2011 Agendas and Staff Reports
Northampton Conservation Commission
Agenda
5:00 PM, Thursday January 13, 2011
City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton
nd
Contact: Sarah LaValley, Conservation Planner – slavalley@northamptonma.gov
1.Public Comment
2.Approval of Minutes
a.December 9, 2010
3.5:00 P.M, Request for Certificate of Compliance, Northampton Area Pediatrics. 193
Locust Street. Parcel 23B-11, DEP File 246-470
4.5:10 P.M, Northampton Area Pediatrics, Request for Determination of Applicability to
Determine whether a 218 sf building addition and relocation of walkways in buffer zone
to bordering vegetated wetlands is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and/or
Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Parcel 23B-11, 193 Locust Street.
5.5:30 P.M, Executive Session to consider the purchase of real property
6.6:00 P.M. Request for Certificate of Compliance, Smith Vocational and Agricultural High
School and US Department of Veterans Affairs. Haydenville Road. Parcel 11-02, DEP
File 246-613
7.6:15 P.M. Request for Certificate of Compliance, Smith College, Campus Facilities
Management. College Lane. Parcel 31C-015, DEP File 246-639
8.Request to Withdraw Amended Order of Conditions Application, Three County
Fairgrounds
9.Discussion of Possible Project at MassDOT District 2, Hatfield Street
10.Review of Mail
11.All other business
To: Conservation Commission
From: Sarah LaValley
Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF
RE: Staff Report, January 13 Meeting
Date: January 6, 2011
5:00 P.M. Request for Certificate of Compliance, Northampton Area Pediatrics. 193 Locust
Street. Parcel 23B-11, DEP File 246-470
Overview:
An Order of Conditions was issued in August, 2000 for construction of a 1,579 sf building addition,
parking area, detention basin, and rip rap drainage swale in the 50 and 100 foot buffer zones to BVW. A
change was allowed in November 2000 that increased the size of the drainage swale, and move it closer to
the building and farther from the resource area.
Staff Recommendations:
Work was completed in accordance with the Order and NOI plans. The Order required that the basin
depth be increased from 6” to 12”, which was done, and that a permanent concrete marker be installed in
the basin to serve as an indicator of sediment accumulation. This was not installed, however an outlet
control structure also appears to serve as a marker for sediment accumulation, and the basin has been
properly maintained.
Staff recommends issuing a complete certificate of compliance.
5:10 P.M, Northampton Area Pediatrics, Request for Determination of Applicability to
Determine whether a 218 sf building addition and relocation of walkways in buffer zone to
bordering vegetated wetlands is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and/or
Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Parcel 23B-11, 193 Locust Street.
Application Overview:
The application proposes to construct a 218 sf building addition with roof drain connecting to an existing
drain pipe, and relocate an existing walkway and landing. Work will take place within the 100 foot buffer
to BVW.
Consistency with the WPA:
‘Alter’ is defined in 310CMR as ‘changing the condition of any Area subject to protection. The wetland
area to the rear of the offices will not be changed as a result of the project. Although there will be a small
increase in impervious surface, no vegetation will be removed, and much of the building and parking area
currently exists within both the 50 and 100 foot buffer zones.
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
The work area and adjacent wetlands are located within the Special Industrial zone. Wetlands within
Industrial zones have a reduced 10 foot no encroachment zone, which the work area does not enter.
Additionally, any ‘performance standards that are over and above state law’ contained in Section 337-10 of
the Ordinance are waived.
Staff Recommendations:
A negative determination was issued in 2004 for the addition of a small custodian’s closet in
approximately the same location. The project as proposed is located within a disturbed site, and should
not result in an alteration to resource areas. Staff recommends issuing a negative determination with
Conservation Commission Staff Report 1
January 13, 2011
standard conditions by checking box 3, that the work area is within the buffer zone, but will not alter an
Area subject to protection. Box 2b should also be checked, to indicate that wetlands boundaries are not
confirmed, as the flagging is several years old.
6:00 P.M. Request for Certificate of Compliance, Smith Vocational and Agricultural High
School and US Department of Veterans Affairs. Haydenville Road. Parcel 11-02, DEP File
246-613
Overview:
An Order of Conditions was issued in 2008 for closure of a landfill containing primarily construction
materials. The work was subject to stormwater standards, with all runoff returning to on-site wetlands.
The landfill was located within a BVW, and the closure was anticipated to alter 1,587 sf. The Order
required that 1,825 sf be replaced, and included standard conditions and the submittal of an as-built plan.
Staff Recommendations:
The project was completed primarily as proposed, with changes resulting from the types, sizes, and
locations of waste discovered on-site. Wetland replication included placement of relocated silty soils,
topsoil, and wetland seed mix. The completed restoration areas far exceed the amount that was originally
proposed. Staff recommends issuing a complete certificate of compliance.
6:00 P.M. Request for Certificate of Compliance, Smith College, Campus Facilities
Management. College Lane. Parcel 31C-015, DEP File 246-639
Overview:
An Order of Conditions was issued in 2010 for construction of a synthetic turf athletic field in the
riverfront area. Alteration of 66,622 of RFA was permitted in the Order, and included 128,854 sf of
mitigation/restoration. Restoration included re-vegetation of an area that had previously been gravel,
and mitigation included invasive species removal. The field was constructed as designed, but a parking
area shown on NOI plans (but outside all resource areas and buffer zones) was not built. As discussed at a
fall 2010 Commission meeting, the walkway shown as both ‘pervious brick paver’ and ‘stonedust’ on NOI
plans were constructed of stonedust. Special conditions included (ongoing conditions are starred)
*36. Further alteration within mitigated and restored area is prohibited, except as may be required to
maintain the area in its restored or mitigated condition. Restoration areas shall not be mown or
used as pedestrian walkways. Maintenance in restoration areas is limited to trimming of
overhanging branches that pose a danger. Foliar herbicides shall not be used in restoration areas.
This condition has so far been adhered to.
37. While plant growth is being established, the applicant shall install construction fencing to prevent
pedestrians from encroaching on restoration and mitigation areas. Fencing shall be maintained
until vegetation in the restoration areas is sufficiently established to discourage pedestrian
encroachment. Written approval from the Commission is required prior to removal of pedestrian
barriers, and requests shall be accompanied by photo documentation of vegetation.
Fencing was not installed, with staff approval, as pedestrian encroachment was sufficiently discouraged
by the type of material used for plantings. Vegetation is beginning to become established.
*38. Restoration and mitigation shall be proven successful for at least five growing seasons. A request
for Certificate of Compliance shall be accompanied by a comparison of invasive species
occurrence on the site with baseline invasive species occurrence during the growing season
preceding mitigation. Invasive species occurrence shall be seventy-five percent reduced following
mitigation. The Commission may impose additional mitigation measures if invasive growth
exceeds 25% of the vegetation present in invasive species control areas, or if disturbance, such as
evidence of use as a trail or path, is evident in restoration areas.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 2
January 13, 2011
*39. A request for a Certificate of Compliance shall include a plan for monitoring and maintaining
invasive species areas for as long as Smith College maintains site control. A brief annual report
describing invasive species control activities in mitigation areas shall be submitted to the
Commission prior to December 31 of each year.
The first annual report has been submitted, and was provided in Commissioner packets.
*40. Evaporative cooling, irrigation, and use of salt and/or other melting agents are prohibited.
This condition has so far been adhered to.
Staff Recommendations:
The field portion of the project was completed as designed, except for the misunderstanding regarding the
walkway material. Staff recommends issuance of a partial certificate of compliance, as the parking area
has not been completed, and the three-year establishment of new plantings and invasive species removal
is not yet able to be complete.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 3
January 13, 2011
5:00 PM, Thursday February 24, 2011
City Hall Hearing Room 2nd floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton
Contact: Sarah LaValley, Conservation Planner slavallev(tnorthamntonma.gov
1. Public Comment
2. Approval of Minutes
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
planning conservation zoning northampton GIS historic community preservation central business architecture
Sarah 1. La Valley, Conservation, Preservation, Sr Land Use Planner slavalley@NorthamptonMA.gov 413587 -1263
Northampton Conservation Commission
Agenda
a. January 13, 2011
b. January 13, 2011 Executive Session
c. Vote to release executive session minutes:
i. May 28 2009
ii. January 28 2olo
iii. December 9 2010
3• 5 :00 P.M, Continuation, Deborah Koch, Notice of Intent for an addition in the Manhan
riverfront area and buffer zone to SVW. 140 Loudville Road, Map ID 48 -6. DEP File
246 -644.
The applicant requests a continuance until March 10 at 5:30
4. Grow Food Northampton Community Gardens Community Preservation Application
5. 5 :2o P.M, Notice of Intent for tree removal within a bordering vegetated wetland.
MassDOT District 2 HQ, 8u North King Street, Map ID 8 -ti, DEP File 246 -648.
6. Appointment of member and alternate to Channel Markers Committee
7. Review of changes to Wetlands Ordinance
8. Review of Mail
9. All other business not foreseen when agenda was published
City Hall 210 Main Street, Room 11 Northampton, MA 01060 www.NorthamptonMa.gov Fax 413 -587 -1264
original printed on recycled paper
To:
From:
RE:
Date:
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CTTY OF NORTHAMPTON
planning conservation zoning northampton GIS historic community preservation central business architecture
Sarah 1. LaValley, Conservation, Preservation, Liz Land Use Planner slavalley@NorthamptonMA.gov 413 -587 -1263
Conservation Commission
Sarah LaValley
Reviewed and Approved by OPD: CM
Staff Report, February 24 Meeting
February 21, 2011
5:2o P.M, Notice of Intent for tree removal within a bordering vegetated wetland. MassDOT
District 2 HQ, 811 North King Street, Map ID 8 -ii, DEP File 246 -648
Overview:
MassDOT proposes to remove 13 willow trees within a bordering vegetated wetland at the District 2
Headquarters. The BVW area is associated with a drainage channel for Routes 5 and 91 that was
constructed when the headquarters was built, that now functions as a perennial stream. Tree removal is
proposed to be conducted under frozen ground conditions with a track mounted shear, and the stumps
will not be removed. Additional trees are proposed to be planted within the buffer zone, located primarily
in Hatfield.
DEP Comments:
[1] Per 310 CMR 10.55(4)(a) any proposed work in a Bordering Vegetated Wetland shall not destroy or otherwise
impair any portion of said area. The Department is aware that these trees may not be indigenous to the area and that
portions of the work area are mown.
[2] The Department recommends that mitigation be proposed and one option is to discontinue mowing the area if
said area would be considered BVW as per the definition found at 310 CMR 10.55(2)(c) and specifically 310 CMR
10.55(2)(c)3.
Consistency with the WPA:
The Wetlands Protection Act contains provisions for tree removal within resource areas and buffer zones
associated with single- family homes. This project does not qualify for these exemptions because l00% of
the total canopy is being removed, and the area is not a single- family home. Tree removal constitutes an
`alteration,' as defined by the WPA.
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
Work conducted by the DOT is not subject to local Wetlands Ordinances or other local regulations.
Staff Recommendations:
Removal of the willow trees constitutes an alteration of the wetlands area under the WPA. Willow trees,
while not invasive species, are also not native to Massachusetts. The trees are not in the best of health,
and their removal is proposed to be conducted in a way that will disturb the area as little as possible.
Although the BVW will be altered, mitigation within the area could likely improve resource area
conditions overall as a result of the project. If the Commission agrees, an Order of Conditions including
mitigation could be issued. Staff recommend the following conditions, in addition to standard conditions:
No machinery or heavy equipment shall be operated within the BVW. If felled trees cannot be removed
from the BVW from outside the resource area, the felled trees shall be left to decompose.
All wood chips shall be taken off -site within one day of chipping.
Mowing activities within the BVW shall cease and no other activities shall take place within the
boundaries of the BVW, as shown on NOI plans.
Conservation Commission Staff Report
February 24, 2011
Northampton Conservation Commission
Agenda
5:00 PM, Thursday March 10, 2011
City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton
nd
Contact: Sarah LaValley, Conservation Planner – slavalley@northamptonma.gov
1.Public Comment
2.Approval of Minutes
a.January 13, 2011
b.January 13, 2011 Executive Session
c.February 24, 2011
3.5:00 P.M, Request for Certificate of Compliance, Lynne Wallace. 110 Cardinal Way.
Parcel 36-305, DEP File 246-663
4.5:10 PM: Continuation: Notice of Intent for dam and dike repair in bank, land under
water, bordering land subject to flooding, and riverfront area to the Mill River. Smith
College Facilities Management, Paradise Road, Map IDs 31C-15 & 31D-20. DEP File
246-643
Applicant requests that the hearing be continued, with no discussion, until May 10,
2010 at 5:10 pm.
5.5:30 P.M. Continuation: Continuation: Deborah Koch, Notice of Intent for an addition
in the Manhan riverfront area, and buffer zone to BVW. 140 Loudville Road, Map ID 48-
6. DEP File 246-644
6.Possible generic NOI for conservation area maintenance and improvements
7.Review of Mail
8.All other business not foreseen when agenda was published
To: Conservation Commission
From: Sarah LaValley
Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF
RE: Staff Report
Date: March 4, 2011
5:00 P.M, Request for Certificate of Compliance, Lynne Wallace. 110 Cardinal Way. Parcel
36-305, DEP File 246-663
Project Overview:
An Order of Conditions was issued in 2009 for construction of a single family house in the buffer zone, 50
feet from BVW at the closest point. The only special condition beyond the standard conditions required
placement of 3’x3’ boulders along the 50 foot buffer zone line.
The application requests a waiver from condition #31, which required the submission of a stamped as-
built plan.
Staff Recommendations:
An inspection of the site (prior to snowfall) indicated that the house was completed according to the
Notice of Intent. Boulders were placed as required, except where their placement would have required
removal of a significant amount of large trees. The 50 foot boundary is instead marked with painted iron
pins in these locations. A complete Certificate of Compliance can be issued.
5:45 PM: Deborah Koch, Notice of Intent for an addition in the Manhan riverfront area,
and buffer zone to BVW. 140 Loudville Road, Map ID 48-6. DEP File 246-644
Application Overview:
The project location is flat at the house foundation, with a steep drop to the rear of the house to the
Manhan River. The property is located entirely within the 100’ riverfront area. Almost the entire
property, except for approximately 1,600 sf in the northwest corner, is located within the 50 foot buffer
zone. Resource areas on the site include riverfront area to both the Manhan River and an un-named
perennial stream, bank and it buffer zone, BVW and its buffer zone, and BLSF. A small area of BVW is
located along the Manhan River, within the River’s mean annual high water line. The MAHWL also
serves as the parcel boundary. The project will not result in any impacts to bank or BLSF. An Order of
Conditions for septic system replacement was previously issued for the site, for which a Certificate of
Compliance was granted in June of 2010.
The applicant proposes to construct a 41.5x12 foot addition, on the current footprint of an existing paved
driveway, current garage and 165-sf concrete area existing behind the garage. The addition will be placed
on piers. Also proposed is a 110-sf extension to the existing deck to the north, also on piers, which would
not extend further into the riverfront area than the current deck. Stairs will be installed on the deck
expansion. Also included in the NOI is an 80 sf garden shed on the south side of the property, for which a
building permit was obtained, but no conservation commission filing was made.
In accordance with a special permit from the planning board, the applicant is also proposing a 72 sf
expansion of the driveway to accommodate two cars. Total disturbance, excluding any construction
impacts, is about 800 sf, although some of this work will take place in previously disturbed areas.
As mitigation for the proposed activities, the applicant plans to remove three invasive shrubs, which are
the only invasive species present on the site. Native shrub plantings adjacent to the River are also
proposed. These areas are currently grass/nearly bare ground due to the steep incline. No-mow areas 10-
feet in width, and 215 feet (2,150 sf in total) in length are proposed. Erosion control will serve as the
construction limit of work line (excepting the plantings).
Conservation Commission Staff Report 1
March 10, 2011
DEP Comments:
The issuing authority shall include a continuing condition in the Certificate of Compliance for projects
reviewed under 310 CMR 10.58(5)(f) or (g) prohibiting further alteration within the restoration or
mitigation area, except as may be required to maintain the area in its restored or mitigated condition.
Prior to requesting the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance, the applicant shall demonstrate the
restoration or mitigation has been successfully completed for at least two growing seasons.
Consistency with the WPA:
The project is presented as a ‘Redevelopment Within Previously Developed Riverfront Areas’ pursuant to
310CMR 10.58(5). Work under this section must include restoration and mitigation, must represent an
improvement over existing conditions, and does not require an alternatives analysis. According to CMR,
Redevelopment means replacement, rehabilitation or expansion of existing structures, improvement of
existing roads, or reuse of degraded or previously developed areas.
The parcel contains areas degraded prior to August 1 1996 by impervious surfaces, existing structures, and
lack of topsoil. Mitigation will be provided for the portion of the proposed addition (165sf) that extends
beyond the existing garage, though this area is currently impervious, and for the portion of work that
exceeds 10% of the site’s riverfront area (427 sf). Mitigation opportunities are somewhat limited by the
site, but the 1,194 sf of proposed mitigation exceeds the 1,184 sf required. Work will occur within the
floodplain, which requires compensatory storage under 310 CMR10.57 (4). However, the deck and
addition will be suspended, and the only portion within the BLSF will be sauna tubes. These will not
restrict flow and storage value is very minimal for these piers.
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
This application will be the Commission’s first review of a project under the amendments passed by City
Council in February to allow work within the former ‘no-encroachment’ zone; now termed the ‘Protected
Zone. The Protected Zone in this area is 50 feet. §337-10 E (2) explains that:
The Commission shall not permit alteration within resource areas or their associated Protected Zones,
subject to the following exceptions…:
(h)
Projects in or affecting Resource Areas or affecting Protected Zones or Resource Areas containing areas
already degraded or developed, subject to the following criteria:
[1] At a minimum, proposed work shall result in an improvement over existing conditions of the
capacity of the resource area to protect the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40.When a lot is
previously developed but no portion of the resource area or its Protected Zone is degraded, this
section shall not apply.
Much of the work will take place on an area with an existing concrete pad. In addition, the
site as a whole is degraded by development, and is clearly altered from its original condition.
[2] Within the resource area and its protected zone, proposed work shall not be located closer to the
resource area than existing degraded conditions.
It is not
[3] Proposed work, including expansion of existing structures, shall be located outside the resource
area or toward the resource area boundary and away from the resource.
The addition is located to the rear of the house towards resource areas, so does not meet this
criteria
[4] The area of proposed work shall not exceed the amount of degraded area.
It does not
[5] When an applicant proposes restoration on-site of degraded area in the protected zone,
alteration may be allowed notwithstanding the criteria of [2], [3], and [4] of this section at a ratio in
square feet of at least 1:1 of restored area to area of alteration not conforming to the criteria.
Restoration shall include: removal of all debris, but retaining any trees or other non-invasive
mature vegetation; grading to a topography which reduces runoff and increases infiltration;
coverage by topsoil at a depth consistent with natural conditions at the site; and seeding and
planting with an erosion control seed mixture, followed by plantings of herbaceous and woody
species appropriate to the site;
A no-mow zone exceeding the amount of new areas of disturbance will be created.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 2
March 10, 2011
[7] The Commission shall include a continuing condition in the Certificate of Compliance for projects
under Section 337-10E(2)(h) prohibiting further alteration within the restoration or mitigation
area, except as may be required to maintain the area in its restored or mitigated condition. Prior to
requesting the issuance of the Certificate of Compliance, the applicant shall demonstrate the
restoration or mitigation has been successfully completed for at least two growing seasons.
The staff interpretation of this section is to consider whether the site as a whole can be considered
degraded. This consideration should not be limited to the boundaries of paved areas and buildings, but
should take into account the entire site as well. The parcel is far from its natural state, with hundreds of
square feet of pavement, buildings, absence of topsoil, and steep slopes that did not exist prior to human
interference. It is staff’s opinion that work may be allowed within the 50-foot zone according to the
Ordinance.
Staff Recommendations:
140 Loudville Road was constructed before the Rivers Protection Act or the Northampton Wetlands
Ordinance. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which this same house would be permitted today.
However, the work proposed will represent an improvement over existing conditions, as described in the
Ordinance, as recently amended, and meets all criteria for work in areas already degraded or developed.
Staff recommends issuance of an Order of Conditions, with standard conditions 1-33, with no
requirement for a stamped plan. The following conditions should also be considered:
34. Digging of footings shall be done by hand if feasible. Any temporarily stockpiled soils shall be placed
within the limit of work area and secured with erosion control.
35. Plantings shall be completed in accordance with the ‘Native Shrub Mitigation Planting Instructions’
contained in the NOI
36. Erosion control structures shall serve as the limit-of-work line
37. Restoration and mitigation shall be proven successful for at least three growing seasons.
38. Further alteration in the areas indicated as no-mow and planting areas in the NOI plan is prohibited.
39. A request for certificate of compliance shall be accompanied by proof of recording at the Hampshire
County Registry of Deeds of a plan of no-mow zones on the property. The plan shall indicate
activites that are prohibited in those areas.
40. All stockpiled construction materials, including dumpsters and heavy machinery if required, shall be
kept to the front of the house.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 3
March 10, 2011
Northampton Conservation Commission
Agenda
5:00 PM, Thursday March 24, 2011
City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton
nd
Contact: Sarah LaValley, Conservation Planner – slavalley@northamptonma.gov
1.Public Comment
2.Approval of Minutes
a.January 13, 2011
b.January 13, 2011 Executive Session
c.February 24, 2011
d.March 10, 2011
3.5:05 P.M, Notice of Intent for removal of non-native invasive species within a riverfront
area, bordering vegetated wetland and buffer zone. Frederick Mackler, 395 North Farms
Road. Map ID 07-14, DEP File 246-649.
4.5:30 PM: Notice of Intent for construction of a septic system with an associated concrete
block wall and parking area, razing of a garage and construction of a new garage and
associated concrete block wall and storage area, within the buffer zone to bordering
vegetated wetland. Frank Fournier, 492 Easthampton Road. Map ID 44-43, DEP File
246-647.
5.6:15 P.M. Notice of Intent for construction of two office facility buildings, parking,
associated stormwater management system and other site improvements within
bordering land subject to flooding. Atwood Partners, 1 Atwood Drive. Map IDs 39-59
through 39-63 and 46-14, DEP File 246-645.
6.Review of Mail
7.All other business not foreseen when agenda was published
To: Conservation Commission
From: Sarah LaValley
Reviewed and Approved by OPD:
RE: Staff Report
Date: March 18, 2011
5:05 P.M, Notice of Intent for removal of non-native invasive species within a riverfront
area, bordering vegetated wetland and buffer zone. Frederick Mackler, 395 North Farms
Road. Map ID 07-14, DEP File 246-649.
Application Overview:
The applicant proposes to remove exotic invasive species and plant native shrubs as part of a three-year
plan to improve the habitat value of the area. Resource areas on the site include Roaring Brook and a large
associated BVW. The parcel currently contains a single-family home, mown hay field, wetlands complex,
and wooded area. Work will occur within the buffer zone and riverfront area, with some also to occur
within the BVW. BVW impact was estimated at 50 square feet from possible vegetation removal. The
target area is the buffer zone, but removal of invasives at the wetland edge is proposed to be conducted
with a chainsaw. Vegetated buffer zone areas will be mown with a bobcat in spring 2011, and stumps of
invasives treated with herbicide. Foliar treatment of smaller invasives will follow this summer, with
planting of native shrubs along the existing field border in fall 2011. Follow-up herbicide application will
occur in 2012 and 2013.
A harvest of 20.6 MBF and 45 cords of black and red oak is also planned for the eastern portion of the
property. The skid trail and landing are located on the parcel to the south, to minimize impacts to
wetlands and eliminate the need for a stream crossing. This work will be conducted under an approved
forest cutting plan.
A Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) grant was received for the project.
DEP Comments:
[1] Planting of native species in the buffer zone or RFA is an exempt activity.
[2] The work in the buffer zone appears to be clearly identified, but that does not appear to be true for any
work in the Riverfront or BVW. Any work within a resource area should have a narrative included in the
NOI showing how the work complies with the General Performance Standards.
A staff interpretation of riverfront area requirements as applied to this project is provided below.
[3] Based on the work narrative, it does not appear that 310 CMR 10.53(3)(a) applies and no reason is
given how 310 CMR 10.53(3)(c) would apply. The commission should review the work to determine
whether or not 310 CMR 10.53(4) applies.
The application states that the project should be considered a limited project as work on land to
be used in the raising of animals and forest products. The purpose of the project is habitat
improvement, not agriculture or forestry, so the project should not be treated as a limited project.
[4] The commission has reported that a Forest Cutting Plan has been submitted to the commission but it
was not included in the paperwork submitted to MassDEP. The Forest Cutting Practices Act may apply to
any forestry management activities and the commission may discuss that with the DCR Service Forester.
Consistency with the WPA:
The project involves removal of vegetation in both BVW and riverfront. The narrative did not address
compliance with the Rivers Protection Act. According to 310 CMR 10.58,
(4) the applicant shall prove … that there are no practicable and substantially equivalent economic
alternatives to the proposed project with less adverse effects… on the interests identified in M.G.L. c.131
Conservation Commission Staff Report 1
March 24, 2011
§ 40 and that the work, including proposed mitigation, will have no significant adverse impact on the
riverfront area to protect the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40.
(a) Protection of Other Resource Areas. The work shall meet the performance standards for all other
resource areas within the riverfront area, as identified in 310 CMR 10.30…When work in the riverfront
area is also within the buffer zone to another resource area, the performance standards for the
riverfront area shall contribute to the protection of the interests of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40 in lieu of any
additional requirements that might otherwise be imposed on work in the buffer zone within the
riverfront area.
The project, by removing invasive species, will “contribute to the protection of the interests
identified in M.G.L. c. 131, § 40,” and is allowable as a project within the buffer zone under 310
CMR 10.03.
(b) Protection of Rare Species. No project may be permitted within the riverfront area which will have
any adverse effect on specified habitat sites of rare wetland or upland, vertebrate or invertebrate
species, as identified by the procedures established under 310 CMR 10.59 or 10.37, or which will have
any adverse effect on vernal pool habitat certified prior to the filing of the Notice of Intent.
There are no vernal pools, priority or estimated habitats on the site.
(c) Practicable and Substantially Equivalent Economic Alternatives. There must be no practicable and
substantially equivalent economic alternative to the proposed project with less adverse effects on the
interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 §
The project involves no development, and is intended solely as a habitat improvement project. All
activities proposed are intended to enhance the habitat value of the area, which is a very different
type of project than those typically reviewed for riverfront areas. Mowing the riverfront area will
clearly result in a temporary disturbance. The Commission could request that mowing be limited
to certain areas or that alternative methods be proposed. However, any alternatives proposed
would still result in vegetation alteration, since that is the ultimate goal of the project.
Alteration to BVW will include a very small area lost due to cutting of invasive species, and will be offset
by planting of native shrubs.
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
Work is proposed to take place within the resource area and its 50 foot protected zone as established in
the Ordinance. Alteration within these areas is prohibited, with some exceptions. One of these is:
“Projects which will improve the natural capacity of a resource area(s) to protect the interests identified
in M.G.L. c. 131, § 40 (although no such project may be permitted which will have any adverse effect on
specified wildlife habitat sites of rare vertebrate or invertebrate species as identified by procedures
established under 310 CMR 10.59). Such projects include, but are not limited to, the removal of aquatic
nuisance vegetation to retard pond and lake eutrophication and the thinning or planting of vegetation
to improve habitat value, removal of invasive non-native vegetation, removal of fill and/or hazardous
materials. These projects may be stand-alone projects, or may be included as portions of larger
projects.”
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends issuance of an Order of Conditions, with standard conditions 1-33, with no
requirement for a stamped plan. The following conditions should also be considered:
34. The Northampton Conservation Commission shall be notified at least one week in advance of
planned work each year and provided with a schedule for project activities.
35. The project shall be documented with photographs, which must be provided to the Commission at
the end of work each season.
36. Mowing and application of herbicides within the BVW are prohibited.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 2
March 24, 2011
37. Wetland marker flags shall be placed along the edge of the BVW, to remain until a Certificate of
Compliance has been issued. The Commission must approve the location of flags at a site visit prior
to the start of work.
38. A request for Certifcate of Compliance shall be accompanied by a report quantifying the numbers
and prevalence of invasive species on the site before, during, and after treatment.
5:30 PM: Notice of Intent for construction of a septic system with an associated concrete
block wall and parking area, razing of a garage and construction of a new garage and
associated concrete block wall and storage area, within the buffer zone to bordering
vegetated wetland. Frank Fournier, 492 Easthampton Road. Map ID 44-43, DEP File 246-
647.
Application Overview:
An enforcement order was issued by staff in November, 2010 for construction of a raised septic system
contained by concrete blocks and parking lot (on top of the leach field) within the buffer zone, and
potentially wetland.
After meeting with the applicant, The Commission agreed to allow completion of the leach field, required
that the site be stabilized, and required that a Notice of Intent be filed. The property is located between
Route 10 and the Manhan Rail Trail, and there is a BVW directly to the west of the path. The applicant
indicated that the BVW boundary was shown as the toe of the slope. BVW, although it is shown only at
the southern portion of the site, extends along the entire property boundary.
Project plans show:
Construction (already completed) of a 145’ by 100’ leach field enclosed by concrete blocks, shown on plans
to be exactly 10’ from the wetland at its closest point.
Addition of two decks onto an existing house
A 2,000 gallon septic tank (installed, but not connected per the November enforcement order)
Razing of an existing garage and construction of a new 2-bay garage
Construction of a storage area and associated concrete block retaining wall
The leach field and associated grading have been completed, and the area is now being used for car
storage. Many trees on the northern portion of the property have also been removed, and there are
several large piles of gravel on the site.
Haybales were installed, although some of these are located within the wetland and must be removed, and
silt fencing is no longer in adequate condition and must be replaced.
DEP Comments:
Based upon information provided within the Notice of Intent, it appears that this proposal is restricted to
work within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to jurisdictional Resource Areas (See 310 CMR 10.04 Buffer Zone
and Resource Area). If applicable, the Stormwater Regulations at 310 CMR 10.05(6)(k) through (q) must
be complied with. If any new information indicating that jurisdictional Resource Areas will be altered is
presented to the issuing authority, the Department shall be simultaneously notified, at which time the
Department would reserve the right to make additional comments as necessary. The consultant is
encourage to submit NOI's in the future via eDEP. Please contact this reviewer with any questions.
Consistency with the WPA:
The project is very close to, as well as upgradient from, wetlands resource areas and carries potential to
negatively impact the wetland during construction as well as when complete.
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
According to the Wetlands Ordinance, the protected zone may be reduced for:
Projects in certain infill areas, in accordance with the Protected Zone Table (1) in § 337-10, where
development includes mitigation measures that will improve the existing condition of the wetlands or
adjacent upland.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 3
March 24, 2011
The protected zone table allows for a reduction to ten feet within the GI zone, however, no mitigation of
any kind is proposed that would improve the wetland or upland, and the project creates additional
impervious surface and allows for expanded storage of automobiles in close proximity to the BVW.
Staff Recommendations:
The local Ordinance requires mitigation measures, which are not included in the application. The
applicant owns several parcels along Route 10. The southernmost of these is located within a large area of
habitat adjacent to Arcadia and wetlands resources, and is mostly undeveloped. Staff suggest that
mitigation for the project, equaling 3:1 the size of the leach field parking area, be created on this parcel by
creation of a permanent protected area to the south.
34. All work within the buffer zone shall cease until haybales, slash piles and any fill deposited as a result
of construction have been removed from the BVW, and silt fence has been re-installed. The
applicant shall notify the Commission when this has been completed.
35. Within the 2011 growing season, a row of native shrubs shall be planted, no more than eight feet
apart, along the entire eastern property boundary.
36. The applicant shall designate 45,000 square feet of protected vegetated area on parcel 44-40 as
mitigation for the activities allowed with this Order by December 31, 2011. If not already vegetated,
all impervious surface shall be removed and a wetland seed mix spread over the area. This area shall
be protected with granting of a deed to ensure permanent protection, or a conservation restriction
acceptable to and approved by the Commission. This restriction shall be recorded in the Hampshire
County Registry of Deeds prior to the request for a Certificate of Compliance.
6:15 P.M. Notice of Intent for construction of two office facility buildings, parking,
associated stormwater management system and other site improvements within bordering
land subject to flooding. Atwood Partners, 1 Atwood Drive. Map IDs 39-59 through 39-63
and 46-14, DEP File 246-645.
Application Overview:
The project involves construction of two office buildings with associated parking and infrastructure on
Atwood Drive. The site includes a former gas station and open/wooded areas, both disturbed and
undisturbed.
There are wetlands near the project with buffers that extend onto the subject parcels, but no work in these
areas will occur. The majority of the site is located within the 100-year floodplain, and the southern
portion is also located within the 10-year floodplain. Conservation Commission review is needed due to
impact on BLSF, and under the stormwater standards. The application indicates that the project will
disturb 190,350 sf of BLSF. A stormwater permit was issued by the Northampton DPW on March 11, and
a special permit was issued by the Planning Board.
Staff had additional questions regarding the project and application, and these discussions are provided
within the additional materials packet.
DEP Comments:
DEP Comments and applicant responses are provided on the cover sheet of the revised NOI.
Consistency with the WPA:
310 CMR 10.57 (4) requires that:
Compensatory storage shall be provided for all flood storage volume that will be lost as the result of a
proposed project within Bordering Land Subject to Flooding…Compensatory storage shall mean a
volume not previously used for flood storage and shall be incrementally equal to the theoretical volume
of flood water at each elevation, up to and including the 100-year flood elevation
A table is provided within the NOI that provides a detailed assessment of foot-for-foot flood storage
calculations, and the work as proposed meets the requirements.
The project will impact approximately 39,400 sf of area within the 10-year floodplain. 310 CMR 10.57 (4)
requires that
Conservation Commission Staff Report 4
March 24, 2011
Work in those portions of bordering land subject to flooding found to be significant to the protection of
wildlife habitat shall not impair its capacity to provide important wildlife habitat functions... project or
projects on a single lot, for which Notice(s) of Intent is filed on or after November 1, 1987, that
(cumulatively) alter(s) up to 10% or 5,000 square feet (whichever is less) of land in this resource area
found to be significant to the protection of wildlife habitat, shall not be deemed to impair its capacity to
provide important wildlife habitat functions. Additional alterations beyond the above threshold, or
altering vernal pool habitat, may be permitted if they will have no adverse effects on wildlife habitat, as
determined by procedures contained in 310 CMR 10.60.
Habitat characteristics of lower floodplains include food, shelter and migratory areas, and breeding areas
for birds, mammals and reptiles. A wildlife habitat evaluation was conducted that found some evidence of
habitat characteristics with the 10-year floodplain area, which will be completely absent post-
construction.
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
The Ordinance contains no additional standards applicable to this proposal.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommend issuance of an Order of Conditions- standard conditions 1-33, and the requirement for a
stamped as-built plan. The following additional conditions are suggested:
The Commission should consider requiring the applicant restore or replicate the 39,400 sf of habitat are
proposed to be removed in accordance with 310 CMR 10.57 (3).
34. Prior to the start of construction, a FEMA flood elevation certificate stamped by a professional
engineer shall be provided to the C0mmission.
35. Prior to the request for a Certificate of Compliance, and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, a final as-built FEMA flood elevation certificate signed stamped by a professional
engineer shall be provided to the C0mmission.
36. Following completion of construction, and prior to the issuance of a certificate of compliance, the
applicant shall stencil all catch basin inlets to indicate that the inlet is for the disposal of stormwater
only and discharges to waterways or wetlands.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 5
March 24, 2011
Northampton Conservation Commission
Agenda
5:00 PM, Thursday April 14, 2011
City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton
nd
Contact: Sarah LaValley, Conservation Planner – slavalley@northamptonma.gov
1.Public Comment
2.Approval of Minutes
a.February 24, 2011
b.March 24, 2011
3.5:10 P.M. Continuation: Notice of Intent for construction of a septic system with an
associated concrete block wall and parking area, razing of a garage and construction of a
new garage and associated concrete block wall and storage area, within the buffer zone to
bordering vegetated wetland. Frank Fournier, 492 Easthampton Road. Map ID 44-43,
DEP File 246-647.
4.5:45 P.M. Notice of Intent for dredging of Willow Pond. Project includes impacts to
bank, land under water, bordering land subject to flooding, riverfront area (Mill River),
and buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland. Frank Newhall Look Board of Trustees
– Look Park. 300 North Main Street, Florence. Map ID 16A-002, DEP File 246-646.
The applicant has requested that the hearing be continued, with no discussion, until
May 12 2011 at 5:30 PM.
5.6:30 P.M. Notice of Intent for installation of a pedestrian boardwalk, removal of
invasive species, and trail clearing. Project will take place within bordering vegetated
wetland and buffer zones. Northampton Office of Planning and Development. Sylvester
Road – Mineral Hills Conservation Area. Map ID 34-02. DEP File 246-650.
6.Request for Certificate of Compliance, Tiger Press, c/o Reza Shafii. 155 Industrial Drive.
Parcel 18D-60, DEP File 246-501.
7.Review of Mail
8.All other business not foreseen when agenda was published
To: Conservation Commission
From: Sarah LaValley
RE: Staff Report
Date: April 8, 2011
5:10 P.M. Continuation: Notice of Intent for construction of a septic system with an
associated concrete block wall and parking area, razing of a garage and construction of a
new garage and associated concrete block wall and storage area, within the buffer zone to
bordering vegetated wetland. Frank Fournier, 492 Easthampton Road. Map ID 44-43,
DEP File 246-647.
The applicant is currently preparing a plan including mitigation/improvement.
5:45 P.M. Notice of Intent for dredging of Willow Pond. Project includes impacts to bank,
land under water, bordering land subject to flooding, riverfront area (Mill River), and
buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland. Frank Newhall Look Board of Trustees – Look
Park. 300 North Main Street, Florence. Map ID 16A-002, DEP File 246-646.
The applicant has requested that the hearing be continued, with no discussion, until May 12
2011 at 5:30 PM.
6:30 P.M. Notice of Intent for installation of a pedestrian boardwalk, removal of invasive
species, and trail clearing. Project will take place within bordering vegetated wetland and
buffer zones. Northampton Office of Planning and Development. Sylvester Road –
Mineral Hills Conservation Area. Map ID 34-02. DEP File 246-650.
Application Overview:
The project includes control of non-native invasive plant species, creation of trails, and installation of a
boardwalk to provide access from the Sylvester Road parking area to the larger trail network in the
Mineral Hills Conservation Area. The parking area, which serves as the main access point to Mineral
Hills, is separated from the rest of the property by a large BVW complex
The boardwalk project involves the installation of pre-fabricated aluminum boardwalk to provide access
through the most inundated portions of the wetland. The boardwalk location will follow an existing trail
that is not passable during many times of the year. Boardwalk segments are 16’ by 4’, and will be secured
using 1 ½” aluminum poles with mud augers at the end, hand-drilled 1-2 feet into the soil. A total of
seven boardwalk sections; 112 feet will be installed. The corners of each segment will require stabilization
with augers. Where possible, boardwalk ends will be located on natural raised hummocks; tree cutting
will be avoided if possible, and will be limited to trees that pose a complete impediment to boardwalk
placement. Boardwalk location is shown on the Proposed Wetlands Boardwalk map. The total wetland
crossing area is more than 400 feet; boardwalk sections will be placed to allow crossing of the wettest
portions of the area. Stones may be placed to allow foothold in some locations
Trails will be located and blazed by a licensed forester, with clearing work to be done by volunteers. New
trail construction involving tree cutting will be performed in upland areas, but maintenance of existing
trails limited to pruning ground of cover and shrubs to provide adequate width will occur throughout the
property. Access to the start of the boardwalk will follow a narrow elevated strip close to the mown field
on the northern parcel boundary that currently serves as the primary access trail. This trail will be
pruned, but vegetation removal will not be required. A pathway approximately 100 feet in length will be
Conservation Commission Staff Report 1
April 14, 2011
cleared from the parking area to provide access to this portion of the trail. This area is located within the
buffer zone. There are no trees located in this section of the planned trail, vegetation is limited to shrubs.
Removal of invasive species will be performed under the guidance and supervision of an experienced
invasives control professional. Approximately Target areas will be determined by the consultant to
provide the most effective long-term removal of invasives. Methods will include hand-pulling, cutting,
and targeted application of foliar herbicides by a licensed applicator. It is anticipated that invasive control
efforts will take place primarily in upland areas, but any removal within BVW or buffer zones will be
limited to manual pulling and cutting.
DEP Comments:
[1] As per 310 CMR 10.55(4)(a) any impairment to bordering vegetated wetlands is not allowed. The
applicant must prove to the Commission that the vegetation below the boardwalk will not be impaired by
the shading of the boardwalk. Typically smaller boards with separation between boards is proposed for
this type work such that sunlight is allowed to penetrate to the vegetation below. It must also be high
enough that sunlight can penetrate from the sides.
The boardwalk will be raised to allow light to penetrate from the sides and flow of water. The
boardwalk will be placed along a trail that currently allows direct contact with the wetland and creates
high potential for inadvertent disturbance.
[2] The removal of invasive species in the resource area may be submitted as a resource area improvement
as per 310 CMR 10.53(4). Non-native invasive species provide no presumptive value to the interests of the
Act.
The applicant is working to select a consultant to develop a plan for invasive species removal. It was
requested that herbicides not be applied in resource areas as part of this plan. If the consultant feels
strongly that this is necessary, the plan could be approved by the Commission, and the Order
conditioned to include this provision.
[3] The commission should review the addendum letter dated 4/4/05.
[4] The applicant is advised to plan and construct any Bordering Vegetated Wetland “replacement area”
per “Massachusetts Inland Wetland Replication Guidelines” (MassDEP March 2002). The issuing
authority should insure that these guidelines are adhered to.
The applicant requests thatthe Commission determine that “it is not reasonable to scale down, redesign
nor otherwise change the proposed work so that it could be completed without loss of said wetland”
according to 310 CMR 10.55(4)(b) and allow the work as proposed without requiring replacement.
[5] Monitoring of approved Bordering Vegetated Wetland “replacement areas” constructed per 310 CMR
10.55(4)(b) is critical due to the complex issues that can arise when trying to replace the specific ecological
setting and functions of wetlands. Monitoring to ensure that the project is built according to the design
specifications will ensure that the most common causes of failure are avoided. A project monitor with
sufficient experience in the construction of “replacement areas” and general construction practices should
be on-site to monitor the excavation, grading, and planting of the “replacement area”. The application
should include specific monitoring plans and schedules for reporting to the issuing authority. The issuing
authority should require the submittal of detailed annual monitoring reports documenting compliance
with 310 CMR 10.55(4)(b).
Staff Recommendations:
Staff application, no recommendation.
Request for Certificate of Compliance, Tiger Press, c/o Reza Shafii. 155 Industrial Drive.
Parcel 18D-60, DEP File 246-501.
Application Overview:
The project involved construction of an addition and associated stormwater detention basin.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 2
April 14, 2011
Staff Recommendations:
The project appears to have been constructed as designed. Stormwater maintenance reports were not
submitted annually as required, but were provided with the request.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 3
April 14, 2011
Northampton Conservation Commission
Agenda
5:00 PM, Thursday May 12, 2011
City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton
nd
Contact: Sarah LaValley, Conservation Planner – slavalley@northamptonma.gov
1.Public Comment
2.Approval of Minutes
a.April 14, 2011
3.5:10 P.M. Continuation: Notice of Intent for dam and dike repair in bank, land under
water, bordering land subject to flooding, and riverfront area to the Mill River. Smith
College Facilities Management, Paradise Road, Map IDs 31C-15 & 31D-20. DEP File
246-643
The applicant has requested that the hearing be continued, with no discussion, until
July 14 2011 at 5:30 PM.
4.5:10 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction
of an addition is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands
Ordinance. Thomas Kelly. 25 Clement Street, Florence. Map ID 30A-088.
5.5:30 P.M. Notice of Intent for dredging of Willow Pond. Project includes impacts to
bank, land under water, bordering land subject to flooding, riverfront area (Mill River),
and buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland. Frank Newhall Look Board of Trustees
– Look Park. 300 North Main Street, Florence. Map ID 16A-002, DEP File 246-646.
6.Request for Certificate of Compliance, James Dimos. 305 Westhampton Road. Parcel
36-155, DEP File 246-527.
7.Informal discussion – possible driveway, Chesterfield Road
8.Cardinal Way reptile and amphibian crossing
9.Staff-Issued Permits and Sign-offs
a.Septic Plan – 861 Florence Road
b.Emergency Permit – Hatfield Street
10.Review of Mail
11.All other business not foreseen when agenda was published
To: Conservation Commission
From: Sarah LaValley
Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF
RE: Staff Report, May 12 Commission Meeting
Date: May 6, 2011
5:10 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of
an addition is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands
Ordinance. Thomas Kelly. 25 Clement Street, Florence. Map ID 30A-088.
Application Overview:
The applicant proposes to construct a single-story addition to an existing single family home within the
riverfront area to the Mill River. Resource areas were not delineated as part of the application, but the
work area is less than 200 feet, and more than 100 feet from mean annual high water. The addition is
proposed to be constructed entirely within the footprint of an existing 12.5 x 24’ deck. A garage and gravel
drive are located on the site within the 100 foot riverfront area.
Consistency with the WPA:
‘Alter’ is defined as ‘changing the condition’ of an area subject to protection. The addition is proposed to
be constructed within the footprint of an existing deck that has no spacing between boards, and does not
allow penetration of water or sunlight.
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
The Wetlands Ordinance does not create standards stricter than those contained in the Rivers Protection
Act for this project, since it is outside the 100-foot Protected Zone, and outside BLSF.
Staff Recommendations:
The addition as proposed should not alter the riverfront area. Potential for temporary construction
impacts can be addressed with standard conditions. A negative determination can be issued by checking
box 2 to indicate that the area is subject to protection, but the proposed activity will not remove dredge fill
or alter the area.
5:30 P.M. Notice of Intent for dredging of Willow Pond. Project includes impacts to bank,
land under water, bordering land subject to flooding, riverfront area (Mill River), and
buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland. Frank Newhall Look Board of Trustees – Look
Park. 300 North Main Street, Florence. Map ID 16A-002, DEP File 246-646.
Application Overview:
The applicant is proposing to dredge Willow Pond, which has become filled with sediment since it was last
dredged in the 1980’s. The project includes work within land under water, bank, buffer zone, and
bordering land subject to flooding. A vernal pool exists on the site, but is not shown on project plans
because all work is outside the vernal pool boundaries provided in the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance.
Work will take place outside the boundaries of the 200 foot riverfront area to the Mill River. The Pond
itself does not have riverfront area.
The work requires review by the Army Corps of Engineers under the regional general permit, a 401 Water
Quality Certification from DEP, and a Stormwater Permit from the Northampton DPW. None were issued
at the time of the staff report. Review by NHESP was required because priority/estimated habitat exists
close to the work area. NHESP indicated that the project will not result in a take.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 1
May 12, 2011
The Pond will be dewatered by gravity prior to dredging, with any remaining water to be pumped from the
Pond. Pumped water will flow through an additional filter. A turbidity curtain will also be used during
dredging. As part of the dredging project, the applicant proposes to transport the dredged material to a
‘re-cycling’ area within the Park, where it will be dewatered and planted with grass. The recycling area,
which contains some BVW and buffer zone, has been used as a dump site and is heavily disturbed. Any
excess material is proposed to be transported to a secondary storage site to the west of the recycling area.
The western bank of the pond is also proposed to be reinforced as part of the dredging project. The
eastern bank is not accessible due to steep slopes, but the western bank is directly in front of the sanctuary
and receives lots of foot traffic. The bank was historically stabilized, and contains remnants of stones. The
applicant proposes to construct a 100’ wall, with 3x3x3’ gabion baskets, with a wooden deck placed on top
to provide pedestrian access. Adjacent to the deck, rip-rap with joint plantings is proposed to be installed
from below high-water to bank crest to deter access for an additional 250 linear feet.
DEP Comments:
[1] All resource areas and their buffer zones need to be clearly identified on plans so that the commission
clearly understands jurisdiction.
Revised plans dated February 2011 have been submitted.
[2] Some of the area in the primary sediment storage area is within estimated and priority habitat. The
work should either be pulled out of that area or the applicant must file with NHESP. Please note there is a
certified vernal pool in this area.
NHESP has indicated the project will not result in a take. The vernal pool is outside the boundaries of
the project area.
[3] The work requires review and approval by the USACOE under the Regional General Permit and a 401
WQC from MassDEP is also required. The Department recommends that the commission keep their
hearing open until all other state and federal permits have been issued.
[4] Since the pond will be completely drawn down, then the entirety of the Bank resource area will be
impacted. Please update resource area impacts in the NOI.
Revised impacts were submitted.
[5] Is there an existing permit that allows the gate controlling the flow of water into the pond to be opened
and closed?
Staff is not aware of any such permit. Gate control can be included in the Order of Conditions for this
project, for the purposes of dredging only. The applicant should submit a separate NOI for gate control
not related to the dredging work.
[6] For the culvert replacement work, the commission should review the Mass Stream Crossing Standards
guidance for culvert replacement.
Culvert replacement is no longer proposed as part of the project.
[7] The project as presently proposed does not appear to meet the General Performance Standards at 310
CMR 10.54(4)(a)4. and 5.; 310 CMR 10.56(4)(a)3. and 4., and potentially others. Use of riprap and gabion
baskets in a setting described will have adverse affects on fisheries and wildlife habitat. Maintenance
practices such as mowing to the edge of the Bank of Pond also has negative consequences to long-term
stability. Therefore, the Department is advising that the project be redesigned to include maintenance
best management practices; and that the plans be revised to comply with and be based upon the
principles, methods, techniques, modeling, and requirements of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) Stream Restoration Design Handbook, National Engineering Handbook Part 654
(Released September 20, 2007). Specifically, revised plans should, at a minimum propose a design using
techniques and methods described within: a. Technical Supplement 14I, Streambank Soil Engineering,
Part 654 National Engineering Handbook; b. Technical Supplement 14J, Use of Large Woody Material for
Habitat and Bank Protection, Part 654 National Engineering Handbook; The following techniques and
methods, as derived from the above Technical Supplements, should be evaluated, starting from the lowest
Conservation Commission Staff Report 2
May 12, 2011
elevation of the project and ascending to the highest elevation: c. Coir fascines for “toe protection” d.
Brush revetments for “toe protection” e. Rootwad revetments for “toe protection” f. Fascines g. Live pole
cuttings h. Brush layer benches i. Geotextile “vegetated reinforced soil slopes” (VRSS) and interstitial
plantings. The installation and design of “toe protection” techniques and methodologies should include
written confirmation of the ability of selected methodologies to significantly contribute to localized
aggradation (as defined in Terminology in Stream Restoration Design Handbook, National Engineering
Handbook Part 654). Other methodologies and techniques described in the two (2) above-referenced
Technical Supplements might be considered based upon a written alternatives analysis, except
methodologies or techniques that involve the use of riprap or other offsite stone, rock, or manufactured
materials (such as concrete, gabion baskets, etc.), as there is no justification within the NOI suggesting
that these methodologies will meet General Performance Standards.
An alternate plan was submitted after DEP provided these suggestions. The Commission may want to
consider requiring an alternate stabilization method mentioned here as an alternative to rip-rap. Other
alternatives that would also limit access, such as plantings, should also be considered.
Consistency with the WPA:
CMR contains similar standards for both bank and land under water:
Bank
(a) Where the presumption (that a bank is significant to the interests of the WPA) is not overcome, any
proposed work on a Bank shall not impair the following:
1. the physical stability of the Bank;
2. the water carrying capacity of the existing channel within the Bank;
3. ground water and surface water quality;
4. the capacity of the Bank to provide breeding habitat, escape cover and food for fisheries;
5. the capacity of the Bank to provide important wildlife habitat functions. A project or projects on a
single lot, for which Notice(s) of Intent is filed on or after November 1, 1987, that (cumulatively) alter(s)
up to 10% or 50 feet (whichever is less) of the length of the bank found to be significant to the protection
of wildlife habitat, shall not be deemed to impair its capacity to provide important wildlife habitat
functions. Additional alterations beyond the above threshold may be permitted if they will have no
adverse effects on wildlife habitat, as determined by procedures contained in 310 CMR 10.60.
LUW:
(a) Where the presumption (that land under water is significant to the is not overcome, any proposed
work within Land Under Water Bodies and Waterways shall not impair the following:
1. The water carrying capacity within the defined channel, which is provided by said land in conjunction
with the banks;
2. Ground and surface water quality;
3. The capacity of said land to provide breeding habitat, escape cover and food for fisheries; and
4. The capacity of said land to provide important wildlife habitat functions. A project or projects on a
single lot, for which Notice(s) of intent is filed on or after November 1, 1987, that (cumulatively) alter(s)
up to 10% or 5,000 square feet (whichever is less) of land in this resource area found to be significant to
the protection of wildlife habitat, shall not be deemed to impair its capacity to provide important
wildlife habitat functions. Additional alterations beyond the above threshold may be permitted if they
will have no adverse effects on wildlife habitat, as determined by procedures established under 310 CMR
10.60.
The project occurs in an area that has been used for access for many years, and the bank contains
remnants of past stabilization efforts.
If bank access is not provided, the public will likely create affinity paths resulting in further disturbance.
The gabion basket and decking method has been used in other areas of the park. The western bank in its
current state provides limited habitat value. However, the proposed rip-rap stabilization will not
represent an improvement over existing conditions. The Commission should consider requiring an
alternate stabilization method for at least a portion of the bank, such as a combination of the methods
provided in DEP comments, in addition to plantings and elimination of mowing near the northern bank
edge.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 3
May 12, 2011
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
The Ordinance exempts dredging from the protected zone requirements. The dredged material is
proposed to be deposited at the ‘recycling area’ within the protected zone, nearly up to the limits of the
wetland area. A dewatering berm is proposed to be installed near, and in some places at, the wetlands
boundary. The dewatered silt is proposed to be placed within the 50-100 foot buffer zone, which the
Ordinance notes “as appropriate when the applicant can demonstrate to the Commission's satisfaction
that the proposed work, activity or use will not affect wetland values singularly or cumulatively and, by
means of a written and plan view assessment, that reasonable alternatives to the proposed work or activity
do not exist.” The ‘recycling area’ was historically used as a dump site for stumps, gravel, and other debris,
and is heavily disturbed. The dewatering berm should be pulled away from the wetland boundary, and
additional conditions are suggested to mitigate and improve the protected zone, as required in the
Ordinance. The ‘Family Recreation Area,’ secondary dewatering area is located almost entirely within the
buffer zone to BVW. This area should not be used for construction activities due to the proximity of
resource areas and Protected Zones.
Staff Recommendations:
The project contains a great deal of impacts to wetlands resource areas. However, the resource areas in
and around the Pond are man-made and disturbed through many years of access and use. The following
conditions are suggested to help protect and enhance the protected areas within and around the project
site:
34. Any development of the former ‘re-cycling area’ beyond dredged material dewatering and grass
planting requires the filing of a separate application with the Conservation Commission.
35. The dewatering berm and erosion control shown on NOI plans must be placed a minimum of five feet
from wetlands boundaries.
36. The area between the grass field and wetlands area shall be maintained as a permanent buffer between
the grassed area and wetlands. The field edge shall not be located closer than fifty feet from the wetlands.
All fill material from the buffer area shall be removed, and the area restored to a natural state. Prior to
any work on the project, a revised plan sheet shall be submitted to the Commission, showing revised field
edge, dewatering berm and erosion control locations and a plan for restoration of the buffer area.
37. A permanent barrier shall be constructed at the edge of the field area nearest the wetlands prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Compliance.
38. The applicant must consult with the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife to develop a
plan for removal of fish and from the Pond.
39. A sealed bucket shall be used for dredging.
40.The applicant shall submit weekly reports on Friday before 12:00 PM to the Northampton
Conservation Commission during dredging operations.
41. The applicant must specify the method to be used for filtration of pumped water prior to work.
42. The ‘Family Recreational Area’ shall not be used as a sediment storage or dewatering area. If a
secondary storage site is required, an alternate location shall be selected by the applicant and approved by
the Commission.
Request for Certificate of Compliance, James Dimos. 305 Westhampton Road. Parcel 36-
155, DEP File 246-527.
Application Overview:
The project involved construction of a 14’ by 24’ addition within riverfront and buffer zone to bordering
vegetated wetlands.
Staff Recommendations:
The layout of the addition is not exactly as proposed, but is not any larger or closer to resource areas.
Condition 31 required that a concrete pad behind the garage be removed, and the area planted with native
vegetation. This has been done. A complete certification can be issued, there are no ongoing conditions.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 4
May 12, 2011
Northampton Conservation Commission
Agenda
6:00 PM, Thursday June 9, 2011
*Please note time *
City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton
nd
Contact: Sarah LaValley, Conservation Planner – slavalley@northamptonma.gov
1.Public Comment
2.Approval of Minutes
a.May 12, 2011
b.May 12, 2011 Executive Session
3. 6:00 PM Continuation: Notice of Intent for dredging of Willow Pond. Project includes
impacts to bank, land under water, bordering land subject to flooding, riverfront area
(Mill River), and buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland. Frank Newhall Look Board
of Trustees – Look Park. 300 North Main Street, Florence. Map ID 16A-002, DEP File
246-646. (Originally continued to 5:15)
The applicant has requested that the hearing be continued, with no
discussion, until June 23 2011 at 5:15 PM.
4.6:10 PM - Presentation – Look Park Toxics Use Reduction Institute Grant
5.6:30 PM: Notice of Intent for a deck and improvements to a single family home within
the Riverfront area to the Manhan River and Protected Zone. Luekens, 50 Loudville
Road, Map ID 41-010, DEP File 246-651.
6.6:50 PM: Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether pavement
replacement within the riverfront area is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or
Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Fairway Village Condo Assoc. 455 Spring Street,
Leeds. Map ID 16A-020.
7.Staff-Issued Permits and Sign-off Review
8.Review of Mail
9.Summer Schedule
All other business not foreseen when agenda was published
10.
To: Conservation Commission
From: Sarah LaValley
Reviewed and Approved by OPD: CM
RE: Staff Report, June 9 Commission Meeting
Date: June 7, 2011
6:00 PM Continuation: Notice of Intent for dredging of Willow Pond. Project includes
impacts to bank, land under water, bordering land subject to flooding, riverfront area (Mill
River), and buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland. Frank Newhall Look Board of
Trustees - Look Park. 300 North Main Street, Florence. Map ID 16A-002, DEP File 246-
646. (Originally continued to 5:15)
The applicant has requested that the hearing be continued, with no discussion, until June 23, 2011 at 5:15
PM.
6:30 PM: Notice of Intent for a deck and improvements to a single family home within the
Riverfront area to the Manhan River and Protected Zone. Luekens, 50 Loudville Road,
Map ID 41-010, DEP File 246-651.
Application Overview:
The project location is flat at the house foundation, with a steep drop to the rear of the house to the
Manhan River. The majority of the property is located within the 200’ riverfront area, and the house and
garage are within the 50 foot resource area. The home was built prior to the Rivers Protection Act.
Resource areas on the site include riverfront area to the Manhan River, bank and its buffer zone, and
bordering land subject to flooding. An area of BVW may also be located adjacent to the River, but this
resource was not delineated as part of this application. A certified vernal pool (not shown) is located
across the river to the north, approximately 250’ from the project site. The work area is outside the 100-
year flood zone.
The applicant proposes to construct a 300 square foot deck between the house and garage, and a 188 sf
walkway and porch roof at the front of the house. Also proposed is the removal of 427 sf of sheds to the
north of the house, and creation of a 4,000 sf no-mow/no-cut area surrounding the shed sites.
DEP Comments:
[1] The Manhan River is considered a Coldwater Fishery Resource. It is important that no sediment enters
the River and that shading of the River be maintained or increased in order to protect this valuable
resource.
Address with conditions
[2] The commission should review compliance with 310 CMR 10.58(5)
See below
Consistency with the WPA:
The project is presented as a ‘Redevelopment Within Previously Developed Riverfront Areas’ pursuant to
310CMR 10.58(5). Work under this section must represent an improvement over existing conditions,
cannot be located closer to the river than existing conditions, and does not require an alternatives
analysis. According to CMR,
Redevelopment means replacement, rehabilitation or expansion of existing structures, improvement of
existing roads, or reuse of degraded or previously developed areas.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 1
June 9, 2011
Since work will not be located outside the RFA or toward the boundary away from the river, mitigation or
restoration is required. Restoration meeting the criteria in 310CMR 10.58(5)f is proposed by removal of
the sheds, and meets the 1:1 requirement.
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
The Protected Zone in this area is 50 feet. §337-10 E (2) explains that:
The Commission shall not permit alteration within resource areas or their associated Protected Zones,
subject to the following exceptions…:
(h)
Projects in or affecting Resource Areas or affecting Protected Zones or Resource Areas containing areas
already degraded or developed, subject to the following criteria:
[1] At a minimum, proposed work shall result in an improvement over existing conditions of the
capacity of the resource area to protect the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40.When a lot is
previously developed but no portion of the resource area or its Protected Zone is degraded, this section
shall not apply.
The site contains degraded area within the protected zone. The area where the deck is
proposed includes buried bricks. While removal of the sheds alone does not necessarily
represent an improvement over existing conditions, permanent protection of this area will
protect the resource areas in the long-term.
[2] Within the resource area and its protected zone, proposed work shall not be located closer to the
resource area than existing degraded conditions.
It is not
[3] Proposed work, including expansion of existing structures, shall be located outside the resource
area or toward the resource area boundary and away from the resource.
The deck is located to the side of the house, so the project does not meet this criteria.
[4] The area of proposed work shall not exceed the amount of degraded area.
It does not
[5] When an applicant proposes restoration on-site of degraded area in the protected zone, alteration
may be allowed notwithstanding the criteria of [2], [3], and [4] of this section at a ratio in square feet of
at least 1:1 of restored area to area of alteration not conforming to the criteria. Restoration shall
include: removal of all debris, but retaining any trees or other non-invasive mature vegetation; grading
to a topography which reduces runoff and increases infiltration; coverage by topsoil at a depth
consistent with natural conditions at the site; and seeding and planting with an erosion control seed
mixture, followed by plantings of herbaceous and woody species appropriate to the site;
The Ordinance requires that 1:1 restoration for work within the protected zone be provided,
also within the protected zone. Shed removal proposed totals 427 sf, but not all of the sheds
are located within the 50 foot protected zone to the River. Additionally, only the deck portion
of the project, 300 sf in total, t is located within the protected zone, the entryway is located
outside this area. The removal of the shed nearest the river, approximately 300 sf of which is
located within the protected zone, equals the 1:1 requirement for the deck construction.
The additional permanent protection proposed to establish the former shed area as a no-
mow/no-cut zone can also be considered as mitigation under the terms of the Ordinance.
Combined, these improvements appear to meet the terms of the Ordinance.
Staff Recommendations:
50 Loudville Road was constructed before the Rivers Protection Act or the Northampton Wetlands
Ordinance, and would be difficult to build today. The recently revised Ordinance allows work to take
place within resource areas and their protected zones when projects result in improvements.
Staff recommends issuance of an Order of Conditions, with standard conditions 1-33, with no
requirement for a stamped plan. The following conditions should also be considered to ensure that the
project results in improvements:
34. The no-mow/no-cut area shown on NOI plans shall be extended from the river to the property
line at Loudville Road. Removal of invasive species is not subject to this condition.
35. A request for certificate of compliance shall be accompanied by proof of recording at the
Hampshire County Registry of Deeds of a plan of no-mow zones on the property, extending from the river
Conservation Commission Staff Report 2
June 9, 2011
to the roadway north of the house, including the area where the sheds are removed. The plan shall
indicate activities that are prohibited in those areas, and shall run with the deed.
36. All stockpiled construction materials, including dumpsters and heavy machinery if required, shall
be kept to the front of the house.
37. Erosion control shall be installed between the rear of the garage and the house, and shall serve as the
limit of work line.
6:50 PM: Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether pavement
replacement within the riverfront area is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or
Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Fairway Village Condo Assoc. 455 Spring Street,
Leeds. Map ID 16A-020
Application Overview:
The applicant proposes to replace all the paved surfaces within the Fairway Village condominium
complex, including roadways, driveways, sidewalks, and entry patios.
Consistency with the WPA and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
‘Alter’ is defined as ‘changing the condition’ of an area subject to protection. All paving will be done on
areas that are already paved, and will not create new alterations.
Staff Recommendations:
As shown on project plans, the work should not create any new alterations to wetlands resource areas.
Potential for temporary construction impacts can be addressed with standard conditions 1-12. A negative
determination can be issued by checking box 2 to indicate that the area is subject to protection, but the
proposed activity will not dredge, fill, or alter the area.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 3
June 9, 2011
Northampton Conservation Commission
Agenda
5:00 PM, Thursday June 23, 2011
City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton
nd
Contact: Sarah LaValley, Conservation Planner – slavalley@northamptonma.gov
1.Public Comment
2.Approval of Minutes
a.June 9, 2011
3.5:15 PM Continuation: Notice of Intent for dredging of Willow Pond. Project includes
impacts to bank, land under water, bordering land subject to flooding, riverfront area
(Mill River), and buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland. Frank Newhall Look Board
of Trustees – Look Park. 300 North Main Street, Florence. Map ID 16A-002, DEP File
246-646.
6:15 PM Request for Determination of Applicability for resource area boundary
delineation. Pan Am Railways Rights of Way.
6:30 PM Notice of Intent for utility pole replacement and relocation within the
Riverfront area to the Mill River and Protected Zone. Massachusetts Electric Company,
River Road Right of Way, Leeds. DEP File 246-652.
4.Request for Certificate of Compliance, Sweet Meadow Properties/Art Pichette. 64
Reservoir Road, Leeds. Parcel IDs 10B-051 and 10D-038, DEP File 246-585.
5.Staff-Issued Permits and Sign-off Review
6.Review of Mail
7.Grant Updates
All other business not foreseen when agenda was published
8.
To: Conservation Commission
From: Sarah LaValley
Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF
RE: Staff Report, June 23 Commission Meeting
Date: June 17, 2011
5:15 PM Continuation: Notice of Intent for dredging of Willow Pond. Project includes
impacts to bank, land under water, bordering land subject to flooding, riverfront area (Mill
River), and buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland. Frank Newhall Look Board of
Trustees - Look Park. 300 North Main Street, Florence. Map ID 16A-002, DEP File 246-
646.
Application Overview:
The applicant is proposing to dredge Willow Pond, which has become filled with sediment since it was last
dredged in the 1980’s. The project includes work within land under water, bank, buffer zone, and
bordering land subject to flooding. A vernal pool exists on the site, but is not shown on project plans
because all work is outside the vernal pool boundaries provided in the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance.
Work will take place outside the boundaries of the 200 foot riverfront area to the Mill River. The Pond
itself does not have riverfront area.
The work requires review by the Army Corps of Engineers under the regional general permit, a 401 Water
Quality Certification from DEP, and a Stormwater Permit from the Northampton DPW. None were issued
at the time of the staff report. Review by NHESP was required because priority/estimated habitat exists
close to the work area. NHESP indicated that the project will not result in a take.
The Pond will be dewatered by gravity prior to dredging, with any remaining water to be pumped from the
Pond. Pumped water will flow through an additional filter. A turbidity curtain will also be used during
dredging. As part of the dredging project, the applicant proposes to transport the dredged material to a
‘re-cycling’ area within the Park, where it will be dewatered and planted with grass. The recycling area,
which contains some BVW and buffer zone, has been used as a dump site and is heavily disturbed. Any
excess material is proposed to be transported to a secondary storage site to the west of the recycling area.
The western bank of the pond is also proposed to be reinforced as part of the dredging project. The
eastern bank is not accessible due to steep slopes, but the western bank is directly in front of the sanctuary
and receives lots of foot traffic. The bank was historically stabilized, and contains remnants of stones. The
applicant proposes to construct a 100’ wall, with 3x3x3’ gabion baskets, with a wooden deck placed on top
to provide pedestrian access. Adjacent to the deck, rip-rap with joint plantings is proposed to be installed
from below high-water to bank crest to deter access for an additional 250 linear feet.
DEP Comments:
[1] All resource areas and their buffer zones need to be clearly identified on plans so that the commission
clearly understands jurisdiction.
Revised plans dated February 2011 have been submitted.
[2] Some of the area in the primary sediment storage area is within estimated and priority habitat. The
work should either be pulled out of that area or the applicant must file with NHESP. Please note there is a
certified vernal pool in this area.
NHESP has indicated the project will not result in a take. The vernal pool is outside the boundaries of
the project area.
[3] The work requires review and approval by the USACOE under the Regional General Permit and a 401
Conservation Commission Staff Report 1
June 23, 2011
WQC from MassDEP is also required. The Department recommends that the commission keep their
hearing open until all other state and federal permits have been issued.
[4] Since the pond will be completely drawn down, then the entirety of the Bank resource area will be
impacted. Please update resource area impacts in the NOI.
Revised impacts were submitted.
[5] Is there an existing permit that allows the gate controlling the flow of water into the pond to be opened
and closed?
Staff is not aware of any such permit. Gate control can be included in the Order of Conditions for this
project, for the purposes of dredging only. The applicant should submit a separate NOI for gate control
not related to the dredging work.
[6] For the culvert replacement work, the commission should review the Mass Stream Crossing Standards
guidance for culvert replacement.
Culvert replacement is no longer proposed as part of the project.
[7] The project as presently proposed does not appear to meet the General Performance Standards at 310
CMR 10.54(4)(a)4. and 5.; 310 CMR 10.56(4)(a)3. and 4., and potentially others. Use of riprap and gabion
baskets in a setting described will have adverse affects on fisheries and wildlife habitat. Maintenance
practices such as mowing to the edge of the Bank of Pond also has negative consequences to long-term
stability. Therefore, the Department is advising that the project be redesigned to include maintenance
best management practices; and that the plans be revised to comply with and be based upon the
principles, methods, techniques, modeling, and requirements of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) Stream Restoration Design Handbook, National Engineering Handbook Part 654
(Released September 20, 2007). Specifically, revised plans should, at a minimum propose a design using
techniques and methods described within: a. Technical Supplement 14I, Streambank Soil Engineering,
Part 654 National Engineering Handbook; b. Technical Supplement 14J, Use of Large Woody Material for
Habitat and Bank Protection, Part 654 National Engineering Handbook; The following techniques and
methods, as derived from the above Technical Supplements, should be evaluated, starting from the lowest
elevation of the project and ascending to the highest elevation: c. Coir fascines for “toe protection” d.
Brush revetments for “toe protection” e. Rootwad revetments for “toe protection” f. Fascines g. Live pole
cuttings h. Brush layer benches i. Geotextile “vegetated reinforced soil slopes” (VRSS) and interstitial
plantings. The installation and design of “toe protection” techniques and methodologies should include
written confirmation of the ability of selected methodologies to significantly contribute to localized
aggradation (as defined in Terminology in Stream Restoration Design Handbook, National Engineering
Handbook Part 654). Other methodologies and techniques described in the two (2) above-referenced
Technical Supplements might be considered based upon a written alternatives analysis, except
methodologies or techniques that involve the use of riprap or other offsite stone, rock, or manufactured
materials (such as concrete, gabion baskets, etc.), as there is no justification within the NOI suggesting
that these methodologies will meet General Performance Standards.
An alternate plan was submitted after DEP provided these suggestions. The Commission may want to
consider requiring an alternate stabilization method mentioned here as an alternative to rip-rap. Other
alternatives that would also limit access, such as plantings, should also be considered.
Consistency with the WPA:
CMR contains similar standards for both bank and land under water:
Bank
(a) Where the presumption (that a bank is significant to the interests of the WPA) is not overcome, any
proposed work on a Bank shall not impair the following:
1. the physical stability of the Bank;
2. the water carrying capacity of the existing channel within the Bank;
3. ground water and surface water quality;
4. the capacity of the Bank to provide breeding habitat, escape cover and food for fisheries;
Conservation Commission Staff Report 2
June 23, 2011
5. the capacity of the Bank to provide important wildlife habitat functions. A project or projects on a
single lot, for which Notice(s) of Intent is filed on or after November 1, 1987, that (cumulatively) alter(s)
up to 10% or 50 feet (whichever is less) of the length of the bank found to be significant to the protection
of wildlife habitat, shall not be deemed to impair its capacity to provide important wildlife habitat
functions. Additional alterations beyond the above threshold may be permitted if they will have no
adverse effects on wildlife habitat, as determined by procedures contained in 310 CMR 10.60.
LUW:
(a) Where the presumption (that land under water is significant to the is not overcome, any proposed
work within Land Under Water Bodies and Waterways shall not impair the following:
1. The water carrying capacity within the defined channel, which is provided by said land in conjunction
with the banks;
2. Ground and surface water quality;
3. The capacity of said land to provide breeding habitat, escape cover and food for fisheries; and
4. The capacity of said land to provide important wildlife habitat functions. A project or projects on a
single lot, for which Notice(s) of intent is filed on or after November 1, 1987, that (cumulatively) alter(s)
up to 10% or 5,000 square feet (whichever is less) of land in this resource area found to be significant to
the protection of wildlife habitat, shall not be deemed to impair its capacity to provide important
wildlife habitat functions. Additional alterations beyond the above threshold may be permitted if they
will have no adverse effects on wildlife habitat, as determined by procedures established under 310 CMR
10.60.
The project occurs in an area that has been used for access for many years, and the bank contains
remnants of past stabilization efforts.
If bank access is not provided, the public will likely create affinity paths resulting in further disturbance.
The gabion basket and decking method has been used in other areas of the park. The western bank in its
current state provides limited habitat value. However, the proposed rip-rap stabilization will not
represent an improvement over existing conditions. The Commission should consider requiring an
alternate stabilization method for at least a portion of the bank, such as a combination of the methods
provided in DEP comments, in addition to plantings and elimination of mowing near the northern bank
edge.
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
The Ordinance exempts dredging from the protected zone requirements. The dredged material is
proposed to be deposited at the ‘recycling area’ within the protected zone, nearly up to the limits of the
wetland area. A dewatering berm is proposed to be installed near, and in some places at, the wetlands
boundary. The dewatered silt is proposed to be placed within the 50-100 foot buffer zone, which the
Ordinance notes “as appropriate when the applicant can demonstrate to the Commission's satisfaction
that the proposed work, activity or use will not affect wetland values singularly or cumulatively and, by
means of a written and plan view assessment, that reasonable alternatives to the proposed work or activity
do not exist.” The ‘recycling area’ was historically used as a dump site for stumps, gravel, and other debris,
and is heavily disturbed. The dewatering berm should be pulled away from the wetland boundary, and
additional conditions are suggested to mitigate and improve the protected zone, as required in the
Ordinance. The ‘Family Recreation Area,’ secondary dewatering area is located almost entirely within the
buffer zone to BVW. This area should not be used for construction activities due to the proximity of
resource areas and Protected Zones.
Staff Recommendations:
The project contains a great deal of impacts to wetlands resource areas. However, the resource areas in
and around the Pond are man-made and disturbed through many years of access and use. The following
conditions are suggested to help protect and enhance the protected areas within and around the project
site:
34. Any development of the former ‘re-cycling area’ beyond dredged material dewatering and grass
planting requires the filing of a separate application with the Conservation Commission.
35. The dewatering berm and erosion control shown on NOI plans must be placed a minimum of five feet
from wetlands boundaries.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 3
June 23, 2011
36. The area between the grass field and wetlands area shall be maintained as a permanent buffer between
the grassed area and wetlands. The field edge shall not be located closer than fifty feet from the wetlands.
37. A permanent barrier shall be constructed at the edge of the grass field area shown on sheet C-5 nearest
the wetlands prior to issuance of a Certificate of Compliance.
38. Prior to any dredging activity, all fill material from the buffer area shall be removed. The area must be
restored to a natural state prior to the issuance of a certificate of compliance.
39. Prior to any dredging activity, a revised plan sheet C-5 shall be submitted to the Commission, showing
revised field edge, permanent barrier, dewatering berm, erosion control locations and a plan for
restoration of the buffer area.
40. The chosen method of fish removal from the pond must be approved by the Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife.
41. A sealed bucket shall be used for dredging.
42.The applicant shall submit biweekly email reports on Fridays before 12:00 PM to the Northampton
Conservation Commission during dredging operations that describe progress.
43. The applicant must specify the method to be used for filtration of pumped water prior to dredging.
44. The ‘Family Recreational Area’ shall not be used as a sediment storage or dewatering area. If a
secondary storage site is required, an alternate location shall be selected by the applicant and approved by
the Commission.
6:15 PM Request for Determination of Applicability for resource area boundary
delineation. Pan Am Railways Rights of Way
Application Overview:
The request is submitted in accordance with 333 CMR 11, which concerns applications of pesticides within
right of way. The Commission is asked to confirm the boundaries of the no-spray zones. Herbicide
application itself is done under a Yearly Operational Plan, which is currently under a public comment
period.
The spray zones indicated are the same as those previously approved by the Commission.
‘No spray zones’ are defined in the regulations as areas within the right of way (ROW) and:
(a) any Zone I;
(b) 100 feet of any Class A Surface Water Source;
(c) 100 feet of any tributary or associated surface water body where the tributary or
associated surface water body runs within 400 feet of a Class A surface water source;
(d) ten feet of any tributary or associated surface water body where the tributary or
associated surface water body is at a distance greater than 400 feet from a Class A surface
water source;
(e) a lateral distance of 100 feet for 400 feet upstream, on both sides of the river, of a Class
B Drinking Water Intake;
(f) 50 feet of any identified Private Well;
(g) ten feet of any Wetlands or Water Over Wetlands;
(h) ten feet of the mean annual high-water line of any river; and
(i) ten feet of any Certified Vernal Pool.
Staff Recommendations:
Additional no spray zones are recommended, where the ROW appears within ten feet of wetlands:
from the Easthampton boundary to Oxbow Road
at the culvert crossing just north of Highway Auto Salvage
Behind Willard facility on King Street
6:30 PM Notice of Intent for utility pole replacement and relocation within the Riverfront
area to the Mill River and Protected Zone. Massachusetts Electric Company, River Road
Right of Way, Leeds. DEP File 246-652
Conservation Commission Staff Report 4
June 23, 2011
Application Overview:
The application proposes replacement of one utility pole, and relocation of two utility poles and guy wires
within the 100-foot riverfront area to the Mill River and buffer zone to bank, in the River Road ROW.
Pole 39 will be replaced within the existing footprint, pole 42 will be moved towards the outside of the
resource area boundary, and pole 41 will be moved closer to the river and its bank. Three trees are
proposed to be removed, approval of the Tree Committee was granted with conditions.
Work will be conducted with a truck-mounted auger, and erosion control will be installed. The work is
necessary to facilitate bridge replacement.
DEP Comments:
[1] The work on poles 39 and 43 would appear to be an exempt activity, as per paragraph 1 of Chapter 131
section 40 and 310 CMR 10.02(2)(a)2.
Work on these poles is exempt as it does not ‘substantially change or enlarge an existing and lawfully
located structure or facility used in the service of the public and used to provide electric, gas, water,
telephone, telegraph and other communication services’ The relocation of the pole closer to the river
constitutes a substantial change, and is not exempt.
[2] The issuing authority shall wait for thirty days from the issuance of this “Notification of Wetlands
Protection Act File Number” before it closes the hearing in order to await comments from the
Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program per 310 CMR 10.59. It shall include in
its Order of Conditions any requirements from that agency and shall send them a copy of the Order of
Conditions, if so required.
The project should be permitted if it represents a take of endangered species. NHESP had not provided
comment as of the date of this report.
Consistency with the WPA
The relocation of pole 41 is not exempt from the WPA, but part of a limited project as “Construction,
reconstruction, operation and maintenance of underground and overhead public utilities.” It can be
permitted notwithstanding the CMR performance standards. The Commission must consider “the
magnitude of the alteration and the significance of the project site … the availability of reasonable
alternatives to the proposed activity, the extent to which adverse impacts are minimized, and the extent to
which mitigation measures, including replication or restoration, are provided to contribute to
the protection of the interests identified” in the Wetlands Protection Act.
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
The work on poles 39 and 42 are also exempt from the Northampton Ordinance according to Section 337-
4, as they do not change or enlarge the facility. The relocation of pole 41 is not exempt. As a limited
project, it qualifies for an exception to work in the Protected Zone.
Staff Recommendations:
Issue an Order of Conditions with standard conditions 1-32, with no requirement for an as-built plan.
Condition 33, which involves deeds, is not needed as work is limited to the ROW. A pre-construction
meeting should not be required, inspection of erosion control is appropriate due to the short construction
time required.
The following conditions are suggested to help protect and enhance the protected areas within and around
the project site:
34. Work shall not be conducted during heavy rain
35. Erosion control shall be removed as soon as the soil is stabilized.
36. As soon as work is completed, all disturbed areas shall be seeded with a roadside seed mix intended
for use in New England that is suitable for the site.
Request for Certificate of Compliance, Sweet Meadow Properties/Art Pichette. 64
Reservoir Road, Leeds. Parcel IDs 10B-051 and 10D-038, DEP File 246-585.
This project involved the construction of a driveway/wetlands crossing. A partial certificate of compliance
was issued in February, 2010, for all portions of the project except the wetlands restoration. The
certificate request is limited to that work. The restoration has been completed, and a full certificate can be
issued.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 5
June 23, 2011
Northampton Conservation Commission
Agenda
5:00 PM, Thursday August 25, 2011
City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton
nd
Public Comment
Approval of Minutes
June 9, 2011
July 28, 2011
5:05 PM
Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of a shed and
related improvements is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands
Ordinance. Roger D. Benoit, 942 Park Hill Road. Map ID 49-19.
5:30 PM
Notice of Intent for construction of a residential driveway within bordering vegetated wetlands,
buffer zone, and Protected Zone. Patrick Melnik, Chesterfield Road, Map ID 15B-01 . DEP File
246-655.
Request for Certificate of Compliance, Garson Fields/Berkshire Electric Cable Company. 118
River Road, Leeds. Map ID 05-28 and 10D-038, DEP File 246-600.
Request for Emergency Certification, Richard Brazeau, Massachusetts Department of
Conservation and Recreation. Damon Road, Norwottuck Rail Trail
Review of Staff-Issued Permits and Sign-offs
CPA Applications
Review of Mail
Grant Updates
All other business not foreseen when agenda was published
Adjourn
To: Conservation Commission
From: Sarah LaValley
Reviewed and Approved by OPD: CM
RE: Staff Report, August 25 Commission Meeting
Date: August 19, 2011
5:05 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of
a shed and related improvements is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or
Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Roger D. Benoit, 942 Park Hill Road. Map ID 49-19.
Application Overview:
The applicant proposes to construct a 450 square foot storage shed in an area of currently maintained
lawn. Site work includes excavation of the shed area, addition of base stone, and construction of the shed.
The site is within the RFA to Hannum Brook, a perennial stream. It is not within the floodplain.
Consistency with the WPA:
Under 310 CMR 10.02(2)b e, addition of a shed is a minor activity, and does not require the filing of an
NOI:
The conversion of lawn to uses accessory to residential structures such as decks, sheds, patios, and
pools, provided the activity is located more than 50 feet from the mean annual high-water line within
the riverfront area or from bordering vegetated wetland, whichever is farther, and erosion and
sedimentation controls are implemented during construction.
The shed is proposed to be constructed more than 50 feet from the mean annual high water line,
conservatively shown as sixty feet, on project plans.
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
The shed is proposed in an area that is currently maintained lawn, outside the Protected Zone. While it
will represent an increase in impervious surface, the current conditions do not contribute to the resources
on site. Additionally, the layout of the site and the location of the ROW do not provide a location for the
shed further from the resource.
Staff Recommendations:
A negative determination can be issued by checking box 2 to indicate that the area is subject to the WPA,
but will not alter an area subject to protection. Standard conditions 1-11 can be added, with the
specification that the silt fence must be installed at the edge of the lawn, from the ROW to the rear of the
house.
5:15 PM Notice of Intent for construction of a residential driveway within bordering
vegetated wetlands, buffer zone, and Protected Zone. Patrick Melnik, Chesterfield Road,
Map ID 15B-01 . DEP File 246-655.
Application Overview:
The applicant is proposing to construct an 8’ wide residential driveway. Filed as a limited project, the
driveway is proposed to cross a BVW along Chesterfield Road, and then follow an existing path within
buffer zone and Protected Zone, before turning north and moving east, away from the resource area.
Retaining walls and drainage swales are also proposed along the driveway, as well as drop inlets piped to a
level lip spreader discharging just outside the 100’ buffer. In addition to an OOC, the project will also
Conservation Commission Staff Report 1
August 25, 2011
require site plan approval from the Planning Board for access over another parcel, and a stormwater
permit from the DPW.
DEP Comments:
[1] The included USGS map with the project site location does not appear to match the lat/long or the
aerial photos.
The correct project location was shown on other maps.
[2] Per 310 CMR 10.55(2)(c)2. and/or 3. and the Department’s “BVW Policy” (issued March 1, 1995), the
applicant’s representative should submit fully completed “DEP Bordering Vegetated Wetland [310 CMR
10.55] Delineation Field Data Forms”, Sections 1 and/or 2, for transects along the boundary of each
distinct Bordering Vegetated Wetland, unless 310 CMR 10.55(2)(c)1. applies, which should be
documented by the applicant’s consultant. Forms should be completed per the methods detailed within
Delineating Bordering Vegetated Wetlands Under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MassDEP
1995).
The applicant has indicated that delineations were completed in accordance with DEP delineation
guidelines and 310 CMR 10.55(2)(c)(1), “areas containing a wetland indicator plants are presumed to
indicate the presence of saturated or inundated conditions.” Staff noted that the slope is distinct between
the upland and wetland plant community. The only area where work is not confined to the buffer is the
limited project crossing.
[3] Additional information should be submitted regarding the BVW alteration. The applicant is advised to
plan and construct any Bordering Vegetated Wetland “replacement area” per “Massachusetts Inland
Wetland Replication Guidelines” (MassDEP March 2002). The issuing authority should insure that these
guidelines are adhered to. The commission may ask for an alternatives analysis for avoiding and/or
minimizing BVW impacts.
Revised plans were submitted that eliminate headwalls and propose less disturbance.
[4] Monitoring of approved Bordering Vegetated Wetland “replacement areas” constructed per 310 CMR
10.55(4)(b) is critical due to the complex issues that can arise when trying to replace the specific ecological
setting and functions of wetlands. Monitoring to ensure that the project is built according to the design
specifications will ensurethat the most common causes of failure are avoided. A project monitor with
sufficient experience in the construction of “replacement areas” and general construction practices should
be on-site to monitor the excavation, grading, and planting of the “replacement area”. The application
should include specific monitoring plans and schedules for reporting to the issuing authority. The issuing
authority should require the submittal of detailed annual monitoring reports documenting compliance
with 310 CMR 10.55(4)(b).
If replication is required, this should be addressed in conditions.
[5] Based upon information presented within the Notice of Intent, this project does not appear to
presently meet the “Massachusetts Inland Wetland Replication Guidelines” (MassDEP March 2002).
Failure to replicate at a minimum of 1 to 1 will require that a 401 Water Quality Certificate application be
submitted to MassDEP.
A revised project design was provided that includes 13 sf of disturbance. Please see ‘Consistency with
the WPA’ below
[6] Plans are not clear whether the culvert is for a stream crossing or just to maintain the hydrologic
connection for BVW only. There is no Bank resource area shown on the plan. If Bank is located there, then
an open bottom arched culvert might be considered.
The applicant has indicated, and staff has confirmed at a site visit, that the culvert is proposed to
maintain a hydraulic connection only, and no bank resource exists in the culvert location.
[7] The commission may consider including a continuing special condition in the OOC that requires that
the culvert or what other method of crossing is approved, be kept clear so that the hydrologic connection
is maintained.
If approved, this should be included in project conditions.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 2
August 25, 2011
Consistency with the WPA:
The project was filed as a limited project wetland crossing, “where reasonable alternative means of access
from a public way to an upland area of the same owner is unavailable” Limited projects may be permitted
notwithstanding the performance standards and regulations for inland wetlands. No limited project can
be permitted that would have an adverse impact on habitat of rare or endangered species. When
considering limited projects, the Commission must consider “the magnitude of the alteration and the
significance of the project site … the availability of reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity, the
extent to which adverse impacts are minimized, and the extent to which mitigation measures, including
replication or restoration, are provided to contribute to the protection of the interests identified” in the
Wetlands Protection Act.
Any access to the eastern segment of the property will involve a wetlands crossing. The area of proposed
alteration to the BVW has been reduced from initial plans, to 13 square feet. While the limited project
status would allow for the alteration proposed with no replication, there is also an opportunity on the site
to create a restoration area and comply fully with the standards for work in BVW. The revised project
with less BVW disturbance also appears to qualify for review under 310 CMR 10.55 (4)(c), which allows
for loss of a portion of BVW when:
1. said portion has a surface area less than 500 square feet;
2. said portion extends in a distinct linear configuration ("finger-like") into adjacent
uplands; and
3. in the judgment of the issuing authority it is not reasonable to scale down, redesign or otherwise
change the proposed work so that it could be completed without loss of said wetland.
However, according to DEP comments, a Water Quality Certification may be required in this case.
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
The Ordinance, Section 337-10 E(2) does not allow alteration within resource areas or their associated
protected zones, subject to several exceptions, one of which is limited projects.
Construction of a new driveway of minimum legal and practical width acceptable to the planning board,
where reasonable alternative means of access from a public way to an upland area of the same owner is
unavailable” is defined as a limited project under 310 CMR 10.53 3 (e). The regulations require that
“Reasonable alternative means of access may include any previously or currently available alternatives
such as realignment or reconfiguration of the project to conform to 310 CMR 10.54 to 310 CMR 10.58 or
to otherwise minimize adverse impacts on resource areas. The issuing authority may require the
applicant to utilize access over an adjacent parcel of land currently or formerly owned by the applicant,
or in which the applicant has, or can obtain, an ownership interest. The applicant shall design the
roadway or driveway according to the minimum length and width acceptable to the Planning Board,
and shall present reasonable alternative means of access to the Board. The applicant shall provide
replication of bordering vegetated wetlands and compensatory flood storage to the extent practicable.
In the Certificate of Compliance, the issuing authority may continue a condition imposed in the
Order of Conditions to prohibit further activities under 310 CMR 10.53(3)(e).”
The applicant must cross the wetland in order to gain access to the majority of the parcel, and the crossing
portion of the project is eligible to be treated as a limited project, as discussed above.
In this case, the Planning Board does not have a “minimum legal and practical width” for a driveway. A
grade of ten percent or less must be achieved in order to provide emergency vehicle access, but this type of
requirement is not included in the definition of this type of limited project.
As described in the NOI and project plans, the proposed driveway was planned to follow the existing
“gravel road” to minimize disturbance to the site. If the existing path qualified as “already degraded or
developed,” work within the Protected Zone could be allowed under that exception in the Ordinance. The
Ordinance defines degraded area as “areas of existing structures, buildings, fill, pavement, impervious
surface, lack of topsoil, dump sites or releases of hazardous materials.” At a site visit, the path was found
to be a narrow dirt walking path. Some stones were found near the Chesterfield Road entrance, but it is
not a disturbed area.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 3
August 25, 2011
Staff Recommendations:
As shown on NOI plans and supplemental materials, the project does not meet the requirements for
alteration within the Protected Zone.
An Order of Conditions approving the work under the Wetlands Protection Act and denying under the
Northampton Wetlands Ordinance should be issued. A different layout that is consistent with both the
WPA and Northampton Ordinance could be considered.
Applicable standard conditions can be added, as well as conditions requiring annual cleanout and of the
culvert and level lip spreader. A finding that the project meets the 10.55(4) (c) requirements should also
be added if the Commission will not be requiring replication.
Request for Certificate of Compliance, Garson Fields/Berkshire Electric Cable Company.
118 River Road, Leeds. Map ID 05-28 and 10D-038, DEP File 246-600.
This project was never started. A Certificate should be issued, checking the box to indicate an Invalid
Order of Conditions, noting that work regulated by the Order never commenced, and future work requires
filing of a new NOI.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 4
August 25, 2011
Northampton Conservation Commission
Agenda
5:00 PM, Thursday November 10, 2011
City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton
nd
Public Comment
Approval of Minutes
October 13, 2011
October 27, 2011
5:00 PM - Continuation
5:00 - Notice of Intent for dam and dike repair in bank, land under water, bordering land
subject to flooding, and riverfront area to the Mill River. Smith College Facilities Management,
Paradise Road, Map IDs 31C-15 & 31D-20. DEP File 246-643
The applicant requests a continuation, with no discussion, until January, 12, 2012, at 5:00 PM
Request for Certificate of Compliance, Kollmorgen Electro Optical. 50 Prince Street, Map IDs
38A-99 and 102.
Request for Certificate of Compliance, Cooley Dickinson Hospital. Locust Street and Hospital
Way, Map ID 23B-47. DEP File 246-549
Request for Certificate of Compliance, Cooley Dickinson Hospital. 30 Locust Street. Map ID
23B-47. DEP File 246-569
5:30 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether retaining wall work
within riverfront area and buffer zone to BVW is subject to the Wetlands Ordinance or
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. Zantouliadis, 517 Westhampton Road. Map ID 36-122.
Executive Session to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property
Review of Mail
Review of Staff-Issued Permits and Sign-offs
All other business not foreseen when agenda was published
Adjourn
To: Conservation Commission
From: Sarah LaValley
Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF
RE: Staff Report, November 10 Commission Meeting
Date: November 3, 2011
Request for Certificate of Compliance, Kollmorgen Electro Optical. 50 Prince Street, Map
IDs 38A-99 and 102.
An Order of Conditions was issued in 2009 for construction of the stormwater system at the Kollmorgen
facility within the buffer to IVW, under the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance only. An emergency
certification was issued in November 2010 for work to address flooding concerns at the Grove Street Inn
as a result of the project. The E-Cert required that the applicant provide a maintenance plan for the area,
or demonstrate that no maintenance was needed. The E-Cert noted that berm work was not a substitute
for post-construction conditions originally proposed/approved.
Plans submitted with the request were the record plans from 2009, and the additional work near Grove
Street was not included. A certificate should not be issued until the required plans have been submitted.
The Commission should issue notice as to why a certificate is not being issued.
Request for Certificate of Compliance, Cooley Dickinson Hospital. Locust Street and
Hospital Way, Map ID 23B-47. DEP File 246-549
An Order of Conditions was issued in 2004 for construction of parking lot improvements at Cooley
Dickinson Hospital. Resource areas included buffer zone to BVW, BVW, and bank. The project included
a restoration area, and four detention basins. A site visit and submitted as-built plans indicate that the
project was completed as proposed, with minor modifications to the replication area boundary. A
summary report for the replication area was submitted as required. Special conditions primarily dealt
with construction activities and the replication area.
At the site visit, construction and silt fencing were observed within the wetland area east of Hospital
Road. Staff recommend issuance of a complete certificate of compliance once removal of silt and
construction fencing is complete.
Continuing O&M of the stormwater systems are required, several basins appeared to need cleaning.
Request for Certificate of Compliance, Cooley Dickinson Hospital. 30 Locust Street. Map
ID 23B-47. DEP File 246-569
An Order of Conditions was issued in 2006 for construction of a wood chip boiler plant within the buffer
zone at Cooley Dickinson Hospital. The disturbed portion of the buffer area was stabilized and seeded.
A site inspection and submitted as-built plans indicate that the project was completed as designed, and a
complete certificate of compliance can be issued.
5:30 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether retaining wall
work within riverfront area and buffer zone to BVW is subject to the Wetlands Ordinance
or Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. Zantouliadis, 517 Westhampton Road. Map ID
36-122.
Application Overview:
The Conservation Commission issued an Order of Conditions in 2003 for construction of a single family
house within riverfront area and buffer zone to BVW. Work included house construction, and installation
of a septic system and leach field contained by a retaining wall. The wall is located approximately 60 feet
from BVW. Work proposed includes removal of the existing wall, installation of a crushed stone base,
Conservation Commission Staff Report 1
November 10, 2011
building of a new wall, and installation of a drain line behind the wall, and repairs to the lawn as needed.
Plans provided do not indicate the limit of work.
Consistency with the WPA:
The Wetlands Protection Act exempts the conversion of lawn to accessory residential uses, so long as the
activity is located more than 50 feet from the mean annual high-water line within the riverfront area or
from bordering vegetated wetland, whichever is farther, and erosion and sedimentation controls are
implemented during construction. (310 CMR 10.02(1) e.)
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
The Ordinance does not allow work within the 50-foot protected zone to wetlands. As long as the work
proposed will take place 50 feet or more from the BVW, it does not appear that it will constitute an
alteration.
Staff Recommendations:
The project description and plan, while not explicit, indicate that work will remain more than 50 feet
from the BVW. As long as this is the case, a negative determination can be issued, checking box 2 to
indicate that the work is within an area subject to protection but will not remove, dredge, fill or alter it.
Standard conditions 1-11 can be added. In order to ensure that work does not encroach on the 50 foot
boundary, condition 2 should be changed to read “Prior to the initiation of any work, the applicant shall
establish the limit of work line by installing silt fencing around the wall at the ‘Erosion Control Fence’
location indicated on plans submitted with the prior Notice of Intent” Box 5 can also be checked to
indicate exemption under 310 CMR 10.02(1) e.
The applicant must also note that the open meadow behind the limit of work line may only be mown after
August 15, and that mowing of that area must not take place at any other time of the year. This was a
continuing condition of the 2003 Order.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 2
November 10, 2011
Northampton Conservation Commission
Agenda
5:00 PM, Thursday December 8, 2011
City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton
nd
Public Comment
Approval of Minutes
November 10, 2011
November 10, 2011 Executive Session
Request for Certificate of Compliance, Kollmorgen Electro Optical. 50 Prince Street, Map IDs 38A-
99 and 102.
5:15 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether wetland boundaries are
accurately delineated, and whether the area is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or
Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Soldier On, North Main Street, Leeds (VA Hospital). Map ID 11-
01.
5:25 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of
community gardens and associated site improvements are subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or
Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Grow Food Northampton, Meadow Street and Spring Street.
Map ID 22B-011.
5:40 PM Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation. Masonic Health Systems of
Massachusetts. 22 River Road, Leeds. Map 05, Lots 001, 002 and 032.
6:00 PM Notice of Intent for construction of two self-storage buildings and related stormwater
improvements within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands. Robert T. Foote Jr. 94
Industrial Drive, Map ID 25A-182 . DEP File 246-658.
Emergency Certification Request: Hathaway Farms Townhomes, 73 Barrett Street. Map ID 24B-79.
Forest Cutting Plan, Chesterfield Road
American Rivers/NOAA River Restoration Grant Application
EPA Urban Waters Small Grant Application
Land Acquisition Update
Review of Mail
Review of Staff-Issued Permits and Sign-offs
All other business not foreseen when agenda was published
Adjourn
To: Conservation Commission
From: Sarah LaValley
Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF
RE: Staff Report, November 10 Commission Meeting
Date: December 1, 2011
Request for Certificate of Compliance, Kollmorgen Electro Optical. 50 Prince Street, Map
IDs 38A-99 and 102.
An Order of Conditions was issued in 2009 for construction of the stormwater system at the Kollmorgen
facility within the buffer to IVW, under the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance only. An emergency
certification was issued in November 2010 for work to address flooding concerns at the Grove Street Inn
as a result of the project. The E-Cert required that the applicant provide a maintenance plan for the area,
or demonstrate that no maintenance was needed. The E-Cert noted that berm work was not a substitute
for post-construction conditions originally proposed/approved.
Revised as-built plans were submitted that include the berm, and an O&M specific to that work has been
executed with DPW.
The Order included a condition that invasives species monitoring and removal within the disturbed area
of the 100’ buffer zone be conducted for two years following completion of work. This was begun in June,
2011.
The Commission can issue a partial certificate of compliance, to indicate that work has been completed,
but invasive removal is not yet complete.
5:15 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether wetland
boundaries are accurately delineated, and whether the area is subject to the Wetlands
Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Soldier On, North Main Street,
Leeds (VA Hospital). Map ID 11-01.
Application Overview:
The application identifies an 11-acre subject area within the VA parcel for confirmation of resource area
boundaries only, no work is proposed.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff conducted a site visit, and confirmed that the subject area consists of a sloping white pine forest
lacking wetland characteristics. Wetlands are located across Route 9 within Look Park, and to the west.
Rather than specifically confirming boundaries shown, staff recommend that a negative determination be
issued by checking box 1, to indicate that the subject area is not within an area subject to protection.
5:25 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of
community gardens and associated site improvements are subject to the Wetlands
Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Grow Food Northampton, Meadow
Street and Spring Street. Map ID 22B-011.
Application Overview:
The proposed project includes activities associated with the creation of community gardens at the former
Allard property. Activities proposed include invasives species removal and native plantings within the
riverfront, installation of a driveway within floodplain, installation of wells and related infrastructure, and
creation of community garden plots.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 1
December 8, 2011
Consistency with the WPA and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
Both the Wetlands Protection Act and local Ordinance exempt ‘work performed for the normal
maintenance or improvement of land in agricultural and aquacultural use.’ This includes land that has
been used for commercial agriculture within the past five years. The Allard Farm qualifies for this
exemption, and additionally, the Community Gardens have an Agricultural Preservation Restriction.
For floodplain (BLSF), the standard for agricultural land is the placing of ‘substantial’ fill. ‘Substantial’ is
not defined within the regulations.
Staff Recommendations:
The activities proposed qualify for an agricultural exemption. While some fill will be placed within BLSF
for the pump house, driveway, and garden creation, it does not appear to meet the threshold of
substantial, and should be exempt. Additionally, the invasives removal should not alter the riverfront, but
instead represent a benefit.
The Commission should issue a negative determination by checking box 5, to indicate that the area is
subject to protection, but the work is exempt.
5:40 PM Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation. Masonic Health Systems of
Massachusetts. 22 River Road, Leeds. Map 05, Lots 001, 002 and 032. DEP File 246-0659
About ANRADs:
An Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD) is a request for the Conservation
Commission to confirm the boundaries of wetlands resource areas. They do not include any work.
ANRAD’s have the same fee structures and timelines as Notices of Intent.
Application Overview:
The application seeks confirmation of the wetlands boundaries at and near Overlook Health Systems.
These include BVW, IVW, bank, riverfront (Mill River) and land subject to flooding. Confirmation of land
under water and isolated land subject to flooding is not requested.
DEP Comments:
[1] The commission should note in the ANRAD wherein the consultant is stating that there are no other
resource areas located on site. The commission may address this, or not, at their discretion.
[2] 1] Per 310 CMR 10.57(2)(a)3., the upper boundary of Bordering Land Subject to Flooding shall be that
determined by reference to the most recently available flood profile data. This profile data is found in the
Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The FIS provides the presumptive flood plain elevation, not the FIRM,
though they may be the same, but the FIS is the more precise and must be used. Where NFIP Profile data
is unavailable, the boundary of Bordering Land Subject to Flooding shall be the maximum lateral extent of
flood water which has been observed or recorded. In the event of a conflict, the issuing authority may
require the applicant to determine the boundary of Bordering Land Subject to Flooding by engineering
calculations.
Staff Recommendations:
A site visit was conducted with the applicant’s representative to walk the boundaries. Day Brook, a
perennial stream, is located along the parcel boundary to the west, but is outside the area of delineation.
Its RFA does not enter the
Several changes were agreed upon in the field, that will be submitted as part of revised plans:
Expansion of series G at flags 9 and 10
Enlargement of series C
Addition of an E series wetland near flags C3 and B12.
Additionally, A FEMA map change altered the boundaries of the 100-year floodplain along River Road.
The applicant has indicated that this change will be incorporated into revised plans.
The applicant requests confirmation of resource area boundaries. These can be confirmed, and plans with
the above-listed changes referenced in Order. The stream within the site will also be confirmed as
intermittent, lacking RFA.
Staff recommend that the Order confirm only those boundaries presented, not making any specific note
that there are no other resources contained within the delineation area.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 2
December 8, 2011
6:00 PM Notice of Intent for construction of two self-storage buildings and related
stormwater improvements within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands. Robert
T. Foote Jr. 94 Industrial Drive, Map ID 25A-182 . DEP File 246-658.
Application Overview:
The applicant proposes to construct two self-storage facility buildings within the buffer zone to BVW. The
area is currently a mix of lawn, wooded area, and pavement. The existing self-storage facility is
constructed within the buffer zone. The project also includes associated stormwater structures. The
project requires a special permit from the Planning Board, and a ZBA finding. It does not require a
stormwater permit, as the total area disturbed is less than one acre. The applicant has been revised
project plans to reflect staff and DEP comments.
DEP Comments:
[1] The Northampton Conservation Commission is currently reviewing an ANRAD in this general
location. The commission should understand that any boundaries approved under the ANRAD/ORAD
and/or this NOI/OOC are binding for everyone and there cannot be a conflict between the two.
The applicant has confirmed that the boundaries previously approved are consistent with BVW
boundaries as shown in this application
[2] Per 310 CMR 10.55(2)(c)2. and/or 3. and the Department’s “BVW Policy” (issued March 1, 1995), the
applicant’s representative should submit fully completed “DEP Bordering Vegetated Wetland [310 CMR
10.55] Delineation Field Data Forms”, Sections 1 and/or 2, for transects along the boundary of each
distinct Bordering Vegetated Wetland, unless 310 CMR 10.55(2)(c)1. applies, which should be
documented by the applicant’s consultant. Forms should be completed per the methods detailed within
Delineating Bordering Vegetated Wetlands Under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MassDEP
1995).
Delineation information has been provided
[3] No information was included in the NOI regarding what these vegetated wetlands “border”. The USGS
quad shows a perennial stream in the area. Where is a “stream”, where is the “Bank”. The stream, when
found, is presumed perennial under the regulations. It can only be overcome as per 310 CMR
10.58(2)(a)1.d.
The wetlands border an intermittent stream, that flowed through the industrial park area before its
construction changed flow patterns. It is shown as perennial on the most recent USGS map. The
applicant has verified through documentation that the stream was not flowing for four days, as the
regulations require, and the Commission should find it to be intermittent.
[4] For any stormwater project, the “Competent Soils Professional” should follow the steps for review of
soils data per Volume 3 Chapter 1 of the Handbook, Figure 2.3.1.
Test pits have been completed
[5] MassDEP Western Region guidance for compliance with the Stormwater Standards is being forwarded
to the commission and the applicant’s representative.
Consistency with the WPA:
The project must comply with the stormwater standards.
Standard 4: Remove 80% TSS (Total Suspended Solids:
The bioretention area proposed does not meet the construction standards to qualify as a bioretention
area, and does not qualify for 90% TSS removal. The area should be redesigned as a bioretention area, or
calculations provided to indicate that required TSS removal has been achieved.
Additionally, the stormwater calculations should indicate that the basins will empty fully within 72 hours
after a ten-year (4.5”) storm. Calculations provided show that the basins will draw down after a .25”
storm, but do not address any greater rainfall. If the system contains standing water two to three days
following a ten-year event, stormwater standards will be unable to be met for subsequent storms.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 3
December 8, 2011
Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
The Ordinance, Section 337-10E(2), allows alteration within resource areas or their associated protected
zones in ‘certain infill areas, in accordance with Protected Zone Table, where development includes
mitigation measures that will improve the existing condition of the wetlands or adjacent upland.’ In the
GI district, the Protected Zone is 10 feet.
Mitigation proposed includes a wetland mitigation area, where wetland is currently lawn, and three buffer
zone mitigation areas to include plantings.
Staff Recommendations:
If the applicant provides information regarding outstanding stormwater concerns, an Order of Conditions
can be issued. If TSS removal has not been met and the system is not shown to draw down within 72
hours, the hearing should be continued. The Commission should also address any concerns about the
stormwater system provided by the DPW.
Additional conditions should include:
34. Prior to any work on the project, a stormwater O&M plan must be approved by the Northampton
DPW and recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
35. The mitigation areas shown on project plans must be retained as permanent vegetated areas.
36. Mitigation areas must be inspected annually for the first three growing seasons. Any unsuccessful
plantings identified must be replaced. Reports of inspection must be filed with the Commission prior to
October 31 each year.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 4
December 8, 2011