Conservation Commission, December 5, 2018
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET, HOLDEN SENIOR CENTER
MINUTES
December 5, 2018
Members Present: Robert Lowell, Kenneth Strom, David Nyman, Cathy Doherty, Luke Boucher, Mike Scott.
Members Not Present: Anthony Costello
Others Present: Glenda Williamson, Conservation Agent; Neil Gorman, David E. Ross Assoc.; Doug Andrysiek; Sharon Lund, Bailey Rd.; Mark Ferguson; Brian McGurl, Glenn Krevosky, 37 Preservation Lane; Scott Morrison, Eco-Tec; Rich Barry, Paxton; Julian Votruba, Paxton Rd.; Craig Bacon, Greenwood Estates.
R. Lowell called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM.
NOTICE OF INTENT - 37 Preservation Lane. DEP File # 183-657
Assessors Map 165, Parcel 29. Brian & Cynthia McGurl. Walkout basement, deck expansion, 10' x 10' shed and fire pit within the 100-foot buffer of a resource area. Rep. Glenn Krevosky, EBT.
G. Williamson read the legal ad into record. G. Krevosky stated that the engineering for the proposed work was done by McNeil Engineering and that the surveying was done by Thomas Fancy, Fancy Land Surveying. Glenn stated that years ago, the land here was owned by Wagner Farms and that they constructed a deep ditch that cuts along the property line of the lot and that the ditch resulted in the draining of the historic wetland at the back of 37 Preservation Lane.
Glenn stated that there would be no change in grade to the back yard as a result of the work. He said that a drainage swale would have to be constructed behind the existing sliders at the back of the home to prevent water from ponding near the foundation. He stated that in order to direct water in the swale to the existing drainage ditch, the homeowner would have to temporarily disturb a very small area of the no-disturb zone along the ditch. He stated that the disturbed area would be planted with similar vegetation such as witch hazel, highbush blueberry and common winterberry. Glenn stated that this would result in 181 square feet of temporary disturbance in the 25-foot no disturb zone. Glenn stated that he had previously sent a request to the conservation agent, asking for a waiver to the 25-foot no disturb zone.
L. Boucher asked where the limit of clearing would end. Glenn said that the limit of clearing follows the 25-foot no-disturb zone and indicated the appropriate limit of clearing on the plan.
R. Lowell asked where the drainage ditch went after it left the site. Glenn stated that there is a 12-inch drainage culvert under Preservation Lane, that the ditch runs perpendicular to Preservation Lane and continues off site in an easterly direction.
G. Williamson stated that the 25-foot no-disturb zone should be marked on the lot prior to the start of work. Glenn said that he measured out 25-feet from each wetland flag in order to establish the no disturb zone and that it was already staked out on the site. Glenn stated that 95 percent of the lot is dominated by large white pines, the largest, approx. one foot in diameter. R. Lowell asked Glenn if he anticipated a lot more runoff as a result of the tree removal. Glenn stated no because the soils are sandy and well-drained. L. Boucher stated that it appears the entire site slopes toward the drainage ditch and that he recommends installing erosion controls. Erosion controls were not indicated on the current plan. Glenn said that he would get the Commission a new plan showing the proposed erosion control.
G. Williamson asked how they plan to protect the drainage/prevent erosion at the outlet where the new drainage swale enters the ditch. Glenn stated that the disturbed soils would be covered with jute netting. M. Scott asked what the condition of the slope was along the proposed drainage swale to the existing ditch. Glenn stated that the new drainage would be cut at a 90 degree angle to the ditch and that the area is currently lawn grass and heavily vegetated along the ditch.
R. Lowell asked if there were any comments from the public. No one from the public was present for this project.
Motion by M. Scott to close the public hearing, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOTICE OF INTENT, 37 PRESERVATION LANE FOR THE BACK YARD EXPANSION INTO A DRAINED WETLAND AREA, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALK-OUT BASEMENT, UPPER DECK EXPANSION, DRAINAGE SWALE, 10' X 10' SHED AND FIRE PIT WITHIN THE 100-FOOT BUFFER OF A RESOURCE AREA. THE COMMISSION ADDED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO THE ORDER:
1. The limit of clearing/work must be marked on the site prior to the start of work.
2. The 25-foot No-Disturb Zone must be marked on the site prior to the start of work.
3. The disturbed buffer area must be replanted in a timely manner, stabilized and monitored for two full growing seasons.
4. Disturbed areas adjacent to the home and within the 25-foot no-disturb zone at the drainage outlet/ditch must be covered with jute mesh and seeded/planted in accordance with the plan.
NOTICE OF INTENT - 84-88 Bailey Road (Adjacent to 96 Bailey) DEP File # 183-656 Assessors Map 172, Parcel 11. Mark Ferguson. Construction of a multi-family home and appurtenance structures within the 100-ft. buffer of BVW. Rep. Doug Andrysick - Andrysick Land Surveying.
G. Williamson read the legal ad into record. Doug Andrysick and Mark Ferguson were present to discuss the proposed project. Doug stated that the lot to be developed is located in the multi-family zoning district which allows up to a four-family home. The lot to be developed is 0.84 acres and is located within the 100-foot buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland. The project consists of the construction of a three-family home, 90 feet by 28 feet, and the property owner will construct a fence along the 25-foot no disturb zone. The building will be located approx. 8-feet from the no-disturb zone line and construction will have to be done very carefully. The roof run-off will be directed to subsurface infiltration chambers located on both ends of the building.
Doug indicated that they are not required to recharge run-off as the project is not subject to the MA Stormwater Management Standards. The work is considered a "small residential subdivision with no discharge to critical areas". The revised DEP comments dated December 5th, 2018 state "provided that the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed work is now beyond the new Zone A, the project is exempt from meeting Stormwater Standards".
R. Lowell asked the purpose of the pipe connecting the vernal pool to the wetland area. Doug stated that the pipe has been there for a long time and he assumed that ponding was an issue in the past, so the pipe was installed underground. The pipe is currently a 12-inch HDPE and that it had been upgraded over the years.
Doug stated that G. Williamson met on-site earlier and she suggested that orange construction fencing be placed along the no disturb zone to prevent encroachment during construction.
R. Lowell asked the nature of the wetland on the lot. Doug stated that it was a wooded wetland and that it was flagged by a representative from Oxbow Associates. Doug stated that a chain link fence would be constructed between the proposed building and the wetland area. G. Williamson asked about the zoning. Doug stated that the lot is zoned multi-family, which allows for the building of up to a four-family dwelling and that they are not required to go through Planning for site plan approval. G. Williamson asked why the building could not be shifted further north away from the wetland area. Doug stated that various other setbacks (i.e. zoning) would not allow for this.
R. Lowell asked if there was town water and sewer that would serve the development. Doug stated yes, each unit would have its own utility connection in accordance with DPW requirements.
G. Williamson stated that the applicant received the DEP File number and comments earlier that day in an e-mail attachment dated December 4th, 2018. This was the first set of comments received from DEP. Comments included; the site is located within Zone A of the surface water protection area; stormwater standards should be met to the greatest extent practicable and; the applicant should determine whether the subsurface infiltration systems can be located within a Zone A. Doug stated that Bruce Bouch went on-site to determine the limits of Zone A on the lot. Bruce determined that the Zone A mapping was not consistent with the actual site characteristics since the channel between the wetland and the vernal pool is currently piped underground. Doug stated that Bruce modified the location of the Zone A and that the Zone A is now shown correctly on the site plan. R. Lowell stated that the subsurface infiltration system on the northern end of the building should be shifted further west, out of the Zone A boundary.
R. Lowell asked if there were estimated buffer zone and resource area impacts listed in the Notice of Intent. Doug stated that they were permanently impacting approx. 5000 square feet of upland within the 100-foot buffer zone.
R. Lowell asked if there were any comments from the public. Alan Lund, the property owner at 70 Bailey Road was present. Mr. Lund stated that he was concerned that there would be an increased amount of stormwater runoff as a result of the development. Doug replied that the stormwater from the building was not being directed into the wetland and that the project would not result in additional runoff volume downgradient of the site. He stated that Mr. Lund’s property would not be impacted as a result of the project.
D. Nyman asked if their intent was to penetrate the sandy loam layer and get down into the sandy layer when they construct the subsurface infiltration systems. Doug stated that the test pits were used to calculate and size the stormwater chambers. D. Nyman rephrased the question, asking what soil type they used to size the infiltration trenches. L. Boucher stated that the sandy loam soil layer could act as a restrictive layer and that they might get better infiltration through the underlying sandier soil. D. Nyman stated that if porous pavements are to be used, the subgrades must be prepared correctly. He asked Doug if they could find a qualified pavement installer, provide the Commission with the name and qualifications of the installer and to have someone with adequate experience supervise the installation. Doug stated, yes, they would do those things. Doug provided the Commission with a stormwater and pavement maintenance plan that the condo association would be responsible for. Doug stated that vacuum sweeping would remove particulate matter from the pavement and if properly maintained would last for a longer time.
L. Boucher stated that instead of having a continuous paved area, would they consider three driveways separated by grassed areas. Doug stated that they would consider this as long as there was enough room for cars to turn and not have to back straight into Bailey Road.
Motion by M. Scott to close the public hearing, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOTICE OF INTENT, 84 - 88 BAILEY ROAD, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING AND APPURTENANCE STRUCTURES WITHIN THE 100-FOOT BUFFER OF A RESOURCE AREA. THE COMMISSION ADDED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO THE ORDER:
1. The limit of work area/25-foot no-disturb zone must be marked on the site (i.e. orange construction fencing) prior to the start of clearing.
2. Erosion controls and limit of work markers must be inspected and approved by the Commission prior to the start of work.
3. The name, contact information and qualifications of the party responsible for overseeing the porous pavement installation must be provided to and approved by the Commission prior to the start of work.
4. Porous pavements must be monitored, maintained and repaired in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Plan. The O&M Plan shall be amended to add the provision: “Porous pavement must be used for replacement and repairs in driveway areas.”
5. The responsible party must maintain a Stormwater O&M log for three years and submit monitoring/maintenance reports the Commission yearly.
6. Rooftop runoff infiltration systems must be inspected and maintained annually. In the case that a system fails to drain within 72 hours following a rainfall event, a qualified professional shall be retained to assess the cause of the failure and develop a corrective action plan for restoring system function. Corrective action shall be immediately implemented. These actions shall be documented in the annual monitoring/maintenance report.
7. The final plan must show all of the agreed upon revisions.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY - Mass Central Rail Trail. Colleen Abrams, Wachusett Greenways. Relocation of a portion of the Rail Trail located between Manning Street and River Street. Scott Morrison assisting.
Colleen Abrams and Scott Morrison were present to discuss the relocation project. Scott explained that there are currently three steep slopes along the existing Rail Trail that do not allow for handicapped uses. The Wachusett Greenways received a grant to construct a new 12-foot wide, 1800 linear foot section of trail off of the existing trail.
Scott stated that there were three areas along the new trail section where they would have to cross low swales that convey rainwater downhill during moderate rain events. Scott stated that he walked to the top of each of the swales to determine if there were wetland resource areas at the top. He stated that these areas are not regulated resource areas under the MA Wetland Protection Act, since none of them are draining a regulated resource area. Scott said that he located three areas where they would need to install culverts to prevent washing out of the trail. He stated that erosion controls consisting of 18-inch straw wattles would be installed along and perpendicular to each of the swales in order to prevent downgradient sedimentation during construction. R. Lowell asked what type of culverts are proposed. Scott stated that the culverts would be a corrugated steel material. The middle culvert would be the largest and could be up to 24-36 inches. He stated that the other two culverts would be 15-inch or 18-inchs in diameter. He stated that the goal was to oversize the culverts so that less maintenance would be required.
R. Lowell asked how the culverts were to be installed. Scott replied that they would have to use machinery; that the trail is 12 feet wide and that the culverts would have to be at least 20-feet long. Scott stated that there were only half a dozen or so large diameter trees that would have to be removed in order to clear the new trail section. The majority of the new section consisted of small saplings and shrubs and that they are avoiding removing large trees whenever possible. R. Lowell asked if they would be re-using the existing soils or if they would be taken off site. Scott replied that the existing soils would be used on the side slopes of the new trail.
R. Lowell asked what the top material of the trail would consist of. Colleen Abrams replied that they would bring in an inch and a half-processed gravel to finish the trail after it was cleared and graded. They would use larger material (i.,e. up to three-inch gravel) in the areas surrounding the culverts. Collen stated that drainage is carefully considered during the construction of this and many other sections of rail trails that she has worked on.
M. Scott asked what type of culvert outlets they would be using, if they would be flared-end outlets. Colleen stated that they would have stone rip-rap protections at both the inlet and outlets.
K. Strom stated that if they are requiring no slopes greater than 5 percent, then they would have to do a significant amount of fill to maintain these grades/slopes.
R. Lowell asked if there were any comments from the public. No one was present in the audience for this project.
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by C. Doherty, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE 3 DETERMINATION FOR RDA, MASS CENTRAL RAIL TRAIL RELOCATION WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:
1. Install 12 or 18-inch straw wattles on the downgradient sides of the drainage swales.
2. Contact the Commission for an erosion control inspection and to view the clearing work.
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE - STONEY BROOK GRAVITY SEWER EASEMENT, DEP File # 183-540. Gravity sewer line within an existing municipal right-of-way to serve the Stoney Brook Estates Subdivision. 290 Reservoir St. north to Avery Road (house #'s 281 to 290 Reservoir St). C. B. Blair Development.
G. Williamson stated that she received a request for a final Certificate of Compliance from James Kalloch with New England Environmental Design for the sewer easement that serves the Stoney Brook Estates Subdivision. The request included a letter prepared by James Kalloch to serve as the As-Built Certification. There was not a final As-Built Plan submitted with the request. The final Order was issued on May 17, 2010 and expired on May 17, 2017. The project received the automatic two-year extension under Chapter 240, Section 173. The easement begins near 290 Reservoir Street and continues to Avery Drive and was all in-road work.
R. Lowell asked if the Town had accepted the sewer easement. G. Williamson stated that they had. G. Williamson stated that the open Order was showing up on the Stoney Brook resident's deeds. There were not any resource area impacts associated with the construction of the sewer easement.
MOTION BY M. SCOTT TO ISSUE A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR DEP FILE # 183-540, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SANITARY SEWER GRAVITY MAIN TO SERVE STONEY BROOK ESTATES SUBDIVISION. SECONDED BY C. DOHERTY. L. BOUCHER - ABSTAIN.
LOT 1 - 140 PAXTON ST- Robert & Kim Keeney. Rep.Julian Votruba - Replication Area
Julian Votruba was present to represent the homeowners, Robert and Kim Keeney. Julian stated that they had previously located an area for wetland replication that was required for the resource area impacts associated with the driveway crossing. He stated that they did several soil borings in the location of the proposed replication area and hit ledge at 6-inches. They were not able to find a suitable replication area anywhere near the crossing.
An Order of Conditions was issued for the construction of the home, driveway and septic system in March of 2010. Julian provided the Commission with a sketch of the crossing that indicated the impacted area as well as three separate replicated areas. The three replicated areas where created near the crossing during the excavation for the culvert installation. Julian stated that the initial calculated area of impact was 779 square feet and the adjusted area of impact/fill is actually 419.12 square feet. The three new replication areas total 828.26 square feet. The actual replication to fill ratio is approximately 2:1.
DEP provided input on the replication at an earlier meeting, stating that only the area within the bank had to be included in the total area of impact. R. Lowell stated that the Commission was satisfied that the impacts were sufficiently replicated for.
Julian stated that the homeowner would like to close the project out. G. Williamson suggested that they submit a request for a final Certificate of Compliance prior to the next public hearing on January 7th, 2019.
GREENWOOD ESTATES II - Jackson Woods Investments- Union Street
G. Williamson stated that there was a letter that she prepared and sent to Clea Blair stating that there had been a minor buffer zone violation at the Greenwood Estates development site. Julian Votruba and Craig Bacon were present to discuss the work. Julian stated that the skidder went approximately 15 feet into the 25-foot no-disturb zone near wetland flag numbers V-10 thru V-17. Julian stated that they called the foresters off the site as the site was too wet and the water table was still very high.
Craig stated that the next step is to install erosion controls along the no-disturb zone. The buffer area would be left alone to naturally re-vegetate and the ruts would be smoothed out. R. Lowell asked Craig and Julian to notify G. Williamson once the erosion controls were installed. Julian stated that they have started the SWPPP monitoring on a weekly basis as required by the current Order of Conditions.
LOT 3 - CHAPIN ROAD
G. Williamson stated that the Commission had issued an Order of Conditions for the lot at their previous meeting in November. She stated that the applicant is requesting to construct the first 100-feet of the driveway at this time in order to install the water well. She said that a water sample was required in order for the homeowner to secure a loan for the purchase of the property. The 401 Water quality Certification has not yet been issued by DEP.
Neil Gorman was present to discuss the project. He provided the Commission with a revised plan indicating the changes the Commission had asked for at the previous hearing. The revisions included a note on the plans stating that the stream bed will not be disturbed during the construction of the driveway crossing; the addition of siltation fencing to the proposed straw wattles in the vicinity of the stream crossing and; the driveway is to be pitched to the south to direct flow away from the stream at the crossing. Neil stated that they added erosion controls to the plan between the proposed well and the 25-foot no-disturb zone at the front of the lot.
Neil stated that the applicant does not need DCR authorization to install the well since they are outside of DCR jurisdiction at the well location. He indicated the 200-foot secondary zone on the plan.
The Commission agreed that the changes to the development plan are minor in nature and does not warrant an amended Order of Conditions.
196 CHAPEL STREET
G. Williamson stated that this is a violation off Chapel Street. She received a report with site photos (via e-mail) from Art Allen with Eco-Tec dated December 4th 2018. The e-mail stated that the restoration work is complete and that the homeowner had spread hay throughout the graded area along the resource area. Art's initial report specified that weed-free straw be used instead. The homeowner later removed the hay and replaced it with weed-free straw.
109 ARIZONA AVE
G. Williamson stated that the homeowner had cleared the front portion of the lot and that DCR said they had encroached/removed trees on DCR property. She stated that the red dots on the trees along the DCR boundary represented an approximation of the property boundary, not an exact location. Dave Getman with DCR asked the property owner to have a boundary survey done to determine the actual location of the boundary. He also asked him to stabilize the site and streams with straw or other means as soon as possible.
G. Williamson stated that the applicant called her and said that they were going to install the culverts. G. Williamson told them not to do any work at this time since the site was too wet and the water table was still too high to do the work. She also stated that the property owner's 401 Water Quality Certification had expired several years ago. G. Williamson told them that no more work, other than site stabilization, was to be done on the property until they received the Certification.
The Commission suggested that stones be installed at the outlets of both streams and that existing erosion controls be repaired and/or upgraded.
HOLBROOK PARKING AREA
R. Lowell asked for the status of the construction of the Holbrook Parking Area off Salisbury Street for the White Oak Land Conservation Society (WOLCS) property. G. Williamson stated that she had spoken with Scott Morrison. Scott said that the proposed parking area is to wet at this time to do any work. K. Strom stated that the WOLCS had already chosen a contractor to perform the work.
MINUTES
Motion by C. Doherty., seconded by D. Nyman, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 7, 2018 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED BY A VOTE OF 6-0-1 (R. Lowell: abstain).
G. Williamson reported that the next public hearing for the Commission would be on Wednesday, January 9, 2019.
Motion by L. BOUCHER, seconded by C. DOHERTY, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE DECEMBER 5TH, 2018 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:14 PM.
APPROVED: __________________