Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-04 Conservation Commission MinutesMinutes of January 4, 1995 Meeting No. 1 PRESENT: James Biller, Chair; Stephen Chapman, Vice-Chair; Josh Drexler (7:10); Nancy Eaton; Harold Hulse; and Leo Kenney; Conservation Administrator, Donald Nadeau; and Recording Secre- tary, Elizabeth McDonough ABSENT: M. Clifton Proctor The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. The following site visit reports were distributed: 26 Pitman Drive, 754 Pearl Street, 311 Haverhill Street, 28 Francis Drive. APPROVE DRAFT MINUTES: The draft minutes of the November 2, 1995 meeting were reviewed and corrected. There was not an accurate quorum to approve the minutes. Therefore, the approv- al was post poned until the next regular meeting. 7:10 P.M. Cert. of Compliance - Parkview Estates 28 Francis Drive, DEP# 270-22 Mr. Drexler was not present for the discussion. There was a site visit to this property on December 31, 1995 with Messrs. Biller, Chapman, Drexler, Eaton, Hulse, and Kenney attending. Mr. Biller commented that there were two different DEP numbers assigned on the same project. One number had been granted a Certificate of Compliance and the other had not. The commission discussed granting the other number a Certificate of Compliance. Mr. Nadeau added that the original number, 22, was appealed, but not in a timely fashion. A new order was issued under the new file number, and a Certificate of Compliance was issued. The previous number is still open at the registry. Mr. Nadeau recommended approval. MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED THAT 28 FRANCIS DRIVE BE ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, DEP #270-22. VOTED - 4-0-1 (with J. Drexler abstaining.) ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: Mr. Nadeau informed the Commission that it would be necessary to approve the annual report during the policy meeting scheduled for January 11, 1995. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: 1.) Mr. Kenney stated that he would be speaking before Holy Cross on February 4, 1995 on conservation issues. 2.) Ms. Eaton stated that two conservation representatives Conservation Commission 1/4/94 Page 1. 7:30 P.M. - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 311 HAVERHILL STREET DEPT` 270-266, RGB# 1994-33 A site visit was made on December 31 with Mr. Biller, Mr. Chap- man, Mr. Drexler, Ms. Eaton, Mr. Hulse, and Mr. Kenney attend- ing. Administrator's Report: Mr. Nadeau detailed the wetlands which had not been completely shown on the original proposed plan. He stated that there would be silky dogwoods and high bush blueber- ries and more. He said that according to the Town Engineer the swath is 700 square feet. Mr. Nadeau explained the box-style planting that he had suggested for the project in order that there would be just over three feet from plant to plant. Some would be red maples because there is a multi-stem red maple proposed to be cut on the end of the bank of the BVW. Mr. Biller asked about the actual width. The Town Engineer explained that it ranges towards Simonds Way and is seven feet. Further down it widens up slightly. Mr. Nadeau stated that it would set off wetland through the lawn. He suggested mimic the way the wetland is or to make even with the major wetland next to it. is designed to meet Performance Standari Order of Conditions. the remainder of the building it up high to it low so as to make it He commented that it is as required in the Mr. Chapman said that it was his recollection that it was unlike- ly that the commission would approve this plan. He added that he did not see a need for this Notice of Intent, and that the state of art of stone water management is open drainage systems. The facility that is there today tends to collect a lot of road sediment coming through the Haverhill Street culvert. He added that he could not support or approve of this project. He said that he believes that if there is an absolute need that a wetland be displaced, then the Commission could entertain the thought of replication. He stated that the project is totally counter to the current way of thinking from an engineer's standpoint. Mr. Drexler stated that this area has a disturbed history. He recalled a comment made by Mr. Kenney about the rate of flow necessary to deposit all of the material and how that might be increased by culverting. He added that if the Town wants to do this in an area which is previously disturbed, and is willing to replace it, then he could not see that the proposal was negative. He said that he could not vote against the proposal. Mr. Kenney stated that the proposal does not quite meet the Town By-laws and that the wetland is currently functional He believes conservation Commission 1/4/94 Page 2. that there should be a 2 to 1 replication with the appropriate ZNV around it. Replacing the amount of growth there now would take a considerable amount of time. He also said that replications do not always do what they are supposed to. Mr. Nadeau reviewed the replication for the Commission, and he said that the existing bushes will be transplanted and they will be augmented with three tall nursery stock. He added that he did not say the wetland was not functional; only that it was marginal. He believes that the replacement area would do much better. The area was originally lawn and grew quite vigorously. He added that there are several large willows which will not be removed. Mr. Biller commented on the issue of the area being a mowed lawn not long ago, and that it is now a good wetland. If the adjacent area could be helped along, there is no reason to believe that it will be any less successful than the random regrowth of a manmade ditch that was mowed and is now allowed to grow on its own. Mr. Kenney stated that the wetland appears to be over 30 years and is not going to come back in a year or two. He said that there is no need to remove it for the purposes being requested, i.e., keeping it cleaned out. Mr. Drexler added that they do not have to give any reason if there is no net change in the amount of wetland. Mr. Kenney did not agree. Mr. Nadeau stated that there have been many Certificates of Compliance for wetlands replication. He also stated that this area was not typical of other ditches in town, and that most of the waterways have well developed associated wetlands. Mr. Drexler suggested that either the Commission issue an Order of conditions forcing a 2 to 1 or that it deny the request in order that they may refile. Mr. Hulse said that the Commission could deny without prejudice for not being the 2 to 1 standard leaving it open for an amended plan. Mr. Drexler agreed. Mr. Kenney stated that he did not see any need to destroy an existing wetland unless there is an absolute reason that it has to be done. Mr. Nadeau stated that the Performance Standards recognize that you want 75% cover of wetlands species within two years or if trees are replanted, upon maturity of the trees. The Standards state that there are provisions for altering wetlands for whatever reason providing all the Performance Standards are met. It is not at the discretion of the Commission. If the Standards are met, the commission is obliged to grant it. That is, if the Commission agrees that the Standards are being met. Conservation commission 1/4/94 Page 3. Mr. Kenney suggested just covering the top of the culvert leaving most of the wetland trees and the wetland itself would not have to be removed. Mr. Drexler suggested leaving it as a swail in its current configuration. The Town Engineer stated that they want to have a certain amount of cover to cover the pipes which he stated is standard engineering practice. He suggested that a foot of cover which is consider- ably less than the current plan. Mr. Hulse said that if the culvert were approved stopping 25' short of where it is proposed and installing 20 or 25' rip rap. Mr. Nadeau said that the ditch continues the bank for another 100' along the edge of Simonds Way and there is an Order of Conditions allowing them to go in and clean out the outlet to the culvert for 151. Mr. Kenney stated that if the ditch fills up with soil, then perhaps the roadway culverts or catch basins need to be better maintained. What is being proposed is culverting everything so it all falls into the wetland and then the wetland will need to be cleaned. He said that a bigger pipe should be installed into he driveway crossing and then it wouldn't block. Mr. Chapman stated further why the project is not viable. Compensatory storage is not addressed. Also, there is a proposal to do a filling in the ditch that would require filling in a 100 year flood plan. There was no information on site hydrology, watershed analysis, there is no information to prove that the culvert proposed would be large enough to accommodate the flows. He addressed data to be used in the absence of FEMA. Mr. Biller asked if the Town would like to have the hearing continued to provide additional information. However, a motion was made before an answer to the question was given. MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Discussion: Mr. Biller again asked the Town Engineer if he believed the hearing should be continued. The Engineer stated that the area in question was not included on FEMA's 100 year flood elevations, but calculations were done. Mr. Nadeau commented that it would be unlikely that the Town would appeal a decision made by the Commission. VOTED 5-0 MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED THAT 311 HAVERHILL STREET, DEP#270-266, RGB# 1994-33 BE DENIED. VOTED 3-2 (The motion failed as the majority of the commission was not in favor . ) Conservation Commission 1/4/94 Page 4. The Commission discussed the issue of needing four members voting one way or the other. MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED TO RECONSIDER THE NEGATIVE VOTE. VOTED - 5-0 Mr. Biller stated that he would discuss the motion withTown Counsel. 8:00 P.M. VIOLATION - 754 PEARL STREET Administrator's Report: Mr. Nadeau stated hat an as-built plan had been submitted, and that a Certificate of Compliance was issued for this property on December 14, 1981. He said an existing ground grade and an existing top-of-grade were shown going along the side of the house and around the back which formed the yard area as opposed to wetland. He had not been at the site since that time, and he does not know what the disturbance is within that yard area or what vegetation may have encroached. He recently had stopped at the address upon noticing that work was being done on conservation land. The homeowner was not home, and he did not continue the investigation. The Commission reviewed the submitted plan, and they suggested that the Administrator always cross out a surveyor's stamp if any changes are made on a plan. A site visit was made on December 31, 1995 with Messrs. Biller, Chapman, Drexler, Eaton, Hulse, and Kenney attending. The applicant Joseph Gonsalves was also present during the site visit. Mr. Gonsalves was present at the meeting, and he explained that an oil tank had been removed from the front of his yard leaving a large area with no law. A machine was used to straighten out the land. Mr. Nadeau explained that a Violation Notice had been issued because the work was within 100' of a buffer zone. Mr. Biller stated that it appeared that there was a relatively new steep new slope in the back with the evidence being dirt up against the trees. Mr. Gonsalves stated that there has always been dirt against the trees, but that they had recent added approximately one foot. Mr. Biller explained the regulations as it pertains to work near or within a buffer zone; however, there was no factual information of what had been done relative to the original plan and the original contours and borders of the wetland. Mr. Kenney said that he had observed new soil around the base of the large trees growing in the work area. Mr. Chapman said that he noticed evidence of sloping of the rear portion of fill on the back slope which would indicate mote than a Conservation Commission 1/4/94 Page 5. foot of fill. He also noticed standing water at the base of the slope. Mr. Nadeau said that if there is fill in the wetland, it should be moved back until the original ground is reached. He explained methods available to discover where the existing natural edge would occur. The Commission discussed the original filing and the enforced contours established fifteen years ago when the house was built. They decided that the violation should be corrected by the homeowner removing at least a foot of the fill. Mr. Hulse suggested that it be pulled back to a 3 to 1 grade. Mr. Nadeau said that soil borings would be done. Mr. Nadeau said that he would draft the order of Conditions for review at the next regular meeting. 8:35 P.M. PUBLIC MEETING - 26 PITMAN DRIVE RGB# 1994-34 Administrator's Report: Mr. Nadeau stated that he would recommend a stockade fence in lieu of a hay bale line provided it is not removed. Mr. Kenney stated that there is a vernal pool behind the fence, and the project would have no effect on it. Mr. Drexler asked about maintenance on the swimming pool. Mr. Kenney explained that pool water is residual, and that there would be no effect unless they were dumping straight chlorine out. Mr. Biller indicated that the proponents were asking for a slight variance of the setback. He added that 23' exists from the corner of the house property line. He stated that because of the existence of the fence, there is no issue. Mr. Chapman said that in the event the fence needs to be moved, the property owners may need to place haybales or a silt fence installed (with the exception of the fence parallel to the street). MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. VOTED 5-0 MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DETERMINATION FOR 26 PITMAN DRIVE, RGB#1994-34 WITH THE CONDITION THAT IF A PORTION OF THE FENCE ADJACENT TO THE WETLAND IS TEMPO- RARILY OR PERMANENTLY REMOVED, THE WETLANDS WILL BE PROTECTED WITH AN EROSION CONTROL BARRIER. VOTED 5-0 ,4. Conservation Commission 1/4/94 Page 6. 9:00 P.M. Plan Change - Lot 5 Carriage Estates II DEPT 270-236, RGB# 1991-10 Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering as well as Mark Cutler, the expected purchaser of the lot were present to address the Commission. Presentation: Mr. Ogren stated that the applicant is requesting a house with a different footprint and larger in size than was originally approved. The area in question, Lot 5, on the original subdivision plan, could have impervious area that was 4,000' and the total amount of impervious area that ends up being on the plan is 4,900. It is an area, he said, that was not anticipated in the hydraulic calculations. He added that the increase in area comes in two areas: 1.) the actual increase in the footprint of the house 2.) and the owner has requested a pool with 560 sq.ft. of patio outside of the pool. (The pool area was not deducted because of capacity to store several inches of rain). He said that another place where there is an increase is the driveway to accommodate the newly requested three-car garage under the dwelling. In order to handle the increased approximately 900 sq.ft., he submitted a calculation showing a single drywell to accommodate the increase in runoff which is based on one 100 year rainfall. He said that they are proposing a single shelf pit for the back yard, and he indicated a portion of the roof line needs to go into that to accommodate the amount of flow. There is no change to the limit of work line which is 25' from the lot line. He continued that there is no structure that would be in excess of 401. The drainage patters have not changed for the general grading program. Administrator's Report: Mr. Nadeau stated that he had referred the request to Peter Reinhart, Town Engineer, who said that the driveway is over a drain easement. An application for a curb cut will be required. The engineer also noted a drain easement with several trees shown. He stated that it needs to be clarified how much area was designated to be saved as part of their agreement. Mr. Ogren stated that he was not privy to the discussion regarding the trees to be saved, but the ones that are shown are the ones that were located within the area of disturbance of original plan. Those trees had been indicated as trees that might need to be lost because of their size. Mr. Nadeau stated that the work limit line needs to reflect which designated trees are to be saved and that this should be double checked. Mr. Nadeau also stated that the haybale line should run in close proximation to the drainage easement to protect those threes. Conservation Commission 1/4/94 Page 7. Mr. Ogren explained that there would be no problem with changing the limit of work line for Lot 5 to go around this area. He said that the original line was designed to include the retention pond and anticipated work in the back yard. The easement line, property line, driveway edge, work limit line clarification and tree cutting lines (protected areas) were discussed further. Mr. Nadeau stated that the grading is to stay out of the detention easement. The Commission stated concern regarding tree cover in the detention basin and how much could be lawn with trees over it. Mr. Nadeau stated that there should be no activity beyond the work limit line and that the detention basin would remain natural. Mr. Ogren suggested that the limit of work line be amended to that it stayed at least along the edge of the easement (southwesterly side). Mr. Nadeau added that the trees in the area in the back towards the haybales need to be protected. Mr. Chapman asked about the additional impervious area calculations as they relate to regulations and the 100 year storm. Mr. Ogren explained that he would not be making up for the run off that would have already run off in its natural state, and they took a credit in the calculations. Mr. Ogren said they would be taking water tests in the spring and would report the results to the Commission. Mr. Biller asked if it was necessary to that large a driveway since they were going beyond was was allowed in the Order. Mr. Ogren answered that the house was at an angle and it is a three-car garage and they were requesting the larger size for a maneuvering area. He said that a portion could possibly be made of some other type surface and they may be able to reduce it a bit. Mr. Hulse expressed his dissatisfaction with the amount of projects coming back for an increase in impervious area with a drywell which don't always work well over time. Mr. Ogren stated that he felt this was a good trade off. The clean roof rain would leach into the ground and eventually into the detention area. Mr. Drexler asked if it would pull water from surrounding lawn areas. Mr. Ogren explained that the system would be buried below grade in a chamber much like a septic system. He added that an inspection port could be installed at the top. Mr. Chapman said that if this is accepted as a plan change, he would want it noted that the contours shown at 2 to 1 are to be changed to 3 to 1. That applies, he said, at the end of the driveway and on the southwest corner of the house. There are 2' contours, and there is a dimension leader of 21.1'. There's a couple of 2' contours that are getting close together which would indicate a 2 to 1 slope. (south corner of proposed house and north end of proposed driveway). Mr. Ogren said that he could add a Conservation Commission 1/4/94 Page 8. short retaining wall along the end of the driveway. MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED FOR THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A REVISED PLAN SHOWING THE REVISED WORK LIMIT LINE AS DISCUSSED AND SHOWN ON THAT PLAN AS WELL AS A SHORT RETAINING WALL ALONG THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY. THE APPROVAL OF THE PLAN CHANGE WILL NOT BE ISSUED BY THE CONSERVA- TION ADMINISTRATOR UNTIL THE COMMISSION VIEWS THE MODIFIED PLAN SHOWING THE LIMIT OF WORK LINE AND OTHER CHANGES. Discussion:- Ms. Eaton was concerned about the by-laws which had been passed recently regarding impervious areas. Mr. Ogren responded that this project was protected for seven years under the regulations in effect at the time of submission of the original plan. VOTED 4-1-0 OLD/NEW BUSINESS: 1. Endorse Enforcement Orders: Greenhouse Acres 38 Cross Street Mr. Nadeau explained that enforcement orders have not been done as of this date. Work has begun based on the plans requested by the Commission. 2. Water Treatment Plant: Mr. Kenney asked the Town Engineer if there had been any feed back regarding the new ditch and the attempts from keeping the water from running into the vernal pool. The Town Engineer responded that he believes that all the excavation is complet- ed with plantings to be done in the spring. Mr. Nadeau stated that he is awaiting a feasibility study from the consultant. He added that DEP had approved the wetlands restoration plan. Approval was received from the Army Corp. The draft feasibility on solution for water treatment process is to be submitted to DEP by January 14, 1995. Sediments were removed to the top of the hill behind compost area; however, Mr. Kenney noted that approval was not received from the Commission since it is within 100' of wetland, but Mr. Nadeau said he would have to receive confirmation. Mr. Kenney said there was a berm around the storage area which had failed and cascaded between a storage area and a vernal pool. He is concerned that this could happen here. Discussion on this matter continued at length. Mr. Kenney suggested that a restoration plan of the damaged area be submitted. Conservation Commission 1/4/94 Page 9. 3. Fine Schedules Mr. Drexler discussed the fine schedule and the fines involved for failing to apply for a Certificate of Compliance in a timely manner. The Commission was in agreement that the fines should be placed on the boiler plate of the Order. 4. Duck Road Mr. Nadeau informed the Commission that the terms of the case of Lots 5 and 6 of Duck Road are settled and are now public. 5. Cemeteries Mr. Biller informed the Commission that the new road next to the proposed new cemetery property seems to go back to the rear to within the buffer zone of the wetlands. Mr. Nadeau said that the CPDC plans were submitted and he thought that it was not near the buffer zone. Mr. Kenney stated that it appear that in the northwest corner there appears that materials have been bulldozed down into the wetland and there is a dumpster in the back. The silt fence has been pushed back. Mr. Nadeau will check on these concerns. MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED TO ADJOURN AT 10:00 P.M. VOTED - 5-0 Respectfully submitted, Ad Elizabeth C. McDonough Recording Secretary Approved on Conservation Commission 1/4/94 Page 10.