Conservation Commission, June 3, 2015
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET
JUNE 3, 2015
Members Present: Matt Kennedy, Anthony Costello, Kenneth Strom, Mike Krikonis
Members Absent: Luke Boucher, Kenneth Strom, Robert Lowell, Michael Scott
Others Present: Pam Harding, Conservation Agent, Liz Fotos, Recording Secretary
Others on Sign In: Chuck Black, Kendall Homes, S. Kahn, Crescent Builders, Paul McManus, Ecotec, Inc, Steve Mirick, January Lane, Glen Krevosky, EBT Inc. Patrick Burke, HS &T Group
M. Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:15PM. He stated that there was a quorum for tonight’s meeting.
NOTICE OF INTENT- OAK HILL SUBDIVISION- KENDALL HOMES LOTS 26 AND 27 JORDAN ROAD
Paul McManus, EcoTec, Inc. Steve Mirick, Winter Ridge Owner, and Chuck Black, Kendall Homes were all present at the meeting.
P. McManus explained the project. He showed the Commission the two access points to the subdivision and the location of the two lots within the subdivision. He stated that one entrance was not functional at this point. P. McManus showed the location of the wetlands. He stated that it drained down to an intermittent stream channel that runs down Stanjoy Road. He stated that the Stream goes blind and does not make it to the bottom of the hill. P. McManus showed the 100FT buffer zone in addition to the 25FT buffer zone. He stated that the grading is fairly gentle and that the proposed grading will be maintained. He stated that there will be erosion control at the perimeter; and proposed two 500 cubic feet of temporary basins so that the water coming down will end up at the two temporary traps during the time the project is being worked on.
P. McManus stated that it is a fairly straight forward project and the roads were in, and that top soil and hydro seeding was in for stabilization.
S. Mirick told the Commission that the drains are in and the feedback that they had received thus far on the project was very positive.
K. Strom asked if they were able to drive through the subdivision. S. Mirick replied that it is blocked off because of the heavy construction equipment but that it is accessible on foot.
M. Kennedy asked how many Notice of Intents they were going to individually file. P. Harding replied that they had filed the lots separately however she advertised them together.
P. McManus replied that they would file 13.
M. Kennedy asked if the layout of the houses was close to what they were proposing. S. Mirick replied that they were the footprints but that they could change as there were no buyers yet.
M. Kennedy asked if the temporary sediment was for lot 26 and lot 27 or if it was for overall erosion control. P. McManus replied that it was only for lot 26 & 27.
M. Krikonis asked if the erosion controls would be removed after construction of these two lots. P. McManus replied that they would.
M. Kennedy asked if any members of the public had comments; no members of the public stepped forward.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOTICE OF INTENT-OAK HILL SUBDIVISION-KENDALL HOMES LOTS 26 AND 27 JORDAN ROAD.
NOTICE OF INTENT- LOCAL BYLAWS OAK HILL SUBDIVISION-KENDALL HOMES LOTS 38 AND 39 JORDAN ROAD
P. McManus showed the Commission the location of Lots 38 and 39 in the subdivision. He showed the isolated vegetative wetlands on the lots.
M. Kennedy asked if these were under the local bylaws. P. McManus stated that they were.
M. Kennedy asked if the isolated vegetative wetland was a whirlpool. P. McManus replied that it was not a vernal pool under the bylaw. He stated that it was very shallow and that two weeks into the spring it was bone dry. He stated that it was very shallow; that it was a little depression and that it was jurisdictional but barely so.
P. McManus showed that there was a drainage divide. He stated that there was almost no grading change on the lot. P. McManus stated that they were proposing to do 300 SQ FT of work in the 25FT buffer zone. He stated that it can be done without impacting the wetlands. He stated that the Commission requires a barrier at the perimeter and proposed a vinyl two rail fence or a 6FT on center shrub line.
M. Kennedy stated that his suggestions were not permanent. P. McManus replied that he thought both of the above measures were addressed in the bylaws.
P. McManus read the bylaws and stated they could consist of fencing or stone walls.
C. Black replied that he was trying to come up with a plan that was taking into consideration the open space. He stated that he felt that if they were asking to go into the no disturb zone that they should be putting something that was aesthetically pleasing. He stated that the surveyor had located the line today (June 3, 2015) and asked if the forest line was present and intact could it be used as a permanent boundary.
M. Kennedy replied that something else needed to be there in order to prevent people from cutting into the forest to extend their land.
The Commission stated that they would be open to different options and would leave it up to the builder’s discretion.
P. McManus stated that lot 38 is in the buffer zone but that it drains away.
M. Kennedy asked if there were any members of the public that wished to speak; no members of the public stepped forward.
Motion by A. Costello, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOTICE OF INTENT-LOCAL BYLAW OAK HILL SUBDIVISION-KENDALL HOMES LOTS 38 AND 39 JORDAN ROAD.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE A STANDARD ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR LOTS 26, STANDARD ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR LOT 27 WITH DEMARCATION SHOWN ON PLANS, STANDARD ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR LOT 38, AND STANDARD ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR LOT 39 WITH DEMARCATION SHOWN ON PLANS FOR OAK HILL SUBDIVISION-KENDALL HOMES.
EXTENSION OF TIME- WACHUSETT WOODS LOT 16-19 DEP File #183 (436-466)
P. Harding told the Commission that they had originally extended Wachusett Woods lots 16-19 for a month. She stated the fill is no longer there and there are no erosion controls but that construction has not yet begun.
M. Krikonis stated that there was a lot of debris on site.
Motion by M. Krikonis, seconded by A. Costello, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO EXTEND WACHUSETT WOODS LOT 16-19 DEP FILE #183 (436-466) FOR ONE YEAR WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS IS REMOVED PRIOR TO RECEIVING A BUILDING PERMIT.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLINACE-STANJOY ESTATES, LLC JANUARY LANE DEP File # 183-535
P. Harding stated that January Lane had the roadway accepted at Town Meeting and that they were requesting a partial certificate.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by M. Krikonis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR STANJOY ESTATES, LLC JANUARY LANE DEP FILE #183-535 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LOT 9.
EXTENSION FOR ORDER OF CONDITIONS Lot #2 RESERVOIR STREET DEP FILE #183-481
P. Harding told the Commission that the work had not begun yet. M. Kennedy asked how old the order of conditions was.
P. Harding replied that it fell under the Permit Extension Act. She stated that it was approved in 2006 and then fell under the Extension Act.
M. Kennedy asked if any conditions needed to change. P. Harding replied that there is already the 25FT buffer notated on the conditions.
The Commission reviewed the plans.
P. Harding told the Commission that the applicant was requesting a two year extension.
Motion by A. Costello, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO GRANT AN EXTENSION FOR ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR LOT #2 RESERVOIR STREET DEP FILE #183-481 FOR TWO YEARS.
AMENDMENT TO FISHER TERRACE PHASE I DEP File #183-459 Revised Layout
Glen Krevosky, EBT Inc, Mr. Burk, and S. Kahn were present for Fisher Terrace Phase I.
Mr. Burk showed the commission the five units that they were dealing with.
G. Krevosky stated that there was a change in number of units. P. Harding replied that the ZBA had approved it a few months ago.
M. Kennedy asked about the additional wetlands.
P. Harding replied that they were behind the units that were already completed. M. Kennedy asked if that was the newer delineated wetlands.
G. Krevosky showed the existing order of conditions that was delineated in blue. He stated there was a disagreement on the line for the crossing and that he is not sure how DEP came up with their line.
M. Kennedy asked if that was for Phase I.
G. Krevosky replied that it was. He stated that Mr. Ali had him delineate the line five years ago and he flagged what he saw was soils and vegetative land. He stated that they should not be discussing Phase 1 because it already had an existing order relative to the wetlands.
M. Kennedy replied that it would change under the bylaw for Phase II.
M. Kennedy asked how wide the units were. Mr. Burk replied that they were 28FT.
M. Kennedy stated that looking at 13; it got closer to the wetlands.
G. Krevosky stated that it was 10FT off the wetlands but that under the existing order for Phase I, the line was set in stone until the orders expired. He stated that he had confirmed this with DEP and other people as well.
M. Kennedy stated that the question would be if there was a substantive change.
G. Krevosky replied that he thinks they are covered under 40B and that they could use a retaining wall and then the bylaws would not be triggered on this case.
M. Kennedy asked P. Harding if there was a peer review on this property.
P. Harding replied that it was a peer review for Phase II and that’s when the questions on the line began. She stated it was a bit more expansive then what was originally delineated on the old plans.
M. Kennedy asked when phase II expired. P. Harding replied that it expired in September.
M. Kennedy stated that he was inclined to not approve the amendment as they were coming right up on the wetlands and they do not have the bylaws to stand back on.
G. Krevosky asked if this would continue until September. M. Kennedy replied that no, the Commission would say that there was a substantive change to the land.
G. Krevosky replied that the line would hold until the order expired. M. Kennedy replied that he did not agree.
G. Krevosky replied that he had done research and that was the case and he had documentation to show this.
P. Harding replied that she was more concerned with the four units that there was no grading on. She stated that they don’t know the change or how it will affect the wetlands.
Mr. Burk replied that he could do that and that he didn’t know that it was part of the amendment. P. Harding replied that she would like to see that and also wanted to see how the driveways were going into the units.
M. Kennedy asked about the percentage of the 40B. P. Harding replied that it would impact where an appeal would go.
M. Kennedy asked if this would hold under a new filing. P. Harding replied that a new filing would be done under the 40b as well.
M. Kennedy stated that he believed that this matter needed to be continued until July at least to show the grading and additional information.
G. Krevosky replied that they would do new plans to show sloping.
P. Harding replied that she would like that and that the roadways were not in good shape. She stated that sediment was washed out and there were drainage issues as well. She stated the two units are not in and that it was undermining the road ways. She stated there were sink holds under the pavement and historically there had been drainage issues in the area.
G. Krevosky asked for a continence in order to show the grading.
P. Harding stated that she doesn’t think that Phase II should be on the amendment to Phase I.
G. Krevosky replied that they could separate that.
M. Kennedy replied that the applicant should only show what the approvals are for.
G. Krevosky asked the Commission about why Phase II was not granted a continuance.
P. Harding replied that a certified letter was sent to the applicant detailing the reasons.
G. Krevosky asked if it was a denial of the project or something else. P. Harding replied that they did not say if they could file again or not; that was up to the applicant. She stated it was based on lack of responsiveness to the peer review in addition to other things.
G. Krevosky stated that they had two years to finish and they were only a year and a half into the approval. He stated that there was a difficult winter and that they had continued to pursue the roadways so he was not sure why they were not granted a continuance.
G. Krevosky asked what the letter said. P. Harding replied it was sent via certified mail but that she would be happy to forward a copy to him.
G. Krevosky stated that the plans had been completed today (June 3, 2015) and that it detailed old wetland lines, new wetlands lines and stormwater. He stated that they would review the letter and then discuss with P. Harding the options. P. Harding agreed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by M. Krikonis, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE MAY 6, 2015 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
OTHER
M. Kennedy asked if there was anything additional regarding the question on the Holden Waterways that was bought to the Commission by the Board of Selectmen.
The Commission discussed the matter and asked P. Harding to reach out to the Board of Selectmen in order to establish what their goals were so that the Conservation Commission could help in an advisory capacity.
G. Krevosky returned to the meeting to see when the next Conservation Commission was meeting. P. Harding replied that they would be meeting on July 1, 2015.
Motion by K. Strom, seconded by A. Costello, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE JUNE 3, 2015 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:16PM.
The June 3, 2015 meeting minutes were approved on July 1, 2015.
APPROVED: _____________________