Conservation Commission, June 27, 2018
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1196 MAIN STREET, TOWN HALL
June 27, 2018
Members Present: Michael Scott, Anthony Costello, Kenneth Strom, David Nyman, Luke Boucher, Cathy Doherty -7:31 PM
Members Not Present: Rob Lowell
Others Present: Isabel McCauley, Senior Civil Engineer, DPW
Ken called the meeting to order at 7:13pm
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY- Holden DPW- Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) for 5 year Right of Way, (ROW) Management, Isabel McCauley
I. McCauley stated that DPW wanted a negative determination to allow them to use an application for vegetation that was growing in the right of way mainly on Main Street. She stated that the intent was to pre-treat some weeds that grow along the sidewalk and curbs. She stated that DPW is currently mechanically removing the unwanted vegetation and sometimes they do it 4 or 5 times a year. She stated that with this pretreatment they will be able to cut down on this labor-intensive project. She stated that they may be late to it for this year but they wanted to apply to the Commission and they did submit the application to the MA Dept of Ag as well. She stated that they also have a Public Hearing scheduled for June 28, 2018 and anyone wishing to comment on this matter was welcome to. She stated that the Town will continue to use the mechanical operations but this would give them the permission to pre-treat as well.
K. Strom asked if this was the first year they had done this.
I. McCauley replied it was. She stated that DCR had not received a plan from any other communities either so they were unsure as to the process. She stated that the letter indicated to notify them of the time and location of where they intended to use the treatment. She stated that they had not received a request for any additional information from them. She stated that the Town has a 5-year management plan and a yearly operational plan that they can utilize as well. She stated that they would use these plans in the event that they wanted to update to a different chemical, otherwise you can indicate you are using the same one and it would be valid for five years.
A. Costello asked if they were using the chemical for poison ivy.
I. McCauley replied that was what they would be treating. She stated that they do it in the school fields under the integrated management but it would not be the same person that did it for Main Street. She stated she is currently unsure how much is there but they will treat it.
M. Scott asked if they were doing it on the sidewalk and the entire right of way.
I. McCauley replied the right of way.
G. Williamson stated that this would be regulated by DCR, she asked if there was a setback for sensitive areas.
I. McCauley replied that there were some rules that needed to be followed if you were close to a resource area.
G. Williamson asked if that needed to be determined beforehand.
I. McCauley replied they would only be spraying on Main Street.
L. Boucher asked how they would know when they were in the no spray area, 100 feet from public water supply, 10 feet from wetlands.
I. McCauley stated that as an example, on Shrewsbury Street, the bridge by Alden Labs, they will determine if it is too close and then they will use a mechanical process rather than spray.
L. Boucher stated that particular one was clear cut.
K. Strom stated that he was more concerned with locations that were not as easily identifiable.
I. McCauley stated that there were a number of culverts but the idea was to use this application for the commercial corridor. She stated if it got close to the resource areas, they would make the call.
L. Boucher stated there may be areas that were hard to define.
I. McCauley stated that it is unlikely that it will go further than the commercial corridor but DPW would make that determination. She stated this particular plan covers the entire right of way but it will not be used for every street, more at the DPW’s discretion.
G. Williamson asked if they will be completing a Sensitive Area Base Map.
L. Boucher stated that after that map is developed they can identify the treatment area.
I. McCauley replied that she was not planning on making any specific maps and that they know the distances they need to adhere to.
M. Scott asked if DPW had it all mapped by the GIS system.
I McCauley replied they did have it. She stated that they have inventoried all the culverts and know their locations.
C. Doherty entered the meeting at 7:31PM.
L. Boucher stated that it seemed to be written that they needed a map and then to compare the map to the field and use the updated map to spray based on the restrictions.
I. McCauley stated that they would not be close to any of the culverts only intending to spray at the commercial corridor of Town.
M. Scott stated that the request that they were looking at was a Town wide request.
I. McCauley stated that was how it was regulated, they could not just request it for Main Street.
G. Williamson asked if it could be conditioned.
M. Scott stated that he thought that would be appropriate.
L. Boucher agreed and stated they could restrict it to the commercial portion of Town.
M. Scott he stated that would allow DPW to do that area in Town but if they wanted to venture out of that area they would need to map.
L. Boucher agreed.
I. McCauley stated that their first process was doing the mechanical trimmings and that will still happen. She stated that it is very time consuming and this was just to allow DPW to spray and save time in this area.
A. Costello asked when they expected to hear from DCR.
I. McCauley replied that tomorrow was the Public Hearing and they may come otherwise they have 30 days to respond.
M. Scott asked if the intent was to approve it this summer and do it immediately.
I. McCauley replied that she was not sure as they were a little late but if they could they would.
G. Williamson stated that the work must adhere to Table 2 Area Restrictions.
M. Scott suggested conditioning to indicate that if there is an expansion beyond the commercial area in Town than more appropriate mapping precedes the application and that it comes back to Commission prior to said application.
L. Boucher suggested listing the pertinent streets.
M. Scott replied that Main Street goes further than they wanted the spray application to go without mapping.
I. McCauley replied they were only going to do it as needed.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by A. Costello, it was VOTED 5-0-1 (Nyman: abstain) TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DETERMINATION FOR THE RDA FOR HOLDEN DPW/ VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 5 YEARS/ RIGHT OF WAY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
-If spraying is to expand beyond the Commercial Area in Town, more appropriate mapping must precede application
-Any additional spraying to return to Conservation Agent/ Conservation Commission prior to spraying.
-Any work must adhere to Table 2
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE- 59 Fisher Road, Lot 8 HCC0117//Assessing Map 243 Parcel 40. Sean Xenos. Single family home and driveway, sewer service connection thru an isolated wetland, restoration of the isolated wetlands (cont)
G. Williamson stated that this was denied at the last meeting. She showed the Commission the photos of before and after.
K. Strom asked if it was done to the Agents satisfaction.
G. Williamson replied that it was.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by C. Doherty, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TO 59 FISHER ROAD/ LOT 8 HCC.
EXTENSION OF TIME- 140 PAXTON ROAD – 183-537 ROBERT AND KIM KEENEY// Assessing Map 180, Parcel 7 & 13. Julian Votruba, NEED, LLC. Single family home, driveway crossing/ intermittent stream and replication area
G. Williamson stated that this house has already been built but that the replication area has not been done and that J. Votruba stated that he does not know where to put it. She stated that the applicant needs an extension because the replication area has not been done.
M. Scott asked if the driveway was in.
G. Williamson stated that the septic was in and the house was done. She asked if the mitigation was supposed to be done when they do the crossing.
M. Scott replied it was ideal. He stated that they do have three years to do it but if the order expires they will need to refile and they will not receive a Certificate of Compliance. He asked what year it was issued.
G. Williamson replied that she had spoken with the applicant and she believes that he is going to do it and she will continue to work with him.
M. Scott asked if the site was stable and not a mess.
G. Williamson confirmed it was.
M. Scott stated he did not mind extending.
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by C. Doherty, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME TO JULY 2019 FOR 140 PAXTON ROAD// 183-537 ROBERT AND KIM KEENEY.
CHAPTER 61A RELEASE- LOT 10 PRINCETON STREET/ /Assessing Map 36 Parcel 3-1. Attorney George Kiritsy representing Sophie Sobol
K. Strom stated it was a small piece of land.
G. Williamson stated that there was no corridor connection.
K. Strom stated that he did not believe anyone would have use for that with the exception of Worcester for water.
The Commission discussed a typo that stated “Princeton” rather than “Holden”
Assuming that there was a typo; the consensus of the Commission was that they did not find interest in this property and that they wished to exercise the first right of refusal.
ENFORCEMENT ORDER- Holden/Rutland Line
G. Williamson stated that they installed straw bales by the pond and no other work has been done. She stated that she would like to see the site stabilized and then be done.
M. Scott stated that there was some confusion on the owners, he asked if the letter went to the right person now.
G. Williamson stated that she needed to resend it to Cynthia Safford.
M. Scott asked if she had gone back to the site after the rain event.
G. Williamson stated that she could do another site visit and ask them to stabilize it.
M. Scott stated that they could ask them what the plan was.
K. Strom replied that he thought that they needed to make some recommendations.
M. Scott asked about the brush.
G. Williamson replied that they had it piled near the wetlands.
M. Scott stated it would be unfortunate if it clogged or blocked a culvert and the roads flooded.
G. Williamson stated that they could request that they clear it.
C. Doherty stated they needed to put is somewhere else.
L. Boucher stated that they needed to make sure that they were corresponding with the legally correct person.
M. Scott asked if the assessor would know.
L. Boucher stated that until they were sure that it was going to the right person they could not really enforce it.
M. Scott suggested that G. Williamson call Rutland and see if they had any information on the correct owner and that when she did the site visit she could remind them that the debris could not be located next to the wetlands.
Discussion
38 Vista Circle- Retaining Wall
G. Williamson stated that it was still failing and that there was no update.
August Meeting Date: August 1, 2018 (D. Nyman and R. Lowell will not be in attendance).
Minutes
Hold until next meeting
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by L. Boucher, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE JUNE 27, 2018 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:20PM.
APPROVED: __________________