Conservation Commission, May 9, 2018
HOLDEN CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1130 MAIN STREET, SENIOR CENTER
May 9, 2018
Members Present: Michael Scott, Anthony Costello, Luke Boucher, Dave Nyman, Rob Lowell, Ken Strom (7:17PM), Cathy Doherty (7:15PM)
Not Present:
Others Present: Pam Harding, Director of Planning, Glenda Williamson, Conservation Agent, Liz Fotos, Town Secretary
Others on Sign In: Scott Jordan, Eco-Tec, Ryan Luddy, Luddy Chevrolet; Jim Dunn, Ag Com, Gordon Olin, 119 Chapin Road
M. Scott called the Conservation Commission meeting to order.
NOTICE OF INTENT- 537 Mason Road, Jefferson- DEP File # 183- 652 .
Assessing Map 15, Parcel 3. Brennen Cheney on behalf of Joseph & Jean Dejoinville. Septic System replacement within 100-foot buffer of a bordering vegetated wetland (BVW), Eco-Tec, Inc. Scott Jordan
Scott Jordan was present to represent Brennen Cheney. He stated that the property was located on 537 Mason Road. He stated that this project was an existing single-family home that needed a septic repair. He stated that there was some work in the 100-foot buffer zone. He stated that it was the septic and the pumping chamber and they would be pumping it to the northern portion of the property as far from the wetlands as possible.
S. Jordan stated that there was erosion control barrier in the buffer and they would be using stone, and an anti tracking pad by the front coming off the driveway. He stated there would be little material leaving the site and they wanted to ensure that they did not track anything into the street. He stated that the work was taking place in a developed lawn area with no trees.
G. Williamson showed the Commission photos.
R. Lowell asked if they were doing standard treatment.
S. Jordan stated that they were using a Presby System where the ground water was an issue because they were more efficient.
R. Lowell asked if there was any change to the house and if the pool was existing.
S. Jordan stated that the pool was existing and they would be working around it with electric.
R. Lowell opened it up for public questions; no member of the public stepped forward.
R. Lowell opened it up for questions from the Commission.
Cathy Doherty entered the meeting at 7:15PM.
A Costello asked if they had received any response from Natural Heritage.
S. Jordan replied the project was not within any rare species habitat.
G. Williamson stated that it was very close.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by L. Boucher, it was VOTED TO CLOSE THE NOTICE OF INTENT FOR 537 MASON ROAD, JEFFERSON, DEP FILE # 183-652 BY A VOTE OF 5-0-1(C. Doherty: abstain)
G. Williamson asked about the DEP file number.
R. Lowell stated that they were unable to issue an order until they received the File number.
S. Jordan replied that the thought they should receive it soon.
K. Strom entered the meeting at 7:17PM.
R. Lowell stated that they could finish the action after receipt of the DEP File Number.
NOTICE OF INTENT- Holden DPW- Trout Brook Conservation Area 183-645
Assessing Map 65 Parcel 1: Maintenance dredging on Trout Brook Pond, 320 Manning Street.
G. Williamson stated that this matter needed to be continued pending the Water Quality Cert.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY- Holbrook Property/ Salisbury Street, Assessing Map 250, Parcel 38. Installation of a small stone parking area and drainage culvert in the 100-foot buffer of a BVW. Scott Morrison, White Oak Land Conservation Society
K. Strom stated that this was White Oak and they did not have plans yet. He suggested passing over the matter.
REQUESTEFOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABLITY – 512 Main Street, Luddy Chevrolet, Assessing Map 199, Parcel 22. The removal of an underground storage tank and associated dispenser within the 200-foot Riverfront of Chaffin Brook/ Buffer of Chaffin Pond. Ryan Luddy.
Ryan Luddy was present at the meeting. He stated that there was a 10K gallon gas tank that was no longer being used and they were in the process of receiving approval to have it removed by a licensed contractor, licensed engineer, and environmental person. He stated that they had a site visit with DEP earlier this week and they seemed okay with it. He stated that this will not be replaced and was not in use.
R. Lowell asked if they were filling the site with clean back fill.
R. Luddy replied that they were also removing a dispensing system and piping. He stated that the monitoring wells were tested and there was no detection of anything.
P. Harding stated that it was within the riverfront.
R. Luddy replied it was within 200ft of the brook.
M. Scott asked if it daylights before the railroad.
K. Strom replied that it did in a little section but was fairly urban.
R. Luddy stated that they would return the section to pavement when it settled.
R. Lowell asked if the Commission had any questions or concerns.
K. Strom asked how long the work would take.
R. Luddy replied about a day. He stated that DEP may or may not want to be there but that they (Luddy) wants them there to monitor and make sure everything is clean once they get the tank out.
K. Strom asked if there would be an LSP on site.
R. Luddy replied they would.
R. Lowell stated that it did not look very close to the wetlands.
R. Luddy stated that it was empty and only residual materials would be in there.
R. Lowell opened it up for public comment; no members of the public stepped forward.
R. Luddy asked if the Commission wanted anything once the work was done.
R. Lowell replied they did not unless something came up during the removal. He stated they just needed to make the site intact.
R. Luddy replied that there was concrete on top and they will blacktop it.
Motion by D. Nyman, seconded by K. Strom, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSED A NEGATIVE DETERMINATION 3 FOR 512 MAIN STREET, LUDDY CHEVERLET, REMOVAL OF AN UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK AND DISPENSER WITHIN 200 FEET OF RIVERFRONT.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATINO OF APPLICABILITY – Holbrook Property, Salisbury Street, Assessing Map 250, Parcel 38. Installation of a small stone parking area and drainage culvert in the 100-foot buffer of a BVW. Scott Morrison, White Oak Land Conservation Society
Scott Jordan, Eco-Tec, Inc. was present at the meeting filling in for Scott Morrison. He stated that this was and RDA and it was going to be a gravel parking lot. He stated that they were on site and added tape where the erosion control barrier would go. He stated that they would use the previously approved delineation and that they were maintaining the 25-foot no disturb.
G. Williamson stated that they flagged it in the field. She stated that S. Morrison did the delineation and that it was a strange wetland. She stated that the wetland stopped before the road and does not continue across the street.
S. Jordan stated that the soil must change to granular but they added the pipe just in case of a high-water situation.
R. Lowell asked what the total area would be.
P. Harding replied it would be for 5/6 cars.
R. Lowell stated it was a stone surface.
M. Scott asked if it was a cleared surface now.
K. Strom replied it was brushy.
G. Williamson stated that the area was not cleared. She stated that were a few large trees and more saplings. She stated that the adjacent property owners had expressed concerns but that they were unfounded at this point. She stated that they had stated they were unhappy to this being so close to their property line.
R. Lowell asked if this was to service a trail.
S. Jordan replied that was his understanding.
D. Nyman asked if this was property that was public access.
P. Harding replied that it was White Oak/ Con Com.
R. Lowell stated that it was right next to the buffer; he asked about erosion controls.
M. Scott stated that it sat on natural grade.
S. Jordan agreed and stated that it was pretty flat and they would use hay bales just for safety.
L. Boucher stated that there was no impervious area because it was crushed stone, so just the replacement of surface material.
R. Lowell asked how the end was.
P. Harding stated that she was told that they would take the trees that are cut and lay them on the edges for the parking.
R. Lowell stated that would help to not allow additional intrusion.
R. Lowell asked if any members of the public wished to step forward; no members of the public wished to speak.
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by L. Boucher, it was VOTED TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DETERMINATION FOR HOLBROOK PROPERTY/ SALISBURY STREET WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BY A VOTE OF 5-0-2 (Strom: abstain; Costello: abstain).
-Erosion Control be placed as shown
-Felled trees that are properly prepared are used to prepare the perimeter of the parking area
EXTENSION OF TIME- Lot 6 Erins Way, 183-549 Paul Conger- Dover Service Series, LLC, Assessing Map 160, Parcel 113. Finlay Engineering. Single Family home, driveway and appurtenant work in the 100-foot of BVW.
P. Harding stated that they had not started work yet and were looking for an extension.
R. Lowell asked how long they were looking for.
P. Harding that they were coming in for a building permit and they were asking for a year. She stated that he wants to have it on the market by the fall.
G. Williamson stated that they have straw bales but no silt fence for erosion control so she met with the contractor and he was adding the silt fence. She stated that she would do another site visit next week.
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by D. Nyman, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ISSUE A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME TO LOT 6 ERINS WAY- 183-549 PAUL CONGER.
DISCUSSION
38 Vista Circle- Beverly Goddell- Retaining Wall
P. Harding stated that B. Goodell was not present at the meeting. She stated that this property had a retaining wall fall in the back of her property that was 30 feet high. She stated it was in the river-front area and she wanted to talk about grading out the back of the property. She stated the wall was supporting the properties.
K. Strom asked how they would grade it.
P. Harding replied that they did not know and that she was exploring their options and wanted to see the Commissions thoughts.
M. Krikonis asked if it was wooded.
P. Harding replied most of it was.
L. Boucher stated that they would still end up with a big slope.
P. Harding replied maybe a 2:1.
R. Lowell stated that he thought that they needed to hear what the home owner wanted to do.
R. Lowell asked if they had any idea why it slipped.
P. Harding stated that was the question. She stated that the other side collapsed and the contractor fixed it.
R. Lowell asked if it was vertical. P. Harding confirmed it was.
K. Strom stated that they needed to be very careful.
R. Lowell asked about a plot plan.
L. Boucher asked how far in the geo grid went.
R. Lowell asked if they owned the property beyond the wall. P. Harding replied that she did.
R. Lowell stated that maybe with a stabilized rip rap slope it could work but they would lose a portion of the lawn too.
K. Strom asked how far it would be to chase it. He stated maybe a 1:1 slope and a wall at the floor.
L. Boucher replied it would depend if they could catch the slope.
K. Strom stated that they needed the existing topography to see a cross section. He stated that it was steep topography.
G. Williamson stated this was all they had.
P. Harding stated that they changed lot lines from the plans as well.
R. Lowell stated that they could entertain an emergency conversation if they know what the property owners wanted but that there needed to be more conversation about it.
L. Boucher stated that he was curious what the detail had for drainage on the wall as well.
P. Harding stated that another portion of the wall failed and was fixed. She stated permanent drains were buried in the fill.
R. Lowell stated that was an issue.
P. Harding stated that was one of the issues for previous failed portion.
M. Scott asked if the Town required building permits for this.
P. Harding replied they did.
M. Scott stated that presumably the structure was inspected.
P. Harding agreed.
P. Harding stated that Tighe and Bond inspected the failure and repair of the first failure.
R. Lowell stated that the Commission was open for discussion.
P. Harding replied that she would get the plans.
-Jim Dunn, Holden Agricultural Commission- Open Space Evaluation / Prioritization
Jim Dunn was present at the meeting. He stated that to give the Commission some background, when landowners put property under 61 A or B they receive a tax break. He stated that along with the tax break, the Town receives the first right of refusal in the event they wished to sell. He stated that historically, Holden had not exercised this and it has always been said that there had been no money to do so. He stated that along with that there had never been a process to evaluate the worth of any property that came along.
J. Dunn stated that Ag Com had taken the initiative to put together a process and it was formally adopted by the Board of Selectmen because the Board of Selectmen was the group that had the voting authority for these types of land.
J. Dunn stated that what happened when a 61 a or b property comes up for conversation, Ag Com sends out a letter to the various Boards and Commissions to say there is a parcel, is it of interest to any of the Boards and Commission in Town. He stated then they gather that information and conduct a Public Hearing and so far in Holden, the land was each passed on.
J. Dunn stated that the first thing Ag Com did was to attack the fact that there was no money to purchase any of these lands even if we wanted to. He stated that they were put through the budget process and ultimately were able to create an Open Space Stabilization Fund that the Town has been budgeting for yearly. He stated that this was the third year and the Town Manager allocates funds to go into this account. He stated eventually there will be enough money in the account in the event something of interest comes up.
J. Dunn stated in addition to the monetary question, time constraints also surround 61 a and b properties. He stated that the Town needs to exercise its rights within 120 days which includes holding a Town Meeting and all of the bureaucratic processes that surround it.
J. Dunn stated that because of all of these challenges the Ag Com made a list of all eligible properties and scored them. He stated that there was about 35-40 in Town and that some may be very interesting and then there is probably a bunch that are not interesting or useful at all. He stated that to have some sort of tool to determine what was useful and what was not could help expedite the process. He stated that the idea of putting this together was to go through each property and score it and he shared it with P Harding with the thought that there may be other parties interested in what they were doing.
J. Dunn stated that he had selected a bunch of parcels and made packages for each parcel that included information and he had spoken to the Historical Commission as well but it was a time-consuming process and they had not yet had the opportunity to rate each parcel.
R. Lowell asked if they were looking at them in terms of value to Town.
J. Dunn replied that everyone that rated the parcel would do so in their own personal view.
R. Lowell asked if this was designated for Open Space.
J. Dunn replied that it could be Open Space, Agricultural Land, or other things such for the Town which is where other Boards and Committees could weigh in.
R. Lowell asked if he was looking for input or just letting the Commission see where it has evolved to.
J. Dunn stated that it was more for interest so the Commission would know that it was going on but if any individual wanted to participate they could be added to the list with the understanding that it takes time.
P. Harding stated that she didn’t know that they were using it for all existing parcels; she stated that she thought they were using it to evaluate as the properties came up.
J. Dunn replied they wanted to get ahead of the curve. He stated that his thought was that if this was done then prior to the properties becoming available they would be sorted into categories ranging from top (valuable to Town) to bottom (not valuable to Town) and it could help quicken the pace as time moved quickly in these situations. He stated that this would not be the only thing relied on but it could be a tool to assist.
A Costello asked what the criteria for selecting the parcels was.
J. Dunn replied that it was any parcels that were registered as 61 but they were arbitrarily going though the list as they worked their way through.
A Costello stated that they should compare notes as White Oak had a list as well.
J. Dunn replied that he would be happy for any input.
Holbrook Property Conservation Restriction
P. Harding stated that they were supposed to close on this on May 18, 2018. She stated that the way the law was written, the Board of Selectmen needed to convey the Conservation Restriction but they were asking for the Conservation Commission’s vote to support it as they were the holders of the property.
The Conservation Commission supported the conveyance of the Holbrook Property through the Board of Selectmen by a vote of 5-0-2 (Strom: abstain; Costello: abstain).
119 Chapin Road, Lot 1- 183-562- construction review on home and driveway
R. Lowell stated this was under Order of Conditions; he asked what was being discussed.
G. Williamson stated that the driveway was over a culvert and the Fire Department was concerned that they couldn’t turn the water tanker around so the owners agreed to do a wider driveway.
Gordon Olin, the owner/ builder of the home was present He stated that he met with the Fire Deputy and he noticed that the driveway would be tight for their tankers. He stated they met to come up with a solution.
P. Harding stated that the approved plan is now different then what was constructed.
P. Harding stated that the on the approved plan he constructed the house slightly different and the driveway looped around.
G. Olin showed where he changed the driveway. He stated that they were nervous for the big trucks and emergency vehicles and that was what facilitated the change.
R. Lowell asked if they made the driveway and turnaround larger.
G. Olin replied they did.
P. Harding replied there was not more impervious area.
G. Olin showed the Commission what he did. He stated that because they had the conservation land, he worked around it and cleared the end to work the lot better to use less fill. He stated that he worked with the natural contour and then moved the driveway and flattened the front side.
R. Lowell stated that he used less fill but there was more impervious. He asked if they had calculated for it.
G. Olin replied that they had not.
K. Strom asked how much space Fire wanted.
G. Olin replied 30 feet and a hammer head so they could turn.
P. Harding asked if that was gravel or paving.
G. Olin replied he was planning to pave it.
P. Harding stated that there was no water, they were on well so in the event of an emergency they would need the tanker trucks.
G. Williamson asked what they were doing with the top of the culvert at the crossing.
G. Olin replied they were adding a head wall 24’ by 1 foot on each side.
G. Williamson asked when the work would be done.
G. Olin replied he was going to do it this week and add guardrails.
R. Lowell stated that they would want to see an as built for this.
M. Scott asked if this would result in more fill because it was wider.
G. Olin replied it was the same amount.
G. Williamson asked about the well.
G. Olin replied that it had already been moved; he showed the Commission the new location.
R. Lowell stated that the drawing should depict that change as well.
G. Olin stated that they were scheduled to start septic next week.
M. Scott stated they needed the as builts for the improvements.
G. Olin apologized to the Commission for not coming in sooner.
165 Cannon Road- remove sumac trees along field edge swale to maintain pasture
G. Williamson stated that they wanted to build a barn and cut the sumac trees but they were close to the 25 feet no disturb.
R. Lowell stated that if they didn’t disturb the line he did not think it was a big concern.
G. Williamson stated that there was a small pond and she thought that the owner was going to need an NOI for the barn based on the location.
R. Lowell replied that would be different.
G. Williamson replied she was not sure about the property line and that they would need a surveyor.
R. Lowell asked if the Commission had any opinion about the removal of the trees.
A Costello asked if they were trying to increase the pasture size.
M. Scott asked what they were trying to do with the field.
G. Williamson stated that she wanted to graze cows.
M. Scott replied that would be exempt anyway.
R. Lowell stated that no action was needed.
K. Strom asked if sumac was invasive. P. Harding confirmed it was.
P. Harding stated that even if it was exempt they would still need to file a plan with agriculture.
M. Scott asked if they were not exempt from wetlands.
P. Harding replied she believed they were exempt with an Agriculture Plan. She stated agriculture was exempt from building code.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by K. Strom, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 1, 2017 CONSERVATION MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED BY A VOTE OF 5-0-2 (Nyman: abstain; Doherty: abstain).
Motion by M. Scott, seconded by A Costello, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 6, 2017 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED BY A VOTE OF 5-0-2 (Boucher: abstain; Doherty: abstain).
Motion by A Costello, seconded by L. Boucher, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 3, 2018 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED BY A VOTE OF 5-0-2 (Scott: abstain; Doherty: abstain).
P. Harding introduced the Commission to Cathy Doherty, the newest member of the Conservation Commission.
Motion by L. Boucher, seconded by D. Nyman, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE MAY 9, 2018 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:15PM.
APPROVED:_______________