of Conditions-Mt. View Middle School
P. Harding provided the Commission with a report from EcoTec stating that the remediation was complete. The report that was provided contained pictures and statements stating that the work was satisfactorily completed.
M. Kennedy asked if there was somewhere that they sized the rip rap slope or if they were just calling it a rip rap. He also asked if it transitioned to the natural slope. P. Harding replied that it was noted on the top left.
M. Kennedy replied that he was concerned that it was going to be undermined; he asked if it was just the spill way. P. Harding replied that it was the level spreader out the spill way.
M. Kennedy asked what the lumps pictured were. P. Harding replied that they had added a clay barrier.
M. Kennedy stated that he didn’t see the size of the rip rap slope. M. Scott replied that it was a 24” layer.
M. Kennedy stated that they needed someone to calculate what that needed to be with the flows and the steep slope. He asked how big the stumps were.
P. Harding replied that she did not know.
M. Kennedy stated that even with it level the water will find a lower slope and will erode the soil downstream and unravel again. He asked if they were finished building it.
P. Harding replied that they were not yet done.
M. Kennedy stated that the Commission needed to see something for the rip rap slope. P. Harding replied she would work to get it.
EXTENSION OF TIME- Fisher Terrace Phase I- DEP File #183-459
Patrick Burke was present on behalf of Fisher Terrace. He stated that their consultant met with EcoTec to review the wetland line. Additionally he stated that they worked on adding the drainage details, the pipes, and the grading. He stated that their plans were now completed and he requested an additional 30 day extension.
/A Costello entered the meeting at 7:07PM.
M. Kennedy asked Paul McManus, EcoTec if he reviewed the property as well.
P. McManus, EcoTec was present at the meeting. He stated that himself, Glen Krevasky, Fisher Terrace and Dave Getman, DCR walked the property. He stated that there were a number of changes that they had all agreed on. P. McManus stated that they had noted some changes on the C Series and that to date those had not been incorporated on the plan. P. McManus added that P. Harding had asked them (EcoTec) to look at an area where there may be a crossing proposed in the future. He stated that it is a complicated spot as there is a channel coming down and splitting into a second channel. He requested that the engineer blow that part of the plan out 1”= 10 or the Commission will not be able to see the details. P. McManus stated that the flags and changes noted were agreed upon by G. Krevasky.
M. Kennedy asked if the changes were minor.
P. McManus stated that there was one area where there was a crossing that went down and soils were depressed. He stated in that area the changes were fairly substantial (a6-a9) and that in other places there were one or two minor changes.
M. Kennedy requested that the applicant would update the plan to replicate the changes. He also asked for one plan that accurately reflected new grading.
P. Burke asked if the Commission would like him to include the part with the details that P. McManus referenced earlier.
M. Kennedy asked if that detail was in Phase II or it reflected on the wetlands.
P. McManus replied that it was within the wetlands.
M. Kennedy asked for it to please be shown. He stated that the Commission wanted one final set of plans that showed what they are actually building so they have something to create an order around. He also wanted it to reflect where the wetland flags were now located.
M. Kennedy asked if there was anyone from the public that wished to speak. No members of the public stepped forward.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by K. Strom, it was VOTED TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF ONE MONTH UNTIL NOVEMBER 4, 2015 CONSERVATION MEETING FOR FISHER TERRACE PHASE I, DEP FILE #183-459 BY A VOTE OF 5-0-1. (L. Boucher: abstain).
ORDER OF CONDITIONS- AMENDMENT- 231 Bailey Road DEP File #183-579- Lavallee
M. Lavallee, Property Owner 231 Bailey Road was present at the meeting. M. Lavallee requested an amendment to his original proposed plan. He stated that the original plan had boulders to be removed and the property to be loamed and seeded and landscaped. He stated that he had questions so he reached out to P. Harding and they walked the site and determined that a new plan with grading and total area of disturbance would need to be resubmitted. M. Lavallee stated that it was 3,800 sq. ft that included asphalt removal, two additionally areas and a proposed garage and breezeway.
M. Kennedy asked how the work related to the river front and how much of the river front was already disturbed.
P. Harding stated that the asphalt was exempt from the calculations.
K. Strom asked if it was an existing asphalt driveway. M. Lavallee replied that it was going to remain where it was.
M. Kennedy asked how the plan differed from the original one the Commission had seen.
P. Harding replied that he had included the whole area of the lot originally and that the area of disturbance was not initially clear.
M. Kennedy asked if it was graded. P. Harding replied that it was and that the table had errors on it so initially the Commission could not see the proposal. She stated that the existing order of conditions covered the garage and the boulders.
M. Kennedy replied that he thought the grading exceeded the original order. P. Harding replied that when she spoke with the applicant on the phone what he was describing was grading. P. Harding told the applicant that grading would not be covered under the initial plan.
M. Kennedy asked if they would also be cutting down trees. P. Harding replied yes.
M. Lavallee replied it would be about 4 trees. P. Harding stated that he would be moving the fill.
M. Kennedy asked M. Lavallee if he was still leaving the rest of the driveway as it. He asked if they used it to access the garage.
M. Lavallee replied that there were no plans to do what M. Kennedy was asking.
P. Harding stated that the garage is over existing pavement.
M. Kennedy asked if the disturbance for this plan was about the same as the disturbance for the original plan. P. Harding confirmed it was.
M. Kennedy asked the applicant if he was going to loam and seed. M. Lavallee replied that he was.
P. Harding stated that the original order did not include removal of asphalt.
M. Kennedy asked if the Commission had any questions.
M. Scott asked about the soil material. M. Lavallee replied that most was gravel.
M. Kennedy asked if there were any members of the public present and wished to speak on the matter; no members of the public stepped forward.
M. Kennedy asked the Commission if they felt that the proposed change was an approvable change.
M. Scott stated that in some ways, this was an improvement.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDER OF CONDITIONS-AMENDMENT 231 BAILEY ROAD DEP FILE #183-579.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ACCEPT THE PLAN WITH A MINOR REVISION TO THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR 231 BAILEY ROAD FILE #183-579
M. Lavallee asked if this could be extended as the project has yet to begin. M. Kennedy replied that he (homeowner) did not make that request initially and the public hearing had already been closed.
P. Harding replied that he could submit the request in writing and that it needed to be done 30 days prior to the expiration but that it needed to be on the agenda as an extension of time.
EXTENSION OF TIME- J&K Ventures- 2451 Main Street DEP file #183-503
P. Harding stated that the Town had requested information on the paved area and she has yet to receive it. She stated that it expired and was already on a 30 day extension so she requested another 30 days.
Motion by M. Krikonis, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO EXTEND J & K VENTURES, 2451 MAIN STREET DEP FILE #183-503 FOR 30 DAYS UNTIL NOVEMBER 4, 2015 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING.
NOTICE OF INTENT- Greenwood Estates-Jackson Woods Investment, LLC- Union Street-Assessing Map and Parcels 132-95,132-80 and 148-47
P. Harding read the public notice into record.
M. Kennedy addressed the public and stated that the applicant will make a presentation on the matter and then the Commission will ask questions to the applicant. He stated that after the Commission had asked their questions he would open the floor up to the public. M. Kennedy stated that the public would need to identify themselves, all questions would go through the Chairman not directly to the applicant and that all questions needed to be wetlands or conservation related. Questions such as stormwater, drainage, flooding, conservation, etc would all be within the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Mr. George Kiritsy, Greenwood and StoneyBrook Estates was present for the applicant. G. Kiritsy stated that the Greenwood subdivision is an 87 lot subdivision and that at this time there had been significant changes to a prior plan. He stated that there was reworking of the streets and that the applicant had filed a notice of intent relative to the subdivision. G. Kiritsy stated that the subdivision meets stormwater management and that the drainage proposed is consistent with MA Stormwater management standards.
G. Kiritsy stated that they had filed an NRAD and that they had completed resource area delineation. G. Kiritsy stated that there were two crossings and that both provide for open bottom culvert systems.
G. Kiritsy stated that the subdivision had been filed with the Planning Board as well and that they had an upcoming public hearing for that as well. He stated that the applicant is hoping to work parallel with Conservation and Planning and that he knows that the project is currently under staff review.
M. Kennedy asked about the projects impact to the wetlands.
G. Kiritsy replied that there were two wetlands crossing and that it was a relatively insignificant area. He stated that the total amount of wetland fill was 1400sq ft total. He stated that years ago they received a determination from DCR relative to their (DCR’s) area of jurisdiction. He stated that they had identified the wetlands in the field and the order and resource area were delineated. G. Kiritsy stated that they had filed consistent with DCR’s findings while the order was in place.
M. Kennedy asked about the stormwater management system.
G. Kiritsyy replied that the drainage had been designed within the stormwater requirements and there were infiltration galleries for stormwater treatment.
M. Kennedy asked about the infiltration system and the soil testing.
M. Kennedy told the applicant that the Commission was going to be interested in all those things and how the topography was going to work. He stated that there was a ton of grading done to make the roadways work and once you start doing that you have to consider other things. He stated that it is a lot of grading and it makes him concerned about construction disturbance from an erosion standpoint. M. Kennedy told the applicant that he wanted to see some thought put into that. Additionally he stated that the Commission would be concerned from a sediment erosion standpoint as well.
G. Kiritsy replied that he knows that the concerns that the Commission brought up are legitimate and that he feels that a lot of the issues would be addressed during the phasing plans. He stated that they will be looking at the phasing with great detail. G. Kiritsy stated that the site is on a fair slope and the applicant will be looking to create a balanced site by cutting the top of the bill and putting it on the bottom. He stated that they will be balancing everything out and moving forward in phases to ensure the site is buildable.
M. Kennedy replied that he understood that however the presented grading was just to build a road and that there was no thought put into how the lots looked.
Mr. Blair stated that the grading in the old plan was significantly more and was cut back. He stated that the grading was 5% for 300FT.
M. Kennedy asked how it would look when they developed a lot; he stated that he didn’t believe they had that answer right now.
Blair responded that they had each lot graded and that they spent the time doing it ahead of time so that when the building begins the homes would not be impossible to build.
K. Strom stated that the roadways were 2:1, he asked if they were thinking about retaining walls.
Blair replied that they were 3:1 without a wall.
M. Kennedy stated that would be the concern, lots of grading and long steep slopes. He stated that they could not leave it like that.
L. Boucher stated lots 65-74 will be difficult lots. He stated that 80%-90% is off grading from the roadway
M. Kennedy asked if they were able to see what grading looked like. P. Harding replied that the Planning Board had not yet reviewed the project nor had DPW. She stated that part of the definitive subdivision includes the grading to prove that the lots are feasible.
M. Kennedy replied that the Commission was going to need to see that and to see how it would work from and erosion standpoint as this was a very steep subdivision.
L. Boucher asked if all the stormwater best management practices were designed with a certain percentage of impervious area added for proposed build outs.
G. Kiritsy replied that he was not the design engineer but that he would hope that he (the design engineer) would do that not just for the infrastructure.
M. Kennedy asked about the decision to have the systems put underground.
G. Kiritsy replied that it had been a preferred manner in some places that they proposed them as they were more attractive.
M. Kennedy replied that this became a paramount concern where a homeowner is doing the maintenance as the underground system is often out of site out of mind.
G. Kiritsy replied that one of the things they do is not turn them on until they can confirm it is working properly.
M. Kennedy replied that the concern is not just during construction, it is after as well.
L. Boucher replied that even the maintenance is difficult on an underground system. He stated that an open area type system and basin you can see if it is filling up with sediment, when it needs to be cleaned out, when its an inline system, when water needs to fill up, etc. He stated if there were some sort of failure with an underground system it wouldn’t be noticed until you have water not going into the system.
G. Kiritsy replied that they could always resize the pond.
M. Kennedy stated that the Commission would want to speak with the design engineer at some point.
M. Scott asked if the Planning Board had an outside consultant review the project. P. Harding replied that DPW would review it.
M. Kennedy suggested waiting on speaking with the engineer.
P. Harding stated she had information on the stormwater calculations she asked the developer to provide four more copies for the Commission.
M. Kennedy asked the Commission if they had any additional questions with the understanding that they had not had a full presentation from the engineer.
The Commission had no additional questions at this time.
M. Kennedy asked the public if they had any questions or concerns.
Tom Runstrom, 29 High Ridge Road asked if the Conservation Commission was responsible for the condition of the Greenville Pond and if so how the construction of the subdivision would play into it.
M. Kennedy replied that the Commission was not responsible for the condition.
T. Runstrom asked if the stormwater drainage system would go into the pond.
M. Kennedy replied that he did not know yet, but that there was a good chance. He stated that there were standards for design of stormwater systems that the Commission could compare the applicants system to and if the developer does a good job it should manage the volume and quality of the water.
T. Runstrom stated that they are particularly concerned with the quality of run off. He stated that he had been at his location for 44 years and they have watched what happened to that side of the pond with leaves taking over. T. Runstrom stated that they can’t help but wonder what would happen if 96 homes go in. He stated that Mr. Blair had already said that he was removing trees; he asked if there was a certain percentage of trees that he can remove and how that would work as well.
M. Kennedy replied that major concerns were the amount of clearing and erosion that will go down the street.
T. Runstrom stated that in the Landmark, it mentioned development in 100FT of wetlands; he asked if that development was allowed.
M. Kennedy replied that yes under the Wetlands Protection Act it is. He stated that the Conservation Commission reviews the area to make sure that the developer is doing work within the regulations. He stated that it was buffer zone, not a protected area. M. Kennedy told T. Runstrom that Holden does have a local bylaw and a 25FT no disturb policy as well. He stated that the Commission tries to not allow the 25FT no disturb zone to be disturbed however if they have to cross that area, the Commission has to allow it. M. Kennedy stated that the Commission wants developers to minimize whatever impact there is to the wetlands.
M. Kennedy stated that all of that needed to be considered and that for this project they are allowed to impact up to 5000 sq. ft which is not a ton. He stated the Commission would look at land disturbance in the upland area making sure that during construction the phasing is done properly and that erosion controls are put in place.
T. Runstrom replied that he believed the neighbors opinion was that they would like to see less rather than more and that they felt bad it was able to beat the zoning laws in the first place.
M. Kennedy replied that he understood that and that it is a typical sentiment for this kinds of developing. He stated that the Commission could only hold them to developing within the regulations standards and bylaws in place.
Don Bonci, 16 Thayer Circle was present at the meeting. He asked if lot 3 is one of the lots that would be impacted in any way.
M. Kennedy asked if he was speaking about the existing detention pond.
D. Bonci confirmed he was and he asked how it was maintained.
M. Kennedy replied that the believed the Town owned it. He stated that it is usually the responsibility of the HOA but at this point the Town is probably responsible for it.
M. Kennedy asked if it was on the developer’s property. D. Bonci replied that he believed it was on a lot.
P. Harding replied that someone owns it.
M. Kennedy replied that the Commission does not have the information regarding that now but that it would be something to look at down the road.
M. Scott asked if it was on the last lot.
Blair replied that they still owned 2 on Thayer Circle.
Kathy Runstrom, 29 High Ridge Rd asked about the vernal pools on the property. She stated the water goes up and under and you can hear it when you are hiking the property. She asked if those were a concern for the Conservation Commission.
M. Kennedy asked P. Harding if there were certified vernal pools on the property. P. Harding replied there were not.
M. Kennedy replied that it sounded like what the resident was referring to was an isolated area that was part of the wetlands and that was what the Commission was trying to protect.
M. Kennedy told the public that as this process moved further along and more information is provided, the residents will have more opportunities to speak.
P. Harding reminded the public that no additional notices would be sent out.
M. Kennedy stated that the next hearing would be on November 4, 2015 and that there wouldn’t be any more notices but that the public was welcome.
Keith Prachniak, 462 Bailey Road was present at the meeting. He stated that he felt as though this hearing was twenty years ago. He stated that the same people involved were going to ruin his property; he asked the Board if these are the same people that worked with Stoney Brook and if the same engineers were being used.
M. Kennedy replied that question was not germane and could not be considered by the Commission. He stated that all the Commission could consider is if they are following best practices. M. Kennedy told K. Prachniak that his question was a discriminatory one.
Ernest Contis, 53 Appletree Lane was present. He asked if it was up to the Commission to bring the project to compliance and then it would move forward.
M. Kennedy replied no, that it was up to the developer to comply with the law and it is up to the Commission to make sure they are doing that. He stated that the Commission would not approve anything until the developer has complied with all the revisions and things that they (Con Com) wanted. He stated after that happens the developer will get an order of conditions that says they can build with those modification in mind and then during the process there will be inspections and things of that nature. The inspections will be pertaining to erosion controls and storms and the operation and maintenance of the erosion.
E. Contis asked if the Conservation Commission was the final Board to authorize the project.
M. Kennedy replied that it was not just the Conservation Commission. He stated that they want to make sure the developer does not have an adverse impact but that the developer would be concurrently working with the Planning Board and the ZBA. He stated there was a myriad of things that the developer would need to comply with such as: are the roadways right, widths, slopes, are utilities done correctly from an engineering perspective, etc.
M. Kennedy stated that it was very difficult to disallow a subdivision from happening. He stated that all they can do is control what is being proposed. He stated it needed to be consistent with good engineering and compliance but other than that, the Commission really could not stop the project from moving forward.
T. Runstrom replied that the Commission could be tough though. M. Kennedy responded that the Commission was fair.
E. Contis asked how the EPA gets involved.
M. Kennedy replied that the developer would need a construction permit for anything that discharges into the waters of the U.S. He stated that was a permit with the EPA. M. Kennedy stated that the MA DEP gets in there as well and that is also a very stringent permit. He stated that not adhering to these permits could cause fines and jail times so it is something developers pay a lot of attention to.
M. Kennedy stated that MA DEP has come back in after storms and held up developers with construction activities.
E. Contis asked if they determine EPA wetlands.
M. Kennedy replied that the town had already determined the wetlands. He stated that the wetlands were delineated on the property and an outside consultant reviews them and confirms that they are correct.
M. Kennedy asked if any additional members of the public wished to speak. No additional members of the public stood.
M. Kennedy asked if the Commission had any additional questions; no additional questions were asked by the Commission.
M. Kennedy suggested continuing the matter until the November 4, 2015 meeting. He told the applicant at that time the Commission would like an actual presentation from an engineer.
Mr. Blair apologized and stated that the engineer was unable to make it at the last minute.
Motion by M. Krikonis, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CONTINUE NOTICE OF INTENT-GREENWOOD ESTATES-JACKSON WOODS INVESTMENT, LLC- UNION STREET- ASSESSING MAP AND PARCELS 132-95, 132-80 AND 148-47 UNTIL THE NOVEMBER 4, 2015 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING.
ORDER OF CONDITIONS-Review of Drainage- Stoneybrook Estates
P. Harding told the Commission that there had been some drainage issues with the detention ponds in Stoneybrook. She stated that they were utilized as construction basins and had silt in them. P. Harding stated that engineering had thought they did a rip rap swail in order to slow down the flow dredge from the pond but after last weeks (week of September 28, 2015) rain event there was flow discharge. P. Harding told the Commission that she had video.
M. Kennedy asked to see the video. P. Harding showed the Commission where on the video the rip rap swail ended, she stated that at the end of it water flows and gives a stream channel to an abutters’ property. She stated it bypassed hay bales and silt fences.
K. Strom asked if there was sediment. P. Harding replied yes; that it was a little murky.
K. Prachniack stood in order to show pictures to the Commission.
P. Harding stated that the riser pipe is blocked.
M. Kennedy asked what direction flow should go out. P. Harding showed him.
M. Kennedy asked if it was supposed to be in a channel. P. Harding replied that none of it is rip rapped and the slope was not defined. She stated it eventually reached a wetland.
K. Prachniak showed the Commission where the water ended on his property.
P. Harding stated that there was almost a channel forming on K. Prachniack’s property prior to reaching the wetlands (located on K. Prachniack’s property).
G. Kiritsy asked if the Commission had a copy of the plans. He stated that there had been an issue with the volume in the detention basin and that it was now cleaned up. He stated that the engineering department told them to put a silt sack over the riser pipe. G. Kiritsy stated that they did this work under the direction of the Town and that when they did it the water was running out.
M. Kennedy asked why it was over the riser pipe. P. Harding replied that the pond was used for siltation control because the water wasn’t clean.
M. Kennedy asked if there was adequate sediment erosion controls. G. Kiritsy replied that the detention pond was stable.
M. Kennedy replied that it wasn’t just the detention pond causing it and that if it had extra sediment in it they had not maintained adequate controls.
G. Kiritsy stated that there was no new sediment and that it had disturbed the pond.
M. Kennedy replied that on the video they could see the velocity of the water and that it was not in established channels and could cause erosion.
G. Kiritsy stated that it was in the rip rap swail. P. Harding replied that there was no doubt that it was occurring.
G. Kiritsy stated that the Commission was making it look as though the developer failed to have any controls in place and that they just walked away from the problem.
M. Kennedy asked G. Kiritsy if the Commission had said that; G. Kiritsy agreed that they had not.
M. Kennedy replied that the Commission was just trying to figure out what is going on.
Mr. Blair stated that when he spoke with P. Harding they were looking for a solution that would make everyone happy.
M. Kennedy stated that if they were discharging onto K. Prachniack’s property that it may be an issue that would require counsel. He stated ideally the property owner and the developer will work something out. He stated he does not know why Town Engineering is giving direction on this matter but that if they do have discharge sediment to waters of the U.S. that there could be issues and that is not where the developers would want to go. He stated it was up to the developer to make sure that it was properly working.
Joe Blair was present. He stated that he had met with P. Harding and they decided that they did not know how much silt was in the bottom of the basin and therefore they put the wrap over the pipe. He stated that because there was no sand, it was to keep the silt out of the pipe. He stated that the work should have been done sooner.
K. Prachniak stated that the issue wasn’t just in this rain event.
M. Kennedy stated that he didn’t believe that was the original intent of the outlet but that this issue sounded like something that the property owner and developer should figure out together so there is not flow going onto his property. He stated that the Commissions concern would be from the system operation that they are not discharging increased sediment into the stream.
J. Blair stated that if the pond is built as design and working properly then the flow should be the same.
M. Kennedy stated that the pond was designed for post construction storm water management but that they were using it during construction for erosion controls.
J. Blair stated the problem is that the berm was not on. M. Kennedy told him to get it fixed.
P. Harding stated that the wetland system that the water eventually contributes to is located on Mr. Prachniak’s property.
L. Boucher asked if the intent was to have a level spreader to avoid a channelized flow. P. Harding replied that it discharged into the channel through a level spreader. She stated DCR did not want discharge to the wetlands and made the developer move it. She stated it did not call for a rip rap.
M. Scott asked if below the level spreader it became channelized. P. Harding replied that it did and now its point discharge.
M. Scott stated that the level spreader needed to be configured differently. He stated it was hard to build those flat.
M. Kennedy stated if they put it back on the slope the water will build back up again.
K. Prachniack asked if the silt fence had been put back. J. Blair asked which one.
K. Prachniack stated the one at the end of lot 33. J. Blair replied that he didn’t think that was needed after the grass had grown.
M. Scott asked if that would just exasperate the issues. P. Harding replied that it was a low point.
M. Kennedy asked if it was a work limit. P. Haring replied that it was and the stream channel went right through it.
K. Prachniak stated that water comes across the back of lot 32 rip rap swail ends and goes across 15FT of lawn and then goes half way down lot 33 and then flows into his land. He stated it traveled across his lawn for about 400FT and ended in the wetlands. He stated that you can see the silt mound building up. K. Prachniak stated that it is the same linear footage to get to lot 34 which is a large lot in the corner which is where all the water ends up anyway. He stated that if this continues, the water will cut a trough into his land. He stated that the developer said the trench was an afterthought; he asked why it couldn’t come out of the detention basin and end up in lot 34 where it ended up anyway.
Mr. Blair replied that it was not designed that way.
M. Kennedy replied that it was designed in that manner for a reason and doing what K. Prachniack suggested could cause worse issues.
K. Prachniack suggested making the pipe big enough.
M. Kennedy replied that it was not as simple as changing the pipe size. He stated that the question here is water into the wetlands and is it getting there safely.
K. Prachniack stated that the filter fabric was not blocking the outlet pipe; it was just not letting the sediment through. He stated that the developer was saying that the water flow was because there was filter fabric on the pipe.
M. Kennedy replied that filter fabric does clog up and it will let the water out more slowly. He stated that it sounded as though the water is finding its own way and creating erosion on the Prachniack’s property. M. Kennedy recommended the developer and the property owner working out some accommodation that they could both agree on.
G. Kiritsy replied that they could review the level spreader.
M. Kennedy told G. Kiritsy that they could not just do that; he stated that if the sediment barrier is gone it would need to be reviewed in the field.
P. Harding replied that it was eroding an area that went into the wetlands.
J. Blair stated that there was a big storm in July and there was no water in the basin. He stated it did not fill up like this more recent one.
M. Kennedy replied that was because it was blocked this time; he stated it was inches of rain.
K. Prachniack asked if the stormwater system was in place.
J. Blair replied that they needed to put sand in it. P. Harding stated there was over a foot of silt from construction in it.
M. Kennedy replied that they needed to finish the basin as there was a potential issue with the path along the whole length. He encouraged the developer and the property owner to work it out together. He stated they could figure out how to do a stable channel and not have wetland sediment or create a stable erosion free path for it to go into.
Mr. Blair replied that he understood.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- 59 Bond Road J.M. Soucy Contracting- DEP File #183-600
P. Harding told the Commission that the project has been completed; the lawn was seeded and loamed and the grass is growing. She stated a certificate of compliance was requested.
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR 59 BOND ROAD, J.M. SOUCY CONTRACTING; DEP FILE #183-600.
EXTENTION OF TIME- Lot 15-17 Shady Lane Resigning of Orders
P. Harding told the Commission that they had voted on this matter in June but they had lost the paperwork; they requested that the Commission resign it.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PARTIAL RELEASE DEP File #183-1 and 183-39 Fox Hill Estates 170 Fox Hill Drive
P. Harding stated that the order was tied to all the lots so a partial release to convey the property was requested. She stated there were no wetlands on the property.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A PARTIAL RELEASE FOR DEP FILE #183-1 AND 183-39 FOX HILL ESTTES 170 FOX HILL DRIVE.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by A. Costello, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES BY A VOTE OF 4-0-2(M. Krikonis: abstain; L. Boucher: abstain)
MISC
P. Harding told the Commission that Speedway requested permission to clear a path behind the establishment in order to do maintenance on one of the ground wells. She stated there would be no uprooting just clearing to gain access to it.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE OCTOBER 7, 2015 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:50PM.
The October 7, 2015 Meeting Minutes were approved at the November 4, 2015 meeting of the Conservation Commission.